Microtransactions when done correctly aren’t really a problem, the problem is when those are either tied to temporary benefits or randomized content.
All Blizzard needs to do is make loot boxes no longer purchasable with money and allow all content in the game to be directly purchased with gems.
That is Overwatch not HoTS which is an entirely different game that doesn’t mean they share the same data now does it? Just because one game makes profit out of it doesn’t mean that the same can be said here. Especially when you have bundle packs whereas the other does not provide the same alternative to at least make reliable purchases rather than leaving it entirely up to loot boxes.
Edit: And besides you do realize how intellectually dishonest it is to say that Overwatch make most of its money via loot boxes when the entire marketing system revolves around the loot box! Of course they make a huge margin out of it when it is practically your only option, outside of charity skins, to purchase majority of the cosmetics – you have no choice in the matter. The same can’t be said here when we have a more aggressive push for gem exclusive skins and bundles as the main drive for acquiring cosmetics.
Dude this is America… And Activision is a Corporation. Corporations can do whatever they want. If they don’t like lootboxes… all they will do is tell Activision make them look less like lootboxes. That is all.
I would prefer that.
But when the cost of the game is free… They’re acceptable.
HotS certainly would be a lesser game at $60 (or $120) without any microtransactions.
This is the writing on the wall. Given activsion’s recent involvement. The game will likely see a huge drop in profits as the customer base is cut. The player base would be reduced due to new restrictions placed on accounts. Restrictions seems to be the logical step if the new legislation goes into effect. I dont think they will cancel the game out right.
If things go the way some think it will it might take three years.
Except the issue isn’t that it looks like a lootbox, but the general concept of getting random items in this fashion.
You can call them card packs if you want.
My thoughts exactly. + The community already requested this.
You would lootboxes if you could afford it.
There’s a saying: “be careful what you wish for”
Because lets be real: Its more likely that they would respond by making so that you can buy 5 random itens and remove the gems/boxes middleman, sacrificing the option to buy specific stuff altoguether
No I wouldn’t. Cosmetics aren’t a big deal for me. If I get one that I like: Great. But I’m not going to go out of my way to get them.
(And trust me, I can afford them, I just don’t care enough to buy them.)
Why would you even make a comment on this thread when you dont know what a loot box is?
Ironic comment at it finest, I have seen both of what you write on the previous forums and on the OW forums, not really the brightest things and this just added more fuel to those.
I guess you think Loot box=any paid random reward, yes?
Hopefully you also notice that would impact stuff outside the scope of gaming, and if they try to keep it videgame-strictly, its the kind of thing gaming companies can shoot down easily. Unless they are willing to commit the anti-gamble tro all entertainment industry(Gl with that)
hahah, you say it now.
And? So would lol dota2 and fartnight to name a few if loot boxes are an issue.
I wouldn’t hate it if it meant the other companies going under would be hillarious.
“Hopefully you also notice that would impact stuff outside the scope of gaming”
There was no mention of going after CCG companies or other things that is gambling for kids.
Do you do this sort of thing with your friends? Bust in on a conversation and bring up a subj that has nothing to do with what is being discussed?
That’s the very definition, yes.
It doesn’t matter if it comes in a box or not, if you pay for randomized content with a chance of earning something new it is essentially a loot box.
The only ways this could not be considered gambling is if
Indeed and thing is: its hard to pass a law targeting one sector when there is other sectors next to it who run on the same principle but are not targeted, its incredibly easy for the companies to make the point that the country have to commit to a law who targets everything(wich obviously makes it harder to pass), or else, the law is in bad faith unless you can make a direct link between that that particular sector and more hideous crimes, like they did with cassinos and organized mobs, thus its not uncommon for a country to ban cassinos but allow lootboxes and cardgames. If such a link dont exist, the law is immediatelly on a shaky ground
Same deal, random product is not videogame-exclusive, making a law that is videogame-exclusive is hard to pass and harder to not have it being shot down if it does. Passin a law prohibiting all forms of gambling is so unlikely it even sounds weird
This is one of the most nonsensical arguments I’ve read on the topic of loot boxes…
Being linked to crime is not why things are legislated.
Secondly, ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING can be linked to crime.
You… are not very aware on the topic…
The fact people were dying is THE whole reason horse races and gambit houses are targeted is such a specific way across the world but almost every similar sort of betting on other races usually just arent. Same deal with animal fighting pits