EA respond to Star Wars Battlefront 2 loot crate concerns

star-wars-battlefront-2

The recent Star Wars Battlefront 2 [official site] open beta showed the game itself has come on leaps and bounds since the first one, but the way progression was tied to a loot crate system left a sour taste in a lot of people’s mouths.

EA have responded to that criticism, and released a statement that clarifies some things about how the system will work when the actual game comes out. Players that pay will still have an advantage over those that don’t – at least in the short term – but the most powerful items will be unlocked independently of loot crates.

Most unlocks, however, will still be tied to loot boxes. Those boxes can be bought with currency earned by playing the game, or for real monies. It means you’re at the mercy of RNG for which drops you get. When you get a duplicate of the same item, you instead receive crafting parts that can be spent on unlocking what you want – but not everything can be bought with those parts.

The controversy revolves around star cards, which are slotted into your character outside of games and provide different abilities. Examples include the Assault class wielding a powerful shotgun with a speed boost for 10 seconds, Heavies temporarily deploying chain-guns and Specialists getting an (overpowered) all-in-one speed boost and mini-map jammer that revealed nearby enemies and removed the overheating mechanic from their gun. Fortunately, EA mention they’re toning that one down in the same post.

Now, it didn’t actually take me too many games before I had some star cards that I considered indispensable, like a different version of the shotgun one that made it reset my cooldowns whenever I earned a kill. The real problem lay in how those cards could be upgraded using ever increasing amounts of crafting parts, and just how substantial those upgrades were. A particularly egregious example is a card for Boba fett which reduced the damage he took while using an ability by 50% at the first level of the card, but 100% at the fourth level.

It’s something I didn’t go into in my impressions of the beta because the system was labelled as not being representative of the final game, though I’d have highlighted cases as bad as that one if I’d realised they existed. While the power difference might still be there in the actual realise, it looks like players won’t be able to get the upgraded versions of cards just by spending money. Here, I’ll copy in EA’s list of clarifications for how the final system will work:

– There are many things you can earn in the game, including weapons, attachments, credits, Star Cards, Emotes, Outfits and Victory Poses.
– As a balance goal, we’re working towards having the most powerful items in the game only earnable via in-game achievements.
– Crates will include a mix of of Star Cards, Outfits, Emotes or Victory Poses.
– Players earn crates by completing challenges and other gameplay milestones, or by purchasing them with in-game credits or Crystals, our premium currency.
– If you get a duplicate Star Card in a crate, you will get crafting parts which you can then use to help upgrade the Star Card of your choice.
– And lastly, you have to earn the right to be able to upgrade Star Cards and unlock most Weapons. You can only upgrade or unlock them if you have reached a high enough rank, which is determined by playing the game.

That last point in particular should take some of the sting out of those that were worried the game would be pay to win – at least the people killing you with outright better stuff will only have access to it because they’ve played more than you. Unless, that is, EA create a mode with an entirely even playing field, as they suggest they might at the end of their post:

We also have heard some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else, we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards various rewards.

For all these changes, at the end of the day EA are still monetising the progression system in a £55 game. There’s no way that’s not going to rub people the wrong way.

Star Wars Battlefront 2 releases on November 17.

71 Comments

  1. Meat Circus says:

    What an absolute shower of greedy fucking cuntbags.

    We’re deliberately making our game that you’ve paid for so dull that you then have to pay us MORE money not to have to play it!

    AND YOU PEASANTS WILL BE GRATEFUL DO YOU HEAR ME?

    • wz says:

      Unethical corporate greed. It’s a multiplayer competition: power for real money is absolute anathema. Ego shooter: losses=reflection on self. It’s why people rage and scream on mic with an even playing field and deserved loss. Imagine frustration if there’s a noticeable power gap. RNG = can’t even grind out the item killer had and ease frustration. Unthinkable in full price game.

      EA clinically knew this, and reception. Full plan to respond. Backing down, muddling things, while still sneaking past with targets for sale of power.

      Full price game, entitled to see lottery probabilities in UI. Why hide? Stealth nerfs, future rares, end game situational rares.

      Ultra-casual movie fans and kids will play. Gullible, time limited, struggling to compete. Misunderstandings making things worse. Kids exposed to gambling, money loss, in sheep’s clothing. Can’t just consider veteran FPS players.

      Developer contracts should reject designing gambling loss on an ethical basis.

      After ME:Andromeda demo & previews by critics / public just created an underestimated impression of how bad it was, you have to wonder. Only? RPS called out bad writing in demo, but e.g. no one suspected only 2 new alien races. It’s time youtubers and journalist critics presented a front to set minimum standards for review time & preview opinions. Publishers are feeding calculated hype scraps to make critics dance as wanted before release. Youtubers being exploited, living on the edge, with threat of exclusion & no collective power. After years to develop AAA games, 3-4 weeks wait for critics won’t matter.

      • Merry says:

        Uh, I think you’re saying that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s only because of your unequivocal sentence “Unthinkable in full price game.” Apart from that I don’t really get what you’re saying; sorry.

        • Shigawire says:

          He writes like a robot writing in a proto-indo-european language, with the absolute minimum of context, syntax and grammar. But I like it in a strange way. Reminds me of Mandarin. :)

          “Ultra-casual movie fans and kids will play. Gullible, time limited, struggling to compete.”

          This exemplifies exactly who I also think the clientele who purchase loot crates are.

          I am very much against this in a multiplayer game, but I’m actually fine with it in Middle Earth: Shadow of War. I’ve never felt the need to purchase any gold loot boxes, and the game is very enjoyable without needing to do so. So what if there are people who buy them? Whether they be time-constrained rich folks, impatient folks, or gullible chumps.. not my problem. As long as it doesn’t affect my enjoyment of the game. But with multiplayer games, this is by its very nature a problem.

    • left1000 says:

      the problem with locking high tier ability cards to rank, is that you don’t rank up by playing games!!!

      you rank up by earning cards, so you can just PAY for your rank, in addition to paying for the cards and the upgrades to those cards. this is indefensibly pay to win. If this game were 0$ no one would complain. When you ask 60$ of a pay2win title though you desire at very my own personal ire.

  2. wombat191 says:

    EA “Oops we have pushed things a bit to fast with lootboxes.. lets roll it back a bit and get to this point again in a year or two when the consumers are properly accepting of it”

    • Premium User Badge

      Aerothorn says:

      That’s definitely not what they said. They said “yep, we’re doing lootboxes, we heard you complain about lootboxes, we’re doing them anyway.” They are talking about “considering” a mode where everything is unlocked, but that’s it (and given that players can’t host their own dedicated servers, as far as I can tell, how would you even select that mode?)

      • ludde says:

        They won’t have that mode. Why would they? What’s good for the game or the players does not matter, just how much they can get away with. Profit is the bottom line.

    • HeavyStorm says:

      Fuck EA. Thought I would finally buy something on my Origin account, but I was mistaken.

      Consumers should take a stand. There are plenty of games that aren’t fucking you in the ass available, so just don’t buy those that do.

  3. LuNatic says:

    Errr, so what I’m hearing from that is basically “Screw you guys, people will buy our lootboxes anyway”.

    Maybe EA are fighting to take the ‘most hated company in America’ title back from Comcast.

  4. Det. Bullock says:

    How about not putting stormtrooper skins in the starfighter loot boxes and vice versa?
    If I decide to use the in-game currency to buy starfighter upgrades it means I want at least Starfighter upgrades, during the beta I bought with earned currency four starfighter lootboxes and at least one of them had no starfighter upgrades, WTF?

  5. MiniMatt says:

    Those boxes can be bought with currency earned by playing the game, or for real monies. It means you’re at the mercy of RNG for which drops you get.

    Wait, so you’re not paying real monies for better stuff, you’re paying real monies to spin the the wheel for a chance at better stuff?

    That’s… that’s worse isn’t it? That’s gambling isn’t it?

    I realise I’m likely terribly naive and this is how all those lootbox thingies have always worked in games and I’ve just ignored them all this time.

    • Deadeye666 says:

      You are absolutely right. It is gambling. And as soon as somebody manages to explain to lawmakers what videogames, skins, lootboxes and in-game currencies are things are probably going to change. Because it certainly should be regulated like actual gambling.

      • Horg says:

        I’ll just leave this here….

        link to petition.parliament.uk

        If you live in the UK and you want to see change, sign it. Internet outrage ain’t worth damn all, legislative reform is the only way gambling boxes will be discontinued.

        • shde2e says:

          As a European, do you think I can get away with a quick hop over the channel?

          • MiniMatt says:

            As a British European, only if I can take your place in mainland Europe, because, well, you know, a tiny majority of gammon-faced wingnuts have decided to drive us over a cliff edge.

            As objective as I (a remainiac saboteur) can be, I suspect future EU consumer protections will exceed those available to free-trading, chlorine-chicken-eating Britons.

        • darkath says:

          Worth noting that while China has a law requiring odds to be displayed, japan also banned the use of “complete gacha”, a system using lootboxes awarding varios set of worthless items, requiring the user to complete a set before he can get the desired rare items.

          It only affected the most dreadful lootbox mobile games, but was already a start in passing legislation against those systems.

    • brgillespie says:

      It’s not “gambling”, because you’re guaranteed to win something. That’s what the US ERSB has stated, at least. :(

    • This banana says:

      I don’t get why you would call something like that gambling.
      Gambling is when you pay money to win even more money, or loose it all. It has nothing to do with pretty pixels, it’s just about money. If you can sell your pretty pixels to someone willing, then you are in Pachinko territory, which is technically not gambling and therefore legal in Japan.

      • Horg says:

        Gambling is taking a risk. The risk of losing everything is not an absolute requirement. There is a risk when you buy a loot box that you will get less than the value of your initial payment. That should be easy enough to demonstrate as the value of the average box can be determined from game files, and duplicate items will incrementally lower box value over time.

        Put another way, if horse racing or some other common form of gambling, were to guarantee you got 10% of your bet back even if you lost, I doubt anyone would redefine the bet as other than gambling. You would be certain of getting something of worth back, just like a loot box, but you are still taking a risk with your money that you make less than you invest. That’s what defines a gamble.

        • jonahcutter says:

          Not getting what you want because the contents of the box is unknown will be a hard sell as gambling in the States nowadays. Go into any modern toy or curio store store or places like Disneyland itself and see all the the figurine boxes on display. Many with the contents unknown so as to encourage buying more to get the ones you want or are missing from your collection. Marketed directly to children and no different than video game loot boxes.

          Is it gambling? In a sense. You’re “gambling” on getting the one you want. But regardless of whether the rubber figurine inside is actually worth the purchase cost (it’s probably production pennies on the purchase dollar, thanks third world sweat shops!) you are receiving a good for your money.

        • This banana says:

          Taking a risk should be illegal to kids then? I don’t get it. I think the words get mixed up here, because a lot can be “a gamble”, like buying a pack of fancy cards with pictures on them to get a certain super fancy card, but it’s still no Roulette, Blackjack or Lottery. It is only about money. It always has been. That’s why there’s loot boxes to begin with.

          • Horg says:

            ”Taking a risk should be illegal to kids then?”

            When it comes to gambling that is one of the central arguments against it. Normalising the addictive qualities of gambling in impressionable young people who have little concept of relative worth or financial responsibility is a serious negative. You may not consider it the same as ”hard gambling” but children have managed to lose literally thousands of pounds / dollars of their naive parents money through games on the apple store, and in adults the dopamine response associated with hard gambling has been linked to the calculated drip feed of rewards from in app purchases.

  6. Avus says:

    EA made SW:BF with expensive price & light on gameplay. Reviews gave high marks and many people bought the games. EA made tons of money.

    EA made SW:BF2 with more content free + loot crate to make more $$. Reviews will give high marks and many people will buy the games. EA will make tons of money.

  7. Premium User Badge

    Aerothorn says:

    Minor correction:

    “The controversy revolves around star cards, which are slotted into your character outside of games and provide different abilities. Examples include the Assault class wielding a powerful shotgun with a speed boost for 10 seconds, Heavies temporarily deploying chain-guns and Specialists getting an (overpowered) all-in-one speed boost and mini-map jammer that revealed nearby enemies and removed the overheating mechanic from their gun. ”

    None of these are star cards. These are all abilities that are inherent to the classes and that all players start with. Some star cards will change cooldowns or functions of the ability, or replace them entirely with different abilities (not described above).

  8. DeadCanDance says:

    Fuck star wars, fuck this game, fuck lootboxes, fuck george Lucas and above all, fuck EA

  9. Caiman says:

    No, sorry, fuck this lootbox trend. Automatic blacklist if your game puts them in, no exceptions. It’s like taking a steaming shit on your game, suddenly it loses any of its appeal.

  10. Marclev says:

    Could someone please help me understand what is meant by a “Loot box” these days and when this term acquired a negative connotation?

    This is obviously something very different to the thing I’ve seen in every CRPG ever since the damn of time where you find a box, loot it, and get whatever items are in it, often adding numbers to something you’ve already got to make it more powerful in some way.

    If it means “Pay for things **instead** of getting them from boxes”, then the correct term for that’s “In-game purchases”, right?

    Oh and EA can f*** off, obviously.

    • GenialityOfEvil says:

      In-game purchases (i.e. microtransactions) show you what you’re buying before you buy them, loot boxes don’t. They’re like the mystery box game sales that some low-rent game retailers do. You pay $5 but you don’t know if the game(s) you get will be worth $10 or 50¢.

    • Someoldguy says:

      They muddy the issue by having them bought by in-game and real currency and even giving them away free occasionally. Somebody that stands there head to foot equipped with some awesome gear and powers can claim to have pulled it all out of earned boxes.

    • shde2e says:

      It’s a bit like an old-style treasure chest, except in this case it contains game content, and they tend to be sold for real life money.

      At its core, a loot box is basically a small pile of randomized content.
      For example, an Overwatch lootbox gives you five random skins, sprays, voice lines etc.
      In Battlefront, they apparently also put actual upgrades in it.

      As you pointed out, the lootbox is indeed an in-game purchase. But the actual content you get is then randomized And many games let you get duplicates, so a part of the lootbox can be effectively wasted.

    • Pants1987 says:

      Did you ever collect the Merlin football stickers?

      Loot boxes are essentially those, usually earned by playing – but sold as extras for those that can’t wait.

      They’ll contain in-game items of varying ‘value’ – Games like Overwatch opted for cosmetic only rewards – EA opted for rewards to in-game power (bad move).

      Either way they’re deliberately designed to give you a satisfying opening sequence then the suspense of turning over your “cards” etc. to see what you got. More often than not 2 duplicates and something you couldn’t give a monkeys about.

      Either way, they use the inherent randomness as a hook to make you either play more or pay more. Win/Win for publishers.

    • Marclev says:

      Ok, thanks for clarifying all.

      So … they want you to pay for something without being able to see what you get first, and what you get may or may not be something you already have?

      Isn’t that basically gambling and subject to regulation? What sort of idiot would pay money for that??

      • Fade2Gray says:

        Yeah. A lot of people view it as gambling, but the ESRB (in the US) doesn’t view it that way. They argue that it’s more akin to buying booster packs for card games. In gambling, you have a chance (often very high) of not gaining anything. With booster packs, you’re guaranteed to get something even if it isn’t what you wanted or something you already had.Critics, however, counter that both approaches trigger the same sorts of responses in people prone to gambling.

        Personally, I say, regardless of whether loot boxes are actual gambling or not, they’re becoming a blight on gaming that I wish would go away. When it was just for cosmetics and the like, especially in multiplayer focused games, I could grumble and deal with, but when you start gating gameplay features behind them and putting them into single player games it’s going too far.

        • jonahcutter says:

          The tradition goes back even further. Baseball card packs were the original loot boxes. You knew you would get some cards but not which, along with a piece of dried-out chewing gum. Sold directly to children.

          They were vastly popular in their day and I don’t remember there ever being any significant outcry over them as gambling, if any at all.

  11. MrLoque says:

    The game is currently available for 49,90€ on amazon.it store (47,90€ if you’re a Prime member).

    I think it’s a pretty decent price. The loot system isn’t perfect but if you’re not a very competitive player you can still have good fun with this game. There is a single-player campaign too, graphics are amazing, music, sound effects… I must admit the PC beta impressed me.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      I have no words to describe replies like this.

      It’s like watching someone get punched in the face and reply “the extra dental work I now need is wonderful, as I only asked for a beer, and now I have seven missing teeth, and no beer, that’s a great improvement!”

      • Grim_22 says:

        He or she is saying that they were impressed with the gameplay and that they think they can enjoy the game casually without feeling the need of paying additional money for lootboxes.

        I feel the same way. The practices they are using for the loot boxes is vile, yes – but I loved the game itself. I’ll be buying it, but won’t be paying extra for content after that.

        • gifted.jedi says:

          And that is the problem. Buy “not minding” and “buying anyway” you’re essentially saying (with your money) that “these practices are OK and I like them”. Because you bought into the game anyway.

          I stand firmly with Jim Sterling. Boycott all lootbox games. No exceptions. Let lootboxes exist in free to play games. So you pay for a *chance* to get something, but it isn’t gambling. It’s an endless moneypit; at least at slots eventually you may win some money, but here all you do is stick money into the machine ad infinitum.

          And you already paid for the game. Casino’s at the very least have free entrance and free drinks. This is ludicrous.

          • MiniMatt says:

            Buy [sic] “not minding” and “buying anyway” you’re essentially saying (with your money) that “these practices are OK and I like them”.

            As troubling as I find loot boxes, I’m not sure that’s the argument to focus on to combat the trend. That argument would prohibit vegans buying a cloth-seated Ford Mondeo just because Ford also offer a leather seat option.

            The gambling line I find far stronger. I’m not anti-gambling but I do believe it should be subject to regulations and protections.

          • Grim_22 says:

            Uhm no, I’m not supporting their microtransaction scheme by buying the game and then not using the microtransactions. I am, however, supporting a franchise that I love and a developer that I am fond of.

          • crazyd says:

            @Grim_22

            But buying the game and supporting it with your money is absolutely telling the dev that it’s ok to include loot boxes, even if you won’t buy them. You are supporting the existence of loot boxes in the game whenever you support a game that uses loot boxes, whether or not you buy them. They are targeting whales for loot box sales, anyway, they don’t care if the average player doesn’t buy them. As long as they know the average player is willing to tolerate their existence, publishers will just keep on pushing the boundaries of what’s acceptable.

      • ludde says:

        Yeah well, gamers are cheap. Maybe they’ve always been, but the new generation has grown up in a decade where publishers have been constantly overstepping the limits of decent business practices in search for profits. No wonder there’s a lacking sense of normalcy and gamers are bargaining with themselves over why they should accept that.

  12. GrumpyCatFace says:

    How about stop giving mega-corp shit merchants your money? EA, Ubisoft haven’t seen a dime of mine in a decade.

    • MrLoque says:

      It doesn’t work. Reddit, blogs, forums… we’re a vocal minority even if we look like a huge army. Marketing hype still attracts a lot of customers AND kids.

      • Baines says:

        It doesn’t even matter whether you are a minority or a majority. All that matters is which side gives EA the most profits.

        That’s why “whales” are such a big deal in the microtransactions world. A small number of whales can pump an absurd amount of money into a game.

        (That is also why the “I just won’t buy the loot boxes” approach of protest fails. You are still telling companies you are fine with the practice, and effectively only encourage them to pursue it further.)

    • Zombiwan Kenobi says:

      You’re not alone on this one. Sadly they won’t care about that cause some desperate players keep supporting this kind of behaviour by spending humongous amount of cash in such microtransactions.

      I don’t like EA, but i hate this kind of players even more. We have the games we deserve. :/

  13. GenialityOfEvil says:

    Nice subheading. “The full game won’t be pay to win”
    Meanwhile, in the article: It will still be pay to win except for the *MOST* powerful items.

  14. Horg says:

    ”a £55 game”

    They want ‘ow much?

  15. geldonyetich says:

    EA over-aggressively adopts ways to price their games and make more money, pleasing their stockholders.

    News at 11.

  16. ResonanceCascade says:

    Loot boxes are the point where bad game design and monetization schemes cross the line from annoying to immoral (apparently not “unethical” in the strictest of terms, since the ESRB has openly stated that they’re fine with it).

    It’s only technically not gambling because you always get “something” from your money.

    But the fact that the item will usually be an infinitely copyable piece of software that adds no gameplay value needs to be taken into account. Most of the crap you get adds nothing to your experience and is essentially identical to receiving nothing.

    At least when you buy a pack of trading cards, you’re getting something physical that requires risk and effort on the part of the seller. Video game loot crates are slanted entirely in the favor of the developers, and I think lawmakers need to take a good, hard look at the practice.

    Imagine if a slot machine printed out a sticker with a picture of a banana on it every time you lost. Could kids now play them because it’s not gambling? It’s absurd.

    • Lyrion says:

      At least when you buy a pack of trading cards, you’re getting something physical that requires risk and effort on the part of the seller. Video game loot crates are slanted entirely in the favor of the developers, and I think lawmakers need to take a good, hard look at the practice.

      Which risk does the seller take? He gets the money and the buyer gets the cards… which are also not worth anything. You could argue that MTG cards hold value, but that is still value the buyers are giving to the card. You can pay 8-10 euros for an mtg boosterpack which holds 15 cards which are mostly worth nothing and useless except when you are lucky… or you can buy a game loot crate which holds items which are mostly worth nothing and usless except when you are lucky. How is that different? Because at the end of the day you hold 15 stupid cards in your hand?

  17. crazyd says:

    Jesus, RPS is all about being a mouthpiece for downplaying abusive loot box practices these days. You guys are sure shitting out a ton of “It’s not as bad as it sounds, guys!” First Shadow of War, and now you are downplaying the impact of being able to purchase functional advantages in a full price competitive multiplayer game.

    Just keep printing off those press releases with friendly editorialization, I guess. I remember when RPS used to take stands against shit that was bad for gamers. What happened to you guys? Has everyone with the balls to speak truth to power left? Cause, if I wanted someone running down a publisher’s justification for loot boxes in a positive tone, I’d just go to IGN or Gamestop.

  18. Freud says:

    Any game that has in game power tied to microtransactions is a game I will avoid. No matter what assurances the developer/publisher gives. The game will always be balanced around buying power.

    I’m completely fine with microtransactions for cosmetics. In fact I have spent more money on a game with those than I have on any other game since I started playing. I’ve spent thousands of hours on the game so it’s my way of paying for my enjoyment.

  19. Vandelay says:

    Still too much for a multiplayer game to be putting upgrades behind random crates. I’ve always hated the idea of unlocks being linked to leveling up, so adding an extra layer on top of this where you don’t even know what you are going to get is completely off putting for me.

    I don’t care too much about unlocks/loot boxes if it is just cosmetics and I don’t really share many commenters opinions that these things should be classified as gambling, but getting power from them means that actual skill is reduced and it encourages grind or spending. It has a genuine knock on effect to gameplay making it less interesting.

    Have any studies actually been done on how much spending is done on such things? I know the likes of Dota and FIFA make ridiculous amounts on their equivalents, but how well do single player games that include this kind of thing or the Battlefields that have had them? I really can’t imagine anyone having an urge to spend money on them.

  20. zulnam says:

    Thanks for reviving the classic BF2 multiplayer, Disney; cause i sure as shit ain’t buying this flaming piece of p2w turd.

    They can eat ass, at the end of the day it’s still p2w. I may be able to get everything a buyer gets, but that nutjob will get everything in 2 minutes while it will take me weeks, maybe months.

    Lootbox games; never again.

  21. Moraven says:

    Loot crates for cosmetic are fine.

    Even the Battlefield/Battlefront 1 unlock system is not so bad (Battlefront was worse than Battlefield due to overpowered cards and no classes). Bringing classes into BF 2 fixes most of the problems they had, yet they bring it down with huge gameplay altering equipment, that drops based on a rarity progression system that is prevalent in F2P mobile games that try to get you to pay to stay ahead of the competition.

  22. Merry says:

    “When you get a duplicate of the same item” As opposed to a duplicate of a different item? I think you mean “When you get a duplicate item”

  23. Nick says:

    “Players that pay will still have an advantage over those that don’t – at least in the short term”

    Cool, not buying this game then. At least I don’t have to reinstall Origin afterall.

  24. ludde says:

    As someone that played the old Battlefront, Jedi Knight II and so on in multiplayer back in the day, seeing this twisted joke of a future is insane. Soulless, industrialized, big corporate greed.

    I wouldn’t touch this game even if I got paid.

  25. Bashmet says:

    I can’t bring myself to support it. I really hate when publishers do this and I feel like I can’t really complain if I just go ahead and buy the damn game anyway. I really want to, I loved the first game.

    It’s kind of like complaining about Trump when you didn’t vote. Going to just let the whales have this one.

  26. Preciousgollum says:

    Why haven’t media outlets taken more of a stand AGAINST these practices?

    Most of the ‘Loot box’ models are clearly not in the interest or benefit of thr consumer,and it is more like having the option of paying money to a (possibly crooked) regime in order to receive added protection. ‘Lootboxes’ are the video game equivalent of a protection racket. Before long, video games will probably implement their own systems of taxation and player-regulations…

    Since the UK imposed rules on advertising to children on Kids TV, it would be logical that companies would find many different ways to circumvent these standards, essentially by ‘integrating’ money sink-holes into their products.

    Even when these companies invoke a practice that is detrimental to the consumer, they STILL get the advertising for their product, in the form of articles that become fastly apologetic to crummy practices.

    Advertising is a powerfully unfair force on the planet; Osmund Saddler from Resident Evil 4 ranks Disney & News Corp advertising as much higher than Las Plagas with regards to world-wide brainwashing potential.

    There has been a big surge in the amount of adverts that encourage betting practices, mostly because the infrastructure is there to allow us to punish ourselves via the Internet.

    Chekov’s Gun has been fired.

  27. Preciousgollum says:

    To sum up – In-game monetisation (or ‘lootboxes’) are like a tape-worm:

    You might lose some weight, things might appear healthy, and another life-form wants to live at your expense, but are you really going to be comfortable when you KNOW that a parasitic organism is crawling around your innards?

    Keep those tape-worms out of unsuspecting game innards.

  28. BewareTheJabberwock says:

    On the plus side, it looks like I won’t have to upgrade my computer any time soon after all. I was excited about Shadow of War when I saw the first trailer, bkz I loved the first one, but I wasn’t sure how it would run on my machine. But since it looks like a lot of games are adding loot boxes, which I won’t go near, and the big corps are buying out all the indie devs and any company with altruistic motives (ie, Humble), this computer should last a good long time. I’ll catch up on my existing backlog, and go thru the last decade or two of games with a finer-toothed comb in search of gems I missed. That should be a lot cheaper than trying to stay “current”, for a plethora of reasons.

    Of course, you could slap “Star Wars” on a box of dirt and a surprising number of people will still buy it.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>