• Blizzard CEO on loot boxes: 'I don’t think Overwatch belongs in that controversy'
    116 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-president-on-loot-boxes-i-dont-think-overwatch-belongs-in-that-controversy[/url]
I really don't mind OW system of loot box in comparison to others. The big thing for me is, the company isn't double dipping on consumers when it comes to a season pass, DLC or map packs. The Loot Box system is the only source of income outside of the initial purchase where as games like CoD will have you pay for the map packs as well as loot boxes (and include gameplay changing weapons in them). Now, I think there is something to be said about event only skins which I think is predatory when it comes to forcing the hand of the consumer.
[QUOTE=surfur;52868828]Now, I think there is something to be said about event only skins which I think is predatory when it comes to forcing the hand of the consumer.[/QUOTE] This is where i absolutely think Overwatch is "a part of this controversy," every single event, even the big year bash celebrating the players that gave them this success, can be summed up as "either grind for hours and hours especially and you're high level or blow tons of money on lootboxes and probably not get what you want." It's already gotten significantly worse with this year's events that just rehashed content and added a few more skins to pollute the loot pool where you have even less of a chance. And it could be entirely solved through variety of methods, Like removing items fro the drop list once you have them or letting us buy their funbucks, but they don't do anything. So yeah, Overwatch is absolutely deserving of a spot in this in my mind.
Whilst it's definitely one of the lesser evils, it still predates on people with gambling addictions, and it probably affects kids as well who borrows/steals their parents credit card to buy a few just to get the kick. Any gambling with real money in videogames should be regulated in some way, so Overwatch isn't innocent.
Overwatch's flavor of loot boxes I personally find kind of acceptable, considering your competition is practicing borderline robbery. Still doesn't make it good, but it's not game breaking garbage.
Overwatch costs $60, having microtransactions already is double dipping and worth criticism. You could argue that Blizzard is at least providing new content for free and to that I say they fucking better, considering the hundreds of millions they make from lootboxes every year. If Activision didn't funnel most of these proceeds into their tax havens, Blizzard could fully fund their next three projects right now.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52868881]Overwatch costs $60, having microtransactions already is double dipping and worth criticism. You could argue that Blizzard is at least providing new content for free and to that I say they fucking better, considering the hundreds of millions they make from lootboxes every year. If Activision didn't funnel most of these proceeds into their tax havens, Blizzard could fully fund their next three projects right now.[/QUOTE] ... what do you think money does in tax havens? They don't just throw it in a vault and not touch it. Sure, they pay some of it to executives, shareholders, etc., but not using money is wasting money.
[QUOTE=surfur;52868828]I really don't mind OW system of loot box in comparison to others. The big thing for me is, the company isn't double dipping on consumers when it comes to a season pass, DLC or map packs. The Loot Box system is the only source of income outside of the initial purchase where as games like CoD will have you pay for the map packs as well as loot boxes (and include gameplay changing weapons in them). Now, I think there is something to be said about event only skins which I think is predatory when it comes to forcing the hand of the consumer.[/QUOTE] I really don't see how you could think the way Overwatch does it is a good thing. Not as bad as it could be, sure, but that doensn't mean it's the right way. It's a $60 game funded by one of the biggest publishers and developed by one of the most popular, respected and well-known developers. It has sold a [I]massive[/I] amount of game copies in a short time, bringing them far, far more than enough money to be able to keep supporting the game based on those game sales alone, and it's still proving to be popular - it's not as if those sales have stopped. They're still double-dipping because it's a full price game, they just aren't going further than that. That still doesn't mean it's a good thing.Before the game even launched they said there were plans to support it for free (before even knowing how successful those microtransactions would be) and there's certainly no indication that they're putting much of that extra income back into supporting the game based on the minimal amount of new heroes and maps, yet an obvious priority of new limited event-based skins and crates so they can make more money. If the crates in the game had been designed in such a way that the in-game earning of them was the first consideration of the way it was done, they would be fine...but they aren't. You're put at a disadvantage with slower and slower rates of earning those crates as you progress, with buying them being more like the 'proper' way you're supposed to get them. The games player reward and customization system is mostly gated behind microtransactions with just the smallest amount accessible so they can avoid saying it is entirely. That isn't doing it in a good way at all. It's still a method that has very little respect for you or your time and only cares about your money.
[QUOTE=surfur;52868828]I really don't mind OW system of loot box in comparison to others. The big thing for me is, the company isn't double dipping on consumers when it comes to a season pass, DLC or map packs. The Loot Box system is the only source of income outside of the initial purchase where as games like CoD will have you pay for the map packs as well as loot boxes (and include gameplay changing weapons in them). Now, I think there is something to be said about event only skins which I think is predatory when it comes to forcing the hand of the consumer.[/QUOTE] If they didn't give you duplicates, I would agree.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;52868854]This is where i absolutely think Overwatch is "a part of this controversy," every single event, even the big year bash celebrating the players that gave them this success, can be summed up as "either grind for hours and hours especially and you're high level or blow tons of money on lootboxes and probably not get what you want." It's already gotten significantly worse with this year's events that just rehashed content and added a few more skins to pollute the loot pool where you have even less of a chance. And it could be entirely solved through variety of methods, Like removing items fro the drop list once you have them or letting us buy their funbucks, but they don't do anything. So yeah, Overwatch is absolutely deserving of a spot in this in my mind.[/QUOTE] You are 100% wrong. It's a stupid skin, you aren't missing out on anything by not having it, there are plenty of other skins to get that are nice too. Also the game is getting tons of other free content for everyone (maps/heroes) so you can't really say that the dev time for those limited run skins is taking away from what you would be getting for free otherwise. As long as lootboxes are 100% cosmetics and the game is still receiving free high quality content updates, there's absolutely no reason to complain. EDIT: [QUOTE=nightlord;52868917]I really don't see how you could think the way Overwatch does it is a good thing. Not as bad as it could be, sure, but that doensn't mean it's the right way. It's a $60 game made funded by one of the biggest publishers and developed by one of the most popular, respected and well-known developers. It has sold a [I]massive/I] amount of game copies, bringing them far, far more than enough money to be able to keep supporting the game based on those game sales alone, and it's still proving to be popular - it's not as if those sales have stopped. They're still double-dipping because it's a full price game, they just aren't going further than that. That still doesn't mean it's a good thing.Before the game even launched they said there were plans to support it for free (before even knowing how successful those microtransactions would be) and there's certainly no indication that they're putting much of that extra income back into supporting the game based on the minimal amount of new heroes and maps, yet an obvious priority of new limited event-based skins and crates so they can make more money. If the crates in the game had been designed in such a way that the in-game earning of them was the first consideration of the way it was done, they would be fine...but they aren't. You're put at a disadvantage with slower and slower rates of earning those crates as you progress, with buying them being more like the 'proper' way you're supposed to get them. The games player reward and customization system is mostly gated behind microtransactions with just the smallest amount accessible so they can avoid saying it is entirely. That isn't doing it in a good way at all. It's still a method that has very little respect for you or your time and only cares about your money.[/QUOTE] You are put at a disadvantage in what? In the all-important "who's got the most skins / bigger e-dick" race? If the game had zero customization at all it would still be worth it's money because it's a fantastic shooter. A multiplayer FPS doesn't need to reward a player with skins, the reward for playing is getting better at the game, winning, and the gameplay itself. The skins / emotes / taunts are just a nice addition on top of a great game. Nobody needs them, but still they are nice to have, and it's a great way to make extra $ from people with too much disposable income.
[QUOTE=maxolina;52868957]You are 100% wrong. (I'm not being a dick that's how it is) It's a stupid skin, you aren't missing out on anything by not having it, there are plenty of other skins to get that are nice too. Also the game is getting tons of other free content for everyone (maps/heroes) so you can't really say that the dev time for those limited run skins is taking away from what you would be getting for free otherwise. As long as lootboxes are 100% cosmetics and the game is still receiving free high quality content updates, there's absolutely no reason to complain.[/QUOTE] It's absurd for you to determine what something in a game people paid for is worth and apply your own value to everyones experience. [I]You[/I] might think they are "a stupid skin" but that is not how everyone views them. You're still defending the gating of an entire system in a game mostly behind microtransactions (or the 'free' way that just puts you at a disadvantage, as if you're supposed to be grateful for that) despite that game being a full price AAA game. [I]You [/I]might not like them but that doesn't change the games whole player customization (And yes, they have a value to players, because people want them) and the whole reward system of the game has been made pretty inaccessible for no reason beyond "give us more money". People want the skins, they can't get the ones they want in a fair way because the publisher/developer decided greed and double-dipping on their full price highly successful AAA game was more important than that. As for the free content, no, there has been a very minimal amount of new content beyond new events/skins aimed at getting them even more money. There is absolutely no evidence at all that the microtransactions have contributed to new content in any way and regardless they made more than enough to be able to afford to support the game based on game sales alone. There is nothing to suggest there is a link between the two and that the rate we've been getting new content isn't the same as it would be without those microtransactions. All we've seen the microtransactions contribute to is more microtransactions. Watch this video, it explains it pretty well why the "It's just cosmetic!" defense completely misses the problem: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTsJZD3YFQ[/media]
Saying you don't belong in the controversy when you are one of the big reason its a controversy to begin with is hilarious. And shows a massive disconnect from the gaming community that isn't actually surprising.
Maybe I'm just too old-school to get my panties in a bunch over cosmetics. I understand how it may annoy someone who cares a lot about unlocks, cosmetics, and skins, but I never really cared about that stuff. I never felt the need to have a certain cosmetic; what gives me satisfaction is dominating the game and carrying my team to a win, not unlocking a certain cosmetic. As long as a game receives regular updates, additional content, and support; and as long as real-money micro transactions are cosmetic only, I'm fine with anything. I have no problem with how Overwatch, CSGO or Dota 2 do things. On the other hand Battlefront II's system is a disgrace for videogames. [QUOTE=nightlord;52868981] Watch this video, it explains it pretty well why the "It's just cosmetic!" defense completely misses the problem: [/QUOTE] I mean WTF, he says that "lootboxes are the game's only/entire reward system" [Direct quote from him in the video]. According to that logic counterstrike, quake, unreal tournament, team fortress, doom, and all the other great FPS's that had no unlock/skin/levelup system whatsoever were not rewarding to play. THE REWARD FOR PLAYING A GAME IS PLAYING THE GAME ITSELF, HAVING FUN AND GETTING BETTER AT IT. Nobody needs cosmetics if the game is fun, but they are still a nice addition. I'd be fine even if the skins were attainable EXCLUSIVELY by paying real-money.
Yeah, I can never be too bothered by Overwatch's loot boxes because nothing in them has a substantial effect on the game. You can only equip one skin, victory pose, and highlight intro at a time, and only 4 sprays, voice lines, and taunts. There's about a 50/50 chance each match that anybody sees your victory pose, and about a 1 in 12 chance someone sees your highlight intro. Most of the voice lines are barely audible compared to the rest of the game, and sprays and taunts are mostly used during the pre-round bullshitting. Having more than one skin per character should really not matter to anyone except compulsive completionists. Can you imagine if an older FPS like Unreal Tournament '99 had released an expansion pack, and all it did was add dozens of cosmetic changes to the characters and weapons? People would have been outraged if they unknowingly spent money on that. But now people are actually WISHING they could buy every cosmetic in a game instead of having to slowly randomly receive them.
its ok to find overwatch’s lootboxes acceptable, but i don’t remember any full-priced western games before overwatch having this kind of gambling in place instead of just a real-money store. don’t pretend it didn’t have a hand in where we are now
I don't mind Overwatch's lootboxes because I've been fairly lucky with them, but they definitely belong in with the controversy. Destiny 2's bright engrams are the way to go, they're super easy to get by leveling, give you dust so you can buy the items in the store that refresh weekly, and it's all cosmetic because if you get armor, it's dropping for level 10 and you have to use your armor you've earned legit to make it worth using, AND you can dismantle any of the items you get for more dust. There's an actual sense of progression there, rather than "Oh you got some sprays, a skin that looks like shit, and a highlight intro that you can't turn into coins" from Overwatch. [editline]e[/editline] I also forgot to mention this, but Destiny doesn't even allow you to buy the bright engrams until you have one character max level.
I think the worst thing we can say about OW's lootbox system is that it helps to pave the way for scummier practices. There are worse offenders out there, but given that OW's loot box items ARE so inconsequential from a gameplay perspective, there's no good reason to NOT allow people to directly buy as many as they'd like. The only reason they actually have is that requiring people to pay for a loot box rather than an in-game item/currency preys on people's inclination to gamble. If people want to pour more money into the game after buying it, I say let them, but I've always thought it was a crummy idea to get people paying money for something when they have no REAL idea what they're buying. It's why I hate the idea of those "mystery figurine" toys you can buy. First time I saw those on a store shelf, I thought it was so dumb, and why would anybody buy one when they don't know what they're getting? Just buy a figurine or keychain where you know exactly which one you'll get. But I think there's an argument there that that kind of business practice preys on children, gamblers, and people with poor self-control. You can argue that that's the buyer's fault, sure, but the seller is also directly targeting those kinds of people, depending on them for sales, if not outright exploiting them.
We can't just pick and choose who can get away with doing it and who cant. This shit is not fucking good regardless of who it is. Everyone that does this shit deserves to be part of the controversy. They are contributing to the fucking problem! [B][U]It's gambling disguised as a video game.[/U][/B]
You wanna sell shitty skins? then just fucking sell skins straight up without the predatory lottery bollocks. You don't wanna do that? we'll im going to excercise my right to 1) Not buy your products 2) Tell you to fuck off Sums it all up for me. Fuck lootboxes.
[QUOTE=Anonymuzz;52869090]its ok to find overwatch’s lootboxes acceptable, but i don’t remember any full-priced western games before overwatch having this kind of gambling in place instead of just a real-money store. don’t pretend it didn’t have a hand in where we are now[/QUOTE] cs go? then again i dont think it ever was even close to 60$
All the arguments against gambling etc absolutely do apply to Overwatch. However from a purely selfish perspective I'm not at all worried by that aspect because gambling has literally zero appeal to me and I will not get addicted to it in any circumstances. When the lootboxes affect my normal gameplay though (Hearthstone, Shadow of War, etc) I'm not buying your game and if it's free2play I won't pay any money for them. From that perspective Overwatch is the perfect example of how to do it right. The lootboxes pay for my free content and the 40€ price was more than acceptable for the amount of content I get for free (i.e. everything but a bunch of skins I don't care about)
Lmao if you don't want it included in [U]LOOTBOX CONTROVERSY[/U] maybe it would be a good idea to not have [U]LOOTBOXES[/U] in your [U]PREMIUM PRICED GAME[/U] idk just a fucking thought mate
[QUOTE=Robber;52869358]All the arguments against gambling etc absolutely do apply to Overwatch. However from a purely selfish perspective I'm not at all worried by that aspect because gambling has literally zero appeal to me and I will not get addicted to it in any circumstances. When the lootboxes affect my normal gameplay though (Hearthstone, Shadow of War, etc) I'm not buying your game and if it's free2play I won't pay any money for them. From that perspective Overwatch is the perfect example of how to do it right. The lootboxes pay for my free content and the 40€ price was more than acceptable for the amount of content I get for free (i.e. everything but a bunch of skins I don't care about)[/QUOTE] I get my hearthstone packs from Google Survey money, which is legit the only use for it for me.
I agree OW belongs in this controversy and lootboxes are cancer. but its worth acknowledging the game costs 40$ on PC, which is easy to overlook considering the circumstances. but I absolutely love it when a company doesn't ride the wagon of "all triple a video games absolutely must be 60$ no matter what because we know people will buy it anyway"
[QUOTE=Keychain;52869390]I agree OW belongs in this controversy and lootboxes are cancer. but its worth acknowledging the game costs 40$ on PC, which is easy to overlook considering the circumstances. but I absolutely love it when a company doesn't ride the wagon of "all triple a video games absolutely must be 60$ no matter what because we know people will buy it anyway"[/QUOTE] IMO lootboxes in a $40 multiplayer-only game is still pretty shitty, and the game on consoles has a base MSRP of $60 anyway.
Isn't OW one of the prime reasons why the lootbox shit is getting so out of hand, it shows that you can make a $60/$40 game and sell lootboxes like candy? Sure it's not as intrusive as other methods but it proves that people are going to pay for them.
I guess they just need to go back to making each update paid dlc or introduced a WoW subscription fee. Maybe then people will be happy.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52869705]I guess they just need to go back to making each update paid dlc or introduced a WoW subscription fee. Maybe then people will be happy.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you're trying to be snarky but those [I]were[/I] the better times, when you'd be paying monthly for great content, I still do that in FFXIV and couldn't be happier that none of my content is gated behind an illusion of accessability with "just grind for 1 week for in game currency or pay a cheeky fiver here and there" Not to mention, most well loved games from back in the day are the ones with proper expansion packs that add shitloads of content, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52869705]I guess they just need to go back to making each update paid dlc or introduced a WoW subscription fee. Maybe then people will be happy.[/QUOTE] Subscription fees do make sense for online games though, unless they're [I]very[/I] light on the servers. The main difference between consoles where that's common and PC where it's not is that there's no good subscription payment method on PC that covers all your games for a (relatively) low price at the same time.
Man atleast with TF2 if I want an item and i'm willing to pay money i can usually buy it directly. I wish more games operated like that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.