LootGate - The Great Loot Crate/Microtransaction Debate

King Tones

Rather than cluttering up Battlefront 2 Threads and other ones that have evil Loot Crates.
Use this for all discussions.

So Loot Crates & Microtransactions Good Or Bad ??

Have at it.

iwb100

Bad, but arguably far worse things are to come. And we can't ignore the fact that cost of making games has gone up, yet the cost of buying them hasn't.

Are optional MTs worse than other ways of generating revenue that publishers will consider?

SteakAndCake

There's a few different issues here.

A crate granting random content that is purely cosmetic with zero connection to gameplay or progression is fine with me.

Any gameplay mechanic that penalises non micro-transaction buyers with artificial barriers to progression or gameplay mechanics is obnoxious.   

Random content granted via real world money should be legislated but only for children.  It does encourage and reinforce gambling behaviour which can harm the developing mind.  

So I support banning them in games sold to under 18 but not in general.  I think a total ban is state overreach.  Adults stupid enough to waste money on this **** should be free to do so in a free country.

Battlefront is just the game the community decided was their hill to die on.   A perfect storm of EA, Star Wars, and Loot Crates.   Talking specifically about SWBF2, the content granted via crates does not particularly give a large advantage.  Where they really suck is that the general progression of the game is slow, irritating, and grindy.  That hasn't changed by EA temporarily abandoning crystal sales.   SWBF2 is a perfect example of a game which had enormous potential which EA chose to deliberately thwart by shoehorning in a terrible progression system solely to facilitate post launch revenue.  The fact they chose to damage a Star Wars game just drew the wrath and attention of more people.   People know DICE make great multiplayer games and they know Star Wars is awesome.  Now they also know that EA would sacrifice both the things they love for greed.

Lostsoul 301281

MTX and loot crates which are tied to progression are straight up wrong.
Certain recent releases have had content essentially locked behind a grind/paywall, meaning that you either spend X amount of extra hours than you’d expect, or spend real money to buy what you need to circumvent the extra hours.
Or worse, your progress is straight up tied to loot crates which can be bought by others who are willing to pay, meaning they have an unfair advantage over someone who isn’t going to pay that extra.

On top of that, loot crates are a gamble, as you’re not guaranteed to get what you need/want.
This is actually being debated in certain countries now as to wether or not loot crates should be considered gambling. Especially as these are being implemented in games which are aimed or at least will be played by a younger audience.

Not to mention that these practices are in games which we’re already paying £50 for.


I have not issue with proper DLC(previously known as expansions) and season passes which bundles these DLCs together at a discount.

MarkyPancake

Jim Sterling has done a new video on this topic:

Contains strong language

Greg Hook

Agree with the others. Have no problem with crates that offer cosmetic items. I've bought a few in PUBG.

Crates that offer items that you can't get during the game such as better weapons, unlocks etc should be banned.

Lostsoul 301281

The cosmetic stuff can still be considered a gamble, as there's no guarantee that you'll get items you want.

Pretty Good Gaming on YouTube have been following this for quite a while, and summarising the whole situation.

As I said above, pay-to-win and general MTX don't belong in full priced games.
Having them in free-to-play games is different, as long as they're not loot boxes, which are essentially gambling(this is still being debated in Belgium, Australia and now quite seriously in the US).
The Battlefront situation is one of the most extreme cases.
The whole progression system was locked behind loot crates, and even unlocking characters such as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader was calculated would take 40 hours per character.
The whole thing got so serious that a Disney boss got in touch with someone big shot at EA and basically gave them a total bollocking.
Even share prices were affected by it.
It's basically bad press for the Star Wars brand this close to a main series film coming out.

But that's just one huge story.

Overall, these chance loot boxes are dangerous for vulnerable people as it is basically gambling.
I'll admit I get a slight rush opening the loot boxes I earn with in-game credits, which in turn are earned playing the game.
That is what these loot boxes are designed to do. To elicit that rush of winning at a game of chance.
You've just unlocked that MP character you've wanted, but there's still one or two others that you want. So instead of grinding out another X amount of hours to earn the credit to buy another crate, you're offered the ability to pay actual money for the possibility of maybe getting that character you want.

Then there's the crap like the resources you needed to collect in Dead Space 3 which allowed you to build new weapons.
The weapon building system was drastically changed from the previous games and built around making people want to buy these single use packs containing resources so they could build their weapons.
Yes, you could find said resources in game, but it would take time, again designed to make people want to take a short cut.
This was a full price, single player game.
These practices have no place here.


I have no issue what so ever with real additional content, like the Shivering Isles in Oblivion(let's not talk about horse armour...), or any of the Fallout 3 add-ons, and even the 2 episodes for GTA IV.
All of these added to the game, giving you extra hours of gameplay.
Fallout 4 did the season pass pretty well too, giving you access to all of the games extra content at a discount compared to buying them all separately.
Gears of War 3 did something similar by bundling all the map packs and the extra story into a season pass.
That to me is DLC done right.
No MTX or loot crate BS.

z5461313

I like and agree with the sensible comments made above

terencejames

I'm sorry but if you're paying £50  for a game, you shouldn't have to pay for anything else. I don't have a problem with levelling up your character through putting in the hours but these micro transactions are a scourge at the moment.

SteakAndCake

The other issue that needs addressing is AAA cost.

Developers argue that games have risen very little with inflation and this is true, while their costs are spiralling out of control.  They cite this as justification for adding P2W, loot crates, paid DLC, and microtransactions.

The reason costs are spiralling is because EA, Activision, and Ubisoft seem to think they're Hollywood studios.  They think they need to offer cutting edge, photo realistic 4K HDR visuals and famous voice acting.  This is nonsense.   Look at games like Battlegrounds, CS:GO, or even the new COD.  All look terrible.  Just really bad and yet both either sold more or have more active players than SWBF2.   

Chasing realism is a cost sink and one offering gamers very little benefit.  Ignoring visuals, can we really say that SWBF2 is a better game than the original Battlefront 2 from 2004?  Objectively, no.  The old one is better in every way, has more depth, has more content, than the new one.  

DICE recently claimed they could not offer customisating soldiers in Battlefield 1 like they had in BF3 and 4 because the animation, lighting, and texturing were so advanced, the cost of iterating new content was no longer cost effective.   If they took a step back on the visuals, they could offer more content that was cheaper to produce.  I don't think anyone would look at Battlefield 3 and say it's a bad looking game.  It's still stunning.  Are the slightly better looking visuals of Battlefield 1 really worth the loss of game player choice, content, and customisation?