There's a Youtube video creator that made a video months ago, in which he ostensibly traces the origins of the loot box as we know it back to EA's FIFA. I actually like the guy's videos. He's an unusually articulate and thoughtful poster who produces good content. But I staunchly rejected his intimation (if not assertion) that loot boxes began with FIFA 09, and that Overwatch's loot boxes constituted an "innocuous form [of loot box] that poses no real threat to our industry."
Below is an excerpt of my response to that video.
"The notion Overwatch's loot boxes are an "innocuous form [...] that poses no real threat to our industry" is (woefully incorrect). At the very least, it desensitizes and acclimates people to the exploitative model seen in BF2, which is the first and prerequisite step to the pervasion of such. As someone who played WoW at launch, and continued to for over ten years, I say this in the kindest way possible. Spare me the (BS) that Blizzard is the "good guy" amidst an industry of greedy con men.
WoW has been an RNG gamble grind since its inception, in 2005, 4 years before FIFA 09. The same thing that occurs when you open a loot box in Battlefront 2, occurs in WoW when you loot a dungeon/raid boss, it's just a less conspicuous (and therefore less widely recognized) version of it. And all of you consistently fail to acknowledge that fact. Every time you loot a boss in WoW a slot machine lever is pulled. And they charged you $15 a month for a gaming experience, for years, that revolves around a gambling mechanic; a random chance to get something of value to you.
The game's RNG was (and is) so egregiously stingy, that the developers eventually put in loot tokens (coins) which allow you pull the slot machine lever for a second time, three times a week. (Which is an indirect acknowledgment by the developers that even they deemed their gambling system to be insufficiently generous.) It's the same exact slot machine mechanic employed for the same exact reason; to increase the revenue to content creation ratio.
I was criticizing it for what it was in 2005! That's how I know it predates a soccer game made in 2009. Everything we're experiencing now is a direct result of the wide scale acceptance of that model. Anyone who can't see that is blind, or hopelessly obtuse. The moment gamers accepted, en masse, that they would invest large amounts of labor for no guaranteed result, the way was paved for all of the exploitative practices we see now; a minimum developmental effort maximum profit production paradigm.
WoW is one of the least innovative games in all of gaming as a result. It's been the same, rehashed crap for 12 years, much like CoD and Destiny 2 are now. And the reason why is the same for all 3 franchises. You don't have to innovate when people will pay the same amount, and even more, for an RNG/gambling system that requires a fraction of the effort to develop.
The loot boxes in Overwatch are a problem. And just because Blizzard hasn't gone full EA exploitation mode yet doesn't mean they never intended to or won't. (See their patent filings.) They frankly played a large role in legitimizing and advancing the exploitative model we see manifest today. If you people can't see or acknowledge that, then you're simply hopeless."
Developers like Blizzard and Rockstar, and games like World of Warcraft, Overwatch, and Grand Theft Auto, continue to get a free pass from most gamers, despite the fact every time you kill something in WoW, for example, the corpse gives a randomized reward; i.e., turns into a loot box. But because it's not shaped like a box, and isn't presented in the game's menu screen, it's simply not considered such or "the same" as "bad" loot boxes.
Not to defend publishers/developers, but, I can see where they might be perplexed by their customers on this particular issue. They're dealing with people incessantly demanding two completely contradictory things. In one breath the playerbase is consistently demanding more RNG under the rationale it provides "depth" and "replayability," and in another denouncing RNG as evil when it's implemented in a manner they personally dislike. The denunciation of random perks being removed from weapons among many Destiny players, and outcry for their return, whilst simultaneously railing against and demanding the removal of the Eververse (Destiny's loot box vendor) from the game is a superb example of this. Either RNG is unfair and exploitative or it's not, folks. (It is.) How is paying money for a game that dispenses guns with random perks, i.e., a random reward, any different in substance than paying for a loot box that gives a random reward? Answer; it's not. But many gamers can't seem to make up their mind, considering it "exploitative" when they don't like it, yet a good thing when they do. When the boss you just killed turns into a monster shaped loot box, or a treasure chest (loot box) literally appears in the middle of the room after killing it in a game for which you paid real money, that's okay. But if they try to sell you another one for real money in the game's menu screen it suddenly becomes unethical.
This nonsense is the actual problem, and why the loot box issue will never be fixed. These idiots simply can't make up their minds. If they really wanted to "fix" the problem they'd be demanding the removal of all RNG mechanics from reward systems in games that charge a fee, any fee, to play. Because RNG rewards systems are gambling. Period. But they're not. They're only demanding the removal of such if it's not shaped like a monster, and you didn't have to shoot it/kill it to acquire it. Are loot boxes bad or not? If they are the loot system used by games like WoW and Destiny is no less bad than BF2's loot boxes. If it's the RNG that's bad then random perks on guns is just as bad as random rewards from purchasable loot boxes. A combination of the two, obviously, would be even worse; a double whammy of "exploitation." But that's not the case with the arbitrary, widely disparate, and continuously evolving metric found among gamers which, if they want to address the problem at all, seek to treat the more conspicuous symptoms as opposed to the actual underlying cause.
Not to defend publishers/developers, but, I can see where they might be perplexed by their customers on this particular issue. They're dealing with people incessantly demanding two completely contradictory things. In one breath the playerbase is consistently demanding more RNG under the rationale it provides "depth" and "replayability," and in another denouncing RNG as evil when it's implemented in a manner they personally dislike. The denunciation of random perks being removed from weapons among many Destiny players, and outcry for their return, whilst simultaneously railing against and demanding the removal of the Eververse (Destiny's loot box vendor) from the game is a superb example of this. Either RNG is unfair and exploitative or it's not, folks. (It is.) How is paying money for a game that dispenses guns with random perks, i.e., a random reward, any different in substance than paying for a loot box that gives a random reward? Answer; it's not. But many gamers can't seem to make up their mind, considering it "exploitative" when they don't like it, yet a good thing when they do. When the boss you just killed turns into a monster shaped loot box, or a treasure chest (loot box) literally appears in the middle of the room after killing it in a game for which you paid real money, that's okay. But if they try to sell you another one for real money in the game's menu screen it suddenly becomes unethical.
This nonsense is the actual problem, and why the loot box issue will never be fixed. These idiots simply can't make up their minds. If they really wanted to "fix" the problem they'd be demanding the removal of all RNG mechanics from reward systems in games that charge a fee, any fee, to play. Because RNG rewards systems are gambling. Period. But they're not. They're only demanding the removal of such if it's not shaped like a monster, and you didn't have to shoot it/kill it to acquire it. Are loot boxes bad or not? If they are the loot system used by games like WoW and Destiny is no less bad than BF2's loot boxes. If it's the RNG that's bad then random perks on guns is just as bad as random rewards from purchasable loot boxes. A combination of the two, obviously, would be even worse; a double whammy of "exploitation." But that's not the case with the arbitrary, widely disparate, and continuously evolving metric found among gamers which, if they want to address the problem at all, seek to treat the more conspicuous symptoms as opposed to the actual underlying cause.
The unfortunate reality is a large portion, the preponderance even, of gamers are perfectly willing to accept the substitution of vapid, repetitive, pseudo-content in the place of inspired content. It's a common thing to see gamers demanding more "grind," which is not genuine content, from developers in lieu of the latter simply to sustain their gaming addictions. And the industry has naturally responded by striving to meet the demands of its junkie patrons by consistently churning out ever more grindy and tedious crap. Exceptional titles like the recent God of War can sustain themselves without resorting to such, but most games are not so inspired, simply unable to do so, and must consequently rely on grind-filler to compensate. And why not, when so many players clearly not only accept that practice, but even demand more of it?
It's easy to blame the publishers and developers but any thinking, objective person, would concede blame does not lie with them exclusively. They are businesses, and businesses can only stay in business, by providing a product people want after all.
Personally, though the recent backlash has made me somewhat less pessimistic, I am a realist and know it will only continue to get worse. Eventually the ever diminishing pool of Cory Barlogs will be replaced with Luke Smiths. Large scale, well funded, labors of love will, probably, eventually disappear, and and be completely replaced with hollow, calculated, business models masquerading as video games. This won't be stopped because, frankly, the average gamer hasn't the principle or intellect to stop it; because stopping it would require self-restraint in a society bereft of such; a society that anathematizes such.
It's easy to blame the publishers and developers but any thinking, objective person, would concede blame does not lie with them exclusively. They are businesses, and businesses can only stay in business, by providing a product people want after all.
Personally, though the recent backlash has made me somewhat less pessimistic, I am a realist and know it will only continue to get worse. Eventually the ever diminishing pool of Cory Barlogs will be replaced with Luke Smiths. Large scale, well funded, labors of love will, probably, eventually disappear, and and be completely replaced with hollow, calculated, business models masquerading as video games. This won't be stopped because, frankly, the average gamer hasn't the principle or intellect to stop it; because stopping it would require self-restraint in a society bereft of such; a society that anathematizes such.
When I see things like Star Citizen's "insurance" plans for spacecraft I see the dismal future of gaming.
I was quite interested in this game, but I'm glad I resisted the urge to impulse buy. Upon researching it, it appears to be just another grind excessive cash grab, from an unscrupulous developer. This was conveyed to me when looking at the game packages and noticing that ships have limited time "insurance." As with all games there's a contingent of mindless fanboys who will defend such a thing with all manner of specious drivel. I actually saw a video somewhere on Youtube of a guy defending this, saying he liked it because it provides "depth." Another because it helps players "bond" with their spaceship and have a "relationship" with it. Yes, you read that correctly; a relationship with an imaginary spaceship.
What this is in actuality is a real life responsibility emulator. And the problem with that is I play video games to escape those responsibilities. NOT to be saddled with more. Seriously, who the hell wakes up every day and thinks "I can't wait to go to work to pay for my car insurance?" Now thanks to Cloud Imperium Games, you can have the joy of working 8-12 hours a day to pay your house/car insurance, and then come home and log in to a video game to put in the work to pay for your spaceship insurance. That's apparently what millennial detergent eaters consider a good time.
It's the people who think this sort of thing provides "depth" that are ruining gaming. Having to engage in tedious or laborious tasks to fulfill onerous responsibilities is not fun in real life and it's not fun in video games. And if that's the kind of "depth" or "fun" one seeks, they can have all they want of it in real life. They don't need to go to video games for that. But if that's what video games now have to offer, they no longer offer an escape from real life. More and more they're merely providing virtual emulations of all the crap people hate about life (for a fee) with none of the tangible benefits.
The fact a developer even had the idea, much less thought it worthy of implementation, tells me a lot if not everything I need to know about them. Even GTAV Online, which I consider an egregious offender in regard to excessive grinding and real life toil emulation (requiring you to earn money to pay things like apartment utilities), gives you permanent insurance on any vehicle you buy in game by default, which includes any and all upgrades to that vehicle. But not Star Citizen apparently. Before long developers will be making players pay for health insurance too which; virtual Obamacare. Go out and kill/farm/collect/sell stuff, to accrue currency to pay for your health care, lest you lose it all should you be killed. And you will be killed.
I'm sure some fanboy will (absurdly) argue you're not paying real money for ship insurance. And to that I simply ask. Did you pay for the game or anything in it with real money? Yes? Then you paid real money for imaginary insurance on an imaginary asset. If you can't comprehend that, congratulations, you're proof human beings can survive a lobotomy. CIG is apparently a virtual insurance provider, making money in the virtual insurance business, off of morons who can't seem to grasp they're paying their premium with real money any time they buy the game, or a ship, or an upgrade, etc.
I should have gone into video game development. It's such an ostentatious racket now, facilitated by an endless sea of morons, seeking a "relationship" with their imaginary property. They just shower you with money for fleecing them in every conceivably manner.
I will no longer invest in developers who do garbage like this. "Insurance" fees, and grinding to pay them, is not "content." CIG is abject proof, being "crowdfunded," that the prevalent disposition among gamers that "publishers" are to blame for such antics is dubious at best, if not completely illusory.
What this is in actuality is a real life responsibility emulator. And the problem with that is I play video games to escape those responsibilities. NOT to be saddled with more. Seriously, who the hell wakes up every day and thinks "I can't wait to go to work to pay for my car insurance?" Now thanks to Cloud Imperium Games, you can have the joy of working 8-12 hours a day to pay your house/car insurance, and then come home and log in to a video game to put in the work to pay for your spaceship insurance. That's apparently what millennial detergent eaters consider a good time.
It's the people who think this sort of thing provides "depth" that are ruining gaming. Having to engage in tedious or laborious tasks to fulfill onerous responsibilities is not fun in real life and it's not fun in video games. And if that's the kind of "depth" or "fun" one seeks, they can have all they want of it in real life. They don't need to go to video games for that. But if that's what video games now have to offer, they no longer offer an escape from real life. More and more they're merely providing virtual emulations of all the crap people hate about life (for a fee) with none of the tangible benefits.
The fact a developer even had the idea, much less thought it worthy of implementation, tells me a lot if not everything I need to know about them. Even GTAV Online, which I consider an egregious offender in regard to excessive grinding and real life toil emulation (requiring you to earn money to pay things like apartment utilities), gives you permanent insurance on any vehicle you buy in game by default, which includes any and all upgrades to that vehicle. But not Star Citizen apparently. Before long developers will be making players pay for health insurance too which; virtual Obamacare. Go out and kill/farm/collect/sell stuff, to accrue currency to pay for your health care, lest you lose it all should you be killed. And you will be killed.
I'm sure some fanboy will (absurdly) argue you're not paying real money for ship insurance. And to that I simply ask. Did you pay for the game or anything in it with real money? Yes? Then you paid real money for imaginary insurance on an imaginary asset. If you can't comprehend that, congratulations, you're proof human beings can survive a lobotomy. CIG is apparently a virtual insurance provider, making money in the virtual insurance business, off of morons who can't seem to grasp they're paying their premium with real money any time they buy the game, or a ship, or an upgrade, etc.
I should have gone into video game development. It's such an ostentatious racket now, facilitated by an endless sea of morons, seeking a "relationship" with their imaginary property. They just shower you with money for fleecing them in every conceivably manner.
I will no longer invest in developers who do garbage like this. "Insurance" fees, and grinding to pay them, is not "content." CIG is abject proof, being "crowdfunded," that the prevalent disposition among gamers that "publishers" are to blame for such antics is dubious at best, if not completely illusory.
No comments:
Post a Comment