Lufia Erim said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Hades said:
Phoenixmgs said:
CaitSeith said:
This is something I never look forward to. I always hoped the industry would correct its ways before law intervened. But if it can't regulate itself, this is bound to happen.
What industry has ever shown it can regulate itself? If anything, gamers are the ones to blame, it's not like games are a necessity. If people didn't buy lootboxes, there wouldn't be lootboxes. If someone was giving you money for basically no reason, would you stop accepting it?
I'd consider Monster Hunter just as egregious, if not more, than say Battlefront 2 because a lot of the game is tied behind getting lucky with lootboxes that are literally part of the game but you just can't spend money to get more and you have to just farm and grind. I can't even try this one build I have in mind because so much of it is tied to getting lucky with "lootboxes" for my decorations and also farming monsters for rare drops on top of that. I would actually play the game longer if it just let me play it the way I want to vs filling it full of Skinner box nonsense paid or not.
Skinner box =/= lootbox. You are literally having two entirely different conversations simultaneously.
Either you grossly misunderstand what the lootbox controversy is about, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
True, lootbox is not a Skinner box. However, the lootbox is there to "speed up" the Skinner box that is already in place. Whether it's Overwatch and trying to get a skin but the EXP gain is too slow so you pay money to hopefully get that skin faster or Battlefront 2's devised system (where you get objectively better as you progress). If Overwatch gave out free/earned lootboxes at a faster rate or let you buy specific things with earned EXP/credits, there would be a lot less purchased lootboxes. Monster Hunter literally has lootboxes that you, the player, make in the game. Just because Capcom hasn't allowed players to buy those "lootboxes", it doesn't really make it any better. But I bet people would flip if Monster Hunter had paid lootboxes saying the game was designed to take fucking forever to get what you want so people buy the lootboxes when the game itself is just one massive Skinner box on its own. The randomness of lootboxes only add on to the Skinner box by making it take usually longer (you can get lucky!!!) than say being able to buy in-game credits and spend those credits on something specific that you want.
Basically, if there's no Skinner box, there's no lootbox.
Yes. The skinner box system is basically a carrot on a stick. Which is suppose to keep people playing. And it does exactly that for
Most players. And in a discussion about skinner-boxes, i completely agree with you. It is a shitty system which is meant to pad out a game and make you play longer. And there definitely is a reason to dislike them. i won't
The problem with lootboxes is the monetisation. Without monetisation, lootboxes get " Downgraded" to skinner-box. Lootboxes basically take the Skinner-box model and add monetary value to it. It takes the already addictive carrot on a stick, and make you pay real money to continue chasing.
The issue i took, and the reason i quoted you, is because you said the skinner box system is as bad as, or worst than lootboxes. That however cannot be true, since regular skinner-box models don't cost you money. Of course this practice was popularized in Subscription based MMOs which then bled into games with microtransactions ( not including lootboxes),
but that's an entirely different conversation .
Then battlefront 2 took the practice of, lootboxes and tied it to progressions and thats where the controversy comes in.
Now i agree , that lootboxes cannot exist without skinner-boxes. But to put them on the same category of exploitiveness just isn't fair.
