GRcade

Knoyleo wrote:

Hime wrote:Can all the Fortnite skins be earned with in-game currency? AFAIK all games with loot boxes have systems so that they can be earned playing the game so you don't need to buy them. I totally get your point but I can't get on board with spending £30 on a skin is fine because you know what you're getting but optional additional loot boxes are ruining the lives of children. Neither of these things have had any impact on the games I play outside of cosmetics so it doesn't really impact me, if however this is about protecting the vulnerable then must forms of entertainment will need to be shaken up. For instance you better not let these children watch a football game.

lol wut?

How is watching football in any way comparable to games introducing children to skinner box/gambling mechanics under the cover of cosmetic items?

Have you ever seen Wayne Rooney's face? Guaranteed nightmares for little kids and vulnerable people.

Hime wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Hime wrote:Can all the Fortnite skins be earned with in-game currency? AFAIK all games with loot boxes have systems so that they can be earned playing the game so you don't need to buy them. I totally get your point but I can't get on board with spending £30 on a skin is fine because you know what you're getting but optional additional loot boxes are ruining the lives of children. Neither of these things have had any impact on the games I play outside of cosmetics so it doesn't really impact me, if however this is about protecting the vulnerable then must forms of entertainment will need to be shaken up. For instance you better not let these children watch a football game.

lol wut?

How is watching football in any way comparable to games introducing children to skinner box/gambling mechanics under the cover of cosmetic items?

Have you seen the adverts played during football games?

I don't really follow Football, so no.

I assume you're on about the ridiculous amount of gambling adverts, though? In which case it seems odd to single out football, as they're on all the time, in other sports, and almost any program.

Personally, that kind of advertising should be banned as well, or at the very least much more heavily regulated than it is.

Was reading this post in Resetera and.... well it's utterly disgusting.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/let%E2 ... cks.84162/

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Was reading this post in Resetera and.... well it's utterly disgusting.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/let%E2 ... cks.84162/

This section is why I've never touched a game with MTs

King.com's Candy Crush Saga is designed masterfully in this regard. Early game play maps can be completed by almost anyone without spending money, and they slowly increase in difficulty. This presents a challenge to the skills of the player, making them feel good when they advance due to their abilities. Once the consumer has been marked as a spender (more on this later) the game difficulty ramps up massively, shifting the game from a skill game to a money game as progression becomes more dependent on the use of premium boosts than on player skills.

If the shift from skill game to money game is done in a subtle enough manner, the brain of the consumer has a hard time realizing that the rules of the game have changed. If done artfully, the consumer will increasingly spend under the assumption that they are still playing a skill game and “just need a bit of help”. This ends up also being a form of discriminatory pricing as the costs just keep going up until the consumer realizes they are playing a money game.

I wouldn't be able to have fun when in the back of my mind I'm wondering if the software is hustling me or not.


I want to pay whatever it is that it going to cost upfront and know if I'm being prevented/allowed to win by a RNG in the background.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:Was reading this post in Resetera and.... well it's utterly disgusting.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/let%E2 ... cks.84162/

Yeah I read that Gamasutra article when it first came out, and I'd encourage everyone to do so. It is really eye-opening to the tricks they use to get you to repeatedly purchase items.

It's interesting but unsurprising, and almost certainly unethical.

But guys, it's absolutely fine if it's inobtrusive and in a game you like remember.

The techniques laid out in that article are basically all deliberately and necessarily obtrusive, yes of course unobtrusive microtransactions are much better

OrangeRKN wrote:The techniques laid out in that article are basically all deliberately and necessarily obtrusive, yes of course unobtrusive microtransactions are much better

I thought the point of a lot of the ones mentioned is that they aren't obtrusive. They are very deliberately designed to be as sly and subtle as possible so that you don't notice it.

By obtrusive I mean impacting gameplay as well as having visible and promoted purchases

Unobtrusive would be where the microtransactions and confined to an optional menu somewhere that can be ignored completely when playing the game

Like I said with the Assassin's Creed Odyssey stories, how do you know how unobtrusive they are, just because they are tucked in a menu? You don't know how the game's systems or rate of progress/reward were altered. You're just presuming they are unobtrusive because they aren't being pushed in your face.

For example, Overwatch'sare pretty unobtrusive right? Except, they are a massive lottery, and the more expensive skins are way better than the cheaper, more common ones.

And your rate of acquiring loot boxes is just slow enough that you get the carrot dangled under your eyes through levelling up for free. Yet you are always at a risk of duplicates, and these duplicates barely give you any in-game currency, and they have limited edition skins that you want to collect while that event is still on. And you're participating in a lottery where you don't really know the odda or mechanics behind it - just how often do those good skins drop? Andthe DLC was free so you can buy a few right?

I was also making a point about how gamers will happily call out microtransactions in other titles, but when they are in a game they like and enjoy, you often see them trotting oút excuses for them.

Do most of them honestly need to exist in any game? Or are they there just so publishers can extend the profits on a £50 game long after launch? I can't really think of any that actually exist on their own merit.

Yeah that's all true, I think my point was that if you're already committed to not buying any microtransactions, their existence isn't impactful if they are hidden away in a menu you never access, if the game never reminds you they exist or prompts you towards them, and if the game mechanics haven't been adversely affected to accommodate for them. It's definitely a lot of ifs.

Overwatch's lootboxes are only cosmetic, so the mechanics of the game aren't adversely affected, which is a good thing. The game however does constantly remind you that they exist so it's pretty obtrusive in that respect.

Deliberate deception and trickery is absolutely fine so long as it's optional.

Obviously not

That's the thing, Overwatch could present the skins in an in-game store. In theory, I don't object to them being monetised - after all they have an artist who probably comes up with concepts and designs, someone who renders them in-game, probably a tester to make sure they don't come with any weird bugs. They have a cost in terms of human effort and time (unlike bloody AC's XP boost making the game progress faster which is just a bloody flick of a switch).

But they aren't presented like that. It doesn't matter how inobtrusive they are, they are designed to extract an uncertain amount of money from players. They are designed to get people to buy loot boxes in order to have the chance of getting the skin they want. That's still pretty odious. And of course, if you want a skin, spend a tenner and don't get it. Then that money has gone to waste, if you don't keep rolling the dice until you do get it. I don't care if you (slowly) accrue in-game currency - stick a price tag on your skins and be upfront and clear about it. Let players who want them pay a fiver for them. Get your money for free DLC that way, not by kindly letting them pay to roll a massively loaded dice.

I think I agree completely! I don't like loot boxes at all. I did like Titanfall 2's approach to microtransactions, as that was a straight up store menu for cosmetic items with all the prices in real money.

Parksey wrote:But guys, it's absolutely fine if it's inobtrusive and in a game you like remember.

I blame the developers who get pissy about working 100 hour weeks. If they worked 200 hour weeks then the publisher could save enough money that they wouldn’t need to charge so much in microtransactions. /sarcasm

As someone who NEVER pays for microtransactions, I stopped playing candy crush (and soda saga) for two reasons -

1. In over two years of playing every day I never ONCE got the jackpot on the daily wheel-spin (not once!), and the wheel massively cheats to avoid it

2. Because of the new league systems, where as soon as you start playing for the day you are forced to either dedicate hours towards improving your score or else face relegation to the minor leagues. I used to be able to dip in and out, but no longer! If they must have leagues, why not make them optional?

These tactics need to stop and I will no longer play anything that uses them.