Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerosene31
Lootboxes do impact those of us who don't buy them. Games with lootboxes get cheaper or even free DLC. Without lootboxes, do you think Blizzard keeps adding characters to Overwatch? Maybe but probably not.
|
That's just a fallacy where you observe that OW has loot boxes. Blizzard releases regular content without charging for it. Therefore, we wouldn't have free content without loot boxes.
I'd like to point out that Blizzard does not release games without a planned 10 year life cycle. They're not EA; They don't release 'annual' titles. When Blizzard releases a title, they'll continue to support it for years. I don't know the figures on SC2 but I would bet that their expansion and DLC model did not generate cash on the same levels as HS/HotS/OW.
With that in mind, like Ztir mentions; you can support a game with a cash shop that does not include the loot box gamble. Put every cosmetic up for a fixed value and let players purchase them directly. Heroes of the storm had this model; the game continued to release content for free. LoL has had this model for years; one of the largest grossing games in the world.
Speaking of Hots; Their cash shop was revamped to mimic Overwatch's loot box monetization. Why? Because it makes more money. Turns out the average spender will spend MORE if you put the items they want behind a lottery system. And you defend it as if they're doing us a favor.
These publishers want the conversation to be about 'p2w vs cosmetic loot boxes' because it gets people (happily) accepting cosmetic loot boxes.