Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 8 Nov 2017.
I think the answer to this is 'Duh'.
Why bother creating a new AAA title which can be ridiculed when you can milk an existing piece of IP for every cent it is worth.
This is nothing but bad for the consumer.
When you're given no other choice except to buy DLC to have a complete game or P2W to have any sort of chance, I don't see how this is any surprise what-so-ever.
Have you considered Option Three: don't buy the game in the first place?
I haven't bought anything Nintendo since they started locking content behind plastic figurines.
I prefer option 4 or 5...
4. wait for the GOTY or complete edition, preferably during a steam sale
I very rarely pre-order now, but I admit that I've been suckered in by the unlocks/early dlc access/pre-order nonsense before. On the whole I think that pre-ordering gives very little added value.
Micro-transactions are here to stay, and by the looks of it they're seen as a greater revenue stream than the actual game itself.
I've made micro-transactions, TF2 hats I'm looking at you, I don't have a problem with cosmetic items, but I do have a problem when you're paying a couple of quid to gamble on the chance of something, chests, crates or whatever. It encourages our young impressionable youth to gamble, which is a slippery slope in itself.
I rarely buy games except indie Steam games I like to support but if I do what a AAA game
Got everything Alien Isolation on Humble, DoW 2 on steam etc
I'm in no rush to play anything on day 1
I don't buy many games (2 or 3 a year at most) and if I like them, I tend to play them to the death.
I usually buy the base game and if I like it I'm happy to buy the expansion packs etc. It's my choice and as I usually play a game for several hundred hours, I think it's good value for money.
I don't like and won't ever purchase ingame micro transactions; I will either go without or grind for it. If people want to pay for cosmetics for example, fair enough, it's their money, but the micro transaction system in games is getting worse.
Take the one in The Division; In game you can graft for fragments of a key. Once you have 10 fragments you get a full 'key'. The key can be used to open a cosmetics cache where you have a chance of receiving 3 cosmetic items. You have no idea what you are getting.
If you wish to avoid grinding for fragments you can buy the 'keys' for real money. The way this works is the bit that disgusts me - you open the box and the game says you already have 1,2 or all 3 items - now it's 10 fragments to build a key, but when you get a duplicate item it gives you back 1 fragment (sometimes you might get 3 fragments for one item), so you could get zero new items and maybe only 3 fragments back. I have opened several caches that I have ground for and more often than not I already have 2 if not 3 of the items - the most fragments I have been given back for a cache full of duplicates is 5 fragments
Personally I couldn't give a crap what my character is wearing - If I'm on my own and a bit bored I might change things around, but happy to go with whatever crap I have obtained through grafting.
There are some playing the game though that just 'must have' a specific hat for example. They could spend an infinite amount of money and never get it because in this game you have no idea what you are going to get. You could also spend money on 3 keys and get nothing at all - not even a 'free' box.
If someone wants to spend money on cosmetic items then to me that's up to them, but the way it's done in the Division, you might as well call it gambling because that is how it looks to me.
That argument has been [and is being made] that loot boxes are gambling... Everyone involved seems to be falling over themselves to say they're not, because if they are deemed to be gambling they're pretty much ****ed.
Based on my limited knowledge of the UK laws it'd be an instant 18 rating on any game with loot boxes [most probably already are, but we all now how well that's enforced...] and, iirc, very strict rules on advertising.
Some countries would just ban the games outright.
Anyway, personally I will keep calling it what it is: Gambling with zero safeguards.
I cannot condone piracy - that doesn't send an "up with this I will not put" message to the publisher, that sends an "I wouldn't have bought this anyway neener-neener" message - but Option Four is definitely a sound choice. Better still, leave it a couple of years for single-player stuff: not only will it be cheaper and complete, it'll probably be significantly less buggy *and* you'll be able to run it on a much cheaper PC - or crank up the settings to their max on a high-end rig.
The only downside, per XKCD:
Regarding ESRB statement on gambling one could argue that duplicate or unwanted items have zero value to the user and are therefore an equivalent of receiving nothing. Especially in games where the player can't trade or otherwise reuse unwanted items.
Does Zelda and Mario Oddessy have things locked?
Yes and Kinda
Zelda it's a chance [but no guarantee as it's random iirc] at unique gear/weapons which can't be unlocked any other way... Mario it's costume unlocks all of which [according to nintendo] can be unlocked without amiibo.
That would be awesome. I wonder if something can be done to make this happen faster.
Adapt gambling laws to include gambling in video games which targets children.
The response to that survey mentions unfair trading regulations which includes aggressive marketing. I wonder if Activision recent patent (of pairing new players with experienced players who have bought in game items to make them lose and want to buy the same items) would fall under those regs.
It would be interesting to know which 'experts' they are consulting.
Separate names with a comma.