Do games push loot boxes and micro-transactions too much?

[Kane99]

Gaming these days is full of loot boxes and micro-transactions. It seems most games need them these days, and I don't understand why. The whole point of games, is to unlock stuff, and gain more stuff as you go along. Yeah some games may still do this, but I hate it when loot boxes and micro-transactions are needed to get anywhere in game. Sometimes games force you to grind and grind just to get to a point, but you can pay $1 or more to increase your stats, or a "gold" lootbox with a possible chance of getting a special item. It's gambling as well when it comes down to it. 

What do you guys think? I'm not a fan of them. If it's just for cosmetics purposes, sure whatever, but if it gives people an edge in the game, I don't agree with it. Maybe single player only for that at the very least. 

[Alexander.]

Of course, developers push microtransactions and loot boxes too much. There's no doubt about it. When I look to purchase a video game, as a gamer, I want to buy a title which has been finished and is fully "complete". I don't want one that has hidden payment barriers.  

Marketing departments don't advertise this to consumers, do they? 

[Kane99]

They don't care, that's the issue. The publishers are forcing devs to make a deadline, and in turn they produce a game not fully complete, so we see the addition of loot boxes and micro-transactions to keep the game going as long as possible. 

 

In reality, I wish most studios were like CD Project Red, who made The Witcher 3. When they make a game, they make sure it's finished or as finished as it can be. And if they do actual DLC, they release big DLC at fair prices. 

I'll be honest, I'm okay with micro-transactions. My only issue is when those micro-transactions can be used to get ahead of the game. 

[skyfire]

These days they have realized that such pushy behavior makes them money. So they tend to be pushy with skins, characters, level ups that way. 

[Spikey]

On 8/9/2020 at 11:01 AM, Alexander. said:

Of course, developers push microtransactions and loot boxes too much. There's no doubt about it. When I look to purchase a video game, as a gamer, I want to buy a title which has been finished and is fully "complete". I don't want one that has hidden payment barriers.  

Marketing departments don't advertise this to consumers, do they? 

Same thing. Sometimes I'll buy an expansion pack but most of the time I just want to buy the complete game all at once then you don't need to spend any more money on it.

[skyfire]

Not just loot boxes and micro transaction but they are putting everyhting behind paywall with subscription too. EA also came into subscription recently. 

[Zro]

Micro-transactions and loot boxes aren't categorically good or bad. When we see backlash, it's usually because they've been implemented in a malicious or incompetent ways.

[Crazycrab]

22 minutes ago, Zro said:

Micro-transactions and loot boxes aren't categorically good or bad. When we see backlash, it's usually because they've been implemented in a malicious or incompetent ways.

 

I'd disagree with you there.  Microtransactions are never a good thing because in order to qualify as a good thing they have to be able to make the game better for it.  Microtransactions have not only never done that, but I actually believe that they are literally incapable of doing so.  Even without buying them they still negatively affect the games that they are put into by making them more grindsy or tedious by design, to make the microtransactions more tempting.

 

Big publishers don't need microtransactions to turn in big profits and they certainly don't improve the end user experience, at the end of the day It it just greed.

Edited August 14, 2020 by Crazycrab

[Shagger]

1 hour ago, Zro said:

Micro-transactions and loot boxes aren't categorically good or bad. When we see backlash, it's usually because they've been implemented in a malicious or incompetent ways.

 

I disagree. Whether come as a Loot Box (and I'll get to those) or a straight up purchase, there's basically three kinds of microtransactions, and even if players don't buy them, they all make games worse in their own ways.

 

1) Pay to win. It's obvious why this makes games worse to point where I don't feel I need to explain why.

2) Time savers. This is takes the form of XP boosts, using premium currency to advance timers and such like. These make games worse because the games themselves have to become a tedious grind without them, otherwise nobody would buy them. So the games that include these have to deigned to be more tedious and frustrating than need to be. It has to get to the point where the money hungry bastards behind idea know you would literally pay money to not play the game. In what world is that a mark of a good game? Where you literally would at least be tempted to pay money to not plat it?

3) Cosmetics. Now, these sound more innocent that the other two, but there's a hidden darkness behind this that may in fact make them the worst of the three.

When I was a teenager in High School, there was bullying because of course there was. Amongst the usual, cliché motives behind this there was big deal a bout clothing and, more specifically, shoes. If a kid came to school with cheap trainers as opposed to the latest, expensive pair from Adidas or whatever, they'd be ridiculed because that was a sign or poverty and land that kind in the category of low social status.

I bring this up because cosmetics in video games are not only having the same effect, but that's exactly what they're supposed to do. For example, and this does happen, if a kid logged onto Fortnight and was seen by his/her peers sporting a slandered skin, the next time said peers see them at school, the same ridicule for pretty much the same reason happens again. There is a video on YouTube somewhere of an executive from advertising company literally spelling this out and proudly declaring this as the"genius" behind video game cosmetics. Sadly, I can't find the video, but will keep trying to find it or some other media on this and add it to thread later if I find it. This all puts pressure on that poor kid to get that fashionable new pair of designer trainers, or in this case, that fancy new skin, just to stop the social pressure and torment. Such low-life, vile yet brilliant manipulation, it's actually impossible not to be impressed.

 

Then, there's loot boxes. Oh my god, these things...

 

Loot boxes are specially deigned to use the same kind of phycological manipulation the gambling has used for decades to make you feel compelled to have "one more go", or"I'll get it this time". The really disturbing thing about them is these loot boxes are included in games that children play, or even in games made specifically FOR children. This deliberate targeting of people even more vulnerable to that kind of predatory manipulation that gambling mechanics employ is, without doubt, immoral. Several governments around the world are questioning whether it's even legal. Some have even decided it isn't.

 

All this, all of what I said, is to make money. These companies don't care about how this hurts the games they create, nor even how it hurts the people who play them. I know that free-to-play games (like the aforementioned Fortnight) need to do something to make their game profitable, I understand that, but the purpose of these microtransactions is not sustain a game, it's to make money. To scrape the last penny out of its payers and tricking them into thinking that it was worth it through some sick phycological manipulation.

FUCK Microtransactions and especially FUCK Loot Boxes.

Edited August 14, 2020 by Shagger

[Crazycrab]

17 minutes ago, Shagger said:

There is a video on YouTube somewhere of an executive from advertising company literally spelling this out and proudly declaring this as the"genius" behind video game cosmetics. Sadly, I can't find the video, but will keep trying to find it or some other media on this and add it to thread later if I find it. This all puts pressure on that poor kid to get that fashionable new pair of designer trainers, or in this case, that fancy new skin, just to stop the social pressure and torment. Such low-life, vile yet brilliant manipulation, it's actually impossible not to be impressed.

 

I think it's this one:

 

 

 

[Shagger]

Thanks @Crazycrab

[skyfire]

A lot of people are on low retirement savings and low bank balance of their parents all thanks to the microtransactions. There are countless exampels of dumb folks who spend like 20k or 30k in microtransactions. Developers should be ashamed of theirselves to use 1000 dollar worth of game assets and trying to earn millions by gatekeeping the access. I hate the Microtransaction, it puts a bad name for game developers who do it for hobby in indie space. 

[Oliver]

On 8/14/2020 at 3:18 PM, Zro said:

Micro-transactions and loot boxes aren't categorically good or bad. When we see backlash, it's usually because they've been implemented in a malicious or incompetent ways.

I  agree with you, loot-boxes have received a bad reputation when companies have lied about the odds of obtaining items or when it has been pretty much impossible to progress in a game without spending more money. However, the Indy game market could depend on micro-transactions and loot-boxes to obtain some sort of revenue.

[Gamertotheend]

I'll be honest I despise things like lootboxes, season passes, microtransactions etc.

I can understand that nonsense in F2P games, they have to make money somehow but when a new PS4 game is £45 and day one it has a season pass for another £20 to me that is basically a scam.  They obviously cut things from the game to charge people more for it.

as for lootboxes, well regardless of how you spin it, that is gambling and should be imo heavily restricted or ideally banned.When it comes to microtransactions, I loathe them and I find the name insulting.  when some are £10-£30-£50-£80 there is nothing 'micro' about them.

as for "time savers", that holds no water with me.  if you don't have time to play the game then don't buy it.  and you know, we can save the game so what's the rush?  even if it takes you a year to finish a game, who cares as long as you enjoyed it?  Only a fool would drop £45+ on a game and then pay extra NOT to play it.  lol

I have no problems with a game having expansions down the line, that's how they used to do it and that's fine as you get a decent amount of content for your money.So yeah, I dislike all that nonsense, it's greedy and quite a despicable business practice.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Gamertotheend
typo

[KuroInDistress]

The fact that the games that do use Microtransactions also profit a lot (GTA Online, Fortnite, Clash of Clans etc..) is terrible. This just drives the industry more towards them.