Which of the three at least WORKS?
Season pass
69.2% (45)
69.2% (45)
Microtransaction
23.1% (15)
23.1% (15)
Lootboxes
7.7% (5)
7.7% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Season pass vs micro transaction vs loot boxes; Which one is SALVAGEABLE?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Oh boy, here they are; The three unholy trinity bestowed unto us by the big corporate assholes.

First, we have the season pass. You pay essentially less for the dlcs/expanisions as a bundle. The purchasers usually get the content before the standalone release of the dlc. Problem is, Season pass means most of the good contents are in the dlcs, whether it's a new gear, area/map, or campaign.

Next, we have microtransactions. These are usually in pay-to-win format where you can pay a little extra to give you advantage or minor cosmetics. Mobile gaming industry is absolutely saturated with microtransaction, and the concept is getting into the AAA games.

Finally, we have the loot boxes. This usually goes two ways; either be cosmetics only which does not give any advantage OR have the whole in-game unlocks depend on the loot boxes. We all know how SWBFII by EA went down.

So out of these three, which is tolerable to you?

Microtransactions only really makes sense for a game that doesn't have a purchase price to begin with(like a browser or mobile game). Charging for content in a full priced game is complete bullshit though.

While I disdain pre-ordering and the culture around it, a season pass makes sense if you were going to buy all the dlc regardless. However, if it turns out the DLC is shit and you got ripped off by paying for it in advance, you have only yourself to blame. Much like pre-orders in general.

They all have their place and can work honestly. The problem is when games are built around such things instead of just adding them (microtransactions/loot boxes) afterward as a way to skip by what some players feel are minor annoyances for a few bucks.

-Season pass: You kinda know what you're getting in expansions from certain game series/devs like a Bethesda, Gearbox with the Borderlands games, and probably CDPR. Buying expansions as a bundle with a discount makes sense. Plus, those season passes are usually always available so even if all the DLC has come out (and you heard good things), you can still buy the season pass. It's really completely on us for being dumbasses and buying it earlier than we need to. It's not like they wave a minor discount in front us and take it away before the content is actually out.

-Microtransactions: There's nothing really wrong with someone wanting to fast-forward the grind for a bit of money. Maybe someone wants to start out as an MVP player in the create-a-player mode for any number of sports games instead of building the character to that. Maybe someone would like to have that 10th level prestige emblem on day 1 in COD4. If I was Activision, I'd gladly take money for that. Or how about Bethesda/CDPR charging $5 to start max level in Skyrim/Wticher 3, what does it matter? The problem arises when progression systems are built around microtransactions instead of the game just being made with normal progression in mind and allowing players to skip it if they so want. COD4 was obviously designed without microtransactions and the progression was fine. Adding in options to skip it via money wouldn't have been an issue for me. Problem is when human greed takes over and you get stuff like Battlefront 2 and the NBA 2K games now.

-Loot boxes: I like loot boxes least of all 3 but even they can be done well enough to reward players for playing the game. The main problem I have with loot boxes is the fact that you can't just pay in-game currency (most of the time) to buy specifically what you want. I thought the loot boxes in Mass Effect 3 would be perfectly fine if I could've just bought what I wanted with in-game credits. I did stop playing the multiplayer of ME3 because of the loot boxes because it was so frustrating trying to unlock new characters via random chance. If I could've just saved up to buy them, it wouldn't have been an issue honestly. Then the loot boxes could be there to try your hand to get something you want on the cheap if you get lucky enough.

They can call work, I guess?

Honestly, the gamete of stuff like microtransactions is too broad to declare what arbitrarily works and what doesn't. Since the OP's question is "what is tolerable for you?" I guess...all of them? If I find it tolerable, I'll engage in the practice. If not, I won't.

That said, I'll vote for microtransactions. In F2P games, there's a clear case for them existing.

I'd prefer a return to fully complete expansion packs, personally. Not likely to happen, but I almost never felt cheated by a proper expansion, and actually have fond memories of most of the games where I ended up getting one.

IE, much of the Total War series, Mechwarrior, Red Alert, Crysis Warhead, Heroes of Might and Magic series, Neverwinter Nights (1 and 2), Mysteries of the Sith, Red Orchestra 2: Rising Storm, Titan Quest (Immortal Throne), etc etc.

Alternatively though, on the business side of things, maybe if AAA devs would... stop pumping out garbage titles at such frequent intervals we'd actually see some better quality, quality worth a slightly higher baseline price tag. I'd much rather have fewer games that I actually genuinely enjoy rather than a buttload of games that I couldn't bother playing for longer than an hour or two.

None. Normal expansions and for f2p, normal item store. All of these options contain cancer. It's just a matter of time till it develops to a point, where it starts killing gameplay again.

Wow, so far I'm the only one to say lootboxes. Well, they are the worst... but I can salvage them easier than I could microtransactions and season passes. Fixing lootboxes is easy...

Don't offer any way for them to be purchased with real money.

Just a reward for playing that anyone can get. No trading (so no offline for pay deals) or selling back. No online auction house. Just several rewards for playing that eventually everyone could have, but with luck you could get a good one early... maybe. We used to have something like that. Unlockable features. No one complained. I don't think randomizing which ones you get in which order would be so bad. Conversely, I'm not sure how that would be better than just having some non randomized unlockable features... but whatever. There, its easy. I fixed lootboxes. Of course, there's no way for a publisher to exploit that lootbox system for moar MOAR MUNEY... but whatever. Fuck em.

None of them.
You could even have added Steam/DRM and Pre-orders to the list, and I wouldn't have voted for any of them.
Also, isn't loot-boxes just micro-transactions in another form?

Season passes can be ok as "DLC bundle" things, since based on my Steam purchase style, I like bundles. I will certainly buy any season pass of any Bethesda game. Though I think Rainbow Six Siege is the only game that actually had seasons of passes.

Lootcrates are ok when it doesnt cost real money. I certainly enjoy getting a crack at a few ESO lootcrates when they do some event that lets you earn a couple for free, but I will never actually pay for one.

Microtransactions can die in a fire.

I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

I could tolerate season passes unless they made it blatantly obvious that the content that they are selling was already finished before release and cut just to make you pay more.

Microtransactions can be done well, like adding new skins post release or giving some extra boosts in a SP game as long as the game itself doesn't suffer for it. It has no place in MP unless it's just cosmetic.

Lootboxes can just go F themselves, EA replaced game progression systems entirely with those and even if it wasn't made to milk the players of their money they would still be a horrible design choice.

I clicked on the wrong option because I misread the poll (I missed the 'AT' LEAST and read it as "LEAST") but I really do not have a big issue with Season Passes. If you trust the developer, for some strange reason, you could try and shoot for a discount. Especially for developers like CD Projekt Red or Paradox Interactive which have done right by their customers in the past. I admit I was flabbergasted when Paradox came out and said "yeah, the DLCs for our Season Pass have been kinda underwhelming. So we're adding the next two expansion DLCs for free". How often has that happened? (recently at least)

If you are a more discerning customer and want to pick and choose what you get, then buy the content on its lonesome. Not all Season Passes are remotely worth it but some do offer good value, especially if you came late into the game and can see what you buy.

Microtransactions can go die in a tire fire but at least you can get what you pay for. It is a willing and informed transaction (usually) between the consumer and the company. The invisible hand of the market will intervene if such microtransactions prove to unbalance the game; if spending money makes your character so grossly overpowered compared to others in a competitive milieu then odds are the game will simply bleed out as everyone else goes on to something different.

Now lootboxes are the latest form of deviltry to have come into fashion. They have all the ills of Microtransactions married to the insidious thrill of gambling. You could in theory spend an obscene amount of money to get a lot of junk that you never wanted. Thus it can go die in a tire fire while also being skinned alive.

I've vaguely liked the idea of a Season Pass an early adopter bonus. It's the only one that be salvaged for a game that's already full priced.

i.e. if you buy a game during its first week or two of release you get any future DLC for free automatically as a thank you for paying full price and trusting the developer.

This way at least rewards trust and enthusiasm rather than exploit it by forcing an extra bit of money of people who don't want to miss out.

Season passes as they have been used so far are basically DLC long term pre-orders which is dumb.

Reasonably priced cosmetic microtransactions are fine in free to play games but pay to win is always bad and microtransactions in paid games is always greedy.

I don't think loot boxes are ever going to be ok for me anymore as the primary way of selling items to players. Maybe a free-to-play game could have a few starter kits which are essentially loot boxes if that is in addition to having microtransactions for specific items.

If I had to pick one, I'd probably go for season pass. If you think you're going to get a lot out of the game, and plan on playing a lot of the added content then that's a good option.

All of them. None of them are inherently bad. They are all revenue tools and with any tool its a matter of how they are used.

Many games did good on their season pass. At least the ones I've looked at.Borderlands for example. Microtransactions are the same. You pay for as much of the extra stuff as you want. Lootboxes, are totally optional., You never have to open one.

The problem that comes from these things mostly stems from basic human nature. Lootboxes irritate people because they feel like they're missig out, or worse someone else will have the shiny cool looking skin and they won't. Same for MTX, and the same for the Season Pass.

Personally if I had to pick the most superfluous its the season pass. Any smart consumer knows to wait for the GOTY edition.

Phoenixmgs:
You kinda know what you're getting in expansions from certain game series/devs like a Bethesda, Gearbox with the Borderlands games, and probably CDPR. Buying expansions as a bundle with a discount makes sense. Plus, those season passes are usually always available so even if all the DLC has come out (and you heard good things), you can still buy the season pass.

That's why I'm not bothered by these at all, it's basically a bundle of all the add-on packs that you can either preorder or buy later. I bought the Witcher 3 one when I saw the Hearts of Stone reviews, by that stage I was happy to spend double as I was sure Blood and Wine would end up being worth it. Particularly where something is definitely an add-on pack and not just 4 extra maps and a gun skin it can be worth it to buy as a bundle.

Season Pass can work, but you can't do all the playing about with the model that is common nowadays. No time limiting it, making it an exclusive pre-order, or suddenly splitting it up into multiple seasons. It needs to the complete bulk deal (it also needs to be a deal, there's been a few that have offered no discounts), and its clearly catered to dedicated fans, but the premise isn't totally flawed.

Microtransactions should only exist in a free-to-play game, or with definitive and demonstrated results to the game they're in. If you're going to jam MTs into your non-F2P game, you'd better come with some hefty ongoing updates, and damn sure have your own servers and not P2P stuff if you're online. Don't mix them into the core gamplay loops and mechanics (Not even in free-to-play), and definitely don't try and run microtransactions for "ongoing development" while also running a subscription fee or steady DLC stream.

Loot boxes are the objectively bad ones. You're blocking customers from making purchases they want to make, forcing them to purchase things they don't want to, and most cases are masking the odds behind the transaction. Alongside a proven effect of making the average cost of the product well beyond what passes for a standard for skins and the like.

While all of them are honestly "salvageable," the only one I feel has a viable place other than further lining the money-lined pockets of corporate gamedom are Season Passes; the other two just reek too much of crookedness. A bundle for future DLC makes sense as long as said DLC is a hard definite (i.e.: currently under development) and not a promise written in the sand with the tide of "other priorities" or "in light of lower than expected sales" coming in.

Definitely the season pass. There are actual legitimate consumer reasons to buy them some of the time and, in fact, I have happily done so on occasion when I knew I would buy the dlc anyway and would save money with the pass.

Just, y'know, be aware of what you are paying for and that you are essentially saying 'I trust this publisher enough that I am actually willing to give them money in exchange for something at a later date that they have not even made yet.'

inu-kun:
I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

Counter-point: That article fails to provide examples of game development costs. Moore's law, third-party engines and outsourcing are common practices that effectively counter inflation. Unnecessary high-budget marketing, whale hunting and unrealistic expectations increase costs and have become bad habits.

If anti-consumer practices like predatory lootboxes and microtransactions are required to sustain the current AAA industry, it's result of bad business decisions rather than inflation, and those corporations don't deserve a pass. Shame on them and in anyone excusing their practices!

If season passes entail new content that is developed post release only and at a better price than buying each thing individually and they are not pay to win in any form, I have no issues with them. Cosmetic microtransactions are also fine. Lootboxes have an added gambling aspect which is distasteful, just let people spend real money on what they desire to purchase.

inu-kun:
I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

Wow! You'd better get on the phone to EA's stockholders because they have one hell of easy lawsuit against the company's leadership then because according to an official release to investors

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/ea-says-it-wont-lose-money-over-axed-battlefront-ii-microtransactions/:
The publisher accompanied [the announcement of removing microtransactions from Battlefront 2] with an expedient security report to investors, in which EA assured them that the change to the game?s economy would likely not have a ?material impact? on its financial projections for the fiscal year.

The US version of capitalism is relatively anything goes regarding the stock market, but the largest legal no-no is lying to investors regarding profits.

Season Passes. Pound for Pound, they are the closest we get to the Expansion Packs of Yesteryear. And given the amount of content you might get per game, even a better value than what Expansion Packs were.

inu-kun:
I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

The problem with this is.... what is actually being tallied?

Take the case of those Companies who are working on DLC while working on the final product.

This is a case of bad business in theory. The idea of concurrent work on DLC while finishing the main game is somewhat disgusting. Especially given that these people are being paid by the main budget of the Game Development. They aren't contracted for free and work months at a time to produce DLC with hopes that they'll paid for their time once the day one DLC is shipped. Their salary and work comes from whatever funds they raised to make the game.

What does this matter? Ok. Say you had 30 people working on the DLC while making the main game. If you DIDN'T... That's 30 people less you have to pay, less coordination between management, IT solutions, product testing, bug searches... In short, less billable hours all around. That concurrent DLC suddenly costs a lot.

Thus, games like this (and really all games because everything has a DLC or season pass now) are somewhat creating their own problems.

Advertisements? Why do you need millions upon millions to do advisement campaigns any more? We live in the age of Twitch. Of the Youtube star. Five Nights of Freddies' should have never taken off the way it did. The first two had a compelling story once you got deep into it, but a few youtube superstars screaming their heads off and one man took a glorified Flash Game and amassed a worth of $27,000,000, and this is starting at the shallow end. Do we even need to talk about minecraft?

More over, it feels like people are taking outdated business plans and faulty practices and putting the cost on the customers. Oh, I know engines and ip franchises, and what not are a big deal. Those things cost money. But if mishandled, they cost even more.

inu-kun:
I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

EA outright said to their investors the removal of microtransactions from Battlefront 4 will have no impact on revenue, so the publishers themselves have admitted they are not needed. That "games are too expensive to make" nonsense is utter nonsense.

demoman_chaos:

EA outright said to their investors the removal of microtransactions from Battlefront 4 will have no impact on revenue, so the publishers themselves have admitted they are not needed. That "games are too expensive to make" nonsense is utter nonsense.

I'm kinda doubting EA on that, would they have said "oh, we are going to lose shit ton of potential revenue" if it was true?

ObsidianJones:

The problem with this is.... what is actually being tallied?

Take the case of those Companies who are working on DLC while working on the final product.

This is a case of bad business in theory. The idea of concurrent work on DLC while finishing the main game is somewhat disgusting. Especially given that these people are being paid by the main budget of the Game Development. They aren't contracted for free and work months at a time to produce DLC with hopes that they'll paid for their time once the day one DLC is shipped. Their salary and work comes from whatever funds they raised to make the game.

What does this matter? Ok. Say you had 30 people working on the DLC while making the main game. If you DIDN'T... That's 30 people less you have to pay, less coordination between management, IT solutions, product testing, bug searches... In short, less billable hours all around. That concurrent DLC suddenly costs a lot.

Thus, games like this (and really all games because everything has a DLC or season pass now) are somewhat creating their own problems.

Advertisements? Why do you need millions upon millions to do advisement campaigns any more? We live in the age of Twitch. Of the Youtube star. Five Nights of Freddies' should have never taken off the way it did. The first two had a compelling story once you got deep into it, but a few youtube superstars screaming their heads off and one man took a glorified Flash Game and amassed a worth of $27,000,000, and this is starting at the shallow end. Do we even need to talk about minecraft?

More over, it feels like people are taking outdated business plans and faulty practices and putting the cost on the customers. Oh, I know engines and ip franchises, and what not are a big deal. Those things cost money. But if mishandled, they cost even more.

The point is interesting, but in the end the biggest part of the work is done to create the framework of the game, the DLC cost is gonna be extremely lower in comparison. This disregarding cases where devs just literally cut out portion of their games or assign DLC to people who doesn't currently have anything better to do.

Also I wouldn't use Five nights as anything resembling an example considering the chance to actually get a game popular with youtube celebrities is extremely small.

CaitSeith:

Counter-point: That article fails to provide examples of game development costs. Moore's law, third-party engines and outsourcing are common practices that effectively counter inflation. Unnecessary high-budget marketing, whale hunting and unrealistic expectations increase costs and have become bad habits.

If anti-consumer practices like predatory lootboxes and microtransactions are required to sustain the current AAA industry, it's result of bad business decisions rather than inflation, and those corporations don't deserve a pass. Shame on them and in anyone excusing their practices!

Without the developement costs it is pretty hard to make a better case.

If they want, it's possible to make all salvageable:
- Season passes should disclose the full DLCs and content that will be included with a deadline (with a full money-back guarantee if they aren't released).
- Lootboxes should either disclose the odds of winning each item, or stop monetizing them in the first place.
- Microtransactions should be removed of games paid upfront, and have a disclosed top limit. After the player hits the limit, that game shouldn't get any more money out of that player, ever.

Phoenixmgs:
-Loot boxes: I like loot boxes least of all 3 but even they can be done well enough to reward players for playing the game. The main problem I have with loot boxes is the fact that you can't just pay in-game currency (most of the time) to buy specifically what you want. I thought the loot boxes in Mass Effect 3 would be perfectly fine if I could've just bought what I wanted with in-game credits. I did stop playing the multiplayer of ME3 because of the loot boxes because it was so frustrating trying to unlock new characters via random chance. If I could've just saved up to buy them, it wouldn't have been an issue honestly. Then the loot boxes could be there to try your hand to get something you want on the cheap if you get lucky enough.

I remember being in the top 150 of ME3 multiplayer. I remember seeing the people above me having exponentially higher numbers. I was wondering how they could get so high number as I was literally playing 8hrs a day at minimum. I spent money to catch up. It gave quite a dump in the numbers but clearly people were spending thousands on this. I realised that lootboxes were what is now termed as pay to win. I got out of competitive multiplayer in general because of them. They make the competitive scene pointless.

Avnger:

inu-kun:
I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

Wow! You'd better get on the phone to EA's stockholders because they have one hell of easy lawsuit against the company's leadership then because according to an official release to investors

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/ea-says-it-wont-lose-money-over-axed-battlefront-ii-microtransactions/:
The publisher accompanied [the announcement of removing microtransactions from Battlefront 2] with an expedient security report to investors, in which EA assured them that the change to the game?s economy would likely not have a ?material impact? on its financial projections for the fiscal year.

The US version of capitalism is relatively anything goes regarding the stock market, but the largest legal no-no is lying to investors regarding profits.

How do you think most shareholders get conned into paying for low ROI things? Its your job as a CEO to lie so you can get the big bucks. I mean, Amazon was taking huge losses over a decade and its shipping department looks like it will never turn a profit. Its only limping with the Web Services division and wasting shareholder money. Bezos lied all those years about how well Amazon would do and he's never been sued. Good luck trying to sue EA over this trifle little thing

Wow

Poison, bullet, or knife, take your pick.

This thread is like asking us which we prefer, the plate of turds or the bowl of soupy diarrhea. As if any option is tolerable. We can say no to all of it.

Cold Shiny:
Wow

Poison, bullet, or knife, take your pick.

I choose poison, if you survive you can develop antibodies.

Phoenixmgs:
-Microtransactions: There's nothing really wrong with someone wanting to fast-forward the grind for a bit of money.

for a bit of money.

That's why it's wrong. Cheat codes used to do the same thing for no money. If people are willing to pay to skip portions of your game then maybe something is very wrong with your game in the first place. But even that aside, there's no excuse for charging for basic cheat code functionality. It's complete shit.

There is one exception to microtransactions and that is a game that provides a TRUE online service for free or a one-time fee. And even then, it only works with cosmetic things.

-

Season passes are forgivable ASSUMING that the publisher ACTUALLY DELIVERS THE QUALITY CONTENT PROMISED. Also, it needs to act like a freaking SEASON PASS. Not it only giving you some of the DLC and then you have to pay for the rest again. That's complete shit too.

-

Loot boxes are totally unsalvageable and are also complete shit unless they're all made completely free.

A season pass is the least terrible. At least when all the content is out and you can look at reviews for it, you can buy all the DLC and save a few bucks. Though this only works if you were going to buy all the DLC in the first place.

And even then companies are talented at fucking this up. Quite a few games have DLC that isn't covered by the season pass, making the whole thing a moot point, some games have DLC that was supposed to be part of the main game but was cut out, which can go die in a fire, and companies are always charting new ground in being shit heads about DLC. Like when Fallout 4 had a price jump to 30 to 50 for its season pass. My memory is a little fuzzy on whether or not any of the DLC for that game was out when this happened, but if there was there was only one bit of it. So it pressured people to buy in early to save money and then it turned out two thirds of the DLC for Fallout 4 were really badly received. Half of it was settlement building stuff most people felt should've been in the base game, and Nuka-World got slammed because no one liked a DLC where you have to be a Chaotic Evil fuckwad if you want to get most of the content. And that's the main problem with the season pass. It's trying to pressure you into buying something when you don't know if it'll be any good yet.

For season passes: (or story/gameplay expanding DLC in general)
As long as they don't intentionally remove gameplay from the core game to sell it separately, but add to it.
I don't mind them charging a fair amount for it.
And they have to be crystal clear about what will be included and what not.

If i know i will buy the expansions when released and they offer a little discount, sure i might buy it.

Microtransactions:
In a free to play game, as long as prices a sensible and the items not game/balance breaking. Sure they have to pay the bills somehow.
In a low price game, acceptable but don't get greedy.
In High price/AAA, purchase price should cover it.
In Single Player, you would basically be paying to not play the game, so game progresion unlock only.

Loot Boxes:
No, Just no.

I voted lootboxes because as long as they are kept in game and not connected to any kind of microtransaction or real world money, they're not really any different than any other type of RNG loot in games. I mean look at Horizon: Zero Dawn, for example; it has lootboxes but because they're entirely tied into the game world, they're completely harmless and no different than the randomized chests or randomized loot taken from the dead robosauruses (other than the extra menu steps).

Avnger:
I voted lootboxes because as long as they are kept in game and not connected to any kind of microtransaction or real world money, they're not really any different than any other type of RNG loot in games. I mean look at Horizon: Zero Dawn, for example; it has lootboxes but because they're entirely tied into the game world, they're completely harmless and no different than the randomized chests or randomized loot taken from the dead robosauruses (other than the extra menu steps).

In that case i would prefer the random drop/chest, because those stay in the flow of the game.
As for lootboxes, those are as immersive as a Car comercial during a Game of Thrones episode.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here