Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

Star Wars aside, loot boxes are here to stay; "It's just us dinosaurs that remember buying a game once for a fixed price and getting a set experience".

[-Foxtrot]

Urm...yes they are. I would prefer it if we could just earn money in the game and browse the unlockables to select what to buy

I just want a good third person shooter which only unlockables are cosmetic, like Uncharted 2. No gimmicks or other shit...just pure skill.

Funny because I don't think any of these devs in the article have made constant flows of good AAA games.

"It's just us dinosaurs that remember buying a game once for a fixed price and getting a set experience"

REALLY? You want to just blame it on gamers getting old and being "out of touch"....f**** off with that shit, we remember because the gaming industry wasn't so awful and shitty back then. It felt like a lovable enviroment and now it's just becoming toxic.

[thorstein]

IF THEY ARE FREE, loot boxes aren't bad game design.

I don't have a problem with opening a box and getting something out of it that I can either trade or use, if I don't have to pay real money for it.

I believe Black Ops III had loot boxes... and for real money... where was the unmitigated hate for that?

[Mikelarry]

EA has just being doing so much anti consumer things lately, first it was mass effect andromeda followed by the close of visceral games was the tipping point and then the lootbox fiasco and pay to win was what broke the DAM

COD's time is coming they have already started laying the ground work for gamers backlash, cod points and the patent are just the foundation

[rainslacker]

The loot box paradigm is just another way to do random loot. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the premise of random loot, although it can be annoying at times. But charging people for random loot, which they may not want is just wrong. If you want to charge, at least let the people know what they're getting for their money. Worse, designing the game around making people want to buy them just to avoid the grind, because the grind itself becomes too tedious, is extremely poor game design.

[spicelicka]

"I believe Black Ops III had loot boxes... and for real money unmitigated hate for that?"

There is always hate for COD, and rightfully so. Battlefront 2 hate picked up momentum, and it was great.

[DragonKnight]

Loot boxes that have any impact on gameplay are bad game design. The reason is simple. A dev that implements loot boxes that are tied to progression are saying that their game is not worth playing through on its own merit. They have designed a method in which you don't even have to play the game in order to progress. That is the very definition of bad game design. When you yourself know your game is so bad that you design a way to circumvent playing it, how can you say your game is good?

[Ittoittosai]

Everyone focused like a lazer on the loot boxes but its actually not the loot boxes its what the loot boxes did, namely let you skip the grind of lvling your MP character and grinding star cards, they also limited your ability to earn credits in arcade mode because didnt want it "abused" but had no problem with people buying crystals to skip lvling but the free way to earn stuff yeah that was a problem. That was what the out cry was about because it was pay to win not specifically the loot boxes, it kind of changed to outrage at loot boxes after because now gamers see where its going finally.

[CrimsonWing69]

Omg they are free you just had the option to also use real money to buy more if you didn’t have enough in-game currency.

This whole fiasco has gotten out of hand and people are complaining more about the unfair balance of paying to win rather than the model of loot boxes’ purpose.

[Lamboomington]

Not really true. They can be horrible design. I don't like the Battlefront 2 design after trying it out. I don't want to unlock things by having a chance of getting some components or whatever. Depends on the game. This is regardless of microtransactions and so on.

[--Onilink--]

If they had been cosmetic only and gave the dev the option to not release a season pass which heavily fragments a player base, im all for them to do loot boxes. Unfortunately some devs have been making really bad choices in how to implement them

Because I honestly dont see how they would support adding content for a year or more without a continuous source of revenue, specially now that game prices drop so quickly after launch.

That is probably the only part that I agree that gamers now havent really changed in mindset, yes, we used to get a fixed price and fixed experience, but we then had to wait years for an expansion or new game altogether, which to me is honestly fine, but a lot of people these days want a constant stream of content, just look at a game like Destiny 2, being eating alive because people would play hundreds of hours in less than a week and then complain there was no more content.

Sure we can agree on the ethics of how loot boxes might incentivise purchase through visual cues and stuff like that, but as long as it doesnt affect gameplay, if someone wants to spend hundreds of $ in cosmetic stuff, then go crazy, its not my money.

[badz149]

if they are purely cosmetics, I don't think they are bad design. that is really giving players a choice to customize the looks of their characters as they want (meh...maybe not really how they want it as lootboxes give items in random but still...that's how lootboxes work, right?), but pay to win? that's crossing the line in the douchebaggest way possible! and then on top of THAT, purposely making in-game credits hard to come by while offering credits that can be bought with real money? that's a SCAM! and then also purposely limiting credits per day for playing offline modes while not limiting credit purchase with real money? that's INSULTING to those who bought your game! and this guy has the guts to defend these decisions as "not bad game design"??

seriously GO F*** YOURSELF!

[rainslacker]

Wow...this guy comes off more of a douche than CliffyB did when he said digital was the future.

It's not about us dinosaurs remembering the good ol' days. It's about us, AS CONSUMERS, that want a complete finished game, at a set price.

It's not the customers that are the problem. It's the publishers that push this crap and expect us to just accept it as a forgone conclusion.

Make a complete game, at a set price, and have customers that appreciate your hard work. Don't just make games with the intent to fleece the customer, relying on those who are willing to pay, which amount to less than 10% of your customers.

It's not exactly rocket science.

[Dark_Knightmare2]

I'm physical all the way and hate digital but what Cliffy b said is absolutely true. I mean it sucks but it's true and I dread the day when physical goes away

[Rachel_Alucard]

Rod Fergusson the creative director of Gears 4 and the one who was second in command when Cliff was around stated that, giving the ability to let players pick what they want resulted in them just getting enough to get what they wanted and never touching the system again or exposing the player. With loot-boxes people are constantly using it. He compared it like, "If I could just pick the Magic:The Gathering cards I wanted then I would pick the ones I need and never open another pack."

Its underhanded but its smart and keeps people using the system, as long as using the system is enjoyable that is. When you start pulling what EA, Warner bros, and Ubisoft did with their last few games you've gone too far.

[traumadisaster]

It's smart and scientists have been examining this for decades because it works...in Vegas, it's gambling addiction. Now that brought that from Vegas to mobile to our games.

[zerocarnage]

I agree,devs used to create as a hobby and for fans now they create just to be greedy.

[chrisx]

This guy is the joker of the year.

[Mikelarry]

They seem to want to try an spin this, gamers dont have an issue with loot boxes in F2P games, its greedy publishers who are asking for premium prices and then locking content in lootboxes that are the problem. one must ask themselves if it such a gauranteed business practices that offers gamers " choice" why is it hidden behind a lootbox why not let gamers know all the facts and then choose what they want to buy but noooooo, it all falls down to not wanting money but wanting ALL the money. the fucking greed of AAA industry is really getting old now.

the statement below is why the goverment needs to come regulate the hell out of this shit and then noone will have fun since the game devs and publishers cant curb thier greed as ppl have been saying they seem to be targeting the kids who really dont understand and are just paying from mummy and daddies credit card

"Do we really think the kids growing up today will be complaining about loot boxes and micro transactions - that have been an ingrained part of how they played games ever since they were born?" "

[rainslacker]

Funny thing about those kids, is that they grow up, and when they have to spend their own money for such things, they start to see the problems with MT, and ultimately, start to ask why they aren't getting a full game for their intiial purchase.

There is a huge difference between these kids(which isn't even who is really buying these things), and those that actually work to make their money, have other bills to pay, and ultimately, tend to look at the value of what they're getting for their money. They start to look at the way it used to be before publishers realized they could fleece them, and wonder why it can't still be that way.

The reality of the situation is is that less than 10% of any given games player base purchases micro-transactions. So to me, the bigger question is, "are the other 90% of the gamers going to keep being content with getting these games which push MT constantly, and continuously feel like they are getting less and less for their money.

To answer the question, look at why gaming is becoming so popular? It's a very cheap form of entertainment. When you look at movies, they're quite expensive for what you get. 2 hours for around $8-10 per person. When the value in gaming starts to be question, actual sales will go down, kind of like how fewer people are going to the movies nowadays, because the content isn't as good as it used to be, and it's becoming more expensive.

Anyways, as far as this dev is concerned, don't worry about what these kids will be saying years from now. Worry about what your customers are saying now. If you don't, chances are, your studio won't be around in the future to actually worry about what the kids will say 10-20 years from now.

[fenome]

For real though, they think we'll just roll over "because that's just the way it is". No it's not, and there's plenty of choice without this bullshit. Plenty of developers still just create games with passion and let them stand up on their own accord. Those are also the ones I choose to support 100%.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Hell naw that's lie when you implement crap like P2W INTO IT .

[pingthing]

If the Devs do not respect the time we invest in the game then the gamers will not respect the product.

[Elda]

For a free game it's not bad at all but for a $60 game not so good but I have a few games that have loot boxes & MTs & it doesn't hinder my gameplay in the slightest because I pay them no mind.

[agent4532]

The problem is that how it starts with cosmetics and victory posses if it succeeds then comes the lootboxes like StWS Battlefront 2. If Star Wars Battlefront 2 fails financially, it would become the greatest victory for gamers. For it will let EA and the entire gaming industry that loot boxes/microtransanctions are not welcome in $60.00 games. 👍

[TheGamez100]

Only if theyre cosmetics and can be earned in game easily.

[Skuletor]

"Loot boxes are not bad game design in Free To Play games."

There, fixed that for you.

[lio_convoy]

Uh, yeah, they are.

[plmkoh]

I'm not sure the concept of 'value for your money' can ever be antiquated.

[jjj0309]

Oils are not bad thing Rockefeller says
Wars are not bad things Military Industrial Complex says
Holocaust is not a bad thing Hitler says

[EatCrow]

They are horrible game design. Unless you dont mind game breaking rng and complete destruction of ingame immersion. IE bad game design.

Again. Yes other games have had lootboxes. This IS radically different. P2W is radically different.

[Hardiman]

"Loot boxes are bad game design" says fan. See how that works!!!!!!!!

[agent4532]

The problem with loot boxes is the lack of real prices. Loot boxes are sold in gems, crystals, coins, etc. not actual dollars. One crystal could be $0.50 or $5.00. The reward is completely random most likely getting victory posses; as opposed, to kickass weapons. The lack of giving gamers the options of free unlockables and map editors is something to be discussed

[titans9999]

developers still defending this shit? SMH!

[FreddyFazbear]

Then devs like that who thinks 60 dollar games has to have lootboxes deserve no support from gamers. devs are paid monthly by the publisher so whatever a game flops or not they are still getting paid its the publishers problem so i dont buy the we have mouths to feed crap. Dont we all?? Thats a lie, F2P games lootbox are okay but full priced games. sorry buts asking too much.

[Tross]

Well, "us dinosaurs" aren't wrong. I actually do think DLC is a great thing when used right. When it's abused, not so much, and I can't think of a bigger instance of abusing it than with loot boxes. MTs were created for F2P and really cheap titles as a means of profiting from a game that would otherwise not pay the bills for the devs behind it. They were never meant to be used for full priced games as a means of double-dipping on the consumer's dime, and yet here we are. This "dinosaur" is open to new ideas, and I think it's wonderful that devs have more tools at their disposal than ever before. Just please learn how to use them correctly in ways that aren't morally bankrupt.

[Many-hat5]

Hmm, 'morally bankrupt'. As a fellow dinosaur, I'm sure you are aware that morals in business, have gone the same way as privacy on the internet.

[Tross]

Wait, there was privacy on the internet at one point in time? I must have missed that because I don't remember that ever being a thing. I do agree that business and morals don't exactly go hand in hand. Environmentalists in the US are seeing that firsthand. There are certainly worse things out there than MTs in videogames, but lately they have been used to gouge the consumer and I don't think the majority care much for it.

[rocketpanda]

and in one phrase the dev lost the argument and most of the audience. He was right about one thing, it is highly lucrative and that is the crux of it. When publishers and some devs see how much it is possible to make with loot boxes in f2p titles they want to add that "experience" to their AAA titles in the most blatant cash grab methods possible for a product you have to buy into as well.

[Damthatsword]

yes they are actually. and they are only saying that for the naive and gullible to believe them.

[Ub3rStuff]

Yep...yep they are. If you want to put loot boxes in the game and they are earned purely by playing the game, then I'd agree. For money? No. By the way, says the people whose wallets you depend on. Get a clue.

[SilverDemon]

And pirating a game is good for the industry, says a gamer

STFU, if you want to f*ck me over and attack my wallet, then I'll f*ck you over and attack your income

[kindkinesis]

yes they are

[OpenGL]

It's quasi gambling and it's a sign of a bad game in many cases. Here the loot boxes are designed to speed up progression. You pay money to avoid playing the game more. Seems to me like an admission that the game isn't much fun on its own if people are expected to pay extra for the opportunity to play it less.

[Chocoburger]

I'm 34 years old and now I'm considered a "dinosaur"? Get out of here with that B.S.! Cosmetics are one thing, but once your microtransactions affect the game's progression, you are officially full of S***!

[stefd75]

Fuck off says gamers

[bmky]

How?

[Sniper_amer]

Loot boxes are the worst if they had items locked behind them, if it was only cosmetics like how Overwatch and Destiny 2 does it that would be fine in my book, otherwise no.

[Felsager]

"It's just us dinosaurs that remember buying a game once for a fixed price and getting a set experience"

FUCK YOU.

We gamers, gives you a job, we give your food, and your survival. Consumers and producers are part of a balance in the equation of transaction. The greatest capital of all is happiness. Without it there's no purpose in business, in revenues or even in capitalism itself.

We are not your cattle our your slaves to pay you revenues. Enough with these platitudes and unjustified apologetcs, we are not here to waste our life like drug addicts waiting for the next economical lambasting. You see, we get fun for money at a fair business treatment.

so PISS OFF, BITCH.....

simple.

Jagielski:

"No, it isn't because of "dinosaurs". The fixed price model or a model with microtransactions where you actually chose exactly what item you are buying is simply customer-friendly. Short term greed, like one being executed by Activision, EA, Ubisoft, results in long-term losses. These companies need to understand that."

Thank you so much, sir. I can't agree more with this response. Foxtrot, you got it right 100 percent, Kudos.

[traumadisaster]

Well said! I'll just copy, paste, and spam this to anyone associated with this crap.

[zerocarnage]

These devs are all taking a stance because they can't go back on what they know they did wrong in the beginning and that was and is ripping there fans and gamers off for extra money with there greedy ass's.

No longer will I be buying games that are full retail and devs are dropping loot boxes in.

[Anzil]

If you can’t buy them there is no issue. People generally like to see progress when unlocking in game items. Therefore using them for cosmetic items as long as OG game has plenty to unlock without purchasing box’s seems the route to go....

[Relientk77]

Getting sick of EAs bullcrap or any developer that defends microtransactions, loot boxes, and/or pay 2 win

[DJStotty]

good game design maybe from a suits point of view.

But they are only designed to milk gamers, even more so if its forced/affects gameplay elements all after charging you for the game in the 1st place.

[traumadisaster]

No they are not here to stay for me since I will leave gaming and my money that has supported the industry since pong! I'll not bring my 3 kids up in a gaming culture we will all have more productive lives for it, have fun with YOUR loot boxes.

[Last_Boss]

I said this all last gen, that because the forced inclusion of multiplayer aspects in games that don't need it. This rapid progression to compete has allowed these tactics to invest our gaming experiences. The last true great generation will be the PS2 era

[JBlaze226]

I don't mind loot boxes as long as its cosmetic only and does not the affect the core game play in anyway and doesn't hinder your progression in the game and yeah its just like us Dinosaur to care about the good old days when games came out complete and weren't cut up and sold as DLC.

[Artemidorus]

I as in me the payee disagrees so that means you the seller receives nothing.

Not really hard is it??

[FernDiggidy]

Go f#$k yourself. How's that for bad game design?

[The_Kills]

And here I was granting passes to developers and shooting at publishers the whole time. Good, now I can roast everyone down the chain of production, BOTH publisher and developers are on my list now.

[drunkenspy007]

What a complete asinine title, of course they're bad game design because they're not a game at all! It's pure marketing swill.

[yeahokwhatever]

Loot boxes are lazy and bad game design, say customers.