Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Asura]

It costs over $3000 to buy all the cosmetics for Avengers!

https://mp1st.com/news/someone-has-c...cosmetic-items

Admittedly, while this is true, it's like saying that it costs £50k to buy every model for every army in Warhammer 40,000. It's probably true, but no-one owns every model (or would even have a reason to want to own every model).

[Dogg Thang]

Now I want to own every 40K model.

[Cassius_Smoke]

Admittedly, while this is true, it's like saying that it costs £50k to buy every model for every army in Warhammer 40,000. It's probably true, but no-one owns every model (or would even have a reason to want to own every model).

True. I just thought it was a little excessive and an example of how far MTX can go.

[Asura]

True. I just thought it was a little excessive and an example of how far MTX can go.

Yeah; when stacked up it's a big number. I've been miffed about Dead or Alive in recent years; they charge tons for the costumes etc. in those. I can understand when the games have 100x the costumes the old games had, because then it's clear they're funding more costumes from sales of older ones, but many of these titles (and similar games) charge just to get you to a number roughly equivalent to the older games; i.e. it'd cost you £300 to get a set of content equvalent to the £40 Dead or Alive 4.

It's one of the reasons I got rid of DOA6, when I realised just how loaded with MTX it was. They charged money to change the hair colour of characters, for individual shades, when each shade is clearly ~3 hexadecimal colour values and one artist could probably churn out all ~500 that exist in a single afternoon.

[Cassius_Smoke]

Yeah didn't someone do something similar with DoA and the extra stuff cost like 20k.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-12-07-ubisoft-quartz-is-an-energy-efficient-nft-platform-for-aaa-games

Ubisoft launches blockchain powered NFT microtransactioned DLC.

Its like word sick in my mouth.

[wakka]

Finally! Just what gaming has been crying out for!

[Dogg Thang]

I guess it's because I'm pretty deep in it but, as much as Ubisoft are hardly going to do anything for the benefit of the rest of us, in comparison with what we already have, I can't see an objection here. Gamers will currently spend money for in-game items. That already happens and it's not new. They buy them... but they don't own them. This is literally the same thing only with ownership attached. Gamers can sell on the items they buy.

I get it if the issue is simply microtransactions in general. If we're back to why the horse armour is wrong, sure. But if we're okay with the horse armour, I haven't seen one objection to this idea that actually holds up.

[Neon Ignition]

I feel like it's more just an extension of their overall general approach. There's almost more effort put in here to exploit kids into buying into a scam than there is into themselves to be a decent employer.

Like I've seen elsewhere, the energy efficient claim is fun too, the most energy efficient NFT is one that doesn't exist
They're just trying to generate more DLC revenue by creating artificial demand for a product that holds no value on top of the little it already did. It doesn't make much material difference in practice to individual gamers but it again highlights where Ubi's scummy mindset is at.

[wakka]

This is a perfect next play for the MTX mongers now that loot boxes are getting phased out.

They used to charge lots and lots of money for the rare items by making people shell out again and again for random selections of items.

Now they'll assign the rare items at random, let the market decide the price, and scrape a commission on the sale.

Great! What an improvement! And look - it only takes a thousand times as much energy as storing a normal database value!*

*I get that this is an improvement on the obscene energy requirements of BTC and ETH, but that is not saying much

[Dogg Thang]

I feel like you probably don't necessarily have a sense of your own objections. In terms of a scam, for example, in what way? The objection isn't about energy efficiency at all because when you're told that this is entirely energy efficient, it makes no difference. It feels like it's just a gut reaction based on a lack of understanding but also an active desire to dislike it. If I demonstrated how it's not a scam and how, in this case, it is energy efficient, it wouldn't matter.

[wakka]

I don't think it's a scam, in the same way I don't think loot boxes are a scam. I think they're exploitative. They're both just routes to getting people to unload large amounts of cash on virtual items, and lead to games being designed around encouraging this behaviour among players because it leads to increased profitability.

I feel like you probably don't necessarily have a sense of your own objections.

Blimey this comes across as arrogant!

I know you make money on NFTs and honestly, more power to you.

EDIT: I've just realised the above from you Dogg probably wasn't actually a response to me but to NI?

[Dogg Thang]

Blimey this comes across as arrogant!

Apologies for my arrogant tone. But I'm really not hearing a sense of a tangible objection. I was replying to NI (it landed under yours). If it's a scam, explain - I know you're saying you don't think it is. The energy issue isn't the real thing because, in this case, it would be no less energy efficient than normal DLC (which is hardly without impact, same as everything we do on computers including writing right here).

Is DLC exploitative? It absolutely can be. Is this worse? If so, how?

[Asura]

<snip>; removed. Decided not to wade into this one.

[Dogg Thang]

<snip>; removed. Decided not to wade into this one.

You should have waded in because your first point is one that absolutely is valid. Again, in the cases of gaming, I'm not sure this is worse in the sense that there are many games that apply concepts of scarcity to their items and many games are built on that but the point that NFTs can apply digital scarcity and that's a problem is absolutely right.