General News - Thinking outside the Loot Box

Originally Posted by Moorkh
I don't think that's Valve's doing. That's publishers offering their product at lower prices in order to broaden their market. The fact that this in turn creates an expectation of future lowered prices among their own core market and, thus, a vicious cycle, apparently doesn't stop any of them (except Clive, of course…).

That's true.

Wasn't really familiar with the term loot box. Seems to apply to multiplayer F2P games isn't it. Never play MMOs so can't say I really care. Is there any way to make multi-player games appeal to me? Not sure.

As for DLC in singleplayer games… I'm certainly not going to support horse armor type garbage microtransactions but I'm not opposed to paying for decent content (i.e., an expansion).

Obviously some gamers wait for sales because they're broke, but it seems many buy stuff on Steam / GoG sales that wasn't exciting enough for them to buy at release price. What it comes down to is developers need to respect their customers and try to make great games. Lot of mediocre stuff gets released, but the AAA suits think the only problem is marketing.

They witnessed how the crowdfunded scene (that release poor product after poor products) was praised and rewarded, they want to achieve the same.
They have still a long way to go to downgrade their quality to crowdfunded standards.

Originally Posted by Moorkh
I don't think that's Valve's doing. That's publishers offering their product at lower prices in order to broaden their market. The fact that this in turn creates an expectation of future lowered prices among their own core market and, thus, a vicious cycle, apparently doesn't stop any of them (except Clive, of course…).

Big studios included that expectation a long time ago in their scheme which is not basically broadening their market but satisfying different markets.
They design their product so that the experience is devalued over time.
At the bottom of the market, players who buy products to enlarge their back log with no expectation of playing them. Their purchase is triggered when they deem the product cheap enough.

Pre order and first three weeks after release: period to recoup all the expenses and initiate profits when possible. Buyers during that period have access to the full experience.

From that time, the experience is degraded (the product is devalued) on the same principle as multiplayer experiences can be degraded: they are better when many people play them. When few people play them, it experiences poorly.
There is no bargain in buying at a lower cost when the product is properly designed.

It starts from players who want a full experience to go down to players who do not care about any experience at all as long as it is cheap enough.

No discount but a pricing corresponding with a loss in experience that is meant from the start.

When I was young, the 60's, there was many pictures collecting, could be sports but it wasn't just sports.

When you bought one it was a gambling you didn't knew what you'll get. Years after some could worth a lot of money.

And you know what? Nobody ever bothered me and tried control my childish mind, and even better I never became a gambler.

All of the topic of this thread is showing the absurdity where the world evolved, madness.

On the topic of lootboxes/micro transactions, I think this patent filed by Activision is illuminating. The idea these things are innocuous to our game experiences is obvious nonsense, IMO.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/…h-matchmaking/

Originally Posted by Ripper
On the topic of lootboxes/micro transactions, I think this patent filed by Activision is illuminating. The idea these things are innocuous to our game experiences is obvious nonsense, IMO.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/…h-matchmaking/

Jim Sterling did an excellent video on this, I have to say one of the best he's ever done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSpP3Ge-dq0

Originally Posted by Ripper
On the topic of lootboxes/micro transactions, I think this patent filed by Activision is illuminating. The idea these things are innocuous to our game experiences is obvious nonsense, IMO.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/…h-matchmaking/

What is an obvious nonsense is to keep thinking that abusing by words is as efficient as it was 200 years ago: it is written so it must happen.

Patents must be justified and their justification do not match forcefully what happens.

One of the product is SP so incitation to buy through peer pressure as described is unlikely to happen.

As to the matchmaking in MU products, it begs the question whether people play those products. There is no team cohesion, players rush as they can to get most of the action. A player playing sniper is unlikely to cross path with another sniper. Players do not wish to camp the same position. Players run everyhwere, there is no structured play with players fielding basic teamwork.

The author probably hails from a country that set double standards as a constitutional principle and still wishes to sell the idea that because it is written, it happens.

Or, to put it another way, you don't play the game, the game plays you.

No. Other players play you.

What? Where?
I'm game. Play me please!

In products like BFT.

There is an interesting entry on the discussion : http://dulfy.net/2017/11/15/swtor-fo…ks-loot-boxes/

Dulfy is currently one of the most important inofficial SWTOR information sites.