Loot boxes have reached a new low with Forza 7’s “pay to earn” option - Sensationalist Headlines

[url]https://arstechnica.com/?p=1175775[/url]

I blame Blizzard for introducing this cancerous system into a triple A $40 bucks game.

[QUOTE=Damjen;52728834]I blame Blizzard for introducing this cancerous system into a triple A $40 bucks game.[/QUOTE] You can blame them if you want, but at least in Overwatch you can easily have all the white/blue items quick and easily earn coins to buy what you want now

[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;52728844]You can blame them if you want, but at least in Overwatch you can easily have all the white/blue items quick and easily earn coins to buy what you want now[/QUOTE] [B]Now.[/B] It was way worse in the first year of the game with how much redundant shit / sprays you would get.

[QUOTE=MeepDarknessM;52728844]You can blame them if you want, but at least in Overwatch you can easily have all the white/blue items quick and easily earn coins to buy what you want now[/QUOTE] "It's okay to have unregulated gambling as long as it's about cosmetic shit", also known as the pachinko slot excuse.

[QUOTE=Damjen;52728834]I blame Blizzard for introducing this cancerous system into a triple A $40 bucks game.[/QUOTE] [url]https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann-Conomy_Update[/url] TF2's done this since 2010, and it wasn't even F2P until ~5 years later

[QUOTE=kaze4159;52728853][url]https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann-Conomy_Update[/url] TF2's done this since 2010, and it wasn't even F2P until ~5 years later[/QUOTE] I am perfectly aware since I was actively playing TF2 at the time. Overwatch still made the system actually popular in fully priced AAA games, TF2 was already old and costed around 5 bucks on sale when Mannconomy hit. And it went F2P [URL="https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/The_Uber_Update"]not even a full year later[/URL]

TF2 costed like 20 bucks back then and it's been free 2 play for a long time due to the micro transactions being the income.

-rip merge-

Let me get this straight: A once default feature, where a player could tweak the difficulty or terms of a race in favor of getting an increased payout, is now a one-time use loot-box-only item. Yep, alright, this checks out. Go a(hate).

I just miss having all of these things just be featured as Unlockables. For instance, armor in Halo was unlocked via cool little milestones that required you to do certain things. Until Halo 5 came along with those micro transactions. It's clear that alot of these micro transactions just section off content that would have been free 5 years ago. Instead of being rewarded for our ingame effort through completion of ingame challenges, it's all reduced to a grind that is meant to psychologically wear you down to submit to buying "loot boxes" or ingame currency. I can't see how people can defend a freemium model in a Triple AAA $60 game with the typical season pass/special edition bundles. At this point, it is everywhere to the point of nausea. I don't think it's just Overwatch that is solely responsible for this, it's just one of the many games nowadays that has harvested such a culture.

I wish we could just define two standards in these days: F2P but with microtransactions. or Normal release (50-60 Euro) but without microtransactions. Fucking cunts keep charging full amount for a game and then also microtransactions for performance items. The only games I am okay with these days are those who find balance between two: Charge half price for game (20-30 Euro) but also have micro transactions that are purely cosmetic. (PUBG, CSGO)

"You thought DLC that adds content to a game was bad? [I]Hold our beer and watch [B]this[/B]![/I]" This trend is totally disgusting, there needs to be regulation against this sort of thing. It's really predatory to use such psychology against consumers.

Uhh, the game throws money at you in level ups and just generally from racing, from the Motorsport editions of cars that give like 50% increase or more in cash won, and AI difficulty also stacks ontop of that (20%, 40% etc etc.) And these loot crates are bought with ingame money ONLY for now. So...why are people treating this like it's terrible? Compared to say, Shadow or War, or Overwatch, or Payday 2? (When you used to have to buy the drills) Or am I missing something? Not to mention like previous games, they LITERALLY add a tickbox that allows you to entirely disable and hide the Virtual paid for Currency from the game entirely. Leaving it purely to Ingame currency only.

I don't understand why people enjoy wasting their money on dumb loot box tier shit in games that reward you with the most minor crap. You hardly ever get that $2 you spent on it back, setting a note on fire would give you more enjoyment.

[QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;52728886]Uhh, the game throws money at you in level ups and just generally from racing, from the Motorsport editions of cars that give like 50% increase or more in cash won, and AI difficulty also stacks ontop of that (20%, 40% etc etc.) And these loot crates are bought with ingame money ONLY. So...why are people treating this like it's terrible? Compared to say, Shadow or War, or Overwatch, or Payday 2? (When you used to have to buy the drills) Or am I missing something?[/QUOTE] The mere mention of microtransaction in a full priced game is a sin and they must be purged from their malicous practices. Oh ya, your point. From the article: [quote=ArseTechnica][B]Let me be clear:[/B] As of press time, Forza Motorsport 7 does not let you pay real money for its CR coins or for its loot boxes. But that will almost certainly change. Turn 10 confirmed its plans in a statement to Ars Technica: "Once we confirm that the game economy is balanced and fun for our players out in the wild, we plan to offer Tokens [a real-money currency that works like CR] as a matter of player choice. Some players appreciate using Tokens as a way of gaining immediate access to content that may take many hours to acquire in the normal course of play. There will also be an option within the in-game menu to turn off Tokens entirely." That being said, the following criticisms apply to Forza 7's loot boxes even without them being attached to a real-world economy.[/quote] Looks like afterthought. Or was it designed leading up to that from the get go? Is this blantant cash grab or pocket change revenue? The angry mob will decide.

Not sure what is with all the Dumb votes. I'm not wrong, compared to the majority of games or nearly all games that hardball you into taking the crates and paying for them etc. Forza 7's loot crate system is the least invasive and immoral compared to all the others. Sure the system existing itself sucks. But it doesn't detract from the fact that it is a VERY heavily optional and hidable part of the game, which all the others don't give you the option of. [editline]29th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Noob4life;52728900]The mere mention of microtransaction in a full priced game is a sin and they must be purged from their malicous practices. Oh ya, your point. From the article: Looks like afterthought. Or was it designed leading up to that from the get go? Is this blantant cash grab or pocket change revenue? The angry mob will decide.[/QUOTE] No, like previous installments that featured a similar method, they always released it with ingame currency only. Then allowed the virtual paid for currency afterwards. And still never threw it in your face, hounded you to buy them, and made it clear that you can entirely disable the virtual paid for currency within the game settings. The practice IS shady and MC's in games is horrible beyond words, however that is the standard that consumers have allowed to occur by not using their purchasing power to dictate what is and isn't viable within this industry from a consumer point. However my point is. YES it is shit that it is in game, but compared to nearly every other game with MC's, this is the LEAST invasive, people should be focusing on the games that are by far and wide a million times worse.

[QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;52728904]No, like previous installments that featured a similar method, they always released it with ingame currency only. Then allowed the virtual paid for currency afterwards. And still never threw it in your face, hounded you to buy them, and made it clear that you can entirely disable the virtual paid for currency within the game settings. The practice IS shady and MC's in games is horrible beyond words, however that is the standard that consumers have allowed to occur by not using their purchasing power to dictate what is and isn't viable within this industry from a consumer point. However my point is. YES it is shit that it is in game, but compared to nearly every other game with MC's, this is the LEAST invasive, people should be focusing on the games that are by far and wide a million times worse.[/QUOTE] I condone microtransactions as long they do not impede the core experience, and is offered as a quick alternative to quench impulses (I think I repeat myself many times in this forum now). But from I gathered, this is still not okay with a lot of people. They want microtransactions GONE. Now that you mentioned this already happening in previous installments, I suppose the only reason this article exists is to stir up the already volatile beehive.

The more it happens, the more I wish loot boxes would just go away and die in obscurity but it'll only get worse. Publishers make crazy moolah off loot boxes even though it's a shitty anti-consumer practice that locks content, that should be available through reliable means, into a gambling addiction. How hard is it to treat unlocks as "you get what you pay for", even if you don't unlock them through some achievement or milestone? It isn't hard but getting to treat the customer like cattle, instead of letting them enjoy the product they paid for however they want, is too juicy of an opportunity to pass up, it seems.

[QUOTE=Noob4life;52728929]I condone microtransactions as long they do not impede the core experience, and is offered as a quick alternative to quench impulses (I think I repeat myself many times in this forum now). But from I gathered, this is still not okay with a lot of people. They want microtransactions GONE. Now that you mentioned this already happening in previous installments, I suppose the only reason this article exists is to stir up the already volatile beehive.[/QUOTE] I completely agree. I hate them too and it fuels to anti consumer notion of "What can we squeeze out of their wallets" My point however is that by far and wide, F7's implementation of them is not even close to how bad they are by standard in comparision to pretty much every other game that has them. Yes, it deserves some flak, however the fact it is entirely optional and their premium currency isn't pushed into your face and can be hidden from the game entirely and leave it all to ingame currency at-least deserves some recognition even if the presence of the premium currency and loot boxes themselves isn't a good thing.

[QUOTE=Damjen;52728834]I blame Blizzard for introducing this cancerous system into a triple A $40 bucks game.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure games like H1Z1 and of course CSGO were doing it first. And anyway, systems like of that in the article (paying for an arbitrary in-game currency and "tokens" with no option to straight up unlock something) are far far worse imo. [editline]29th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;52728886]Uhh, the game throws money at you in level ups and just generally from racing, from the Motorsport editions of cars that give like 50% increase or more in cash won, and AI difficulty also stacks ontop of that (20%, 40% etc etc.) And these loot crates are bought with ingame money ONLY for now. So...why are people treating this like it's terrible? Compared to say, Shadow or War, or Overwatch, or Payday 2? (When you used to have to buy the drills) Or am I missing something? Not to mention like previous games, they LITERALLY add a tickbox that allows you to entirely disable and hide the Virtual paid for Currency from the game entirely. Leaving it purely to Ingame currency only.[/QUOTE] As Jim Sterling always says whenever he makes a video about this stuff: if you implement a system into your game that allows the player to skip gameplay for a fee, your game probably isn't worth playing. If they're making money from people skipping the grind then they're incentivised to make that grind as long and annoying as possible. This hurts the player who doesn't want to pay.

[QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;52728886]Uhh, the game throws money at you in level ups and just generally from racing, from the Motorsport editions of cars that give like 50% increase or more in cash won, and AI difficulty also stacks ontop of that (20%, 40% etc etc.) And these loot crates are bought with ingame money ONLY for now. So...why are people treating this like it's terrible? Compared to say, Shadow or War, or Overwatch, or Payday 2? (When you used to have to buy the drills) Or am I missing something? Not to mention like previous games, they LITERALLY add a tickbox that allows you to entirely disable and hide the Virtual paid for Currency from the game entirely. Leaving it purely to Ingame currency only.[/QUOTE] Because regardless of all that, they're still taking a system that you could use infinitely without paying anything (in-game or real currency) in previous games, and made it into a bunch of randomly-obtained single-use consumables that you have to pay ingame currency for. Being able to turn assists off for greater reward was great, this is trash.

[U][/U][QUOTE=Scot;52729123]As Jim Sterling always says whenever he makes a video about this stuff: if you implement a system into your game that allows the player to skip gameplay for a fee, your game probably isn't worth playing. If they're making money from people skipping the grind then they're incentivised to make that grind as long and annoying as possible. This hurts the player who doesn't want to pay.[/QUOTE] I feel like I could rebuke this to an extent, mainly on "...allows the player to skip gameplay for a fee, your game probably isn't worth playing". [I]Disclaimer: Microtransaction that locks content and forces too much grinding is no good, that I understand.[/I] [U]Repetition is exhausting.[/U] Every game loop suffers from that. That is why most games have multiple activity loops to keep players engaged and not lose interest. Now, [B]under the assumption that the game has a roadblock that requires the player to "grind" to proceed[/B], the game is simply placing a barrier that blocks access to future activity loops, forcing the player to complete their current cycle a couple more times. [U]Repetition without variation is not engaging.[/U] The less the grind is, the less players are stuck in the "unengaging" part. This segment can be utilized by designer, controlling progression flow or enforcing skill/power prerequisites. [B]This means, if the game is well designed, using microtransaction can actually do more harm than good towards player experience.[/B] Inversely, [B]prolonging the unengaging portions will ruin the experience FOR EVERYBODY.[/B] Does this mean that the ENTIRE game is not worth playing? NO! Players just need to be aware of the number of unengaging segments in a game. Too much of 'em? Then [B]FUCK, THE GAME SUCKS[/B]. Moving on, now remove that roadblock assumption. Suddenly, [B]microtransactions are nothing more than an alternate currency.[/B] If a player wants to feel like a billions bucks whenever they stop to shop, now they can. [I]"If they're making money from people skipping the grind then they're incentivized to make that grind as long and annoying as possible."[/I] [B]It really depends on who is in charge, and how far they are willing to cross their lines.[/B] The decision might come from the investors, but the producers can implement the least compromised route. They could also be greedy ASSHOLES and screw everybody off. Unsurprisingly, some honest passionate devs don't have the choice not to help their publisher make a few extra bucks, but they can't tell their audience that they worked hard on their game and they think it is still very fun even with microtransactions, because they are probably lying, biased, PR talking sellouts. [I]But microtransactions don't need to exist! They should bring back cheats and dev mode! [/I] Well, I agree with ya but this is 2017 and we are dealing with this shit right now. Bottom line, [B]microtransaction does not automatically make a game worse. Only potentially.[/B]

[QUOTE=Damjen;52728834]I blame Blizzard for introducing this cancerous system into a triple A $40 bucks game.[/QUOTE] Equally/more well known games like CSGO, CoD(starting with Advanced Warfare) and Mass Effect 3 had it before Overwatch. In fact it was worse in ME3 than most retail games with loot crates because all the shit you get in most games including Overwatch is aesthetic. You [B]needed[/B] loot crates to unlock more characters, weapons and one-time use items in ME3 because it was the only way to get them. Those one-time use things and some of the weapons were a requirement if you wanted to survive at higher difficulties with certain characters. You either had to grind hard just to get enough in-game points to buy a loot crate and hope that your efforts didn't go to waste that time or spend money and still risk getting fucked over.

[QUOTE=kaze4159;52728853][url]https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann-Conomy_Update[/url] TF2's done this since 2010, and it wasn't even F2P until ~5 years later[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about, TF2 went F2P less than a year later.

[QUOTE=Noob4life;52729321][U][/U] I feel like I could rebuke this to an extent, mainly on "...allows the player to skip gameplay for a fee, your game probably isn't worth playing". [I]Disclaimer: Microtransaction that locks content and forces too much grinding is no good, that I understand.[/I] [U]Repetition is exhausting.[/U] Every game loop suffers from that. That is why most games have multiple activity loops to keep players engaged and not lose interest. Now, [B]under the assumption that the game has a roadblock that requires the player to "grind" to proceed[/B], the game is simply placing a barrier that blocks access to future activity loops, forcing the player to complete their current cycle a couple more times. [U]Repetition without variation is not engaging.[/U] The less the grind is, the less players are stuck in the "unengaging" part. This segment can be utilized by designer, controlling progression flow or enforcing skill/power prerequisites. [B]This means, if the game is well designed, using microtransaction can actually do more harm than good towards player experience.[/B] Inversely, [B]prolonging the unengaging portions will ruin the experience FOR EVERYBODY.[/B] Does this mean that the ENTIRE game is not worth playing? NO! Players just need to be aware of the number of unengaging segments in a game. Too much of 'em? Then [B]FUCK, THE GAME SUCKS[/B]. Moving on, now remove that roadblock assumption. Suddenly, [B]microtransactions are nothing more than an alternate currency.[/B] If a player wants to feel like a billions bucks whenever they stop to shop, now they can. [I]"If they're making money from people skipping the grind then they're incentivized to make that grind as long and annoying as possible."[/I] [B]It really depends on who is in charge, and how far they are willing to cross their lines.[/B] The decision might come from the investors, but the producers can implement the least compromised route. They could also be greedy ASSHOLES and screw everybody off. Unsurprisingly, some honest passionate devs don't have the choice not to help their publisher make a few extra bucks, but they can't tell their audience that they worked hard on their game and they think it is still very fun even with microtransactions, because they are probably lying, biased, PR talking sellouts. [I]But microtransactions don't need to exist! They should bring back cheats and dev mode! [/I] Well, I agree with ya but this is 2017 and we are dealing with this shit right now. Bottom line, [B]microtransaction does not automatically make a game worse. Only potentially.[/B][/QUOTE] Here's the problem with microtransactions in games when they let you unlock things immediately instead of earning them. 1. Putting microtransactions in the game from the start and balancing around them makes the normal game more of a grind than it would've been if they never planned on putting them in the game in the first place. 2. Adding in microtransactions after the game is released can unbalance a game and make people feel that they wasted their time when others just start playing and have everything because they spent money for it. In either case, they're saying "why play the game when you can just give us more money and not have to play the game" which makes no sense. This is done [i]purely[/i] out of greed, and [i]nothing[/i] else. Oh, and to touch on the fact that they let you buy them with in-game currency, that isn't for it to seem fair and balanced, that's to get you hooked and want to buy more. The first sample is always free because they know you will get hooked and come back for more. No microtransactions are ever put there to be optional, when they get put in a game and they say shit like "you don't have to buy it" they aren't putting it there for show, they want you to buy it, and they will make certain that the game is built around you spending more of your money on whatever they're selling you.

I actually fucking know people who are delusional enough to claim they love lootboxes because of all the new content they bring into the games that would 100% not exist in any other format. Lootboxes are a fucking gaping wound in the industry and publishers are shoving their arms elbow-deep into it trying to pull as much money as they can before their reckless behavior causes it to crash and burn once again, only for some other fuckwit to figure out the hot new money making scheme that abuses the loyal, paying customers. You could argue that this shit only "potentially" makes the games worse but in reality publishers leech off of each other's experiments and games which could have been excellent are served to the butcher's block so that they can figure out how far they can go before even the most complacent of gamers out there refuse to pony up. Eventually you reach this status quo where this little scheme is exploited to its optimal level where it pulls just the right strings and pushes just the right buttons to become financial hits.

[QUOTE=iownuall;52731082]Here's the problem with microtransactions in games when they let you unlock things immediately instead of earning them. 1. Putting microtransactions in the game from the start and balancing around them makes the normal game more of a grind than it would've been if they never planned on putting them in the game in the first place. 2. Adding in microtransactions after the game is released can unbalance a game and make people feel that they wasted their time when others just start playing and have everything because they spent money for it. In either case, they're saying "why play the game when you can just give us more money and not have to play the game" which makes no sense. This is done [i]purely[/i] out of greed, and [i]nothing[/i] else. Oh, and to touch on the fact that they let you buy them with in-game currency, that isn't for it to seem fair and balanced, that's to get you hooked and want to buy more. The first sample is always free because they know you will get hooked and come back for more. No microtransactions are ever put there to be optional, when they get put in a game and they say shit like "you don't have to buy it" they aren't putting it there for show, they want you to buy it, and they will make certain that the game is built around you spending more of your money on whatever they're selling you.[/QUOTE] This is mostly true for games with their entire business model based around microtransactions, notably f2p and multiplayer games. Singleplayer games would still require that players are able to reach end game within reasonable play time without paying up (for now). Of course, this is mostly done out of greed, but who is to say some weren't implemented as a form of tip jar? [QUOTE=Ganerumo;52731161]I actually fucking know people who are delusional enough to claim they love lootboxes because of all the new content they bring into the games that would 100% not exist in any other format. Lootboxes are a fucking gaping wound in the industry and publishers are shoving their arms elbow-deep into it trying to pull as much money as they can before their reckless behavior causes it to crash and burn once again, only for some other fuckwit to figure out the hot new money making scheme that abuses the loyal, paying customers. You could argue that this shit only "potentially" makes the games worse but in reality publishers leech off of each other's experiments and games which could have been excellent are served to the butcher's block so that they can figure out how far they can go before even the most complacent of gamers out there refuse to pony up. Eventually you reach this status quo where this little scheme is exploited to its optimal level where it pulls just the right strings and pushes just the right buttons to become financial hits.[/QUOTE] Lootboxes are the culprit here, those are the ones that enable gambling habits. Let's be real here, microtransactions and lootboxes earn publishers money, they are not going away for the time being. Might as well start seeing what form of implementation is the most acceptable and least anti-consumer. Don't judge games simply by the presence of microtransactions.

There's nothing wrong with giving players an option to skip parts of the game but that option should be a cheat code or game mode, not microtransactions.

They had this loot box thing disguised as a spin to win in Forza Horizon 3, as far as I know you can just use skill-points or you would have to level up to do it though. I don't think it's bad as long as they let you still earn them with in-game currency. You most likely are able to get the car you want from the auction house for really cheap anyways.. it's how I used to get all my vehicles in FH3 pre-upgraded.