Clarification of negativity towards loot boxes

[Grey Moon.6531]

I would like to use this thread to clarify my negativity towards the recent loot box scandal in regards to Guild Wars 2. This isn't for people or myself to have another go at ANet, or for defenders of loot boxes to white knight on behalf of ANet. MO himself admitted that the timing of mount skin loot boxes was bad so lets just assume that something to do with loot boxes is bad; be it optics, or a relationship to gambling, or whatever.

 

**Why do I feel the need to clarify?**

Because I feel like the loot box defenders keep describing my negativity as me wanting things easily or for free. I have nearly 3000 hours in GW2 and the same again in GW. I've spent a kitten load in both games without a penny on loot box type items. So I neither want things easily or for free. I just don't want to feel like I'm being manipulated or _forced_ to pay real money to gamble.

 

**What do I hope this thread to achieve?**

I'm hoping that other like myself will clarify their negativity so that ANet sees that we are not just having a go a ANet for fun, but the actual reasoning behind it.

 

**What do I not want this thread to do?**

Attack/defending of each other, ANet or GW2. Seriously from the posts in all the mega threads no one from either "side" is going to convince the other. I'm hoping to make this not about sides, but about us as individual gamers or consumers and our concern/negativity.

 

**So let me start!**

My concern with gaming in general is trend chasing for profit, especially when taken to the extremes. So in this past year we can see that loot boxes as a monetisation mechanic has become more and more popular in paid for games (PFP). It never seemed to generate a lot of negativity in general since at least in PFP games it was limited to cosmetic items. Personally I never liked loot boxes. In other PFP games I've played I've never been too concerned with the items in the loot boxes and in GW2 I never felt like I had to use the loot boxes as I could buy the items I wanted via the Gem Store without gambling, therefore getting the items I wanted and supporting the game I liked.

 

So why my negativity? Sure it was triggered by EA and BF2, but my negativity was not as an back lash to EA taking loot boxes to the extreme, but in my eyes the trend chasing for profit which seems to dominate big industry nowadays.

 

Gaming corporations see loot boxes in mobile games making a kitten load of money and then starts baking it into their games, even into older single player games :(. Movie studios see Logan or Deadpool do well so must make everything R rated. Or even worse they (specifically Hollywood) see the money made by the China market and we end up with films like Transformers.

 

The mount licences in my eyes are the escalation of loot boxes in GW2. From the Black Lion Chests to something which becomes harder and harder to avoid. I don't want to play a PFP like that, I play F2P games for that "experience".

 

The people who seem to think its fine because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't cut it with me as GW(2) and ANet always bucked the trends which in my opinion is why the GW franchise has done so well.

 

I just hope that ANet doesn't see this whole thing as a lesson in bad optics, but as a wake up call to look at their past selves to see that they don't need to follow trends created by others to make money, especially when those trends in my opinion are predatory and obnoxious.

 

Also I think it would be a great idea for ANet to run their official messages past a bunch of fans/gamers as well as their PR peeps; as PR bull kitten might be great in front of the board and investors, but I don't think it really works that well during an inflammatory fan situation It isn't called PR bull kitten for no reason!

 

**Lessons learnt by me**

Not to put a company up on a pedestal.

I should be old enough to realise that they are just businesses and I should treat every purchase I make as just that. When I buy a new phone or new shiny I weigh up the pros, cons and if I need it etc, not on fanboyism. When I look back at my GW2 purchases there were some (*cough* okay maybe more a bit more than some) were made because I subconsciously thought I was supporting ANet and GW2. I've used the skins once and I've never used them again. Normally I would be furious at myself for being so wasteful with a purchase, but I guess I felt it was okay because of reasons...

 

I hope that helps clarify my negativity and I hope others do the same thing.

I'd like to stress I'm not angry at ANet, just a bit disappointed. If I was going to be angry at anyone it would be myself for the reason in the lessons learnt by me section.

[usnedward.9023]

I am not attacking... just my perspective.

 

All this talk about mount skins, BLT boxes and anything in general in the GEM store is pointless IMO. Most of the items are for your decorating pleasure and not necessary to play the game. What about boosters? You get them on a monthly basis plus yearly 24 one and can buy with laurels. So there is that option.

 

Think the price is too high? Wait for a sale or don't buy. There is really no advantage to the player over another to advance content. If ANET said in order for you to make ITEM A, you need to buy ITEM X from the GEM store then that is something that would be troublesome.

 

ANET is in a business to make money. You can play for free forever, use gold to gems to buy shinies and never drop a dime on this game. Unlike myself who had to purchase the original release. SO... to make money they put time and effort into creating some shiny stuffs for the consumer if they so choose to buy. When that happens they get to pay their staff for their time and effort.

 

So loot boxes are a risk but you DO NOT need to buy keys... you can farm once a week, get by a lucky drop or farm your way to gold riches and swap for GEMS.

 

Loot boxes in other games you almost HAVE TO spend money to get the chance at an RNG item. Here costs you nothing if you really want to roll the dice.

 

GW2 is graphically better than most MMOs IMO. Sure there are some prettier ones but they stink to the heavens with bots, farmers and sellers and no way to control it. Not to mention the grind. People here complain about the "grind" have never played MMOs first made popular by the Korean grind ones back in the day.

 

GW2 is not easy but not hard. No monthly fee so no pressure to "play for your money". So many game modes and playable maps and content. I will be here until they turn the servers off. Unless ofc if they ever instituted a monthly fee I will be gone faster than a town in Kansas during tornado season.

[Fremtid.3528]

yay another loot box thread. cant wait for everyone to say the same things all over again.

[mercury ranique.2170]

First off all. This is not defending anything or being against people who think differently. Someone elses opinion is not to be afraid of. You can learn from it and gain new insights.

 

You make an assumption about the motives for the developper to use lootboxes (or to be more precise, payed RNG, as lootboxes have always been in games). The assumption is that is about profit. While this is correct, there is more to the story.

 

Investing in games is very tricky. long term sales are often low compared to release sales. So a studio has to invest a lot of money to release a product and then hope it pays off. So studio's always are looking for ways to create a more constant flow of revenue, in order to know they are going to make the profit.

In the pas they did so with monthly fees, now it is micro transactions.

So in my opinion, voluntary micro transactions are a replacement for monthly fees. They give studio's a good cash inflow between major releases.

 

Another thing often forgotten in this discussion is that with Arenanet, the players get a lot of content for the money they pay. As you are not forced to buy microtransactions, you had all we have now for 140 dollars (assuming you bought everything at release and did unlock the living story chapters). So all in all Arenanet is doing a great job in that balance, specially when it comes to rewarding the most loyal players.

 

I have no issue at all with payed RNG, as long as it is not payed RNG to win. That is where I draw my line

[Teratus.2859]

I'm not getting into the lootbox argument again.. but I am going to once again point out that peoples priorities around the mount licences are doing so much more harm to this game than the licences themselves..

 

With the latest patch we have yet again seen another 2000 gem single mount skin put on the gemstore..

 

All this hate at the mount licences which are honestly not a big deal at all.. have made people overlook the fact that Anet thinks its completely acceptable to be charging people almost as much for a single mount skin as they did for a full size expansion pack..

 

There is no way in hell this is acceptable or even remotely justifiable.. no single cosmetic skin is equal in value to everything contained in an expansion pack.. and if people don't stat complaining about it then you can expect to see most if not all future mount skins be released with absurd rip off prices..

And then it will be too late to complain since it will be the community who stood up and said 400 gems for mount skin with a RNG factor is very bad.. but we don't care if single skins cost as much as expansion packs.

 

I'll be the first to say I don't mind supporting the game through the gem store.. I don't have a problem throwing 10-20 euros into the game every once in a while to buy gems and then cosmetics with them nor do I have a problem buying the most expensive versions of each expansion pack when they release.

 

But when companies start taking the skritt I'll call them out on it.

These 2000 gem skins are not ok.. not even remotely.. hell even 1000 gems would have been pushing it.. and Anet skipped right over that and went straight to absurdity.

[Fremtid.3528]

All I see is people complaining about these mounts being the price of almost "a full expansion pack" but what you're not fully comprehending here is that the only reason anet was even remotely able to offer you that expansion pack at that price is because they had developed a plan to sell you these mounts at these prices to compensate for it. The mount price IS part of the expansion pack.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @usnedward.9023 said:

> I am not attacking... just my perspective.

>

> All this talk about mount skins, BLT boxes and anything in general in the GEM store is pointless IMO. Most of the items are for your decorating pleasure and not necessary to play the game. What about boosters? You get them on a monthly basis plus yearly 24 one and can buy with laurels. So there is that option.

>

> Think the price is too high? Wait for a sale or don't buy. There is really no advantage to the player over another to advance content. If ANET said in order for you to make ITEM A, you need to buy ITEM X from the GEM store then that is something that would be troublesome.

>

> ANET is in a business to make money. You can play for free forever, use gold to gems to buy shinies and never drop a dime on this game. Unlike myself who had to purchase the original release. SO... to make money they put time and effort into creating some shiny stuffs for the consumer if they so choose to buy. When that happens they get to pay their staff for their time and effort.

>

> So loot boxes are a risk but you DO NOT need to buy keys... you can farm once a week, get by a lucky drop or farm your way to gold riches and swap for GEMS.

>

> Loot boxes in other games you almost HAVE TO spend money to get the chance at an RNG item. Here costs you nothing if you really want to roll the dice.

>

> GW2 is graphically better than most MMOs IMO. Sure there are some prettier ones but they stink to the heavens with bots, farmers and sellers and no way to control it. Not to mention the grind. People here complain about the "grind" have never played MMOs first made popular by the Korean grind ones back in the day.

>

> GW2 is not easy but not hard. No monthly fee so no pressure to "play for your money". So many game modes and playable maps and content. I will be here until they turn the servers off. Unless ofc if they ever instituted a monthly fee I will be gone faster than a town in Kansas during tornado season.

 

I do agree with you, though for everything else we do have alternatives.

We do have plenty of Armor and weapon skins, and we do also have some outfits avaible through game or mid tier expansion.

 

Since gliders, we haven't had a single alternative in terms of aesthetic.

Also, there's the problem of RNG.

 

I can understand that in a game like GW2 some skins are locked behind the gem store, but still there would be some avaible by playing the game.

It's logic since it's a game.

 

As many said, compared to the base glider skin, mounts are on another level.

This is great.

 

But, even so, some skins through game should be granted.

That said, 2k skins and RNG with no duplicates are imho better than what i happened to see in other games ( though the second one is not the best for players. Would have been nice bundles like the spocky one, maybe for 2k instead of 1600 ).

[ProverbsofHell.2307]

But loot boxes sell... evidently. They're not going to lock themselves out of an opportunity like that just to be nice.

[Goettel.4389]

> @"Grey Moon.6531" said:

[....] they are just businesses and I should treat every purchase I make as just that.

 

/thread

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

My red line on loot boxes is, NO paid loot boxes. I don't like significant RNG in any aspect of a game, but I'm generally fine with it so long as the RNG pull is provided freely as you play, where each player gets the same chances regardless of how much they've paid. As soon as you can pay to get extra pulls, however, that line is crossed, and I refuse to participate in that sort of a system. Developers should _never_ be encouraging players to pay money to gamble. Some draw the line at "pay to win" vs. "cosmetics," but I don't believe there's any distinction there, because ultimately either of those comes down to which matters more to you, a performance advantage, or a cosmetic benefit? Personally, I feel reasonably secure enough in the game that I wouldn't particularly care about a minor performance boost being in an RNG box, but I *do* care if a skin that I'd really like to have is locked in one.

 

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

>Investing in games is very tricky. long term sales are often low compared to release sales. So a studio has to invest a lot of money to release a product and then hope it pays off. So studio's always are looking for ways to create a more constant flow of revenue, in order to know they are going to make the profit.

>In the pas they did so with monthly fees, now it is micro transactions.

>So in my opinion, voluntary micro transactions are a replacement for monthly fees. They give studio's a good cash inflow between major releases.

 

Just because microtransactions are a given, does NOT mean that those microtransactions *must* involve RNG. You *do* have the option to just sell people things that interest them at a fair price.

 

**An argument against loot boxes is not automatically an argument against microtransactions.**

 

Those are two completely separate issues and should be treated as such.

 

> @Teratus.2859 said:

> All this hate at the mount licences which are honestly not a big deal at all.. have made people overlook the fact that Anet thinks its completely acceptable to be charging people almost as much for a single mount skin as they did for a full size expansion pack.

 

No, people have fairly universally said that this was not ok either, just that loot boxes were worse.

 

 

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> My red line on loot boxes is, NO paid loot boxes. I don't like significant RNG in any aspect of a game, but I'm generally fine with it so long as the RNG pull is provided freely as you play, where each player gets the same chances regardless of how much they've paid. As soon as you can pay to get extra pulls, however, that line is crossed, and I refuse to participate in that sort of a system. Developers should _never_ be encouraging players to pay money to gamble. Some draw the line at "pay to win" vs. "cosmetics," but I don't believe there's any distinction there, because ultimately either of those comes down to which matters more to you, a performance advantage, or a cosmetic benefit? Personally, I feel reasonably secure enough in the game that I wouldn't particularly care about a minor performance boost being in an RNG box, but I *do* care if a skin that I'd really like to have is locked in one.

>

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> >Investing in games is very tricky. long term sales are often low compared to release sales. So a studio has to invest a lot of money to release a product and then hope it pays off. So studio's always are looking for ways to create a more constant flow of revenue, in order to know they are going to make the profit.

> In the pas they did so with monthly fees, now it is micro transactions.

> >So in my opinion, voluntary micro transactions are a replacement for monthly fees. They give studio's a good cash inflow between major releases.

>

> Just because microtransactions are a given, does NOT mean that those microtransactions *must* involve RNG. You *do* have the option to just sell people things that interest them at a fair price.

>

> **An argument against loot boxes is not automatically an argument against microtransactions.**

>

> Those are two completely separate issues and should be treated as such.

>

> > @Teratus.2859 said:

> > All this hate at the mount licences which are honestly not a big deal at all.. have made people overlook the fact that Anet thinks its completely acceptable to be charging people almost as much for a single mount skin as they did for a full size expansion pack.

>

> No, people have fairly universally said that this was not ok either, just that loot boxes were worse.

>

>

 

Please do not quote out of the context someone is saying it. You twist my words to make me say the opposite to what I said! That is not behaviour that suits your argument well and I find it extremely rude

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > My red line on loot boxes is, NO paid loot boxes. I don't like significant RNG in any aspect of a game, but I'm generally fine with it so long as the RNG pull is provided freely as you play, where each player gets the same chances regardless of how much they've paid. As soon as you can pay to get extra pulls, however, that line is crossed, and I refuse to participate in that sort of a system. Developers should _never_ be encouraging players to pay money to gamble. Some draw the line at "pay to win" vs. "cosmetics," but I don't believe there's any distinction there, because ultimately either of those comes down to which matters more to you, a performance advantage, or a cosmetic benefit? Personally, I feel reasonably secure enough in the game that I wouldn't particularly care about a minor performance boost being in an RNG box, but I *do* care if a skin that I'd really like to have is locked in one.

> >

> > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > >Investing in games is very tricky. long term sales are often low compared to release sales. So a studio has to invest a lot of money to release a product and then hope it pays off. So studio's always are looking for ways to create a more constant flow of revenue, in order to know they are going to make the profit.

> > In the pas they did so with monthly fees, now it is micro transactions.

> > >So in my opinion, voluntary micro transactions are a replacement for monthly fees. They give studio's a good cash inflow between major releases.

> >

> > Just because microtransactions are a given, does NOT mean that those microtransactions *must* involve RNG. You *do* have the option to just sell people things that interest them at a fair price.

> >

> > **An argument against loot boxes is not automatically an argument against microtransactions.**

> >

> > Those are two completely separate issues and should be treated as such.

> >

> > > @Teratus.2859 said:

> > > All this hate at the mount licences which are honestly not a big deal at all.. have made people overlook the fact that Anet thinks its completely acceptable to be charging people almost as much for a single mount skin as they did for a full size expansion pack.

> >

> > No, people have fairly universally said that this was not ok either, just that loot boxes were worse.

> >

> >

>

> Please do not quote out of the context someone is saying it. You twist my words to make me say the opposite to what I said! That is not behaviour that suits your argument well and I find it extremely rude

 

So explain what I got wrong. I stand by the portion I quoted and my response to it, based on my understanding of your post.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

 

Many sales techniques manipulate consumers into spending money they might otherwise choose to hold onto. However, random reward purchases are -- to me -- worse than other forms of manipulation where at least the consumer knows what s/he is getting and the price that must be paid. Random reward containers in GW2 manipulate consumers via exploiting human weakness through gambler's fallacy thinking, sunk-cost fallacy thinking or both, depending on how they are structured. While they may not be gambling in the eyes of most legal systems, they act on the same physiological/psychological triggers that gambling does.

 

For me, it's the not knowing that makes this manipulative sales technique worse than the others.

[Leo G.4501]

So an aside clarification thread. Okay, I'll share.

 

I'm not a huge gamer. I don't or haven't in the past decade or so, been a fan of AAA games or purchased a lot of games, I tend to gravitate toward the games I like and not what the trends say are popular, so my PC tends to be my main gaming device with my 3DS and Pokemon being the other side of my gaming habits. Basically, I don't have a huge library of games, just the games I play which tend to be MMORPGs and RPGs (dabbling in other stuff I don't really count).

 

That all said, when I play a game, I play it in a manner of considering "Oh, you entertained me enough that I didn't have to buy 5 other games this year? Sure, I'll spend another $60 for that!" and one I was deeply entrenched in was a superhero MMO of high acclaim and played it for a good 6 years and practically never got bored of it! It started out as a subscription game but went f2p with a premium sub service that I retained throughout my time with the game. The game had its flaws but what the game did well, is still rather beyond most games of today, including this one and everyone knows it! Even those that didn't care much for the game can't deny its strengths. For that, it stood out and garnered a strong and loyal following. I continued to support the game as much I could, even buying gear for my alts to speed up the process of advancing them to play the end-game taskforces. As the game aged, its cash shop slowly built up but it didn't really ever get any RNG type of stuff, mainly character slots, costume packs, enhancements, costume-swap animations, stuff like that...it also was pushing out powersets (what we would consider new weapons/elite specs) like crazy...

 

...but alas, NCSoft put a timer to its lifespan because it could not reach a certain level of profitability. Despite its community being loyal, despite its supporters, despite it still earning a net profit for the company, it just didn't earn *enough*. City of Heroes' death was hypothosized to have been caused by NCSoft choosing to narrow how many games it carried under its belt (Guild Wars 2 being one of the newer and good options at the time, and Wildstar a near future release). Had my choosen game offered something more, *anything* more, to help support it and earn it more profit, I would have gladly put my money down. But perhaps they were just too "fair", and failed to consider every available profit making venture available to keep the game going.

 

So (to me), the adoption licenses seem perfectly fair. They are cheap and the prizes they offer are far from bad. It's not really gambling if all the options you get are good-to-great and they are options you previously didn't have. Even if you don't like to have to RNG for the skins, at the very least you should appreciate that others are willing to try while supporting the game you get entertainment from. So what if you don't get the skin, at least you can still play the game. For all we know, if Anet didn't work something out, they'd have to charge more for everything, setting the bar for entry out of reach of some new players or worse, continuing to sell cheap things and slowly sinking until NCSoft decides to pull the plug.

 

Either way, I'm indifferent. I'm not white knighting Anet, I have no loyalty to a single game. That part of me is with CoH and I just play what I feel like and judge if something is worth spending money on depending how much entertainment I draw from it. From that objective perspective, adoption licenses are not malicious or unfair and are priced *cheaply*, even cheaper if you were a "gotta fashion all" collector.