Modern gaming's loot paradigm: Evil, but is it necessary?

It's 2017, and every game is a loot game. Well, not all of them, but it certainly feels that way. It's notable at this point when a game doesn't have cosmetics, shortcuts, et al. for purchase via in-game and/or real currency. The latest example making waves is the Forza series with FM7. While it's hard to really blame them for joining the trend, it's also hard to claim that the addition of loot crates improves the game from a player experience in any way. As is the case in nearly all loot games, it just adds arguably needless layers of complexity and annoying impediments to progression, but that's the new normal.

From a business standpoint, it's not difficult to understand where this stuff comes from. Obvious strategic goals for a developer/publisher are to keep people playing their game(s) and to make the most money they can. As such, games started being designed to exploit the way the mind works. We all like seeing numbers go up, so a little bar slowly filling up gives us a tangible sense of progress. We all don't like leaving things incomplete, so that next "level" on that bar is hard to walk away from. We all like feeling special, so getting some rare item/cosmetic is innately satisfying. We all want to feel accomplished, so we'll often tolerate absurdly difficult/frustrating things if there's an "I did it!" at the end of the nightmare.

Enter grueling progression, multiple currencies, loot crates, etc. Gates have been installed along an intentionally lengthened journey of playing a game. "Oh, sorry, you need x of x for that. Keep playing more!" It has only have gotten more nefarious over time. "Tired of dumping hours into this? Buy this shortcut so you don't have to!" Then these systems started stacking on top of each other. "Oh, you've got enough of that currency, but not enough of this other currency. Grind for that now!" Eventually, it just expanded into a dice roll with purposefully low odds. "Buy this mystery crate with actual money, and you might get what you want! When you likely don't, just buy another!"

This is gambling. I don't really have a problem with gambling, but it's worth noting that games are teaching children/young adults how to gamble and worse, how to love gambling. It's kind of interesting how in American society, gambling (even when done by adults) is viewed as this semi-sketchy thing with a litany of weird-ass laws and regulations, yet this whole loot crate thing has become big business and is flourishing unfettered. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the government should step in or anything, but it is odd to me that we've had these groups form and speak out against violence and/or explicit content depicted in video games, while we mostly get crickets during a predatory practice with real-world financial implications.

A bit surprising to me is how much gamers have embraced it, knowingly or unknowingly. I underestimated how much it appeals to people to want to go "hey, I've got something you don't", "I'm higher level than you", or "look what I did", which I guess shouldn't be all that surprising, given that this is kind of what seems to drive most people in the real world. Oddly enough, that attitude, shitty/self-absorbed as it may be, bothers me far less than the idea of someone who at heart maybe isn't that interested in trying to glorify themselves and/or look down on others essentially being systematically pressured or peer pressured into unwittingly becoming that type of person.

I'm not really claiming to be above this shit, either. As pervasive as it has become, the only way to truly take a stand against this is to quit gaming altogether. Honestly, while I typically refuse to buy shortcut kits/loot crates on principle, it's mostly because my cheapness just trumps my vanity. When confronted with some barrier, is it better to brute force progression through playing a game longer or to just pay to skip it? It depends, as it's basically a question of if you value your time or your money more. Ultimately, just like everyone else, there's a part of me that wants to push through that barrier, fill that level bar, or score that special item, as much as I may not like it or want to admit it.

Personally, I don't have much interest in trying to tell people how to spend their money anyway. And while I nope the fuck out when it comes to games like Destiny, Dota, et al. where it's a major component of the game, I'm not going to sit here and try to tell fans of those games who invested countless hours in them that they shouldn't spend a few extra bucks on whatever, because there's a value argument that can be made for spending additional money over the standard retail price if a game provides entertainment for a longer period of time than other games and for supporting the developer/publisher in doing so.

Full disclosure: I'm a believer in capitalism as an imperfect but overall preferable system, so I don't typically harbor broadly anti-corporate or anti-profit sentiments. The cold businessman in me wants to toast a glass of Blanton's in the direction of the Blizzards of the world for coming up with a wildly effective method of generating income beyond the norm from a bunch of suckers who are playing right into their hands, while the gamer in me wants to flip them the bird, protest the exploitative nature of this, and demand that games stop tossing up unnecessary roadblocks that we're supposed to spend time or money to get past.

In a sense, I get where everyone's coming from here. There's an argument that while this has been pretty undeniably shitty for gamers in general, the financial ramifications have been healthy for gaming. The industry generating more income on the whole (regardless of where it comes from) is a good thing, because it should generally translate to better compensation for developers and allow for more games to be made, more risks to be taken with games, etc. This sort of trickle-down doesn't typically happen as quickly as it should, but it does eventually happen in most cases, and I expect it to happen here.

Is all this loot crap good, then? Well, I'm not prepared to go that far, because its ubiquitous presence is definitely annoying me (and many others) right now, with potentially some benefit down the road. There are some things that could help it be less shitty. For one, it would be nice if drop rates were posted wherever loot crates are sold so that people know exactly what they're paying for. I'd also like for games to limit gameplay-altering contents in them. However, both of those would reduce the appeal of loot crates, so I'm not optimistic that this is the direction we're headed. All that I can hope for is that it pays off in the long run for gaming on the whole.

I want to see governments come together to put an end to loot crate gambling in games. Full stop. Call me a killjoy, but I think it's one of the worst and most damaging things to be added to video games, ever. I fail to see a single positive from the consumer standpoint.

While I do agree with broad swaths of your sentiment, there are a few key definitions that I digress.

(Also responded to your comment during the Forza 7 QL. I might re-iterate some of my points from there to here.)

I agree that this 'gacha' mechanic is surprisingly pervasive now. What once was a tool in free-to-play games is being adopted even by AAA games. Development costs are rising for big games, especially the ones that try to outdo themselves every installment, and I don't begrudge studios trying to squeeze the most out of their products. However, that doesn't stop me from thinking if the game was developed with monetization in mind or was bolted-on afterwards due to corporate dictates. I can play 'armchair analyst' all day, but I will probably never know.

There is a part of our monkey brain, even mine, that does take satisfaction from playing chance. If anything, so that I can lord something I have over someone else who doesn't. Like you said, this mindset isn't new nor unique to videogames, and it is definitely illusory. But I don't necessarily think that there's a definitive correlation that exposing children to games of chance will cause them to be reckless risk-takers nor avid gamblers in their adulthood. I don't drive dangerously just because it was fun in videogames, because I can separate the fun of videogames from reality.

Arguably we have to split this into two:

• Gambling with time
• Gambling with money

Grinding for loot to make incremental progression is a matter of wasting your time. Sure, time is money, but we're already spending it playing games. I didn't mind farming guns & equipment in Borderlands 2, because it makes sense, since collecting equipment was the centerpiece of the game itself, like Diablo or Destiny. The same can't be said for the central tenet of Forza 7. It feels out of place in a racing game, and my mind wanders to the conclusion that: it was added for monetization.

Inversely, the argument has been made that people with little time can simply pay to expedite the process. Normally, these would be 'unlock packs' or passes (get all maps, characters, double exp, etc...). These aren't necessarily offensive, and it can't even be truly called gambling. However, skewing gameplay to make it much easier to get ahead by paying, AND randomizing the monetary advantage is the quintessential slimy monetization (pay-to-win as the kids call it). Going back to Forza 7, I didn't mind car unlocks or VIP pass in previous Forza, but if they alter established systems to make it easier to get ahead by paying, that's when you start to whiff the opportunism.

Ultimately, I don't think 'gacha', loot boxes, gambling, or whatever you call it is necessarily 'evil'. It's an addictive hook that's in vogue right now, and the industry is abusing it just like how they tried on-disc DLC. I think it will prove ineffective someday, and we'll move onto another exploitative thing.

However, just like with any piece of technology or innovative idea, I believe it's a matter of how it's implemented. Overwatch treats its loot as additive cosmetics that is given freely at a pace. Clash of Clans is designed to give a stark advantage for people who pay. Terra Battle (the original, at least) was half-good/half-bad: ran on an energy system AND a gacha system for characters; the energy system was ridiculously generous that you never have to pay, but the high-level characters were a grind that can be re-tried with real money.

As long as we're aware, discipline ourselves, and draw our own boundaries, we can accept it as a period in videogame history, good or bad.

Calling it evil, I think, is too reductive, but it's definitely ripe for abuse.

One thing I have to say, is that I am dead tired of getting the pair of brown pants in every loot box of PUBG. I'm really wanting those pair of rimless glasses, but NOPE. And no, I am not buying a damned thing. I really admire Pat Klepek's non materialism in playing in his underwear. And cowboy hat. Don't read into that too much.......

My last compelling experience with real money loot boxes was with Let it Die. So let it die I did, and reflected on the experience. I had fun, and I understood, but it still felt like a soft hustle. If I play a game with loot boxes, and especially if there is a also pay up-front for the game, I am going to want to hear opinions before hand. I do agree with the OP that there does seem a line has been crossed in some loot box games. One might wonder if one's money is well spent on virtual supplemental capital as opposed to real world. And especially if the game bucks up or into 'requiring it' territory, in practice.

At this point I really hope for some kind of crackdown on this whole thing, it just seems so wrong and shady and dirty. Not a flatout ban, adults should be free to waste their money on whatever they want. But everything that combines luck of the draw and the opportunity to spend actual money should be classified as gambling and adhere to the respective rules.

I'm glad you brought up games that were "developed with monetization in mind" vs. games where this stuff was "bolted-on afterwards due to corporate dictates." The latter doesn't bother me nearly as much as the former, and that seems to be where we disagree here. It appears like you have some forgiveness for games where "equipment is the centerpiece" and take issue with games like Forza where it feels tacked-on and "out of place". For me, it comes down to what it seems like their intent was. Forza, as a series, was not designed with any of this shit in mind, and has only adopted it out of opportunism since this is such a common practice now. Whereas, say, Destiny feels like a game that was designed from the get-go entirely around exploiting the player, and also played a major role in this stuff becoming commonplace to where a game like Forza can tack it on needlessly. That it feels "out of place" in Forza and "part of the game" in Destiny is self-evident to me. Forza is still first and foremost a driving game, with unfortunately now some added loot crate bullshit. Destiny is loot bullshit first and foremost, with the game itself seeming like the tacked-on part.

(FWIW, I feel bad singling out Destiny, because they are far from the only offender, but it's a fine example for the discussion at hand.)

Time-only loot gambling, the way subscription MMOs do it (you want this item, you're gonna grind a long time) I'm fine with; the grind is the point of the game.

Money-based (either as the only option, or as an alternative to time-based) loot gambling I can't stand at all. I think it's one of the worst trends in modern games. I know why developers/publishers do this and other kinds of monetization (season passes, etc.), it's because AAA games are too expensive to make (plus there's been inflation) for most to make a profit at $60 anymore (unless they sell insanely well) but they're worried that if they raise the base price of games the market will dry up.

They may be right about that, I don't know. I do know though that I would vastly prefer the base price of AAA games increased to $70 or even $80 if it meant that the money-based loot gambling and other monetization systems ended.

It's an easy way to get stupid people to spend money; not going away any time soon.

@notnert427:

Please, use Destiny, shorthand helps.

I'm only making the case that: the mechanic, by itself, isn't invalid, just not to everyone's taste.

Whole games are built on it that's not monetarily exploitative. I used Diablo and Borderlands 2 as better examples of loot-treadmills, because Destiny 2 is now a worse example of randomness. A lot of its equipment is now fixed (no random stats), and attainable with much less effort, even guaranteed at times.

Randomization creates an illusory exclusivity, and players want their status symbols (people want that Ultima Weapon, even though EVERYBODY else has it). It might not have been randomized before, but the mentality has always been there.

• If it's addictive, I get that, but we're gambling time away playing games, anyway.
• If it creates addictive habits, I don't buy it. The same way I don't correlate violence or dangerous driving to playing games. Something must already be wrong with the person.

I'm deviating from my stance: I'm not trying to convince you out of your distaste.

Normally, I'd say: there's plenty of other games for people who don't like those systems. However, that's where I empathize with you, because: it's in fucking EVERYTHING now! Which is why I make the argument of it not belonging to other genres. Yep, I don't think we disagree there.

For me, Forza is only a SLIGHTaffront because it's losing functionality that was always there before and replaced with randomization. If I step into your shoes, I'd say "they're taking replacing some key features and replacing it with bullshit mechanics". It's the promise of what Forza was then, versus what it is now, and I think we both think Forza is "lesser" for it.

Regardless of my fatigue for Forza, in a perfect world, would we both have been okay if they released it with the usual "unlock" passes (not gambling, just pay to unlock all)?

I'm glad you supported your stance with a proper argument. I still disagree on a few, but I get it.

Every anti-loot box argument falls apart as they all lean on the idea that loot boxes is gambling. It isn't under any definition of the word, so each time I see yet another loot box post on reddit, my eyes just glaze over as soon as I read the word as any argument is inherently faulty due to the foundation upon which it was built. I feel like most people just do this to give some excuse other than "I don't like it and things that don't appeal directly to me shouldn't be in videogames" and the anti-loot box crowd really need to find a new argument with any factual merit if they hope to be taken seriously.

I don't really like them. They do nothing for me, but they're very easy to ignore so I don't really care if they're in a game I play.

It's trash I don't want it in my games period this is the most greedy gen.

Of course it's not necessary. I've played a ton of awesome games released this year and none of them have loot boxes or microtransactions.

If you're gonna come in here making a claim like this, you should probably try and explain it at least a little bit.

@gunslingerpanda: It might not be gambling in whatever strict sense you are thinking of but it's still spending real world money on something where the reward is based on chance . That sounds enough like one general use of the word gambling to not throw out the whole discussion.

What in particular about the term gambling makes it inherently faulty for describing loot box systems?

Please explain to the class how you think it isn't gambling? Please.

It's easy to overstate the detrimental effect this has on gamers' experience. In the games I've played, the only full price games with paid loot crate economies (referred hereafter as FPGPLCEs) that actually gated content that increased the amount of game available to players (characters, weapons, levels) are the last two Mass Effects and Gears of War 4. I'm sure there are some others, but the norm is to lock cosmetic content only. Players with a modicum of self-control and thin wallets are under very little pressure to cave to these economies, while those who can afford to waste $15 a month on a game they play a lot of have something to spend it on. There is always the risk of irresponsible people falling prey to the system, but I believe the majority shouldn't be regulated because of the minority's capacity for self-inflicted harm. That's why we're allowed to have sharp knives in our kitchens.

The only evil I identify with the existing system is that it's a way to drive the effective price of low-value content up. A person might spend $100 chasing after good skins for their favorite characters, when if offered a la carte, they might be satisfied with $15 worth of DLC. One argument in favor of this mark-up is as a service fee in disguise. See Elder Scrolls Online or Overwatch, games that require server maintenance and see regular updates. The subscription model is nearly unsustainable anymore, meaning that upkeep costs need to be offset through profit made elsewhere. If you accept this logic, the only real exploitative application of this system is in full price games with a relatively short lifespan and minimal long-term support. Once again, Mass Effect and Gears 4 appear to fail this test.

@alexw00d said:

Seriously.

At least any "legitimate" lottery or gambling enterprise will tell you the odds of you getting your prize / winning; loot boxes don't even do that. It's even shadier than actual real-world gambling - that's a real feat.

I had been putting together my thoughts on loot crates, gamble packs, and random chance in games specifically with regards to repeatable transactions for a few weeks now so it's been interesting to see the number of people talking about them since Destiny 2 came out and now with Forza 7. What my feelings ultimately came down to was that a majority of games that implement these schemes, in full awareness that they prey upon psychological foibles, do so with zero intention for the players benefit. Even a game that others see as innocent like Overwatch is guilty of this. When it comes to games with progressions systems in an online space like Battlefield 4 which provide packs to reduce or remove the time it takes to go through the progression system are guilty in this. Even the argument that the rise in budgets as justification for additional cost ignores that games don't need to be expensive to produce to be a huge success. The rat race towards higher fidelity is an entirely self inflicted wound that is kept in perpetual existence by it's being tied to consoles and the early days of hardware competition. What it ultimately comes down to is the consideration of a given games design.

While a system of progression in an online shoot was interesting for the time in Modern Warfare by virtue of being new for the genre, it wasn't necessary. A progression system in a singleplayer game exists typically to scale with difficulty over time and provide varying tools to play with. In an online shooter a progression system like that creates an imbalance, paying for it with money or in-game currency furthers the imbalance. That's why in Modern Warfare and similar online shooters the new guns aren't stronger or better than earlier ones, rather they just have different stat trade offs like the guns you start off with. The unlocks themselves need to keep the play field flat because ultimately the benefit of having played longer is that you get better at playing. This was how online shooters worked prior to progression systems being brought in so I'd argue they weren't necessary to begin with. Now if you take all that into consideration and then realize that a system of progression in an online shooter exists to prolong the time you play to get to the part you wanted to start off with and add in gamble packs or pay to remove that grind that these can only exist solely exist to get more money out of people and not for the benefit of the playing experience.

As I said earlier Overwatch is guilty of using the player against them self for gain. The commonly made argument for why Overwatch has loot crates purchasable with real money as well as earned currency is that it helps support the creation of new maps and characters so that they don't need to release paid maps and characters which will split the audience in to different player pools. However if Blizzard knew this up front then they knew they were creation a game as a service and it would make sense to go the free to play route like League of Legends or DOTA. Instead they charged a price and then kept the purchasable loot crates. The rate that currency accrues in game is exceptionally slow when compared to the rate of new costumes and the existing ones. Player skins are the least invasive method of loot crates but they play upon an individuals vanity and if my experience with friends who play MMO's is any indication, the end game is fashion for a large enough number of people and the desire to look better overrides certain impulses. This is further driven by scarcity which Overwatch also uses and scarcity is the often the most common tool to drive people to purchase something in game than actual need or value. Every time a new set of skins comes out for their preferred player they hop back on to play as much as they can to get enough currency or the few free crates in the hopes of getting the one or two costumes they want. Then when the event is over they stop playing till the next event begins some time later. This suggests to me that on top of all the this that the act of playing the game only justifies itself to a point, that actually playing it isn't sufficiently enjoyable enough a thing to do that it is worth while for any length of time.

Even in games with zero additional ways to pay, can these same ideas and issues rear their head. The Rogue-Like genre is the one I think about most with regards to systems of progression. I'm not a Rogue purist, but over the years the several that I've played since the genres resurgence has made me keenly aware of how and why progression was not part of the genre from the beginning. The genre itself is about building knowledge of the game and using that knowledge to overcome it's obstacles. This takes time and in a rogue-like that understands this you begin to see a certain generosity and trust in it's design. I was able to play Spelunky for 237 hours over several years because it's design imparted no ingrained system of gained progression and made the design of the various systems it did have so open and aware of this that you don't need the best items or the most health and bombs to succeed, you only need rely on your knowledge of the game and the trust in your ability. Everything you can ever use in the game is always there, even though the levels and other parts are randomly generated. This is in stark contrast to games like Rogue Legacy or Dead Cells where a players knowledge and skills are only part of the consideration and that stat increases are an expected requirement for successful completion of a full run. Dead Cells is a more pernicious example because it won't even allow you the choice to not spend the currency on an improvement, the door forward only opens if you dump your cells into an upgrade. There isn't a trust in the players ability or a generosity in the openness of the design that allows for it to be possible to proceed through a run with player knowledge and skill alone. What this does in turn is extend the time it takes to play the game. There are designed limits to the amount of a currency the player can gain and how much is needed to unlock everything. It's an artificial means of extension and one that further elongates the time it takes for a player to reach the level of competency required to beat it. This was already the end goal of this genre of game, so progression never added anything to it.

I know this post is rather long, but the point that ultimately emerges from it all is that these systems themselves don't serve the end product in any way when you've already paid a price for it and the means by which they implement these systems are incorporated in a way to take advantage of the player whether that is the full scope of their intent or not. It ultimately comes down to design.

Why bother making compelling content when you can reliably lean on the filthy rich and/or mentally ill? That seems to be the purpose behind these boxes.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for some "inside baseball" financials that go into a AAA video game, but we'll never get that for obvious reasons. I do think that as much as people balk at DLC, microtransactions, and the like, that this stuff is fairly necessary for games to be financially viable enough to produce. As you mentioned, inflation is a thing, and game prices haven't gone up. Meanwhile, we've got even consoles entering 4K territory now, and that level of detail surely isn't cheaper to develop. I, too, would be fine with increasing the base price of games and reducing the loot box shit, but I think we might be among few there. For example, I heard someone say of Cuphead (which is $20, and arguably a steal at that price point) that "maybe I'll pick this up when it goes on sale". On sale to what? Free? I imagine a ton of people would balk hard at an $80 base game, and I imagine many of these same people are far more willing to buy cosmetics and shit instead.

Yeah, we're mostly on the same page here. I will mention that I don't think games have to be monetarily exploitative to be exploitative. You're right to point out that Destiny 2 made some good changes from the first, but there's a decent argument that things like the raid are structured to be intentionally unintuitive and needlessly redundant to pad out difficulty/length, which exploits players' desire to "conquer it" at great expense of time. That brings us back around to the earlier time vs. money discussion, though.

As for creating addictive habits, I wasn't really making the assertion that loot boxes create degenerate gamblers down the road or anything, more that perhaps young people don't fully understand that they're gambling or how these loot crate systems are flat-out designed to prey on human weakness. I have to think there are plenty of kids out there who just want their character to look cool and have little to no appreciation that mommy's credit card is paying for their loot box gambling habit. I don't know what (if any) observable negative effects this will have on them over time, but I do generally think it's fairly messed up that this whole thing of kids gambling in systems created to exploit them is flying under the radar right now. Won't somebody please think of the children?

And yeah, Forza is lesser for having loot boxes, just as it is for every game that has them. I don't actually take that much issue with the "unlock pass" stuff, because it's a 1:1 deal where it's clear what you're getting, and it allows for someone who maybe has more money than time to "progress" that way if they so choose. It's certainly preferable in my book to low-yield loot crate garbage.

To your last bit, I've said this before, but I absolutely love that GB is a place where people can productively discuss things even when they disagree, and that the users here typically present very well-founded arguments. I've been on a ton of message boards over the years, and this is far and away the one that has most made me think about, clarify, and occasionally reconsider my position on things, which speaks to the overall quality of the community itself. Cheers for a great discussion.

That's a fair point about the experience itself. I mostly just find loot boxes annoying and gross, and try to minimize their utility as much as possible so as to not let it affect the overall game. That's my plan with Forza 7, anyway, because there's still a great racing game in there beyond the loot crate shit, and that's what I'll focus on. Compartmentalizing that garbage doesn't seem to come easy for many, though, and it sucks that we've gotten to a point where we now kind of have to do that to keep enjoying games. I agree in principle about not regulating the majority based on the minority's capacity for self-inflicted harm (very well put there, BTW), with the few exceptions mentioned in that I think the industry needs to be more transparent about drop rates, should limit putting gameplay-altering contents in loot boxes (which, while thankfully not a common practice yet, is still a thing), and that it probably wouldn't hurt if the loot gambling got on a more mainstream radar as a shitty thing that's happening. Then again, there are much shittier things happening now, so there's that.

I alluded to this earlier, but yeah, I think this stuff wouldn't bother me as much if it were just 1:1. Someone paying $2 to directly get that cosmetic they want isn't a big deal. Someone dumping triple digits or more because they keep losing their gamble on some purposefully low-odds crate trying to get that cosmetic they want is far worse. I mean, it's their prerogative to do it, but at some point, shouldn't we stop and say "okay, this shit has gotten out of hand." Not necessarily to protect "I spent $100 on crates, but finally got this sweet virtual outfit!" guy, but because there is a system in place that allows/encourages this to happen.

First off, thanks for putting your thoughts here, and no worries on the lengthy post. I like to read, and brevity isn't my strong suit, either. I'm glad you brought up Modern Warfare, because it was a key fork on the path that led us here to this point. CoD 4 was an amazing game, for a lot of reasons. It was also the one that brought RPG progression into mainstream gaming. As someone who (at the time) hadn't played many RPGs, it was sort of my introduction to it, as it was for many. I dare say I enjoyed that progression and wasn't alone there, and this stuff took off and became something far worse over time. I have zero doubt that the current awfulness is a product of someone noticing the mainstream acceptance of RPG progression and then literally listing human psychological weaknesses and going point by point to come up with ways to exploit and monetize them within systems structured to do so.

I've never quite put a finger on where I fall in terms of things like late-progression/DLC guns being better than others. I can make arguments that they both should and should not be. After all, shouldn't people be rewarded for their play/success? Except some 12-year-old with zero responsibilities and ample free time is inherently equipped to throw way more time at that aim than, say, employed adults, so that's not really fair. Okay, so there's shortcut kits they can purchase to skip progression, but that's pretty much pay-to-win if the late-game/DLC guns are actually better. Except if they're not better, there's no reason to really try to progress. (This is an issue across a lot of games, not just shooters, so replace guns with "abilities" or what-have-you if necessary.)

The whole "look what I got" thing goes well beyond Overwatch, but it does make for a good example. The key point you made there is that the draw has become "Oh, it's new skin day; I'll fire up Overwatch" and not "I actually want to play Overwatch right now", so what does that say for the game and for gamers' priorities? Well, it's certainly not exactly a ringing endorsement of the game itself, but then again, if what brings people back is the skins, can't Blizzard claim they're giving people what they want? I'm not saying Overwatch is a bad game or anything, but it's worth considering what gamers are actually valuing there. Frankly, we share some blame here, too, and can't really complain that much about gameplay not being as much of a focus in general if gamers are going to actively demonstrate that cosmetics have more appeal.

I'm watching all this happen, and it's fairly fascinating. There's not really much question that modern games are often being designed to exploit and are successfully doing exactly that. As you mentioned, it's definitely not helping the end product, either. There are still plenty of great games being made, but it's arguably despite this new paradigm where loot/progression systems are shoved into most games now. The one solace for me is that perhaps this ultimately gives publishers/devs more resources. Regardless, it's worth discussing, and I really appreciate this and other posts here on the subject. This has been a really neat thread, so thanks for reading and responding, duders!

There's nothing necessary about it. The've produced 7 of these in a fraction of the time it took Polyphony Digital to do the same.

Haha, Turn 10/Playground definitely isn't hurting financially with what's basically a trust fund from Papa Microsoft. Certainly not the best example of "need" there. That said, I'd contend that the wildly different timeframes between Forza/Gran Turismo releases is more of an indictment on PD than Turn 10/Playground. Maybe the demo that's totally not a demo known as GT Sport will turn out awesome, but given how long it's been, they have zero excuses. I'm not optimistic for it, but would love to be wrong so maybe the Forza series feels like they have to make a move and responds by dropping, say, the loot boxes next go-round.

It doesn't bother me personally and I don't think it's at a point where we have to sling around the word "evil". I kinda like a bit of grind personally and the show unlock, even if it's partially a copout to pad the game length and content. I do agree it can be better. Have the loot boxes, but also have the credits and more set rewards that aren't dependent on selling you things, like the car slot machines in Forza games, And there should always be the option to flat out buy exactly what you want (and even better to always have a way to get most or all items in the game without having to pay extra).

Funny how the doom and gloom scourge of gaming used to be just simple add on purchases in general; now those seem mostly acceptable.

btw my dumbass may get Forza 7 sooner than later as it still seems pretty good to me, but I may just fire up F6/Horizon 3 to kill that urge.

Are games still being made without needing to reach their hand into your wallet every 2 seconds? Yes? Then it's not necessary, especially for some of these gigantic publishers that insist on doing it.

I've never quite figured out why PD take so long. I assume it's because they want to model the christ out of the cars and venues but during the PS3 era they clearly had trouble with the hardware. There's a lot of art to produce for a car game and Gran Turismo's car count has always been in the hundreds. On the other hand, Forza produce these games every two years, on multiple platforms now and still feel the need to add loot boxes in addition to the traditional car packs.

Late 2000s: All games are RPGs now!

Early 2010s: All games are open world now!

Late 2010s: All games are phone games with shitty microtransactions now!

Loot crates need to die in a big fire.

How long until I need to watch an ad in my AAA game that I paid $60 for to 'double my XP' or something?

The car count thing simply isn't a valid excuse for PD. Forza 5 was arguably the worst Forza game because it felt a bit rushed and literally cut some content to make the Xbox One console launch date (which it did), and it still had more cars than GT Sport is about to release with. Moreover, Turn 10 managed in the two years between Forza 4 and 5 to create all-new car models for all the cars in Forza 5. Gran Turismo 5, by comparison, ported over low-poly models from a previous generation, which is pretty damn weak, and GT Sport has taken roughly four years to model fewer cars than T10 did in two. Maybe Turn 10 just has that much more manpower or budget or something, but the pace of production is clearly night and day different between the two franchises.

I don't know where the bottleneck comes from at PD. Japanese culture in general strives more for "perfection" than Western culture, so I'm guessing that PD gets laser-focused on minutaie and loses sight of the process. I could see Kazunori Yamauchi doing something like demanding they re-record the exhaust note of a Nissan GT-R 30 times for his lengthy consideration/comparison until he finds one he feels is the truest representation of the car, whereas Turn 10 probably just sticks a mic by the exhaust, gets a thumbs up, and drives up the next car in line. I'm not saying one is more "right" than the other, but that's about all I can come up with for a theory to explain the massive gulf in release rates.

I have a further theory that PD has made a ~50% complete Gran Turismo game or two over the past decade that never saw the light of day because during the process of making it, the hardware changed, what Sony wanted changed, the technology got passed by, et al. There just fucking has to be work that have vanished into the ether, with PD seemingly starting over every time. Something really went off the rails between GT4 and GT5, and it feels like they've never caught back up, with GT6 weirdly releasing on only the PS3, after the PS4 came out (despite that an Sony-published game damn sure could have been developed on early PS4 dev kits). Having not even started on a game yet for this generation when it was already going on is why we're only just now getting a GT game four years later, and it's seemingly a half-assed one at that. It's such a bummer because the GT series has been amazing at times, but inefficiency/mismanagement has really hurt the series. Enough on that.

One thing to consider when it comes to bigger publishers is that it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone involved with a game under their umbrella is sitting on Scrooge McDuck piles of cash and is being greedy if they ask anything over $60 for a game. FWIW, I'm not excusing Forza, which seems to have little to no limitations from what I can gather and I'd agree is therefore just being greedy because they can by adding loot crates. I also have a hard time excusing Blizzard or Bungie games which similarly don't seem to "need" that microtransaction money at all, yet seem to be absolutely prioritizing getting it. I'd like to think that it trickles down to the devs in some form or fashion, though, but maybe not. Still, some corporate structures silo their products by division (read: studio) and expect each product to be self-sufficient in ways they on the surface may not appear to need to be.

In other words, Square Enix having boatloads of cash sadly doesn't mean IO gets to not get axed because HITMAN initially sold slowly and didn't meet lofty expectations. Maybe HITMAN should have had microtransactions, because while Squeenix doesn't need the money, apparently IO sure could have used a better number on the "HITMAN" line on Square's balance sheet. Then again, the decision to include or not include microtransactions is likely made at the publisher level, not the dev level, so maybe Squeenix would indeed have deserved ire (and maybe HITMAN would have then met their goals to where they keep IO around) if they had put in microtransactions. Who knows; I'm just spitballing and rambling. Interestingly enough, now that IO is off trying to make it on their own, I might be atypically willing to pay for dumb 47 cosmetics, because IO may well need the extra cash to keep the lights on.

Call me crazy, but I barely even notice these things. The only one I can remember was in ME3.

@notnert427:I wouldn't go so far and call the progression system in Modern Warfare and other similar online shooters an rpg system or that it was the one to introduce it to mainstream gaming culture. Integration of an rpg like leveling and/or progression system had been in action platformers like Ratchet and Clank and numerous other games and genres for years prior to the release of Modern Warfare. Even arguing for progression as a facilitator of a sense of accomplishment it ignores the already established markers for that in personal performance in a match and overall success of the match. A progression system doesn't tell you that your getting better at the game or that by progressing through the system that you will get better. More often than not when the people I played with performed poorly they blamed it on what another person in the game had that they didn't. It begins to obfuscate player ability and alter the sense of accomplishment through play to a degree, although in some instances it is true that being further up the progression imparted a benefit over lower level players (double tap being a prime example by giving increased rate of fire and therefore increased dps). Progression becomes a placebo for any actual player accomplishment which has been traditionally measured in other ways like personal stats and end game performance metrics. Progression systems in an online game result in gate keeping of the play space and artificial extensions to a players natural playtime over the lifetime of a game that create new avenues for instances of player friction to occur. It was certainly less of an issue for earlier instances of this in games like Modern Warfare because the rise of micro-transactions in games had not yet started in the mobile space at that time. If it weren't for the inclusion of a progression system a player that didn't have a lot of time to play the game wouldn't have to consider paying money to have access to the full breadth of the play space in an online shooter and is one such instance of a new point of player friction that was non-existent in a majority of online shooters prior to the inclusion of progression systems.

With Overwatch my concern wasn't so much that if people enjoy getting the cosmetic items and showing them off is a main draw that it's a bad thing to have in the game, but rather the use of scarcity as a motivating factor and using a players enjoyment for changing their characters appearance as a means to justify charging an up-front cost for a game created as a service instead of following the expected route of launching as a free to play game. By adding scarcity to all this in a situation of random chance it encourages unintentional spending. Even if an outfit is tied with a particular event there isn't any reason to make the opportunity for acquiring the outfit a limited time deal. The only reason to make the outfits scarce and tie them to chance occurrence is to encourage an unnecessary expenditure by relying on the fear of missing out and to try and pull people back in that had lost interest in playing to get those cosmetic items in the first place. Anyone that already enjoyed playing the game and had no interest in the cosmetic items were fine to start. It's more disappointing than anything else because it distracts from a good experience for those who play it for the game part and those who play it for the cosmetics. I can't help but be a little more cynical when it comes to Overwatch because it was born from the ashes of a failed unreleased project and Blizzards focus on making the game and E-sport are maybe bigger reasons for them to incorporate micro-transactions than supporting the longevity of the game and new maps.

I'm also glad you made this thread it's something that isn't discussed often and rarely in any depth or introspection on the part of us as players.

I know you're already getting dragged for this one, but seriously, citation fucking needed. Because one could easily counter that if your strict definition of gambling is that you need to be able to win money, that's a pretty bad definition.

I don't care for loot creates. Therefore, if they were legislated away because they can be called gambling and gabling that happens near to where children woudl be...then fine...I won't miss them. If that is replaced with pay 25 cents for one outfit, one gun, one power up = Fine at least that is transparent and understandable. If that means game sell for $80 = Fine at least that is transparent and understandable.

When people say, "But I like Loot creates...its fun" Well...DUH!

...but I LIKE heroin ...but I like skydiving...but only after a pay a dollar for the ability to pull the ripcord!

That's a nice statement but maybe a better statement would be for the amount of (implicitly positive) coverage games get to be somewhat affected by their business models.

I don't think its a one to one comparison for every developer / publishers is implementing microtransactions very differently I don't think there will ever be one evil version to rule them all some will just some devs/pubs will be better than others, the fact is microtransactions offer an unlimted spend cap makes the opportunity for a hit is tenfold microtransactions won't ever go away.

Everyone has their own line and I'm than happy with cosmetic items only doubly so if its no dups like Uncharted 4, also I have no problem with the spend behind a separate mode like FIFA Ultimate Team or Halo 5 Warzone.

Destiny however is a mixed bag I much prefer being able to buy thing I like outright as in D1 and don't like the random chance in D2 because I'm never spending money on a random roll but I do like having access to the paid content in D2 without spending a dime.

The big studios are twisting a knife in the consumers goodwill corpse. I just hope the corpse wakes up and eats the big studio at some point. ( talking about a bad metaphor. ) Legislation is slow and behind it's time for most digital stuff so the big cooperations tend to find borders in set legislation, and we consumers tend to be the Guinea pig. But atleast i got this sick Mclaren F1 Legendary car out off this Forza 7 Crate :D. Also these Battlefront crates seem pay to winish with better guns and characters coming straight out of crates...

I think its something to talk about but I always feel like some of the people who are against it dont bend and go to extremes where anything that costs extra in their 60$ is the worst thing and unacceptable. I think a lot of times they are a "necessary evil" for lack of a better word and a way to re-coup money where game development has never been more expensive and triple A games really haven't been cheaper. I think a lot of this generation maybe doesn't remember a time where id go to buy strider and it was $100 or more.

I've always agreed with Jeff regarding dlc where as long as a game doesn't feel missing something without it then it shouldn't really be a problem for anyone. With this becoming more popular its important to talk about this speak with your wallets but I feel a more nuanced approach by some (though as always I enjoy the conversations here for the most part)

Games are already 80 dollars here and barely affordable. The fact is majority of gamers wouldn't want that. Unless my game is grinded to halt unless I buy boxes I honestly don't care too much if they are there. The fact is some people really like that kind of thing and thats fine as not every aspect of a game has to be for everyone. Thats not to say all purchases in a game are good but I think that's where you do research and vote with your wallet for games you think shouldn't deserve your money for it.

Game devs/publishers want more money from their game, I want more content in my game so I can spend less money. I'm a massive tight ass and as soon as I see/read that a game has (imo) too much DLC, micro transactions, or loot boxes I simply won't buy it.

I want to buy a game and it has everything in it when I buy it, want that cool car or item? earn it with in game points or in game currency, by playing more of the game (which should by design be fun) just my 2c

No.

I think RNG rewards in games is a tool that is far too easily abused. To the point that I'm inclined to say never to use it. Let's look at a couple real life examples.

In Magic the Gathering (and other CCGs) cards are sold in random booster packs. However, players actually interested in playing the game almost never build decks by buying packs. They buy sets of individual cards (called singles) from their game stores. The stores buy the packs in bulk, crack them, and sell the individual cards for various prices based on their rarity and usefulness. For another example, let's look at Japan's infamous Gashapon machines. For fans of the figures that are sold blind, shops in Japan offer pre-opened completed sets for an elevated price.

So, basically, the market has shown time and again that people want the option to just buy what they want, and they are willing to spend more for the guarantee.

It's entirely possible to get progression wrong without malintent; we see it all the time in games with crafting systems (I just need one more of that one ingredient). But when you add microtransactions into the mix, it becomes impossible not to suspect foul play. One wonders why the devs don't just put out a tip jar so they can milk the whales while not ruining the game for the 99.5% of the free players.

Loot boxes, specifically, are certainly being used to make more money while offering nothing out of the ordinary to players. While developers and publishers can explain away the negative aspects of loot boxes in the most shallow ways possible, there's no denying that they are making money by doing nothing. It would take a significant backlash to change the state of microtransactions in games, now. It may have been more feasible to prevent this from happening if it wasn't for the apologetic nature of players towards aesthetic-based loot boxes, but that is unlikely to have happened too.

Where the issue arises is the acceptance rate of consumers when it comes to even trying a single loot box. If one person does this, the publisher has made money without doing anything. The costumes, abilities, trinkets, and whatever else is being ransomed are created beforehand and the development time is most likely funded, first, by the profit generated by the base game. Afterward, the sales of loot box content generates considerable revenue, and future development time can be covered by the profit of loot box sales and the cycle continues. This is not to mention the extra content that can be sold separately (map packs, season passes, special skins, collector's editions, etc.). Whether consumers like it or not, it doesn't seem to take a lot of people buying these things to make them successful for publishers. The cost seems low, and the benefits are massive.

This is all, of course, without even mentioning the psychological trickery that goes into baiting players to make these purchases. Overwatch developers, specifically, have stated that they made efforts to show players their own characters as well as others' characters as much as possible. Sure, this can be used to distinguish characters from each other and define roles, but it is also a virtual wardrobe showcase. The simple effect of watching an experience bar increase, being told that you have achieved something (leveling up), and then being rewarded with a random prize is astoundingly effective. As the amount of games needed to achieve a new loot box (the result of the cycle) increases, players become more and more desperate to do anything to get their next prize.

There are two ways to achieve their next random prize, and it largely depends on a game's design principles. The first way is to play longer, and win more. Some games allow players to fool themselves into thinking they are enjoying themselves when, in actuality, it can quite frustrating to play, lose, and have to wait even longer for your prize. It starts to affect enjoyment of a game. The second way, obviously, is to pay real money to receive the prize sooner. This is problematic, because many systems have been designed to push players in this direction. Costumes are desirable when others have them and you don't, menus are often designed to pester and draw players' attention to storefronts or showcases, and variation in playstyle can be gated.

This becomes even more problematic when content is gated that is more important than costumes and skins. Obviously, for multiplayer games, locking game-altering content behind a paywall (even if you can earn it in game) can give players an early advantage. However, even locking singleplayer content behind a paywall, a randomized one, begs the question: why am I paying money to skip the bloated, slow, progression systems in this game? Does that mean this part of the game is not important enough to play? Am I wasting time if I don't pay, because it is just an overblown progression system that has been elongated to ensure that I stay long enough to be enticed to eventually pay real money?

TL;DR: It's fucked...

Paid loot crates are gambling and it is only being allowed because of some loop hole with using proprietary currency. I wouldn't doubt it brings on massive regulation once politicians catch on.

Now loot crates are fine, but its the paid money aspect that is walking the line.

Remember when we used to talk about a game being good in terms of it being addictive? Back then it was just a poor metaphor, but here we are 2017 and its getting scary real.

Are loot crates any different than a slot machine? The answer is no, no they aren't. A LOT of people are susceptible to gambling. Publishers are trying to make an extra buck by exploiting that weakness. Talk about evil corporations...

In a multiplayer game: strictly cosmetic only.

In a single player game: who gives a shit! (assuming the game is still good without it)

I personally feel anything that gives the developer more money, and hopefully in turn results in better product, is a good thing.

Does anyone know where this sentiment comes from? I keep hearing especially from review outlets but can't see concrete justifications. Servers costs I understand, but as far the creation goes I can't seem to find more specific information. On the other hand I see a lot of articles about tools that speed up workflows considerably. Things like Substance Painter/Designer, better automatic unwrap tools, auto rigs for animations as well as better animation retargeting seem like such a godsend. Sure the texture quality is higher and shaders are more complex, but it doesn't add up in my mind. I wish we had some leaked info on a biggers studios spending, because from my experience from regular software development and service hosting it feels like this long tail is only in service of meeting growth expectations of investors. It would be nice if that money was used for better working conditions, but I don't hear stories about that either.

I wonder if that's a problem of a silent majority. Though there seems to be a lot of people. For me this loot crate economy drove me off from ever playing Overwatch and has made me not want to play the Shadow of Mordor. Still is undeniable that those people are out there. But not to sound too sarcastic, but #not all gamers. This is however something where I feel like streamers and media outlets are to blame for propagating this. Even if they real or fake fawn over and item, while in the same sentence saying "not required and has no impact on the gameplay" their enthusiasm can sway younger viewers. Giant Bomb isn't immune to this as I can clearly remember Brad's reaction over Lt. Squakins and Dan's Reaction to that very American Jimmy Raynor skin. I believe that in Brad's case it's genuine and that in Dan's case it's part of his shtick and was for the purpose of the video, but even if they decry it afterwards it does implant the value of these useless digital items. Even ironic appreciation of what loot boxes get you should be discouraged. I think a more concerted effort would kill this fad quicker, but if not it's alright, it'll be over after a few more scandals or after that bubble bursts.

Regardless of whether or not people like it, it's proven to be a fairly consistent money-maker. There's a reason 'games as a service' and loot boxes are becoming more and more prevalent. At this point, companies know that there is money to be made doing this sort of thing and NOT doing it would (at least to some degree) be leaving money on the table. Nobody wants to leave money on the table. Maybe some parts of the company don't like it, but they all like to get paid. They need to get paid, and games are becoming more and more expensive to make.

Hell, Tencent basically made it's fortune off the back of gacha games and the like and now they practically own half the gaming world. It's a lot bigger than people might want to admit. The kind of people who take part in it gleefully either don't read website/forums like this, or they revel in it. You can "vote with your wallet", but if current trends are anything to go by, the people who are against these practices are severely outnumbered by the people who are comfortable with them.