Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleGaga27

Just how bad can loot boxes and other microtransactions go?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Calling it a controversy is overstating things a bit I think.

When it reaches mainstream news and even politicians, you bet your ass it's a controversy.

 

4 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

I understand the functional necessity of them

There is none. EA convinced their shareholders that removing them won't affect their financial plan.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

When it reaches mainstream news and even politicians

The mainstream news and politicians latch onto the most irrelevant things all the time, that's why a word like nontroversy exists in common parlance.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

When it reaches mainstream news and even politicians, you bet your ass it's a controversy.

 

There is none. EA convinced their shareholders that removing them won't affect their financial plan.

With the amount of crap politicians, at least in the US, gravitate towards, that's not really helping your argument. Many non-issues turn into wildfires because people are stupid and it gets clicks. An actual controversy would have affected some real change, or, at the very least, caused some severe turmoil. Butthurt gamers doesn't really count for either of those.

There is a functional need for them to exist and that's in the form of continual revenue streams. It's how some companies make all of their revenue and other companies who don't rely it have extra capital and having extra capital is always a bonus. Game companies are businesses at the end of the day and anything that keeps them in the black is good for them, and, sometimes but not always, us.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Game companies are businesses at the end of the day

They always were, and the fact that they lived on without them well enough just a decade ago renders that point moot.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, no, it doesn't. As the cost of living rises, so do wages. Technology is ever increasing in complexity and it costs more to run than before. A decade ago, it was far cheaper to maintain. Now it's far more expensive if you don't want to use archaic tech. As costs increase, the need for additional capital is always present. Your point is invalid. It might have been if you had pointed to a year or two ago instead of ten.

Share this post


Link to post

The tendency to use new tech (some of which is obnoxiously hard to work with like Frostbite being shoved into non-FPS games) is self-imposed. "Archaic" tech that is also from 10 years ago has sufficient graphics to be called "realistic", as now we're just putting more and more particles, nothing more. We've reached graphical peak, there's no reason to use closed and non-flexible engines when there are open solutions like Unreal and Unity which are actually documented.

A game's quality doesn't depend on the number of people you pay, but how you manage them and what you do with them. Persistent crunch time will wreck your performance whether you have 10 or 1000 people.

Expenses that publishers bitch about are their own fault, not the fault of the industry's nature. Microtransactions and lootboxes are not there to pay the wages of the actual working staff, they only fuel the golden parachutes of the upper brass. Otherwise EA would not have directly stated that cutting the microtransactions from Battlefront II wouldn't affect them financially, and they would have downsized the living shit out of DICE to save money.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you really think that the main reason that EA uses Frostbite in its products is graphical technology? There is more to Frostbite than you know about. It allows EA to hire third party (cheaper studios and workers from India, China, etc) on other countries to work together in a game. It is also an EA engine, so they won't need to pay royalties to other companies. And it is also a way for EA to set their own game production standards. It also allows them to differentiate from other companies in terms of graphical technology. It also prevent different teams to do effort do solve the same kind of graphical/physics/AI related problems... as well as that engine is more integrated with Origin (monetization purposes mostly) than other engines. So, surprisingly, Frostbite was also made to cut costs.

Edited by Banshee

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Banshee said:

Do you really think that the main reason that EA uses Frostbite in its products is graphical technology?

Of course not, but it's a retarded engine that you can't just force on non-FPS genres without rewriting considerable amounts of it, whereas Unreal and Unity are actually flexible and were made by sane people.

 

1 hour ago, Banshee said:

It allows EA to hire third party (cheaper studios and workers from India, China, etc) on other countries to work together in a game.

It'll take them longer to learn Frostbite than proper engines, as far more people already know the latter, resulting in more potential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post

I won't take the merits of Frostbite here, if it is good or retarded, since I've never tried to make a game with it in my life. But, being rational for once, somebody has to start somewhere. They want Frostbite to be compatible with every type of game, so they naturally need to develop the engine. This is why the Victory Games team was given a lot of time to adapt the engine to RTS.

you can't just force on non-FPS genres without rewriting considerable amounts of it, whereas Unreal and Unity are actually flexible and were made by sane people.

Rewriting or extending it? There is a lot of difference between both cases... and none of us are in position to judge it. It really depends on how Frostbite was designed in first place.

It'll take them longer to learn Frostbite than proper engines, as far more people already know the latter, resulting in more potential candidates.

And again, we do not know Frostbite enough to take this kind of conclusion. It is hard to design good generic game engines. Frostbite is DICE's attempt to do it. It is not as tested and as used as Unreal or Unity because it is restricted to games from EA.

Share this post


Link to post

Same point.

Look at the history of this engine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine)

As far as I know EA, it was originally built for Battlefield games (FPS) and EA has been trying to force to use it to every game genre. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't designed for a general purpose game engine in first place (differently from Unreal and Unity). However, I cannot fully confirm this information. This kind of article and the experience that I had by playing the Command & Conquer canceled game certainly goes on that direction, but it is not clear how is the engine changed when they have to create non-FPS games and how is it shared between EA development teams for the development of future games. How would the 'core' of the engine is edited when they say they have to "write it from scratch"? As soon as BioWare shares their RPG game code for it, if it is possible, it will become more friendly for future RPG games. If it is not possible, then I will be able to confirm your point about the engine being retarded or totally inadequate for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Look at it this way: it's far harder and more time-consuming to teach Frostbite not to be an FPS than it is to other engines.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it is... right now. But I think EA is surprisingly working on a long term for this one.

Share this post


Link to post

And there's Plokite throwing around speculation as though it's fact. When you have a homegrown engine, it's easier for the studios to navigate if they've seen it before. While Unity and Unreal are available, they're not free for commercial products. They must be licensed, which, depending on the situation, can be quite prohibitive. Not all the time, but at least part of the time. EA doesn't need to spend their time on another engine when they have their own dedicated engine, which they can use for any purpose. Even if they have to modify it to suit other needs, so does anyone who picks up a freely available engine. The more general purpose you make something, the more work actually goes into tailoring it to your project. EA doesn't have this problem and they can do whatever they want with the engine and not have to pay any royalties for its use.

In any case, this isn't about EA and their engines but about loot boxes and why some people think they're the greatest sin to gaming. I'm not a fan but I see the necessity from a business perspective, which it seems many people lack.

That aside, Plokite doesn't understand the value of keeping current. I work in a software company and shit from ten years ago would hardly be effective today. I have to deal with legacy applications and they're a nightmare, which is why keeping current with technology works in your benefit. Ten years ago Windows XP was still a thing. Do we really want to gimp ourselves by clinging to outdated shit from 2007 and 2008? No, we really don't. I have a decade old laptop and while, yeah, it works, it's hardly that usable anymore. The same thing happens with software - games and game engines included. An engine designed for a game in 2008 isn't nearly as relevant as one designed for a game in 2015. Not to mention, there's server technology and that comes with its own set of challenges. Sure, we could use game engines from 2007 and run everything on Pentium 4s but it wouldn't be worth its weight in shit to attempt something so foolish.

Making claims like "things from ten years ago are just fine" then trying to apply it to anything remotely technological is a fool's errand and only serves to make you look uninformed on the topic. I'm not surprised that Plokite still doesn't understand the business aspect. As technology evolves so do its costs and requirements to run optimally. This is just a simple fact of life. The top tier games have massive budgets and that money has to come from somewhere. Game sales alone aren't enough, unless they raise the price substantially. I'd rather drop $60 for a game and maybe buy a DLC pack for a few bucks than have prices jump to $85 a pop then the DLC on top of it. Rather not go there.

Share this post


Link to post

In any case, this isn't about EA and their engines but about loot boxes and why some people think they're the greatest sin to gaming. I'm not a fan but I see the necessity from a business perspective, which it seems many people lack.

Necessity? Really? I see that more as a bonus. Games are still able to do a lot of money without loot boxes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Banshee said:

Games are still able to do a lot of money without loot boxes.

That's still true to this day. But because of rising dollar inflation (depending on where you are), would $60 USD be worth it today on a new game release with the latest technology? Yes, only if the game is of polished quality and takes at least a day to complete a full-length game (not 6-7 hrs from a typical Call of Duty or Battlefield game). 10-20 years ago, they were worth $60 USD on release, but with weaker graphic technology.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Banshee said:

 

 

Necessity? Really? I see that more as a bonus. Games are still able to do a lot of money without loot boxes.

It's more and more becoming necessary to supplement revenue with something other than initial game purchases due to the rising costs of development and server maintenance. I would rather see loot boxes than rising prices of games.

Share this post


Link to post

It's more and more becoming necessary to supplement revenue with something other than initial game purchases due to the rising costs of development and server maintenance. I would rather see loot boxes than rising prices of games.

Use DLCs instead. Sell more storyline related content/campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

The more general purpose you make something, the more work actually goes into tailoring it to your project. EA doesn't have this problem

Explain BioWare and Victory Games, then. Why did it take so long for them to use Frostbite for something that isn't a Battlefield clone?

 

5 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

I'm not a fan but I see the necessity from a business perspective, which it seems many people lack.

Necessity, where there are still AAA and indie devs who do well without them? Most interesting.

 

5 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

That aside, Plokite doesn't understand the value of keeping current.

Just because something's fashionable at the moment doesn't mean it's actually good and/or useful. The same goes about drooling over the tiniest graphical edits that have been made in the past 10 years (and in most cases they truly are tiny).

And while everyone still whitens their pants in graphics discussions, gameplay suffers. Not only would I sign for a poor-looking but great-playing game, I need to remind you, someone who only plays what's latest in Activision's catalogue, that you can make a game without a space-age graphical engine AND microtransactions/lootboxes. For more information, see indie successes like the ones from Supergiant Games and Little Green Men Games.

 

5 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

top tier games have massive budgets and that money has to come from somewhere

Oh gee, I wonder how those budgets even became large before lootboxes were even a (popular) thing...

Share this post


Link to post

I think something to note about large companies and their profit goals when compared to indie developers, is the existence of shareholders. Indies get to put 100% of their net income back into their project and their pockets. However, a portion of profits is siphoned out of big company sales right into the pockets of the shareholders, requiring them to make even more money just to break even. Plus the shareholders will be constantly demanding more profits, after all, that is why they bought the shares in the first place.

I do not think EA is being entirely truthful about how cutting loot boxes won't affect profits. Ultimately, they will probably figure out a new income to replace them (meaning it won't hurt profits in the long run), but they need to satisfy the eternal greed of the shareholders before they start losing faith, so EA will tell them whatever it is they want to hear.

Small indie developers have a pretty distinct advantage here, allowing them to make a lower quality game and still walk away with a fatter wallet.

I'm not saying this to counter any point brought up here specifically, I think this is just something you need to keep in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

Explain BioWare and Victory Games, then. Why did it take so long for them to use Frostbite for something that isn't a Battlefield clone?

 

Necessity, where there are still AAA and indie devs who do well without them? Most interesting.

 

Just because something's fashionable at the moment doesn't mean it's actually good and/or useful. The same goes about drooling over the tiniest graphical edits that have been made in the past 10 years (and in most cases they truly are tiny).

And while everyone still whitens their pants in graphics discussions, gameplay suffers. Not only would I sign for a poor-looking but great-playing game, I need to remind you, someone who only plays what's latest in Activision's catalogue, that you can make a game without a space-age graphical engine AND microtransactions/lootboxes. For more information, see indie successes like the ones from Supergiant Games and Little Green Men Games.

 

Oh gee, I wonder how those budgets even became large before lootboxes were even a (popular) thing...

They needed the time to flesh the engine out properly, and now that the functionality is there, any project spearheaded by EA can use that to their advantage. Things are always rewritten in game engines. It's a necessity of creating your project. Do you really think that any game genre can use Unity out of the box without a lot additional work? If you do, you're delusional and if developers are, they're lazy parasites trying to make a quick buck.

Massive companies such as EA, Activision and Ubisoft have an additional incentive - shareholders, to whom they are beholden. Studios that don't have that to contend with can easily get away with game sales and DLC sales alone. However, when you have to kowtow to someone beyond the execs, you're going to need alternate revenue streams, which is where lootboxes can actually come in handy. Nmenth has made a great point about this. Given that shareholders are a thing, they're going to be part of the scope whether you agree with them or not. For companies like EA, staying in the black while ensuring shareholders receive a proper ROI is difficult. Hence the advent of things like lootboxes, which have been around for quite some time in one form or another.

Most things that are fashionable, at least in the tech world, usually achieved that status by being useful in some capacity. Smartphones and tablets are fashionable devices but they serve a specific use and excel at it. The same holds true for other pieces of technology, including software development and network engineering. Standards in place a decade ago may not always be relevant today. There are some obvious ones that are but most come and go and trying to maintain decade old garbage is a nightmare. The ease of use for the end user dies and supporting it becomes a complete nightmare whereas something up to date is much easier for users and easier to support and maintain. There's a reason why the word "legacy" exists in a technological context.

A focus on graphics does not necessarily negatively impact the game. Look at The Witcher 3. It's graphically and aesthetically stunning, but is also a top tier game at the same time. There are many other decisions, well outside the scope of the graphics department, that negatively impact gameplay quality. Most times, it's different departments entirely that work on those aspects so lumping them together is doing a disservice to those teams. While I balk at your attempted sleight against the fact that I enjoy Call of Duty, I play more games beyond that and have a varied set of titles in my Steam catalogue. I dedicate plenty of time to games that aren't graphically demanding or contain any lootbox of any kind. However, that's a completely irrelevant point. The fact of the matter is that big budget titles for massive corporations need more than game and additional content sales alone for a plethora of reasons, not just one or two that you cling to.

Budgets have grown because teams have grown. Games are complex software made of multiple teams, if you're speaking in terms of a company like EA or Activision. It's not five people in someone's basement there. Hundreds of people are hard at work making those titles. And all of them need to get paid. Advertising has started to grow and there are numerous other things like licensing fees for brand names, etc. The rise in complexity, size and scope has led to the inevitable rise in budgets. It's honestly staggering how little you understand about the business world. It's not 1998 anymore where 30 people could make a polished AAA game. Massive AAA titles, specifically, require more man hours than ever before.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Do you really think that any game genre can use Unity out of the box without a lot additional work?

Of course not, but it's easier since somebody bothered to make the engine itself flexible and properly documented.

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

For companies like EA, staying in the black while ensuring shareholders receive a proper ROI is difficult.

With them recording the largest, or at least the top 5 largest revenue in the industry, I don't buy that.

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Most things that are fashionable, at least in the tech world, usually achieved that status by being useful in some capacity.

Social media integrations in websites and apps, creating your own "standards" just when everyone is using the same ones (hello Apple), skiving off on the QA, programming garbage just to equate the PC to smartphones/tablets (hello all Windows after 7 and UWP), mid-generation video game consoles...

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

A focus on graphics does not necessarily negatively impact the game. Look at The Witcher 3.

An exception rather than a rule, really.

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Budgets have grown because teams have grown.

I wasn't asking why, I was asking how. To be exact, I said "Oh gee, I wonder how those budgets even became large before lootboxes were even a (popular) thing..."

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Destiny said:

Games are complex software made of multiple teams, if you're speaking in terms of a company like EA or Activision. It's not five people in someone's basement there. Hundreds of people are hard at work making those titles. And all of them need to get paid.

Multi-studio projects have existed for many years now, and as a concept and as a practice predate both the lootbox and the microtransaction crazes. And there is such a thing as too many people in a workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
On 08/02/2018 at 3:12 AM, Doctor Destiny said:

Germany banning shit? No way! While I admire a lot about Europe, a lot of shit they do makes me cringe. Banning loot boxes is one of those things. Would be interesting if it happened though. Wonder how Activision, EA and Blizzard would react.

it's not about banning, it's about regulation:

Quote

A USK representative replied to clarify that German authorities are not considering a general ban on loot boxes, but are actually examining regulations of online advertising and purchasing as a whole.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×