Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums

DSP is missing the point why lootboxes in SoW are bad


Recommended Posts

DSP during his prestream i feel missed the entire point why people are upset over SoW's lootboxes.  yea its optional but the 4th act is structured around it.  its a grind to allure people to buy the lootboxes so they can get the ending.  the lootboxes has always been a slippery slope and thats all this is.  the reason people are angry is that EA is only doing this to exploit consumers to get their money.  you think EA just added lootboxes into SoW for the lols? no they added them because they know people will fall into getting them because they either want to get to the ending badly and exploit their impatience and so on.  yea you can blame the consumer sure but you can also blame the developer for exploiting their consumers.  people dont want microtransactions in video games.  you pay $60 and then you are at a point in the game where it might be attractive to drop more money to get the rest of the game?  its kinda funny DSP is defending this while he shat on destiny that people had to pay more than the initial price to get more out of that game.  sure expansions are different from lootboxes but both share the concept of placing content behind a paywall.  so im sorry but i think its incredibly poor of dsp to defend a practice that is only going to get worse.  i get dsp values good business practices but just because its good money wise doesnt make it ethical to exploit people's impulses.  but if you dont see the potential threat lootboxes have to gaming and the consumer well enjoy seeing more and more content being locked behind a paywall.  and before someone mention multiplayer the thing is most except injustice 2 offers cosmetic shit in lootboxes but even then i disagree with that because the days of unlocking is now gone and its now "oh unlock a box and you might get trash or something you want" so gamers are reasonably upset at seeing this because now you cant just unlock what you want you have to grind forever to get what you want in MP games in particular and that is now seeping into single player games.  and it is slightly hypocritical of dsp to find lootboxes a bad business practice when he has spend over $60 on lootboxes in overwatch. so dsp were you happy to spend more than the game's intial price on getting random loot in overwatch? do you want that to carry over into single player games but instead of cosmetics its plot related content? because thats where this will lead.  but keep defending EA for exploiting gamers and consumers.

last point he mentions how kids cant have access to CC's to spend on microtransactions..... dsp are you really that naive to think kids wont just steal their parents CC? didnt one of your viewers get caught doing that very thing? *cough derichloveslemurs *cough

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Weak argument getting weaker. Do you think I care if you believe how my actual real life is like? The fact that you even thought I was stating those facts as some braggadocios statements to win an int

You're a constituent who dictates public policy, and it's only in your best interest for this to be deemed gambling and a feature restricted to 18+ games. That's who almost all of us are, it's legitim

Did you really have to say that? Lol

Posted Images

I've also heard that to get the bonus/true ending you either need to grind or buy loot boxes. If that's true that feels like a very clever, nefarious move. By putting it at the end, many won't find loot boxes being forced onto them until AFTER they've already praised the game online. You'll also get the people defending the move because "Oh, it's just a bonus ending, you don't HAVE to do it!"

Even if that's not true and even if you can go through the game easily without ever touching loot boxes at all I'm not buying the game because this sets a bad precedence. You'd have to be very naive to think that this game wasn't designed or at least tweaked to encourage the purchasing of loot boxes. They aren't going to spend the money and time to develop, test, and balance them without reward. Guess what happens if this game does well? The next game Shadow of Evenmoredor will have them and they WILL be pushed harder. What's worse is people will defend this practice yet again. "Oh, you don't HAVE to have them. Sure you can only get the best items and the true ending by buying boxes but you don't NEED them to finish the game!" 

It's a shit practice and I refuse to support it. I'd love to buy it as I loved Shadow of Mordor but I cannot do it with a good conscious. Buying Shadow of War is telling the publisher in the only language that they understand that you're OK with loot boxes in your single player, $60+ game, even if you don't buy any. If these games continue to sell publishers WILL jam loot boxes into every game and they absolutely will be "incentivized"  harder and harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree with his take either. At one turn he calls it a "TRUE ending," as in the endings that precede it are illegitimate, but then he calls it "super secret" even though it's not secret. A secret ending is like the easter egg ending to the original Kingdom Hearts which you get by beating secret bosses and finding the Dalmatians. KH never says that's an option, it doesn't even tell you the secret bosses are there, it's a reward for players who went above and beyond. SoW presents the grind as something you must do if you -really- want to beat the game.

I believe Shadow of War's lootboxes do give you orcs that you can use in the MGSV style online mode, although I might be misinformed.

"If you pay to skip what would be considered to be boring, grinding, time consuming gameplay to see the ending, then so be it. What's the problem with that?"

The problem is games are objectively better when they don't have boring, grinding, time consuming gameplay sections that are designed purely to get me to irresponsibly pour money into what's functionally gambling. Buy the game... and then gamble on lootboxes so you don't have to play the game? It's flawed game design.

Not to mention, these companies are presenting these microtransactions to literal children, gamers who aren't responsible consumers yet.

Phil brings up Youtubers "trying to make a buck" by talking about the drama around the game when the MILLIONAIRES behind Warner Bros. are trying to make an even bigger buck by mindfucking children and people with addictive personalities.

 

EDIT: I do agree with DSP that consumer responsibility should be more emphasized in these discussions tho.

Edited by thatanonymouse
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather games went up with the inflation rate than have all this microtransaction / lootbox stuff shoved into it.

$60 in 2000 is approx. $88 today (https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), I would much rather pay that cost up front and get a full game with no microtransactions than have a feeling in the back of my mind that I'm going to try to get nickle-and-dimed my entire way through. 

In fact, there's a lot of arguments to be made that the $60 price point is fine, I believe SuperBunnyHop and Jim Sterling both made very informative videos (I know some people don't like Jim's persona, but the video is still helpful).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just contempt for the consumer. Buying their game isn't enough, they have to insert unenjoyable sections that we're expected to either suffer through or pay cash to skip.

Edit: If they want more money, make a game that's good from beginning to end and charge more. I'd respect that so much more.

Edited by thatanonymouse
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thatanonymouse said:

The problem is games are objectively better when they don't have boring, grinding, time consuming gameplay sections that are designed purely to get me to irresponsibly pour money into what's functionally gambling. Buy the game... and then gamble on lootboxes so you don't have to play the game? It's flawed game design.

You hit the nail on the head. Sure games can have boring, monotonous parts now but in a future where Loot Boxes are more common and accepted, those sections will happen more often and be intentionally put into games to get more money. This is why the "If you don't like it don't buy it" defense falls flat. Even if I don't buy them, they absolutely will effect my gaming experience because the games will will be hobbled in order to try to sell me more gamble crates.

Honestly, trying to say that all the hoopla around the boxes is just YouTubers chasing drama dollars is complete nonsense. Yes there are YouTubers out there who do this but to say that someone like Total Biscuit is just a drama YT'r is ridiculous. You can hate TB but few would honestly try to argue he just makes videos for drama. 

12 minutes ago, soulrider95 said:

In fact, there's a lot of arguments to be made that the $60 price point is fine, I believe SuperBunnyHop and Jim Sterling both made very informative videos (I know some people don't like Jim's persona, but the video is still helpful).

I've not seen SBH's vid but I did watch Sterling. I'd also recommend folks watch it. If you really just can't stomach his personality the gist is that these days, $60 gets you the "base" experience but if you want the full experience you need to buy the Silver/Gold additions which can end up being $80 or more total.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thatanonymouse said:

If there's a long boring section because they were lazy or uninspired, fine. But deliberately attaching them in the hopes that consumers will be irresponsible with their money?

If we want consumer responsibility, we can't let these companies enable consumer irresponsibility like this.

I know it's a trite saying at this point, but voting with your wallet is the only way. Shadow of War? Battlefront II? I'm 100% skipping them because of these practices.  There's plenty of other studios and games out that respect the consumer more, Cuphead, Danganronpa V3, Divinity Original Sin 2, Samus Returns, A Hat in Time, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally the lootboxes rub me the wrong way because you can pay your way through the games core mechanic of finding, manipulating, raising, capturing and killing Orcs-The Nemesis System. Mordor was a fucking blast, I sure as hell took the time to learn and use the system to my advantage, Im ready to do so in War. But to have us pay for Orc drops.....its like really? I can just pay my way through what made the game great? Fuck You Warner Brothers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels like the people at EA are assuming that the average gamer are the same people who play games that have massive paywalls that make people wait days before they eventually give in and get the loose change that people throw down the app. This proves how out of touch the company is with the demographic it is trying to appeal to. Practices like these are a slap in the face to every other game that works hard at trying to cater to its audience only to be financially fucked by a game that people throw money at to see a "secret" ending. This is the kind of shit that led to the development of Evolve, a game that is so filled with micro-transactions that its virtually unplayable and boring without. While these are less severe in some areas, although just as insulting, the overall tone of micro-transactions just make it feel like the money is first before the consumer. How long will it be before AAA titles have gameplay that is centered around the use of paywalls and the like. Hopefully this will go away, but I can't see why people would support a practice that is overall designed to get people to pay for more than what the game is worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Amityville said:

I'm 100% fine with lootboxes. If the consumer wants to chance it, or wants more advantage to avoid grinding, who am I to say it shouldn't be allowed? Not everyone has 18 hours a day to play games ya know.

thats not the point.  these lootboxes are a slippery slope for developers or companies to slowly put more content behind a paywall.  look at SFV and injustice 2 even uncharted 4 they have microtransactions in the games you can grind to get items you want or to get lootboxes but the way the game is designed its to make buying the lootboxes or using real money more attractive.  this exploits consumers to buy on impulse.  and im not necessarily saying its not the fault of the consumer either but it shouldnt be ok to have companies exploit the consumer who paid $60 for a game.  we already get less content with season passes so do we really want more content locked away behind some payment system?  these companies know exactly what they are doing and im sure the SoW lootbox system has some fundamental design to make paying for the shortcut more attractive to consumers.  

and thats exactly the issue not everyone has 18hrs so why make a portion of the game such a grind so that microtransactions are the way to go?  we dislike grinding but now if we dislike grinding we have to pay to get away from it? how is that fair? so if every game from now one picks up the microtransaction system SoW has we will just get more grinding that we hate and have to pay to pass it when we should be demanding developers make games that dont have repetitive grinding.  i really hate to see this become the norm in gaming when the gamer is constantly getting nickel and dimmed out their ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darkoverlord said:

thats not the point.  these lootboxes are a slippery slope for developers or companies to slowly put more content behind a paywall.  look at SFV and injustice 2 even uncharted 4 they have microtransactions in the games you can grind to get items you want or to get lootboxes but the way the game is designed its to make buying the lootboxes or using real money more attractive.  this exploits consumers to buy on impulse.  and im not necessarily saying its not the fault of the consumer either but it shouldnt be ok to have companies exploit the consumer who paid $60 for a game.  we already get less content with season passes so do we really want more content locked away behind some payment system?  these companies know exactly what they are doing and im sure the SoW lootbox system has some fundamental design to make paying for the shortcut more attractive to consumers.  

and thats exactly the issue not everyone has 18hrs so why make a portion of the game such a grind so that microtransactions are the way to go?  we dislike grinding but now if we dislike grinding we have to pay to get away from it? how is that fair? so if every game from now one picks up the microtransaction system SoW has we will just get more grinding that we hate and have to pay to pass it when we should be demanding developers make games that dont have repetitive grinding.  i really hate to see this become the norm in gaming when the gamer is constantly getting nickel and dimmed out their ass.

Took the words from my mouth. The fact that this is still a trend shows that developers are trying to force the micro-transactions down people's throats so that it can be the new norm of gaming. Its just a shame to see people justify this practice that is against their favor by both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amityville said:

If the consumer wants to chance it, or wants more advantage to avoid grinding, who am I to say it shouldn't be allowed?

You're a constituent who dictates public policy, and it's only in your best interest for this to be deemed gambling and a feature restricted to 18+ games. That's who almost all of us are, it's legitimate for us to say developers shouldn't be allowed to use tactics devised by psychologists with doctorates to trick children and the mentally weak into acting irresponsibly as consumers. In fact, it's OUR responsibility to see to it that these businesses are kept from partaking in such flagrant exploitation.

I understand the appeal in appearing aloof when it doesn't personally affect you, but we can't lose our compassion for people who are being exploited.

I can only hope that these companies fail to exploit people from wasting money they don't have on their predatory game design. You and I both know SOMEONE will, and that's what upsets me. Everyone defending this knows exploitation will come of this, but they have a 'so what?' attitude. I can't tolerate that. It's sick and unjust. It's nothing to do with me, but I never want that for anybody.

Having watched DSP play the game more, there's no reason for this either. They made  a good game, a damn fine game, but they put tricks in it too dishonorably take money from innocent people.

It's people with developmental disabilities who were dazzled by the series, for instance, who wind up wasting tons of cash on this bullshit that has NO RIGHT TO EXIST.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darkoverlord said:

thats not the point.  these lootboxes are a slippery slope for developers or companies to slowly put more content behind a paywall.

Exactly. Publishers (mostly) aren't stupid. They turn the heat up very slowly. First it's loot boxes in free games. Then it's loot boxes in full price games but it's "optional". Next classes/weapons/modes/etc are locked behind crates in your single player game and you wonder "Gee, how did we get here?'

Again, if you don't think loot boxes won't effect your games just because you don't buy them you're in for a rude awakening in a few years. Hell, the new Battlefront is blatantly Pay-to-Win. All of this will be on top of $60 games + $20-$30 "extras" which should have already been included in the base game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to burst your bubble guys but hearing Phil's mini-rant today and this is what I got out of it. Phil hates these new lootbox tactics, he knows its EXTREMELY detrimental to the video game industry as we know it (im talking about how DLC was when first introduced and how people hated this new tactic because it seemed like developers were purposely unfinishing games just to charge later for parts of the game, now its just accepted and weird when a game doesn't offer DLC), but screw all that because Phil isn't getting views on this playthrough and other Youtubers *cough* Angry Joe *cough* long ago called these shitty microtransactions out and discouraged people from buying and supporting these games that support these garbage tactics.... which gave them views, but didn't give Phil any views.... so we should overlook all this and still support the game. More specifically support Phil's playthrough of this game, so he can get some views (money). Thats what I got out of his mini-rant. The views Phil wishes to receive are way more important than the video game industry being plagued by these tactics. I don't have to explain how selfish that is. Microtransactions are the cancer of Video Games, pretty soon we are going to see mobile levels of microtransactions in our favorite single-player games if we don't put our foot down and make a stand. Phil needs to stop thinking about himself and money for just one damn second and think about the future of his "career" for a change.  Angry Joe and others are accurately calling out these shit tactics and are influencing the community to do something about it. I will applaud him and others so we can hopefully make a change and stop this from affecting the entire community, and if that means Phil gets a few less views on a playthrough because he is entirely consumed with himself and money, then so be it. I'll be damned if I'll support this bullshit and ruin my community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im seeing something similar to the “mmo subscription era”. Game companies been trying to find ways to increase profit for a long time. Since game qualities and costs have been increasing alot from famicom eras.

Since mobile microtransactions worked like a charm and lootboxes and cardgames (hearthstone) brings in money close to WoW, even tho i hate it cant blame them for doing it.

imo we alrdy failed at making a stand against micro-transaction. We can only wait for a new “era”.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LastRambo341 said:

Everyone here is acting in a Hollywood movie and performing an epic speech, "I Shall Not support these practices, who is with me?!" 

It's a matter or moving with the times. I used to prefer games where it was based on skill and not levelling up. I dislike the fact that a player who's spent 300 hrs grinding when he should be studying for his Maths A-Levels can get a better gun than everyone else and have an advantage over a new player. At least now, money can buy you that experience, and if a said player who wants to have the same level as a basement dweller, he can offset the disadvantage. 

I used to play Quake 3 and there was no such things as people inheriting better weapons or armour from grinding, because it didn't exist. Everyone was on a level playing field! 

Edited by ThatDogGuy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with you OP. I think he really missed the mark by a long shot on this one. I have my doubts the statistic is very different from mobile game stats on where the money comes from. So I'd say that in this instance he really doesn't seem to get that the "common gamer" isn't a fan of microtransactions and don't want to support them.

 

The business model of having advantages apparent by chance when money is used isn't really great. I understand that something needs to offset rising costs but I don't think this is the best day to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThatDogGuy said:

It's a matter or moving with the times. I used to prefer games where it was based on skill and not levelling up. I dislike the fact that a player who's spent 300 hrs grinding when he should be studying for his Maths A-Levels can get a better gun than everyone else and have an advantage over a new player. At least now, money can buy you that experience, and if a said player who wants to have the same level as a basement dweller, he can offset the disadvantage. 

I used to play Quake 3 and there was no such things as people inheriting better weapons or armour from grinding, because it didn't exist. Everyone was on a level playing field! 

I would rather pay than spend multiple hours grinding. A perfect example is Monster Hunter. If you want a certain part to get an armour piece, you would have to defeat a boss multiple times because that part has a low chance of appearing. I would not hesitate to spend a few dollars to save myself from fighting against the monster 10 times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Another_Derich said:

The business model of having advantages apparent by chance when money is used isn't really great. I understand that something needs to offset rising costs but I don't think this is the best day to do it.

To be honest they need to remove the chance part and just let us buy the stuff so we can actually compete with the basement-dwellers. Nothing annoys me more than joining my first game only to get one-shotted by someone who's spent 200 hours grinding in game. Let us with responsibilities have the chance to catch up without having to lose six hours of sleep every night!

Phil is 100% correct when he says that if you don't like the ethics of the developers, don't support those games and don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. 

Edited by ThatDogGuy
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Another_Derich said:

I understand that something needs to offset rising costs but I don't think this is the best day to do it.

They are already doing this with Season Passes, Gold/silver/collector's/deluxe editions, etc. Games like Shadow of War, Battlefront 2, etc., would almost certainly make a profit even without loot boxes. You'd be hard pressed to prove to me that these companies NEED loot boxes in order to be cash flow positive.

To be clear, while I dislike buyable loot in games like Dead Space 3 has, that is better than (better, but not good) loot boxes. My main issue with loot boxes is the random element. Even if you set aside any moral and addiction issues with gambling, I want to KNOW what I'm buying. I don't go to a restaurant, give the waiter $15 and hope for the best and I don't want to do that with almost anything else. Companies are using loot boxes because they know they can make m ore money by not giving you what you want directly as well as by preying on anyone with gambling/addiction issues.

I have no issue with DLC as long as the base game feels like a full experience and DLC truly is "extra." Witcher 3 is a great example of how to properly do DLC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am reading, makes me sad..

6 hours ago, ThatDogGuy said:

I used to prefer games where it was based on skill and not levelling up. I dislike the fact that a player who's spent 300 hrs grinding when he should be studying for his Maths A-Levels can get a better gun than everyone else and have an advantage over a new player.

3 hours ago, LastRambo341 said:

I would rather pay than spend multiple hours grinding.

3 hours ago, ThatDogGuy said:

o be honest they need to remove the chance part and just let us buy the stuff so we can actually compete with the basement-dwellers. Nothing annoys me more than joining my first game only to get one-shotted by someone who's spent 200 hours grinding in game.

These kind of statements is what makes me think the microtransactions are going to be come bigger and bigger and people are just going to buy in it. Kids these days just want instant gratification without going through the means of working hard and acquiring whatever level you aspire too or goal you want to achieve. Imagine in Super Mario Bro's when Toad runs out after you defeat a castle and says: "Hey Mario! The princess is in another castle! But if you pay $39.95 the princess can be in the next room!" You see how shitty that sounds as being a gamer? Where you can avoid playing the game and achieve a goal if you just PAY to get it?

So my disdain for these types of practices will always be clear, my question is people who will pay to get ahead in a video game is what the fuck are you even playing a game for if you want to skip through the game experience just to get to the end? Are you buying the game to show off that you beat it and you're better than everyone else or are you playing it for the experience and the joy, anger, laughs, and cries  of getting there?

As someone said before, now I've grown accustomed and seen good instances of DLC, like The Witcher 3 and its fantastic DLC's, where there is the main game and if you want to expand the game experience, you can pay to do that. I don't have a problem with that. But paying to cut out hard instances of a game, or paying to be better than everyone else because you don't want to put in the time or effort that someone else has... You need to re-evaluate why you play games in the first place. Me personally, I don't want you in this community AT ALL, because if you support something as cancerous as single-player microtransactions, you'll support anything.

Edited by Krooper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...