4 ms·

> First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow gaming news, but the whole reason that

> First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow gaming news, but the whole reason that this is an issue on Hassan's radar is that there has been a lot of criticism recently targeted at Overwatch specifically over their use of lootboxes, even though other games use lootboxes too. So no, Hassan doesn't mention Overwatch by name, but in the current context, it's pretty relevant to discuss. > And the option for 'no support' did not seem to be a problem for say, League of Legends. Which until recently was surviving without any sort of lootbox paradigm based off of buying cosmetics. SFV is also similar. ...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does. SFV uses a DLC model. That's what actual pressure to spend money looks like - "If you spend more money, you will literally be a better player". > Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes. Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned - there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance and spending money. I can't imagine a better system that still provides a revenue stream for the company without affecting the game quality, and both of the games you've mentioned are strictly worse.

fzeroracer 9y ago
>...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding. I don't particularly care for League of Legends either, but their dynamic is not any more P2W than SFV, considering they both have very similar models. >Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned - there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance and spending money. The free boxes are given out for the sole purpose of getting you hooked. It's not out of good will. Every single Gacha game on the planet does similar things, they dole out small amounts of currency so that players can play the game without paying money, but the incentive is to pay to have a higher chance of getting something they want. I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory, and that every aspect of it is carefully designed to appeal to you, the player. That's why loot is colorized by rarity with special sounds depending on how rare/awesome your loot is. It wants to induce a dopamine hit, then reinforce it through encouraging the player to pull. More and more and more. That's Gacha Game Design 101.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory When there's no pay-to-win dynamic, it is literally the least predatory business model out of all games of that ilk. All of the alternatives for producing a recurring revenue stream, such as abandonware and direct PTW, are far more predatory. I don't actually think it's predatory at all, but you're complaining about the weakest possible conception of the problem (and even the alternatives you named are worse), which implies that you don't think the alternative models like abandonware are a problem. > I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding You are literally paying money for the chance at something that will impact your chances of victory, as opposed to something that is entirely superfluous to the gameplay in every way. That is the definition of pay-to-win, even if it's a less extreme form than most King games. If you don't see that as pressure to keep spending money, or if you don't see abandonware as a direct cash grab designed to exploit people's impulses, then I don't know how to continue this discussion.

fzeroracer 9y ago

>...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding. I don't particularly care for League of Legends either, but their dynamic is not any more P2W than SFV, considering they both have very similar models. >Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned - there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance and spending money. The free boxes are given out for the sole purpose of getting you hooked. It's not out of good will. Every single Gacha game on the planet does similar things, they dole out small amounts of currency so that players can play the game without paying money, but the incentive is to pay to have a higher chance of getting something they want. I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory, and that every aspect of it is carefully designed to appeal to you, the player. That's why loot is colorized by rarity with special sounds depending on how rare/awesome your loot is. It wants to induce a dopamine hit, then reinforce it through encouraging the player to pull. More and more and more. That's Gacha Game Design 101.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory When there's no pay-to-win dynamic, it is literally the least predatory business model out of all games of that ilk. All of the alternatives for producing a recurring revenue stream, such as abandonware and direct PTW, are far more predatory. I don't actually think it's predatory at all, but you're complaining about the weakest possible conception of the problem (and even the alternatives you named are worse), which implies that you don't think the alternative models like abandonware are a problem. > I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding You are literally paying money for the chance at something that will impact your chances of victory, as opposed to something that is entirely superfluous to the gameplay in every way. That is the definition of pay-to-win, even if it's a less extreme form than most King games. If you don't see that as pressure to keep spending money, or if you don't see abandonware as a direct cash grab designed to exploit people's impulses, then I don't know how to continue this discussion.