Ghost Recon: Wildlands Gets In On Predatory Loot Boxes

[AlTech]

Notes to Mods: I haven't seen any topics in TNR topic on this. if there is one then please merge them. Thanks.

 

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands is now cashing in on the Loot Boxes phenomenon. A phenomenon where Game Developers and publishers are so greedy that they add Online Casinos within their video games to benefit from the misery of their loyal customers.

 

Ubisoft is no stranger to Micro-transactions, what enables Loot Boxes to be purchased using real world money in many games, but this is definitely insulting to say the least.

 

Ubisoft starts off by pretentiously trying to make the user feel bad for Ubisoft because of how much "Free Updates" Ubisoft has provided their Micro-transaction filled Live Service Game as part of Games As A Service (from herein called "GAaS"). In reality, these updates were only pushed to get players back into the game.

 

Quote

Since the Ghost Recon Wildlands launch nine months ago, the development team has brought you 11 title updates to improve the game based on player feedback, free new content including the legend missions for the Predator, or El Tio, and Ghost War – an all-new PvP experience free to everyone. Of course, we’re not stopping, here, as we are planning continued support for both the campaign mode and Ghost War.

 

And as the cliche goes in the AAA games industry, if the player base is dying and there is still money to be made, every last nickel and dime must be squeezed out of every last player's wallet until the game is dead.

 

And of course the "It's just optional" bullshit makes an appearance yet again (a common theme for AAA Casino Simulators released in 2017) under different wording.

Quote

Coming with the next Ghost Recon Wildlands update, Extended Ops, we will be introducing Battle Crates that are designed to offer you an additionnal and accessible way to complete your cosmetic customization experience, for both the Campaign and Ghost War modes. The Extended Ops update will be released for free before the end of the month for all platforms. Stay tuned for more details about the content of the update coming soon.

Throughout the development of the Battle Crates, we made sure the implementation is fair in terms of the items given to players, while also ensuring that they have zero impact on gameplay and player’s progression. Below you will find an F.A.Q. that will further detail the new store implementation.

 

Each Battle Crate will allegedly cost 400 Store Credits - a Virtual Currency used an in intermediary between Real World Money and Slot Machine Gambling.

 

The exact cost per loot box isn't officially provided but players can purchase 800 Store Credits for $5 USD. Therefore putting the unofficial price of 1 Loot Box at $2.50 USD, a common price for loot box keys and loot boxes in other games.

 

Oh and there's 2 types of Battle Crates so you'll really need to dig out that cheque book while you're at it if you really want all the items that the game has to offer now.

 

Quote

Spec Ops Crates contain Epic Weapons, Exotic Weapons, Vehicles and tons of cosmetic items for you to enjoy even more in the whole Campaign mode," the FAQ says. "Ghost War Crates contain Exotic Weapons (re-skinned versions of weapons already available in the game – no impact on the weapon stats), customization items and an exclusive new line of skins for your character, called Icons

 

As Jim Sterling notes, even Cosmetic Loot Boxes are not acceptable and are still not good enough. The only good solution is to remove Loot Boxes.

 

If Ubisoft needed revenue to continue to pay for AAA Live Service Games because "AAA games are too expensive" they should have just made it Free To Play and kept the Micro-transactions.

 

I wasn't gonna buy it before and still won't now. Oh well.

 

Sources:

http://www.pcgamer.com/ghost-recon-wildlands-is-getting-loot-boxes/

https://ghost-recon.ubisoft.com/wildlands/en-gb/news/detail.aspx?c=tcm:154-307406-16&ct=tcm:154-76770-32

[PCGuy_5960]

34 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

even Cosmetic Loot Boxes are not acceptable and are still not good enough. The only good solution is to remove Loot Boxes.

Idk, cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO (if the DLC is free), because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form and they are much better than paid DLC, as they don't split the player base. (Talking about online games)  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

EDIT: I've just realized that Ghost Recon Wildlands has microtransactions and paid DLC. Come on Ubisoft, this is not okay.

Edited January 25, 2018 by PCGuy_5960

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Idk, cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO, because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form and they are much better than paid DLC. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wow. Better than paid DLC? 

 

So a single Loot Crate is better than Witcher 3's Blood and Wine DLC?

 

<Sarcasm> <Joke> Shit. I can see the code in the matrix and you've got a future at Activision Blizzard Publishing Incorporated /sarcasm /joke

[Energycore]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO, because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form

It's just cosmetic!

 

Doesn't take away from the fact that they're made to look and work like slot machines. It's not like them being "just cosmetic" will make them less desirable. Publishers make billions selling skins. And at a lower cost than the cost of making a whole piece of playable DLC.

[Okjoek]

Damn, I was considering that game too since my friend gifted me R6 Siege. I've enjoyed playing it with them.

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It's just cosmetic!

 

Doesn't take away from the fact that they're made to look and work like slot machines. It's not like them being "just cosmetic" will make them less desirable. Publishers make billions selling skins. And at a lower cost than the cost of making a whole piece of playable DLC.

Yeah, also the suggestion that some people think that DLC is worse than Loot Boxes makes me want to throw up. That's just disgusting to see how users have been brainwashed and manipulated psychologically into accepting Loot Boxes.

[Energycore]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Yeah, also the suggestion that some people think that DLC is worse than Loot Boxes makes me want to throw up. That's just disgusting to see how much users have been brainwashed and manipulated psychologically into accepting Loot Boxes.

I wouldn't go as far as be nauseous about the topic

Spoiler

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like

[JediFragger]

14 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Idk, cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO, because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form

Have to agree here, if players are vain/dumb enough to plow a load of cash into vanity items then the developer can hardly be blamed. As long as it doesn't affect gameplay then that's fine with me.

 

Plus, someone has to pay for the 'free' updates!

[HarryNyquist]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Publishers make billions selling skins. And at a lower cost than the cost of making a whole piece of playable DLC.

Isn't that the point?

 

I might not like micro-transactions in a full AAA game, but they're concerned with a bottom line, and as EA so happily showed, the limit to lootboxing in a AAA game is progression-locking. And, as Overwatch (and to lesser extents, TF2/DotA2/LoL/CSGO) has shown, people love their virtual skins.

[Energycore]

Just now, HarryNyquist said:

Isn't that the point?

 

I might not like micro-transactions in a full AAA game, but they're concerned with a bottom line, and as EA so happily showed, the limit to lootboxing in a AAA game is progression-locking. And, as Overwatch (and to lesser extents, TF2/DotA2/LoL/CSGO) has shown, people love their virtual skins.

My point is that companies are already spending less money for similar gains as gameplay DLC, while turning in huge profits¹. As such there's no justification for including gambling-like loot boxes on top of that. It's not like these companies need the money.

 

¹ Speculative, no source

[mynameisjuan]

22 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Idk, cosmetic only loot boxes are fine IMO, because they do not affect gameplay in any way shape or form and they are much better than paid DLC, as they don't split the player base. (Talking about online games)  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So youll pay for a chance to have a hat for your character but not pay for 10-20 hours of additional and new gameplay? 

 

I could not care less about looks for my character as you said do not provide any impact to gameplay and have no desire to pay, I will pay for more game, because games are about....you know...gameplay

[Cyracus]

17 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Battle Crates... cosmetic customization experience, for both the Campaign and Ghost War modes... zero impact on gameplay and player’s progression

Literally couldn't care less, dev wanted to make more money, went and made cosmetic crap and implemented a way to get it that would ensure that they would make some money. Sure they could've implemented a pay per item scheme, but it's more likely they'll get a few more whales with the loot box scheme. Personally if it doesn't alter gameplay and it's not obtrusive and harassing, it doesn't matter. It's not like they're getting more accurate or higher damage guns or an objectively better game experience. Let devs make their easy money and maybe they'll be kind enough to stop using multiple layers of conflicting drm...

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Cyracus said:

Literally couldn't care less, dev wanted to make more money, went and made cosmetic crap and implemented a way to get it that would ensure that they would make some money. Sure they could've implemented a pay per item scheme, but it's more likely they'll get a few more whales with the loot box scheme. Personally if it doesn't alter gameplay and it's not obtrusive and harassing, it doesn't matter. It's not like they're getting more accurate or higher damage guns or an objectively better game experience. Let devs make their easy money and maybe they'll be kind enough to stop using multiple layers of conflicting drm...

Why are you defending these companies? They don't owe you anything.

 

Unregulated gambling occurring in Online Casino filled Video Games targeted at Minors is of questionable legality at best and completely unacceptable ethically and basically illegal at worst.

[HarryNyquist]

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Unregulated gambling occurring in Online Casino filled Video Games targeted at Minors is of questionable legality at best and completely unacceptable ethically and basically illegal at worst.

Targeting minors to participate in underage gambling is worse than minors being exposed to blatant softcore pornography?

On 12/10/2017 at 2:01 PM, AluminiumTech said:

Nobody is being harmed by most of these types of things on YouTube or Twitch.

 

 

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

snip

Well yes, I would say so. 

[Okjoek]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why are you defending these companies? They don't owe you anything.

 

Unregulated gambling occurring in Online Casino filled Video Games targeted at Minors is of questionable legality at best and completely unacceptable ethically and basically illegal at worst.

How do you feel companies that need to maintain online servers should fund them? If the game was literally just a one-stop payment wouldn't funding eventually slow down and dry up for server upkeep?

 

The only alternative off the top of my head to micro-transactions would be paid subscriptions.

I suppose there's the less evil "non-gambling" microtransactions too?

 

IDK I play Planetside 2 which has plenty of microtransactions and some of them are of the gambling nature, but I've been playing since 2015 without paying a cent.

[Cyracus]

8 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why are you defending these companies? They don't owe you anything.

No they don't, but I'm entitled to my own opinion on subjects, and I don't care if they offer cosmetic crap for people to purchase, nor do I care how they set it up.

11 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Unregulated gambling occurring in Online Casino filled Video Games targeted at Minors is of questionable legality at best and completely unacceptable ethically and basically illegal at worst

Well, being a parent, I'm not gonna buy my kids some cosmetic BS in a game, if they want to throw their money away on it I'm fine with that, and I can track how much they spend and use it to teach them about managing money. Oh and Wildlands is a M+ esrb rating, so it's targeted at 17+ so really more targeting young adults. "But parents buy their little 12 & 13 year old kids these games, so they're targeted too" you say, sure, some parents buy their kids games with a higher esrb than their kid fits, it's called parental discretion, but you can't blame game devs for that, and I know some kids find other ways around that, but again that's outside the devs control

[Ryujin2003]

So, as a parent, in 100% against Lootboxes. As someone who bought the premium version of the game, I'm super offended. I purchased the higher prices certain to give you additional money for a game I wanted, and I do not. I've purchased a couple of the weapons through the store to super as well. But the idea of random Lootboxes is garbage.

 

I feel pretty bad about it. They hanldnt Incorporated it yet, and hoped it would stay away.

 

Want money, do the season pass and give me all the lot stuff... Sounds great to me. Kind of like with Rainbow Six Siege.

[ItsMitch]

lol what u expect out of these greedy cunts, im not surprised if they pull this shit in far cry 5

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, Okjoek said:

How do you feel companies that need to maintain online servers should fund them? If the game was literally just a one-stop payment wouldn't funding eventually slow down and dry up for server upkeep?

Players will always want things (especially the invisible aspects that involve expensive upkeep costs...) for as little as they can justify them (to themselves, of course ); it's quite ingrained in human nature (maximizing reward outputs while minimizing cost inputs).

 

The end cost of games (with regards to the price consumers pay) have always been expensive after accounting for inflation, the difference now is that game developers have found ways to reduce the front loaded cost of the game (e.g. freemium, DLC, microtransactions) while simultaneously increasing the cap that players can spend:

• a game that has a $80-$100 price tag (in today's dollars) and no addons (DLC/microtransactions) will only generate... the sticker price for that game's lifetime per copy sold. Not to mention, the developer has shut off the market segment of players who are unable to pony up that comparatively high upfront cost.
• a game that costs $20 with microtransactions/DLC (the flavour and type of which is irrelevant at this point) not only reduces the barrier to entry (now the people who only have $20 to spend can participate as well), but increases the maximum amount that the players with more money can spend as well (the well-moneyed players who bought the game with no addons is only paying the sticker price, but with micro-transations now he can pay even more if the developer can find incentives for him to do so).

At the end of the day, the company (explicitly so for the publicly traded corporations) is only here to make money (the player's money) - profits (or rather, the continual increase in profits so as to deliver a good ROI to its investors) are king.

[apm]

1 hour ago, HarryNyquist said:

Targeting minors to participate in underage gambling is worse than minors being exposed to blatant softcore pornography?

oh no i can watch some fully clothed woman when hardcore porn is 2-3 clicks away. wah wah

[Dabombinable]

Remember: Micro-transactions in nearly all games are designed in a manner that manipulates people into buying them.  And they are primarily targeted at younger gamers/squeekers - despite the age rating of some games containing them being 15+.

[Drak3]

"Predatory."

[ItsMitch]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

"Predatory."

haHAA Predatory btw 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Cyracus said:

No they don't, but I'm entitled to my own opinion on subjects, and I don't care if they offer cosmetic crap for people to purchase, nor do I care how they set it up.

Well, being a parent, I'm not gonna buy my kids some cosmetic BS in a game, if they want to throw their money away on it I'm fine with that, and I can track how much they spend and use it to teach them about managing money. Oh and Wildlands is a M+ esrb rating, so it's targeted at 17+ so really more targeting young adults. "But parents buy their little 12 & 13 year old kids these games, so they're targeted too" you say, sure, some parents buy their kids games with a higher esrb than their kid fits, it's called parental discretion, but you can't blame game devs for that, and I know some kids find other ways around that, but again that's outside the devs control

The legal definition of a Minor is anybody under 21. So even 17 or 18 year olds (or heck even 19 and 20 year olds) shouldn't legally be able to use loot boxes no matter how you personally feel about them.