Take-Two plans to only release games with 'recurrent consumer spending' hooks - Gamasutra

[Leyrann]

I'm not gonna read through all this anymore, but I do want to comment one thing. Not all lootbox systems are pay to win. For example, if you look at League of Legends, there's two ways to earn lootboxes: getting them as reward for good play (the box) and being a nice person (the key to open the box) or buying them with real money. Of course, that means you can get many more lootboxes if you spend money. However, lootboxes do not give a direct advantage; everyone is on an even field, no matter what, and all you get out of lootboxes are new characters to play (which you can also unlock without ever spending anything on the game) or cosmetic changes to the characters.

Tl:dr: There are lootbox systems that don't ruin games or wallets.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not gonna read through all this anymore, but I do want to comment one thing. Not all lootbox systems are pay to win. For example, if you look at League of Legends, there's two ways to earn lootboxes: getting them as reward for good play (the box) and being a nice person (the key to open the box) or buying them with real money. Of course, that means you can get many more lootboxes if you spend money. However, lootboxes do not give a direct advantage; everyone is on an even field, no matter what, and all you get out of lootboxes are new characters to play (which you can also unlock without ever spending anything on the game) or cosmetic changes to the characters.

Tl:dr: There are lootbox systems that don't ruin games or wallets.

Obviously not all lootbox systems are pay2win, as there are systems that only have cosmetic rewards, such as the system in Overwatch.

Doesn't matter though, they're still a terrible system, no matter how you look at them. There are three major concerns with lootboxes:
- They're Pay2Win if you can buy power by spending ridiculous amounts of money - whether that's power to get ahead on day 1, or whether you can actually get power that gets you ahead of what players can realistically get while playing normally, really doesn't matter there. It goes directly against the competitive aspect of the game.
- They're randomized purely for the sake of being randomized. You're less likely to actually get what you want, and will generally end up with a lot of trash that you would not have spent money, or currency for. It's a way that game devs use to force all the crappy nonsense such as victory poses onto you while you're hoping for proper rewards.
- They're designed to simulate gambling and likely make people spend way more money than they can afford.

 

[Kwami]

I don't really see how randomized loot boxes are any different than blind boxes and blind bags of collectable figures, pins, etc. that you can buy at stores. If those aren't considered gambling, then why are digital blind boxes? How is buying random digital cards any different than buying MtG booster packs?

Pretty much any cash shop is poison to a game and utterly ruins it for me, though. The only one that I'm (mostly) OK with so far is Path of Exile because the game itself and all patches and expansions are completely free and the stuff available in the shop is only cosmetic. Or, that was the case when I played a little over a year ago. I guess it might be different now.

 

[sherbz]

I don't really see how randomized loot boxes are any different than blind boxes and blind bags of collectable figures, pins, etc. that you can buy at stores. If those aren't considered gambling, then why are digital blind boxes? How is buying random digital cards any different than buying MtG booster packs?

Pretty much any cash shop is poison to a game and utterly ruins it for me, though. The only one that I'm (mostly) OK with so far is Path of Exile because the game itself and all patches and expansions are completely free and the stuff available in the shop is only cosmetic. Or, that was the case when I played a little over a year ago. I guess it might be different now.

There are a few differences here. Lets take an example. Like magic the gathering or any other collectable card game. In that, you are quite right. You pay money and open a pack, and get a number of cards to make a deck. What do you do with the ones you have left over? Well, you have a tangible card, so you can trade it with other players. Or you could start making another deck. If you translate that to the online world and an example of a company who tries to mimic this i would offer hearthstone. In that you can either break down cards that you already have, and buy new ones. Its not perfect, but its ok. In both cases though, you kind of knew what you were going into when you started. you knew it was a collectible card game that necessitated you purchasing cards.

Lets switch to what we are discussing here. Here, you have already paid £40-£50 for the game. And then on top you are being asked to pay for items that directly link to powerups in game that make you a better player not by being a better player but by paying to be a better player. This is clearly, amongst other things, a clear example of games companies trying to have their cake and eat it. In my opinion if COD, shadows of war and any other loot box system were free from the initial purchase, then i would have no problem with loot crates. They gotta make money somehow, and they are giving you the game for free, so that seems like a fair deal. But asking for £50 as a starting purchase? Give me a break! Furtehrmore, how often when you open a loot chest do you actually get what you want? And what is your recourse should you get a load of BS that you dont? Can you trade your BS victory pose with another player who has access to double XP rewards for the next mission? No! Clearly you cannot.

Secondly, it seems that companies now are specifically designing their games around loot crates. A good example is shadows of war. Most of the game is just fine and dandy. Then Act 4 hits and you have to grind and grind until you acquire enough legendary orcs in order to see the final ending. This is a problem because for someone who doesnt want to purchase loot crates, their experience of the game is being ruined/diminished because the developer wants to extract more money from a minority of people who do buy this stuff. This is why its market distorting. Because you are mixing players who pay with players who dont. And furthermore, the margins on the people who pay are huge compared to the people who dont. So even though their number is far smaller, they are the diamonds amongst the gold. And these exploitative market practices are targeted specifically at these people to try and maximise the amount of money they can make. Its pernicious, greedy, and quite frankly tantamount to exploitation. In the card example above, its not like that. Because EVERYONE has to pay for the card decks. There is no mixing of players. Sure some pay more than others, and might have better decks. But the simple fact that everyone has to do this in order to play makes it qualitatively and substantially different than what we are talking about here.

You and others are right that loot boxes do not have to be game ruining. Overwatch, league of legends and team fortress could be some examples of how it is implemented well. But tying it directly to gameplay is a massive problem. Cosmetically is ok (IMO). But locking stuff off behond a pay wall unless you incessantly grind is poisonous to the industry as a whole. And people should not only not buy loot crates, they shouldnt buy any title that has an exploitative loot crate system in at all.

 

[Kwami]

There are a few differences here. Lets take an example. Like magic the gathering or any other collectable card game. In that, you are quite right. You pay money and open a pack, and get a number of cards to make a deck. What do you do with the ones you have left over? Well, you have a tangible card, so you can trade it with other players. Or you could start making another deck. If you translate that to the online world and an example of a company who tries to mimic this i would offer hearthstone. In that you can either break down cards that you already have, and buy new ones. Its not perfect, but its ok. In both cases though, you kind of knew what you were going into when you started. you knew it was a collectible card game that necessitated you purchasing cards.

Lets switch to what we are discussing here. Here, you have already paid £40-£50 for the game. And then on top you are being asked to pay for items that directly link to powerups in game that make you a better player not by being a better player but by paying to be a better player. This is clearly, amongst other things, a clear example of games companies trying to have their cake and eat it. In my opinion if COD, shadows of war and any other loot box system were free from the initial purchase, then i would have no problem with loot crates. They gotta make money somehow, and they are giving you the game for free, so that seems like a fair deal. But asking for £50 as a starting purchase? Give me a break! Furtehrmore, how often when you open a loot chest do you actually get what you want? And what is your recourse should you get a load of BS that you dont? Can you trade your BS victory pose with another player who has access to double XP rewards for the next mission? No! Clearly you cannot.

Secondly, it seems that companies now are specifically designing their games around loot crates. A good example is shadows of war. Most of the game is just fine and dandy. Then Act 4 hits and you have to grind and grind until you acquire enough legendary orcs in order to see the final ending. This is a problem because for someone who doesnt want to purchase loot crates, their experience of the game is being ruined/diminished because the developer wants to extract more money from a minority of people who do buy this stuff. This is why its market distorting. Because you are mixing players who pay with players who dont. And furthermore, the margins on the people who pay are huge compared to the people who dont. So even though their number is far smaller, they are the diamonds amongst the gold. And these exploitative market practices are targeted specifically at these people to try and maximise the amount of money they can make. Its pernicious, greedy, and quite frankly tantamount to exploitation. In the card example above, its not like that. Because EVERYONE has to pay for the card decks. There is no mixing of players. Sure some pay more than others, and might have better decks. But the simple fact that everyone has to do this in order to play makes it qualitatively and substantially different than what we are talking about here.

You and others are right that loot boxes do not have to be game ruining. Overwatch, league of legends and team fortress could be some examples of how it is implemented well. But tying it directly to gameplay is a massive problem. Cosmetically is ok (IMO). But locking stuff off behond a pay wall unless you incessantly grind is poisonous to the industry as a whole. And people should not only not buy loot crates, they shouldnt buy any title that has an exploitative loot crate system in at all.

I wasn't defending loot boxes or anything like that. Previously, a few posters were talking about gambling laws in the US and in Japan, so I was simply asking why they're different than collectable cards or blind boxes in a legal sense. To me, they aren't.

 

[cvb]

I fail to see the relevance for civ6 (or civ7).

Multiplayer is already a relative small niche with issues in finding long enough time contemporaneous with other people, spontaneous dropouts when the own civ is developing badly, psychopaths of any kind etc.
If you want surely kill the multiplayer option in civX completely, simply add the possibility that any strange person on the internet can outperform you easily by buying something even if you are a civ champion, who is just not ready to buy all & everything.

And for singleplayer? TO PAY for any stronger super-duper unit??!! Are you kidding???
(Hint: some people think, there are already OP units & civs ... at least against the AI players )​

 

[God of Kings]

Firaxis could release a Map Pack DLC. However, @Gedemon's Terra Map Script would be much better: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/terra-map.623231/

 

[bladex]

R.I.P future civ games...

 

[blackbutterfly]

Firaxis could release a Map Pack DLC. However, @Gedemon's Terra Map Script would be much better: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/terra-map.623231/

Yeah, I agree the modding community will probably do a better job than Firaxis with maps. TBH maps aren't that popular. Shame, cos IMO they're really great fun

They seem to be doing quite well with civs+scenario DLC packs. That looks like how they will continue to earn revenue for Civ VI.

Somehow I think this will be the end of the SP Civ franchise. Maybe a "Definitive Edition" that incorporates the best of the series (E.g: Baba Yetu and music from earlier games, Leonard Nimoy quotes from Civ IV, etc. into a Civ VI). Like they did with BioShock. Or MS is doing with AoE.

 

[God of Kings]

Maybe a "Definitive Edition" that incorporates the best of the series (E.g: Baba Yetu and music from earlier games, etc. into a Civ VI).

Now with Sean Bean saying "Beep. Beep. Beep.", the return of the Civ V Defeat Screen statue after accidentally wiping off a civ handing another civ the religious victory, the Nubian Giant Death Robot, Venetian plagues, Gorgo being able to sacrifice population, and all sorts of fun stuff.

Spoiler The Civ V Defeat Screen :

Remember me?

 

[Katakanja]

I wasn't defending loot boxes or anything like that. Previously, a few posters were talking about gambling laws in the US and in Japan, so I was simply asking why they're different than collectable cards or blind boxes in a legal sense. To me, they aren't.

You are correct that collectible card games like Magic or whatever are essentially the same concept as lootboxes in videogames. As for your question as to why Magic cards aren't subject to the same kind of scrutiny as lootboxes at the moment, I think the simplest explanation is the fact that the modern day videogame market is larger than the market for CCG's has ever been by a vast degree. This makes lootboxes a much more visible problem to a wider audience, particularly when less scrupulous developers market the things directly towards the most easily exploitable players (children, gambling addicts, "whales" - which I believe is the industry term for those with large amounts of disposable income who will buy up huge amounts of boxes repeatedly, etc)

If any government decides to legislate against lootboxes - whether that's by making them subject to prexisting gambling laws or whatever - it's entirely possible that CCGs like Magic could wind up being retroactively included under the new rules. However, its more likely that any law change to deal with lootboxes would only cover the rules concerning the sale of digital goods of a gambling nature to combat the present issue.

Also, there's the additional minor argument that at least with Magic cards and the like you're purchasing a physical object which belongs entirely to you, and I guess the resale value on some of those old cards is kinda ridiculous in itself.

 

[God of Kings]

You are correct that collectible card games like Magic or whatever are essentially the same concept as lootboxes in videogames. As for your question as to why Magic cards aren't subject to the same kind of scrutiny as lootboxes at the moment, I think the simplest explanation is the fact that the modern day videogame market is larger than the market for CCG's has ever been by a vast degree. This makes lootboxes a much more visible problem to a wider audience, particularly when less scrupulous developers market the things directly towards the most easily exploitable players (children, gambling addicts, "whales" - which I believe is the industry term for those with large amounts of disposable income who will buy up huge amounts of boxes repeatedly, etc)

If any government decides to legislate against lootboxes - whether that's by making them subject to prexisting gambling laws or whatever - it's entirely possible that CCGs like Magic could wind up being retroactively included under the new rules. However, its more likely that any law change to deal with lootboxes would only cover the rules concerning the sale of digital goods of a gambling nature to combat the present issue.

Also, there's the additional minor argument that at least with Magic cards and the like you're purchasing a physical object which belongs entirely to you, and I guess the resale value on some of those old cards is kinda ridiculous in itself.

Sports cards have been around for over a century (baseball being the first). They often come in randomized packs.

CCGs are the descendants of sports cards.

That might be another reason why physical CCGs are less scrutinized than their video game counterparts.

 

[Kwami]

It's not just cards, though. You can buy sealed boxes with random toys in them, too. Those don't seem to be illegal in the US or in Japan, either. So, I really doubt that loot boxes are. Terrible and poisonous, yes. But, not illegal under current gambling laws.

 

[Uberfrog]

Also, there's the additional minor argument that at least with Magic cards and the like you're purchasing a physical object which belongs entirely to you, and I guess the resale value on some of those old cards is kinda ridiculous in itself.

I think games publishers took a lot of inspiration from the likes of MTG and Pokémon Trading Card Games when coming up with these systems. In fact I remember Mass Effect 3 and other early examples using card-like imagery and language (such as "booster packs").

Interestingly, the resale issue is precisely what some developers point to as being central to this gambling problem. Blizzard argue that Overwatch's loot boxes do not constitute item gambling because there is no marketplace for them to be resold, and thus have specific real-world value - as was the case with TF2, and particularly CS:GO, which got in trouble in Washington for its use by third-party gambling sites.

 

[Ryika]

It's obviously not gambling in the legal sense in most countries. You spend a fixed amount of money, and get a product that you're then stuck with. End of the line. That product is of uncertain "quality", but you always get the product you paid for, a box with likely terrible loot that has no value other than the value you ascribe to it emotionally. I think people who want this banned legally, are seriously misguided, legislation can only be a bad thing here.

But of course it still makes use of the same mechanisms that make us vulnerable to gambling. That's okay for CCGs in most people's minds, because let's be honest... that randomized pack opening is pretty much the core of what is a TCG, outside of virtual CCGs, most people do not actually use those cards to play against other people, at least not on a regular basis. They're for the most part collector items. The line gets blurred with things like Hearthstone where you have a cardgame, that also has a Lootbox-System attached to it, but it does make sense, because that's where those card games came from. What's different now is that LootBoxes are pushed into games where they don't belong. A person who wants to play Call of Duty, wants to play Call of Duty, not open LootBoxes in simulated Pseudo-Gambling, but it is still forced onto people. And not because it adds anything to the game, no, because Game Devs have realized that there are people who will spend ridiculous amounts of money on them, while most of the rest of the playerbase goes along with it.

 

[trev1972]

Surprised people feel this will be the end of sp civ?

This game sold very well i think? despite its issues.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Surprised people feel this will be the end of sp civ?

This game sold very well i think? despite its issues.

It has to do more with the fact that 4X strategy games have pretty much plateaued. Civ VI re-invents the wheel mostly. Apart from districts it's just a re-engineered Civ V. And it seems to have made more design mistakes than its predecessor. Jon Shafer was right to keep Civ V focused.

Having said that there's room for fantasy/sci-fi conversions: like an XCOM themed scenario/conversion, Beyond Earth (or SMAC) 2, etc. IMO Miller & McDonough did a great job of simplifying stuff in BERT. Perhaps they should be tasked with the next expansion for Civ VI to reign it in?

 

[Katakanja]

I think people who want this banned legally, are seriously misguided, legislation can only be a bad thing here.

Indeed, I don't even really know what kind of law you could bring in to deal with this kind of situation. Going all out and just banning lootbox-based systems would be a rather OTT reaction, but apart from that what could you even do? Restrict the number of boxes you can purchase in a 24 hour period or something?

The only legal action I've seen taken against lootboxes that actually seemed like a sensible idea was a new regulation the Chinese put in place a few months ago that requires games with lootboxes to make public the odds for determining the boxes' contents. At least that way the consumer can get a sense of how ethical the developer has been in regards to the design of their lootbox system - is it just set up to be a lengthy timesink to encourage purchases, or can everything be earned in a reasonable manner through gameplay.

 

[clapyourhands]

The way I see it there are three models of post-release paid DLC that consumers have accepted and/or agree are reasonable.

1. Free-to-Play, with essential content reasonably obtainable through normal play, but faster through pay

This one IMO is the hardest to get right. It's essentially the modus operandi of crappy mobile games. But you also have League of Legends, which (until this week anyways) didn't hinder gameplay for free players significantly and makes it relatively simple, if a bit time-consuming, for even casual players to save up for desired champions. The gameplay mechanics also help with this, as you only need a small pool of champions to actually play; obtaining new ones is about choice and fresh playstyles instead of win-or-lose.

Puzzle and Dragons also pulls this in a nice way for a mobile game. Though this wasn't the case in the past, today you're pretty much guaranteed a starting card capable of taking you over halfway through the game, and the in-game currency is given out like candy simply for logging in. I've already talked about Japanese gambling laws playing a part in how the "gacha" portion of the game functions, but I don't think I can overstate how they bolster and give backing to fan response to dev proposals (though tbf the PAD devs are already good with adjusting cards to fan criticism).

2. Paid, with cosmetic content obtainable through play as well as pay

Overwatch follows this. It's justified in that the game is still being updated continuously after release and is projected to continue being updated regularly for the foreseeable future; as such, the developers do need to be paid somehow beyond the base game price. Cosmetics are also obtainable without paying real money, and the Overwatch team's stellar player response and interaction also helps smooth over any misgivings about the system.

3. Paid, with game-altering but technically not necessary DLC

This is Civ and other games with expansion packs. It's a popular way of expanding indie games (ie: Don't Starve, Shovel Knight) because, like 2, developers that work on content post-release understandably should be paid for the work they put in, post-release. The sticky part of the situation arises when content is purposely left out of the base game so that it can be later sold as an "expansion." I haven't been around for enough cycles of Civ expansions to comment on its model, but I do know that as fans we have come to see expansions as an expected and necessary part of Civ titles, to the point that most agree that the base game is almost always lackluster. I personally would like to see vanilla Civ releases stand a bit better on their own, but it is true that if they did, people would have less reason to buy expansions that "fix" the problems of vanilla. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that Firaxis purposefully cuts content from vanilla Civs to save for DLCs, though, as much as they simply don't get around to working on and finishing such content prior to initial release.

 

[Zaarin]

It has to do more with the fact that 4X strategy games have pretty much plateaued. Civ VI re-invents the wheel mostly. Apart from districts it's just a re-engineered Civ V. And it seems to have made more design mistakes than its predecessor. Jon Shafer was right to keep Civ V focused.

Having said that there's room for fantasy/sci-fi conversions: like an XCOM themed scenario/conversion, Beyond Earth (or SMAC) 2, etc. IMO Miller & McDonough did a great job of simplifying stuff in BERT. Perhaps they should be tasked with the next expansion for Civ VI to reign it in?

For a genre that's plateaued, there are an awful lot of new ones being released... Civ and XCom may be the only high-profile AAA games in the genre, but strategy in general seems to be making a comeback after a decline in the late 2000s.