Support NeoGAF

[terrible]

The next big step into Loot Boxes hell are shards, where the boxes only give you fragments of the things you want that are useless on their own until you have a full set.
So get ready for that. I will happen, sooner or later.

Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare already did that with the stickers. That's how you unlocked new characters.

 

[Nick_C]

He's not wrong tho, the act of gambling itself is thrilling, that why publisher make fancy opening box animations.
It's no different from your Yakuza gambling mini game, loot box is a meta game by itself, reviewer have every right to express his opinion on that part.

Yup. This is how Epic spiced up opening loot llamas in Fortnite. Basically, you adjust how hard you hit them, which in turn adds a level of interactivity to something that is mechanically mundane. I can't remember where I saw it (probably the Fortnite subreddit) but one of the devs said that they added it in just to make it more satisfying to the player when they open up their loot boxes.

There are deliberate design decisions being made to maximize the potential to make it a regular aspect of the end users' gameplay habits.

 

[Coolade]

http://forums.harmonixmusic.com/discussion/156038/bobby-kotick-i-would-raise-game-prices-even-further

I remember way back in the day Kotick said he wanted to make all games $100. Everyone laughed at him, and they went with the season pass model that effectively made their games $100 dollars. That seems to be the average price to get a complete game these days with loot boxes now being added on top of it :/

 

[Audioboxer]

http://forums.harmonixmusic.com/discussion/156038/bobby-kotick-i-would-raise-game-prices-even-further

I remember way back in the day Kotick said he wanted to make all games $100. Everyone laughed at him, and they went with the season pass model that effectively made their games $100 dollars. That seems to be the average price to get a complete game these days with loot boxes now being added on top of it :/

Bobby Kotick saying he wants to charge $100 for a game is not evidence games need to be $100 to make healthy profits. Bobby Kotick would steal your own mum and sell her back to you if he could.

 

[BrassDragon]

Yup. This is how Epic spiced up opening loot llamas in Fortnite. Basically, you adjust how hard you hit them, which in turn adds a level of interactivity to something that is mechanically mundane. I can't remember where I saw it (probably the Fortnite subreddit) but one of the devs said that they added it in just to make it more satisfying to the player when they open up their loot boxes.

There are deliberate design decisions being made to maximize the potential to make it a regular aspect of the end users' gameplay habits.

We're also going to see more of the slot machine psychology where the virtual 'reel' spins past some really attractive prizes before it settles on your lemon. Got to enforce that subconscious notion that you ALMOST had it, so maybe give it one more go....

 

[Nick_C]

Looks like other sites are starting to chime in on this.

It's probably too late to steer this ship in a different direction, outside of releasing a "2.0" version that overhauls most of the games economy, but with enough people talking about this maybe it'll lead to better decisions being made in the future.

Or a more low-key approach to how the playerbase is being exploited.

We're also going to see more of the slot machine psychology where the virtual 'reel' spins past some really attractive prizes before it settles on your lemon. Got to enforce that subconscious notion that you ALMOST had it, so maybe give it one more go....

This was already in Forza Horizon 3, along with the jingles and fanfare when you won a prize. G2A does this shit, too.

 

[Audioboxer]

Looks like other sites are starting to chime in on this.

It's probably too late to steer this ship in a different direction, outside of releasing a "2.0" version that overhauls most of the games economy, but with enough people talking about this maybe it'll lead to better decisions being made in the future.

Or a more low-key approach to how the playerbase is being exploited.

IGN did too, but Turn 10/MS only care about that score

I'm fine with these, but less so with the new loot boxes; they're not something I've found myself warming to at all. Forza Motorsport 7's "prize crates" contain cars, driver outfits, and mod cards (which are similar in application as they were in Forza Motorsport 6) but I can't really see what they add to the game; they just suck credits from my account I'd prefer to spend on cars. I just dumped 300,000 credits into the most expensive one and got a Mustang worth a fraction of the cost of the crate and three other bits of junk. It's like getting socks instead of Scotch on Father's Day; a crashing disappointment.

It'd all be slightly easier to ignore if Turn 10 hadn't wound back the credit payout bonuses for turning off driving assists (the payout is the same for racing on super easy as it is racing with no driving aids, although the increased multiplier for racing against the harder AI levels partly makes up for it). As it stands, the push to keep your mod cards topped up to make your race payouts more meaningful seems pretty overt. I do guess it prevents people from sitting on big piles of otherwise pointless credits once their garages are filled, but I'm still pretty lukewarm on it.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/09/30/forza-motorsport-7-review

This though is scraping for an excuse

I do guess it prevents people from sitting on big piles of otherwise pointless credits once their garages are filled, but I'm still pretty lukewarm on it.

That's like saying once you 100% complete a game there isn't much you can spend gold/credits on??? No shit Sherlock. Fun from racing your cars or playing MP is supposed to be the longterm goal for racing games, not months of RNG to try and unlock cars from loot boxes.

At least IGN was somewhat critical, Gamesradar is just... what?

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Bobby Kotick saying he wants to charge $100 for a game is not evidence games need to be $100 to make healthy profits. Bobby Kotick would steal your own mum and sell her back to you if he could.

This isn't even the argument being presented. The argument is that "games need to be $100 just to cover their development budgets", which is even more bonkers.

 

[Nick_C]

IGN did too, but Turn 10/MS only care about that score



http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/09/30/forza-motorsport-7-review

This though is scraping for an excuse



That's like saying once you 100% complete a game there isn't much you can spend gold/credits on??? No shit Sherlock. Fun from racing your cars or playing MP is supposed to be the longterm goal for racing games, not months of RNG to try and unlock cars from loot boxes.

At least IGN was somewhat critical, Gamesradar is just... what?

Haha, that's the same thought I had when I read the excerpt. "There's nothing left for me to spend my Cr on, so at least they built something into the game allowing me to spend it, meanwhile I'm accruing more Cr."

Gamesradar, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It reads like it was written by someone totally ignorant to the fact that they were being psychologically manipulated into buying into something. Which I think is more plausible than them being paid by MS for the positive words regarding the loot boxes.

 

[LordRaptor]

This isn't even the argument being presented. The argument is that "games need to be $100 just to cover their development budgets", which is even more bonkers.

Do you think game budgets have increased since last gen? If yes, by what amount?
Here is a slide showing historic budget increases that suggest it is more than double per generation

Do you think that revenue per game therefore needs to be higher, when base title per unit cost is the same as it was last generation? If yes, by what amount to offset increased budget?
Here is a slide showing publishers are releasing half as many games today as they were last generation.

Using this data, would it be fair to say that if publishers are releasing half as many games as they used to, and those games cost twice as much to make, it is - in fact - not "dirty fucking scamming greedy Big Gaming rip off" to want to make $100+ per game?

 

[Occam]

I’ve always fought against it. I’ve detested it since horse armor and, as of today, have yet to spend money on one single micro transaction. Not even one. Have always been against it and will continue to be. I’d like to see developers succeed and including harmless trinkets isn’t TOO awful (not for me, though) but when this type of design influences the core game design it’s bad news. Forza 7 is a lesser game as a result of this. It’s very clear that the single player game has been heavily influenced by this model.

Same for me. The problem is that most people are incredibly weak willed, and the developers/publishers know it.
As soon as you dangle shiny stuff in their faces, most people instantly forget about any principles they may have had.
It's pretty sad.

 

[Audioboxer]

This isn't even the argument being presented. The argument is that "games need to be $100 just to cover their development budgets", which is even more bonkers.

Pretty much. From the Shadow of War thread, let me remind everyone in here an annual sports franchise is doing what some say is "just covering development costs"

NBA 2K18 already aggressively pursues MTs for levelling up.

And by micro, I mean yes, there is an option to spend $100 on coins. In an annual $60 sports franchise.

Which also has $100 and $150 special editions

Haha, that's the same thought I had when I read the excerpt. "There's nothing left for me to spend my Cr on, so at least they built something into the game allowing me to spend it, meanwhile I'm accruing more Cr."

Gamesradar, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It reads like it was written by someone totally ignorant to the fact that they were being psychologically manipulated into buying into something. Which I think is more plausible than them being paid by MS for the positive words regarding the loot boxes.

The rabbit holes of reviewers/journalists buddying with publishers aren't worth going down without hard evidence. Reviewers can have their own subjective opinions even if they're eye-rolling around monetization. Jim Sterling has gone on record talking about publisher pressure around scores, however, in his NBA 2K18 video. Even Bethesda came after him for giving Rage a 7/10. No one wants to be blacklisted and everyone understands that review copies that get provided come at no cost.

Gamers, however, do not get free games, or "review editions" with MTs turned off/adequate credits provided for free to test features. Hence gamers need reviewers to sometimes have some hypothetical balls and describe it for how it is for everyone who will be dipping into their monthly salary just to get the game.

 

[Nick_C]

Pretty much. From the Shadow of War thread, let me remind everyone in here an annual sports franchise is doing what some say is "just covering development costs"

NBA 2K18 already aggressively pursues MTs for levelling up.

*snippy*

And by micro, I mean yes, there is an option to spend $100 on coins. In an annual $60 sports franchise.

Which also has $99 and $150 special editions

*snip*



The rabbit holes of reviewers/journalists buddying with publishers aren't worth going down without hard evidence. Reviewers can have their own subjective opinions even if they're eye-rolling around monetization. Jim Sterling has gone on record talking about publisher pressure around scores, however, in his NBA 2K18 video. Even Bethesda came after him for giving Rage a 7/10. No one wants to be blacklisted and everyone understands that review copies that get provided come at no cost.

Gamers, however, do not get free games, or "review editions" with MTs turned off/adequate credits provided for free to test features. Hence gamers need reviewers to sometimes have some hypothetical balls and describe it for how it is for everyone who will be dipping into their monthly salary just to get the game.

Oh yeah, no doubt. And while I see pubs/devs/reviewers having a very symbiotic (some may even say parasitic) relationship, I ultimately feel that the media holds more power over devs/pubs than either is willing to readily admit.

I do understand the apprehension though. Do they risk the blacklist and potentially lose a section of their audience because they will no longer be able to cover those games?

Honestly? My integrity is worth far more to me than a paycheck.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Do you think game budgets have increased since last gen? If yes, by what amount?
Here is a slide showing historic budget increases that suggest it is more than double per generation

Do you think that revenue per game therefore needs to be higher, when base title per unit cost is the same as it was last generation? If yes, by what amount to offset increased budget?
Here is a slide showing publishers are releasing half as many games today as they were last generation.

Using this data, would it be fair to say that if publishers are releasing half as many games as they used to, and those games cost twice as much to make, it is - in fact - not "dirty fucking scamming greedy Big Gaming rip off" to want to make $100+ per game?

See my previous post in the thread.

If pubs are already compensating for a doubling in development costs by producing half as many games (since overall publisher spend on games development is the same), then no, they don't need to also increase the amount of revenue taken in per game, since provided the ROI remains similar, their profits will remain the same.

Increasing the amount of revenue generated per game, only further and disproportionately increases their profitability (and this is further achieved by publishers seeing a higher proportion of their games becoming bigger successes than ever before—i.e. the biggest publishers are seeing more 10-20+m sellers than ever before).

 

[Audioboxer]

Oh yeah, no doubt. And while I see pubs/devs/reviewers having a very symbiotic (some may even say parasitic) relationship, I ultimately feel that the media holds more power over devs/pubs than either is willing to readily admit.

I do understand the apprehension though. Do they risk the blacklist and potentially lose a section of their audience because they will no longer be able to cover those games?

Honestly? My integrity is worth far more to me than a paycheck.

Anyone blacklisted can still cover/review the games, it's just they'd have to buy standard retail copies so no early access to review copies, for free. Getting reviews up second 1/hour1/day 1 is the business of earning money via clicks for reviewers these days. They practically need review copies to fund their cycle. No access to any silly publisher/developer preview/review events either. Those seem to be dying out a bit. Everyone remembers things like the MGS4 review boot camp journalists were all flown to in Japan.

2K does not seem to be blacklisting TheSixthAxis for the 3/10 score. I don't think it happens that often, but I do know Konami blacklisted Jim Sterling a while back. As he said in his video Bethesda was sending "polite angry" emails about a 7/10 Rage score. So while everything might not be blacklisting, you can still be made feel uncomfortable by PR getting on your case. 2K did request TheSixthAxis remove their review score till they "spoke via email".

 

[Outrun]

I feel that MS needs to take a step back with loots crates in Halo, GoW, Forzas, etc...

I paid close to $140 CND for the Ultimate edition, and would appreciate not getting bombarded with this loot crate BS.

I cannot single out MS, because Capcom in SFV, and Nintendo are all intent with these types of unlocks.

It is to a point where I need to constantly inform my kid of the perils of gambling.

If this shit continues, then my kids are not playing period.

 

[LordRaptor]

If pubs are already compensating for a doubling in development costs by producing half as many games (since overall publisher spend on games development is the same), then no, they don't need to also increase the amount of revenue taken in per game, since provided the ROI remains similar, their profits will remain the same.

Increasing the amount of revenue generated per game, only further and disproportionately increases their profitability (and this is further achieved by publishers seeing a higher proportion of their games becoming bigger successes than ever before—i.e. the biggest publishers are seeing more 10-20+m sellers than ever before).

Except only making half as many games leaves you with only half as many games to sell, so every one of those games has to sell double to meet the same revenue as overall output used to.

And thats assuming costs 'only' doubled, when there is evidence that they more than doubled.

There is a big revenue black hole in your calculations.
Is it worth at least even considering that - in fact - these increased end user costs per title are necessary and not everyone in gaming trying to fuck over people?

 

[Haines]

Someone explain to me how he doesn't just take the latest and hottest neogaf controversy thread and turn it into a video every week

 

[plasmawave]

I feel that MS needs to take a step back with loots crates in Halo, GoW, Forzas, etc...

I paid close to $140 CND for the Ultimate edition, and would appreciate not getting bombarded with this loot crate BS.

I cannot single out MS, because Capcom in SFV, and Nintendo are all intent with these types of unlocks.

It is to a point where I need to constantly inform my kid of the perils of gambling.

If this shit continues, then my kids are not playing period.

What loot crates in SFV?

 

[Nick_C]

Anyone blacklisted can still cover/review the games, it's just they'd have to buy standard retail copies so no early access to review copies, for free. Getting reviews up second 1/hour1/day 1 is the business of earning money via clicks for reviewers these days. They practically need review copies to fund their cycle. No access to any silly publisher/developer preview/review events either. Those seem to be dying out a bit. Everyone remembers things like the MGS4 review boot camp journalists were all flown to in Japan.

2K does not seem to be blacklisting TheSixthAxis for the 3/10 score. I don't think it happens that often, but I do know Konami blacklisted Jim Sterling a while back. As he said in his video Bethesda was sending "polite angry" emails about a 7/10 Rage score. So while everything might not be blacklisting, you can still be made feel uncomfortable by PR getting on your case. 2K did request TheSixthAxis remove their review score till they "spoke via email".

It looks like we're both in sync on everything that surrounds dev/pub/reviewer relationships. The point that we both seem to be moving toward is that traditional media outlets, while still big, are losing more and more of their audiences for the smaller, more personality-driven sources of information when it comes to games media.

Maybe I've accelerated this conversation too far? I also think that this back and forth may only be tangentially related to the topic at hand.

 

[Audioboxer]

Someone explain to me how he doesn't just take the latest and hottest neogaf controversy thread and turn it into a video every week

Why would anyone want to explain to you he doesn't? So what if he does? It's almost as if gamers are happy if an industry speaker with a large audience will speak up for them.

The only people that should be getting squeamish about a Jim Sterling video are the publishers PR departments who are probably seething with rage when one of his videos go live and they are the target. Like Konami.

It looks like we're both in sync on everything that surrounds dev/pub/reviewer relationships. The point that we both seem to be moving toward is that traditional media outlets, while still big, are losing more and more of their audiences for the smaller, more personality-driven sources of information when it comes to games media.

Maybe I've accelerated this conversation too far? I also think that this back and forth may only be tangentially related to the topic at hand.

While that is indeed true, you've got to remember the power still given to Metacritic/Opencritic by this industry. The big boys are still seen as the golden gooses for having the high scores on these outlets. Even on GAF, many are still excited when an IGN/Gamespot/Giantbomb/Polygon review drops for their favourite games. Or equally as angry if any of the big boys dare go with a 6~8/10 rather than a 9 or 10/10. The smaller outlets still don't carry that same weight, whether they're going low and generating anger, or going high and generating praise.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Except only making half as many games leaves you with only half as many games to sell, so every one of those games has to sell double to meet the same revenue as overall output used to.

And thats assuming costs 'only' doubled, when there is evidence that they more than doubled.

There is a big revenue black hole in your calculations.
Is it worth at least even considering that - in fact - these increased end user costs per title are necessary and not everyone in gaming trying to fuck over people?

Except the flaw in your calculation is that not all of those games publisher's released last gen even made money. Many in fact didn't.

The consolidation has not just brought less games but a greater proportion of more successful games, since publishers will only invest in surer bets.

The reality is, games haven't increased to $100 at retail, and yet publishers have been seeing continued YoY growth in profits for as long as this generation has lasted so far, with more games than ever reaching mega-hit status.

The recent increased adoption of MTs and other monetization methods will only further inflate publisher profit growth, indicating that this isn't an issue of "necessity" in further monetizing blockbuster AAA games, rather "opportunity".

 

[McStickenstein]

Looks like other sites are starting to chime in on this.

Let me know when critics start incorporating microtransaction feedback in their review scores. Right now Forza 7 has a 88 on Metacritic.

 

[Outrun]

What loot crates in SFV?

I am sorry, I extended the idea of locked content in full-priced titles to the beloved SF series.

 

[OraleeWey]

I watched the entire video. Sigh, it's only going to get worse isn't it?

 

[plasmawave]

I am sorry, I extended the idea of locked content in full-priced titles to the beloved SF series.

Like what?

 

[LordRaptor]

Except the flaw in your calculation is that not all of those games publisher's released last gen even made money. Many in fact didn't.

The consolidation has not just brought less games but a greater proportion of more successful games, since publishers will only invest in surer bets.

C'mon man, thats not even close to being true - whether a game is a hit or a miss is just as big a crapshoot as it always has been, and you can point to any number of high profile bombas released this gen.
They're not making more money because they're only releasing guaranteed hits now - its just the stakes are much higher on whether its a mega-success or a huge financial hit.

Again, even back of the napkin calculations show that a $60 one off payment for these kinds of games is straight up unsustainable, even assuming a moderate production cost increase of 'only' costing twice as much to make.
It gets even worse when you factor in - as you're right in saying - the successes have to help pay off the failures

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Do you think game budgets have increased since last gen? If yes, by what amount?
Here is a slide showing historic budget increases that suggest it is more than double per generation


Do you think that revenue per game therefore needs to be higher, when base title per unit cost is the same as it was last generation? If yes, by what amount to offset increased budget?
Here is a slide showing publishers are releasing half as many games today as they were last generation.


Using this data, would it be fair to say that if publishers are releasing half as many games as they used to, and those games cost twice as much to make, it is - in fact - not "dirty fucking scamming greedy Big Gaming rip off" to want to make $100+ per game?

Nobody is forcing them to double their budgets, and the big AAA publishers are richer than they ever have been.

 

[Rymuth]

I am sorry, I extended the idea of locked content in full-priced titles to the beloved SF series.

The problem with loot crates is the RNG aspect of it which effectively turns it into gambling since you don't know what you're getting.

 

[Audioboxer]

Again, even back of the napkin calculations show that a $60 one off payment for these kinds of games is straight up unsustainable

Please explain how MS managed to create Forza games prior to this and make a shit tonne of money out of them.

Straight up unsustainable?

The company reported the results of its fiscal Q3 today, and it revealed that it generated $1.928 billion in revenues from Xbox and Windows 10 gaming. That is up 4 percent year-over-year, according to Microsoft.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/04/27/...-division-generated-1-9-billion-last-quarter/

Someone please think about Turn 10 charging $60 for a roughly bi-annual franchise (or annual with Horizon now a thing) which has special editions and season passes.

 

[katsais]

Disgusting. Anything with loot boxes should have a 18+ age rating. This is the real topic.

 

[Sjefen]

Is GTSport hidding cars in loot boxes or does the game have loot boxes at all? If yes, I am fucking done with racers

 

[Nick_C]

Except only making half as many games leaves you with only half as many games to sell, so every one of those games has to sell double to meet the same revenue as overall output used to.

And thats assuming costs 'only' doubled, when there is evidence that they more than doubled.

There is a big revenue black hole in your calculations.
Is it worth at least even considering that - in fact - these increased end user costs per title are necessary and not everyone in gaming trying to fuck over people?

If we take Forza for example, which is fitting considering the thread we're in, Turn 10/Playground have been offering VIP passes to anyone willing to buy them which boosted Cr payout by 100% and a handful of "exclusive" cars which were oftentimes cars form the base game with special liveries and sometimes an additional Cr/XP boost. That right there is way of increasing revenue at very little extra cost in a non-invasive way. The game's economy wasn't tailored around needing to buy the VIP pass, it just allowed the end user to unlock cars at a faster pace. Neutering that in favor of giving their most loyal customers a taste of what there revamped loot box/mod economy has to offer is disgusting.

Someone explain to me how he doesn't just take the latest and hottest neogaf controversy thread and turn it into a video every week

Not quite sure where you're trying to go with this? GAF isn't the end-all-be-all of video game discussion, so what's the problem with him bringing the conversation to a larger audience?

Why would anyone want to explain to you he doesn't? So what if he does? It's almost as if gamers are happy if an industry speaker with a large audience will speak up for them.

The only people that should be getting squeamish about a Jim Sterling video are the publishers PR departments who are probably seething with rage when one of his videos go live and they are the target. Like Konami.



While that is indeed true, you've got to remember the power still given to Metacritic/Opencritic by this industry. The big boys are still seen as the golden gooses for having the high scores on these outlets. Even on GAF, many are still excited when an IGN/Gamespot/Giantbomb/Polygon review drops for their favourite games. Or equally as angry if any of the big boys dare go with a 6~8/10 rather than a 9 or 10/10. The smaller outlets still don't carry that same weight, whether they're going low and generating anger, or going high and generating praise.

One of the main reasons why I rarely, if ever, post in a GAF review thread. I use Metacritic as a review round up, scrolling through the critic reviews until one of the pull quotes piques my interest, prompting me to read the review for full context.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

IGN did too, but Turn 10/MS only care about that score



http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/09/30/forza-motorsport-7-review

This though is scraping for an excuse



That's like saying once you 100% complete a game there isn't much you can spend gold/credits on??? No shit Sherlock. Fun from racing your cars or playing MP is supposed to be the longterm goal for racing games, not months of RNG to try and unlock cars from loot boxes.

At least IGN was somewhat critical, Gamesradar is just... what?

Wow. Just read both. The IGN one is a classic case of an extra line being added to appear balanced on a particular subject but it actually adds nothing of value.

As for GamesRadar, that was naïve. I agree when people say that's the reviewer's own experience, or analysis, and to be fair, the reviewer in question is simply stating the psychological effect that it will have on players. But the conclusion shouldn't be a positive one based on the wider effects it has on the game, and how players will put time in to the game.

 

[jdmonmou]

Someone please think about Turn 10 charging $60 for a roughly bi-annual franchise (or annual with Horizon now a thing) which has special editions and season passes.

It's just really confusing to make sense of all the passes available and what you actually get from buying them which is why I just ignore them. I'm surprised that this is as popular as it is and the casual consumer isn't more put off by this.

 

[leeh]

Here you go:
https://www.polygon.com/2016/5/2/11565868/gears-of-war-4-100-million-budget-epic-games-sale

A rare occasion, but me and LordRaptor agree on something. AAA development isn't sustainable and we need to support consumer-friendly extra revenue mechanisms.

 

[Maintenance]

We absolutely need to support consumer-friendly extra revenue mechanisms, that's why I plan on giving Path of Exile some of my money, and more to Warframe too.

This? This isn't consumer-friendly at all.

AAA development ballooned not because of the consumers. They created the monster that's eating them.

 

[leeh]

We absolutely need to support consumer-friendly extra revenue mechanisms, that's why I plan on giving Path of Exile some of my money, and more to Warframe too.

This? This isn't consumer-friendly at all.

As a tier 9 Forza player, oh I certainly agree yes.

That VIP pass has fucked me off to no end, I wouldn't of purchased it if I knew!

 

[Col.Asher]

Borderlands 3 is gonna have microtransactions and loot boxes.

 

[Nick_C]

Borderlands 3 is gonna have microtransactions and loot boxes.

Golden keys are already widely accepted by the community. Add in the heads/skins/legendaries and it couldn't be more obvious that they'll more than likely charge for them this time around.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

Let me know when critics start incorporating microtransaction feedback in their review scores. Right now Forza 7 has a 88 on Metacritic.

This.

 

[Audioboxer]

Here you go:
https://www.polygon.com/2016/5/2/11565868/gears-of-war-4-100-million-budget-epic-games-sale

A rare occasion, but me and LordRaptor agree on something. AAA development isn't sustainable and we need to support consumer-friendly extra revenue mechanisms.

Like season passes, special editions and DLC?

Gears of War 4 would have cost more than $100 million to make, Epic Games estimated.

The article reads like "we wanted to sell this IP to MS to make money, and here is the reason we're going to tell you why".

Making a profit off the project would have required the game to be a major success. "Anything less could put us out of business," Sweeney said.

No shit Sherlock, most games that sell well do make a profit. What did Gears of War 4 sell for MS? Like 3m+ copies or something? Then there is DLC earnings, marketing/brand deals and whatever else.

That's pretty much a PR fluff piece of "estimates" "coulds" and "like every game we need to try and make a profit". Hardly unwavering evidence that a $60 product is completely unsustainable for Forza. Which I showed above Forza is not simply a $60 product anyway.

 

[Outrun]

Like what?

Weren't characters and stages locked behind some sort of grind mechanic, which could be circumvented with some transactions?

Sorry for the bad example if it wasn't. I was not focusing so much on the RNG aspect of loot boxes, rather than the value proposition of full priced games.

Back to MS and their loot box bs....

 

[Terrell]

It won't stop because the general public buy this stuff. They wouldn't be putting it in games if people didn't buy it. And quite honestly it doesn't seem to both the general public.

Just like online passes and other things people said this about, they will reach a peak insufferability because every publisher will rush to it and the general public will be happy to see there's been a chorus of disapproval they can join in on when that happens. Then something new will be tried instead. And people will be there to be all over it.

Oddly enough, it's the plagues the industry has put upon hardcore niches that have stuck around the longest.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Weren't characters and stages locked behind some sort of grind mechanic, which could be circumvented with some transactions?

No. Characters aren't "locked", DLC characters can be bought with an in-game currency or bought outright with no RNG or bullshit currencies involved. Stages can only be bought with the in-game currency that you get by playing.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Is GTSport hidding cars in loot boxes or does the game have loot boxes at all? If yes, I am fucking done with racers

No Microtransactions or loot boxes in GT Sport.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I'd love for all those who defended the mobile games / f2p model to come out and defend its now obvious deleterious effects on gaming at this point.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Ah yes, the sound of bullshit.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Disappointing that he didn't mention the VIP stuff, or has he already done a video about it?

 

[Stone Ocean]

I'd love for all those who defended the mobile games / f2p model to come out and defend its now obvious deleterious effects on gaming at this point.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Ah yes, the sound of bullshit.

Mobile/F2P games don't cost $60. These models can work for them because of that and its not their fault the AAA industry warped it into this shit.

 

[cakely]

I'd love for all those who defended the mobile games / f2p model to come out and defend its now obvious deleterious effects on gaming at this point.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Ah yes, the sound of bullshit.

Loot boxes / card collection in a Free to Play (notice the free part, there) game are fine.

People get upset when the same systems make their way into a $60 game. You can see the distinction there, yes?