Current Events > Supply drop/loot box systems are the worst modern gaming mechanic bar none

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can protest microtransactions without thinking that there's gonna be some magic utopia where they no longer exist if you bitch hard enough, you know.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

buddyboigiru posted...

which funds the free dlc and new content.

STOP PARROTING THIS RIDICULOUS BLATANT LIE SPEWED FROM THE MOUTHS OF PUBLISHERS!!!!

This is BLIZZARD who are merged with fucking ACTIVISION they are not starving for money in any fashion and are not using the money from lootboxes for anything other than lining the pockets of the suits who run the company.

If this was a struggling indie dev this would maybe fly but this is literally a multibillion dollar corporation crying poor and you're just taking it at face value

ITP: Well off companies don't need money, and should give everything away for free.

Shitpost level: Brain damage.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

You can protest microtransactions without thinking that there's gonna be some magic utopia where they no longer exist if you bitch hard enough, you know.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease, enough complaints arise things happen.


omega cookie posted...

ITP: Well off companies don't need money, and should give everything away for free.

ITP:Multibillion dollar corporations crying poor is now a good excuse for them to try fleece customers.

At least TRY to hide your trolling


Asherlee10 posted...

Zombie has a complete mental breakdown anytime we talk about microtransactions, DLC, and loot boxes.

Sorry I'm an informed consumer who refuses to make excuses to justify the insatiable avarice of publishers and their attempts at milking customers, unlike you who has yet to come up with a single viable reason as to how microtransactions benefit anyone other than suits who run publishers without turning to the same old tired anticosumerist cynical rhetoric spewed from the mouths of publishers that I have smacked down time and time again
---

The worst are the ones that give you loot boxes and then make you find keys too. I've never found a key
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Crying

Oh man, that is some deep shit posting. DLC and loot boxes are "fleecing customers". Did everyone else lose the ability to just not buy things they don't like? Because I can do that.

Also, generally speaking, I've found that most people that say things like "informed consumer" and "vote with your wallet" are just poor people overcompensating because they can't afford the things they want.

But keep crying man, I'm sure those multimillion dollar companies are going to feel the squeeze real soon because you didn't buy a loot box with cosmetic items.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Sorry I'm an informed consumer who refuses to make excuses to justify the insatiable avarice of publishers and their attempts at milking customers, unlike you who has yet to come up with a single viable reason as to how microtransactions benefit anyone other than suits who run publishers without turning to the same old tired anticosumerist cynical rhetoric spewed from the mouths of publishers that I have smacked down time and time again

Oh look! All you're normal buzzwords again. You're going to pop a vein in your head if you aren't careful.

On a serious note, you really should consider calming the fuck down.

Oh shit noooooooo, my entire well thought out argument is now irrelevant thanks to your shitty handwave attempt.

Whatever shall I do?!?!?!

In all seriousness, you're pretty shit at forming a cohesive argument. You have yet to disprove anything I've said to date and all you can do it nitpick about "buzzwords".
---

Gamefaqs should add loot boxes you can buy using karma.
---

tizorres posted...

Gamefaqs should add loot boxes you can buy using karma.

Gotta unbox all those emojis and avatars
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I've gone down the road of trying to have an actual discussion with you about this topic and all you do is explode in anger and start insulting people

No the fuck you have NOT, I resorted to that after you made no real attempts at disproving anything I posted outside of your shit attempts and handwaving entire paragraphs with a single sentence and nitpicky disingenuous bullshit like comparing grindy online experiences designed to goad you into spending real money to Skyrim being long.


Asherlee10 posted...

Why would I (or anyone else) try to have an actual discussion with you after that?

Because every argument you've ever come up with is nonsensical bullshit that reeks of a sheltered child who has zero idea what they're talking about.

Why should I take your so called argeuments seriously , when they hold no weight and I've shot them down EVERY SINGLE TIME and you STILL use the same shit talking points even though again, they hold zero fucking weight ?
---

The regular matchmaking playlists should be with everyone starting with the same default loadouts and unlocking upgrades throughout the match based on how much of the objective score they've accumulated.

A separate matchmaking playlist should be where people can use the upgrades from loot boxes to their heart's content.

The old and the new.
---

Agreed

it's mildly okay in TF2 since it stimulates an interesting in-game economy (and since TF2 is free)

But Overwatch has LITERALLY no excuse
---

Halo 5 actually did them right.

I played that game for months trying to unlock everything. Was fun to but once I did I slowly stopped playing. It's nice to have the option to play for a fair amount of points to buy these loot boxes rather than buy them.

But I do blame the people that spend money on them as to why it's becoming popular.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Did you seriously just respond with insults and anger after I just told you that I attempted to have an adult conversation with you, but all you do is reply with insults and anger?

You're hilarious. Why don't you come up with a real retort like I have time and time again that you just ignore and say "all I do is insult you and use buzzwords"?


Asherlee10 posted...

You're like a walking contradiction.

Zombie: I'm so angry! Ahh! ANTICONSUMER SHILL! LOOTBOXES YOU IDIOT! You're all brainwashed!

Me: Yo, calm down. Can't have a discussion with you when you're angry.

Zombie: SHUT UP! You're BRAINWASHED!

Cute, but here's how it is in reality

Me:Well thought out and presented pro consumer argument

Asherlee: Irrelevant corporate worshiping dribble and handwaving attempt

Me:Sorry that's not how that works

Asherlee: Same argument again

Me: Sorry, doesn't work that way

Asherlee:Same arguement again

Me:Shoots the same argument down AGAIN

Asherlee:Same argument again

Me:*comes the understanding this person incapable of understanding rational thought*

So I fling a few insults to make a point

Asherlee: Wow you're such a contradiction all you is insult people waaaaah
apocalyptic_4 posted...

Halo 5 actually did them right.

No they did not, as I've already said time and time again

Any advantages that take away disadvantages there might be are purely artificial as both the advantages and disadvantages were put in place to goad you into spending real money by publishers



Asherlee10 posted...

Agreed. I like Halo 5's req pack system.

But don't let Zombie see that. He'll launch into the atmosphere with anger.

And you have glaring audacity to say all I do is insult people when you haven't once made a single coherent argument as to how microtransactions benefit anyone other than publishers and yet you have no problem flinging shit from afar
---

The loot box system single handedly killed my interest in Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda's multiplayer modes. Literally everything was locked behind those damn boxes. Consumable items, characters, guns and mods, so you're entirely at the mercy of RNG in terms of being able to play the characters you want to play, use the guns you want to use, and play the style you're most comfortable with.

I think I played each for about two weeks in total before I just gave up because the boxes take so long to acquire with in-game points and kept giving me trash items, thus it was too hard to take on higher difficulties to acquire boxes faster since my gear and character selection was so limited and I was forced to play styles I didn't care for, so I wasn't having fun.
---

I've put in over 30days on halo 5 and never spent real money on it and I've been playing since launch. The only advantage you can have spending real money on the game is having certain guns early on in the game which doesn't mean much when you can pick it up if they die.

The content is all free in halo 5 for the most part and all the dlc has been free since launch it's a shame the halo fanbase rejected this game it has gotten phenomenal support since it dropped.
---

I never once felt the need to spend real money on Halo 5 REQ packs. The in-game currency was very fairly handed out. The only thing I felt that impacted the gameplay was how rare the DMR was to get, but you were eventually guaranteed to get it since permanent unlock cards don't give duplicates. The more packs you get the higher your chances continue to climb.


Gears 4 is another story. The limited-time featured packs are extremely anti-consumer. The chances to unlock the featured characters are extremely low (along with the fact that you can get duplicates of permanent unlocks and standard items can show up in the packs to further dilute your chances), the credit cost (2000) is too high for anyone who doesn't spend all week grinding in Horde to save up (a Horde match typically takes over 2 hours to beat and you end up with 1500-3500 credits, that is assuming you did the whole thing in one go since you get exponentially fewer credits the earlier you quit), and to top it all off you can never get these characters and weapon skins again after the weekend it was active, ushering players into a sense of urgency to get them to spend real money. $5 per pack when it takes like 20 packs on average to get what they're offering.
---

FFS Zombie

For all the bitching and moaning you've done you actually haven't presented a real argument. I coach high school debate so I can't stand to see this

How about this:

State your 3 contentions and I'll perhaps humor you in discussing this further.
---

Games aren't gonna get post-game support for over a year without some sort of paid DLC. So either it's lootboxes or paying for each new character, map pack, outfits, weapons etc. separately or through a season pass. Considering the latter often locks players out from content and loot boxes generally don't I know which one I prefer (not saying all loot boxes in games do it well though).
---

apocalyptic_4 posted...

Halo 5 actually did them right.

I played that game for months trying to unlock everything. Was fun to but once I did I slowly stopped playing. It's nice to have the option to play for a fair amount of points to buy these loot boxes rather than buy them.

But I do blame the people that spend money on them as to why it's becoming popular.

Yea, Halo 5 is the gold standard for loot boxes and a system I really enjoyed

CoD is ok as you seem to get them at a decent interval, but they could be better

Games like Gears of War 4 are (or atleast were, they are a little better now) fucking atrocious.
---

So um

What are loot boxes?
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

FFS Zombie

For all the bitching and moaning you've done you actually haven't presented a real argument. I coach high school debate so I can't stand to see this

How about this:

State your 3 contentions and I'll perhaps humor you in discussing this further.

Where do I start?

Their existence in games beneifts publishers and literally only publishers, there is ZERO benefit to consumers in having microtransactions in full priced games

Games are no longer being built as fun experiences for consumers to enjoy but are now being built as grindy hubs designed soley for milking you and any advantages that take away disadvantages there might be are purely artificial as both the advantages and disadvantages were put in place to by publishers again for the sake of milking you

See games like GTA:Online , For Honor, Destiny, The Division, Gears of War 4

Most devs HATE being forced by publishers to turn their games into cash shops because they know they won't see a penny of it.

Look at how SquareEnix shoved microtransactions into Deus Ex:MD AFTER Eidos stopped working on it and even had the microtransactions greyed out and hidden from review copies or how many games added them a while after reviews came out so that the microtransactions wouldn't affect the review scores

Why would they affect review scores you ask? The majority of people hate them and it's a handful of "whales" who keep them in games because they outspend the majority of people combined

As I mentioned before they exist not because games are too expensive and can't make a profit anyway else but to try and satisfy the insatiable avarice of the suits who rum publishers, take a look at this Take Two made over half a BILLION dollars in microtransactions alone from GTA Online shark cards, and what's their reaction? It's. Not. Enough. in fact they say they aren't milking you enough and that unless you're constantly buying microtransactions you aren't worthy of owning their game

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/170468-Take-Two-CEO-Company-is-Under-Monetizing-its-Users

Asherlee10 posted...

It won't matter. He refuses to hear any other points that aren't his own, as well. I've tried several times to actually have a calm discussion/debate with him and he flies off the handle.

You haven't made a single solid point in any topic but you keep repeating the same tired rhetoric used by publishers to defend their greed which I have shot down every single time

I'm sorry I can't take someone seriously who unironically defended microtransactions in full priced games by comparing grindy online experiences designed to goad you into spending real money to Skyrim being long

To which after I smack down your argument again, you just cry foul and watch the white knight betas fawn over you and defend everything you said without even knowing how nonsensical most of it is
---

dave_is_slick posted...

As long as nothing in them affects gameplay, why do you care?

This. Video game companies need to make money, or else they die out. Raising the price of games to match with the times isn't going to work, since people would bitch even more about it. Might as well do something mostly harmless by selling cosmetics, either directly or through lootboxes.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

As long as nothing in them affects gameplay, why do you care?

This. Video game companies need to make money, or else they die out. Raising the price of games to match with the times isn't going to work, since people would bitch even more about it. Might as well do something mostly harmless by selling cosmetics, either directly or through lootboxes.

I honestly don't understand how the game prices haven't raised by a lot since the 90s. I suppose I do understand that the medium is a bit cheaper than it was (cartridge vs dvd), but is that it?

Cost of game development has risen but so has the customer base. Far more people play video games today than 20 years ago. I'm not sure how much it balances out, but it must be sustainable or we wouldn't have games.
---

SGT_Conti posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

As long as nothing in them affects gameplay, why do you care?

This. Video game companies need to make money, or else they die out. Raising the price of games to match with the times isn't going to work, since people would bitch even more about it. Might as well do something mostly harmless by selling cosmetics, either directly or through lootboxes.

I honestly don't understand how the game prices haven't raised by a lot since the 90s. I suppose I do understand that the medium is a bit cheaper than it was (cartridge vs dvd), but is that it?

Cost of game development has risen but so has the customer base. Far more people play video games today than 20 years ago. I'm not sure how much it balances out, but it must be sustainable or we wouldn't have games.

It really isn't that sustainable. You can tell by how many game developers have been dying out in the past few years and how many are latching onto DLC and lootboxes to make back money.
---

i think what really gets my goat about microtransactions in games is that it eliminates the fun factor of unlocking stuff in games.

like if you went back 15 years ago before online gaming and looked at how unlocks were handled, the concept was (mostly) that you were supposed to be doing fun stuff in the game to keep getting little rewards. they were an incentive to play the game and were considered rewards.

case in point, look at a game like Timesplitters 2 or Melee, where there were tons of stages, characters, etc that were hidden, and you'd get them by beating challenges, winning on a high difficulty level, etc.

nowadays developers want people to pay for the microtransactions, and so they have to be careful to not make it too fun or easy for a player to get the extras, because otherwise what incentive is there to pay for them?

the end result is that for the vast majority of AAA games, if you want an unlockable in the game, it's just going to be extreme grinding. want to get a new overwatch skin? you either have to just keep playing over and over again, every day (for win of the day bonuses), or you can drop real money. everything is just gated by time at this point because the devs have to make sure that it's not too fun to unlock things otherwise. the new design concept for multiplayer games is that you hopefully find the base gameplay so fun that you dump in X hours into the game, and this gives you X amount of unlocks or opportunities to unlock things. there's no more nuance to it.

i am sure you guys will find the one or two games that is the outlier to this model, but when I think of the big games like Battlefield, CoD, Overwatch, etc, it's pretty obvious that the model is "grind or pay," and that is fun for no-one but the kids that are either helplessly addicted to the game and play 9 hours a day anyway, or the kids that are happy to spend their birthday money to get neat little cosmetic/fun items.
---

Yeah, I don't mind it as much for PvE driven multiplayer like Mass Effect.

Most recently I've been playing Rainbow Six: Seige. While it's definitely possible to get by with the default set of classes, there are powerful DLC classes locked behind either an exorbitant amount of in game currency or a $5 per class cost.

Since each class comes with different guns and abilities and some are vital ranked play, it's harder to be effective without them. Valkyrie, Blackbeard, Mira and Caveira come to mind. An excellent Cav can carry a team.
---

Rexdragon125 posted...

When devs want to keep their players hooked for a long time but they can't be arsed to come up with actual engaging content, let's just hide a shiny thing behind a 0.1% drop chance so they play the same thing 9000 times

Sometimes it has the opposite effect though. I was regularly playing Infinite Warfare untill they locked new weapons behind supply drops.

After that I peaced out and started playing other games like Rainbow Six and Battlefield 1.

Same reason I dropped Blops 3, just a pure awful and unfair supply drop system.
---

Xeon_Is_Back posted...

Yeah, I don't mind it as much for PvE driven multiplayer like Mass Effect.

Most recently I've been playing Rainbow Six: Seige. While it's definitely possible to get by with the default set of classes, there are powerful DLC classes locked behind either an exorbitant amount of in game currency or a $5 per class cost.

Since each class comes with different guns and abilities and some are vital ranked play, it's harder to be effective without them. Valkyrie, Blackbeard, Mira and Caveira come to mind. An excellent Cav can carry a team.

GIGN operators are the best in the game, so not quite.

Rainbow Six Siege also gives free maps and almost everything that matters can be bought with in-game money, so it's one of the more fair trades
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I spent over 40 posts in previous 2 topics trying to have a calm, rational discussion with you. Instead, all you did was scream and throw a fit. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a discussion with you.

Lol what? You spent 40 posts saying absolutely NOTHING other than the same corporate rhetoric which I have shot down every single time


Asherlee10 posted...

I have asked you for sources for this several times and you've yet to deliver. Do you have anything that can be cited?

Last time I posted a source you couldn't even be bother to watch the fucking video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVbj4GuuZTA

Don't even TRY to play that card.


LightHawKnight posted...

This. Video game companies need to make money, or else they die out.

Publishers were making money before microtransactions were shoehorned in full priced games, why do you believe otherwise?

LightHawKnight posted...

Raising the price of games to match with the times isn't going to work, since people would b**** even more about it. Might as well do something mostly harmless by selling cosmetics, either directly or through lootboxes.

Stop parroting propaganda spewed from the mouths of publishers, what a game costs to make and what is sells for is literally none of our concern and is not our responsibility to make up
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Xeon_Is_Back posted...

Yeah, I don't mind it as much for PvE driven multiplayer like Mass Effect.

Most recently I've been playing Rainbow Six: Seige. While it's definitely possible to get by with the default set of classes, there are powerful DLC classes locked behind either an exorbitant amount of in game currency or a $5 per class cost.

Since each class comes with different guns and abilities and some are vital ranked play, it's harder to be effective without them. Valkyrie, Blackbeard, Mira and Caveira come to mind. An excellent Cav can carry a team.

GIGN operators are the best in the game, so not quite.

Rainbow Six Siege also gives free maps and almost everything that matters can be bought with in-game money, so it's one of the more fair trades

"oh cool, this multiplayer-only game that i spent $60 on just released new characters! I can't wait to try them out!"

"Oh, the new operators cost 25,000 points, and I make about 200 points per 15 minute match, so I have to play about 30 hours worth of matches in order to unlock one new character"
---

People literally pay to gamble for a chance at a cosmetic virtual item

blows my mind
---

Romulox28 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Xeon_Is_Back posted...

Yeah, I don't mind it as much for PvE driven multiplayer like Mass Effect.

Most recently I've been playing Rainbow Six: Seige. While it's definitely possible to get by with the default set of classes, there are powerful DLC classes locked behind either an exorbitant amount of in game currency or a $5 per class cost.

Since each class comes with different guns and abilities and some are vital ranked play, it's harder to be effective without them. Valkyrie, Blackbeard, Mira and Caveira come to mind. An excellent Cav can carry a team.

GIGN operators are the best in the game, so not quite.

Rainbow Six Siege also gives free maps and almost everything that matters can be bought with in-game money, so it's one of the more fair trades

"oh cool, this multiplayer-only game that i spent $60 on just released new characters! I can't wait to try them out!"

"Oh, the new operators cost 25,000 points, and I make about 200 points per 15 minute match, so I have to play about 30 hours worth of matches in order to unlock one new character"

As opposed to them releasing the operators randomly in loot boxes or making them paid DLC only?

And again, the default operators are some of the best in the game. That isn't to say that the DLC operators aren't fun in their own right, but the fact that you can buy them all with in-game money is hardly worth that rhetoric, especially since all maps are free.

Plus the average renown earned per match is 400-600 if you don't completely suck
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Romulox28 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Xeon_Is_Back posted...

Yeah, I don't mind it as much for PvE driven multiplayer like Mass Effect.

Most recently I've been playing Rainbow Six: Seige. While it's definitely possible to get by with the default set of classes, there are powerful DLC classes locked behind either an exorbitant amount of in game currency or a $5 per class cost.

Since each class comes with different guns and abilities and some are vital ranked play, it's harder to be effective without them. Valkyrie, Blackbeard, Mira and Caveira come to mind. An excellent Cav can carry a team.

GIGN operators are the best in the game, so not quite.

Rainbow Six Siege also gives free maps and almost everything that matters can be bought with in-game money, so it's one of the more fair trades

"oh cool, this multiplayer-only game that i spent $60 on just released new characters! I can't wait to try them out!"

"Oh, the new operators cost 25,000 points, and I make about 200 points per 15 minute match, so I have to play about 30 hours worth of matches in order to unlock one new character"

As opposed to them releasing the operators randomly in loot boxes or making them paid DLC only?

And again, the default operators are some of the best in the game. That isn't to say that the DLC operators aren't fun in their own right, but the fact that you can buy them all with in-game money is hardly worth that rhetoric, especially since all maps are free.

Plus the average renown earned per match is 400-600 if you don't completely suck

how about they just release these characters for free to the people that paid $60 for their damn multiplayer-only game (which barely had working servers for like the first 3 months after the fucking game came out), like every game company used to do before like 2010?

goddamn, i know gamers get called entitled all the time and it's dumb to feel like you deserve something in a commercial product, but at a certain point you have to decide you have some expectations for a product you purchased, or else you are just going to get taken for a ride by game companies every time you buy a new game
---

The game definitely needs some work, but in my 145 hours of play it's hardly been unplayable.

Remember that they have 3 years of content planned also and they're on year 2. This system allows them to fund new operators and maps without having to charge everyone for whole extra expansions, which would be bigger BS than before.

And they do yield with free DLC when the game was that bad. Remember Ass Creed Unity?
---

I feel like there are different categories of lootboxes that are varying levels of scummy.

Stuff like Overwatch lootboxes have just cosmetic stuff that's untradeable.
BO3 Lootboxes have actual (awesome) guns that's also untradeable.

Then you get games like H1Z1 which have cosmetic only items, that are tradeable and can extend the lifetime of a game just through the market place.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Remember that they have 3 years of content planned also and they're on year 2. This system allows them to fund new operators and maps without having to charge everyone for whole extra expansions, which would be bigger BS than before.

lmao yea right

according to Professor Google, ubisoft made 300 million dollars worth of game sales ALONE in THE FIRST HALF of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. are you telling me that they cannot afford to bankroll the few devs it takes to create 2 or 3 new characters every 6 months to a year in their multiplayer-only game?

come on dude, this is just a major corporation jerking you around and people biting because lots of gamers have a kind of emotional connection to video games that you don't see with most other products. the only reason the maps are free is because last gen devs tried to make people pay for multiplayer maps and it ended up killing off most non-CoD games, since it split the community up. they are not doing you any favors.

the term companies use for this is "player engagement" and the basic idea is that games now shift from being a product you own to being a service that the company provides. if you don't have hundreds of hours to dump into video games, let alone ONE game in particular, you might as well either pay up or not play at all
---

So what you're saying is that since this company has millions of dollars, they should throw us all the post-launch DLC for free?

Remember who made the topic title, so I normally don't defend these type of micro transactions whatsoever. But let me put it this way; if you're playing R6S even a little seriously there should be no reason why you should have a hard time unlocking most of the operators through normal game time. I hit 25K every week or so and then I spend it on cosmetic stuff because I already unlocked all of the operators lol. Sure there isn't instant gratification, but I rather that than having to pay to stay competitive.

Do you know what happens to games that get a lot of free content with no financial support nowadays? They get dropped off the face of the earth. It happened to Need For Speed, it happened to DriveClub, and it would happen to Siege. I realize that this isn't as ideal as getting everything all in one shot, but your argument basically boils down to "I should get this for free because they have too much money". When has that ever worked out ever for a dev? Their strategy with Siege is fairly simple: make the game as cheap as possible (and it HAS gone on sale a bunch lately), and supplement that with optional microtransactions and new characters purchasable with in-game money. It's almost deliberately trying to avoid the pay2win BS that has plagued a lot of supply drop games for a while now.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Do you know what happens to games that get a lot of free content with no financial support nowadays? They get dropped off the face of the earth. It happened to Need For Speed, it happened to DriveClub, and it would happen to Siege. I realize that this isn't as ideal as getting everything all in one shot, but your argument basically boils down to "I should get this for free because they have too much money".

this is just not true, devs used to release content for free all the time until like 2010. this is not a dig at all at you, but did you just recently start to play online games? right off the top of my head: CS:GO and DOTA2 have all the actual gameplay content up-front. Just yesterday my brother & I were talking about how CoD4 on the PC had all the maps released for free, and they wanted to do the same thing on Xbox, but Microsoft forced them to charge money for the maps because they did not approve of free DLC. there are a ton more games i can probably think of when i am not at work.

My argument is that obviously Ubisoft does not need Rainbow Six Operator sales in order to allow them to support this game for 3 years (which is occasionally making a map or a new character), that is just a bullshit PR response.

All of this boils down to my point below of having some sort of expectations for the product you buy. having to play 30+ hours to unlock a character in a game you purchased is ludicrous and any justification for this practice is coming from a company that is looking out for their bottom line. what benefit does this offer YOU, the consumer?
---

CS GO also is basically ground zero for all the microtransaction loot BS (even moreso since some skins are worth boatloads of real money), so I'm not sure if that's the best example.

I don't think anyone expected new maps or operators as often as the ones that has been coming out, nor do I remember any promotion of those when the game first came out, so my expectations were probably tapered as a result.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Nazanir posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Mako_Sharknado posted...

I 'on't have any problems with Overwatch's Loot Boxes

$0.50 has been deposited into your account by ActivisionBlizzard Inc.

Honestly, I agree. There is nothing in Overwatch's loot boxes but cosmetics. No weapons, armor or other items that have stats. Only cosmetics, that have no impact on the game.

It doesn't matter if they're just cosmetic, microtranactions do not belong in a game you paid full price for.

Especially when their existence in the game only benefits publishers

Those microtransactions are keeping the games real content free for everyone (Maps,Characters, and Modes), So no, It doesn't just benefit the Publishers.
---