7 ms·

In the same way that randomness in a roguelite leads to you feeling really good when you find an item that is cool and that you didn't expect to get, you have t

In the same way that randomness in a roguelite leads to you feeling really good when you find an item that is cool and that you didn't expect to get, you have that same mechanic taking place when you either save enough in-game currency or use real money to buy a new lootbox and get a new item/character. It's a different mode of accessing gameplay that is random, and just like in a game that abuses this mechanic to keep people playing for hundreds of hours (roguelites), these mobile games also do that, except with the possibility of paying real life money.

Bancakes 6y ago
What you described is a planned dopamine release you have to pay for. I was under the impression the gameplay itself is there to make you have fun - if you have lootboxes, you're compensating for gameplay, or more likely, are doing it for monetary reasons.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  Well, anything that involves a monetary exchange can be described as "for monetary reasons". I explained to you that a non-monetary reason is similar to the reasoning behind similar mechanics in roguelites, which generally do not ask the player for payment. I can even make the same argument you made instead about roguelites: "What you described is planned dopamine release you have to wait for. I was under the impression the gameplay itself is there to make you have fun - if you have RNG, you're compensating for gameplay, or more likely, are doing it for nefarious reasons such as extending the amount of time people play your game for." Yet roguelites are not seen as morally wrong at all. Why? They're both using the same mechanic, except one lets you pay to skip the RNG-gating.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    No roguelike ever had a locked chest that wasn't meant to be open. Lootboxes aren't meant to be open unless you pay.
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      Plenty of roguelikes or roguelites have locked chests that can only be opened after you play for an arbitrarily long amount of time. That is the same as a lootbox in a game that lets you buy lootboxes with in-game currency at a slower rate than if you paid for them, such as the example I gave with Genshin Impact, where you can open lootboxes while paying nothing but the game is also structured to incentivize you to pay.
      - esperent 6y ago
        Games that are designed to suck hundreds of hours of your time and cause addiction are nearly as bad as games designed to tempt minors and vulnerable people into gambling. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the former as a defense of the latter.
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        I bring it up because the majority of people who have a problem with mobile games do not have a problem with roguelites. Either you have a problem with both or with none. I'm firmly in the none camp, it seems like you're in the both camp. Either way, singling out mobile games like the text in Godot's documentation did is a mistake.
        unionpivo 6y ago
        No that's you putting words into my or OP's mouth. I don't have a problem with roguelikes, but I do have a problem with mobile games. One is optimized to provide gameplay experience and fun, the other one is to extract as much money as humanly possible from their users. The fact that they might use some of the same building blocks doesn't mean that end result is similar. Just like playing poker and uno might use some similar mechanics (cards) that doesn't make them equal games. One is regulated the other one isnt. Or you throwing dice in monopoly and craps
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  - Varriount 6y ago
    Because, in the end, you end up paying real money, and not only that, you have mechanics that are designed around making that choice as tempting as possible, while attempting to masquerade as something harmless.
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      In a roguelite you end up paying real time, and not only that, you have mechanics that are designed around making spending that time as tempting as possible, while attempting to masquerade as something harmless.
      - selfhoster11 6y ago
        > you have mechanics that are designed around making spending that time as tempting as possible Citation needed. Old rougelikes/rougelites are designed to optimise for subjective fun, which naturally translates to more time spent. If something is fun, it's obvious that people will keep playing for longer. What's wrong is using dirty psychological tricks to bypass that and go directly for increasing the time spent on the game.
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        My argument is that roguelites are fundamentally using a psychological trick via RNG-gating content to make people play the game for a longer amount of time. That's built into the genre. And that this trick is the same as the one used by lootboxes. People have a problem with one and not with the other for very complicated reasons, but they're fundamentally the same, and thus it's a mistake to single out one and not the other.
        rcxdude 6y ago
        I think there's a fundamental difference: pay-to-progress games have a strong incentive to make progressing without paying as painful as possible. Getting people hooked is just a means to get them paying. Games with long progression paths have an incentive to keep that process as interesting is possible, otherwise people will just stop playing (and along the way the player is having fun). Also, I've not come across many roguelites which have a strong RNG component in their progression path. Roguelites are inherently random but their progression mechanics are generally quite regular on any given playthrough. All the ones I've played you progress quite linearly just by playing the game, not grinding for a chance to process. The worst I've heard of is one FTL's ship unlocks which involves getting two or three good rolls in a playthrough, which players (mostly 100% speedrunners) do complain about. Certainly nothing to the level of what is very common in lootboxes (where a massive grind for a less than 1 in 100 chance is common).
esperent 6y ago
You have just described gambling exactly. The problem is, in most places it's illegal for minors to gamble and it's likely that the majority of Genshin Impacts players are minors.

Bancakes 6y ago

What you described is a planned dopamine release you have to pay for. I was under the impression the gameplay itself is there to make you have fun - if you have lootboxes, you're compensating for gameplay, or more likely, are doing it for monetary reasons.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago
Well, anything that involves a monetary exchange can be described as "for monetary reasons". I explained to you that a non-monetary reason is similar to the reasoning behind similar mechanics in roguelites, which generally do not ask the player for payment. I can even make the same argument you made instead about roguelites: "What you described is planned dopamine release you have to wait for. I was under the impression the gameplay itself is there to make you have fun - if you have RNG, you're compensating for gameplay, or more likely, are doing it for nefarious reasons such as extending the amount of time people play your game for." Yet roguelites are not seen as morally wrong at all. Why? They're both using the same mechanic, except one lets you pay to skip the RNG-gating.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  No roguelike ever had a locked chest that wasn't meant to be open. Lootboxes aren't meant to be open unless you pay.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    Plenty of roguelikes or roguelites have locked chests that can only be opened after you play for an arbitrarily long amount of time. That is the same as a lootbox in a game that lets you buy lootboxes with in-game currency at a slower rate than if you paid for them, such as the example I gave with Genshin Impact, where you can open lootboxes while paying nothing but the game is also structured to incentivize you to pay.
    - esperent 6y ago
      Games that are designed to suck hundreds of hours of your time and cause addiction are nearly as bad as games designed to tempt minors and vulnerable people into gambling. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the former as a defense of the latter.
      - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        I bring it up because the majority of people who have a problem with mobile games do not have a problem with roguelites. Either you have a problem with both or with none. I'm firmly in the none camp, it seems like you're in the both camp. Either way, singling out mobile games like the text in Godot's documentation did is a mistake.
        unionpivo 6y ago
        No that's you putting words into my or OP's mouth. I don't have a problem with roguelikes, but I do have a problem with mobile games. One is optimized to provide gameplay experience and fun, the other one is to extract as much money as humanly possible from their users. The fact that they might use some of the same building blocks doesn't mean that end result is similar. Just like playing poker and uno might use some similar mechanics (cards) that doesn't make them equal games. One is regulated the other one isnt. Or you throwing dice in monopoly and craps
        adnzzzzZ 6y ago
- Varriount 6y ago
  Because, in the end, you end up paying real money, and not only that, you have mechanics that are designed around making that choice as tempting as possible, while attempting to masquerade as something harmless.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    In a roguelite you end up paying real time, and not only that, you have mechanics that are designed around making spending that time as tempting as possible, while attempting to masquerade as something harmless.
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      > you have mechanics that are designed around making spending that time as tempting as possible Citation needed. Old rougelikes/rougelites are designed to optimise for subjective fun, which naturally translates to more time spent. If something is fun, it's obvious that people will keep playing for longer. What's wrong is using dirty psychological tricks to bypass that and go directly for increasing the time spent on the game.
      - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
        My argument is that roguelites are fundamentally using a psychological trick via RNG-gating content to make people play the game for a longer amount of time. That's built into the genre. And that this trick is the same as the one used by lootboxes. People have a problem with one and not with the other for very complicated reasons, but they're fundamentally the same, and thus it's a mistake to single out one and not the other.
        rcxdude 6y ago
        I think there's a fundamental difference: pay-to-progress games have a strong incentive to make progressing without paying as painful as possible. Getting people hooked is just a means to get them paying. Games with long progression paths have an incentive to keep that process as interesting is possible, otherwise people will just stop playing (and along the way the player is having fun). Also, I've not come across many roguelites which have a strong RNG component in their progression path. Roguelites are inherently random but their progression mechanics are generally quite regular on any given playthrough. All the ones I've played you progress quite linearly just by playing the game, not grinding for a chance to process. The worst I've heard of is one FTL's ship unlocks which involves getting two or three good rolls in a playthrough, which players (mostly 100% speedrunners) do complain about. Certainly nothing to the level of what is very common in lootboxes (where a massive grind for a less than 1 in 100 chance is common).

esperent 6y ago

You have just described gambling exactly. The problem is, in most places it's illegal for minors to gamble and it's likely that the majority of Genshin Impacts players are minors.