Other games have been doing it for a while without any noticeable backlash, most recently Shadow of War. BF2 is an extreme case in that the whole game looks to have been designed entirely around selling loot boxes. Some will succeed, some will burn, that’s how it goes in the game industry. Either way 60 bucks is a pittance for that type of game.
Shadow of War had a bit of backlash around it. It was certainly a topic of conversation before the game released and the developers had so little goodwill over it than critics then pounced on a charity DLC to help a deceased producer’s family as a callous cash grab (using misleading information) and forced WB to abandon the idea.
The big difference though is that Shadow of War is a single player game and is very playable without using the crates at all since you’re not competing against anyone but AI orcs. In Battlefield II, someone refusing to take part of the crate system is at a marked disadvantage in the game’s primary MP component.
Regarding the idea that these things are like playing slot machines – it is more correct to say they are like playing rigged slot machines.
Players do not know what their actual chances of winning are and have no way of finding out – and the game makers can alter the odds at any time without notice – and can give certain players at certain times different odds based on how much money the algorithm decides that particular player may be willing to spend.
It is not just manipulative, it is crooked.
The chances of winning are 100%, every loot box has something. That’s the difference between this and gambling.
The chance of receiving something is 100%. That’s different from winning. If you get $1 from a $3 lottery ticket, you’re not a winner; just slightly less of a loser.
Sure, but you are not gambling for dollars. You are paying money for a box of videogame stuff, and everyone gets a box of videogame stuff. There is no inherent value to “videogame stuff”.
What things are you talking about? Casino’s use employees who check ID’s to keep teenagers out. What game is doing that?
I was hoping for more discussion, and less answering the question with a snarky question. However, since we are doing the latter …
Do they not sell pre-paid visa cards and various game cards without age restrictions in damn-near every grocery store in your part of Canada?
I would support that law.
Way to miss the point that people have actually died while playing the video games that the loot boxes are in.
There’s definitely value to “videogame stuff”. The sale and trade of “videogame stuff” is an industry worth billions of dollars. EA can try to disguise the value by not allowing loot crate items to be sold/traded or by obfuscating similar items that can be directly purchased (“Oh, this card is different than the one you can buy for $7…”) but they still have differing values.
For that matter, it’s fairly trivial for a teen to get debit card. The bank just cares that you don’t overdraw on it (and will lock that ability out for minors); they couldn’t give a shit what you spend the money on.
EVE online alone has an economy worth $35 million a year. Second Life has a real-world valuation between 500 million and one billion dollars. You can buy real world games from the blizzard store now with WoW gold instead of dollars.
Seems like a lot of inherent value to me.
Wait! Is the OP just now realizing that games are a p2w world?
It doesn’t sound like it. It sounds as though he’s mainly discussing EA’s overreach with Battlefront II and the backlash on that which is extending as far as possible government action (in the US and/or Europe).
Most games in BF2’s tier are not P2W in any meaningful way. You can buy weapon unlocks in Battlefield 1 but they’re legitimately easy to earn otherwise and don’t really make you better at shooting. Plus you know exactly what you’re buying (as a direct DLC, not as a random loot crate). Rainbow Six Siege isn’t pay to win; aside from a few small weapon attachments your Operator is identical to anyone else playing the same Operator , etc.
This is exactly what I mean, and I don’t want a similar business model to spread because it will destroy multiplayer gaming in many ways. I do agree it is in the same vein as gambling, ala scratch-off tickets. If you have to the option to pay for something that will get you an advantage over those who refuse to pay extra (because they already bought the product and shouldn’t have to unlock stuff on the DISC). I am really quite surprised at how many people are defending this practice.
Who’s defending this practice?
DigitalC was the last time this came up. I assume his opinion hasn’t changed since then.
I don’t really think that’d work - or be well received, to say the least. You’ve seen the shitstorm over SWBF. Like you say, mobile games have moved en masse to F2P/Skinner Box bullshit because people didn’t want to pay a couple bucks for their casual subway game (FTR, I myself paid quite a bit more than a couple bucks for a couple of actually good mobile games - they do exist).
But I can’t picture a world where publishers could ever make the public swallow that a) they have to pay 60 bucks to own the game then b) continually pay for the privilege of not being hassled for chump change on a daily basis. To me, it’s an either/or thing. And seeing as the “pay X bucks upfront then enjoy a product you own” is demonstrably viable, it’s not like they can claim they have “no choice”.
Beyond that, there’s the piracy factor. Mobile phones are a PITA to jailbreak and few hackers out there are interested in mobile games anyway (though I’m sure there are hacks out there for the more popular spend-a-thons like Candy Crush). OTOH, console and PC piracy is not only ubiquitous, it becomes a lot more palatable to a lot of people when it can be somewhat justified by shady practices on the game’s publishers’ part. Plenty of people plumb refused to buy games that featured asshatery as their DRM scheme and turned to pirated versions or servers instead. If lootboxes were to become the norm, I’m sure hackers would setup schemes by which either everyone gets all the lootboxes all the time ; or setup shards and private servers where no loot is boxed. And you can count on pissed off devs with a skewed ethical streak to leak them the means to do so, too.
And, yes, dumb teenagers with credit cards, I know. But the thing is, going forward more and more parents will be or have been gamers and/or internet savvy ; who’ll grok video games and their industry in ways the mums and dads of my generation never did - they had enough trouble programming the VCR. And ultimately they’re the ones with the real spending power ; the teenagers are just proxies.
I certainly don’t mind loot boxes and don’t mind spending money on games I enjoy, though I have zero plans of buying Star Wars Battlefront 2 (actually i could swear i bought Star Wars Battlefront 2 over a decade ago back when i was still young enough to enjoy shooters). But Mostly I find the “I don’t like loot boxes so they should be banned” side insufferable and indefensible.
Loot boxes are officially ditched.
Star Wars™ Battlefront™ II Progression update
Hopefully now the lootbox concept will remain radioactive with a half-life of a millennia give or take.