Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 17 Nov 2017.
The removal may be less voluntary than EA claims, lootboxes are under investigation by authorities.
Source in dutch, sorry:
This seems entirely EA's doing, the developer probably had little or no choice in the matter, we're talking about the same publisher here who foisted Dungeon Keeper and Need For Speed: No Limits on willing guinea pigs, they've obviously decided to bring that freemium gaming model so common on app stores to desktops and consoles.
Agreed, but big developers make more profit from after sale transactions (micro transactions & DLC) then they do from the initial sale so it's going to be with us for a while yet.
Micro-transactions can extremely profitable as once you've implemented the feature in your code it won't take long to cover the investment and then after that it's profit all the way.
It doesn't matter if it annoys 99% of game purchases if the 1% who like the system make lots of profit for the devs / publishers.
Star Wars is a terrible model for micro transactions as the holders of the IP won't allow silly hats etc to be in a game that is part of official lore.
IIRC in the Free-to-Play sphere, 2% of players making purchases is the expectation, 5% is a 'runaway success'. So, as you say, even if only 2% of a AAA game's audience buy boxes/hats/keys/cards/whatever it's probably enough to justify their inclusion in the eyes of the beancounters.
Yeah I remember seeing something silly like 1% of players fund the entire game in free to play games.
An even smaller fraction of the 2% who spend are the 'whales' who spend sufficient amounts/spend sufficiently often to keep the game going.
So with at least one regulatory body looking at them Disney has shat a brick, which means EA have shat a brick. I'm sure mass refunds and investigation isn't the reception either company had planned for their flagship Star Wars game. But it's kind of obvious when you think about it, some freemium mobile title run by ten guys from an office in Luxembourg can fly under the radar, put a Star Wars logo and a colossal advertising campaign behind it and people who don't follow gaming will notice.
I'm sure the lootboxes will be back in once the absolute minimum has been done to avoid prosecution and they won't be particularly consumer friendly.
It's quite sad looking at how DICE games have been monetised in the last decade and a bit, from Battlefield 2/2142 being great value through the first appearance of micro transactions in Bad Company 2, lootboxes arriving in BF4 and now gambling based progression and pay to skip mechanics subverting the actual gameplay.
In all seriousness a gambling business model is not okay in any videogame, paid or free to play.
Of course if it were to receive the same restrictions and warning labels as all other gambling machines I'd probably be ok with it, but then it would disappear from games overnight as publisher would really want to avoid automatic 18 ratings and restricted sales. I'd love to see it happen if only for the hilarity of videogames getting moved to the supermarket cigarette Kiosk and shoved up against the lottery tickets.
In F2P games the model that Wargaming use (subscriptions and/or fixed price premium content) seems the fairest to me, it doesn't involve gambling and it doesn't hide the true amount being spent. Sure spending £25 to get the Tirpitz is a bit steep, but you are at least making a specific purchase and not rolling a dice.
As long as we're directing our ire at the right people, if we blame the developers in situations like this i feel that we risk allowing the people who actually made the decision to escape scot-free.
Personally I'd never spend money on a microtransaction but I'd still play a game with them in as long as they don't effect gameplay by bestowing advantages on players, i can ignore cosmetics but knowing you've just lost to another player because they paid more money is a definite no-no to me.
Not all micro-transactions are gambling, micro-transactions can be okay in F2P games as long as you know what you're buying whether it be skins/guns/maps etc but these effing LOOTBOXES are something else, I flat out refuse to buy any games with them in.
AAA games are in a pretty bad place now with all the Pre order bonuses, basic/premium/ultimate game versions, store exclusive content, DLC's, Season Passes, Pay to win, Microtransactions, Lootboxes. it's just way to much, wasn't so bad when a game just had one or two of them things but now it seams like every big release has all them things in it.
I miss the days when you bought a game and had the FULL game and it didn't cost any money after the initial purchase
Agreed, but not all microtransactions are gambling. I can just about tolerate the existence of skins and other cosmetic items. Lootboxes can die in a fire, as can buying in-game currency with real money.
Disney defcating masonry indeed appears to have been the cause.
Oh man, this dramatrain is the gift that keeps on giving. I'd be super-upset if it was a game I'd intended to buy, mind you, but as an observer on the sidelines? Pass the popcorn and keepeit rolling.
Makes the value of WW2 seem reasonable... A £40 season pass is unacceptable, let alone this abomination!
Separate names with a comma.