TribalWar Forums

**Pagy** · 41 - 09-18-2018, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atreides

It's pretty clear that there is is something wrong when EA publishes profits in excess of $800M from digital purchases in a single year.

it's not clear at all. what's clear is that people are paying for them because they want them. you're throwing a hissy fit in spite of overwhelming evidence that people are supporting this business model.
you don't like it...fine. it seems like its supoer successful though so move on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atreides

All of which speaks nothing to the fact that a loot box is anti-consumer. Want to buy a cosmetic item? Well you can't. Go ahead and buy a chance at having it. Didn't get it? well just try a couple more times. Still no? We'll you've already spent $20 trying to obtain the skin you want and you still don't have it so you may as well keep going or else that $20 was wasted....

Loot boxes obfuscate the actual costs of purchasing cosmetic items. People defend them saying "it would be more expensive to buy everything directly" which would be true if you assume that I want to buy every single microtransaction (even that word is designed to be disarming and seemingly nominal) item created (80% of which are just loot box filler to dilute the odds of getting what you actually wanted).

At least with direct purchasing I can make an informed decision. If I wanted a cosmetic item, I could see the cost and decide if I want to buy it at that price or not. Loot boxes are so profitable because they strip the consumer of that purchasing choice and train them to repetitively make small purchases to mask the total spending over the course of many months/years. On top of that, you can throw in the 'limited time availability' events games like Overwatch and LoL continually cycle through in order to place urgency on spending/gambling rather than allow the player to purchase when it's convenient for them - I would argue many of the people who think they practice self-control over digital spending are likely influenced heavily by the game itself without taking much notice.

if you dont want them, don't buy them

yes, they generate money. because people want them. people are ok with paying.

why care about what other people are spending their money on? live your life man

**Dangerdoggie** · 42 - 09-18-2018, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArakAtak

lol

they are gambling, absolutely. Especially where the extortion of money from children is the main aim, even though it's all Dad's money anyway.

I like your argument though, they need to apply that to all those pesky laws about drugs and guns as well.

how many years have these things been around?

**Pagy** · 43 - 09-18-2018, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangerdoggie

how many years have these things been around?

was this back when parents said "no"

**Esteban_Villa** · 44 - 09-18-2018, 16:48

damn cleaning out my moms place and found my geforce 4200 64 mb i bought to play the original bf

am i supposed to be mad about this game cause a female is on the cover as if half of tribes wasnt female skins (yeah i get it future vs. reality but fuk u) or get hyped? 1942 was the game of my teenage years and also got me into history

**Esteban_Villa** · 45 - 09-18-2018, 16:50

oh yeah and forgotten hope and the...i think bg42 mods were awesome. yeah **** you desert combat wasnt as fun cause view distances werent optimized for jet planes and the desert maps were...all the ****ing same. same could be said for the urban ones but ive always liked urban maps. **** ea for hindering mod developers let me know if i should give them my 50 60 70 69 dollars whatever

**Paladin-5** · 46 - 09-18-2018, 16:53

helicopters on DC were ****ing awesome

man that brings back memories

**Esteban_Villa** · 47 - 09-18-2018, 17:03

i got DC in a disc from computer gaming world cause i had 56k and really had to make hard decisions before 60mb downloads.

fuk #nostalgiaoverload

bf2 was just dc anyways those swedes put those modders to work before selling out to EA completely. 1 good game (bfv was just an expansion lezz be real) for that design team then pure resting on laurels (not that bc2 was a bad one later)

**HaPpY** · 48 - 09-18-2018, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atreides

Do people not have self control? If you saw how much money loot boxes generate for these companies you would know the answer to that question. It's pretty clear that there is is something wrong when EA publishes profits in excess of $800M from digital purchases in a single year.

All of which speaks nothing to the fact that a loot box is anti-consumer. Want to buy a cosmetic item? Well you can't. Go ahead and buy a chance at having it. Didn't get it? well just try a couple more times. Still no? We'll you've already spent $20 trying to obtain the skin you want and you still don't have it so you may as well keep going or else that $20 was wasted....

Loot boxes obfuscate the actual costs of purchasing cosmetic items. People defend them saying "it would be more expensive to buy everything directly" which would be true if you assume that I want to buy every single microtransaction (even that word is designed to be disarming and seemingly nominal) item created (80% of which are just loot box filler to dilute the odds of getting what you actually wanted).

At least with direct purchasing I can make an informed decision. If I wanted a cosmetic item, I could see the cost and decide if I want to buy it at that price or not. Loot boxes are so profitable because they strip the consumer of that purchasing choice and train them to repetitively make small purchases to mask the total spending over the course of many months/years. On top of that, you can throw in the 'limited time availability' events games like Overwatch and LoL continually cycle through in order to place urgency on spending/gambling rather than allow the player to purchase when it's convenient for them - I would argue many of the people who think they practice self-control over digital spending are likely influenced heavily by the game itself without taking much notice.

EA also spends 4x on marketing than dev costs. its as if they dont even make games anymore... just lootboxes and lies lol. their sports games are best example, where near 0 changes go into each year's editions.

i sort of blame wall street as the core culprit though. few good companies remain good when they go public. yup even EA used to be a good company... in the long long ago