Current Events > For gamers who don't understand why publishers are pushing lootboxes and GaaS

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/16/october-2017-npd-middle-earth-shadow-of-war-emerges-with-the-one-ring-of-top-sales/

Games with microtransactions/loot boxes are in bold

Best selling games in October 2017 in the US
1. Middle-earth: Shadow of War
2. Assassins Creed: Origins
3. Super Mario Odyssey**
4. South Park: The Fractured But Whole
5. NBA 2K18
6. FIFA 18
7. WWE 2K18
8. Madden NFL 18
9. Destiny 2*
10. Forza Motorsport 7
11. Gran Turismo Sport
12. Grand Theft Auto V
13. The Evil Within 2**
14. Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus**
15. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
16. Mario Kart 8**
17. Fire Emblem: Warriors**
18. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
19. NHL 18
20. Tom Clancys Rainbow Six: Siege

Top selling games for 2017 so far
1. Destiny 2*
2. NBA 2K18
3. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
4. Madden NFL 18
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. For Honor
8. Horizon Zero Dawn
9. Injustice 2
10 .Mario Kart 8

Best selling games in the last 12 months
1. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
2. Destiny 2*
3. Battlefield 1
4. Grand Theft Auto V
5. NBA 2K18
6. NBA 2K17
7. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
8. Madden NFL 18
9. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
10. Final Fantasy XV

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general. They not only sell a shitload but they consistently sell a shitload for a long time. Remember that these sales are before anyone has even spent a cent on lootboxes. So even if you buy a game that includes them but don't spend a single cent you're still encouraging this model. Because developers and publishers know that it doesn't impact sales.

Complaining on social media accomplishes nothing. The only thing that will actually lead to change is if other games become more successful than any of the titles put in bold here. So good luck with that. At this point the market themselves are wanting this stuff in games.
---

I'm hoping this whole EA backlash will curb some of the more atrocious tendencies of big game publishers. You know what they say though; hope into one hand, shit into the other and see which one fills up first.
---

Your last line is the most accurate part. The broad market wants it. The outspoken opponents are a very small group relative to the size of the market. Fortunately, they can find other games that they do like, and purchase those instead.
---

Darmik posted...

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general.

I'm not so sure the bold is true. There is no doubt the market is accepting of them but I do doubt that people purchase games because they include loot boxes. They are popular because of how much money they make after the games are already sold.

I see a lot of popular titles on that list that would have been successful games whether or not they had loot boxes in them. Loot boxes are included because of how much money they make for the publishers not so much because they are marketable features.
---

At this point the market themselves are wanting this stuff in games.

wanting games to play =/= wanting microtransactions in games.

it's the same thing with the recent trend of superhero movies making up the absolute bulk of big blockbusters throughout the year.

the choices come down to avoiding watching big popcorn flicks as much as before, even though your interest in them has only gotten bigger, or keep watching them knowing that the superhero theme is a necessary evil to get the type of entertainment and adventure that big blockbusters usually provide.
---

whitelytning posted...

Darmik posted...

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general.

I'm not so sure the bold is true. There is no doubt the market is accepting of them but I do doubt that people purchase games because they include loot boxes. They are popular because of how much money they make after the games are already sold.

I see a lot of popular titles on that list that would have been successful games whether or not they had loot boxes in them. Loot boxes are included because of how much money they make for the publishers not so much because they are marketable features.

Loot boxes specifically? No. Games as a service? Yep. Games as a service rely on post launch support which is funded via additional spending. Right now the most popular model for these titles are lootbox microtransactions.

Overwatch and Rainbow Six Siege are the best examples. It gets sales from launch hype. Then it gets sales for people to play with their friends enjoying the game. It continues to get sales as they add more content and that leads to more people buying it to play with friends. These games are now being supported for 3+ years because of the additional money from lootboxes and microtransactions.

Meanwhile games that are $60 one and done are barely selling because people are waiting for a price drop. It has to be a massive game for it to succeed. Not really sure what can change the tide.

If Rainbow Six Siege had a traditional model like the old days (like Vegas) it probably would have bombed hard.
---

How does this prove it leads to more software sales? If anything it just shows how saturated the games are with this type of business model.
---

Darmik posted...

https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/16/october-2017-npd-middle-earth-shadow-of-war-emerges-with-the-one-ring-of-top-sales/

Games with microtransactions/loot boxes are in bold

Best selling games in October 2017 in the US
1. Middle-earth: Shadow of War
2. Assassins Creed: Origins
3. Super Mario Odyssey**
4. South Park: The Fractured But Whole
5. NBA 2K18
6. FIFA 18
7. WWE 2K18
8. Madden NFL 18
9. Destiny 2*
10. Forza Motorsport 7
11. Gran Turismo Sport
12. Grand Theft Auto V
13. The Evil Within 2**
14. Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus**
15. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
16. Mario Kart 8**
17. Fire Emblem: Warriors**
18. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
19. NHL 18
20. Tom Clancys Rainbow Six: Siege

Top selling games for 2017 so far
1. Destiny 2*
2. NBA 2K18
3. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
4. Madden NFL 18
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. For Honor
8. Horizon Zero Dawn
9. Injustice 2
10 .Mario Kart 8

Best selling games in the last 12 months
1. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
2. Destiny 2*
3. Battlefield 1
4. Grand Theft Auto V
5. NBA 2K18
6. NBA 2K17
7. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
8. Madden NFL 18
9. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild**
10. Final Fantasy XV

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general. They not only sell a shitload but they consistently sell a shitload for a long time. Remember that these sales are before anyone has even spent a cent on lootboxes. So even if you buy a game that includes them but don't spend a single cent you're still encouraging this model. Because developers and publishers know that it doesn't impact sales.

Complaining on social media accomplishes nothing. The only thing that will actually lead to change is if other games become more successful than any of the titles put in bold here. So good luck with that. At this point the market themselves are wanting this stuff in games.

Assassins creed origins has microtransactions too.
---

This doesn't necessarilly indicate that microtransactions make games more successful. Correlation doesn't equal causation, after all.

It could just as easily be inferred that developers are more likely to include microtransactions in top-selling series or games projected to do well because they are more likely to see high profit relative to development cost, which makes more sense from a logical standpoint than the idea that gamers somehow prefer games with microtransactions even when they don't use them.
---

It always makes me cringe when people complain about microtransactions and how toxic the industry has become after purchasing the game.

I know it's been mentioned, but if 100% of the market just boycotted games that had lootboxes/microtransactions in them and they weren't profitable, the next games that come out wouldn't have them as features.
The world won't end if you miss a single Star Wars or Lord of the Rings title. I've got a pretty strict "No DLC" policy and I don't purchase anything but the base game when I grab a game, nor do I purchase titles that have lootboxes or micro-ts as features.

And I don't mean to sound like I'm standing on a high horse or anything, but there are still plenty of games to play - more than I'll ever have time to. I know I miss out on some cool DLC sometimes, but it's nothing less than a complete boycott of a sector of the market that sends a clear message. I think it would do a lot of good for gaming if others felt the same.
---

I'll still buy games with them if they don't actually affect the game in any way

Like Shadow of War and AC Origins
---

DarthAragorn posted...

I'll still buy games with them if they don't actually affect the game in any way

Like Shadow of War and AC Origins

I beat and nearly 100% ac origins and never spent a dime on the microtransactions.
---

snake1989 posted...

This doesn't necessarilly indicate that microtransactions make games more successful. Correlation doesn't equal causation, after all.

It could just as easily be inferred that developers are more likely to include microtransactions in top-selling series or games projected to do well because they are more likely to see high profit relative to development cost, which makes more sense from a logical standpoint than the idea that gamers somehow prefer games with microtransactions even when they don't use them.

I dunno. If Wolfenstein 2 and Evil Within 2 had a multiplayer mode with this stuff it would have probably sold way more.

For single player open world games it's just bonus money for them.
---

Jorep posted...

I've got a pretty strict "No DLC" policy

Why?
---

I do agree that players seem to support games as a service. While I disagree with certain business practices and want them excised, I think we're going to have to accept the traditional game just Isn't going to exist with regards to multiplayer games. We're seeing what people always thought sports games should do. Support a game for years with free content updates and lower-than-full-price add-ons rather than release a new one. "Everything should be on disc day 1" isn't going to make sense for games that are now planned to have 3-5+ and actually get players to keep coming back.

You can say "Well making a good game keeps people coming back! Fuck the low attention span casuals!" But most players of any form are going to lose interest over time if nothing changes and nothing is added.

So yeah, buying all the Destiny expansions might cost as much as two games, but Activision would just be turning that into several $60 games in the traditional model, which would arguably a worse thing.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Jorep posted...

I've got a pretty strict "No DLC" policy

Why?

I don't like it as a business model. I know there's many reasons it's good for the developer and I'm definitely not going to argue that there isn't good DLC - I've seen super cool downloadable campaigns in games and other add-ons that I could argue are worth their price. But as a whole I think it's problematic and I don't want to support the model in any way.
Time was you'd pick up a game and there was all sorts of neat hidden content like extra costumes, or a bonus mission upon completing the game, etc. You bought a complete package. Nowadays there's a season pass before the game is even out, you can pre-order for special downloadable costumes that otherwise cost 4 or 5 bucks, etc.

The game I purchase is the package and if I'm expected to pay more than that entry price to enjoy it, I'm just gonna take my business elsewhere. I have picked up game of the year editions and etc that have DLC included and I'm okay with that, but I'm never going to spend more on top of the price I pay for the game to add to it.
---

Jorep posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Jorep posted...

I've got a pretty strict "No DLC" policy

Why?

I don't like it as a business model. I know there's many reasons it's good for the developer and I'm definitely not going to argue that there isn't good DLC - I've seen super cool downloadable campaigns in games and other add-ons that I could argue are worth their price. But as a whole I think it's problematic and I don't want to support the model in any way.
Time was you'd pick up a game and there was all sorts of neat hidden content like extra costumes, or a bonus mission upon completing the game, etc. You bought a complete package. Nowadays there's a season pass before the game is even out, you can pre-order for special downloadable costumes that otherwise cost 4 or 5 bucks, etc.

The game I purchase is the package and if I'm expected to pay more than that entry price to enjoy it, I'm just gonna take my business elsewhere. I have picked up game of the year editions and etc that have DLC included and I'm okay with that, but I'm never going to spend more on top of the price I pay for the game to add to it.

Passing on everything without question doesn't necessarily make you a savvy consumer either though. I don't think people need to pass on things like Witcher 3 and Skyrim expansions to show businesses that they don't like costume packs and pre-order missions. There is no old days where brand new, lengthy stories unrelated to vanilla plot, that may not even star the same character, were commonplace on disc. If you think the message should be "no microtransactions and pre-order bonuses" than people should focus their anger and their lack of spending on those. This is why slippery slope arguments are dumb. No one buying games at all would definitely stop microtransactions. It also wouldn't specify what the problem was. Regardless of intention, it would sound more like "We don't like video games" than "We don't like certain companies doing certain things."
---

I think it depends on just how much you value the necessity of each individual experience. I played Witcher 3 and thoroughly enjoyed it, and since they released a game of the year edition that included the DLC I was able to experience it. Had I jumped in earlier, I'd have just gone without the DLC and played Witcher 3, which was a fantastic title on its own.
I think a lot of the problem with the gaming community in general is that people are far too scared of missing out on these experiences because of the culture we've engendered. And if you had asked me 10 years ago I'd absolutely be a part of it. With a child's mindset I would think "oh my god, if I miss the boat on this new Battlefront game I won't be a part of the Star Wars zeitgeist and I can't contribute to the discussion!"

Today I'm just like yeah I like Star Wars but screw that Battlefront game. Maybe I'll pick up the next game if they do it better.
Microtransactions and lootboxes are definitely the most toxic form of downloadable content available, but I'm against the practice in any form that isn't a full-on expansion pack. So because of that I won't purchase any DLC, and I'm comfortable missing out on a couple hours of content here or there. If it's vital story content (which it very rarely is), I can look up a Wikipedia summary.
---

Blitz4532 posted...

I'm hoping this whole EA backlash will curb some of the more atrocious tendencies of big game publishers. You know what they say though; hope into one hand, shit into the other and see which one fills up first.

nah theres enough fucking fanboys that will still buy and defend this fleecing

they are the real disease that need to be stamped out
---

Jorep posted...

I think it depends on just how much you value the necessity of each individual experience. I played Witcher 3 and thoroughly enjoyed it, and since they released a game of the year edition that included the DLC I was able to experience it. Had I jumped in earlier, I'd have just gone without the DLC and played Witcher 3, which was a fantastic title on its own.
I think a lot of the problem with the gaming community in general is that people are far too scared of missing out on these experiences because of the culture we've engendered. And if you had asked me 10 years ago I'd absolutely be a part of it. With a child's mindset I would think "oh my god, if I miss the boat on this new Battlefront game I won't be a part of the Star Wars zeitgeist and I can't contribute to the discussion!"

Today I'm just like yeah I like Star Wars but screw that Battlefront game. Maybe I'll pick up the next game if they do it better.
Microtransactions and lootboxes are definitely the most toxic form of downloadable content available, but I'm against the practice in any form that isn't a full-on expansion pack. So because of that I won't purchase any DLC, and I'm comfortable missing out on a couple hours of content here or there. If it's vital story content (which it very rarely is), I can look up a Wikipedia summary.

But that's dumb. Microtransactions, on-disc DLC, day-one DLC, and lootboxes sure, but it's stupid to pass up DLC when it's fucking good. Almost all of Mass Effect's DLS, all of the Dragon Age series DLC...
---

Didn't Ubisoft make the majority of their money off of loot crates/micro transactions or something?
---

ITT: The games listed were only successful because of microtransactions and not because they're really popular
---

Not only does correlation not imply causation, making this topic uneducated shit, the outcry got Disney to notice and they got EA to stop.

Microtransactions are not coming back in anything but cosmetic form. If they just return to how it was before they shut them off, sure, there's some point. But once Disney's image is threatened with things like gambling accusations, there's no way in hell Disney is gonna ok turning them back on.

This sends a message to all publishers that customers will fight back when policies get too bad.
---

That's a lot of words to say "capitalism"
---

Antifar posted...

That's a lot of words to say "capitalism"

Shut the fuck up, "It's just Capitalism" or any variation of that does not excuse or justify predatory and downright shady business practices
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Antifar posted...

That's a lot of words to say "capitalism"

Shut the fuck up, "It's just Capitalism" or any variation of that does not excuse or justify predatory and downright shady business practices

Then go write to your representative. Bitching on CE won't change how the system works.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

"It's just Capitalism" or any variation of that does not excuse or justify predatory and downright shady business practices

You are 100% correct.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

ITT: The games listed were only successful because of microtransactions and not because they're really popular

The topic is about both microtransactions and Games as a Service. The latter is popular and generally kept alive by microtransactions.

LockeMonster posted...

Not only does correlation not imply causation, making this topic uneducated shit, the outcry got Disney to notice and they got EA to stop.

Microtransactions are not coming back in anything but cosmetic form. If they just return to how it was before they shut them off, sure, there's some point. But once Disney's image is threatened with things like gambling accusations, there's no way in hell Disney is gonna ok turning them back on.

This sends a message to all publishers that customers will fight back when policies get too bad.

Cosmetic microtransactions are still microtransactions. I think you're getting our hopes up though. People are critical over Star Wars.
---

For Honor was a #7 best selling game of 2017? I call bullshit
---

dave_is_slick posted...

But that's dumb. Microtransactions, on-disc DLC, day-one DLC, and lootboxes sure, but it's stupid to pass up DLC when it's fucking good. Almost all of Mass Effect's DLS, all of the Dragon Age series DLC...

While I disagree about the quality of Mass Effect's DLC (I loved the series, but most of the DLC I found either extraneous or content that should have been in the game anyway, like in 3's case with the extra party member), I do agree that there is good DLC.

But I'm okay passing it up. It's not the end of the world to miss a couple experiences in favor of others. I could take that $15 I might spend on a 2 hour long DLC and purchase an entire game with it elsewhere.
Sometimes you just gotta stick to your guns and even though there is theoretically good DLC, I won't be playing any of it because I don't do DLC.

My game is the package that I pay for, and I'm not paying for anymore than that.
---

Darmik posted...

The topic is about both microtransactions and Games as a Service. The latter is popular and generally kept alive by microtransactions.

But you're implying that microtransactions are the reason these games are popular or have devoted communities around them years after launch, which is complete and udder bullshit. But it's you so of course you're going to side with your precious multibillion dollar corporations

Games like Dying Light that have no microtransactions or abusive DLC practices are getting FREE content updates because people are still playing them years after launch put a hole in your shit rhetoric
---

ZombiePelican posted...

But you're implying that microtransactions are the reason these games are popular or have devoted communities around them years after launch, which is complete and udder bullshit.

That's really not the point I got from this topic.

He's saying that popular high selling games have microtransactions in them. Considering it cost basically next to nothing to add microtransactions to a game and how much they make. It's also pretty safe to say that microtransactions are not enough of a deterrent to stop games from selling well.

This means that companies lose basically nothing to add them in while making a lot from them.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

But you're implying that microtransactions are the reason these games are popular or have devoted communities around them years after launch, which is complete and udder bullshit.

That's really not the point I got from this topic.

He's saying that popular high selling games have microtransactions in them. Considering it cost basically next to nothing to add microtransactions to a game and how much they make. It's also pretty safe to say that microtransactions are not enough of a deterrent to stop games from selling well.

This means that companies lose basically nothing to add them in while making a lot from them.

Yep. That Games as a Service is also a hugely popular model too.

$60 single player games are struggling more and more. $60 one and done video games aren't even really being released anymore. Last I can remember is Prey and that flopped.

ZombiePelican posted...

Games like Dying Light that have no microtransactions or abusive DLC practices are getting FREE content updates because people are still playing them years after launch put a hole in your s*** rhetoric

Didn't Dying Light have an expansion pass that they raised the price for?
---

Darmik posted...

Cosmetic microtransactions are still microtransactions. I think you're getting our hopes up though. People are critical over Star Wars.

Ok and? The community said theyre cool with cosmetics and if they go with that, the consumers will have won.

And Disney doesnt screw around with their image or properties especially with The Last Jedi around the corner. So its not hard to imagine it wont return outside cosmetics. Of course anything is possible.
---

Darmik posted...

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general. They not only sell a shitload but they consistently sell a shitload for a long time. Remember that these sales are before anyone has even spent a cent on lootboxes. So even if you buy a game that includes them but don't spend a single cent you're still encouraging this model. Because developers and publishers know that it doesn't impact sales.

You have this backwards. Publishers are putting them in games they know will be certified hits. The only thing this list shows is that loot boxes haven't been detrimental to a game's success yet(until Battlefront 2's release, that is).
---

LockeMonster posted...

Darmik posted...

Cosmetic microtransactions are still microtransactions. I think you're getting our hopes up though. People are critical over Star Wars.

Ok and? The community said theyre cool with cosmetics and if they go with that, the consumers will have won.

Not everyone agrees with this. People outright don't find lootboxes that consumer friendly and they have a point.

Also all EA have done is remove the option to buy in-game currency with real world money temporarily. They haven't said anything about changing to a cosmetic only model.

If I were to guess the biggest change will be that it's easier to unlock heroes.

LockeMonster posted...

And Disney doesnt screw around with their image or properties especially with The Last Jedi around the corner. So its not hard to imagine it wont return outside cosmetics. Of course anything is possible.

If the controversy blows over and the game sells like crazy Disney won't care.
---

Alucard188 posted...

Darmik posted...

Not only are these models successful they are leading to more software sales in general. They not only sell a shitload but they consistently sell a shitload for a long time. Remember that these sales are before anyone has even spent a cent on lootboxes. So even if you buy a game that includes them but don't spend a single cent you're still encouraging this model. Because developers and publishers know that it doesn't impact sales.

You have this backwards. Publishers are putting them in games they know will be certified hits. The only thing this list shows is that loot boxes haven't been detrimental to a game's success yet(until Battlefront 2's release, that is).

Rainbow Six Siege, For Honor and Ghost Recon Wildlands were not certified hits. I don't think Siege or For Honor would have worked with a traditional release model.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

That's really not the point I got from this topic.

Well you're the same in that you put corporations before people so that's no surprise

Tmaster148 posted...

He's saying that popular high selling games have microtransactions in them.

Because they're already popular games that couldn't fail even with the stigma of microtransactions attached to them, are you going to tell me with a straight face that CoD or Fifa could ever fail?

Tmaster148 posted...

Considering it cost basically next to nothing to add microtransactions to a game and how much they make. It's also pretty safe to say that microtransactions are not enough of a deterrent to stop games from selling well.

For now, but we're starting to see the cracks as publishers continue to push them more and more farther to be directly tied to the games themselves like with NBA 2K18 or Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Tmaster148 posted...

This means that companies lose basically nothing to add them in while making a lot from them.

Aside from the good will and trust of consumers
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Well you're the same in that you put corporations before people so that's no surprise

Ah the classic ZP's your a corporate shill, because someone doesn't 100% agree with you.
---

Darmik posted...

. I don't think Siege or For Honor would have worked with a traditional release model.

Online games have been popular for years before microtransactions were even invented, microansactions have dick to do with their success
---

Darmik posted...

Rainbow Six Siege, For Honor and Ghost Recon Wildlands were not certified hits. I don't think Siege or For Honor would have worked with a traditional release model.

For Honor was a new IP from Ubisoft, and had a fair amount of hype out of E3. It launched with a high barrier of entry, and its player base dropped off pretty damn quickly after launch. Rainbow Six Siege is a squad-based shooter (very popular genre), and is a pretty solid game to boot. Basically, Ubisoft is going to hammer microtransactions into all of their games, because generally their games do very well. All of the big publishers are doing this.
---

Darmik posted...

LockeMonster posted...

Darmik posted...

Cosmetic microtransactions are still microtransactions. I think you're getting our hopes up though. People are critical over Star Wars.

Ok and? The community said theyre cool with cosmetics and if they go with that, the consumers will have won.

Not everyone agrees with this. People outright don't find lootboxes that consumer friendly and they have a point.

Also all EA have done is remove the option to buy in-game currency with real world money temporarily. They haven't said anything about changing to a cosmetic only model.

If I were to guess the biggest change will be that it's easier to unlock heroes.

LockeMonster posted...

And Disney doesnt screw around with their image or properties especially with The Last Jedi around the corner. So its not hard to imagine it wont return outside cosmetics. Of course anything is possible.

If the controversy blows over and the game sells like crazy Disney won't care.

Were not talking about 100% agreement. The majority of the reddit thread that started this has people saying cosmetics is fine. Its not black and white like youre making it.

Disney cares about image, not money. They are at the top of the world already and they will shoot themselves to portray the image they want. Right now they dont like Fox having X-Men and F4 so theyve put unnecessary restrictions on Marvel to limit the exposure of mutants and the like. To the point they lose money because ultimately they still own them.

And it becoming cosmetic is speculation obviously, and its based off these facts and behaviors of the parent company. Im not saying its 100% happening. Its about them not taking chances that will affect Episode 8 or its enjoyment in any way.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

For now, but we're starting to see the cracks as publishers continue to push them more and more farther to be directly tied to the games themselves like with NBA 2K18 or Star Wars Battlefront 2.

NBA is consistently one of the best selling games each year even though this stuff is getting more blatant.

ZombiePelican posted...

Aside from the good will and trust of consumers

Who are buying the games anyway?

ZombiePelican posted...

Online games have been popular for years before microtransactions were even invented, microansactions have dick to do with their success

Would something that used the model of Halo 2 (no progression mechanics, unlocks and paid map packs) be successful today?
---