Star Wars Battlefront II

[Stg-Flame]

BOOM! Belgium Minister of Justice declares lootboxes to be a form of gambling and are seeking for an instant removal of all in-game purchases that feature real money in return for a randomized prize. They go further with saying: "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child."

https://nieuws.vtm.be/vtm-nieuws/binnenland/geens-wil-gokken-games-verbieden (Requires a translator if you don't speak the language).

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

State of Hawaii looking into "predatory practices in online gaming and the significant financial consequences they can have on families and has been having on families around this nation. This game is a Star Wars themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money. It's a trap..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os

 

[Rebel_L]

It is never too late.

Admittedly, the problem would be convincing the masses of the problem. Not many people who buy video games also read forums. So they will just hand over money like always.

Less games for PC? Well, no, for one thing this game is multi platform in any case. It makes no difference whether people boycott it on PC or Xbox, as long as they boycott it.

Even if we were to do a PC specific boycott, I don't think EA will give up and not make PC games anymore. There is still money to be made. They would only abandon the PC completely if they were unable to make a profit from it, which is not the case. Games are still profitable without microtransactions. If they weren't, then games like Civilisation would not exist.

So I don't care if EA takes its toys and goes to play elsewhere, doesn't affect me. Still lots of games to play.

Your right, I guess in this case its not a PC specific thing, that was a bad assumption on my part, I tend to get into a very PC mindset when in this forum and dont really game on other platforms other than the occasional mobile game.

I dont think I have ever seen this kind of outrage at this exact same thing in the mobile games sector, or for hearthstone (or all the other card games where you can buy packs), or for that matter buying physical packs of collectable cards. If the outrage only gets targeted at something like BF or other large scale AAA games, which as far as I know cost way more to produce than much of the other stuff heavily using a lootbox equivalent, then it makes sense for companies to pay their people to make things that cost less so the risk of loosing money on failure goes down. I often see people complaining about the price of games or refusing to buy anything until it drops in price and PC games are still about the same price they were 20 years ago. For a company its not about "can we make money doing this", rather its "what can we do to make the most money with our time and resources".

 

[Ancalagon44]

Your right, I guess in this case its not a PC specific thing, that was a bad assumption on my part, I tend to get into a very PC mindset when in this forum and dont really game on other platforms other than the occasional mobile game.

I dont think I have ever seen this kind of outrage at this exact same thing in the mobile games sector, or for hearthstone (or all the other card games where you can buy packs), or for that matter buying physical packs of collectable cards. If the outrage only gets targeted at something like BF or other large scale AAA games, which as far as I know cost way more to produce than much of the other stuff heavily using a lootbox equivalent, then it makes sense for companies to pay their people to make things that cost less so the risk of loosing money on failure goes down. I often see people complaining about the price of games or refusing to buy anything until it drops in price and PC games are still about the same price they were 20 years ago. For a company its not about "can we make money doing this", rather its "what can we do to make the most money with our time and resources".

The whole "video games have not increased in price for 20 years" is a bit of a myth. I saw a good video on the subject on YouTube. Anyway, the long and the short of it now is that almost all games now include DLC which push up the average price of the game. I paid $100 for Forza 7, for instance, but I did not get an extra $40 worth of content. That was pure profit for Microsoft. Next thing is that the market is far, far larger. More people buy games, more people play games, gaming is more socially acceptable.

Previously gaming was only something a handful of nerds did. Now, it is everywhere. That same $60, when multiplied by 2 million sales, is a lot of money.

Hearthstone doesn't generate this kind of outrage because the base game is free. That is what people are saying - either you have a game that you pay $60 plus DLC for, or, you have a free to play game like Overwatch where you pay for cosmetic content. Both are fine, both are profitable. Gamers have a good time and developers make money. Everyone is happy.

Where you have a problem when is scumbags like Disney and EA try to get the best of both worlds - $60 plus DLC plus microtransactions which are not cosmetic at all. They are gameplay advantages. Then people rightly feel taken advantage of.

For a company its not about "can we make money doing this", rather its "what can we do to make the most money with our time and resources"

Quite true. I do think part of the problem is that these companies are publicly traded, which means that they need to post good numbers (revenue, margin and profit etc) in order to please the shareholder/stockholder gods. This limits what they can do, and in the case of EA, I'd say it has led to a slash and burn approach. Slash down the forest and make a few quick billion dollars, but after that, you can't use it again. People are so burned out that they refuse to give you any more money, but hey, your quarterly numbers look good. Slash and burn too aggressively, and you can actually lose money because the entire thing craters. Without sufficient numbers, nobody wants to play multiplayer, and without multiplayer, nobody buys microtransactions.

Compare that to somebody like.... hmmm Firaxis. They make Civilisation and XCOM, both good games with somewhat expensive DLC. But you know, no one minds because they are so good. Firaxis can continue to make money from both for decades because they aren't stupid. They haven't cut the forest down. They make a decent profit from consumers but they don't nickel and dime you, and everyone is happy.

 

[Zenoth]

[...]That is what people are saying - either you have a game that you pay $60 plus DLC for, or, you have a free to play game like Overwatch where you pay for cosmetic content. Both are fine, both are profitable. Gamers have a good time and developers make money. Everyone is happy.[...]

Just a correction, Overwatch isn't F2P. It's still at a base price (regular version) of $50 (currently on sale, but the gist is that it ain't free to play).

And speaking of Blizzard, since I play Heroes of the Storm regularly I can say that gambling is now more clear than ever in it, even though that one is F2P (with the recent Gems-Only skins). It's "just" cosmetics some would say. It's a F2P game but - in my book - gambling in and of itself is simply never a good idea, or a good system. It's terrible. As much as I hate it being present (well, when it was there; though might make a come back as just worst as it was originally) in BF2 but like the base game, I do hate seeing gambling in HOTS even if I love the actual game itself. It's not because it's "just" cosmetics that gambling should be accepted. And, on a side note I'm not referring to anything you said yourself Ancalagon. I'm just thinking out loud here.

Most devs and publishers doing that just now seem to do it out of the 'standard' that it seems to have become to just include gambling, and then calling it a night (because they've been taking it for granted for years, it always worked). They did that because they could get away with it, for a long time (it didn't start with BF2; it's been there especially in portable / mobile gaming for many years already, and it's not because it's "just" mobile gaming that gambling there should be more tolerable either compared to PC desktop and home consoles gaming). Now I hope that a lot of things will change. The problem really is the randomization aspect, and the lack of transparency on what you can get and what are the chances. There should be no 'chances', in my opinion. If you want a specific cosmetic item, it should be purchasable per unit with a fixed price, as an individually-purchasable item. If you want multiple cosmetics they could be included in a bundle for instance, those I usually have no issues with (if everything you get in them is shown and there's no hidden "ifs" and "maybes"). Or heck, why not, allow us to create our own bundles and new prices would be calculated based on the number or types of items you'd want up to a limit and a "bundle price" would be set. I mean... there's ways to do it, they just don't want to explore them.

And for Battlefront 2 specifically what I'd like them to do if they REALLY want to keep microtransactions in but remove the gambling / randomization aspect then they could always just create a fixed price for bundles that clearly include 'x, y and z' items for one, and other items for another bundle. Let's say... something along the lines of a Light Side and Dark Side Bundle. In one you'd get Rey's pre-order skin, most (if not all) her Emotes and Victory Poses, plus Luke, maybe the Falcon and perhaps 1 Blue Card for each Trooper classes and 2 Green Cards for those same classes too (say, for a Light Side Bundle #1, and there would be maybe 1 or 2 more with different combinations of items). Just examples, but the gist is there. Simply clearly identify the items that you'll be paying real money for and don't create any randomized "chances" since that's the 'addicting' part (for some) and where the money flows from (when someone keeps on buying non-stop until it "finally drops"; that's pure gambling and it's even worse than that considering that you don't even have a chance to get any real money back from said 'gambling').

It needs to be 'fair enough' at the asking prices. That, and/or also allow us to simply purchase specific individual items at fixed prices. And, finally, not * everything * should be purchasable. What I'd have in mind are some characters (not all of them), some cosmetics (again, not all of them) and some 'basic' Cards with the few bundles giving you maybe 1 Blue Card for one or two classes (not randomized but already established in bundles or individually-available). The rest should be acquired via normal play and the in-game Credits income via match and challenges rewards. And those match rewards and so on should be dramatically increased. For example, if someone plays a 30 minutes-long Arcade match and completes it, they shouldn't just receive something stupidly low like 100 Credits; that's blatantly insulting. Additionally, playing "too much" in a row shouldn't result in reaching any sort of daily or hourly 'limit' of Credits income, that one needs to be entirely removed. I personally don't care much about those actual amounts of Credits we get since I don't quite care about the stuff I can actually buy, but objectively-speaking those small "rewards" are horrendously low and obviously there to 'convince' you to accelerate the process; it's a grinding system to exacerbates potential lack of patience or desire to 'do it all normally' over time to incite and push you toward spending real money to 'bypass' said grind; it's just clear as day. For people who do care about their in-game Credits income, that stuff needs to be completely revised (but gut feeling says they'll just focus on 'fixing' microtransactions and won't touch the various ways players could be rewarded more justly with Credits).

Anyway, beyond EA and BF2 (and Disney themselves) I do hope that this development (the investigations about gambling giving good results) will mean that all the companies doing that sort of thing in their games will be investigated and that they won't stop once they deal with EA and BF2. The problem dates back to many years and has spread out across many platforms, genres and targets all audiences. I only hope that in the process not too many innocent heads (devs studios) will roll and only the true culprits, the real puppet masters will have to pay for it.

 

[NTMBK]

It's so frustrating that they've tied all of this effort to a multiplayer pay-to-win mess that I have no interest in. The campaign sounds pretty fun, to be frank- I'm a long time Star Wars nerd, and living in the universe that realistically sounds great. I'll probably pick it up on discount, after the multiplayer dies off. I really hope that they take all this work and use it to make several single player games- a sequel to Rogue Squadron, a 3rd person adventure, a 1st person shooter, etc. They have so much useful stuff that they've spent millions creating.

 

[JTsyo]

The whole "video games have not increased in price for 20 years" is a bit of a myth. I saw a good video on the subject on YouTube. Anyway, the long and the short of it now is that almost all games now include DLC which push up the average price of the game. I paid $100 for Forza 7, for instance, but I did not get an extra $40 worth of content. That was pure profit for Microsoft. Next thing is that the market is far, far larger. More people buy games, more people play games, gaming is more socially acceptable.

Previously gaming was only something a handful of nerds did. Now, it is everywhere. That same $60, when multiplied by 2 million sales, is a lot of money.

Hearthstone doesn't generate this kind of outrage because the base game is free. That is what people are saying - either you have a game that you pay $60 plus DLC for, or, you have a free to play game like Overwatch where you pay for cosmetic content. Both are fine, both are profitable. Gamers have a good time and developers make money. Everyone is happy.

Where you have a problem when is scumbags like Disney and EA try to get the best of both worlds - $60 plus DLC plus microtransactions which are not cosmetic at all. They are gameplay advantages. Then people rightly feel taken advantage of.



Quite true. I do think part of the problem is that these companies are publicly traded, which means that they need to post good numbers (revenue, margin and profit etc) in order to please the shareholder/stockholder gods. This limits what they can do, and in the case of EA, I'd say it has led to a slash and burn approach. Slash down the forest and make a few quick billion dollars, but after that, you can't use it again. People are so burned out that they refuse to give you any more money, but hey, your quarterly numbers look good. Slash and burn too aggressively, and you can actually lose money because the entire thing craters. Without sufficient numbers, nobody wants to play multiplayer, and without multiplayer, nobody buys microtransactions.

Compare that to somebody like.... hmmm Firaxis. They make Civilisation and XCOM, both good games with somewhat expensive DLC. But you know, no one minds because they are so good. Firaxis can continue to make money from both for decades because they aren't stupid. They haven't cut the forest down. They make a decent profit from consumers but they don't nickel and dime you, and everyone is happy.

The other thing to take into account is the size of the market. 20 years ago the number of people buying your game was small. Now there are much more gamers. So while you might be selling it for $50, there are many times in sales.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Gamers in general tend to be masochists to an extent, so we're probably an easy mark for stuff like gambling (a lot of games are pretty much based on the model of work for random rewards).

There's a few tiers of what's been going on though, as follows:
Cosmetic stuff, either random or paid-for (see Overwatch boxes, or WoW cosmetic helm thingies/pets/mounts)
Pay to win, for singleplayer or multiplayer
F2P with either of the above
Normal People Games (shouldn't include any of the above).

Mobile gaming really really kicked off the F2P with Cosmetic or P2W mechanics, most of these are just trash or rely on social connectivity to get people hooked (see Farmville).

Cosmetic stuff has crept into paid games, starting as 'it comes with the game' (Overwatch) and pushes into 'pay for cosmetics with RL money' (see WoW's cosmetic stuff, now Overwatch too, I think).

Then companies started, mostly this year I think, pushing P2W/shortcuts for single-player, otherwise Normal People Games, i think Shadow of Mordor was the worst example of this recently.

Finally, toward the end of this year we've started see straight up buy-the-$70-Normal-People-Game, with multiplayer, with very clear P2W mechanics, really is the culmination, the axis of evil, the triumvirate of garbage and it's come to head with SW:BF2. Even worse, they've implemented it as a *random* chance at something, not even buying the actual thing you want, just a chance at the thing you want. I have a funny feeling some companies are going to get their peepee stepped on from regulators/govts in the US or EU as a result of this, since it's very clear gambling(or, at least, it needs to be).

 

[DeathReborn]

State of Hawaii looking into "predatory practices in online gaming and the significant financial consequences they can have on families and has been having on families around this nation. This game is a Star Wars themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money. It's a trap..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os

Belgium should make things interesting for EA/Disney/Blizzard/Activision in the EU too.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/22/belgium-moves-to-ban-star-wars-battlefront-2-style-loot-boxes/

 

[moonbogg]

Of course the news with Belgium taking at least a moral stand and Hawaii taking a stand, not to mention others, came out recently. Its clearly ALL about the gambling mechanic involved with loot boxes. That's the big ticket for these devs and the big goal for them. How anyone was unable or unwilling to see this for what it actually was is far beyond me. How anyone could simply defend the gaming industry at large and say stuff like, "loot boxes are here to stay" or "its not that bad u just need to git gud noob" is shocking. People with a brain knew this was coming because how the HELL COULD IT NOT!? They are pushing online gambling onto our kids in an effort to make it a habit and a common place thing for them that they just accept.
This is very much like the tobacco industry targeting kids. Seriously, this is some psychopathic crap right here and some people are just cool with it, they downplay its significance and they even try to shame people for telling it like it actually is. Disgusting. That you would defend an industry like this is stunning to me. I think some people like to pretend their dad owns EA or something and it gives them something to stand up for because they are empty inside and possibly a little brain damaged. You'd have to be to defend something like these filthy loot boxes, even for cosmetics. Why don't they just sell us cosmetics? Oh that's right, because its not about the cosmetics or even the pay to win mechanics. Its all about those damn slot machine-like loot boxes. That's the centerpiece of it all. GAMBLING.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Of course the news with Belgium taking at least a moral stand and Hawaii taking a stand, not to mention others, came out recently. Its clearly ALL about the gambling mechanic involved with loot boxes. That's the big ticket for these devs and the big goal for them. How anyone was unable or unwilling to see this for what it actually was is far beyond me. How anyone could simply defend the gaming industry at large and say stuff like, "loot boxes are here to stay" or "its not that bad u just need to git gud noob" is shocking. People with a brain knew this was coming because how the HELL COULD IT NOT!? They are pushing online gambling onto our kids in an effort to make it a habit and a common place thing for them that they just accept.
This is very much like the tobacco industry targeting kids. Seriously, this is some psychopathic crap right here and some people are just cool with it, they downplay its significance and they even try to shame people for telling it like it actually is. Disgusting. That you would defend an industry like this is stunning to me. I think some people like to pretend their dad owns EA or something and it gives them something to stand up for because they are empty inside and possibly a little brain damaged. You'd have to be to defend something like these filthy loot boxes, even for cosmetics. Why don't they just sell us cosmetics? Oh that's right, because its not about the cosmetics or even the pay to win mechanics. Its all about those damn slot machine-like loot boxes. That's the centerpiece of it all. GAMBLING.

You know what is interesting is that, if you go to forums that are built around games in which loot boxes are common, such as Forza 7, a number of people there actually defend loot boxes. I haven't seen anyone on these forums actually defend them, although one or two have said that they don't care. But on the Forza 7 forums, posters are like, "Stop whining, stop making a big deal out of nothing!"

It is unbelievable. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

You know what is interesting is that, if you go to forums that are built around games in which loot boxes are common, such as Forza 7, a number of people there actually defend loot boxes. I haven't seen anyone on these forums actually defend them, although one or two have said that they don't care. But on the Forza 7 forums, posters are like, "Stop whining, stop making a big deal out of nothing!"

It is unbelievable. This is why we can't have nice things.

Here's the thing. The defense of loot boxes is almost exactly the same as the defense of design decisions. I followed several games like BF3, Planetside 2 and others, and of course, argued against many gameplay decisions. The responses were nearly identical, "wait and see how it plays", then when beta came "wait til patch" and so on. Almost the exact same thing. And make no mistake - design decisions have been carefully made to work with the microtransaction system to drive players to spend. Hell, sometimes the arguments are verbatim. Argue against something like 3D spotting and they say "they're a business and have to make money". Argue against RNG lootboxes and they say "they're a business and have to make money".

 

[Rebel_L]

The whole "video games have not increased in price for 20 years" is a bit of a myth. I saw a good video on the subject on YouTube. Anyway, the long and the short of it now is that almost all games now include DLC which push up the average price of the game. I paid $100 for Forza 7, for instance, but I did not get an extra $40 worth of content. That was pure profit for Microsoft. Next thing is that the market is far, far larger. More people buy games, more people play games, gaming is more socially acceptable.

Previously gaming was only something a handful of nerds did. Now, it is everywhere. That same $60, when multiplied by 2 million sales, is a lot of money.

Hearthstone doesn't generate this kind of outrage because the base game is free. That is what people are saying - either you have a game that you pay $60 plus DLC for, or, you have a free to play game like Overwatch where you pay for cosmetic content. Both are fine, both are profitable. Gamers have a good time and developers make money. Everyone is happy.

While customer bases have certainly grown and that certainly makes a big difference, potential rewards are big, but much bigger development costs make flops much more of a risk as well. Dlc used to exist in the form of expansions, to me it seems that dlc has mostly replaced that part of the old sales model. The work involved in patches for fixes and balance, as well as the game company hosting servers for multiplayer is something though that was never really around back in the early days. Unless a game was completely unplayable it was rare to see anything like a patch unless there was an expansion, and multiplayer was all over modem with direct connection to your partner or via a local lan.

Where you have a problem when is scumbags like Disney and EA try to get the best of both worlds - $60 plus DLC plus microtransactions which are not cosmetic at all. They are gameplay advantages. Then people rightly feel taken advantage of.

To me it seems that microtransactions have replaced subscriptions. Most games now have online components that generate constant costs for game companies, the true single player games like civ (which even that is trying to expand multiplayer) dont have nearly the same kind of maintenance costs that most newer games do. Multiplayer games need a fairly large player base to feel active so you need sort of a critical mass to do well but people seem resistant to subscribe to too many things at once, so free play with microtransactions seems to be what the industry has found to work best. Games with big names or big IP can often get away with both and probably often need too so they can get a large initial cash influx to cover things like development costs.

That P2W is getting more traction these days just tells me that people in general are more concerned with winning than with fair competition (and that doesnt really surprise me) If the consumers are willing to pay more for advantages than to have a level playing field why do we think the gaming companies would want to provide the level playing field option? Sure it screws over all the people who do want the option, but I dont consider gaming companies to be moral arbiters and go against profit margins to provide fair play when customers really just want to win.

Compare that to somebody like.... hmmm Firaxis. They make Civilisation and XCOM, both good games with somewhat expensive DLC. But you know, no one minds because they are so good. Firaxis can continue to make money from both for decades because they aren't stupid. They haven't cut the forest down. They make a decent profit from consumers but they don't nickel and dime you, and everyone is happy.

All the companies are trying to find what works for them, I know almost nothing about xcom, but I have found that microtransactions for the more single player style games are more about dlc's. Which to me are just expansions released a little at a time. For me I actually spend less money now on things like that because I can pick and choose what parts of an expansion to buy. For online games I prefer the subscription model with an even playing field myself, but it appears the majority is not with me on that so my choice of games is more limited in that regard but seeing as I have always enjoyed think games over reaction speed games its not the end of the world either as I dont really play anything competitively anyways.

 

[Rebel_L]

Here's the thing. The defense of loot boxes is almost exactly the same as the defense of design decisions. I followed several games like BF3, Planetside 2 and others, and of course, argued against many gameplay decisions. The responses were nearly identical, "wait and see how it plays", then when beta came "wait til patch" and so on. Almost the exact same thing. And make no mistake - design decisions have been carefully made to work with the microtransaction system to drive players to spend. Hell, sometimes the arguments are verbatim. Argue against something like 3D spotting and they say "they're a business and have to make money". Argue against RNG lootboxes and they say "they're a business and have to make money".

For me I dont think I will ever pay money for a game that sells a competitive advantage. I occasionally play free ones for a bit until I run into paywall and still get some fun out of them.

To me the BF2 lootbox issue is two separate issues. One is buying a competitive advantage and the other is random nature of what you get.

For me and I would guess the majority of gamers playing games is about having fun. I dont have a lot of fun if I loose too often, but I also dont need to beat other people to have fun. I prefer co-op over pvp any day unless its a game where I'm really good because then I can win regardless While pvp aspects are more challenging since people adjust way better on fly and can think outside of the box the challenges that pvp can provide are much more varied and I understand the appeal of that, but ultimately I think when AI is good enough to provide that variety, games will evolve far more into coop and competition among players will be about high scores or fastest time. That people with extra money are willing to spend it to win doesnt surprise me at all and I dont see any reason why a game company should feel bad about taking advantage of that. If there people who are willing to pay so much to win that they make up for the lost business from the people like me who dont play at all under those circumstances then it makes sense for game makers to go that way even if it means I have less games to choose from.

The gambling thing is a lot more of a complex issue to me. We play games because of random outcomes, if everything is predictable its boring and we loose interest. From card games with randomly assigned cards to board games with dice, to mmo's with random loot, or loot drop rates, to the unpredictable actions of pvp opponents. Kids get as much of this as adults, its part of the human experience if you ask me. The loot boxes certainly have a most direct line from money to random outcome and I believe there should be protections for people (adults included) with addiction issues. Are lootboxes implemented to take advantage of people with self control issues or are they designed to encourage people with extra money to spend to have some extra fun spending it? Can we protect one group without ruining the fun of the other? How to go about addressing addiction issues in online gaming is something I have no answers for, but for me creating laws based on kids and gambling in such a short time frame when all of life is about learning to make good decisions while being uncertain of the outcome seems like a knee jerk reaction where people didnt take the time consider the actual issues and what is best for everyone invovled.

 

[moonbogg]

If I want REAL pay to win I know what to do. Buy hacks. That's what people have always done if they want to pay to win. This isn't that much better and I bet a lot of people say screw it and just buy hacks for the stupid game. That way they can counter all those people who bought tons of loot boxes with their hacks which work better and cost way less than loot boxes. Hacks > loot boxes

 

[Ancalagon44]

While customer bases have certainly grown and that certainly makes a big difference, potential rewards are big, but much bigger development costs make flops much more of a risk as well. Dlc used to exist in the form of expansions, to me it seems that dlc has mostly replaced that part of the old sales model. The work involved in patches for fixes and balance, as well as the game company hosting servers for multiplayer is something though that was never really around back in the early days. Unless a game was completely unplayable it was rare to see anything like a patch unless there was an expansion, and multiplayer was all over modem with direct connection to your partner or via a local lan.

Uhh no completely wrong. Games like Duke Nukem 3D, Quake 2, Doom 2, Starcraft 1 and Half Life 1 received multiple patches over their lifespan. Diablo 2 received a major content patch something like 5 years after it was released. Plus Blizzard operated free multiplayer servers for all of their games.

Sure console games were impossible to patch, but they also did not generally ship with gamebreaking bugs. They frequently do now. Look at XCOM 2 for an example - the PS4 version was released recently and has a bug that deletes your saved game. Software of that quality would not have been allowed to be released on consoles years ago. Look at the XCOM 2 forums for details on the bug.

PC games received patches all the time, as I have said. The reason they did was that game development studios used to be run by game developers and not accountants. They did what they did primarily because they loved it. It wasn't profitable for Blizzard to patch Diablo 2 in such a major fasion (1.10 was HUGE) so long after it was released, but they did it anyway.

All the companies are trying to find what works for them, I know almost nothing about xcom, but I have found that microtransactions for the more single player style games are more about dlc's. Which to me are just expansions released a little at a time. For me I actually spend less money now on things like that because I can pick and choose what parts of an expansion to buy. For online games I prefer the subscription model with an even playing field myself, but it appears the majority is not with me on that so my choice of games is more limited in that regard but seeing as I have always enjoyed think games over reaction speed games its not the end of the world either as I dont really play anything competitively anyways.

DLC is by definition not a microtransaction. They are not the same. Stop trying to confuse the matter in your defense of microtransactions.

DLC gives you access to game content that you did not previously had, such as maps, weapons or characters. They were not available for selection. Microtransactions generally give you quicker access to content you already have access to you. In Forza, for instance, you can buy a car using in game cash, or you can buy it with real money. But either way, you can get access to the same car. However, a Car Pack is an example of DLC because it gives you new content in the form of new cars. Without that DLC, there is no way that you can use those cars, no matter what you do.

If I want REAL pay to win I know what to do. Buy hacks. That's what people have always done if they want to pay to win. This isn't that much better and I bet a lot of people say screw it and just buy hacks for the stupid game. That way they can counter all those people who bought tons of loot boxes with their hacks which work better and cost way less than loot boxes. Hacks > loot boxes

Game companies got a lot stricter with hacks around the same time that microtransactions appeared and it is easy to see why - eats into their profits. They would be fine with hacks if they could take 50% of the sale price.

 

[Ackmed]

Was really hoping for a double XP weekend. So far I can find no news on when this will happen.

Enjoying the game for the most part. Game is smooth, gorgeous, and fairly action packed. I still play BF1 more, as I enjoy it more.

 

[Rebel_L]

Uhh no completely wrong. Games like Duke Nukem 3D, Quake 2, Doom 2, Starcraft 1 and Half Life 1 received multiple patches over their lifespan. Diablo 2 received a major content patch something like 5 years after it was released. Plus Blizzard operated free multiplayer servers for all of their games.

Sure console games were impossible to patch, but they also did not generally ship with gamebreaking bugs. They frequently do now. Look at XCOM 2 for an example - the PS4 version was released recently and has a bug that deletes your saved game. Software of that quality would not have been allowed to be released on consoles years ago. Look at the XCOM 2 forums for details on the bug.

PC games received patches all the time, as I have said. The reason they did was that game development studios used to be run by game developers and not accountants. They did what they did primarily because they loved it. It wasn't profitable for Blizzard to patch Diablo 2 in such a major fasion (1.10 was HUGE) so long after it was released, but they did it anyway.

You seem to not remember the early days of PC gaming... PC gaming was around and active for a long time before the internet was even a thing, never mind until the internet became mainstream enough that you could expect people to have decent access. Also genre defining best sellers are not really representatives of the average game and the levels of support they received.

If you think gaming studio's back then were this magical place about games and not money you are seeing things that didnt exist. Developers still do things because they love it, but regardless of time frame you cant have people working on projects without money to pay them. That big successful games were able to afford to have better support isnt a surprise its part of the business and building a brand and a reputation. If anything there are far more games around now for those mythical reasons you speak of since kickstarters became a popular thing. Finding people to give you money up front to work on things has never been easier.

DLC is by definition not a microtransaction. They are not the same. Stop trying to confuse the matter in your defense of microtransactions.

DLC gives you access to game content that you did not previously had, such as maps, weapons or characters. They were not available for selection. Microtransactions generally give you quicker access to content you already have access to you. In Forza, for instance, you can buy a car using in game cash, or you can buy it with real money. But either way, you can get access to the same car. However, a Car Pack is an example of DLC because it gives you new content in the form of new cars. Without that DLC, there is no way that you can use those cars, no matter what you do.

Yes I obviously use the term to microtransaction to refer to any kind of in game purchases, if you would like to just talk about quicker access/game advantages market I can address that. This part of the market just never happened via in game methods back then. The early sierra games (kings quest etc) had walkthrough books you could order to help you solve puzzles you were stuck on. There was gaming magazines as the primary source for cheat codes that you could also purchase. Once the internet became established you could find most cheat codes online and there were plenty of websites that charged money for access to their collections of cheat codes (although you could usually get what wanted for free at this time). Lets not forget the various hacks that you could buy online to cheat in multiplayer. Then once online components were added to more traditional single player games we started to see the emergence third party item sellers. For me the first time I really saw that take off was in diablo 2 and the constant spam in chat about sites selling items. Want to be leveled up without playing, you can buy that too. Farming bots, hacks, leveling services, in game items/currencies etc are all available for purchase online for a wide variety of games right now.

Making any money off the "cheat codes" is actually a revenue stream that the game companies are taking back rather than anything new they are establishing. The internet cost gaming companies those revenue streams for a long time, and now that those streams are worth big money its no surprise that they would like them back.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Was really hoping for a double XP weekend. So far I can find no news on when this will happen.

Enjoying the game for the most part. Game is smooth, gorgeous, and fairly action packed. I still play BF1 more, as I enjoy it more.

Don't worry, I'm sure they will offer their Double XP package for only $4.99 and players like you will buy it immediately.

 

[shortylickens]

Theres pics all over the internet of game bins stripped bare except for BFII boxes.

 

[Stg-Flame]

There's also people who spent the day hovering around those bins telling parents about the in-game gambling. I saw a few screenshots from various facebook pages of parents who are spreading the word to other parents (parentgroups? I don't use facebook) about the gambling and several replies stating they were going to immediately return the game for a full refund.

This is getting pretty comical.

Now if we could only harness this kind of energy and direct it at the FCC to stop them from gutting the Internet...

 

[Ancalagon44]

You seem to not remember the early days of PC gaming... PC gaming was around and active for a long time before the internet was even a thing, never mind until the internet became mainstream enough that you could expect people to have decent access. Also genre defining best sellers are not really representatives of the average game and the levels of support they received.

If you think gaming studio's back then were this magical place about games and not money you are seeing things that didnt exist. Developers still do things because they love it, but regardless of time frame you cant have people working on projects without money to pay them. That big successful games were able to afford to have better support isnt a surprise its part of the business and building a brand and a reputation. If anything there are far more games around now for those mythical reasons you speak of since kickstarters became a popular thing. Finding people to give you money up front to work on things has never been easier.

Yeah I remember those days well. I started gaming on a 486 DX2 66 Mhz with 8MB of RAM (later 16MB) and running MS DOS. Even back then, there were patches available for Doom 1 and 2, just not widely distributed, as you say because of the lack of the Internet. But that does not mean that id Software did not invest the effort - they did. In fact the different versions of Doom 2 sometimes caused issues for me because I used a program called Dehacked to mod Doom 2.

Warcraft 2 was around back then and got loads of patches. There was even a battle.net version released later if I remember correctly.


Patching really became widespread as the Internet became more widely available. Games used to be patched long after they were released. Even games like Icewind Dale 2, which was the swan song of Black Isle Studios, received a major patch (version 2.0.0) which fixed many bugs.

Yes I obviously use the term to microtransaction to refer to any kind of in game purchases, if you would like to just talk about quicker access/game advantages market I can address that. This part of the market just never happened via in game methods back then. The early sierra games (kings quest etc) had walkthrough books you could order to help you solve puzzles you were stuck on. There was gaming magazines as the primary source for cheat codes that you could also purchase. Once the internet became established you could find most cheat codes online and there were plenty of websites that charged money for access to their collections of cheat codes (although you could usually get what wanted for free at this time). Lets not forget the various hacks that you could buy online to cheat in multiplayer. Then once online components were added to more traditional single player games we started to see the emergence third party item sellers. For me the first time I really saw that take off was in diablo 2 and the constant spam in chat about sites selling items. Want to be leveled up without playing, you can buy that too. Farming bots, hacks, leveling services, in game items/currencies etc are all available for purchase online for a wide variety of games right now.

Making any money off the "cheat codes" is actually a revenue stream that the game companies are taking back rather than anything new they are establishing. The internet cost gaming companies those revenue streams for a long time, and now that those streams are worth big money its no surprise that they would like them back.

DLC purchase are not microtransactions, by definition.

You could buy those cheat books and guides, which were a one off purchase, and did not entitle you to anything you did not already own. Show me a single microtransaction that provides information only. Just one. It is a straw man argument. Plus that is how gamefaqs got started - it and other sites like it. Believe it or not, gamers like sharing information. I never ever paid a single cent for access to cheat codes - every cheat code that I ever read online was free. So I don't know why you say that cheat codes were charged for - they absolutely were not. They even printed them in gaming magazines.

It is interesting that you mention online cheats though. Everybody despised those who used them, but how is that different to someone who pays money in Battlefront 2 for an advantage? It is the same.

"taking back" - lol they never had it! They were upset that a lot of this was being given away for free or that third parties were making money and cutting them out of the deal.

I don't know why you love microtransactions so much. I guess EA needs to do some PR so that is probably why you are here. Muddy the waters a little.

 

[Rebel_L]

DLC purchase are not microtransactions, by definition.

I am always amused when I see people get so defensive of their words... you do realize there are many definitions for some words and that in a living language these definitions are in often in flux. When two people are using different definitions neither of them is actually wrong and for one side to insist such just makes them look foolish. You do have to define what your talking about though... usually with extra words that more clearly explain what it is your talking about. I am still a little confused about your definition as if I go with your explanation of the difference between DLC and mircotransactions then small cost store only cosmetic items in mmo's would actually be DLC rather than microtransactions and most commonly I see those called microtransactions.

You could buy those cheat books and guides, which were a one off purchase, and did not entitle you to anything you did not already own. Show me a single microtransaction that provides information only. Just one. It is a straw man argument.

Really? You cant see how in a puzzle game where solutions to puzzles are what move you forward that buying the solution to a puzzle is not a way of bypassing content to get somewhere faster? Like buying a car in game with real money rather than playing for longer and buying it with in game money. Rather than running around all over the game to find the clues for a puzzle you skip that and buy (or nowadays look up) the answer and move on without putting in the time it should take... just like not doing all the races you would need to do to get the in game money to purchase the car. It is harder to control the spread of information than in game items but they are certainly the same type of cheating.

Plus that is how gamefaqs got started - it and other sites like it. Believe it or not, gamers like sharing information. I never ever paid a single cent for access to cheat codes - every cheat code that I ever read online was free. So I don't know why you say that cheat codes were charged for - they absolutely were not. They even printed them in gaming magazines.

While I cant remember the names of the big sites that had lists of cheat codes and faq's at least one that sold premium memberships for better and more access. Gaming magazines in case you dont recall cost money to buy and "free" websites that were popular often made a good amount of money via add revenues. Is all of this directly paying money for cheat codes? Of course not, but that doesnt mean cheat codes have not been monetized since the beginning.

It is interesting that you mention online cheats though. Everybody despised those who used them, but how is that different to someone who pays money in Battlefront 2 for an advantage? It is the same.

If all the gamers despise cheaters I wonder who all these mythical cheaters are and how any company selling such vile cheating could be making money? That pay to win exists in many successful games is an indication of how accepted cheating is by the player base. Players vote with their wallets and the companies adapt. It is gamers that set the moral standards, not gaming companies, and if you are finding something that you call cheating to be prevalent in games it is generally because you are no longer the average gamer. If BF2 was the first major game that had this sort of implementation then this outrage (although misdirected) would make more sense, but BF2 is one in a long line of successful P2W games and cry about it now just seems confusing to me. If you want to change the P2W model you need to target players with your campaign's of change, not companies. Its the players that set the moral standards, not the companies, they just provide what players are willing to pay for.

I don't know why you love microtransactions so much. I guess EA needs to do some PR so that is probably why you are here. Muddy the waters a little.

Ah yes, when in doubt shove some words in the other guys mouth. Please find somewhere where I support microtransactions (your kind or my kind I just realized a long time ago that I am no longer the average gamer. Main stream games have not been targeted at me for a decade or so and I can accept that. Its ok for there be games not targeted at me, and its even ok for there to be games that I will never want to play (even with IP that I enjoy). I just wonder why everyone else has such a hard time with that.

 

[Red Storm]

I think stuff like lootboxes stem from games being made strictly for short term profit nowadays. I don't have an inside look at the history of game development, but just from what I have seen and experienced from my childhood to now is that back then, it definitely felt like game devs truly wanted to make a good game (and get paid for it appropriately). Today most big dev groups are controlled by corporate execs who only care about short term profit, so they will gladly cut corners and introduce shitty mechanics because to them it is all about making money, the actual quality of the game does not matter at all. That element of truly wanting to make a good/memorable gaming experience is gone.

 

[Kaido]

Glorious.