We've arrived at gaming's next phase: Loot Boxes

Cladyclad

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
49,204
Reputation
5,475
Daps
124,872
Reppin
Detroit Lions, Michigan Wolverines & LWO
me neither bruh but it doesn't excuse the rape
Pack odds in MyTeam are complete shyt. Got brehs buying packs for cards capped at 86. They have fukking Westbrick and KD capped at 86 right now :comeon:
If they want to spend their money on it more power to them. Gamers are just always looking for a edge online. Dudes using cheat modes just to beat Cuphead. We have to be accountable for our own actions. If u want to spend do it. If u don’t say F it :yeshrug:
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
3,061
Reputation
123
Daps
8,412
People are just always looking for something to bytch over.

This is the new wave. Soon we will move on and find something else to be angry at:beli:
I agree but it is still bullshyt.

Remember when you bought a game and could get everything they developed for the price tag?

DLC is acceptable when they have to get the game in on a deadline and sell you some good stuff like expansion packs later ( witcher 3)
But day one DLC'S and loot boxes are grab bags.

It'd be somewhat acceptable if you could just flat out buy the certain thing you wanted, it's a bit different when you're paying like 1/10th or more of the game price just to gamble and hope you get something Not shytty, which, a lot of times you do.

I think people definitely have a right to be somewhat upset, maybe not bytching about it like schoolgirls but the fact that you can't just buy a full game anymore without this shyt rammed down your throats sucks plain and simple.
 

the_FUTURE

Superstar
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
10,608
Reputation
1,861
Daps
25,291
It's pretty crazy people are gambling for DLCs now. but if you got the money to spare, then it's whatever I guess.
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
74,342
Reputation
4,345
Daps
117,864
Reppin
Tha Land
I agree but it is still bullshyt.

Remember when you bought a game and could get everything they developed for the price tag?

DLC is acceptable when they have to get the game in on a deadline and sell you some good stuff like expansion packs later ( witcher 3)
But day one DLC'S and loot boxes are grab bags.

It'd be somewhat acceptable if you could just flat out buy the certain thing you wanted, it's a bit different when you're paying like 1/10th or more of the game price just to gamble and hope you get something Not shytty, which, a lot of times you do.

I think people definitely have a right to be somewhat upset, maybe not bytching about it like schoolgirls but the fact that you can't just buy a full game anymore without this shyt rammed down your throats sucks plain and simple.

Yeah but back in the day when you got "everything" you'd get much less content. There wasn't dozens of skins/power ups/weapons/maps that the devs continued to build and support over the course of months or years.

That's why I say a game should be judged by what you get for the money. As long as you get your money worth, then what dlc is available doesn't really matter.

As far as the "gambling" goes. People like it. People like to collect things and gamble for them. Nothing wrong with people paying for something they like to do:manny:
 

2 Up 2 Down

Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
32,565
Reputation
3,985
Daps
81,289
Reppin
NULL
It was only cosmetic, at least until Star Wars Battlefront 2 happened.
Vote with your wallet if it bothers you. Me personally I'm interested in the space combat and don't really care about getting extra characters
 

SalamiAttack

All Star
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
1,555
Reputation
6,464
Daps
4,926
Reppin
The Ancient City of Brooklyn
Everyone is gonna bytch about this heavy for about 48hrs :damn:



Not understanding how this dude from Reddit dropped some jewels -

EA spends tens of thousands of man-hours focus testing and doing market research on the optimum way to wring money out of your wallet. This means that one or two days (or weeks or months) of complaining will not get them to change their mind regarding the nature of the progression system. They will not truly "fix" it because they believe that it's working as intended and their accountants and marketing guys will tell them that it is. A certain amount of players are supposed to get sick of it and stop playing. That's built-in to the calculations, like when Wal-Mart assumes that there will be a certain amount of shoplifting.

That said, they understand that they have a clusterfukk on their hands, so since they are not interested in fixing it, they are going to use a technique referred to as "making the outrage outdated." This was very clearly what they did with the beta. The beta had a great deal of backlash and instead of fixing anything, they "made changes." The effect of these changes were negligible but it didn't matter because all the articles written about the flaws of the beta and the complaints by users became outdated and replaced by articles and comments about how they were making "changes." This allows them to control the narrative of their product without actually losing any money or making significant changes. The fact that the changes didn't help and potentially made the game worse didn't matter.

(Ubisoft did this in a much more elegant way with Assassin's Creed: Origins by the way - they prevented you from buying loot boxes with real money, knowing there would be a backlash, instead allowing you to purchase the currency needed for loot boxes with real money. The ONLY things that accomplished was allowing them to do interviews saying that you couldn't buy loot boxes with real money during pre-release and make people who wanted to use real money for loot boxes have to click two extra buttons. They didn't have to make the outrage outdated because they controlled the narrative from the jump.)

The reason this works is two-fold: 1. Journalists who cover the initial outrage feel that, ethically, they have to post the follow up but probably aren't going to do the research to figure out if the changes are substantial or effective at fixing the actual issue. (Edit: I've started seeing articles pop up already about the "changes" and at best, all they do is parrot the good research that various Redditors have done.) 2. Loyal fans who get fed up with it and decide not to buy the game are desperately searching for a reason to forgive EA so they can play their neato shooty game so they'll take any crumbs they are given.

Accordingly, I will guarantee this: They will "make changes" with a day 1 patch. That much is obvious, but specifically, the changes they make will be based around reducing the cost of heroes and loot boxes. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The actual reason why they're going to reduce it is because right now the complaints are that progression takes too long - specifically about 40 hours to unlock heroes. They will change it, negligibly, so that the story becomes "We fixed the 40 hour hero requirement!" Of course, the change will make it so that still takes about 37 hours (I'm obviously just making up a number here, but the point is that it's still an absurd requirement), but that will be lost in the news cycle of them "making changes."

And of course, inexplicably, forums will be filled with people who for whatever reason are desperate to point out that your outrage is outdated. You'll say "It takes too long to unlock heroes" and they'll pop up to tell you and everyone else that EA "made changes" to that. Complain about loot box percentages? They "made changes!" What changes? Who gives a fukk. Changes!!!! Every complaint you have will be met with someone who wants to tell you that the reason you have for being upset is outdated.

This is a very common strategy used for scandals that are linked directly to financials - they will fukk you a little less than you expected and hope that you don't do the math on just how much less it is. All the while they will take advantage of the PR resulting from the reduced fukking.

Edit: To clarify, you shouldn't feel like EA is "ignoring" you. They aren't. It's actually worse than them ignoring you. They have people pouring over these forums (And twitter, more importantly) trying to get a general idea of the negative sentiment. They will then try to quantify that negative sentiment and add it to the previous years of focus testing and market research they've done. The previous focus tests told them the the most financially viable thing to do would be to make the game as it is now, and they will add the current negative sentiment to that formula and come up with something like "reduce microtransaction costs by 1.5%" (Rounded up to the nearest 5 or 9 or 10, again, based on what focus testing tells them is most pleasing to the customer. They also will likely increase progression rather than decrease microctransaction prices to avoid alienating people who bought the microtransactions at the original price - of course, increasing progression speed and decreasing the cost are exactly the same thing, financially.)
 

Rembrandt

the artist
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
15,351
Reputation
2,690
Daps
40,639
Reppin
Villa Diodati

they already getting heat for lowering payouts along with lowering the prices. the game got hit hard in reviews, most likely because of the mtxs.

and with the assassin's creed thing, sites immediately pointed out the fact that those time waster mtxs included money, so you could technically buy the lootboxes with real money. i think the talk around that died down because they were ignorable and didn't really impact the game, even in comparison to shadows of war.

most single player games with these loot boxes are taking hits publically and in sales.

so far, loot boxes haven't really bothered me and i kinda enjoy the rng aspect of them, like in Halo or Overwatch or Siege. though i do see how they're more addictive than just having those items be DLC. but i'll take cosmetic loot boxes over paying for maps or characters or anything like that.

microtransactions have gotten worse, though. look at GTA V or NBA2k18. it's not lootboxes hurting those games; it's nickel and diming people for all content. that would be an issue even if loot boxes weren't around.
 

Black Magisterialness

Moderna Boi
Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
20,200
Reputation
4,249
Daps
49,158
1. The market was complicit in this way back when Mass Effect 3 came out and people shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars for N7 Crates and plat crates.
The difference between then was the time investment to get those crates was nothing like how some games are now. A Gold crate in ME3 took I think one Hard and one Easy mode matches. If you were with a good squad that's a 40 minute investment. In an hour, you could get the best crate for most of the game. (team and ability pending)
Even if you have a game with loot crates there's NO reason for you to buy them outside of impatience. If communities as a whole simply DON'T buy them then they don't add it into the game.

2. bytching and moaning only gets so far. Speak with your pocket book. Don't buy the game.

3. On the flipside, EA could not have bungled this more. BF2 was already coming into the game with tainted history at how they fukked over the first one. And knowing this franchise has the history and the money behind it...its truly a clusterfukk. If I'm Disney I'm never letting this clowns touch this IP again.
 
Top