6 ms·

I can't think of any way out honestly. You can say anything you want about EA but I'm sure they act very rationally. If despite the heavy backlash over the year

by simias 9y ago

I can't think of any way out honestly. You can say anything you want about EA but I'm sure they act very rationally. If despite the heavy backlash over the years they keep doing what they're doing then it must be working for them. That's the problem with these lootboxes, given how fast they spread to every AAA games these days (including single player games where they hardly make sense in the first place) it's obvious that the maths work out for them. The amount of principled gamers ending up not buying the game is probably more than compensated by the dividends of microtransactions. There are not enough gamers who care enough about the issue to stop buying the game. The marketing and network effect is simply too strong. A mob downvoting a comment on reddit won't change anything, it's nothing but slacktivism. Might as well sign an e-petition at this point. It's not the first time it's like this. "We don't want always online DRM! We won't buy your game!", "We want to be able to host our own dedicated servers for multiplayer! We won't buy your game!". And now it's the new normal, hardly anybody expects these things from new releases or even mentions them. Lootboxes and microtransactions are headed down the same path IMO. Here's my prediction: five years from now every big release will contain microtransactions one way or an other and nobody will find it surprising or inappropriate.

bunderbunder 9y ago
So there's a market for these kinds of games. I don't like microtransactions and what they do for gameplay, either. But I don't see the point in getting worked up about it like this. It's so much easier to just not buy those games, and spend my money on the kinds of games I do enjoy, instead. It leaves me thinking that maybe melodramatic wailing on Reddit is secretly a big part of the fun.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dvlsg 9y ago
  That's part of the problem, though. For a lot of these games, the player does enjoy them - just not the loot boxes and how they have affected how quickly "free" players can unlock things.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    I guess I still don't see the problem, then. Is the problem that EA has some sort of moral obligation to introduce only the kinds of game mechanics that a specific set of people enjoys, and anyone who responds to (and, apparently, is willing to pay a whole lot of money for) different game mechanics can go jump in a lake?
    - razakel 9y ago
      Getting your credit card out is only a "game mechanic" in dodgy casinos. There's a reason gambling is regulated.
      - bunderbunder 9y ago
        Yup. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that members gambling and video game industries even exchange notes on how to attract and coax money out of whales. Gambling isn't really my cup of tea, either. But I suppose I also shouldn't be surprised if I were to go to one and discover that some portion of the people there are loudly complaining about what a rip off everything is, but not actually leaving the casino to go find something else to do.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
fleitz 9y ago
How annoying UX affects the bottom line was one of the most important lessons I learned working on apps. Take for example removing the Cancel button from the sign up screen, 5-10% bump in sign ups, etc. (Eventually Apple made us 'fix' this) Generally, the only time a minorly annoying UX affects you negatively is when the platform penalizes it, like the notifications prompt on iOS, if they don't agree the first time you ask, you have to make the user to into settings to enable it. So generally you put your own prompt in before the system prompt, else users might deny the request.
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  I hope you're proud of yourself for actively making software user hostile.
  - fleitz 9y ago
    The users speak with their actions... If they do the thing you want them to do more with a 'bad' UX than with a good one logic dictates they prefer the bad one. It would be morally presumptuous on my part to say that what I find to be annoying is not what they prefer. It's like clickbait listicles, they get written because they work.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      This is utter tosh. If they do the thing you want them to do, than logic dictates nothing about their preferences at all. If changing the UX results in a significant change in behavior, that actually suggests--I mean, "logic dictates" you've taken away an option that a significant number of people preferred so much they used it when it was available. Think about it this way: Given the choice of watching channel A or channel B or turning off the TV, I choose turning off the TV. If you take away that choice, I'll choose the lesser of the two remaining evils. That does not mean I prefer not having the choice to turn off the TV. Post-facto rationalization is just that. Users are not expressing a preference for dark patterns.
      - 9y ago
kibwen 9y ago
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released on Nov 10, 2009. Here's a famous image from Nov 12, 2009: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--uJYUJ7W2--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18j48weujcgewjpg.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--uJYUJ7W... As for your prediction, I think you're sadly spot-on. There will always be enough whales to make it worthwhile to pander to them, and milking them will be essential for any company that cares more about making money than about making a good game.
- kozikow 9y ago
  Probably ended up on EA PM's presentation justifying current practices. Hate all you want, "pay to win" model works for extracting as much value as you can from each user. Same concept as Tesla artificially reducing mile range. I heard from someone working in a game studio about a "whale" user spending $1M dollars on microtransactions for a mobile game.
bduerst 9y ago
I think that prediction is a coin toss at this time. There's a chance it would play out as you say, but I think there's also a chance that as these games become more predatory, a new category of gambling rating will be defined. Sure the payout isn't cash, but it's still throwing money at a chance of gaining something of value.
JBlue42 9y ago
Not to mention that the money made doesn't exactly make up for some of the workers' lives ruined by that company. Already had posts on here recently describing the white collar sweatshop that games labor is.
rorykoehler 9y ago
Micro transactions have ruined gaming for a casual gamer like me. Everything is such an obvious funnel to making a payment now. There’s no fun in it.

by simias 9y ago

bunderbunder 9y ago

So there's a market for these kinds of games. I don't like microtransactions and what they do for gameplay, either. But I don't see the point in getting worked up about it like this. It's so much easier to just not buy those games, and spend my money on the kinds of games I do enjoy, instead. It leaves me thinking that maybe melodramatic wailing on Reddit is secretly a big part of the fun.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dvlsg 9y ago
That's part of the problem, though. For a lot of these games, the player does enjoy them - just not the loot boxes and how they have affected how quickly "free" players can unlock things.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  I guess I still don't see the problem, then. Is the problem that EA has some sort of moral obligation to introduce only the kinds of game mechanics that a specific set of people enjoys, and anyone who responds to (and, apparently, is willing to pay a whole lot of money for) different game mechanics can go jump in a lake?
  - razakel 9y ago
    Getting your credit card out is only a "game mechanic" in dodgy casinos. There's a reason gambling is regulated.
    - bunderbunder 9y ago
      Yup. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that members gambling and video game industries even exchange notes on how to attract and coax money out of whales. Gambling isn't really my cup of tea, either. But I suppose I also shouldn't be surprised if I were to go to one and discover that some portion of the people there are loudly complaining about what a rip off everything is, but not actually leaving the casino to go find something else to do.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

fleitz 9y ago

How annoying UX affects the bottom line was one of the most important lessons I learned working on apps. Take for example removing the Cancel button from the sign up screen, 5-10% bump in sign ups, etc. (Eventually Apple made us 'fix' this) Generally, the only time a minorly annoying UX affects you negatively is when the platform penalizes it, like the notifications prompt on iOS, if they don't agree the first time you ask, you have to make the user to into settings to enable it. So generally you put your own prompt in before the system prompt, else users might deny the request.

deadmetheny 9y ago
I hope you're proud of yourself for actively making software user hostile.
- fleitz 9y ago
  The users speak with their actions... If they do the thing you want them to do more with a 'bad' UX than with a good one logic dictates they prefer the bad one. It would be morally presumptuous on my part to say that what I find to be annoying is not what they prefer. It's like clickbait listicles, they get written because they work.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    This is utter tosh. If they do the thing you want them to do, than logic dictates nothing about their preferences at all. If changing the UX results in a significant change in behavior, that actually suggests--I mean, "logic dictates" you've taken away an option that a significant number of people preferred so much they used it when it was available. Think about it this way: Given the choice of watching channel A or channel B or turning off the TV, I choose turning off the TV. If you take away that choice, I'll choose the lesser of the two remaining evils. That does not mean I prefer not having the choice to turn off the TV. Post-facto rationalization is just that. Users are not expressing a preference for dark patterns.
    - 9y ago

kibwen 9y ago

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released on Nov 10, 2009. Here's a famous image from Nov 12, 2009: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--uJYUJ7W2--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18j48weujcgewjpg.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--uJYUJ7W... As for your prediction, I think you're sadly spot-on. There will always be enough whales to make it worthwhile to pander to them, and milking them will be essential for any company that cares more about making money than about making a good game.

kozikow 9y ago
Probably ended up on EA PM's presentation justifying current practices. Hate all you want, "pay to win" model works for extracting as much value as you can from each user. Same concept as Tesla artificially reducing mile range. I heard from someone working in a game studio about a "whale" user spending $1M dollars on microtransactions for a mobile game.

bduerst 9y ago

I think that prediction is a coin toss at this time. There's a chance it would play out as you say, but I think there's also a chance that as these games become more predatory, a new category of gambling rating will be defined. Sure the payout isn't cash, but it's still throwing money at a chance of gaining something of value.

JBlue42 9y ago

Not to mention that the money made doesn't exactly make up for some of the workers' lives ruined by that company. Already had posts on here recently describing the white collar sweatshop that games labor is.

rorykoehler 9y ago

Micro transactions have ruined gaming for a casual gamer like me. Everything is such an obvious funnel to making a payment now. There’s no fun in it.