Current Events > The reason why loot boxes exist now? Fiduciary Duty...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/2aFzTPtw3uw?t=53m44s

TLDR : Publicly traded companies have a legal duty to do what is best for business, meaning to profit. Legally speaking, the directors and board MUST take "reasonable care" towards maximizing profits. Once market trends have been identified, most game companies HAVE to follow them, otherwise they are not doing the legally responsible thing.
---

need money for stock buybacks
---

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage
---

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

This doesn't happen because for every 100 people who won't buy it, there's 1 whale willing to spend more than enough money to make up for it.
---

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
---

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

Then they have to follow new market trends, unless they can legally prove what they are doing now is reasonable.

A company like Nintendo, who has been successful for decades in the business, can kinda do what they want as they have shown in a legal sense that they are always profitable. Other companies don't really have that luxury, and when something comes along that is proven to be monumentally profitable, they have a legal obligation to look at it and see if they can make more money using it.

Blizzard has proven loot boxes work, over a long period of time. Thus, other companies are kinda legally forced to follow suit.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

I read something once that stated that in games with loot boxes/gacha microtransactions somewhere along the lines of 98% of the money is spent by around 1% of the player base.

So if a game makes $100 and has 100 people playing, one guy spent $98 while 2 people spent $1 and 97 people spent nothing.
---

Rikiaz posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

I read something once that stated that in games with loot boxes/gatcha microtransactions somewhere along the lines of 98% of the money is spent by around 1% of the player base.

So if a game makes $100 and has 100 people playing, one guy spent $98 while 2 people spent $1 and 97 people spent nothing.

Thats a pretty interesting stat. Do you remember the source, by chance? Id like to read more about this.
---

CookieMarvin posted...

Rikiaz posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

I read something once that stated that in games with loot boxes/gatcha microtransactions somewhere along the lines of 98% of the money is spent by around 1% of the player base.

So if a game makes $100 and has 100 people playing, one guy spent $98 while 2 people spent $1 and 97 people spent nothing.

Thats a pretty interesting stat. Do you remember the source, by chance? Id like to read more about this.

I originally saw the source on /r/gaming so I might not be able to find it but I'll do a few quick searches.

Not it but here is an article about mobile games specifically: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mobile-gaming-micropayments-who-pays
---

Modern video games are not good. Gaming is past it's prime.
---

Rikiaz posted...

CookieMarvin posted...

Rikiaz posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

I read something once that stated that in games with loot boxes/gatcha microtransactions somewhere along the lines of 98% of the money is spent by around 1% of the player base.

So if a game makes $100 and has 100 people playing, one guy spent $98 while 2 people spent $1 and 97 people spent nothing.

Thats a pretty interesting stat. Do you remember the source, by chance? Id like to read more about this.

I originally saw the source on /r/gaming so I might not be able to find it but I'll do a few quick searches.

Not it but here is an article about mobile games specifically: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mobile-gaming-micropayments-who-pays

Cool, thanks!
---

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.
---

Drpooplol posted...

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.

If a board of directors believes/knows they can make more money changing their game in a way that is easy to do, are you saying that they don't have a responsibility legally to make that change? Until market trends show that the impact of that change is overall negative (either to company reputation or in sales), they kinda have to try and do it, don't they?

Shadow of War and their loot boxes, for example. If this model makes them more money than they made from the original title, wouldn't that mean that they have made the right decision in terms of making profits?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Drpooplol posted...

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.

If a board of directors believes/knows they can make more money changing their game in a way that is easy to do, are you saying that they don't have a responsibility legally to make that change? Until market trends show that the impact of that change is overall negative (either to company reputation or in sales), they kinda have to try and do it, don't they?

Shadow of War and their loot boxes, for example. If this model makes them more money than they made from the original title, wouldn't that mean that they have made the right decision in terms of making profits?

That's the worst part about it. They did make the right decision in terms of making profits. Which makes it a garbage environment for gamers who want actually good games. That's why 9 out of the last 10 games I've bought have been indie games from devs that wanted to put their heart and soul into the game rather than maximize profits.
---

How does a videogame company make money inbetween games? Loot boxes keep families fed.

Rikiaz posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Drpooplol posted...

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.

If a board of directors believes/knows they can make more money changing their game in a way that is easy to do, are you saying that they don't have a responsibility legally to make that change? Until market trends show that the impact of that change is overall negative (either to company reputation or in sales), they kinda have to try and do it, don't they?

Shadow of War and their loot boxes, for example. If this model makes them more money than they made from the original title, wouldn't that mean that they have made the right decision in terms of making profits?

That's the worst part about it. They did make the right decision in terms of making profits. Which makes it a garbage environment for gamers who want actually good games. That's why 9 out of the last 10 games I've bought have been indie games from devs that wanted to put their heart and soul into the game rather than maximize profits.

Independent game studios can follow their own desires when making a game because they aren't legally beholden to those who hold stakes in the company... they own it themselves. They could make a game for entirely personal reasons. It does work for a lot of them, and crowd funding shows that there is still a market for good 'ol single player experiences.

Just not the kind of money EA and Activision and others are seeing with current market trends. It will die out eventually, probably within a year or two. Remember when EA did their whole online pass, so if you bought a used game you couldn't play online without buying a pass? That lasted all of about 3 years before they realized their company was being damaged by the negative press.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Drpooplol posted...

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.

If a board of directors believes/knows they can make more money changing their game in a way that is easy to do, are you saying that they don't have a responsibility legally to make that change? Until market trends show that the impact of that change is overall negative (either to company reputation or in sales), they kinda have to try and do it, don't they?

Shadow of War and their loot boxes, for example. If this model makes them more money than they made from the original title, wouldn't that mean that they have made the right decision in terms of making profits?

This is still one of the loosest and worst interpretations of business I've seen. Granted it's not as bad as the overzealous crowd who fights oil companies and the like, they can really reach past their goals and into obnoxious territory
---

Rikiaz posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Drpooplol posted...

This is one of the worst business interpretations I have ever seen.

If a board of directors believes/knows they can make more money changing their game in a way that is easy to do, are you saying that they don't have a responsibility legally to make that change? Until market trends show that the impact of that change is overall negative (either to company reputation or in sales), they kinda have to try and do it, don't they?

Shadow of War and their loot boxes, for example. If this model makes them more money than they made from the original title, wouldn't that mean that they have made the right decision in terms of making profits?

That's the worst part about it. They did make the right decision in terms of making profits. Which makes it a garbage environment for gamers who want actually good games. That's why 9 out of the last 10 games I've bought have been indie games from devs that wanted to put their heart and soul into the game rather than maximize profits.

Which is why corporation based capitalism is not actually beneficial for the consumer.
---

Rikiaz posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

What happens when these moneymaking tactics wind up resulting in lower profits due to consumer outrage

I read something once that stated that in games with loot boxes/gacha microtransactions somewhere along the lines of 98% of the money is spent by around 1% of the player base.

So if a game makes $100 and has 100 people playing, one guy spent $98 while 2 people spent $1 and 97 people spent nothing.

Yeah, microtransactions basically exist purely for rich people and people with extreme gambling tendencies.
---

This is why we should get rid of capitalism. This mindset is toxic and is harming gaming

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Blizzard has proven loot boxes work, over a long period of time.

what blizz games have lootboxes again?

overwatch and later hots with its 2.0 update.

this is also where shit hits the fan because there's a vast difference between how lootboxes are handled.

blizz managed to make them non-intrusive to the gameplay(OW) or not requiring any initial investment at all(hots since it's f2p) whereas everybody else seems to only look at profitability and basically do the exact opposite of blizz by making them intrusive to gameplay AND requiring an initial investment.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

This is why we should get rid of capitalism. This mindset is toxic and is harming gaming

What great games was the USSR releasing while capitalist countries like the US and Japan were making games like Pac Man, Ultima, and Super Mario Bros?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Thus, other companies are kinda legally forced to follow suit.

Now this is shitposting
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

This is why we should get rid of capitalism. This mindset is toxic and is harming gaming

What great games was the USSR releasing while capitalist countries like the US and Japan were making games like Pac Man, Ultima, and Super Mario Bros?

Japan isn't putting this shit in their games, only the US is.

ZombiePelican posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Thus, other companies are kinda legally forced to follow suit.

Now this is shitposting

Not ALL companies have to do all this stuff, but if they have discovered they can make more money doing this, they have to explore it and see.

A company like Naughty Dog, who has proven that their single player based experiences make money (plus their partnership with Sony) will allow them basically free reign to do whatever they want.
---