Questions about Randomized Loot Boxes

Hey everyone I have two questions about loot boxes:

1. What was the first game to have randomized loot boxes? (I have been looking but can't find that information. Overwatch doesn't seemed to be linked to any random loot box concept pages.

2. What games do you like loot boxes in and which do you hate them in? I'm assuming that most people hate them when they are not filled with pure-cosmetic items, but I still am curious.

I like loot boxes in Injustice 2 and Overwatch. I hate them in SMITE, and Gears 4.

Well I think they were a thing in TF2 a long time ago. I don't know about first. They can be annoying in Overwatch when you don't get what you want for a long time, but I like them overall in that game. In ME3 or ME: A multuplayer, they're the only way to unlock items, and that is SUPER frustrating when I keep getting weapons I don't care about and I'd totally be willing to pay in-game credits to unlock specific weapons.

1. First game I bought a loot box for was Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. I think I only bought one though. The first game I was more serious about buying loot boxes from was Hearthstone. (Ok, technically they were card packs, but same thing)
2. I am fool for buying Overwatch loot boxes, but I love Overwatch and I love those skins. Overall I'd say that's a positive experience. For a negative experience, I would point to Hearthstone. In Overwatch, if I don't actually get all of those anniversary dances, who cares? They're cool, but it's not the end of the world. For Hearthstone, you need those cards. If you are really good at the game, you can get a lot of arena rewards and in theory you don't have to spend a cent on the game. (Even if it is a grind, you can grind for more card packs and arena entrance fees) For me, there were evenings where I would get frustrated with losing, think "I need more cards", and spend $20 opening new card packs which may or may not give me something I would be interested in. That is not a pretty sight.

I dont mind the loot boxes in Injustice and Halo

Overwatch's loot box system is atrocious though and probably the system I hate the most.

@bladeofcreation: hmm is that where the hats and stuff came from? Maybe that was the first.

1. The first game I played that had random loot drops was Diablo I think? I can't confirm, but it's the first I remember.

2. Loot drops can piss me off quicker than anything. I run an ARK server and we have the loot drops on, and if I see one and get it, i almost always get shit, but if I'm in the middle of fighting and I see one and check it while running, it's almost always sweet, then I get eaten by a dinosaur so it's lost.

Anyways, that's my input.

@huntad: Some hats came from owning other games on Steam. You had to pay real money for keys to open the loot boxes. I never did, and you could always sell the boxes on the Steam marketplace. It's the earliest one that I can think of, but that was only 2011 or so, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are earlier examples.

In ME:A Multiplayer which I have played for like 80+ hours now, they are annoying because you duplicate characters and weapons. It does improve a character or weapon in either case but then it just drags the unlocking process out and makes it much more unsatisfying. After 80 hours I am still missing quite a few weapons and classes. For some time early on too I just didn't get many weapons and had a small amount of options that made me not enjoy the game as much.

The whole experience got a lot better when the game was adjusted in recent patches (because Gold and Silver are not as hard to get through) but still those parts are just lame to me. Instead I would prefer more progression systems. If instead I could level up characters to 30 instead of 20 or level up weapons as I used them, that would be an improvement. I don't mind loot boxes personally but keep them in check.

I don't think anyone could totally hate them, because it's all how it is implemented and precieved. The idea itself is an extension of the basic "loot chest" aspect you would find in Diablo for example. That game had it's own "randomized loot boxes" of it's own in a way. Of course this is very different in these games we are talking, but in the end it's still randomized rewards. I get if people don't like a lot of them but I think there is something to the idea that's common in many games, just not quite as overt of monetized. For me, if ME: A didn't have the duplicate weapons or characters drawback I would have zero issues with the whole thing. I think it's worth reminding yourself, on this topic, that many games arbitrarily in some form limit what you get access to as a player. XP requirements, level requirements, chests with randomized loot all can go the way some people are complaining about loot boxes.

Also a random bit I found interesting: In China they have ruled these rightfully as gambling and now make developers show buyers the odds for any given loot box. It's now going on in Overwatch there. This should be universal.

If I had to guess, I bet it was technically some collectable card game. Loot boxes are basically just card packs.

As for actual crates or boxes, @bladeofcreation's TF2 guess seems right. They were introduced in September 2010.

Looking at the Wikipedia page for Gashapon, it looks like a game called PangYa (2004) was one of the first games where you could pay real money for random loot. Of course, site favourite Shenmue (1999) had those capsule machines as well.

I wanna say probably some mmo had loot boxes before TF2. Steam obviously made it way easier for online transactions before the free to play mobile scene got its hands on it.

@cameron: Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it was some obscure late-90s collectible card game that was trying to cash in on the Magic craze. My impression from the OP's post was that they meant loot boxes as we understand them now, not simply random card packs.

(Of course, I totally expect that this thread will get a random response 3 years from now in which someone tell us that the first game to do this was obviously some obscure late-90s MMO with a dedicated player base of 350 people, and we're all idiots for not knowing this.)

Toad houses in Mario 3 were basically loot boxes!

I hate any loot box game that can drop duplicates. If you don't have enough shit to put in the boxes, make it take a little longer to get them. Don't build up the hype and the mystery if I'm going to find feces inside. Also, if you have a loot box game that drops consumables, don't make it possible to get all consumables. At least one item has to be something I can be glad to say I got and will be useful to me at some point.

What games do I hate them in? Overwatch. People are gonna disagree with me, but I don't care, I think their lootboxes are disgusting. They're the perfect example of trying to prey on the impulses of the consumer. On top of the fact 75% of the drops are trash and the fact you can earn duplicates, they had the audacity to throw in limited time events. "Here's this limited time event with a bunch of new fancy costumes! Oh, you don't have time to grind out hours of matches every night for 2 weeks? Oh, darn. Here, give us $50 and we'll give you the chance of get something you want ohohohoho!" Blizzard can fuck right off with that shit as far as I'm concerned.

Like, give me an honest answer, what benefit is there to the consumerthat they can't directly buy the cosmetics they want? Because I don't see one. Lootboxes keep Blizzard's pockets fat, but they don't do shit for me. "But people buying lootboxes helps keep content free!" Buuuuullshiiiiiiit. As if people wouldn't suddenly throw money at them if you could directly buy exactly what you wanted.

Lootboxes are just a great way to milk whales. That's it.

I'm probably being unfair to Overwatch. They certainly aren't alone. Paladins has 'em. 99% of f2p MMOs has them. They're everywhere. I just have two major problems. The first one being everyone praising this as some great value to the consumer when it's not. Going back to the special events, it's great that you can earn lootboxes in-game, I'm not trying to take that away from them, but if you don't have the time to play your option is to either fuck off until next year or give them money and hope that you're lucky enough to get what you want. That's just fucked up to me and I just cannot wrap my head around this being a good thing for anyone but Blizzard.

My other big problem is that due to their popularity and success, everyone else is going to look at them and go "WE SHOULD DO THAT TOO!" and like...no. Fuck outta here. If I'm coming to you with $20 in hand, I want the specific costumes that I want. I don't want the chance to get them. I don't want to play mind games. I didn't come here to gamble, especially when the odds are hardly what I consider to be in my favor.

I agree 100% that loot boxes are only for Blizzard's benefit. However, I do think that loot boxes make them way more money than they would make if they sold cosmetics directly. Some people will spend hundreds of dollars over time trying to get some skin they really want, and it's hard to believe many of them would just pay $100 up front for a skin. That might be part of the argument that it keeps content free.

@cameron: I'm with you guys, but it's an FPS with cosmetics. You don't even see your character except after the match if you win. Maybe I'm old school, but I have never spent money on F2P games or loot boxes.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I dislike most of the cosmetics in OW so I have plenty of gold from duplicates in case a skin ever comes out that I do want.

My first ever experience with boxes you could buy was Mass Effect 3. Progression locked behind dice rolls is extremely frustrating.

I like the card packs in MLB The Show, but they are also the only sports game in town that lets you directly purchase players as far as I know. Most other sports video games have two currencies for their fantasy modes, a purchasable currency that you can spend on packs and an in-game currency that you can spend towards individual players you want in an auction house. Every once in a while I work the markets and buy a specific player I want when Im trying to complete a specific collection goal, but because I could always just get that specific player if I wanted I prefer the random nature of the packs and excitement of pulling a highly rated, valuable player at random rather than through a targeted, rational approach. It lets me scratch the itch of gambling without really losing anything.

The reason I find this fairly acceptable is that there are hundreds of players in this game, and while the ratings do matter to a certain extent everyone agrees that the MLB game is as much about feel as it is stats on the back of a card. I use an 83 overall rated player at a position despite having about five players rated higher in my deck because I just feel more comfortable at the plate with him and his defensive strengths more than make up for his slightly more erratic offensive behavior. You'll find people using mid-80s rated relief and particulary starting pitchers over many of the higher rated, "diamond" tier players because those ratings are more nods to that person's actual career than how they perform in-game for most people with slow fastballs or erratic breaking pitches.

The team behind MLB The Show do a great job representing how baseball is a game revolving around failure; if you get on base 30% of the time you're one of the best in the world at what you do, and the pitcher is allowed 4 mistakes on the road to 3 (or less) good pitches. People are free to buy their way and cheaply grind their way to the highest rated current and reward tier flashback cards in the game if they so like, but they actually have to know what that player's tendencies are and be good with them afterward. It's the rare game where you see an overloaded team of perfectly rated, seemingly impossible to acquire players and think to yourself, "this'll probably be the easiest game I play all day!"

All I'll say in defense of Overwatch's lootbox system (which I otherwise dislike quite a lot) is that at least its only cosmetics. It'd be far worse if there were ability modifiers or power-ups available through them as well.

The first game I played with random lootboxes was ME3 I think. Though if we count card packs, I did play one of the Magic: The Gathering online games before that.

@dudeglove: @babychoochoo: The reason that I don't mind lootboxes in Overwatch is because, while I understand that they are to make Blizzard money, they are also earnable without money, they offer randomization that maintains rarity and desirability to the cosmetics, and they are a part of a larger game that is very good and continues to get better.

There are multiple ways to earn lootboxes now. You can play specific modes that offer a loot box if you play it and win your first game (usually 2). Then you can play arcade mode and win 9 matches to earn 3. Lastly, you can simply play and level up your account and earn loot boxes at a slower rate (regardless of wins). If they offered rewards that gave some players an edge in certain modes (gears 4 horde mode), then I would take back everything I said. But as cosmetics, I like how they are set up now. I think duplicates could give back more coins, or boxes should be earned slightly faster though.

Wait, there are people who actually like loot box systems? They exist solely to drown useful/desirable unlocks in a bunch of crap you don't want in a wholly contrived effort to try and force you to play their game longer than you should reasonably need to hoping to win their completely unnecessary lotto. Loot boxes are the worst.

I'm sure it wasn't the first, but the earliest example I can recall encountering this in is Gran Turismo 3. Now, I fucking loved that game, but the car unlock system was total garbage. Many of those championships/endurance races took a ridiculously long time to complete, and at the end of it if you won, offered one of four high-end prize cars that often could only be acquired in this manner and/or in colors only available on the prize cars. In other words, you only had a 25% chance of even getting the car you wanted, and a ridiculously low percentage chance of getting the car you wanted in the paint you wanted. Worse yet, others were one-time unlocks, like a completion percentage car. Oh, you got that car in a hideous color? Either start an entirely new game save, or just fucking deal with it. It nearly broke me as a kid.

I'll admit that there's a certain level of satisfaction any time you improbably get what you want among such bullshit, but it's not what I'd call an enjoyable sort of thing. It's like if a restaurant served dog food to 95/100 customers and the other 5 people get served a delicious wagyu ribeye steak. Nobody would put up with that shit, yet it's now a common thing in gaming. I don't know why we should be made to participate in it, or worse, should celebrate it. Just my $.02.

@notnert427: yeah it would be nice to just unlock what I want by completing certain in-game challenges but this is the state of games...

TF2 is the earliest one I recall encountering, at least in the traditional sense of wringing money out of people. Random loot existed before that, of course, but usually in a more... benign state.

I think games with random loot boxes should also offer a way to buy exactly what you want. Valve have mostly hit the nail on the head with this - CS:GO and Dota 2 both allow loot box items to be resold on the Steam Marketplace, so people who want one specific thing can just get it. Plus, the people who opened it get some compensation too (with Valve taking only a small cut).

Interestingly, Rocket League has opted not to use the Steam Marketplace, even though I'm sure it would make them fistfuls of money. But, you can still get what you want via trading keys (which can be bought for real money) with other players. Maybe Psyonix didn't want Valve getting a cut of their Steam Marketplace sales, so opted to force players to trade instead? Or maybe it encourages people to open more chests. Who knows, but again it shows there's definitely a way loot boxes can co-exist with allowing the player to get what they want.

I essentially don't like loot boxes in modern games at all when they include a way to purchase them with real money. For instance, Overwatch has a lot of cool cosmetics but when I see others wearing that one sweet thing I want, I can't just go "Lucky guy!" without thinking "Damn whales.." because you can literally buy your way to any cosmetic (sans boring golden guns) in that game. It takes away the "achievement" of getting lucky with a loot box. Which is kind of like the lottery to begin with and not really an achievement?
At least you can "compete" with your non-whale friends in earning costumes or dances or whatever.

Solution, to me, would be to have some cosmetics/items you can only get through playing and earning achievements/hitting goals and then also have a cash shop on the side with other cosmetics/items. Some games do this but also make sure the cash-only version is extra blinged out/shiny - which is fair I guess since they're funding the game's further development.

I hate the trend of, "Hey, let's make the loot boxes fun to open!" It's neat like once, then just becomes a chore to sit through. It's especially egregious in Injustice because you get so many fucking boxes and you have to open every one manually.

TF2 is the first major game that comes to mind, though I'm sure it was in something else before then.

I hate them in all games that don't also allow me the option to buy the things that I actually want from the loot boxes directly.

Played some Overwatch last night, got 3 or 4 boxes, all full of shit I don't need. Fuck randomized cosmetic loot boxes forever*.

*Forever, in this context, represents a time frame lasting from now until I get a skin, emote, or victory animation that I want.