Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Asura]

That's not what they're doing currently though - they want both the yearly franchise and the service part - the ability to make the end user pay for a full AAA release each time and then buy the microtransactions all over again with each of these releases. FIFA -> FUT being the ultimate example of screwing people over in this regard.

They want all the money.

I play D&D and I'll be honest, I think your comparison is rubbish.

I think a lot of these videogame producers are working out what's the minimum viable product and selling the rest back, usually in lootboxes so you're still not guaranteed to get what you want.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself so well. I'm just trying to say that there's a perception that a "service" mindset is inherently bad, and I don't think it is. I think the games industry has sunk their claws into it as a cheap, exploitative way to create extra revenue, but employed correctly, it could be used as a way to deliver a different form of entertainment.

If they spent less time working out what they could carve out of their games and sell back to people, and instead took their typical product as sacrosanct and worked out what they could add for the consumer instead, they could do something genuinely interesting. Unfortunately their early experiments showed that doing it the ****ty way was profitable.

[Digfox]

Ex-Cryptic Studios (Neverwinter f2p MMO) dev talks about gambling mechanics and addiction in modern games and how it all works

Taken from ResetEra, but I've noted the original link below. Apologies for the wall of text but this is the meat of the ResetEra post. Nothing we haven't heard before but once again cements just how damaging monitisation and lootboxes have become. Worth a read if you get a chance, although probably presented better on the ResetEra link above.

I worked on Neverwinter, the free-to-play MMO that came out several years ago. Many F2P game systems are lifted directly from the gambling industry, so let me give you an idea of what supporting that means for video games, gamers, and developers.

Loot boxes in games are a familiar topic for a lot of people, but they often discuss the wrong angle. Most gamers comment on how annoying they are, but few people address how harmful they are.

First, to deconstruct what a loot box is for those who don't do F2P games: It's a package you open that has a % chance you'll receive one of a number of cosmetic or gameplay-altering rewards when you open it. You pay for the privilege to open the loot box.

This pay-for-potential-rewards structure is lifted directly from casino gambling — slot machines in particular. In fact, most of the win rates and feedback systems for loot boxes are lifted directly from slot machine design. Here are some aspects that are similar:
Pay-to-play
Sounds and visuals designed to heighten excitement and anticipation
Low initial investment
High accessibility
Intentionally stingy rewards
Highly broadcast high-end rewards
Let's break these down.

Pay-to-play means you're locked out of content until you drop some money, and that does some weird psychological things I'm not qualified to talk about. Regardless, it sets a barrier to entry, but it's designed to be low enough (penny slots, anyone?) that anyone can play.

Sounds and visuals play a huge part in making loot boxes. They have a specific cadence built into them which increases tension over a short time, and then they flash pretty lights and play exciting sounds. Slot machines perfected it, and now video games crank it to 11.

Low initial investment is incredibly important for gambling because it tricks your brain into thinking you're not spending much money, even if you end up spending dozens or hundreds in the end. This ties in well with the intentionally stingy reward cycle, which I'll get to.

Accessibility in slot machines is walking up and popping a penny in, but accessibility in loot boxes is even more insidious; you spend some time playing the game, you get a free taste, and then you have to pay to play once you get that initial adrenaline rush.

Intentionally stingy rewards keep people coming back, and spending more money over time by constantly teasing the possibility of a greater reward. You see this with slots, and you see it with the possibility of winning a sweet new skin, only to end up with ugly poop.

Highly broadcast high-end rewards are things like the bright flashing lights, loud bells, and other aspects of winning you see from slots. You get the same thing for free in video games because people want to show off their shiny loot, and they even make videos about it.

So. What all these reward systems do is give you a trickle of excitement with the occasional punctuation of winning a little bit, and that system is incredibly addictive for many people. Let me give a couple of examples.

You hear about people with gambling addictions blowing thousands of dollars at a casino. These people get addicted to the risk/reward cycle of gambling; it literally makes happy juices squirt into their brain. The EXACT same happens with loot boxes, and there are metrics.

Those metrics aren't just "this person is spending X." No. When I was on Neverwinter, I heard a conversation about one of our highest spenders who was a single mother of 3-4 kids in Kentucky. The people making the game knew who this individual was and how much she spent monthly

That may not sound super terrible, until you hear that this single mother was spending over a thousand dollars a month on in-game items, people knew her salary range, and could literally stick a pin in a map with her physical address.

It's important for people running these games to have metrics and info like this so they can tailor the experience to you. This is where video game loot boxes are actually more insidious than casino gambling; they don't just take your money, they tailor your personal experience.

Companies who produce games with loot boxes tailor your experience so that the amount they make off you is maximized. For most people this is pennies per month, but for some people they're literally tailoring the game to take advantage of your gambling addiction.

The killer thing is that, without whales — without the people with gambling addictions — these systems fail. If you've ever done any reading on how airline ticket pricing works, it's a similar business model. A small number of high spenders keep the whole thing afloat.

So, to get back to the Unity link: Supporting the gambling industry is lucrative, but also INCREDIBLY unethical. You're supporting a system designed to literally, not figuratively, LITERALLY prey on the addictions of a relatively small number of people.

All those talks at GDC a few years ago about monetization? Preying on addictions.
Loot boxes in Overwatch, Apex Legends, Fortnite? Preying on addictions.
Monetization and marketing experts? Preying-on-addictions experts.

Interestingly, this is the same system Valve uses to exploit artists who make skins and items for TF2 and DOTA2. A few "lucky" people get their items selected (by a black box selection process) which strings others along to keep creating free content for them.

They pay for none of the labor involved in making skins for DOTA characters, but reap 70% of all profits, which equates to millions of dollars per year. Good times.

Anyway, this is why I'll never work on another F2P game again, and this is why seeing Unity openly talking about how they're supporting the gambling industry makes me never want to touch Unity's tools again.

Original Link

[briareos_kerensky]

On the 27th of August, Nintendo will stop service of Animal Crossing Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes in Belgium due to the country government's stance on loot boxes. There loot boxes are considered gambling, and EA even underwent investigation for their practices pertaining boxes in FIFA.

[Asura]

On the 27th of August, Nintendo will stop service of Animal Crossing Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes in Belgium due to the country government's stance on loot boxes. There loot boxes are considered gambling, and EA even underwent investigation for their practices pertaining boxes in FIFA.

Yeah, the response online has been interesting. I think everyone expected a unanimous celebratory mood, but that's the thing - they all expected Nintendo to remove the lootboxes. Instead they've just removed the games altogether. This is related to some of the stuff I've said before, about how companies like Squaresoft did try, early in the smartphone era, to make pricepoint games and titles with non-gacha approaches, but they failed on the whole (the only exception were re-releases of existing games, like Sega's Sonic titles or the Final Fantasy re-releases). Oh, and X-Com. And Minecraft.

Thing is, if these sorts of practices are banned across the board, companies might try again, because there's no alternative. Part of me feels though that for this to work, the concept of "consumable" micropurchases in videogames needs to simply not exist. Personally I'd love it if there were more proper games for mobile from the big companies; I'm one of the people who bought Final Fantasy Tactics on iPhone even though it was £12.99.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, it would take this happening in a lot of countries to make any sort of real change. But it could happen. However, the result will not necessarily be that more premium type games get paid for - that would take a massive shift in buyer behaviour. So as much as I REALLY hate the consumable microtransaction model (and I do), this could end up being a scenario in which everyone loses. Still, I'd probably accept that risk in the hope that companies would look for better options if forced out of this model.

[fishbowlhead]

Yep, it would take this happening in a lot of countries to make any sort of real change. But it could happen. However, the result will not necessarily be that more premium type games get paid for - that would take a massive shift in buyer behaviour. So as much as I REALLY hate the consumable microtransaction model (and I do), this could end up being a scenario in which everyone loses. Still, I'd probably accept that risk in the hope that companies would look for better options if forced out of this model.

Crap gambling slot machines disguised as a game or no crap gambling slots disguised as a game?

Hmmmmmm, tough choice.

[Asura]

Crap gambling slot machines disguised as a game or no crap gambling slots disguised as a game?

Hmmmmmm, tough choice.

It's an easy choice for people who don't play games on smartphones.

[fishbowlhead]

Easy choice full stop. It’s gambling plain and simple and should of been knocked on the head the instant it was available to kids. It wasn’t however and companies have made billions from it already.

[Cassius_Smoke]

The US bill to ban loot boxes is still pressing forward.
I like this quote: “Only the addiction economy could produce a business model that relies on placing a casino in the hands of every child in America with the goal of getting them desperately hooked,” Hawley said

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18636535/loot-boxes-josh-hawley-markey-blumenthal-privacy-video-games

[Digfox]

Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 update adds exciting new weapons but locks them behind loot boxes - Eurogamer

I don't think the is news much, given Activision has done this before with weapons in loot boxes. But even so the BLOP4 subreddit is a predictable sea of anger right now.

[Digfox]

Related to the COD:BLOPS4 story above but Treyarch has adjusted one of the Lootbox only weapons being as overpowered: Treyarch nerfs controversial Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 DLC weapon - From overpowered to a little less overpowered.

Again doesn't feel like news given this has happened with COD Loot box weapons before and of course it's intentional.

[Asura]

Again doesn't feel like news given this has happened with COD Loot box weapons before and of course it's intentional.

Fact of the matter is that publishers really want pay-to-win mechanics. I mean, I guess if some kind of desire for "gameplay integrity" isn't high, why wouldn't they? The market won't seem to accept it so they want to push it in a-bit-at-a-time.

[Lebowski]

Fact of the matter is that publishers really want pay-to-win mechanics. I mean, I guess if some kind of desire for "gameplay integrity" isn't high, why wouldn't they? The market won't seem to accept it so they want to push it in a-bit-at-a-time.

what they have done with this game is pretty deplorable, it came out to rave review's declaring blackout an amazing addition and the best version of Battle royal we have had to date. After all the reviews had hit they then threw in micro transactions, loot boxes and premium skins, it even has a fort-nite style seasons pass!.

Its mad that they have pretty much every form of monetization they can in this game and now the final nail in the coffin pay to win style mechanics. hopefully they have burnt enough of their fan base with this current **** show that their next call of duty will bomb.

[Digfox]

Fact of the matter is that publishers really want pay-to-win mechanics.

Yep. I remember a similar forore and analysis over BLOPS3 and a pistol that appeared in the loot boxes, and every year since. I think the cynical first comment on that Eurogamer piece sums it up quite well.

what they have done with this game is pretty deplorable,...

To me it's the biggest offender or cocktail of BS out there. And in this industry that's saying something.

[briareos_kerensky]

According to (drumroll) EA, lootboxes are (another, longer drumroll) "quite ethical".