Playing a slot machine that always pays out a minimum of $0.50 on each $2 play is still gambling
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Overwatch marks a new low in Unlocking and Microtransaction systems that I'm aware of
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
Playing a slot machine that always pays out a minimum of $0.50 on each $2 play is still gambling
TheRedSnifit
Member
Implying that Blizzard doesn't care whether or not you give them extra money is rather optimistic.
nintendoman58
Member
I don't know why, but the more I look at this thread title, the more I hope "X marks a new low in Y and Z that I'm aware of" becomes a new GAF meme along the likes of "Square just shot themselves in the foot I'm an expert yadda yadda".
KLoWn
Member
People still complaining about this? Such nonsense...
You don't need any of it to play the game, so you don't need to buy it. That simple.
If you want a skin, play until you get it. And if you don't get it, guess what... It won't affect you gameplay experience in the slightest.
We will get everything for free in the future from heroes to maps, and you complain about some cosmetics that you can get for free by playing the game?... Again, such fuckin nonsense.
You don't need any of it to play the game, so you don't need to buy it. That simple.
If you want a skin, play until you get it. And if you don't get it, guess what... It won't affect you gameplay experience in the slightest.
We will get everything for free in the future from heroes to maps, and you complain about some cosmetics that you can get for free by playing the game?... Again, such fuckin nonsense.
Straight Edge
Member
I don't understand how someone could care enough about sprays, poses, and voice lines to pay actual money. They are the definition of worthless.
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
Yup, they just there to pad the boxes to lessen the chances for skins/taunts....
Diabolical isn't it
This is hilariously ironic considering I'm stating facts and posting proof while you're the one theorizing on how the system actually works. I'm telling you, this micro transaction system is based on a "game of chance" system that you can AT BEST be vaguely certain of (and vague certainty is mechanism of exploiting people that F2P and "Freemium" titles use.) I've been posting videos that backed that up. You're the one theorizing "pity timers" and at what point the credit system becomes a certainty based on nothing but your own word about your anecdotal experience as a whale.
Look at what you are suggesting. Really. "It's okay that you can't just buy credit for the content you want. Because when you put either a hundred hours or dollars in, your chances increase!" Great whale advice. I don't care about the people who have the money to brute force the system without negatively impacting their life nor do I care about micro transaction content based around catering to the rich. What I do care about is how Overwatch has a system in place that gets a traditional gambling mechanic into people's hands and then made content so that those people find that mechanic more valuable. I do care when people say misinformation about what twenty loot crates will get you (thus increasing the value of the crate in the public eye), I do care that people in the OT beg other people to try to talk them out of buying 50 loot crates. The system reeks of exploiting vulnerable people.
TheRedSnifit
Member
DotA2 gets constant updates, but they don't ask for anything up front. Even when TF2 was pay-to-play, it didn't have the full $60 retail price. CS:GO only costs $15 up front.
Nobody would be complaining if Blizzard hadn't bolted a gambling system on to a $60 game.
Pellegri Testament
Member
It was either the MTs we got or they charge for each and every major content update, splitting the playerbase. Charging for MTs isn't new, nor is it about to stop anytime soon, especially as games get more and more expensive to create and support over time.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Generally speaking, people prefer paying 60 dollars + cosmetics microtransactions, or something like Heroes of the Storm, where you can play for free, with character rotations, and buy your favorites separately + cosmetic microtransactions?
I for one think Heroes of the Storm model is pretty decent.
yanipheonu
Member
An easy two step way to avoid microtransactions.
Step 1: Don't pay for Loot Boxes.
Step 2: There is no step 2.
Step 1: Don't pay for Loot Boxes.
Step 2: There is no step 2.
I mean the suggestion that "put in $150 dollars and you'll never have to worry about your chances again" is a pretty fucking bad one. If you are a millionaire whatever sure fine but people vulnerable to these transaction mechanics think that way too. People that need that money to feed their family or keep the lights on.
Zomba13
Member
I would have loved the HotS model. Obviously it's be different, like all heroes instead of cycling (because it's not a F2P game) but for the items themselves. Or even just buying the currency. I could totally see myself throwing in some money on top of what I've already paid for Overwatcher if I could just grab x currency and spend it on the skins and emotes and highlight animations I want. Instead this system has me not giving them any more money and also feeling like they've purposefully lowered the drop rate for the "good" stuff in the free boxes compared to paid ones. Like watching people open boxes (like on the latest Giant Bomb UPF) I've seen in their 50 boxes getting muuuuuuuch better consistent drops than me.
I mean it makes sense, normal boxes have shit drop rates to inspire people to buy a bunch of paid for ones hoping to get something good, then they get better drops and think "wow, I should buy more!" and so on.
I just hate games that have the random drop thing and then you can pay real money for the random drop thing. I absolutely see why they do it, people with more money than sense dump so much money into the game and they get the equivalent of like 5+ copies sold off some people when they don't have to actually sell anything at all.
HandsomeCharles
Member
I don't work for Blizzard, but I do work in games, and some of the titles on which I have worked have "blind bag" type item packs. Those games most certainly do include Pitty timers (I implemented it myself), as do the games of more or less every other developer out there using this kind of loot reward system. Each one is going to work differently, but they're an incredibly common way of making players feel rewarded when luck is screwing them over. IMO Blizzard definitely does this. I would stake my life savings on it.
you are missing the point
HandsomeCharles
Member
You seem to think Pitty timers don't exist. They do.
I'd imagine many of them work similarly to ours, which means you wont get a clear-cut image of when the timer kicks in, but it's certainly there and it certainly gets you the "legendary".
No, I said that he is theorizing pity timers. Which he is. There's a difference.
HandsomeCharles
Member
Blizzard are never going to reveal the inner workings, so all one could do is thorize and experiment to get a rough image of how it works. His theories don't seem outlandish in the slightest. Do you really think each box you open is just pure RNG?
You are missing the point. This is once again theorizing RNG of an uncertain mechanic designed to be uncertain in a way that you can feel vaguely certain about but not are. It's a system that makes people say you'll definitely make enough credit to buy a skin when you get 24 of them. And oh, when that turns out to be wrong? Buy another 24! You already put $20 anyways and you'll be certain to get enough credit for that skin and hey maybe every single box is a legendary*.
*every single box won't be a legendary. but the rules will never be made clear to the consumer.
edit: "Blizzard are never going to reveal the inner workings" right, blizzard designed a game of chance that they will never reveal the odds to. this is the only way you can partake in getting unlocks and customizing your favorite heroes. The only way to increase your likelihood to get these unlocks for your heroes is to buy more chances.
HandsomeCharles
Member
If you've watched the machine then you can figure out it's payout value.
Maybe I am missing the point, but you haven't made it very well.
Rules? They're pretty clear to me. "Here's a box. You don't know whats in it. Could be good, could be bad. $2 to find out."
You know you can just get them for levelling up, right?
Right, you can make a educated guess when it's going to pay out. But it's not certain. If you came across a gambling addict, would you pointing him to this slot machine be the morally right thing to do?
Great, you've gone away from theory crafting how Blizzard handles the odds (which you will never be certain) and got back to what matters. Which is that it's a gamble with what you're going to get.
Yes, Blizzard is putting this "game of chance" in everybody's hands for free. But your additional free chances get dolled out slower and slower and it might not be until hour twenty that you'll even see a legendary and even longer that you'll get the credit to buy the exact thing you want. You can't pay for the credit itself, but you can pay to partake in more chances.
Blizzard didn't design the system so you can pay money for what you want. They designed it so people have to gamble, and if they want their stuff sooner, they can only pay to gamble more. And they've designed the content in the game and the way loot crates work so that people would value the loot crate system. They want to get people hooked on spending money for the opportunity to gamble on skins or victory poses that they want.
Yes, they need to create value somewhere. In this case, value through artificial scarcity.
Because otherwise they won't make enough money to fund continual development at all. At least from their point of view.
Other games lock gameplay behind paywalls/grindwalls to give value to their MTX options. Is it so difficult to admit how much worse this is, for the actual health of a game, than locking away cosmetics behind various barriers? They could've sacrificed Overwatch's gameplay entirely to sell maps, characters, whatever. I fully expected them to do so given the systems in their other games and just general gaming trends. They didn't. And the cost of the upfront price is that they need to figure out an alternative way to preserve the "whale factor" that turns a game like Overwatch from an amusing but temporary side project into one of their core IPs.
I mean, the choice isn't between Overwatch with direct skin purchases and Overwatch with loot crates. The choice was between Overwatch with loot crates and no Overwatch at all because they wouldn't feel like its worth their time in the long run.
Because otherwise they won't make enough money to fund continual development at all. At least from their point of view.
Other games lock gameplay behind paywalls/grindwalls to give value to their MTX options. Is it so difficult to admit how much worse this is, for the actual health of a game, than locking away cosmetics behind various barriers? They could've sacrificed Overwatch's gameplay entirely to sell maps, characters, whatever. I fully expected them to do so given the systems in their other games and just general gaming trends. They didn't. And the cost of the upfront price is that they need to figure out an alternative way to preserve the "whale factor" that turns a game like Overwatch from an amusing but temporary side project into one of their core IPs.
I mean, the choice isn't between Overwatch with direct skin purchases and Overwatch with loot crates. The choice was between Overwatch with loot crates and no Overwatch at all because they wouldn't feel like its worth their time in the long run.
A paywall doesn't employ gambling tactics designed to exploit various human behaviors in hopes of getting them to spend more money than they should.
It just results in a situation where some gamers feel that they are not getting the content that they deserve for their money. Because there's no obfuscating the value. Which can suck! I've been there.
But I feel way worse about this.
No, you're right, they don't employ gambling tactics.
But they do employ other psychological traps that are, ultimately, still exploiting consumer behavior in the hopes of getting them to spend more money than they should. Otherwise these other games wouldn't have their own equivalent of whales, even if they aren't effectively digital slot machine addicts.
Is that the crux of your argument? That exploiting gambling tendencies is worse than other kinds of whale hunting?
Yeah. Like how I'm pissed I've dropped hundreds on League of Legends and now I don't even play anymore and every time I poke around in it again I realize there's all this cool stuff I won't ever get to experience unless I grind/pay for it.
No, thanks. I'll take the hat slot machines over locked gameplay every fucking time.
Yes. Is it not? I mean, when governments have to heavily regulate or make gambling illegal you should take into considering why that's the case. And how Overwatch does it feels so deliberate, so calculated at activating those tendencies. People fucking love loot crates and legendary skins. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard is making a ton of bank right now right off of them, and I bet we're going to see a ton of new Overwatch content over the years because they need to keep those loot crates valuable.
But maaan, it feels exploitative. I feel sorry for the people who can't help themselves.
capitalCORN
Member
I don't care about maps, or characters! GIVE ME COSMETIC DAMMIT!
Maybe in a vacuum, but in the case of Overwatch I feel we got the superior game in exchange for slot machines, and that's a trade I'm willing to make.
Besides, it's not like the government doesn't regulate other predatory business practices. There's no non-gaming analogue for grind/paywalls, but I'm going to go ahead and say it (selling gameplay piecemeal) definitely more anti-consumer, than the alternative.
finalflame
Banned
I bought 24 crates. Got a single legendary.
Much like my experience losing $50 at slot machines in Vegas: never again.
It's really not that bad unless you already have a problem.
Much like my experience losing $50 at slot machines in Vegas: never again.
It's really not that bad unless you already have a problem.
It's probably been pointed out a few dozen times in this thread by now but a Free to play character system would not work with the Overwatch gameplay.
In Overwatch your are expected to change your character depending on many different situations. Like your team composition, enemy team composition, map, Attack or Defense, beginning of match or end, etc.
This would create a huge balance disparity between the people with many characters and the people with free characters in a Free to play system.
And if they changed the gameplay to suit the Free to play system the gameplay would suffer greatly and the game would not be as good or fun because of it.
A Buy to play system was the best choice for the game but there also needs to be a way for it to sustain revenue between box sales.
I think of it as a traditional fighting game where the new characters are free. You buy the game, and there you have it. You can pay to get skins faster if you're impatient, but you don't have to
All of your bitching and not one of you addresses how else pay launch support and development is paid for. Heroes and LoL? Lock away game content behind a grind or paywall. Valve games? Subsidized by a store that has a 99% market share in the PC games industry. COD? Season passes on game content. So keep bitching I guess. In the meantime those of us fine with it will continue ensuring that those who aren't fine can continue to play with no further charges.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Yeah, that makes sense to me!
It seems to make sense to everyone. Sadly a small group of people want to bitch about microtransactions yet ignore the repercussions of doing away with them.
I want to pay for my content, one and done. I'd gladly pay for heroes and maps if it means we wouldn't have to deal with the hot mess that is the loot crate distribution system.
And making people pay for them isn't some ominous boogeyman that people make it out to be. The userbase is large enough to sustain itself even if split.
"Oh shit!! We need Lucio guys. Hey lets play CTF on the China map."
"Sorry. I didn't buy any of that and none of it is on rotation this week."
Vs. "you have everyone unlocked, everyone coming in the future unlocked, amd never have to worry about having to buy a character, map or game mode. "
All because you guys want to bitch about paper hats.
For fuck sake.
Really? Show me one shooter where you have paid DLC where the user base has maintained or grown over many years. Why do you think the ones with paid DLC see new releases every 1-2 years?
Every shooter that has maintained its health over 4 or more years has done so on new game content for no additional charge. Period.
Pretty much this, the suggestion is completely ludicrous, the current system is nowhere near as bad.
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
Weak logic, tons of people still play old shooter like BF3, they release them so often because they know people will buy the same game again with a fresh coat of paint.
Blizzard isn't trying to be your buddy with this game, they have enitre departments devoted to the best way to separate you from your dollar. It's a business. If they could do an Overwatch 2 in 2 year they would, they just crunched the numbers and this way works so much better for them.
All any game company sees in the consumer is $$$$
CraigerGamer
Member
Isn't it pretty standard Blizzard to average a legendary item around 20 or so tries? Hearthstone works out about the same, give or take 5 packs opened.
I got my first legendary skin at level 20, so there's the tiniest piece of empirical proof for you.
Pellegri Testament
Member
They release them so often because the community jumps off a cliff several months after release so they can go to "the next best thing". Making a "new" "next best thing" gets peoples attention again. The lemmings that continue to jump from game to game because they only follow what's being talked about, rather than sit in one place, are the reason why most MP games don't last past the "honeymoon" period.
If a single one of them could hold people for more than a few months, maybe they'd actually be more willing to support it for a longer period of time, rather than dump it the moment they're done with dlc. The "tons" of people still playing BF3 clearly isn't enough for them to give a shit about supporting it anymore, other than keeping the severs online still.
competitively? bullshit.
http://bf3stats.com/
1800 PC users. Do you really call that healthy?
http://bf4stats.com/
BF4. Peak 24 hour: 30K users. Is this what you are calling healthy?
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
CSGO 500K peak users today. DOTA2 (I know, moba) almost 1M peak players today. Even a 10 year old work horse like ?TF2 is still putting in more than BF4.. and that game is 6 years older than BF4 where most of the competitive user base moved onto CSGO.
umm.. why not both? Why not a game that people love to play and remains healthy for years AND something that's profitable for the company?
wow. so there's no love for creating new and exciting things for people to enjoy. all about that almighty dollar I guess. I mean that's all anyone talks about at events like GDC and such, right?
Holy fuck. This thread is just down right toxic at this point. Gross.
Pretty much this, also I always find it funny when people throw out the argument of "they just want your money" as if that proves their point somehow.
Yeah they want our money and they realised that setting up a system that isn't abusive and doesn't split the playerbase is the best way to do that.
Every business and product is developed to make money, saying so doesn't change a consumer friendly policy to an anti consumer one.
TheCthultist
Member
Ditto. It's simple, out of the way, unobtrusive (I guess that's the same as out of the way) and not needed in the least to enjoy the game. If you don't want to buy it, congratulations, you get a crate each level. If you do, well the option is there. What's so low about this?