BPX023: MS Opening An EA Sized Lootbox?

[Neon Ignition]

The trouble with something on the scale of an EA buyout is it would be the kind of investment into gaming MS hasn't really done since they entered the market. Whilst Xbox is a very public aspect of the company the wider company has always seemed a bit meh about it, like it's more of a side project that they wouldn't be too torn up about if it ended or not. Their purchases are regular but usually safer bets and whilst EA would bring a lot to the Xbox division I'm doubtful that the other benefits couldn't be bought elsewhere for less of MS's overall finances.

You'd think $35bn could buy them multiple companies getting them the same perks and probably save money too. When you look at other big mergers in other industries EA's price just seems... very over inflated.

[Asura]

I rather see MS buy the likes of Playground Games, Ninja Theory and also strike some deals with FromSoftware, SEGA and Mistwalker and get some solid AAA Japanese developed exclusive games back on its system like the OG Xbox and 360 days. If it must buy a massive Studio I love it to be Ubisoft and its multi player games are more in line with MS style I feel too

I think MS are pretty wary about that, though. They sank a large amount of cash during the early life of the Xbox 360, even making Japan-exclusive titles like the Zegapain series, and it didn't really pan out for them. Given, it left a legacy of Xbox 360 development that resulted in stuff like that Otomedius game, or Senko no Ronde or the home console bits of the IDOLM@STER franchise but that wasn't really their aim.

Personally I always love to see more investment in Japanese game dev but I'm not sure MS understand that whole part of the industry, especially when it's Sony and Nintendo's back yard.

The trouble with something on the scale of an EA buyout is it would be the kind of investment into gaming MS hasn't really done since they entered the market. Whilst Xbox is a very public aspect of the company the wider company has always seemed a bit meh about it, like it's more of a side project that they wouldn't be too torn up about if it ended or not. Their purchases are regular but usually safer bets and whilst EA would bring a lot to the Xbox division I'm doubtful that the other benefits couldn't be bought elsewhere for less of MS's overall finances.

The Xbox is at a real impasse these days. It was formed out of archaic thinking; the idea that putting a device in the living room was the main way to reach consumers, back when we were seeing the very first set-top boxes. People were already starting to question that notion when the original Xbox came out, and that was over 15 years ago.

I'm not certain they could commit to such an enormous expense for the benefit of that division. Investors are convinced, these days, that the future is in services. Stuff like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix and the like. Xbox Live exists, but ironically it's eyed with a bit of curiosity because the reason investors like services is the historic belief is that once a customer signs up to a service, they tend not to leave, even when something better comes along. Unfortunately for MS, the PS4's success and the growth of their userbase actually bucked this trend in a big way, not disimilar to the exodus from MySpace, or the way people jumped ship from LiveJournal to Tumblr.

This is all waffle though. I don't really know what they're going to do. I don't think they will buy EA, but then stranger things have happened. Disney own Star Wars and Squaresoft own Tomb Raider.

[wakka]

Yeah, I don't see any point in Microsoft investing in Japanese developers. They've tried that over and over again, and it's never resulted in significant gains in that territory, or anywhere else really.

Personally I always love to see more investment in Japanese game dev but I'm not sure MS understand that whole part of the industry, especially when it's Sony and Nintendo's back yard.

That quite neatly sums up my feelings on it. It's a nice idea but I don't think it's practical, and I think MS realise that too.

That said, some smaller investments would make a lot of sense. GamePass is a great idea, but desperately needs content. MS's offer of all of their games on the service day one is a generous one, hampered by the fact that their game production pipeline seems to be shrinking by the day. With 3 to 5 year development cycles for the type of games they need to produce to make a splash, it makes sense for them to invest in exclusivity for some partially developed games that are a bit closer to fruition.

[dataDave]

It's going to be a very telling E3 for them, that's for sure.

[Team Andromeda]

I think MS are pretty wary about that, though. They sank a large amount of cash during the early life of the Xbox 360, even making Japan-exclusive titles like the Zegapain series, and it didn't really pan out for them. Given, it left a legacy of Xbox 360 development that resulted in stuff like that Otomedius game, or Senko no Ronde or the home console bits of the IDOLM@STER franchise but that wasn't really their aim.

It was done to try and get a foothold in Japan, it didn't work out and also it never mattered. Japan has turned its back on the main consoels and now is more about mobile and handhelds and its software charts are a joke. The issues for MS is the lack of IP for the Xbox to call it own and getting From to make some software and Mistwalker to make a sequel to Lost Odyssey (which did sell in ok numbers) would be a hell of lot cheaper than getting EA and more get far better world of mouth. If MS wants to buy the console world, well it would be cheaper and easier to just buy Ubisoft and Take Two and then you get GTA only you console and get some good games to boot (EA does have quite a number its self mind)

I'm not certain they could commit to such an enormous expense for the benefit of that division. Investors are convinced, these days, that the future is in services.

But you still need a box to deliver those serveries and I remember people saying this gen would flop no one wants consoles anymore and yet we've seen the PS4 sell in massive numbers and even the One is on course to beat the sales of N64 or the Mega Drive total sales . There's quite clearly a market for consoles and MS knows this and just because a rival sells double your product does not mean one should give up or you can't make lots of money; Think like that Samsung, HTC would give up on mobiles and SONY would leave LG sell TV's and we all leave VW sell cars .

The Xbox One makes money and sells in quite good numbers and there still billions to be made from a under the TV console

[Neon Ignition]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/rumor-star-wars-games-may-ditch-ea/

This is unrelated to the rest of the thread but as it's speculation about EA and it doesn't really warrant its own thread yet:

The Disney and EA deal related to Star Wars games is now four years old. In that time EA have released two games, one of which was bogged down by criticism surrounding its loot systems that brought disrepute upon the SW brand that Disney was displeased with. They have also cancelled the major Visceral project whilst Respawn's title appears to be struggling to gain traction meaning that Disney is getting very little value for money out of the deal.

The rumour is that Lucasfilm is now investigating the option of revoking the license from EA and giving it to another company with Activision and Ubisoft both in the running.

If there's any truth to this I hope they don't go for Activision, it's just jumping from the frying pan into another frying pan. I've more faith in Ubisoft to deliver something competent, faithful and still successful

[MartyG]

It doesn't matter which AAA publisher it goes to - they're all chasing the games as a service to fleece as much money from your players as you can with as little content as possible via microtransactions model.

[Digfox]

[MENTION=42]MartyG[/MENTION] well said.

Ubisoft seem to get more slack than the others from fans, but ultimately have very similar f2p mobile-style progression systems built into their some of their releases. The recent Rainbow Six Siege changes have left me aghast at how that game isn't getting called out more for it's greedy shenanigans. Even playing Ghost Recon Wildlands recently has seen a load of loadboxes shoved into it and it's arguably not even a live service. It's a game that came out as a product with a a roadmap of pre-made, recursive content DLC.

[Neon Ignition]

The Siege changes are a massive shame considering the long road that game had to finding its feet and winning over players. It undoes a lot of very good work on Ubisofts part and probably has only not seen a vocal outcry due to the age of the game

[wakka]

I don't think this will make a difference in practical terms to how Star Wars games are designed either, no matter which publisher they go with.

The cost of the Star Wars licence, combined with the need to pay royalties, combined with the high dev and marketing budgets of the games themselves mean any publisher is going to plan aggressive monetisation to try to ensure a worthwhile return. And effectively that will mean a GaaS style design with lootboxes, since it's the path of least resistance.

[Lebowski]

[MENTION=42]MartyG[/MENTION] well said.

Ubisoft seem to get more slack than the others from fans, but ultimately have very similar f2p mobile-style progression systems built into their some of their releases. The recent Rainbow Six Siege changes have left me aghast at how that game isn't getting called out more for it's greedy shenanigans. Even playing Ghost Recon Wildlands recently has seen a load of loadboxes shoved into it and it's arguably not even a live service. It's a game that came out as a product with a a roadmap of pre-made, recursive content DLC.

like most other loot boxes R^ siege's are just pure cosmetics, these loot boxes have no bearing on game play and are just skins, so i think this is why their has not been a backlash as all their doing is putting in the overwatch model into a much loved game.

Where Star wars went wrong was locking guns and perks behind loot boxes in a mobile game style progression and making the game pay to win.

[QualityChimp]

I was saying in the Monster Hunter World thread how refreshing it was to play something that wasn't ramming DLC down your throat.
You can buy stickers, gestures and facepaints, but all of them are purely cosmetic and don't affect gameplay.

Everybody is on an equal footing.

[Asura]

I was saying in the Monster Hunter World thread how refreshing it was to play something that wasn't ramming DLC down your throat.
You can buy stickers, gestures and facepaints, but all of them are purely cosmetic and don't affect gameplay.

Everybody is on an equal footing.

Admittedly though some people hate that, because years ago we got that as part of the product - and for some people the visual customisation is the end-game.

It doesn't bother me - in fact I often buy cosmetic stuff. Maybe I'm the problem.

[Lebowski]

I was saying in the Monster Hunter World thread how refreshing it was to play something that wasn't ramming DLC down your throat.
You can buy stickers, gestures and facepaints, but all of them are purely cosmetic and don't affect gameplay.

Everybody is on an equal footing.

lol its so not in your face i didn't even know it existed

also monster hunters customization options are all about your Armour aint nobody bothered about dat face paint or stickers

[Digfox]

The Siege changes are a massive shame considering the long road that game had to finding its feet and winning over players. It undoes a lot of very good work on Ubisofts part and probably has only not seen a vocal outcry due to the age of the game

Yea I think there's a few factors for why it has got away with the progression system. Age of the game as you say and the fact the items and lootboxes in the game are cosmetic (excluding boosters) which seems to be the rallying call of the 'its only cosmetics!' brigade. The bits that always made me uneasy was the massive amount of time it took to unlock Operators, which are valuable because the more you have, the more strategic options you have - which is important. The sheer amount of items released onto the cash shop and the extremely excessive prices is also pretty offensive. Particularly in a premium game with a yearly season pass.

The thing is its like most other loot boxes sieges are just pure cosmetics, these loot boxes have no bearing on game play and are just skins, so i think this is why their has not been a backlash as all their doing is putting in the overwatch model into a much loved game.

Where Star wars went wrong was locking guns and perks behind loot boxes in a mobile game style progression and making the game pay to win.

Ultimately I think all of these games are drawing criticism which is thankfully leading to much more consumer backlash, some developers backing away from lootboxes for fear of the negative PR and some governments and regulatory bodies preparing changes to regulate for them. I think SW:BF2 was a tipping point for many but Overwatch and other games are (rightfully) getting criticism for their scummy, mobile-esque, f2p progression systems.

Although as you allude to, the scale of scummyness varies and you should look at these games on a case-by-case basis. The ones that get their business model right, generally get credited for it.

Ultimately all the big publishers are as greedy as each other, which was the point others made and I obviously agree with. A Star Wars game from Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft or T2 is just as likely to be awful now.