Take-Two Believes Loot Boxes Are a “Perfectly Reasonable Mechanic” but a Small Part of Its Business

During Take-Two Interactive Software’s financial conference call, CEO Strauss Zelnick was asked to comment on the loot boxes controversy.

[TekoIie]

Under certain circumstances.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

I believe they should not be apart of any business

[execution17]

Says the company that sells in game currency for real world currency

[DarXyde]

I have no opinion of loot boxes really since I'm not an online gamer, but people should not be too upset about their inclusion.

You, as consumers, have the right to not purchase them. If a game's multiplayer depends on you investing in loot boxes, don't play multiplayer. If it negatively impacts single player, don't play single player. If the game itself is riddled with loot boxes, don't buy it.

If loot boxes plaguing a game means you miss the next GTA or Red Dead Redemption, I say so be it. Have self control. Vote with your wallets and show developers that you're not going to take these practices lying down.

If people complain but sales remain strong, their investors will be content and you'll see it happen again. But when the inclusion of loot boxes affects their sales, they've received your message.

[BlackIceJoe]

I think you miss the point, of course we all have the right not to buy loot boxes, but if just one person buys them every gamer gets jacked too.

Lots of games have been fundamentally changed because of loot boxes and what once was considered free in game you now have to pay for it.

Take as an example The Lord of the Rings game by WB Shadow of Mordor, then Shadow of War, the sequel was a better game, but because of the garbage loot boxes the sequel is trash and the worse game. You couldn't really play the game if you didn't buy a loot box. I thankfully never did, but that doesn't change the fact some people did and because of people buying stuff that should be free, or shouldn't be in the game at all, every gamer suffers from that.

You can say all day long don't buy this game or that game, I'm not, but again because some people want to buy them we all have to live with them now and that shouldn't be alright with anyone.

I remember a few years back before loot boxes, game companies were trying to find any way they could to hurt consumers, be it adding on disk downloadable content, game passes, then adding always on internet that was for not just multiplayer games, but single player games too, then forced multiplayer, now microtransactions, games as a service and loot boxes are the new way to hurt games, so if you call yourself a gamer, you shouldn't be so pro hurting the consumer.

[DarXyde]

That's quite a logical leap: "you say don't buy games with these practices, but if others do, all other gamers get screwed, therefore, you are anti-consumer."

Pump the brakes for a second...

Number one, I don't just call myself a gamer. I AM a gamer: I've 100%'d a slew of titles before achievements or trophies were cool, cleared Contra III on very hard, revisit retro titles on their original hardware a few times a year, and can still quote games from my youth better than I can quote The Lion King. I'm pretty invested in my hobby. Even so, it is because I love this hobby so much that I have the self control to say no to these practices. If loot boxers wanna screw that up, I don't buy games. I don't care how highly anticipated of a sequel it is. Point blank, end of story. You think I wouldn't skip The Last of Us Part II if it had loot boxes that ruined the single player experience? You'd lose that bet, I promise you that. I'm not drawn to the bells and whistles the way others are, so it is off no grave consequence to me if I become a retro gamer-- I'm already planning on that once we enter the exclusively digital era. I've already decided I'm not getting the next Xbox because I'm not rewarding Microsoft's push for a digital, cloud based future in gaming. I'm a principled gamer, and if that means I miss out on modern

I tell you all of this so you understand: the industry is going to do what will keep investors happy. I've just learned that they, with all of their power, cannot get me to support them in poor practice. I don't complain and I don't write then angry letters. I just don't buy. And if everyone did that, they would think twice. Selling a game in pieces is another surefire way to cut any support from me.

I don't speak for you all, but when things get bad, just understand that we could've done something about it. They're welcome to try, but they will be punished. That simple.

[TheGamez100]

Thing is, casuals eat up microtransactions very often especially in very popular games like cod, mobile games, and fortnite. So really...us real gamers choosing not to buy has little to no effect since the vast majority of "gamers" are casuals lol. Microtransactions will pretty much forever be there because of this and we cant really do anything about it but complain and whine while companies still make millions off of this. They dont care about the minority's "message". Thats just how business is.
It sucks really bad for us because devs will be forced to implement crappy microtransactions because the rich ppl say so rather than making a much more quality game. Get the game out asap with microtransactions that work perfectly but the game itself is broken or has a a lack of content day one. Thats how so many online games are these days and I can imagine it being even worse in the future......all because of microtransactions. This also affects single player games Im afraid. Look at ac odyssey, dmcV, sports games, and fighting games, etc etc.
So yea...its a pretty damn big ass deal for us actual gamers. The future doesnt look too bright for us.

[DarXyde]

I don't see how this goes against my argument for self control.

If you don't like the direction of the industry, do not support the industry. If the studios die, they die.

Natural selection.

[MetroidFREAK21]

Idiot