Paid content in videogames (DLC, loot boxes, passes, currencies, "surprise mechanics" and - new! - pay more or wait!)

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Cast these greedy banana splits into the darkest abyss.

Charging to change hair colour.

strawberry float off.

People caring enough about hair colour to pay to change it. They can strawberry float off too.

I was thinking about this subject recently, didn't realise there was a thread for it.

I've noticed games getting visually much more complicated. There's just more going on on-screen, particularly in menus. There are more options, more modes, so many games have their own 'currencies' for buying miscellaneous gooseberry fool. Vbucks, COD points, FIFA dollars, just use strawberry floating money like we do with everything else, I don't walk into Sainsbury's and first, have to exchange my British pounds for Sainsbury pesos before I can buy anything.

"Season pass for 1300 points! Points only available in amounts of 100, 500, 1000 and 5000 "

I played some popular mobile game recently (so popular I don't remember what it was) and I was, for some reason, accruing four separate sets of points.

CONGRATS: You have earned 400 power stars, 50 energy orbs, 7000 magic dust and 3 whateverthefuck rings!

Why? Is this where years of consumer psychology research has led us? Maximum value can be extracted if the consumer is never quite sure what's going on?

I still don't really know what a 'season pass' is. I like to play FIFA 20 sometimes but I dare not play anything but whatever the 'quick match' mode is because I have no idea what I'm signing up for with anything else. Just play any modern game, particularly if it's an online multiplayer game, and look at how unnecessarily hectic the in-game menus and lobbies are.

Igor wrote:I still don't really know what a 'season pass' is. I like to play FIFA 20 sometimes but I dare not play anything but whatever the 'quick match' mode is because I have no idea what I'm signing up for with anything else. Just play any modern game, particularly if it's an online multiplayer game, and look at how unnecessarily hectic the in-game menus and lobbies are.

To be fair, with FIFA, this is contained to Ultimate Team. It has a pretty good online mode in Seasons that's separate from all this crap.

Igor wrote:"Season pass for 1300 points! Points only available in amounts of 100, 500, 1000 and 5000 "

This pisses me off no end.

I've occasionally bought in-game things (mostly Call of duty Battle Passes for each season - but you only really need to pay for it once as long as you grind out the 100 levels of battle pass).
But there should be a clear IN GAME POINT > Real £1/$1 conversion rate. Let me just pay for the thing I want - don't give me a spare 300 Coins/stardust/orbs that I'll either not use, or end up getting bored of seeing them there and spend them on something gooseberry fool.

Igor wrote:I There are more options, more modes, so many games have their own 'currencies' for buying miscellaneous gooseberry fool. Vbucks, COD points, FIFA dollars, just use strawberry floating money like we do with everything else, I don't walk into Sainsbury's and first, have to exchange my British pounds for Sainsbury pesos before I can buy anything.

All that stuff: laundering money into pretend funbucks to hide how much you're spending as well as multiple bullshit currencies to both confuse and draw you in, is all deliberately crafted to get you spending, and more than you expect - either overspending because of having to get enough from their BS amounts not matching the cost of things or the little bit left over nagging at you to buy more.

Igor wrote:I still don't really know what a 'season pass' is. I like to play FIFA 20 sometimes but I dare not play anything but whatever the 'quick match' mode is because I have no idea what I'm signing up for with anything else. Just play any modern game, particularly if it's an online multiplayer game, and look at how unnecessarily hectic the in-game menus and lobbies are.

Season passes are MORE layers of gambling; this time purchasing, normally at a collective discount, a load of DLC before it's out. The gamble is whether it is worth the cost. However it doesn't matter if it's good or not as they have your fiscal and mental investment at that point. It's a massive strawberry floating scam/racket expertly crafted to strawberry float you.

LewisD wrote:

Igor wrote:"Season pass for 1300 points! Points only available in amounts of 100, 500, 1000 and 5000 "

This pisses me off no end.

I've occasionally bought in-game things (mostly Call of duty Battle Passes for each season - but you only really need to pay for it once as long as you grind out the 100 levels of battle pass).
But there should be a clear IN GAME POINT > Real £1/$1 conversion rate. Let me just pay for the thing I want - don't give me a spare 300 Coins/stardust/orbs that I'll either not use, or end up getting bored of seeing them there and spend them on something gooseberry fool.

Microsoft were really bad for this last gen when buying Xbox Live points.

Trelliz wrote:Season passes are MORE layers of gambling; this time purchasing, normally at a collective discount, a load of DLC before it's out. The gamble is whether it is worth the cost. However it doesn't matter if it's good or not as they have your fiscal and mental investment at that point. It's a massive strawberry floating scam/racket expertly crafted to strawberry float you.

Unless you wait for the content to be released before deciding whether or not to buy. By which time, it’s probably discounted anyway. The only season passes I’ll buy up-front are Assassin’s Creed, because I know I’ll want the content anyway, and it’s always been good value so far.

rinks wrote:The really bizarre one for me is people spending money in FIFA, which all resets when the next version comes out. It’s a very odd mentality. I sometimes read stories on Eurogamer about the latest thing FIFA players are outraged about, and I think, “Why the hell do you buy into this utter nonsense?”

I spent £750+ on FIFA 18 over a season and i thoroughly regret it. It was a mixture of gambling and football stickers mentality with new "shinies" being released ever other week. You could buy the packs through in game grinding but alas, spending money was much easier.

Igor wrote:Why? Is this where years of consumer psychology research has led us? Maximum value can be extracted if the consumer is never quite sure what's going on?

Exactly this.

People have far fewer barriers up against spending 500 tokens on an item, than they would against spending £2.50 on an item, especially if those tokens don't have a fixed worth, i.e. you can buy them in quantities where the more you buy there's an incremental discount. The further removed what you're spending is from actual tangible currency, the more likely you are to spend it.

It even works when giving prices if you just remove the currency symbol - which is why you'll see a lot of restaurant menus do that. In-game currencies are far more exploitative for their level of abstraction.

It has to be legislated against, because the exploitative practices by their very nature result in a higher return.

In-Game currency is one of the methods they've used to get around gambling laws. I think a lot of gambling law requires the direct conversion of currency (ie Casino chips) or a direct purchase of the lootbox. By putting the fun bucks currency in between it avoids a lot of legislation on a technicality.

Lagamorph wrote:In-Game currency is one of the methods they've used to get around gambling laws. I think a lot of gambling law requires the direct conversion of currency (ie Casino chips) or a direct purchase of the lootbox. By putting the fun bucks currency in between it avoids a lot of legislation on a technicality.

Then, when the new games comes out:

This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time. It also continues to affect how I approach buying games. Ignoring the whole Day 1 patch thing, the change in how developers and publishers go about content delivery means I am now quite happy (well, relatively) to wait until much later in a game's life to buy the invevitible 'Definitive'/'Game of the Ages'/'We Want A Last Hurrah In Sales'/'Re-Remasted+' version with the 87 batches on the front cover instead. All to get the 'full' experience. I support companies by buying Day 1 where possible who don't have a history of this nonsense, but it's getting harder.

The Xbox/PS2/Gamecube generation was the the last time I truly knew what I was getting when I was buying a game at launch. Yes there were the first murmurings of map packs in online games back then, but overall you got knew what you were getting at the date of purchase, and there was no existing content held back for a future release to be then monetised.

The Xbox 360 points system was infurating. Like someone said earlier in the thread, I don't have to exchange my money into supermarket money when I do the weekly shop, so their thinly-veiled attempt to get users to spend more money than they need pissed me off no end. If I want to buy a game for £7 then let me - don't make me buy 10 quids worth of the shite to do so.

I've not had any experience with loot boxes, but I'm just glad it's getting discussed at a political level these days in order to prevent kids getting ripped off and lured into what is, for all intents and purposes, gambling.

JT986M2 wrote:This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time...

Why? We can all agree it's bad but I'm yet to play a game that I've been at a disadvantage or tempted to buy any loot boxes, points or whatever (I don't play FUT).

If all you can about is single player games the loot box stuff isn't going to spoil your enjoyment of 99% of games.

Hime wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time...

Why? We can all agree it's bad but I'm yet to play a game that I've been at a disadvantage or tempted to buy any loot boxes, points or whatever (I don't play FUT).

If all you can about is single player games the loot box stuff isn't going to spoil your enjoyment of 99% of games.

Say you go to Amazon/Apple and buy a film. After the end credits they ask you if you would like to spend £3.99 to watch additional scenes spread out over the course of the next 6 months. The scenes were filmed before the original release, but deliberately held back for future content delivery. Oh, and the additional content adds in information to round out the original story. Then it turns out they release the complete version of the film 12 months later for a cheaper price. You'd be a bit pissed off about having the original 'full' experience unavailable at the time of release again and again, yeah? Of course you have the option to wait 12 months to see the complete version, but they you have to put up with significant spoilers since everyone and their mum have already seen it. Also - with games - you will also (generally) miss out on the most populated times for multiplayer and be quite behind when you do get to play it.

It would be like a having a guaranteed directors cut for 90% of films that get released. Only the director has deliberately left out 20 minutes worth of film at the time of release in order to make additional money over the following months. However, unlike director's cuts (where, in general, scenes couldn't be included in the original thatrical release due to studio pressure) the original director is choosing to leave out key scenes in the pursuit of profit.

Would you mind if it was an occassional one-off? Maybe, maybe not - depends how much you liked the film or director. But if it became a standard thing that changed how the industry operated? I think you would.

A similar example for micro-transactions would be paying extra to watch a film in one sitting without ads. If you are in the cheap seats you can watch 10 minutes of a film, then you would have to watch 5 minutes worth of adverts before watching the next 10 minutes. Alternatively, the film studio allows you to pay extra money to watch the next 10 minutes of the film straight away. That would be be suicide if they tried to introduce that in cinemas. The film indistry just wouldn't get away with it, so I don't understand why the game industry has allowed it.

People can enjoy that type of cotent delivery if they want to do so. My main issue with it is that it has become a standard, accepted thing that has changed how the industry operates.

Loot boxes are more straightforward. It is gambling. The developers and publishers are well aware of that yet they chose to take advantage anyway. They shouldn't have been able to get away with it for so long. Yet they continue to do it because they know people will pay over the odds for it because it's an addictive mechanism. They could allow you (like some games) to support the developer by buying skins etc. for real money where you know exactly what you are getting, but instead they decide to hide it behind funbucks and flashy lights to obscure what you are actually getting. Why would you want to voluntarily support a company that uses such underhand tactics?

JT986M2 wrote:

Hime wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time...

Why? We can all agree it's bad but I'm yet to play a game that I've been at a disadvantage or tempted to buy any loot boxes, points or whatever (I don't play FUT).

If all you can about is single player games the loot box stuff isn't going to spoil your enjoyment of 99% of games.

Say you go to Amazon/Apple and buy a film. After the end credits they ask you if you would like to spend £3.99 to watch additional scenes spread out over the course of the next 6 months. The scenes were filmed before the original release, but deliberately held back for future content delivery. Oh, and the additional content adds in information to round out the original story. Then it turns out they release the complete version of the film 12 months later for a cheaper price. You'd be a bit pissed off about having the original 'full' experience unavailable at the time of release again and again, yeah? Of course you have the option to wait 12 months to see the complete version, but they you have to put up with significant spoilers since everyone and their mum have already seen it. Also - with games - you will also (generally) miss out on the most populated times for multiplayer and be quite behind when you do get to play it.

It would be like a having a guaranteed directors cut for 90% of films that get released. Only the director has deliberately left out 20 minutes worth of film at the time of release in order to make additional money over the following months. However, unlike director's cuts (where, in general, scenes couldn't be included in the original thatrical release due to studio pressure) the original director is choosing to leave out key scenes in the pursuit of profit.

Would you mind if it was an occassional one-off? Maybe, maybe not - depends how much you liked the film or director. But if it became a standard thing that changed how the industry operated? I think you would.

You're lumping all DLC into a "this is bad" category. But it's not. Yes, it can be cynical and misused if they're holding back content but in many cases it's for additional stuff developed after release, for people who want more. If it's priced fairly, I really don't see the issue with that. Some of my favourite gaming experiences this gen have come from DLC-Donkey Kong Adventure in Mario x Rabbids, Octo Expansion in Splatoon 2.

Your film example isn't really the same thing in most cases. Very few games release with an unfinished story mode that require DLC to finish. Maybe there are one or two out there, but it's hardly the norm.

Tomous wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:

Hime wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time...

Why? We can all agree it's bad but I'm yet to play a game that I've been at a disadvantage or tempted to buy any loot boxes, points or whatever (I don't play FUT).

If all you can about is single player games the loot box stuff isn't going to spoil your enjoyment of 99% of games.

Say you go to Amazon/Apple and buy a film. After the end credits they ask you if you would like to spend £3.99 to watch additional scenes spread out over the course of the next 6 months. The scenes were filmed before the original release, but deliberately held back for future content delivery. Oh, and the additional content adds in information to round out the original story. Then it turns out they release the complete version of the film 12 months later for a cheaper price. You'd be a bit pissed off about having the original 'full' experience unavailable at the time of release again and again, yeah? Of course you have the option to wait 12 months to see the complete version, but they you have to put up with significant spoilers since everyone and their mum have already seen it. Also - with games - you will also (generally) miss out on the most populated times for multiplayer and be quite behind when you do get to play it.

It would be like a having a guaranteed directors cut for 90% of films that get released. Only the director has deliberately left out 20 minutes worth of film at the time of release in order to make additional money over the following months. However, unlike director's cuts (where, in general, scenes couldn't be included in the original thatrical release due to studio pressure) the original director is choosing to leave out key scenes in the pursuit of profit.

Would you mind if it was an occassional one-off? Maybe, maybe not - depends how much you liked the film or director. But if it became a standard thing that changed how the industry operated? I think you would.

You're lumping all DLC into a "this is bad" category. But it's not. Yes, it can be cynical and misused if they're holding back content but in many cases it's for additional stuff developed after release, for people who want more. If it's priced fairly, I really don't see the issue with that. Some of my favourite gaming experiences this gen have come from DLC-Donkey Kong Adventure in Mario x Rabbids, Octo Expansion in Splatoon 2.

Your film example isn't really the same thing in most cases. Very few games release with an unfinished story mode that require DLC to finish. Maybe there are one or two out there, but it's hardly the norm.

Oh I agree the example doesn't hold up in all cases - it's just a comparison as to how the same tactics would not be allowed in the film industry, but it's now accepted in the game industry. So the example was more a comparison of the full 'experience' in both indistries rather than a 1:1 direct comparison. In other words, for a full game 'experience' you would expect all content to be present at at the time (i.e. content held back for DLC packs), whereas for a full 'film' experience you would expect all scenes to be present which represent the overall original vision.

I was asked why it put me off gaming for a long time - not why it would put everyone off gaming - and that was my reasoning.

That Peter Jackson banana split filmed all of the LotR story in one go but held 2 huge parts of it back and made me pay three times to watch the whole thing! strawberry floating fuming

JT986M2 wrote:

Tomous wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:

Hime wrote:

JT986M2 wrote:This is absoultely something that put me off gaming for a long time...

Why? We can all agree it's bad but I'm yet to play a game that I've been at a disadvantage or tempted to buy any loot boxes, points or whatever (I don't play FUT).

If all you can about is single player games the loot box stuff isn't going to spoil your enjoyment of 99% of games.

Say you go to Amazon/Apple and buy a film. After the end credits they ask you if you would like to spend £3.99 to watch additional scenes spread out over the course of the next 6 months. The scenes were filmed before the original release, but deliberately held back for future content delivery. Oh, and the additional content adds in information to round out the original story. Then it turns out they release the complete version of the film 12 months later for a cheaper price. You'd be a bit pissed off about having the original 'full' experience unavailable at the time of release again and again, yeah? Of course you have the option to wait 12 months to see the complete version, but they you have to put up with significant spoilers since everyone and their mum have already seen it. Also - with games - you will also (generally) miss out on the most populated times for multiplayer and be quite behind when you do get to play it.

It would be like a having a guaranteed directors cut for 90% of films that get released. Only the director has deliberately left out 20 minutes worth of film at the time of release in order to make additional money over the following months. However, unlike director's cuts (where, in general, scenes couldn't be included in the original thatrical release due to studio pressure) the original director is choosing to leave out key scenes in the pursuit of profit.

Would you mind if it was an occassional one-off? Maybe, maybe not - depends how much you liked the film or director. But if it became a standard thing that changed how the industry operated? I think you would.

You're lumping all DLC into a "this is bad" category. But it's not. Yes, it can be cynical and misused if they're holding back content but in many cases it's for additional stuff developed after release, for people who want more. If it's priced fairly, I really don't see the issue with that. Some of my favourite gaming experiences this gen have come from DLC-Donkey Kong Adventure in Mario x Rabbids, Octo Expansion in Splatoon 2.

Your film example isn't really the same thing in most cases. Very few games release with an unfinished story mode that require DLC to finish. Maybe there are one or two out there, but it's hardly the norm.

Oh I agree the example doesn't hold up in all cases - it's just a comparison as to how the same tactics would not be allowed in the film industry, but it's now accepted in the game industry. So the example was more a comparison of the full 'experience' in both indistries rather than a 1:1 direct comparison. In other words, for a full game 'experience' you would expect all content to be present at at the time (i.e. content held back for DLC packs), whereas for a full 'film' experience you would expect all scenes to be present which represent the overall original vision.

I was asked why it put me off gaming for a long time - not why it would put everyone off gaming - and that was my reasoning.

I don't think this is true though. My point is in the majority of cases you're still getting a full experience even if you don't play the DLC. DLC is mostly an optional extra, in fact, using your example of films, it's more like all the additional stuff you get on DVDs/Blu-Ray releases. The main campaign in Spider-Man, Horizon Zero Dawn, Witcher 3 is still just as good and worthwhile and a full experience without the later released DLC.

The worst of it is pretty much all concentrated in competitive multiplayer games. If those are the kinds of game you like to play you'll be much more affected by lootboxes and their ilk than if you're into singleplayer titles.