Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Dogg Thang]

One in which the house always wins and one were they can increase and decrease the odd of winning in a patch any time they want. People winning too much at blackjack? Just decrease the odds by a percent every few months and watch people kill themselves trying to win. Its just ****ty practice.

Yep. I mean, the house always wins anyway but the level of control here is huge, which has been demonstrated with the Candy Crush type games - they are constantly adjusting the pickup rates on the fly to keep people on that edge of feeling like they might get that next big win but just frustrated enough that they'll spend more money. All gambling as a business is weighted but we're at a very devious point here, like if a drug dealer could turn up at your house just when you're starting to get the shakes from withdrawal.

Those veterans among us who bought those Jet Set Radio pachislo machines all those years ago were probably totally put off gambling - sit down with one of those machines enough and you see the patterns and learn how fixed it all is.

[Neon Ignition]

Dan Houser Always Wins

[Cassius_Smoke]

Its also worth noting that in a real world casino they legally have to check your age before you enter. With GTAO they don't give a **** how old you are.
You can argue the game is an 18 so people below that shouldn't play, but i'm suggesting that if you put gambling mechanics into your game, especially to this extent, it should absolutely become your problem to ensure age appropriate people are in there. Passing the buck on to CEX or the parents is BS.

[Team Andromeda]

Its also worth noting that in a real world casino they legally have to check your age before you enter. With GTAO they don't give a **** how old you are.
.

Its not quite the same, is it ?. In a real-world Casino's they can serve drink untill it shuts in the morning, they alway pay their winnings in cash. It's not quite the same in the home. I guess the likes of Online Casino's or even video games can hide behind you have to be 18 to have credit card, hold a bank account (ok you haven't got to be 18 but the cash limits for them is low) and also 18 to own the game, never mind every console comes with age controls.

Still I would imagine the problems even worse on mobiles or social media like Facebook, do they check? The girls in work are simply addicted to Candy Crash and I don't see that coming in for any criticism, much like so many mobile phone games that ask for money or extra credits or lives

[Family Fry]

IT’S AN 18 CERTIFICATE HOW ARE UNDER 18’s GETTING IT?!?

I bought GTA on PS1 from HMV on my 16th birthday, went straight up to the counter bold as brass handed it over, staff glanced at me (standing almost 6ft), paid up with my money and left, GOURANGA!

Here’s the thing I remember watching 18 certified films when I was well under that age, irresponsible parents? Na I was a sneaky little **** who wanted to watch Freddy rip someone up and then when I tried to get to sleep that night I would be crying my face off because of nightmares.

Kids get PSN/Xbox credit for birthday’s now, easy to buy as a gift but if parental controls aren’t set up then they can add that money and just buy GTA V without an age check, parents are none the wiser.

The fact people are defending a casino in a game where you can spend actual money, exchange it for in game money, which you can then gamble just blows my mind. People who have spent £5 in that casino have spent more in a Rockstar game than Rockstar have spent on taxes.

The reason government will eventually get involved is because the greed of these companies knows no bounds, they will never want to set a limit themselves, someone will have to come in and do it for them.

Just ask yourself would you rather spend £24.99 on a GTA V story expansion or £24.99 on chips for a casino?

[Neon Ignition]

And if your answer to that question is £24.99 on chips for a casino then the problem to gamers if evidenced

[Team Andromeda]

Kids get PSN/Xbox credit for birthday’s now, easy to buy as a gift but if parental controls aren’t set up then they can add that money and just buy GTA V without an age check, parents are none the wiser.

None the wiser? What people don't check their bank account? If kids are using mum and dads bank details it soon shows up, never mind if dad is having to buy 200 Xbox credit a week

Just ask yourself would you rather spend £24.99 on a GTA V story expansion or £24.99 on chips for a casino?

Or spend it in a Pub? or on a single meal. If you're an adult how you spend your money is your choice

[Digfox]

This got mentioned in the main Apex Legends thread, but the EG headline really puts the new limited time event content into perspective in just a few words.

Worth remembering this is just one event. So lots of other MTX are already in the game.

This Apex Legends axe costs £112 in loot boxes - And then about £25 on top of that.

The games industry's insistence on profiting from gambling mechanics continues today, as Apex Legends' highly-anticipated Iron Crown Collection Event has arrived - absolutely riddled with loot boxes.

In contrast to Apex Legends' previous event Legendary Hunt, in which all new cosmetics could be earned or purchased directly from the store, most of the Iron Crown Collection cosmetics are locked behind expensive loot boxes. Worst of all, Bloodhound's heirloom set - containing an axe, a kill quip and a banner pose - can only be unlocked after opening around £130's worth of the packs. And then paying another £28 on top of that. Yes, really.

To repeat, if you want the Bloodhound heirloom set, it'll cost you between £135.97 and £151.81. (Again assuming you unlock two loot boxes through gameplay, to directly buy them all it's between £143.97 and £167.79.)

Who needs Titanfall 3, huh?

[Cassius_Smoke]

It doesn't take much money to design and program such an item so if only 2 people buy it for that price they've 'made bank'.

[Asura]

Who needs Titanfall 3, huh?

Admittedly, this comes from the developer which made Titanfall 2 - critically loved, fan-loved, prided itself on having no microtransactions or lootboxes in the wake of the Battlefront 2 fiasco... And apparently it didn't sell particularly well. If the market doesn't reward that developer for making an amazing game and trying to not have purchases in the game, it doesn't surprise me one bit to see them swing the other way.

If Apex is doing well, and by all signs, it seems to be, then this is apparently what gamers want. The big test will come if, in the next event, they do it again (doing it once could be to test the water; doing it a second time suggests it was successful).

It doesn't take much money to design and program such an item so if only 2 people buy it for that price they've 'made bank'.

That's not how it works, though. The entire season's content is funded by everything which goes out that season. It's like having cheaper items and content subsidised by more expensive ones.

[MartyG]

If Apex is doing well, and by all signs, it seems to be, then this is apparently what gamers want. The big test will come if, in the next event, they do it again (doing it once could be to test the water; doing it a second time suggests it was successful).
.

I fundamentally disagree gamers want lootboxes in games and to be spending £150 on them to get a digital axe - we know that the vast majority of income from microtransactions comes from a tiny percentage of the player base - the so called whales and now super-whales. I'd suggest that this would have done just as well player count wise without in-game gambling, everything else being equal.

It's not having to pay for loot that makes these games popular, that's merely being exploited by the publishers.

[Digfox]

Admittedly, this comes from the developer which made Titanfall 2 - critically loved, fan-loved, prided itself on having no microtransactions or lootboxes in the wake of the Battlefront 2 fiasco... And apparently it didn't sell particularly well. If the market doesn't reward that developer for making an amazing game and trying to not have purchases in the game, it doesn't surprise me one bit to see them swing the other way.

It was merely meant as a jokey comment, the sad truth is we aren't going to see another Titanfall with as fair a business model as TF2 had.

A segment of the market clearly wants GaaS, but whether they want to be manipulated with the aggressive MTX is moot. I think there is a 'wising' up of consumers and regulatory bodies that will eventually have an affect but we aren't at that point. However I agree that EA are merely following the trends.

[Asura]

I fundamentally disagree gamers want lootboxes in games and to be spending £150 on them to get a digital axe - we know that the vast majority of income from microtransactions comes from a tiny percentage of the player base - the so called whales and now super-whales.

You can flip that though, by saying "the vast majority of the playerbase spend very little, or even zero".

The presence of those "whale" players subsidises the experience for the rest of the userbase who pay very little, or perhaps even zero.

You can't just say to people "do you like having to buy lootboxes" - the answer is obviously no, because it involves spending money, which no-one likes. The question is more along the lines of "what would you choose between lootboxes and having to pay a mandatory fee per-month", or even "choose between whales subsidising your game or not having a game to play at all".

I'd suggest that this would have done just as well player count wise without in-game gambling, everything else being equal.

I disagree, but then we're in the realm of opinion. The reason they're doing this is almost certainly to test the water. Remember that player-count is only part of the job for Respawn; they need people to pay. Apex is a product for sale and needs to make money if it's going to persist.

[wakka]

When it comes to something like GTAO (and I'm still assuming in any case Take Two will just throw money at the problem to make it go away) would another countries government be a risk? Given some countries have been more hostile to gambling in games, loot boxes etc then if a couple push back it would cause the issue to fold because they won't want different countries requiring different versions of GTAO?

I think it’s pretty easy to block the content in certain territories. From the launch of the expansion, the gambling aspects were blocked in some countries like Brazil.

It would only be an issue if it was banned in the US, really, which would never happen.

[MartyG]

You can flip that though, by saying "the vast majority of the playerbase spend very little, or even zero".

The presence of those "whale" players subsidises the experience for the rest of the userbase who pay very little, or perhaps even zero.

You can't just say to people "do you like having to buy lootboxes" - the answer is obviously no, because it involves spending money, which no-one likes. The question is more along the lines of "what would you choose between lootboxes and having to pay a mandatory fee per-month", or even "choose between whales subsidising your game or not having a game to play at all".

Ah, so we are at the crux of the matter then - people like Apex Legends because it's free and people didn't like Titanfall because they had to pay for it.

We can also establish from that then, that the majority of gamers are morally bankrupt because they're happy to allow the exploitation of whales by publishers so long as they're able to get their free beer