Let’s talk about loot boxes and premium microtransactions. Somewhere in the last couple of years, mobile games created a new way to make money.
Dragon fist all thoses Mts to obivion.
When were they "in hand"
In the early days when we had horse armour in elder scroll....oh wait they were always shit from the start
@septic, at last we can agree on something lol.
See my point? To say microtransactions have gotten really bad in big budget games implies that there was a time where their implementation was a good thing at some time prior.
So true. Publishers are afraid to raise the price of the base game so they came up with more "creative" ways to do so while still holding to the story that games cost $60 retail in the U.S.. Day 1 DLC all the way to loot box gambling for retail price games. It's made the price of a 'complete' game far more than $60.
well not that i wholeheartedly disagree but i thought that microtransactions in the early days of mmorpg type-games where they were STRICTLY cosmetic was not really an issue. sure it still created that environment of have's and have-not's which pressured many into spending money in order to reach the digital upper-classes so-to-speak, it was still entirely a level playing field in terms of actual impact upon performance. not saying that i was 100% on board with those type, but they are fucking MILES better than loot crate/boxes and the MTs of today
They have been out of hand since they were called DLC. People should have rejected DLC way back in the day (like I've been saying since horse armor). Now it's WAY past too late. These big budget AAA studios are just going to keep getting more and more sleezy. Me I saw this coming a long time ago. I just don't buy the big games anymore, that's one of the reason Japanese games appeal to me so much. Personally the big game I am getting out of the holday shit fest is Elex which was panned by the reviews but is imho fantastic and has zero MT's. If Elex was the exact same game but had been made by Bethesda or EA ect. it would have gotten way higher reviews.
You are not alone here. I have seen this was coming from the beginning.
Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn and BloodBorne have no MT. They are all SP games. The only I willing to buy their DLC is the expansion pack which worth more than MT and paid DLC and season pass. I'm going to upset some people but I can't bring up Zelda Breath Of The Wild even the game deserves a praise for gameplay and presentation . It's because the game have season pass which locked some contents behind like hard mode and other stuffs.
I'm not opposed to loot boxes. If I have a few bucks to burn I'll buy some in call of duty. I haven't bought any for other games. It's fun to open them but I can see them becoming addicting to people.
Your whole testimony there is one big oxymoron. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
The gaming media can let me know which games have loot boxes and I can cross them off my list. Thanks.
Opencritic are doing that.
Anyone else suspect that it's partially because retail for AAA games should actually be $80 instead of $60 due to dev, ad, and distribution costs nowadays?
C'mon man get real EA made billions in profit last year and WB is one of the wealthiest companies in America. Battlefront 1 sold around 15 million units there is no way it needs MT's to be profitable, heck it didn't even need DLC. I don't even understand how people can actually be so naive as to think this is a needed thing for these mega coops to make money.
I was merely speculating, but of course even the most innocuous query recieves a torrent of hate on this site.
Not every game has the mega success of Battlefield 1 or your annual COD release. Not sure what the total is including the MTs for sales but BF1's budget was 100 million, 15 million barely scratches that. I agree that MTs aren't needed and shouldn't be included but without upping the cost of the asking price they need a way to recoup their loss. Gaming is a hobby for us but it is a business at the end of the day. BF1 has no doubt recouped the production cost because of the MT but getting a net profit it better than breaking even.
I’m not sure that would be the balance. From what I understand the production costs are down and that’s why more and more developers are leaving the big publications and opting for the smaller personable teams instead of the 200 man workload. It’s easier to do that now than any point in 3D gaming history. You can get publisher help without being owned by them. Being owned by a publisher is rarely a good thing. Sony studios get better treatment than most but even they are vulnerable if they don’t produce. Losing the rights to your own creations is probably a terrible feeling.
I was thinking that it might not be all down to greed. I said might.
It’s business, they are there to make money. You might be right, I personally don’t think charging 80 bucks would make up for the loss of MT sales. I think sales would decline (at least day 1 sales). So if you are greedy, charging 80 would be counter productive.
No, it's greed.
If you sell 4 million units and half of them spend 20 dollars on loot boxes, that’s 40 million dollars. If you convert the 40 million into individual sales you will get 666,666.667 sales. So mathematically, MTs are the devil +1.
I wasn't doing exact math, the $20 is just there as a guestimate.
Lol this post wasn’t directed at you. It’s just the one after your post. My other post was a reply to you.
Unfortunately, console gamers like being fleeced. Otherwise, we would see less companies put micro transactions in their games.
Also paying subscriptions for online play. At that point where fanboys defended such a greedy scheme the publishers sat up and realized what chumps there are. They bent over and happy took it, now they're asking for some vasaline.
AAA Gaming is on a downfall. We are on the trend for paid 60 dollar games turning into F2P mobile games. Indie games seem like the most reasonable future of gaming. Seeing games like Cuphead, Hellblade, Rocket League, and many other games becoming successful makes me optimistic. The only AAA Gaming corporations I see having a bright future of gaming is Sony, Nintendo, and somewhat Bethesda. But how long will it be before these companies submit to this shitty model? RIP EA, MS, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take-two Interactive you are corporate powerhouses exploiting gullible gamers.\ Sad day in gaming.
Ya, I am not sure Sony, Nintendo and Betheseda (somewhat) are any better. They just have feverish fanboys. Sony for example rather then implementing Backwards Compatibility is making gamers subscribe to PS Now to get BC on PS4... Or re-releasing games as re-masters (more so then Microsoft). They are just finding different ways to fleece gamers.
I wonder what Phil thinks about it...
“Buy the game! Watch me play it! Bits!”
I imagine Phil is mad that people aren't welcoming this with open arms. His view of the future of gaming as said by himself games as a service is the futre of gaming and single player experiences aren't relevant anymore.
In the past few weeks, the news surrounding MT's / Loot boxes, has become sickening. From Shadow of War having loot boxes for "an easier experience *cough*" to Battlefront 2 essentially creating a AAA pay-to-win experience (in its current form), and now Activision's trademark for an algorithm that'll put novices against those with better gear (but don't worry, they "haven't" yet), to SPECIFICALLY entice purchasing MT's/DLC/Loot boxes... All one can do now is not purchase the games that include these practices. If the entire gaming industry becomes infected by sheer greed, then I think a lot of people who know what gaming used to be like, will walk away. Well, some at least. I hold little faith in the collective defiance of the gaming community in its full form (a lot of people just don't know what's happening.) I do look forward to the illogical defense some people will conjure up however.
I feel like they started out out of hand, now they're just beyond stupid. We let this happen. Kind of like the frog in a pot of water that doesn't realize it's boiling until it's too late.
Frog in the pot is a good analogy.
It wouldn't be so bad if purchasing a loot box guaranteed something hard/impossible through normal game play, but to buy a "chance," after my experience with Fortnite I'll pass. And before people start going on about me spending $ on Fortnite loot boxes, I'm speaking from experience, not what someone else says. I spent way more than expected and have little to show.
Fortnight is free to play. It’s a little more palatable to support those kinds of games with mt
At the moment Fortnite requires either an invite from someone who already has the Founders Pack, or to purchase the Founders Pack directly for the story mode. Free to play starts in 2018; so in theory no it's not free to play at the moment.
Huh, maybe I got it from PSPlus. My Bad.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.