GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox, And Major Publishers To Require Loot Boxes Disclosures

Always tell me the odds!

187 Comments

At a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) public panel on microtransactions in video games, the Entertainment Software Association announced that all three console platform-holders have agreed to a voluntary change in their policies toward loot boxes. Though the ESA's Michael Warnecke defended the practice in broad terms, he said, going forward, any new games or game updates that add loot boxes on Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony platforms will be required to disclose the rarity rates of items.

"Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have indicated to the ESA a commitment to new platform policies with respect to the use of paid loot boxes in games that are developed for their platform," Warnecke said. "Specifically, this would apply to new games and game updates that add loot box features, and it would require the disclosure of the relative rarity or probabilities of obtaining randomized virtual items in games available on their platforms."

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Loot Box Changes Will Happen - GS News Update

Warnecke noted that many leading publishers that are members of the ESA have committed to a similar approach at the publisher level, and that this voluntary disclosure puts all platforms on par with the mobile disclosure requirements. In a statement, the ESA noted that publishers who have agreed to the disclosures include Activision Blizzard, Bandai Namco, Bethesda, Bungie, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft, Warner Bros., and Wizards of the Coast. The disclosures are said to be coming by the end of 2020, and other ESA member companies are considering joining the policy.

"This approach would also be compatible with the Apple and Google approach on the mobile platform. We believe that, taken together, this provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that consumers get the information they need so they can make informed purchasing decisions when it comes to paid loot boxes."

GameSpot has contacted Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, along with relevant ESA member companies, for comment on the new initiative and their participation. Their responses can be seen in the list below, which will be updated further as publishers respond.

The FTC's public workshop on loot boxes has concluded. This workshop is the FTC's first official response to increasing calls to regulate the use of loot boxes, including a bill that would ban the practice. Rocket League developer Psyonix has already announced plans to do away with loot boxes this year.

  • Capcom: "Capcom will continue to comply with industry standard practices such as disclosures for 'In-Game Purchases' labels on packaging. Furthermore, to clarify, Capcom does not currently have console games that support purchasable loot boxes offering in-game virtual items, but will continue to monitor standards for potential policies in the future."
  • Electronic Arts: "We applaud the new initiatives from console makers and publishers to provide more information to players. Beginning last year, we introduced probability disclosures where applicable in all our new games, across all platforms, and will continue to provide this information to help our players as we move forward."
  • Epic Games: "Earlier this year, the Fortnite Save the World team made a change that showed players every item that they would get in a paid llama before opening it. Earlier this week, the team at Psyonix announced a similar change coming later this year to paid crates in Rocket League. Going forward, we’re committed to the same transparency for player purchases in all Epic Games titles."
  • Konami: "Konami Digital Entertainment supports the position to provide full transparency regarding in-game purchases, and will continue to comply with industry efforts on this issue. We have been consistent in disclosing the rarity of loot box items because we want to make sure our customers clearly understand this in-game mechanism. We will continue working to provide this level of insight across all our console-based IP. Our goal is to ensure that consumers are equipped to make informed choices when it comes to Konami Digital Entertainment games."
  • Microsoft: "We believe in transparency with customers and providing them information for making their purchase decisions. This is a new policy that affects all new apps or games by 2020 offering 'loot boxes' or other mechanisms on Microsoft platforms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose to customers, prior to purchase, the odds of receiving each item. In addition, we’re proud to offer robust family settings that offer further control over in-game purchasing."
  • Nintendo: "At Nintendo, ensuring that our customers can make informed choices when they play our games is very important. As part of our ongoing efforts in this area, Nintendo will require disclosure of drop rates in Nintendo Switch games that offer randomized virtual items for purchase, such as loot boxes. This requirement will apply to all new games and includes updates to current games that add loot boxes through in-game purchases.

    "We also offer tools like our Nintendo Switch Parental Controls mobile app, which empowers parents to choose what works for their family, including managing in-game purchases and setting playtime limits."

  • Sony: "Sony Interactive Entertainment aims to ensure PlayStation users have access to information and tools, such as parental wallet controls, that will help them make informed decisions about in-game purchasing. We support industry efforts to disclose the probability of obtaining randomized virtual items, known as loot boxes, and are committed to providing consumers with this information for all games we produce and publish."
  • THQ: "THQ Nordic GmbH and THQ Nordic Inc. have not made a commitment on loot box odds disclosure, because a.) we have not been asked by [the ESA government affairs office] for a statement ahead of their publication, b.) we currently do not have a single game with lootbox mechanics published, and c.) we do not plan to implement casino-styled mechanics in our games."
  • Wizards of the Coast: "Wizards of the Coast has championed the disclosure of odds when purchasing virtual items and will continue to ensure players and parents of players make informed choices about their purchases.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 187 comments about this story
187 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for investor9872
Investor9872

94

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Investor9872

This doesn't do jack! Games like Looney Toons: World of Mayhem discloses the chances of loot-boxes, but none of those numbers add up. All of these developers will tell you to spend $60 for a 1% chance or even 10% chance to get to get a particular piece. But when you don't get it after 10, 20, 50 or 100 tries, they will tell you RNG (random generated numbers) is a bi456!

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64c06b51403e7
deactivated-64c06b51403e7

1190

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@investor9872: Statistically speaking, you could have a 99.999% chance of an outcome and not get that in as many trials as you like (even more than 100000).

I'm not defending loot boxes, just defending math.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@investor9872: That's a great point. Slot machines have to be inspected by law and certified that they pay out at the rates they claim to, or at least the code is inspected.

Nothing and no one is inspecting the rates disclosed by these companies, and they claim trade secrets/copyright privilege should anyone ask to look at their code.

2 • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@investor9872: Would it be better if they launched the games with what they launch with and then there are no new skins, poses, MUT cards, maps, banners, voices, etc. It's free stuff that they do to keep up interest in the game for years after launch. You can pay if you 1) greatly desire something specific from this additional content and 2) don't have the patience to play the game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@astrokidwell: Or they could release a content rich game. Just an idea.

3 • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@tony56723: They do, games these days are amazing. If you told me in 1988 when I got my first console that they'd be as amazing as they are now I'd have never believed it. Games today make you feel, they challenge you, they make you think, you can make friends, the graphics are incredible, the worlds are enormous, and match based games are different every time you play. Did you play Goldeneye, I did. It was like launch day 'pick your shooter', and then you played it and loved it. No new stuff ever, just the launch people, maps, guns etc. All the stuff we get these days is bonus, entitled children who don't know better just can't see it. Overwatch, HOTS and many other were content rich at launch. If they never added a pose, never added a map it would have been an amazing complete experience at launch. Then they add cool stuff for free, some people want all of it or to get it more quickly, they pay. Some people think oh need pointless but amusing additional stuff, thanks for keeping the game fresh Blizzard.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@astrokidwell: I’d argue that they’re getting worse. Games like The Witcher 3 and God of War are becoming scarcer and scarcer as the AAA industry has started focusing more and more on low quality cash cows like Black Ops 4, Battlefield 5, Anthem, and Fallout 76. All publishers want nowadays is an endless money makerC quality doesn’t matter.

What would you label as a “bonus?” And while Overwatch had fun gameplay, the rewards system was marred by the loot boxes and randomness of it all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Astrokidwell

@tony56723: Are you serious, games like Witcher 3 and God of War are getting scarcer. My generation didn't have games like Witcher 3 or God of War. They are some of the first few of their kind. I feel like you're pointing to a segment of the market (military FPS) that really has nothing new to say. That isn't because the developers are greedy its because military FPS has been done to death, done into the ground and then some. Those games started falling off when that genre moved away from WWII back in the late 90's early 2000's. I actually think Anthem has legs, I remember when Destiny launched marred by issues and people felt like there wasn't enough to do. MMO's take time, to build a community, to learn which daily quests are fun and which aren't, that kinda thing. MMO's are tricky, for Fallout 76 I didn't buy primarily because I didn't think Fallout with no way to do multiplayer VATS and otherwise middling FPS mechanics would transition well. It was a bold idea but not perfect.

I'd say Overwatch was a multiplayer match based fps like counterstrike. Everything that comes out of the loot boxes is bonus in that game. I've played it for awhile and its a great game even if it was literally just playing match after match.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@astrokidwell: Your generation? I started gaming in the 90’s (you’ve stated you started gaming 88), where the hell have you been if you think games like the Witcher are new? Like what? So does the Elder Scrolls series not exist? What about the original Fallout series? Hell what about God of War 1-3 or any of the spin offs? You cannot be serious right now.

It’s not greedy? Black Ops 4 made 500 million dollars on in its first three days and was deemed a failure by Activision who then proceeded to pump it full of microtransactions to prey on people. It’s greed plain and simple.

Anthem is dead. It came out 5-6 years after it competitors and learned absolutely nothing during that time. They even managed to launch with less content than Destiny 1 did which is pathetic, but still had it filled up with microtransactions and a Fortnite style store. Anthem (and Destiny) are not MMO either, not even close.

Fallout 76 is not an MMO and there is nothing bold about it. It’s a lazy asset that Bethesda hyped up with lies.

Everything in the loot boxes are extra? What? They’re part of the $60 game you paid for!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@tony56723: OK well I'll concede the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout series are both great. That said you've targeted two of the best game franchises of all time, both of which came out in their current form in the 2000s. God of War 1-3 weren't God of War (2018), not by a long shot. You're talking about the exceptions of the 2000s are the measuring stick for an 8/10 in 2019. Additionally both the Witcher 3 and God of War stepped beyond where Fallout or TES have ever been. Admittedly they stood on the shoulders of giants but they are better for it.

Black ops 2 made 500 million in 24 hours, and 1 billion in half a month. Context and expectations matter. As does invested capital and expect return on investment. Anyway that genre has been stagnant garbage for decades, luckily some people just love to pull the trigger even if the game isn't anything special.

Time will tell on Anthem, I'm hopeful as I think the premise, the open nature, the flight, and several other features have promise. I feel like maybe you're just kinda an angry person, which is cool and all but I don't start my games already mad. Seems like a waste to me.

As I said Fallout 76 never looked like it would make sense to me. I felt like TES online didn't make the jump either. Some games aren't suited for online.

No they aren't part of the $60 game you paid for. They never will be. This isn't a debate its the reality of the market. If they were part of the game you'd have them, they aren't so you don't. If loot boxes disappear you don't suddenly start getting games with additional content that used to be in loot boxes. That stuff just never gets created at all. This is fundamental truth. I've said it to what feels like a universe already but again and I'm sure not for the last time, something existing doesn't mean you are entitled to it. They are making additional content for additional money and to keep community engagement up. If they get rid of loot boxes they don't make the content universally free and all available, they stop producing that content as its superfluous to the game as a whole.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@astrokidwell: Exceptions? Did you not play games during the early 2000’s? A good chunk of the most beloved games come from that time period! And no the Witcher and God of War are not the first of their kind, end of story. RPGs have been around for over a decade now and they built upon that foundation in very successful way. You also mentioned that your “generation” didn’t have games like this, but once again I ask what have you been doing for the past decade? Not playing RPGs? I really don’t understand.

There is an upper limit to how much an investor can make and they’re going to eventually find out what happens when you compromise your products integrity for rampant greed. Good will only lasts for so long.

Angry person? They put out a broken, grindy, no content game full of microtransactions years after games like Destiny and The Division did the same thing and you’re seriously going to chastise me for not being ok with that? God forbid someone is sick of seeing pseudo-mmo’s drop over and over again with the same resounding thud.

Good, we agree on something.

You want to know what those loot box rewards used to be called 10 years ago? Unlockables. And good, id rather have a game come out and be full of content that doesn’t try to get me to perpetually pay money to the dev for things that used to be just part of the game without additional spending. No new content after launch? Oh well. And you said it yourself, it’s superfluous.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Astrokidwell

@tony56723: Do you recall how many "unlockable" poses street fighter II came with, how about how many "unlockable" constumes Goldeneye came with, or all those "unlockable" announcers from Halo? 0 So you're just asking for less content. You're again missing the point. See because you seem to again miss the point, no one used to throw this stuff in for free. It did not exist. Prior to these things there weren't hundreds of different looks for the characters. There weren't poses let alone unlockable new poses. Maybe some games had one alternate look, usually just different colors with identical rigging. This is the part I don't understand, you don't want the additional content and are somehow simultaneously enraged by not having the additional content fully available all at once when you buy the game. Why be mad at loot boxes if you don't care about the stuff inside?

You claim that games like Witcher have been around for 10 years. I'll see maybe Skyrim was closest but with weaker graphics, irrelevant NPC character development/interaction, weaker side story, clunky combat etc. So probably the single greatest game of all time up to its release and easily one of the top 10 games all time was miles behind Witcher just a few years later. Yes games of the genre existed but not games like what we have now. I've been playing for years, and a ton of that is RPG's. Recognizing significant improvement generation on generation of games is a result of that. I can appreciate how great the games we have now are because of that perspective. I can also appreciate the little free bits we get in loot boxes without blowing my top because I have the gaming experience to know that these are additional items we never used to get. Its all perspective. Think of it like this, for years you get paid $1000/wk (for easy round numbers), now I tell you that you'll get $800/wk with $200/wk based on performance, suddenly you're all upset about 20% of your pay being at risk, trapped behind a performance wall. Instead assume you were getting paid $800/wk for years and then I told you that additionally I'd start adding a $200/wk bonus. In both scenarios you make the $800/wk plus a $200/wk "bonus/in jeopardy". You mistakenly think that the former scenario is the state of the modern videogame industry when in fact its the latter.

No they won't find out about the limits of their greed due to this because while the gaming community forums are ruled by the squeaky wheels the decisions are ruled by gamers who love games. Most of us recognize the strides forward and appreciate how far video games have come.

You're angry because you're angry. The gaming industry hasn't been unfair to you, you just deserve too much. Look on the bright side, you live in the age of entitlement, so there's plenty of company. Roll this around for me though, if you're being cheated so badly, why not just stop buying. Hop off this message board, cancel your xbox live (or whatever) subscription, and stop throwing away money on things where you're being cheated.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Tony56723

@tony56723: and do want to know why they’re becoming scarcer? It’s because they’re not live services. It’s one of the reasons why GoW made such huge headlines (among other reasons) as it completely spit in the face of the likes of EA who have gone on record multiple times that single player games are dead. It’s also why the likes of Activision and EA are putting out fewer and fewer games every year and just focusing on their yearly franchises that they monetize worse than some free to play mobile games do.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@tony56723: Madden 20, nuff said.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@tony56723: I've been playing Madden 20 since prelaunch, no attempt to sell me anything whatsoever. You've got no idea what you're talking about. I've built great MUT teams multiple years without spending a cent and I play a franchise very deep every year. EA is a competitive gaming company. Most of their IP is in competitive multiplayer games, why wouldn't they espouse the superiority of those types of games. Why wouldn't a single player game focused company focus on single player games and say how those are the future. The two have nothing to do with each other, they service entirely different aspects of the market. That would be like saying Bioware spit in the face of Zynga by not making Dragon Age a free to play iPhone game. There will always be spots in the market for a type of game that people want. You just need to breathe, and just play games you enjoy rather than complaining about ones other people are enjoying.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

@investor9872: That is of great concern.

2 • 
Avatar image for Maxpowers_32
Maxpowers_32

995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Really hope they ban loot boxes! I've been playing overwatch off and on for years and haven't opened a single one. Anything that gives you game improvement items is clearly a disaster. My feeling is when you buy a game you buy the game. Period. Why should you have to spend more money on items?

5 • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Maxpowers_32: This is how the game works. This generation of gamers is just overly entitled. You bought Overwatch. You got Overwatch. Then over the years Blizzard added new maps, new characters, new game modes, new skins, new poses etc etc etc. They do that to keep the player base feeling engaged in a feeling of forward movement. I'm not claiming that Blizzard doesn't make money on that of course they do but they are adding content and making money doing it. You are 100% in your rights to buy the base game, play it, and never purchase anything again. The difference is you have choice. I bought Castlevania when I was about 8. I played it, and eventually beat it. A year later I played Castlevania again, with 0 changes, no updates, no support, no DLC, no patches, no anything. Just the game I bought. This generation of gamers sees every new addition to a game as their right to immediately have for free. I play lots of games with loot boxes, pay to unlock, etc. and honestly as an old man gamer, unlocking cool stuff for just playing, even if it takes awhile is cool. I see unlocking the items without paying money as a part of the challenge, part of the game. For the people mad that they pay real money for online gambling in loot boxes or even the people who buy absolute power ups with real money, first the new thing is empty because you had to buy it, second its ok your money is gone. A fool and their money are lucky enough to bump into each other in the first place, they aren't likely to stick together long.

2 • 
Avatar image for Maxpowers_32
Maxpowers_32

995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@astrokidwell: Of course I'm fine with companies releasing new characters for certain games or DLC if they've made a complete base game and use it the same way as the old expansion packs I used to buy. That said sometimes I like going back to games I've played before and having them remain exactly the same like you did with Castlevania.

I don't really understand the whole "unlocking" culture or why it would be fun to not have everything available when you first buy the game. It is like buying Overwatch and only having 1 character until you do certain things in the game unless you pay real money for more characters? Or buying the Witcher 3 and not having access to potions unless you kill a certain number of monsters? Seems like a huge annoyance to me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Maxpowers_32: Unlocking is just part of video game progression. I feel like you're painting it as something new. I couldn't access a certain castle in the original Zelda without unlocking the boat by playing. Now 2019 Zelda could sell me a boat for $1 real currency and it would be the issue we're talking about here. Some people don't want to find the boat, they want to be able to go to the castle right away. In castlevania 3: dracula's curse you unlocked other playable characters like Alucard. Playing and finding new items, characters, etc is at the heart of video games. The problem is the generation. No one wants to put in the time or effort, they just want the best thing right now for free. Its a society wide problem, not just videogames, that's for certain.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bigdegs
BigDegs

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@astrokidwell: I'm 100% okay with microtransactions and lootboxes for cosmetic items, as well as paid DLC for additional, meaningful content. But I'm 100% against pay-to-win, pay-for-progression, and any other balance altering paid purchase in multiplayer games, because it impacts the fair nature of the competition. If you have to pay to remain on an equal footing, it's a pretty crappy choice to make.

2 • 
Avatar image for totallytc
totallytc

193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By totallytc

@bigdegs: exactly. These games dont code themselves, so what we have now is a bunch of companies making games that purposely put in grinds, and unfair components all in order to try to make you purchase something extra in order to fix the component they purposely broke in the first place.

Would you buy a lamp that is purposely engineered wrong so that it only turns on half the time? Would you be happy that after you bought the lamp the company that purposely screwed up your lamp starts offering "lamp fixes" for an additional charge? This is exactly what games makers are doing, they are shipping half ass products on purpose so they can later sell you "improvements" to their half complete- half ass products.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@totallytc: It sounds like you shouldn't buy video games. I have a bunch of stuff I don't like, I don't buy that stuff. That's what you should do. I don't think there is anything wrong with most of the games they release and I've convinced that the bugs in the games are there accidentally, and I can't think of ever seeing someone charge for a patch. That said I'm willing to accept the need to patch a broken game since sometimes release timelines means bugs get missed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for totallytc
totallytc

193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@astrokidwell: sounds like you need to better understand how some of these new games are created. Grind is introduced so they can sell you an 'anti grind" feature. Not all games do this of course, for if they did, then like you said I wouldnt be playing them. The fact simply is, more and more games are designed from the ground up with the idea of DLC and Loot Boxes and build the need for them into core mechanics.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@totallytc: I don't know I play a ton of games. Madden, HOTS, Overwatch, Souls series, Bloodborne, Witcher, Dragon Age series, Zelda series, Super Mario series, Red Deads, Marvel Ultimate alliances, Counter Strike, Starcrafts, Diablos, Warcrafts, Mass Effects, Bioshocks, Civs, and on and on and on. The last time I missed a system it was Turbo Graphics 16. This and working out are my hobbies. The only games I've ever played with "grind" are MMORPGs. I feel like a lot of people call having to play the game to get better stuff in the game the "grind". Like I bought a game and now I have to actually play it, yuck! Dude you bought a game, if playing it to get better stuff is work, have you ever considered that you don't actually like that game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@bigdegs: Agreed, I don't do any of the pay-to-win games. When I realize a games competitive balance is off due to purchases I no longer play that game. I've not seen that in a up front purchase game in a long time though. These days pay-to-win seems attached to only free games. The market reacted heavily negative to pay-to-win mechanics in purchased games and developers stopped.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@Maxpowers_32: Er...you know the boxes you earn in Overwatch don't have to be bought, right? And that they're purely aesthetic? Once you earn one, you just...well, open them. They contain free stuff. Randomly generated, sure, but they also award currency which you can use to buy whatever you want. And with years of boxes to open, it sounds like you will be able to buy a lot.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Maxpowers_32
Maxpowers_32

995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Barighm: The thing is I don't really care about aesthetics and just play the game for a few minutes when I want to unwind after a tough day or on the weekends.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Barighm: The loot boxes in Overwatch completely ruin any fun that could have been had in regards to unlocking skins and such. And funnily enough even with years of loot boxes waiting in the wings this person may still not get much other than sprays and voice lines.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@tony56723: Er...no, that's not really true. Blizzard actually increased the drop rates of things you don't have unlocked versus copies not too long ago, and I average about 2 to 3 "legendary" unlocks every event (they don't add that many, like 6 or so), plus the one guaranteed unlock. I always have currency to buy the skins I really like during the events. And I only play once a week.

I'm not saying any of this is okay, but it's really not that bad. Overwatch is pretty good relatively speaking and none of it is necessary.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for tony56723
Tony56723

1334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Barighm: And yet I’ve spent tons of money (in the past that is as I realized I had a real damn problem (it’s how I figured out I have a gambling issue)) and still have barely anything I actually wanted. Barely any coins, and there’s still tons of skins and stuff I actually wanted that I didn’t receive because I kept getting a mountain of sprays and voice lines I didn’t want. That’s the beauty of RNG.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sweet_jcs
sweet_jcs

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I remember when they just made complete games and we didn't have cosmetic bullshit to waste money on. JUST MAKE SOME BETTER F'ING GAMES!!! More people will buy them, stop being so greedy.

7 • 
Avatar image for gamer112696
gamer112696

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sweet_jcs: Story driven games for the most part haven’t been affected this way. So if you wanna feel like you’re back in the good ol’ days, that’s the way to go. For years that was the main way to play video games anyway

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sweet_jcs
sweet_jcs

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@gamer112696: CD Projekt Red makes great games, with DLC that adds actual content and cosmetics, but isn't a loot crate. At least get rid of the randomness of what you are buying. If you want to price the ultra rare cosmetic $99 go for it and see who actually wastes their money on it, but when you have a surprise grab bag it's such a money grab it's sickening, and parents can't watch their kids 24/7.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gamer112696
gamer112696

581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sweet_jcs: Most platforms have some form of parental controls that can help prevent kids from buying and playing stuff they are not authorized to. But I agree it would be best if loot boxes were gone.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for santinegrete
santinegrete

7108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 46

User Lists: 0

@sweet_jcs: some games use microtransactions to finance more free content creation. Like Killing Floor 2. Of course, they had it's share of backlash when:

-Current MT we're applied in KF2.

-Content was charged as DLC in the prequel? New weapons? pay. BACKLASH!!! OK free weapons, but characters are DLC now (wich are only avatars of players and don't affect gameplay in any way, shape or form).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@sweet_jcs: They're still making tons of complete games, Overwatch is a complete game. Its fun, engaging, and competitive. It isn't an incomplete game because you can't make a sprite wear a specific outfit. Those bonus frills that have 0 to do with the game, you can act like they are "missing" from the release if you want. I've been playing games since the 80's, the truth is back when they were making "complete games" you'd have bought Overwatch exactly as it was at release and those would be the outfits, poses, game modes, maps, and gun skins forever. That would be the complete game, you play as those characters looking like that on those maps and you'd have a great time, without all the entitled whining.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sweet_jcs
sweet_jcs

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@astrokidwell: I would argue that Overwatch is not a complete game since it's multiplayer only. I played it and ended up trading it in. I mean even counterstrike was a mod of a single player game. Blizzard could have made a story mode for overwatch, but they're lazy and money hungry as well and have shareholders, so instead they have MERCHANDISING! Tell the backstory of the characters with comics, sell action figures, etc.

My main issue is that whether it's loot boxes, or "live service" games, or releasing a game with day one DLC, or a day one patch with bugs bugs bugs b/c the devs rushed the game out the door....the one main factor is that the games don't have soul and everything is done to appease shareholders rather than the consumer. A few companies get it, the vast majority do not. Just look at Bioware the past few years.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@sweet_jcs: So one at a time, being a multiplayer only game doesn't make a game incomplete. It's multiplayer only and its great for it. I find I enjoy games less that try to straddle the line and instead of a great single player or a great multiplayer experience they end up with middling experiences in both. Counterstrike was a mod but it invented a genre. It wasn't a full build game but honestly Counterstrike, with no story, no campaign or anything like that was one of the best games of all time. The fact that it still has an active community two decades after launch is a testament to that.

Second loot boxes have nothing to do with rushed development, releasing with bugs, or day one DLC. Loot boxes are cosmetic opportunities for the devs to offer something to keep engagement high. For people who don't pay it gives them additional reason to keep coming back and have a full community. For people who pay its an opportunity to offset the continued costs of servers, updates etc. The rushed development, releasing with bugs, etc tends to be more a combination of the fickle nature of the video game industry and the desire to meet the expectations of the market. Delays to continue polishing a game upset fans and hurt sales. If as fans we looked at a delay and said, 'hmm, they need more time to perfect that game. no problem' we'd see more delays and more games launching in a better state. We don't though so devs are often unwilling to delay games. It also has a LOT to do with the complicated and often imperfect relationship between devs and publishers.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tidus1012
Tidus1012

877

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 290

User Lists: 0

@sweet_jcs: True, not only complete games, also the games had less bugs and glitches, it's ridiculous how in this time many games (and I mean almost all) have 'bug fixes' updates.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for astrokidwell
Astrokidwell

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Tidus1012: You can't really be comparing super Mario brothers bug level with the witcher 3's bug level. You'd never get another game launch if you demanded developers deliver on current scale games with the same bug level as a game one millionth the size.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@sweet_jcs: There are still games like that out there, you just have to look for them. Part of the reason why the Souls games were so popular.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sweet_jcs
sweet_jcs

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Barighm: Yeah I see them (Horizon Zero Dawn, Dead Cells, Into The Breach) I paid like $14 for Dead Cells, do you know how much value I feel like I've gotten from that game?? It's immeasurable. Even Skyrim with all it's bugs, was a great investment. If they would have had loot boxes, I would never have put 100+hrs into it. That tells me the developer doesn't care about the consumer and instead wants to nickel and dime them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for barcaazul
BarcaAzul

3084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think this is positive overall as clearly certain publishers wouldn't have self regulated otherwise.

The fact games were being banned in some countries also helped

Upvote •