8 ms·

So this is mostly a confirmation that the "loot box" monetization model has been resoundingly successful? This controversial model exploits gamer psychology, is

by arayh 8y ago

So this is mostly a confirmation that the "loot box" monetization model has been resoundingly successful? This controversial model exploits gamer psychology, is sometimes implemented along the veins of "pay to win", and is seen by some as a sort of in-game form of gambling.

sushisource 8y ago
I wouldn't say that's the reason. This statistic has already been true for some time in the US, I believe. I think this article is specifically talking about UK produced games. I could be wrong, though.
hknd 8y ago
There is no real "loot box" system in Black Ops, and all stuff which can be bought is just for "cosmetics".
- jbob2000 8y ago
  Cosmetics are a billion dollar industry, why do you write it off so quickly? People pay money to make their face look different from others, why wouldn't they pay money to make their digital self different?
  - oarabbus_ 8y ago
    Because reading the comment thread, it's utterly antithetical to loot boxes. One is cosmetic and the other is functional.
- leddt 8y ago
  I have not played the game, so this is only from what I've read [0], but it is my understanding that they designed a progression system that strongly pushes people to pay. Also, while not strictly "loot boxes", you are still able to indirectly pay for random items because the drops are linked to level progression, which can be sped up with micro-transactions. [0] https://kotaku.com/the-free-gear-in-black-ops-4-is-an-unforgiving-grind-1830229966 https://kotaku.com/the-free-gear-in-black-ops-4-is-an-unforg...
techopoly 8y ago
The loot box model was tried with the new Star Wars Battlefront II, and it had an amazing amount of pushback, to the extent the developer gave up on the model in the game. It seems these days the most successful monetization model is in-game purchases, particularly for skins and whatnot, a la Fortnite.
- Slpixe 8y ago
  The reason for the backlash on StarWars was because you pay for (some of) the game, where as FortniteBR is free. And I believe StarWars made it so you can pay to be the more powerful characters, where as I believe FortniteBR doesn't contain any Pay-to-Win
- infogulch 8y ago
  I'm completely convinced that cosmetic/skin purchases are by far the best way to make a sustainable continuously updated pvp game. Nobody feels bad about not being able to invest money to be able to win, it encourages (and funds!) active development of the game and its visuals, and rare/cool skins and associated animations can be delightful to see even on other players.
  - anderspitman 8y ago
    I think it can create new jobs in the future (and maybe now?) as well. If you had an open market where aspiring artists could design and sell skins for something like Fortnite, with the developers taking a cut of the profits, it could be worth learning Photoshop/CAD and just selling assets. I think the Unity store is like this.
    - FiveSquared 8y ago
      And Steam Workshop TF2
    - alach11 8y ago
      It would be challenging for the developers to make sure 3rd party skins were balanced for competitive play.
samirm 8y ago
It is gambling...
russley 8y ago
The "loot box" is starting to die in preference for the "battle pass", which basically offers transparent incentives for continued & skilled play by paying a single fee for a set amount of time, usually called a "season". This is one of the reasons why Fortnite has been so successful: its easier to justify a single 10 dollar payment for a few weeks and know what you're getting based on what you play.
goostavos 8y ago
Other game types exists, friend. I've collectively dumped hundreds of hours in Factorio, Stardew Valley, and Kerbal Space Program. You dont have to look very far to find games which have long play times and no lootboxes (which is a fairly recent thing). Sometimes, games are just good without exploitative mechanics
- krisroadruck 8y ago
  I think between factorio, oxygen not included, minecraft, no mans sky and gemcraft (tower defense game) I'm probably in nearing 10 thousand hours of collective gameplay for a grand total of under $200. $0.02/hr is a hard number to beat. I don't think its possible for a movie or a song.
  - CraigRood 8y ago
    Even though these numbers are very anecdotal. The amount of money spent on a game vs the number of hours played shows that extra value could be extracted from the customer. Netflix/Spotify model comes to mind. The collective pool of subscriptions fund creation of AAA titles just like the EA pass.
    - krisroadruck 8y ago
      Perhaps, though I notice not a single one of the games I listed is an AAA title. I'm struggling to think of any AAA title that has held my attention for longer than 25 hours. I'd hate to subsidize the cost of an AAA title on the backs of indie developers who seem to be making games with a lot more sticking power/entertainment value.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I was an early fan of KSP. I've spent long, long hours in FTL. My latest gaming obsession was Heat Signature. No lootboxes in any of those. (Except as a joke in Heat Signature, and you can't convert real world currency into one of those.)
- yazr 8y ago

by arayh 8y ago

sushisource 8y ago

I wouldn't say that's the reason. This statistic has already been true for some time in the US, I believe. I think this article is specifically talking about UK produced games. I could be wrong, though.

hknd 8y ago

There is no real "loot box" system in Black Ops, and all stuff which can be bought is just for "cosmetics".

jbob2000 8y ago
Cosmetics are a billion dollar industry, why do you write it off so quickly? People pay money to make their face look different from others, why wouldn't they pay money to make their digital self different?
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  Because reading the comment thread, it's utterly antithetical to loot boxes. One is cosmetic and the other is functional.
leddt 8y ago
I have not played the game, so this is only from what I've read [0], but it is my understanding that they designed a progression system that strongly pushes people to pay. Also, while not strictly "loot boxes", you are still able to indirectly pay for random items because the drops are linked to level progression, which can be sped up with micro-transactions. [0] https://kotaku.com/the-free-gear-in-black-ops-4-is-an-unforgiving-grind-1830229966 https://kotaku.com/the-free-gear-in-black-ops-4-is-an-unforg...

techopoly 8y ago

The loot box model was tried with the new Star Wars Battlefront II, and it had an amazing amount of pushback, to the extent the developer gave up on the model in the game. It seems these days the most successful monetization model is in-game purchases, particularly for skins and whatnot, a la Fortnite.

Slpixe 8y ago
The reason for the backlash on StarWars was because you pay for (some of) the game, where as FortniteBR is free. And I believe StarWars made it so you can pay to be the more powerful characters, where as I believe FortniteBR doesn't contain any Pay-to-Win
infogulch 8y ago
I'm completely convinced that cosmetic/skin purchases are by far the best way to make a sustainable continuously updated pvp game. Nobody feels bad about not being able to invest money to be able to win, it encourages (and funds!) active development of the game and its visuals, and rare/cool skins and associated animations can be delightful to see even on other players.
- anderspitman 8y ago
  I think it can create new jobs in the future (and maybe now?) as well. If you had an open market where aspiring artists could design and sell skins for something like Fortnite, with the developers taking a cut of the profits, it could be worth learning Photoshop/CAD and just selling assets. I think the Unity store is like this.
  - FiveSquared 8y ago
    And Steam Workshop TF2
  - alach11 8y ago
    It would be challenging for the developers to make sure 3rd party skins were balanced for competitive play.

samirm 8y ago

It is gambling...

russley 8y ago

The "loot box" is starting to die in preference for the "battle pass", which basically offers transparent incentives for continued & skilled play by paying a single fee for a set amount of time, usually called a "season". This is one of the reasons why Fortnite has been so successful: its easier to justify a single 10 dollar payment for a few weeks and know what you're getting based on what you play.

goostavos 8y ago

Other game types exists, friend. I've collectively dumped hundreds of hours in Factorio, Stardew Valley, and Kerbal Space Program. You dont have to look very far to find games which have long play times and no lootboxes (which is a fairly recent thing). Sometimes, games are just good without exploitative mechanics

krisroadruck 8y ago
I think between factorio, oxygen not included, minecraft, no mans sky and gemcraft (tower defense game) I'm probably in nearing 10 thousand hours of collective gameplay for a grand total of under $200. $0.02/hr is a hard number to beat. I don't think its possible for a movie or a song.
- CraigRood 8y ago
  Even though these numbers are very anecdotal. The amount of money spent on a game vs the number of hours played shows that extra value could be extracted from the customer. Netflix/Spotify model comes to mind. The collective pool of subscriptions fund creation of AAA titles just like the EA pass.
  - krisroadruck 8y ago
    Perhaps, though I notice not a single one of the games I listed is an AAA title. I'm struggling to think of any AAA title that has held my attention for longer than 25 hours. I'd hate to subsidize the cost of an AAA title on the backs of indie developers who seem to be making games with a lot more sticking power/entertainment value.
stcredzero 8y ago
I was an early fan of KSP. I've spent long, long hours in FTL. My latest gaming obsession was Heat Signature. No lootboxes in any of those. (Except as a joke in Heat Signature, and you can't convert real world currency into one of those.)
yazr 8y ago