We are talking about cutting that revenue stream.
Selling individual pieces is far less profitable, because volumes are smaller. Marginal stuff like Characters saying something amusing wouldn't be made, because people wouldn't pay for it.
You can't sell individual maps.
Well you can, but you would split the player base. Do you have separate queues for each combination of maps you own or do you just skip that map if 1 of the 12 players don't own it?
Characters are easier to monetize, because getting owned by a guy with OPchar is just free advertizement to buy it. Same doesn't apply for maps.
The Extra Credits videos are... really biased in what they focus on. They seem to forget that QA for a big studio is often mostly near-minimum wage, for example, and that the management costs are a major part of it - "bonuses" are kind of a big deal. Also that a lot of the marketing stuff is often essentially a huge bonus for the the people involved, as well.
One of the larger factors here, of course, is that software developers are some of the least-screwed-over people outside of roles you need an MBA for these days, though for games they're still kicked in the shin a bit. The costs are growing at a different rate than the market.
Thing is, at no point does this excuse specific practices. Some games should cost more to buy, sure. But using abusive behavior to make up the difference is not acceptable just because it's effective. You can justify a lot of nasty stuff otherwise.
If they want to argue that a given practice is acceptable in and of itself, that's fine, but "this is the only way" is not an acceptable argument because you can just NOT do it instead and make a AA game for a lower budget without exploitative nonsense. Frankly I'm fine with "we just really want to make money!" being the goal instead of "this is the only way" anyway. Just find a way to do it ethically.
I think this is kinda the key problem with the "cost of production" argument. "Games cost a lot of money to make" is true, but that does not mean "therefore exploitative lootboxes are the only way forward" is also true. You could just, say, raise the price instead.
Lootboxes aren't necessary, they are just profitable. It's the easiest way to keep making a ton of money off a game for a lot less development effort then making a whole new game. And since, like every big corporation in existence these days, the main concern of game's publishers is higher and higher returns regardless of reality, they jump all over it.
The exploitative lootbox model is so rampant because it's fast and easy money, not because it's necessary.
If raising prices causes you to lose enough sales, you may not actually make more money by raising prices.
I would not argue that some exploitative lootbox models are designed just to make more money. But is there such a thing as a non-exploitative lootbox model? And if some games are not profitable at $60 but market forces are creating a ceiling at $60, are alternative revenue streams that hide the real price or distribute it unevenly to people willing to pay more, such as lootboxes, micro-transactions, and DLC acceptable within some reasonable standards?
Battlefront 2 is obviously awful. But I originally found the lootboxes in Overwatch pretty good, but I have soured on them over time. I find the Paradox DLC strategy to be very good, and similarly the Total War approach with Warhammer of faction DLCs has been quite good. What about more micro-transaction but still deterministic models, ie unlocking characters individually and the like?
On the one hand I do think the old model of paying a single up front cost for a game is dead and that's fine by me because it drives continuous improvement like with Paradox and Total War. But I am increasingly thinking that there is no random lootbox model, even ones like Overwatch or DCCGs, that I want to tolerate.
I don't know. I rather have assurances that the online game I like is still around 5 years from now.
Overwatch is almost 2 years old and is still going strong. It has 5 new vanilla maps, 5 new characters, bunch of new game modes, with their own maps & lot of seasonal event scenarios with their customized maps.
Alternative for that is a game that got stale and near end of its life, because there's no revenue stream to pay for all that.
They could sell the skins and emotes and whatnot as is, without the loot box gambling aspect.
I would vastly prefer this in Overwatch! The only time I've ever gotten the skins I wanted in OW is when I pumped more than the cost of a game into loot box bundles... which is probably why they use that loot box method. Also why I severely cut down the amount of playtime I give to OW. I've spent an embarrassing amount of money on Overwatch loot boxes...
As already noted, though maybe not in this particular thread, this is both substantially less profitable (as the vast majority of consumer feedback on Overwatch has abundantly shown), and possibly seen as much a cynical ploy as the current system (in as such that, while it wouldn't be gambling, it might not win Blizzard much praise compared).
First area: Blizzard doesn't want to charge you $5.00 (or $10.00 or $1.00) for a specific unlockable in Overwatch, whether it's a costume or an animation or a player icon. They very clearly want to charge you $5.00 (or $10.00 or even $1.00) for the possibility to earn one item. People who actually desire cosmetic flourishes in Overwatch aren't saying. "Oh, I'd like some randomly determined sprays, player icons, and maybe--though very unlikely--a new costume." They're saying, "I want this particular costume/animation/spray, etc." This is common sense. Blizzard would still be enormously profitable if they could sell Witch Mercy or Sentai Genji or Barbeque Soldier 76 for $10--it would literally be 100% of the profit after the initial investment in art and design (which, given Blizzard's substantial existing artistic capabilities, probably isn't a huge amount, we're not talking car design here).
Blizzard could charge you $10 (or a different amount) to obtain something that (after a one-time expenses) costs them nothing. Blizzard wants to charge you $10 for the possibility of obtaining something that costs them nothing. That is the fundamental difference. It's relatively smart to charge actual money for something that someone wants and that no longer costs you anything to produce. It's fucking brilliant to charge money for something that no longer costs you anything to produce, but will probably (by statistics you completely control) not give the someone the thing they want. The odds are substantially higher that they will get something they don't want, because the vast majority of people in that marketplace don't come in with the mindset "Oh, I don't really give a crap what I get, I just want a wide variety of nontangible digital stuff." The existing profit remains ($10 in this case), but with the added bonus of a encouraging a further sale. Even if you completely divorced the psychological aspect of gambling from the system (which you can't), you still sold someone $10 worth of something that is, generally speaking, worthless or near worthless to them, with the motivation that they should do so again.
That's smart. If I made shirts, why on Earth would I sell specific shirts for $10 will I can sell the very slim possibility of getting a particular shirt (along with any number of less valuable things) for the same price, with no shirt being a perfectly acceptable outcome? Having no supply costs would only motivate me further towards the later. The "unprofitable" outcome of someone who paid $10 and received, relatively speaking $20 of content (say, two $10 costumes) is vastly outnumbered by the number of people who paid $10 and received $1 of content (say, a couple of icons and sprays).
And Blizzard, as the sole content creator in Overwatch, has complete prerogative to do this--just like any other developer. They could decide never to make any more Overwatch skins after all. The primary objective here is to make a profit, not to actually give the customer "what they want"--at some point, they have to get something they desire, because (excluding the psychological gambling aspect) they would probably become frustrated and stop being your customer. $10 for a costume is a failure, because you only made $10, when it's entirely possible a person might spend $100.
Second area: The industry's consumers are being subjected to rapid change, and might not necessarily have long memories--or they might. Overwatch, even if I'm terrible at it, is a widely beloved game with a huge following and critically praised--an impressive feat considering the response many multiplayer-only games get, and not undeserving of it. There's no point in pretending that if Overwatch were not so critically lauded, we'd feel the exact same way about the lootbox strategy they've employed and, in many respects, championed among the industry (even if they weren't the first, they are the most successful), though obviously we're not entirely excusing their behavior now either. Whether or not you like the game has no bearing on whether it's gambling or not. But, and this is much harder to prove, I suspect Blizzard has a long enough memory to remember the sort of push-back against microtransaction marketplaces in games (themselves largely focused on cosmetic rather than gameplay modifications, the "horse armor" effect), and the unflattering reception they warned. Why should they commit to a less profitable business model that might earn them the same amount of public consumer ire, because because it's "not gambling"? After all, according to them (and the ESRB), lootboxes "probably aren't gambling"--because they say they aren't (as oppose to "horse armor", which very clearly is not gambling by actual meaningful definitions).
Personally, I'm a lot less aggravated by games which announce their intention just to sell cosmetic items rather than slot-machine them out (like Sea of Thieve's own recent announcement, just for an example). But I don't assume the consumer base as a whole necessarily feels the same way.
I love Blizzard dearly--they're on a short list of developers I would actually consider in such terms (some of whom no longer exists, or I now feel differently towards). I play Overwatch despite generally not liking the actual gameplay out of my love of Blizzard. But I'm not going to assume Blizzard is going to ignore what seems like very simple profit-seeking logic (that is also clear to EA, or 343i, or the PUBG Corporation) because of my fondness of them.
The reason they don't do it is because it's less profitable. You make less money selling people something directly then you do making them gamble to get it. It's that simple.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
The reason they don't do it is because it's less profitable. You make less money selling people something directly then you do making them gamble to get it. It's that simple.
Yeah, there's no issue with saying that "Direct sales of cosmetic or non-cosmetic game addons make less profit than randomized lootboxes." I agree with that 100%.
My issue is that randomized lootboxes are, at least mildly, exploitative and predatory by their very nature and need to be examined harshly in all circumstances. If that leads to a flat-ban of the practice, so be it.
So separate queue for people with dlc year 1 pack, another for people with dlc year 2 pack, third for people with both and 4th for people with neither? Thats just 2 years of worth of maps. DLC year 3 brings 4 more queues.
For quickplay/competitive that could work, but what if I want to play a minor format like mystery heroes? -> longer queues and/or bigger skill level differences between opponents.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
As much as detest "gambling not called gambling", this does have the issue of dividing up a dwindling multiplayer base. I'm grateful for Halo 5, Titanfall 2, and even Overwatch for having come up with ways around it, to varying levels of egregiousness.
Part of me wants to say that maybe DLC map packs--as multiplayer expansions (character classes, game modes, etc.)--ought to be made mandatory for continued participation after a certain point. If you want to keep playing multiplayer, pay the fee (even if it means waiting till it goes on sale). But who knows if that would really solve the division problem, as well as being seen as a very brutish solution.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
As much as detest "gambling not called gambling", this does have the issue of dividing up a dwindling multiplayer base. I'm grateful for Halo 5, Titanfall 2, and even Overwatch for having come up with ways around it, to varying levels of egregiousness.
Part of me wants to say that maybe DLC map packs--as multiplayer expansions (character classes, game modes, etc.)--ought to be made mandatory for continued participation after a certain point. If you want to keep playing multiplayer, pay the fee (even if it means waiting till it goes on sale). But who knows if that would really solve the division problem, as well as being seen as a very brutish solution.
Yeah, that's a possible solution. At that point, it's indistinguishable from a subscription fee.
Sub fees have their own baggage and issues, make no mistake. And there are good and bad examples/implementations of their use, same as with lootboxes. But they are less exploitative and prone to abuse than endlessly buyable lootboxes. And are still a way for a post-release game to have a revenue stream above and beyond the initial purchase.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
As much as detest "gambling not called gambling", this does have the issue of dividing up a dwindling multiplayer base. I'm grateful for Halo 5, Titanfall 2, and even Overwatch for having come up with ways around it, to varying levels of egregiousness.
Part of me wants to say that maybe DLC map packs--as multiplayer expansions (character classes, game modes, etc.)--ought to be made mandatory for continued participation after a certain point. If you want to keep playing multiplayer, pay the fee (even if it means waiting till it goes on sale). But who knows if that would really solve the division problem, as well as being seen as a very brutish solution.
Yeah, that's a possible solution. At that point, it's indistinguishable from a subscription fee.
Sub fees have their own baggage and issues, make no mistake. And there are good and bad examples/implementations of their use, same as with lootboxes. But they are less exploitative and prone to abuse than endlessly buyable lootboxes. And are still a way for a post-release game to have a revenue stream above and beyond the initial purchase.
It would, at the very least, not be an indefinite subscription fee. Gaming subscriptions are, by design, intended 1) to run for an indefinite length of time ("We know no the hour of our servers being shut down, of our gaming sunset.") and 2) hard to remember. Even more so today than in the past, games have set schedules for map pack/multiplayer expansions--they typically don't come out on a monthly basis, and they don't just keep happening in most cases. 3 to 5 multiplayer map expansions is generally considered good support (quality of content aside) and around time to consider the sequel. For all of its problems (and boy, does it have its share) Destiny might be a good reference model for this, even if--I think--it uses the old model of dividing up the player base, though the sequel, as far as I know does both (someone correct me if this is wrong, I really do think there's a fee attached to expansion packs, and I know bright engrams are just another nice name for lootboxes).
Practically by design, regular expansion packs--even if there are a lot of them--require deliberate consent from the consumer. You can't just forget that you stored your CC information and buy three map packs (at least, not as it works today, but god knows developers are probably smart enough to change that if they needed to). Modern subscription services are banking on the notion that you will either forget, or can't be bothered, to remove your subscription once activated, whereas every map pack purchase has to be activated (which in turn gives us the concept of a Season Pass for those who would prefer it be handled without them).
So it is distinguishable--at least, it is now. But that doesn't mean it'd somehow be more tolerable. It just wouldn't be thinly-disguised gambling.
They could sell the skins and emotes and whatnot as is, without the loot box gambling aspect.
This is basically what Warframe does. You can earn almost everything in the entire game *that alters gameplay* entirely by playing the game. New frames (classes), weapons, ships, everything. Some are harder to get than others, and for some it can be time consuming enough that buying outright (which is also an option) might be appealing, but I can think of very few things (some limited release weapon variants, for example) that can't be acquired simply by playing the game.
However, 'Fashionframe is the true endgame' is a running gag, and most of the cosmetics are indeed pay to play (with a few 'in game credits' items available as well, or through various faction grinds that aren't too atrocious).
It's a game that is admittedly grindy, but the core gameplay is fun enough that I don't mind it much. I also don't mind pitching them a few bucks now and then (especially when a 75% off discount coupon lands) simply because I find their approach to monetization fairly inoffensive. Being able to trade items in game for their real money currency helps as well, as it means I can even accrue 'platinum' for a purchase without spending a cent, just some random stuff I've picked up as I played the game.
Basically, I'm not opposed to monetization above and beyond the game's price (Warframe itself is F2P, I mean in general), but having the random element is frustrating and obnoxious, doubly so with hidden chances of getting a given item or result. But if you just want to earn some extra cash beyond sales and DLC, yeah, skins I can just buy outright aren't a bad way to go.
Edit: conversely, I've gotten into the game Fortnite, which I do enjoy greatly, but their current (PVE) monetization... leaves something to be desired. In general, you have random lootboxes, and within those are random items, which have a random rarity, and random perks (each with a random rarity and range). It's like a weaponized fractal RNG. You can buy 'loot llamas' that focus on a specific thing (ranged weapons, melee weapons, heroes, whatever), but there's also a random element as to when those will be available.
I do enjoy the gameplay, but their method of trying to bilk the playerbase for cash gets a bit of eye rolling.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
The Extra Credits videos are... really biased in what they focus on. They seem to forget that QA for a big studio is often mostly near-minimum wage, for example, and that the management costs are a major part of it - "bonuses" are kind of a big deal. Also that a lot of the marketing stuff is often essentially a huge bonus for the the people involved, as well.
One of the larger factors here, of course, is that software developers are some of the least-screwed-over people outside of roles you need an MBA for these days, though for games they're still kicked in the shin a bit. The costs are growing at a different rate than the market.
Thing is, at no point does this excuse specific practices. Some games should cost more to buy, sure. But using abusive behavior to make up the difference is not acceptable just because it's effective. You can justify a lot of nasty stuff otherwise.
If they want to argue that a given practice is acceptable in and of itself, that's fine, but "this is the only way" is not an acceptable argument because you can just NOT do it instead and make a AA game for a lower budget without exploitative nonsense. Frankly I'm fine with "we just really want to make money!" being the goal instead of "this is the only way" anyway. Just find a way to do it ethically.
I think this is kinda the key problem with the "cost of production" argument. "Games cost a lot of money to make" is true, but that does not mean "therefore exploitative lootboxes are the only way forward" is also true. You could just, say, raise the price instead.
Lootboxes aren't necessary, they are just profitable. It's the easiest way to keep making a ton of money off a game for a lot less development effort then making a whole new game. And since, like every big corporation in existence these days, the main concern of game's publishers is higher and higher returns regardless of reality, they jump all over it.
The exploitative lootbox model is so rampant because it's fast and easy money, not because it's necessary.
If raising prices causes you to lose enough sales, you may not actually make more money by raising prices.
I would not argue that some exploitative lootbox models are designed just to make more money. But is there such a thing as a non-exploitative lootbox model? And if some games are not profitable at $60 but market forces are creating a ceiling at $60, are alternative revenue streams that hide the real price or distribute it unevenly to people willing to pay more, such as lootboxes, micro-transactions, and DLC acceptable within some reasonable standards?
Battlefront 2 is obviously awful. But I originally found the lootboxes in Overwatch pretty good, but I have soured on them over time. I find the Paradox DLC strategy to be very good, and similarly the Total War approach with Warhammer of faction DLCs has been quite good. What about more micro-transaction but still deterministic models, ie unlocking characters individually and the like?
On the one hand I do think the old model of paying a single up front cost for a game is dead and that's fine by me because it drives continuous improvement like with Paradox and Total War. But I am increasingly thinking that there is no random lootbox model, even ones like Overwatch or DCCGs, that I want to tolerate.
I don't know. I rather have assurances that the online game I like is still around 5 years from now.
Overwatch is almost 2 years old and is still going strong. It has 5 new vanilla maps, 5 new characters, bunch of new game modes, with their own maps & lot of seasonal event scenarios with their customized maps.
Alternative for that is a game that got stale and near end of its life, because there's no revenue stream to pay for all that.
You are talking about Blizzard, a company who made 20-60$ games like Warcraft II, Diablo, Starcraft and then supported them for 10+ years with patches and multiplayer servers. They can pay for it. Its just not as profitable.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
As much as detest "gambling not called gambling", this does have the issue of dividing up a dwindling multiplayer base. I'm grateful for Halo 5, Titanfall 2, and even Overwatch for having come up with ways around it, to varying levels of egregiousness.
Part of me wants to say that maybe DLC map packs--as multiplayer expansions (character classes, game modes, etc.)--ought to be made mandatory for continued participation after a certain point. If you want to keep playing multiplayer, pay the fee (even if it means waiting till it goes on sale). But who knows if that would really solve the division problem, as well as being seen as a very brutish solution.
Yeah, that's a possible solution. At that point, it's indistinguishable from a subscription fee.
Sub fees have their own baggage and issues, make no mistake. And there are good and bad examples/implementations of their use, same as with lootboxes. But they are less exploitative and prone to abuse than endlessly buyable lootboxes. And are still a way for a post-release game to have a revenue stream above and beyond the initial purchase.
It would, at the very least, not be an indefinite subscription fee. Gaming subscriptions are, by design, intended 1) to run for an indefinite length of time ("We know no the hour of our servers being shut down, of our gaming sunset.") and 2) hard to remember. Even more so today than in the past, games have set schedules for map pack/multiplayer expansions--they typically don't come out on a monthly basis, and they don't just keep happening in most cases. 3 to 5 multiplayer map expansions is generally considered good support (quality of content aside) and around time to consider the sequel. For all of its problems (and boy, does it have its share) Destiny might be a good reference model for this, even if--I think--it uses the old model of dividing up the player base, though the sequel, as far as I know does both (someone correct me if this is wrong, I really do think there's a fee attached to expansion packs, and I know bright engrams are just another nice name for lootboxes).
Practically by design, regular expansion packs--even if there are a lot of them--require deliberate consent from the consumer. You can't just forget that you stored your CC information and buy three map packs (at least, not as it works today, but god knows developers are probably smart enough to change that if they needed to). Modern subscription services are banking on the notion that you will either forget, or can't be bothered, to remove your subscription once activated, whereas every map pack purchase has to be activated (which in turn gives us the concept of a Season Pass for those who would prefer it be handled without them).
So it is distinguishable--at least, it is now. But that doesn't mean it'd somehow be more tolerable. It just wouldn't be thinly-disguised gambling.
Yes, you're right. I only got as far as thinking of required map/expansion packs as "a fee required to continue playing the game."
But you're right in that it's not at a set interval or possibly even cost, like a subscription fee would be. And, also, they're slightly different. A sub fee is: "Keep paying to even have current access." A mandatory map/expansion pack would be: "Pay this to have access after *this date*."
A company putting a sub fee and hoping customers forget about it or make it hard to cancel is something that would need to be guarded against, for sure. Gym fees are probably the easiest example of where it becomes kinda predatory. It was an annoying thing I had to deal with to get rid of one that I wasn't using. Assuming that there aren't any roadblocks in the users' way though, managing a sub fee is up to an individual at that point. An email or contact message from the company informing that a charge would apply on/after X date is about the only method I'd like to see made standard. Square does it for my FF14 sub and it's a welcome reminder.
So Extra Credits two most recent episodes were about why AAA games cost so much to make and that they should cost more than $60, but companies don't think they can push the sticker price higher so instead you get loot boxes and day one DLC.
While their position is that we just need to push for these additional revenue streams to be done ethically, my conclusion would be that a system where you are selling at a loss is simply not sustainable. But then I am not a consumer of AAA games, by and large.
My personal preference would be for AAA games to stop having a trend towards insanely bloated budgets where anything less than 6-7 millions of copies sold is total failure. This game sold north of 9 million copies despite being a tremendously-obvious ripoff and EA was disappointed with those numbers, which means some truly insane expectations.
Design visuals from the standpoint of good style versus costly high-resolution textures high-poly models. Stop designing games around bilking customers. Stop splintering userbases with absurd amounts of DLC content. Make cheaper games. Hell, make full-featured games as well, and stop crippling content to have something to overcharge for later.
Destiny 2 was the last "big" game I bought and it's a good thing I had somebody to play it with, because it's a perfect example of how the DLC/microtransaction system has straight-up fucked the quality right out of AAA game design. I played the Halo campaigns countless times with my brothers along with a ton of multiplayer, but Destiny 2 was so much more interested in trying to sell me shit than giving me something to play that it's shallowness became obvious much too soon.
Virtually everything else I've bought in the last year or so has been mid- or low-budget games, because they actually bother to be interesting instead of just expensive. And virtually all of those have given me good experiences, because I would rather spend a dozen interesting hours on a twenty-dollar game than a hundred hours on a game that is a blatant treadmill trying to coerce me into dumping another 60-100 bucks into piecemeal content.
Their argument was that making it cheaper isn't possible. Crazy graphics are needed to compete with all the other AAA games with crazy graphics. So are massive marketing busgets, etc.
Personally I'm not convinced this is true, I would be more interested in a game with innovative mechanics and last gen graphics, but again the last AAA game I bought was Shadow of War when it was on sale. So I'm not really the audience they are selling to.
It also seems like a chicken and egg problem. The budget is massive so you must sell millions of copies, you need to sell millions of copies so you must spend tons of money to compete.
Finally, one point to consider when talking about profit margins is that every successful game has to not only pay for itself but also any unsuccessful games the studio/publisher has had since the last successful game.
I would argue that the argument that making games is getting harder and more expensive is absurd.
1) Tools for artists to convert their visions into 3D models are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
2) We are approaching the, or some would say have exceeded, the level of graphical and items on screen fidelity where people no longer give a crap about it being better
3) Unified tools for game engine building, trigger handling and what not are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
4) People are more accepting than ever of unfinished and poorly functioning product provided the concept is there, and are happy to pay and wait for full function
5) Art assets and stuff can be simple and easily re-used and re-sold for minimal cost using digitally distributed expansion packs
Making profitable games is not harder than it used to be. Making games which can rake in the equivalent profits of an illegal gambling game with imaginary payouts and real cash pay ins is what is hard! And so, the answer is that illegal gambling in gaming needs to be made illegal.
The continued insistent that AAA games can actually be made for fractions of what it actually costs to make them, if everyone involved just did these simple and obvious things, is just wishful thinking.
My argument is that a AAA game should cost approximately 1 million * $20 to make and advertise, meaning each copy will make you a healthy profit of $10 after the sellers have taken their cuts. My secondary argument is that the MANY standardized tools, cheap computational power, and close to 'peak' graphical fidelity makes that a far simpler process. That digital distribution makes sales cheaper to make and copies cheaper to distribute. That 'early access' allows for cheaper financing by pre-selling the game to pay for the development costs of the game. Pre-sales are cheaper than loans!
Sure, maybe it's expensive to turn on 8X AAA non-vertical spline bloom anti-aliasing in 6K 3D depth of field occlusion ambient shadow lighting. So just don't bother. If you can't get it done for $15-20 million, then you can't get it done, and noone will care.
Like i said, wishful thinking.
People do care, games looking good is a big draw, and even getting to the level that consumers consider acceptable is a significant investment, and no, it's not going to be offset by "standardized tools and cheap computational power". You still have to pay people all the man hours it takes for them to make this stuff.
This meme of "Gosh, just make it for less money, guyyysssss" isn't really compelling.
It's highly compelling to me as someone who works in an industry where, "Hmm, can we just make our stupidest and richest customers bankrupt themselves buying crap again and again..." isn't an option.
I might want to tell the manufacturing team, "GO and solve this problem by buying the ultralux mega 25 super capacitor to have 2% more regen braking current" but that capacitor costs 2x more, and thats not in the budget. And fortunately, I know that my competetitors are governed by the same issues, so noone uses the ultralux and we have fair competition. I will try and work smarter and build a more profitable widget for my company, and hope that I have used smart budgeting to get my product in a better 'value' space for the company and consumer so that we win over our rivals.
Lootboxes ENABLE this bad behaviour. Lootboxes enable you to steal from idiots in order to pay vast amounts for marginal improvements. Which then means that your competitors must do the same, and then they must start using lootboxes TOO to pay for them. If you remove lootboxes by making them illegal, then you remove the incentive to overspend, and then you remove the NEED for lootboxes.
If lootboxes are what enables marginally better graphics today, then we'll just have to wait a few years until computing power is cheaper.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+6
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
So Extra Credits two most recent episodes were about why AAA games cost so much to make and that they should cost more than $60, but companies don't think they can push the sticker price higher so instead you get loot boxes and day one DLC.
While their position is that we just need to push for these additional revenue streams to be done ethically, my conclusion would be that a system where you are selling at a loss is simply not sustainable. But then I am not a consumer of AAA games, by and large.
My personal preference would be for AAA games to stop having a trend towards insanely bloated budgets where anything less than 6-7 millions of copies sold is total failure. This game sold north of 9 million copies despite being a tremendously-obvious ripoff and EA was disappointed with those numbers, which means some truly insane expectations.
Design visuals from the standpoint of good style versus costly high-resolution textures high-poly models. Stop designing games around bilking customers. Stop splintering userbases with absurd amounts of DLC content. Make cheaper games. Hell, make full-featured games as well, and stop crippling content to have something to overcharge for later.
Destiny 2 was the last "big" game I bought and it's a good thing I had somebody to play it with, because it's a perfect example of how the DLC/microtransaction system has straight-up fucked the quality right out of AAA game design. I played the Halo campaigns countless times with my brothers along with a ton of multiplayer, but Destiny 2 was so much more interested in trying to sell me shit than giving me something to play that it's shallowness became obvious much too soon.
Virtually everything else I've bought in the last year or so has been mid- or low-budget games, because they actually bother to be interesting instead of just expensive. And virtually all of those have given me good experiences, because I would rather spend a dozen interesting hours on a twenty-dollar game than a hundred hours on a game that is a blatant treadmill trying to coerce me into dumping another 60-100 bucks into piecemeal content.
Their argument was that making it cheaper isn't possible. Crazy graphics are needed to compete with all the other AAA games with crazy graphics. So are massive marketing busgets, etc.
Personally I'm not convinced this is true, I would be more interested in a game with innovative mechanics and last gen graphics, but again the last AAA game I bought was Shadow of War when it was on sale. So I'm not really the audience they are selling to.
It also seems like a chicken and egg problem. The budget is massive so you must sell millions of copies, you need to sell millions of copies so you must spend tons of money to compete.
Finally, one point to consider when talking about profit margins is that every successful game has to not only pay for itself but also any unsuccessful games the studio/publisher has had since the last successful game.
I would argue that the argument that making games is getting harder and more expensive is absurd.
1) Tools for artists to convert their visions into 3D models are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
2) We are approaching the, or some would say have exceeded, the level of graphical and items on screen fidelity where people no longer give a crap about it being better
3) Unified tools for game engine building, trigger handling and what not are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
4) People are more accepting than ever of unfinished and poorly functioning product provided the concept is there, and are happy to pay and wait for full function
5) Art assets and stuff can be simple and easily re-used and re-sold for minimal cost using digitally distributed expansion packs
Making profitable games is not harder than it used to be. Making games which can rake in the equivalent profits of an illegal gambling game with imaginary payouts and real cash pay ins is what is hard! And so, the answer is that illegal gambling in gaming needs to be made illegal.
The continued insistent that AAA games can actually be made for fractions of what it actually costs to make them, if everyone involved just did these simple and obvious things, is just wishful thinking.
My argument is that a AAA game should cost approximately 1 million * $20 to make and advertise, meaning each copy will make you a healthy profit of $10 after the sellers have taken their cuts. My secondary argument is that the MANY standardized tools, cheap computational power, and close to 'peak' graphical fidelity makes that a far simpler process. That digital distribution makes sales cheaper to make and copies cheaper to distribute. That 'early access' allows for cheaper financing by pre-selling the game to pay for the development costs of the game. Pre-sales are cheaper than loans!
Sure, maybe it's expensive to turn on 8X AAA non-vertical spline bloom anti-aliasing in 6K 3D depth of field occlusion ambient shadow lighting. So just don't bother. If you can't get it done for $15-20 million, then you can't get it done, and noone will care.
Like i said, wishful thinking.
People do care, games looking good is a big draw, and even getting to the level that consumers consider acceptable is a significant investment, and no, it's not going to be offset by "standardized tools and cheap computational power". You still have to pay people all the man hours it takes for them to make this stuff.
This meme of "Gosh, just make it for less money, guyyysssss" isn't really compelling.
It's highly compelling to me as someone who works in an industry where, "Hmm, can we just make our stupidest and richest customers bankrupt themselves buying crap again and again..." isn't an option.
I might want to tell the manufacturing team, "GO and solve this problem by buying the ultralux mega 25 super capacitor to have 2% more regen braking current" but that capacitor costs 2x more, and thats not in the budget. And fortunately, I know that my competetitors are governed by the same issues, so noone uses the ultralux and we have fair competition. I will try and work smarter and build a more profitable widget for my company, and hope that I have used smart budgeting to get my product in a better 'value' space for the company and consumer so that we win over our rivals.
Lootboxes ENABLE this bad behaviour. Lootboxes enable you to steal from idiots in order to pay vast amounts for marginal improvements. Which then means that your competitors must do the same, and then they must start using lootboxes TOO to pay for them. If you remove lootboxes by making them illegal, then you remove the incentive to overspend, and then you remove the NEED for lootboxes.
If lootboxes are what enables marginally better graphics today, then we'll just have to wait a few years until computing power is cheaper.
As it stands, lootboxes enable modern games.
Graphics are just what people get fixated on because it's an easy way to visualise where the money goes. But there's still all those other people working on things that don't catch the eye as well for anywhere between 2-5 years, and their salaries and costs of hiring them go into the cost of making a game too.
And while I'm sure we could characterise game developers as workshy fools who just need to start "working smarter" but that strikes me as a giant waste of everyone's time.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
So Extra Credits two most recent episodes were about why AAA games cost so much to make and that they should cost more than $60, but companies don't think they can push the sticker price higher so instead you get loot boxes and day one DLC.
While their position is that we just need to push for these additional revenue streams to be done ethically, my conclusion would be that a system where you are selling at a loss is simply not sustainable. But then I am not a consumer of AAA games, by and large.
My personal preference would be for AAA games to stop having a trend towards insanely bloated budgets where anything less than 6-7 millions of copies sold is total failure. This game sold north of 9 million copies despite being a tremendously-obvious ripoff and EA was disappointed with those numbers, which means some truly insane expectations.
Design visuals from the standpoint of good style versus costly high-resolution textures high-poly models. Stop designing games around bilking customers. Stop splintering userbases with absurd amounts of DLC content. Make cheaper games. Hell, make full-featured games as well, and stop crippling content to have something to overcharge for later.
Destiny 2 was the last "big" game I bought and it's a good thing I had somebody to play it with, because it's a perfect example of how the DLC/microtransaction system has straight-up fucked the quality right out of AAA game design. I played the Halo campaigns countless times with my brothers along with a ton of multiplayer, but Destiny 2 was so much more interested in trying to sell me shit than giving me something to play that it's shallowness became obvious much too soon.
Virtually everything else I've bought in the last year or so has been mid- or low-budget games, because they actually bother to be interesting instead of just expensive. And virtually all of those have given me good experiences, because I would rather spend a dozen interesting hours on a twenty-dollar game than a hundred hours on a game that is a blatant treadmill trying to coerce me into dumping another 60-100 bucks into piecemeal content.
Their argument was that making it cheaper isn't possible. Crazy graphics are needed to compete with all the other AAA games with crazy graphics. So are massive marketing busgets, etc.
Personally I'm not convinced this is true, I would be more interested in a game with innovative mechanics and last gen graphics, but again the last AAA game I bought was Shadow of War when it was on sale. So I'm not really the audience they are selling to.
It also seems like a chicken and egg problem. The budget is massive so you must sell millions of copies, you need to sell millions of copies so you must spend tons of money to compete.
Finally, one point to consider when talking about profit margins is that every successful game has to not only pay for itself but also any unsuccessful games the studio/publisher has had since the last successful game.
I would argue that the argument that making games is getting harder and more expensive is absurd.
1) Tools for artists to convert their visions into 3D models are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
2) We are approaching the, or some would say have exceeded, the level of graphical and items on screen fidelity where people no longer give a crap about it being better
3) Unified tools for game engine building, trigger handling and what not are cheaper, more intuitive and faster than ever
4) People are more accepting than ever of unfinished and poorly functioning product provided the concept is there, and are happy to pay and wait for full function
5) Art assets and stuff can be simple and easily re-used and re-sold for minimal cost using digitally distributed expansion packs
Making profitable games is not harder than it used to be. Making games which can rake in the equivalent profits of an illegal gambling game with imaginary payouts and real cash pay ins is what is hard! And so, the answer is that illegal gambling in gaming needs to be made illegal.
The continued insistent that AAA games can actually be made for fractions of what it actually costs to make them, if everyone involved just did these simple and obvious things, is just wishful thinking.
My argument is that a AAA game should cost approximately 1 million * $20 to make and advertise, meaning each copy will make you a healthy profit of $10 after the sellers have taken their cuts. My secondary argument is that the MANY standardized tools, cheap computational power, and close to 'peak' graphical fidelity makes that a far simpler process. That digital distribution makes sales cheaper to make and copies cheaper to distribute. That 'early access' allows for cheaper financing by pre-selling the game to pay for the development costs of the game. Pre-sales are cheaper than loans!
Sure, maybe it's expensive to turn on 8X AAA non-vertical spline bloom anti-aliasing in 6K 3D depth of field occlusion ambient shadow lighting. So just don't bother. If you can't get it done for $15-20 million, then you can't get it done, and noone will care.
Like i said, wishful thinking.
People do care, games looking good is a big draw, and even getting to the level that consumers consider acceptable is a significant investment, and no, it's not going to be offset by "standardized tools and cheap computational power". You still have to pay people all the man hours it takes for them to make this stuff.
This meme of "Gosh, just make it for less money, guyyysssss" isn't really compelling.
It's highly compelling to me as someone who works in an industry where, "Hmm, can we just make our stupidest and richest customers bankrupt themselves buying crap again and again..." isn't an option.
I might want to tell the manufacturing team, "GO and solve this problem by buying the ultralux mega 25 super capacitor to have 2% more regen braking current" but that capacitor costs 2x more, and thats not in the budget. And fortunately, I know that my competetitors are governed by the same issues, so noone uses the ultralux and we have fair competition. I will try and work smarter and build a more profitable widget for my company, and hope that I have used smart budgeting to get my product in a better 'value' space for the company and consumer so that we win over our rivals.
Lootboxes ENABLE this bad behaviour. Lootboxes enable you to steal from idiots in order to pay vast amounts for marginal improvements. Which then means that your competitors must do the same, and then they must start using lootboxes TOO to pay for them. If you remove lootboxes by making them illegal, then you remove the incentive to overspend, and then you remove the NEED for lootboxes.
If lootboxes are what enables marginally better graphics today, then we'll just have to wait a few years until computing power is cheaper.
Lootboxes don't enable better graphics. Lootboxes make profit, and game companies are posting record profits. Better graphics could be made without lootboxes, but better profits couldn't.
The entire argument that a game company needs loot boxes to stay competitive doesn't hold up.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Edit: I think a far larger fracturing and health issue comes from releasing new titles to major series every single year and Pay-to-win bullshit.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Edit: I think a far larger fracturing and health issue comes from releasing new titles to major series every single year and Pay-to-win bullshit.
I used to play a lot of Call of Duty with folks from Penny Arcade on the X-box and I saw first hand how it could fracture our groups, with people wanting to play with their new maps and excluding those that didn't buy them (and maybe couldn't even afford them).
I think something like map packs could be used to retain player based and keep people interested in a franchise until the next game comes out, but due to the quarterly thinking of companies like EA, they won't invest now for future profits. They'd rather make immediate gains than future profits.
I don't think you'll find a person on the forums that thinks that pay-to-win isn't bullshit. It's at least as exploitative as lootboxes.
I don't think you'll find a person on the forums that thinks that pay-to-win isn't bullshit. It's at least as exploitative as lootboxes.
Nope. Lootboxes exploit gambling addictions and can actually ruin a person's life.
Also, if lootboxes are the only solution a game has to not segregating it's playerbase, then maybe that game doesn't need to exist until they can come up with a better solution.
I don't care how much people like playing Overwatch or whatever, it doesn't excuse the practice and if they can't survive on selling things directly to the player, then it doesn't deserve to continue receiving support.
Pay-to-win mechanics are bad--lots of gameplay mechanics are bad--but they are not exploitative like lootboxes are unless they are actually gambling as well.
Which you can do! Battlefront II was a prime example of both. Destiny 2 has lootboxes with more powerful weapon possibilities (bright engrams) as I understand it, but that's a bit less egregious because of the co-op nature of most of the game's modes. Halo 5 is further less egregious, as better weapons from lootboxes are only usable in a single game mode (Warzone), temporary (they run out of ammo, unlike in Destiny where they are permanent gear in your inventory), and any incompetent tryhard such as myself can run you over with a complete free warthog and take your Mythic Multi-Warhead Fuel Air Explosive Rocket Launcher +3 an attempt to use it before being blown to pieces. With that in mind, it's fairly hard to imagine anyone getting a gambling thrill from that (even if it is "lame" in its own right).
Conversely, Overwatch's lootboxes are still very bad and exploitative even if their rewards represent a cosmetic or stylistic artifacts, and could not normally be considered "pay-to-win".
Pay-to-win mechanics are bad--lots of gameplay mechanics are bad--but they are not exploitative like lootboxes are unless they are actually gambling as well.
Which you can do! Battlefront II was a prime example of both. Destiny 2 has lootboxes with more powerful weapon possibilities (bright engrams) as I understand it, but that's a bit less egregious because of the co-op nature of most of the game's modes. Halo 5 is further less egregious, as better weapons from lootboxes are only usable in a single game mode (Warzone), temporary (they run out of ammo, unlike in Destiny where they are permanent gear in your inventory), and any incompetent tryhard such as myself can run you over with a complete free warthog and take your Mythic Multi-Warhead Fuel Air Explosive Rocket Launcher +3 an attempt to use it before being blown to pieces. With that in mind, it's fairly hard to imagine anyone getting a gambling thrill from that (even if it is "lame" in its own right).
Conversely, Overwatch's lootboxes are still very bad and exploitative even if their rewards represent a cosmetic or stylistic artifacts, and could not normally be considered "pay-to-win".
Nope. Nothing you get from Bright Engrams makes you more powerful in Destiny 2.
Destiny 2's issues with lootboxes are a whole different kettle of fish (essentially stripping all reward mechanics from the base game to feed the lootbox god). They aren't pay to win.
Frankly, they barely count as exploitative just because buying lootboxes is such shit value that it's strange to think anyone would even do it. Although people do anyway, as I understand it.
Or you can do the Payday 2/Paradox approach to expansions like a sensible person who's thought of this and is actually budgeting for continued support rather than treating games not as products, but as capital assets in and of themselves.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
Pay-to-win mechanics are bad--lots of gameplay mechanics are bad--but they are not exploitative like lootboxes are unless they are actually gambling as well.
Which you can do! Battlefront II was a prime example of both. Destiny 2 has lootboxes with more powerful weapon possibilities (bright engrams) as I understand it, but that's a bit less egregious because of the co-op nature of most of the game's modes. Halo 5 is further less egregious, as better weapons from lootboxes are only usable in a single game mode (Warzone), temporary (they run out of ammo, unlike in Destiny where they are permanent gear in your inventory), and any incompetent tryhard such as myself can run you over with a complete free warthog and take your Mythic Multi-Warhead Fuel Air Explosive Rocket Launcher +3 an attempt to use it before being blown to pieces. With that in mind, it's fairly hard to imagine anyone getting a gambling thrill from that (even if it is "lame" in its own right).
Conversely, Overwatch's lootboxes are still very bad and exploitative even if their rewards represent a cosmetic or stylistic artifacts, and could not normally be considered "pay-to-win".
Nope. Nothing you get from Bright Engrams makes you more powerful in Destiny 2.
Destiny 2's issues with lootboxes are a whole different kettle of fish (essentially stripping all reward mechanics from the base game to feed the lootbox god). They aren't pay to win.
Frankly, they barely count as exploitative just because buying lootboxes is such shit value that it's strange to think anyone would even do it. Although people do anyway, as I understand it.
Oh, I didn't know that (I also noted that in a previous post further up). Thanks for that.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+10
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less and targets lowered to be more reasonable, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
Ninja Snarl P on
+5
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less and targets lowered to be more reasonable, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
They would still have a "need" for them in that they'd still want more money. Lootboxes are a thing because they are profitable and they work and that's basically it.
The only real way to kill them is massive consumer backlash against the very idea (never happening ever because of the business model) or regulation.
+4
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I said they weren't stupid, and had no incentive to change. I didn't say they weren't evil.
Lootboxes do not make their money from well informed players making smart buying decisions. Because well informed players making smart buying decisions don't buy lootboxes because lootboxes are a scam. Maybe you grab one or two, but the publishers don't care about that. The people they are moving on are the 1% of players who are either...
1) Children with their parents credit cards
2) Gambling addicts
These people spend a lot of money! It is an EXCELLENT financial decision to do things which slightly increase the chances of you getting money from those people, because they will spend ENORMOUS amounts for stuff which costs you nothing
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+6
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I said they weren't stupid, and had no incentive to change. I didn't say they weren't evil.
Lootboxes do not make their money from well informed players making smart buying decisions. Because well informed players making smart buying decisions don't buy lootboxes because lootboxes are a scam. Maybe you grab one or two, but the publishers don't care about that. The people they are moving on are the 1% of players who are either...
1) Children with their parents credit cards
2) Gambling addicts
These people spend a lot of money! It is an EXCELLENT financial decision to do things which slightly increase the chances of you getting money from those people, because they will spend ENORMOUS amounts for stuff which costs you nothing
I'm fairly certain that "child buys a bajillion lootboxes" story is only notable because of how rare it is, and even then in the states at least you're not on the hook for unauthorized charges past 50 dollars, and its the same in civilised countries.
And in addition, most credit card companies will just reverse those charges anyway, because nobody wants the bad publicity of dealing with it. So that's that nonsense put to bed.
So, I guess that just leaves the "whales" - who aren't really the main target anymore. They used to be, sure, and they still exist. But the thing with whales is you only have a finite number and they can only really be the whales of one game at a time. So you're actually better off getting occasional revenue from more people than lots from a few.
I guess that makes anyone whose ever bought a lootbox an idiot. Harsh
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I said they weren't stupid, and had no incentive to change. I didn't say they weren't evil.
Lootboxes do not make their money from well informed players making smart buying decisions. Because well informed players making smart buying decisions don't buy lootboxes because lootboxes are a scam. Maybe you grab one or two, but the publishers don't care about that. The people they are moving on are the 1% of players who are either...
1) Children with their parents credit cards
2) Gambling addicts
These people spend a lot of money! It is an EXCELLENT financial decision to do things which slightly increase the chances of you getting money from those people, because they will spend ENORMOUS amounts for stuff which costs you nothing
I'm fairly certain that "child buys a bajillion lootboxes" story is only notable because of how rare it is, and even then in the states at least you're not on the hook for unauthorized charges past 50 dollars, and its the same in civilised countries.
And in addition, most credit card companies will just reverse those charges anyway, because nobody wants the bad publicity of dealing with it. So that's that nonsense put to bed.
So, I guess that just leaves the "whales" - who aren't really the main target anymore. They used to be, sure, and they still exist. But the thing with whales is you only have a finite number and they can only really be the whales of one game at a time. So you're actually better off getting occasional revenue from more people than lots from a few.
I guess that makes anyone whose ever bought a lootbox an idiot. Harsh
So game companies should have no problems selling non-random content instead of random shit. Or increasing the price of the game to the expected price paid by players.
Or, maybe they don't for the same reason casinos don't just charge a fixed amount for drinks and games: they can make more by exploiting gambling behaviour and obfuscated pricing.
Posts
Selling individual pieces is far less profitable, because volumes are smaller. Marginal stuff like Characters saying something amusing wouldn't be made, because people wouldn't pay for it.
You can't sell individual maps.
Well you can, but you would split the player base. Do you have separate queues for each combination of maps you own or do you just skip that map if 1 of the 12 players don't own it?
Characters are easier to monetize, because getting owned by a guy with OPchar is just free advertizement to buy it. Same doesn't apply for maps.
As already noted, though maybe not in this particular thread, this is both substantially less profitable (as the vast majority of consumer feedback on Overwatch has abundantly shown), and possibly seen as much a cynical ploy as the current system (in as such that, while it wouldn't be gambling, it might not win Blizzard much praise compared).
First area: Blizzard doesn't want to charge you $5.00 (or $10.00 or $1.00) for a specific unlockable in Overwatch, whether it's a costume or an animation or a player icon. They very clearly want to charge you $5.00 (or $10.00 or even $1.00) for the possibility to earn one item. People who actually desire cosmetic flourishes in Overwatch aren't saying. "Oh, I'd like some randomly determined sprays, player icons, and maybe--though very unlikely--a new costume." They're saying, "I want this particular costume/animation/spray, etc." This is common sense. Blizzard would still be enormously profitable if they could sell Witch Mercy or Sentai Genji or Barbeque Soldier 76 for $10--it would literally be 100% of the profit after the initial investment in art and design (which, given Blizzard's substantial existing artistic capabilities, probably isn't a huge amount, we're not talking car design here).
Blizzard could charge you $10 (or a different amount) to obtain something that (after a one-time expenses) costs them nothing. Blizzard wants to charge you $10 for the possibility of obtaining something that costs them nothing. That is the fundamental difference. It's relatively smart to charge actual money for something that someone wants and that no longer costs you anything to produce. It's fucking brilliant to charge money for something that no longer costs you anything to produce, but will probably (by statistics you completely control) not give the someone the thing they want. The odds are substantially higher that they will get something they don't want, because the vast majority of people in that marketplace don't come in with the mindset "Oh, I don't really give a crap what I get, I just want a wide variety of nontangible digital stuff." The existing profit remains ($10 in this case), but with the added bonus of a encouraging a further sale. Even if you completely divorced the psychological aspect of gambling from the system (which you can't), you still sold someone $10 worth of something that is, generally speaking, worthless or near worthless to them, with the motivation that they should do so again.
That's smart. If I made shirts, why on Earth would I sell specific shirts for $10 will I can sell the very slim possibility of getting a particular shirt (along with any number of less valuable things) for the same price, with no shirt being a perfectly acceptable outcome? Having no supply costs would only motivate me further towards the later. The "unprofitable" outcome of someone who paid $10 and received, relatively speaking $20 of content (say, two $10 costumes) is vastly outnumbered by the number of people who paid $10 and received $1 of content (say, a couple of icons and sprays).
And Blizzard, as the sole content creator in Overwatch, has complete prerogative to do this--just like any other developer. They could decide never to make any more Overwatch skins after all. The primary objective here is to make a profit, not to actually give the customer "what they want"--at some point, they have to get something they desire, because (excluding the psychological gambling aspect) they would probably become frustrated and stop being your customer. $10 for a costume is a failure, because you only made $10, when it's entirely possible a person might spend $100.
Second area: The industry's consumers are being subjected to rapid change, and might not necessarily have long memories--or they might. Overwatch, even if I'm terrible at it, is a widely beloved game with a huge following and critically praised--an impressive feat considering the response many multiplayer-only games get, and not undeserving of it. There's no point in pretending that if Overwatch were not so critically lauded, we'd feel the exact same way about the lootbox strategy they've employed and, in many respects, championed among the industry (even if they weren't the first, they are the most successful), though obviously we're not entirely excusing their behavior now either. Whether or not you like the game has no bearing on whether it's gambling or not. But, and this is much harder to prove, I suspect Blizzard has a long enough memory to remember the sort of push-back against microtransaction marketplaces in games (themselves largely focused on cosmetic rather than gameplay modifications, the "horse armor" effect), and the unflattering reception they warned. Why should they commit to a less profitable business model that might earn them the same amount of public consumer ire, because because it's "not gambling"? After all, according to them (and the ESRB), lootboxes "probably aren't gambling"--because they say they aren't (as oppose to "horse armor", which very clearly is not gambling by actual meaningful definitions).
Personally, I'm a lot less aggravated by games which announce their intention just to sell cosmetic items rather than slot-machine them out (like Sea of Thieve's own recent announcement, just for an example). But I don't assume the consumer base as a whole necessarily feels the same way.
I love Blizzard dearly--they're on a short list of developers I would actually consider in such terms (some of whom no longer exists, or I now feel differently towards). I play Overwatch despite generally not liking the actual gameplay out of my love of Blizzard. But I'm not going to assume Blizzard is going to ignore what seems like very simple profit-seeking logic (that is also clear to EA, or 343i, or the PUBG Corporation) because of my fondness of them.
The reason they don't do it is because it's less profitable. You make less money selling people something directly then you do making them gamble to get it. It's that simple.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Yeah, there's no issue with saying that "Direct sales of cosmetic or non-cosmetic game addons make less profit than randomized lootboxes." I agree with that 100%.
My issue is that randomized lootboxes are, at least mildly, exploitative and predatory by their very nature and need to be examined harshly in all circumstances. If that leads to a flat-ban of the practice, so be it.
For quickplay/competitive that could work, but what if I want to play a minor format like mystery heroes? -> longer queues and/or bigger skill level differences between opponents.
As much as detest "gambling not called gambling", this does have the issue of dividing up a dwindling multiplayer base. I'm grateful for Halo 5, Titanfall 2, and even Overwatch for having come up with ways around it, to varying levels of egregiousness.
Part of me wants to say that maybe DLC map packs--as multiplayer expansions (character classes, game modes, etc.)--ought to be made mandatory for continued participation after a certain point. If you want to keep playing multiplayer, pay the fee (even if it means waiting till it goes on sale). But who knows if that would really solve the division problem, as well as being seen as a very brutish solution.
Yeah, that's a possible solution. At that point, it's indistinguishable from a subscription fee.
Sub fees have their own baggage and issues, make no mistake. And there are good and bad examples/implementations of their use, same as with lootboxes. But they are less exploitative and prone to abuse than endlessly buyable lootboxes. And are still a way for a post-release game to have a revenue stream above and beyond the initial purchase.
It would, at the very least, not be an indefinite subscription fee. Gaming subscriptions are, by design, intended 1) to run for an indefinite length of time ("We know no the hour of our servers being shut down, of our gaming sunset.") and 2) hard to remember. Even more so today than in the past, games have set schedules for map pack/multiplayer expansions--they typically don't come out on a monthly basis, and they don't just keep happening in most cases. 3 to 5 multiplayer map expansions is generally considered good support (quality of content aside) and around time to consider the sequel. For all of its problems (and boy, does it have its share) Destiny might be a good reference model for this, even if--I think--it uses the old model of dividing up the player base, though the sequel, as far as I know does both (someone correct me if this is wrong, I really do think there's a fee attached to expansion packs, and I know bright engrams are just another nice name for lootboxes).
Practically by design, regular expansion packs--even if there are a lot of them--require deliberate consent from the consumer. You can't just forget that you stored your CC information and buy three map packs (at least, not as it works today, but god knows developers are probably smart enough to change that if they needed to). Modern subscription services are banking on the notion that you will either forget, or can't be bothered, to remove your subscription once activated, whereas every map pack purchase has to be activated (which in turn gives us the concept of a Season Pass for those who would prefer it be handled without them).
So it is distinguishable--at least, it is now. But that doesn't mean it'd somehow be more tolerable. It just wouldn't be thinly-disguised gambling.
This is basically what Warframe does. You can earn almost everything in the entire game *that alters gameplay* entirely by playing the game. New frames (classes), weapons, ships, everything. Some are harder to get than others, and for some it can be time consuming enough that buying outright (which is also an option) might be appealing, but I can think of very few things (some limited release weapon variants, for example) that can't be acquired simply by playing the game.
However, 'Fashionframe is the true endgame' is a running gag, and most of the cosmetics are indeed pay to play (with a few 'in game credits' items available as well, or through various faction grinds that aren't too atrocious).
It's a game that is admittedly grindy, but the core gameplay is fun enough that I don't mind it much. I also don't mind pitching them a few bucks now and then (especially when a 75% off discount coupon lands) simply because I find their approach to monetization fairly inoffensive. Being able to trade items in game for their real money currency helps as well, as it means I can even accrue 'platinum' for a purchase without spending a cent, just some random stuff I've picked up as I played the game.
Basically, I'm not opposed to monetization above and beyond the game's price (Warframe itself is F2P, I mean in general), but having the random element is frustrating and obnoxious, doubly so with hidden chances of getting a given item or result. But if you just want to earn some extra cash beyond sales and DLC, yeah, skins I can just buy outright aren't a bad way to go.
Edit: conversely, I've gotten into the game Fortnite, which I do enjoy greatly, but their current (PVE) monetization... leaves something to be desired. In general, you have random lootboxes, and within those are random items, which have a random rarity, and random perks (each with a random rarity and range). It's like a weaponized fractal RNG. You can buy 'loot llamas' that focus on a specific thing (ranged weapons, melee weapons, heroes, whatever), but there's also a random element as to when those will be available.
I do enjoy the gameplay, but their method of trying to bilk the playerbase for cash gets a bit of eye rolling.
You are talking about Blizzard, a company who made 20-60$ games like Warcraft II, Diablo, Starcraft and then supported them for 10+ years with patches and multiplayer servers. They can pay for it. Its just not as profitable.
Yes, you're right. I only got as far as thinking of required map/expansion packs as "a fee required to continue playing the game."
But you're right in that it's not at a set interval or possibly even cost, like a subscription fee would be. And, also, they're slightly different. A sub fee is: "Keep paying to even have current access." A mandatory map/expansion pack would be: "Pay this to have access after *this date*."
A company putting a sub fee and hoping customers forget about it or make it hard to cancel is something that would need to be guarded against, for sure. Gym fees are probably the easiest example of where it becomes kinda predatory. It was an annoying thing I had to deal with to get rid of one that I wasn't using. Assuming that there aren't any roadblocks in the users' way though, managing a sub fee is up to an individual at that point. An email or contact message from the company informing that a charge would apply on/after X date is about the only method I'd like to see made standard. Square does it for my FF14 sub and it's a welcome reminder.
It's highly compelling to me as someone who works in an industry where, "Hmm, can we just make our stupidest and richest customers bankrupt themselves buying crap again and again..." isn't an option.
I might want to tell the manufacturing team, "GO and solve this problem by buying the ultralux mega 25 super capacitor to have 2% more regen braking current" but that capacitor costs 2x more, and thats not in the budget. And fortunately, I know that my competetitors are governed by the same issues, so noone uses the ultralux and we have fair competition. I will try and work smarter and build a more profitable widget for my company, and hope that I have used smart budgeting to get my product in a better 'value' space for the company and consumer so that we win over our rivals.
Lootboxes ENABLE this bad behaviour. Lootboxes enable you to steal from idiots in order to pay vast amounts for marginal improvements. Which then means that your competitors must do the same, and then they must start using lootboxes TOO to pay for them. If you remove lootboxes by making them illegal, then you remove the incentive to overspend, and then you remove the NEED for lootboxes.
If lootboxes are what enables marginally better graphics today, then we'll just have to wait a few years until computing power is cheaper.
As it stands, lootboxes enable modern games.
Graphics are just what people get fixated on because it's an easy way to visualise where the money goes. But there's still all those other people working on things that don't catch the eye as well for anywhere between 2-5 years, and their salaries and costs of hiring them go into the cost of making a game too.
And while I'm sure we could characterise game developers as workshy fools who just need to start "working smarter" but that strikes me as a giant waste of everyone's time.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Lootboxes don't enable better graphics. Lootboxes make profit, and game companies are posting record profits. Better graphics could be made without lootboxes, but better profits couldn't.
The entire argument that a game company needs loot boxes to stay competitive doesn't hold up.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Edit: I think a far larger fracturing and health issue comes from releasing new titles to major series every single year and Pay-to-win bullshit.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
I used to play a lot of Call of Duty with folks from Penny Arcade on the X-box and I saw first hand how it could fracture our groups, with people wanting to play with their new maps and excluding those that didn't buy them (and maybe couldn't even afford them).
I think something like map packs could be used to retain player based and keep people interested in a franchise until the next game comes out, but due to the quarterly thinking of companies like EA, they won't invest now for future profits. They'd rather make immediate gains than future profits.
I don't think you'll find a person on the forums that thinks that pay-to-win isn't bullshit. It's at least as exploitative as lootboxes.
Nope. Lootboxes exploit gambling addictions and can actually ruin a person's life.
Also, if lootboxes are the only solution a game has to not segregating it's playerbase, then maybe that game doesn't need to exist until they can come up with a better solution.
I don't care how much people like playing Overwatch or whatever, it doesn't excuse the practice and if they can't survive on selling things directly to the player, then it doesn't deserve to continue receiving support.
Which you can do! Battlefront II was a prime example of both. Destiny 2 has lootboxes with more powerful weapon possibilities (bright engrams) as I understand it, but that's a bit less egregious because of the co-op nature of most of the game's modes. Halo 5 is further less egregious, as better weapons from lootboxes are only usable in a single game mode (Warzone), temporary (they run out of ammo, unlike in Destiny where they are permanent gear in your inventory), and any incompetent tryhard such as myself can run you over with a complete free warthog and take your Mythic Multi-Warhead Fuel Air Explosive Rocket Launcher +3 an attempt to use it before being blown to pieces. With that in mind, it's fairly hard to imagine anyone getting a gambling thrill from that (even if it is "lame" in its own right).
Conversely, Overwatch's lootboxes are still very bad and exploitative even if their rewards represent a cosmetic or stylistic artifacts, and could not normally be considered "pay-to-win".
Nope. Nothing you get from Bright Engrams makes you more powerful in Destiny 2.
Destiny 2's issues with lootboxes are a whole different kettle of fish (essentially stripping all reward mechanics from the base game to feed the lootbox god). They aren't pay to win.
Frankly, they barely count as exploitative just because buying lootboxes is such shit value that it's strange to think anyone would even do it. Although people do anyway, as I understand it.
No need to break up the playerbase at all.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
Oh, I didn't know that (I also noted that in a previous post further up). Thanks for that.
They clearly didn't.
Warning:Contains Spiders.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
Has it?
As far as I know that's wrong, but I'm open to correction.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less and targets lowered to be more reasonable, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
They would still have a "need" for them in that they'd still want more money. Lootboxes are a thing because they are profitable and they work and that's basically it.
The only real way to kill them is massive consumer backlash against the very idea (never happening ever because of the business model) or regulation.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I said they weren't stupid, and had no incentive to change. I didn't say they weren't evil.
Lootboxes do not make their money from well informed players making smart buying decisions. Because well informed players making smart buying decisions don't buy lootboxes because lootboxes are a scam. Maybe you grab one or two, but the publishers don't care about that. The people they are moving on are the 1% of players who are either...
1) Children with their parents credit cards
2) Gambling addicts
These people spend a lot of money! It is an EXCELLENT financial decision to do things which slightly increase the chances of you getting money from those people, because they will spend ENORMOUS amounts for stuff which costs you nothing
I'm fairly certain that "child buys a bajillion lootboxes" story is only notable because of how rare it is, and even then in the states at least you're not on the hook for unauthorized charges past 50 dollars, and its the same in civilised countries.
And in addition, most credit card companies will just reverse those charges anyway, because nobody wants the bad publicity of dealing with it. So that's that nonsense put to bed.
So, I guess that just leaves the "whales" - who aren't really the main target anymore. They used to be, sure, and they still exist. But the thing with whales is you only have a finite number and they can only really be the whales of one game at a time. So you're actually better off getting occasional revenue from more people than lots from a few.
I guess that makes anyone whose ever bought a lootbox an idiot. Harsh
So game companies should have no problems selling non-random content instead of random shit. Or increasing the price of the game to the expected price paid by players.
Or, maybe they don't for the same reason casinos don't just charge a fixed amount for drinks and games: they can make more by exploiting gambling behaviour and obfuscated pricing.