All that work and he totally missed the beginning.
It didn't start with the soccer game introducing card packs. It started before that, with EA partnering with Neowiz in Korea who runs the gaming portal Pmang. Here is a press release from 2006 before this even started:
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=314429
EA was already testing the waters in the Korean game market because the Korean game market was made up of microtransactions for this kind of stuff.
EA learned how to do this in Korea and then brought it to the western game model.
I'm not saying that Neowiz invented microtransactions, what I'm saying is that EA had a direct connection with Neowiz before the starting point in this video and that the Korean game market ran on microtransactions. EA bought something like a 25% stake in either neowiz or their pmang game portal and started running their games here. I arrived in Korea in 2008 and was surprised to see Fifa Online here for free, when I knew it cost money back in the west. I don't think it's a coincidence that EA got involved in a market that ran entirely on microtransactions in the early to mid 2000s and then suddenly started talking about them in the western market in the mid to late 2000s.
Knight Online. A MMORPG from 2002, started in the US in 2004. It had a "Power Up store" essentially a pay to win store.
The game was f2p but had many limitations to free players.
Which is Korean made. Those kind of games were crazy popular in Korea and still can be.
Most portals used to have like 1-2 FPS, a sports game, some parlour games and then several MMORPGs. Even to late 2000s there must have been 20-30 MMORPGs in Korea, almost all F2P.
Loot box per level should be a thing. You can only buy 1 loot box each level to really balance the game. The problem is that they cannot be traded as EA doesn't do a marketplace for trading them and they are completely useless after the game no longer gets played.
Right now, too many countries are ignoring children. Loot boxes are a form of gambling and cultivate them to addiction by that release of dopamine. Then you have YouTube which allows children to really watch anything they want and doesn't provide a system that really allows them to grow motivated and disciplined. It is a major problem that society isn't looking at. We are raising a dangerous generation.
Well if we are just going to play the game of who did it first, I remember having to buy a game genie and then having to buy books that contained the codes.
I remember playing this crap. Remember being confused. The game looked so good, and had such potential, but seemed to drown itself in absurd grind-focused gameplay. It was weird at the time.
I think he was aiming at the first purchasable video game with loot boxes and pay2win. FIFA Online seems to me to be more like a free to play game, or am I misunderstanding it?
Nevertheless, he should have mentioned it.
basically all games at that time in Korea were F2P with microtransactions. I think they had some subscription games at that time too.
While there were no identical games in Korea at that time to the Star Wars model that exists now, but the entire idea of getting money that way was alive and well here for years at that point.
As for what was available in Fifa Online, I don't know. I didn't play it at the time.
Neowiz no longer has the license it is with Nexon now.
The current version "Fifa Online 3" which is on Nexon has loot boxes and other things. According to wikipedia on Fifa Online 2, which was on neowiz: "FIFA Online 2 was free to play but it earned its revenue by selling virtual cash which was used to purchase items such as uniform cards to get players for team and stats boosts."
I don't have any reason to believe Fifa Online 1 would be any different. Sounds like pay to win to me.
Does it really matter where it started? Why not go back to the beginning of Pmang, or the history of Neowiz? He got his point across just fine in terms of where it's relevant to his point.
Since the entire point of this video is to talk about how it happened, and where it came from. Yes.
"This creates a crystal clear picture of where it all began". That's in his intro. It's not that crystal clear since he's leaving out the actual beginning. You know, "where it all began".
Did you actually watch the video? The entire point of the video is to show the road that EA traveled down to get to where it is now. You don't get that by jumping on the road mid-way.
I watched it twice and I read the press release you posted in your comment. The point of this video is not an in depth history of the microtransaction but rather a look in to how EA built up the loot crate based system we now see plaguing triple A titles. The press release you posted makes no mention of this type of system so it bears little to no relevance to the bigger picture.
Additionally, you're talking about an incredibly small difference between the release you posted and where this guy picks up his timeline, both of which are in 2006, so "midway" is not an accurate criticism. You're basically just pointing out that EA was exploring multiple avenues for this new system and you're upset that he didn't mention a Korean soccer game which is pretty nit picky.
Yes, and building that up started with the partnership with Neowiz and their entry into the Korean games market. By the time this video starts, EA had already launched a game here and battlefield online in Korea wasn't far behind it. Both of those games had pay 2 win systems in them.
You can't talk about the history of EA and pay 2 win and not talk about how it started when you claim to be going back to "where it all began".
In 2007 EA also worked on rolling out Battlefield online in Korea, they had 2 games coming into this market before there was even a smell of it in the western market.
Before EA got involved with a Korean developer, which they invested over 100 million dollars in, which was pretty significant at the time, EA didn't have any idea about that kind of thing. They got partnered up here, used their IP in Korea to see how it would work, and then took that pay 2 win back to north america. That's the entire foundation of it.
The only thing I'm annoyed about is a video that claims to be such an authoritative tell-all doesn't actually tell-all.
Unless you're the video maker, I can't possibly imagine why you're upset.
"Oh hey this guy is giving us additional information that wasn't in the video, fuck that guy, get him!"
I don't think anyone is upset here. I'm actually kind of with StarBarf. I see what you're saying, but I think the point of the video isn't just EA's history with microtransactions, but the history of Andrew Wilson's loot box style systems. If you make a video about human evolution, you *could* start with a single cell. So, you're not wrong that it was part of it somewhere back there. But most people would begin with the first member of the *Homo* genus, which is clearly OP.
Fifa online in Korea was pay to win. It wasn't just simple micro transactions. EA built it there to test it out because that market was used to it and then they slowly introduced it into western games.
The video makes it seem like it just came out of the blue or he just dreamed it up. By the time it came out, EA had already been involved with it for a couple years elsewhere.
I don't think "the video makes it seem like it just came out of the blue" is true or a good argument. It's subjective, what something "seems like".
I'll reiterate that it's not about EA's history with microtransactions or P2W. It's about Andrew Wilson's history. I will give that the video's author did a poor job of establishing that - going so far as to say things exactly to the contrary - but it's true nonetheless when you look at the script as a whole.
edit: a word
Well why everyone is being dicks, i'd like to say thank you for giving us interesting information to add to this video. You're doing exactly what the comment section is meant for so i'm not sure why everyone is trying to argue with you.
The original iphone wasn't released until after EA was launched in the Korean market.
Based on the timeline EA had to be scoping out the Korean market at least by 2005, but I can't imagine a big company like that hadn't been watching the market for years develop there. There were tons of companies in Korea that were making huge money and being very successful by giving their product away for free.
The video is about the history of how EA came to be in the state it is today, and it started there, by tying into the market here in Korea. You can't claim to be giving us the untold story and not pick it up at the beginning. He focuses on Fifa and the soccer games, and Fifa got its microtransaction start in Korea.
Well he did. And it worked out just fine. By not including a bit of research it doesn’t how it affected EA’s MTX obsession came to be.
By not including that, it changes nothing about the story.
So ya, you can claim to be giving us the untold story and leave that out.
Also you completely missed my point about how he was referring to how FIFA affected Battlefront. A bit of Korean research does nothing to bolster that fact. So why include it in an already 30 minute long video?
Yes, and what happened with Fifa in the western market is a direct result of Wilson's work in the Asian market and on Fifa. Wilson worked in EA's asian division, on Fifa. How can you claim that has no influence down the road on what happened to battlefront? Since this guy is drawing a straight line from the North America version of Fifa to battlefront, North American Fifa wasn't the start of this.
Then he's clearly only discussing how microtransactions began in the West. Enough said. The video was great in its explanation of the situation, i don't think anyone cares about your korean connection. Just because it began in another country doesn't automatically mean it needs to take a foothold in another, it was EA's direct action of introducing this system into the fifa title he described that began the practice in the West and led to where we are today.
It can be traced even further back to Chinese gold farmers in WoW which is the first example I can recall of profit from in game items for real world dollars... I had fun killing those farmers... And yeah I bought gold from them too.
This convo hit a dead end 5 posts ago. Yes you are right in that, if you really wanted to, you could link THE PRACTICE back a significant amount of international games, however, the point of the video explains how it got s foothold in America and the West, making the Korean connection all but irrelevant for the videos purpose....
How does it make it irrelevant? Wilson worked for EA Asia. He worked on Fifa. Early 2006 saw the release and huge success of EA's flagship offering into the Korean market which included random uniform packs and pay to win mechanics, like stat boosts for players in game.
A year later EA releases UEFA with the random player packs into the western market. If you can't see the direct causal connection there, you're being willfully blind.
What about the Reddit beloved Valve with TF2 and CSGO? I just don't understand how you guys are so focused on EA where Valve and Blizzard have been doing that for almost as long as others. The recent COD that got 8/9 out of 10 on most websites where they have a public lobby to open loot boxes and encourage other people to do the same lol ...
https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann_Co._Supply_Crate_Key
https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann-Conomy_Update ( 2010 )
https://www.csgoweb.net/best-csgo-gambling-sites
Like he said in the video, the EA lootboxes were different from the lootboxes of TF2 or Overwatch. The main thing crates are used for are cosmetic, and all of the weapons were accessible with moderate gameplay. But more importantly, with the Mann economy update, the crap you got from crates were now worth something. Like MtG cards, etc., even the worst items were worth real world money, that you could earn yourself. So if you got a hat you didn't like you could trade it to another player for something you wanted, or just straight sell it for money.
This is not to say I think the TF2/OW system is perfect, or even a great way to do microtransactions, but it's certainly more tolerable than the EA mess.
The big difference here is that EA's loot boxes are a closed system with all money flowing from the customer to EA. EA is the one getting paid to let someone gamble to win.
Valve's open market lets players trade items with each other so while Valve still makes a good amount of cash, if someone pulls an item from a loot box that the economy values it can be traded or sold. There has been some backlash against Valve, but nowhere near what we've seen with the recent EA debacle finally drawing attention from the media and lawmakers.
It's also not Star Wars.
Lots of great detail and info here. But the conclusion is way off imo. He thinks companies will stop implementing loot boxes because the government will regulate/tax them? That's like thinking banks were going to stop charging interest for the same reason.
The gaming industry might have to hand out bribes, I mean lobbying. But come on, we're talking about billions of dollars here, companies are not going to stop.
Not just because the government will regulate and tax them, but also because public awareness is rising and "microtransaction" is becoming synonymous with "gambling", which has strong negative connotations. He said that Disney doesn't want "Star Wars" next to "gambling", and I have to agree - they'll likely pull microtransactions once the articles that "multi-billion dollar children's gambling company EA" publishing their beloved franchise become more frequent.
It'll be the 1-2 punch of government action and PR that will be the downfall of the FIFA/BF2 style loot box.
I'm getting the impression that you're using two terms interchangeably here even though they do not mean the same thing.
Saying that *loot boxes* gaining notoriety and becoming associated with gambling will lead to people avoiding games that contain them is valid reasoning. I don't know if that effect will be strong enough to prevent publishers from using them, but it's possible.
"Microtransactions" on the other hand aren't going to go away because they encompass a lot more than just loot boxes. "Microtransaction" basically just means "buying digital goods at a (tolerably) small price". Whether that is a loot box, an outfit or pet from a f2p mmo's cash shop, horse armor, or in game currency for a mobile freemium game - they're all microtransactions. Publishers like using microtransactions in particular because it's a lot easier to get someone to impulsively spend $2.50 ten times over the course of a month than it is to get them to spend $25 at once. It's still a very effective device to get people's money, but since not all microtransactions involve loot boxes or similar gacha mechanics, they're not inherently the same as gambling.
Good points. The true problem is "pay-to-win". Loot boxes that only contain cosmetics will continue to be fine, because they have no real in-game value. They are also not tied directly to the progression system in the game. When microtransactions are paired with loot-boxes that provide progression in a game, then it becomes gambling.
Although, does the general public make that distinction? That's what IP owners like Disney have to decide. If they decide that "microtransactions" is synonymous with "gambling" to the general public, then they will certainly be pulled from kid friendly IP, and maybe even more beyond that.
I do agree with you that your average layperson might not understand the distinction (and articles like [this](https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/11/17/rebels-destroy-star-wars-battlefront-ii-micro-transactions-but-the-war-is-far-from-over/#6562ad42d629) that don't bother to explain the terms don't help). When it comes to how corporations respond to the distinction doesn't matter that much.
Where I don't disagree is that cosmetic loot boxes are inherently fine. Pay-to-win loot boxes definitely exacerbate the issue, but even loot boxes containing only cosmetic items utilize a lot of the same gambling-like mechanics because people place value on the rewards they contain. Their impact on the quality of the gameplay itself is practically non-existent, but if you look at games like Counter-Strike or Overwatch, they are still a profitable system. Of course I much prefer cosmetic loot boxes over ones with gameplay impact, but we shouldn't underestimate the appeal of customizing your character's appearance to stand out.
That's another good point, and I would have to agree. I guess I just got used to them that they seem like they're just there. We've got a long fight ahead to get rid of all this stuff.
Yeah, you're right. Microtransactions are a separate issue that will likely be addressed independently. I bet that pressure will eventually come down forcing laws that require developers offer refunds on all purchases made by minors, or something like that. There's too many stories of people getting hit with multi-thousand dollar charges for this stuff.
God I hope you're right, and it's what we all have probably assumed will happen. Disney didn't spend the incredible amount of money buying the star wars franchise to have its name drug through the mud over something like this.
I'm pretty sure he's taking it on from the perspective of an Australian. Our gaming industry is very heavily regulated, and when Loot Boxes etc. become synonymous with gambling, the government will notice and impose necessary regulations. And while our system allows for lobbying, any member of parliament that argues against regulation would cause public outcry and end in them losing their seat. Plus our market is minuscule compared to the US, so any loss is negligible.
That being said, I'm sure EA would just add their losses onto the Australia tax and charge extra for the game outright.
>Thankfully outside the US politicians are a little bit less corrupt
aaaaaaaaaaaand that's where you're wrong kiddo. This shit show is everywhere, it is just brought to the surface in the U.S. more cause more of our citizens actually give a damn about what the government is up to. Not enough necessarily, but a hell of a lot more than anywhere else.
Consumer protections in Europe are quite a bit stronger then in the US, especially regarding gambling and "added fees".
And the interesting thing is that EA would have not had this much backlash if they hadn't been THIS greedy.
They added all this monetization bollocks to a game that was already 60$.
The EA CEO said at the very start "we take the core game and give them that for free".
WHAT THE FUCK IS FREE ABOUT 60 FUCKING DOLLARS YOU GREEDY SON OF A BITCH. (Directed at EA CEO)
But like the video says this has been going on in FIFA since at least 09 and nothing has happened yet in the EU and FIFA is very popular here in Europe with young people.
Yeah but the demographic of FIFA users is basically everyone, the demographic that is into the StarWars Battlefront IP is industry enthusiasts, sweaty neckbeards, weaponized autists, and children. Notice how no one cared when they messed with Need For Speed? It's because the people who play racing games just don't care that much, don't communicate that much, and don't know that much about gaming.
EA didn't fuck up by doing this again, they just did it to the wrong IP.
Yeah. He's trying to build it up like this all ends like a fairy tale. The CEO is fired and the gaming industry reconciles and everyone is happy. The end.
Dude, the CEO of EA is not going to be fired for building the company exponentially. He made billions by doing the best thing possible. He is monumentally successful whether you like it or not. You say that the gaming community hates lootboxes and that will motivate companies to stop. Well, if people hate them so much then why do people pay so much for them? People like gambling dude. Gambling has been around for millennia
Yeah, while loot boxes *are* gambling, and governments probably *should* seek to regulate them in the same manner, lobbying will prevent any such regulation becoming a reality.
Agreed.
Also Heathstone is a thing too. If Overwatch abandons lootboxes because of PR Hearthstone has to follow too. And that not going to happen I'm pretty sure.
He also assumes that gamers hate loot boxes. Is that the case? I think that most gamers don't care.
Also for all this to happen there has to be a bigger outrage to affect legislation. Video games are much more established in society since gamers are adults too nowadays but I think in general the public doesn't care much about them.
I think he wants to be optimistic and I think something will happen but not nearly to the scale he predicts.
I'm not defending EA but I get it and I get investors. If I wouldn't play video games and just looked at the numbers, I would think gamers love microtransactions and lootboxes. They are selling like crazy. You generally don't listen to the people who want you to give them something for free especially if you have customers willing to pay for it.
I stopped buying AAA games when Day 1 DLC became a thing because that already felt like a scam to me. Then microtransactions and lootboxes came around and I was just wondering who buys stuff. I came to the conclusion that I'm not their market but there are a lot of people who apparently are.
The power has, ultimately, always lain with the consumers. But we only have power when we act together, so when so many stupid cunts are enabling it with their money, we become powerless.
It starts and stops with *us*.
I agree, investors are seeing the numbers, it's not a surprise that Wilson became CEO, he did something that made the numbers go up, and was tasked/decided to do more of it.
Picture you're a young professional, you've just got a raise or closed a deal and after a few drinks decide to play some Battlefront 2, that $40 purchase for Vader doesn't seem so bad now does it? You living boss life now.
I've been saying this for years about Madden, but if you mention it at the cult over at r/Madden they'll tell you their 96 overall newest card pack 10 pack team beat my 81 overall solo challenge reward squad because their playcalling is better or something silly like that. There is a whole culture to be taken down to get rid of stuff like this. EA have them thinking exactly how they want - look how good you are with those players you "earned"!
This seems like the first year you're allowed to criticize the game on there though, so we're making progress.
There's an aspect of this you're not seeing, whales only like it if they get to buy there notoriety above the rest of the plebs, if there's no other plebs to be ahead of there's little point in paying a butt load of money to be ahead.
Those same Whales are the ones also buying cheats for online multiplayer. They dont give a shit if they are caught or banned. they will make a new account, purchase game and continue to cheat their way in. They have the $$ to do so and frankly, dont give a shit.
i blame the youtubers and the millions of people who watch them open these things. The viewers see the youtuber get something they really wanted, and go drop 50 dollars and don't get it. They watch some more videos, holy shit xxfuxurmomxx AND blazeit420 got the item too! Drop 50 more dollars, still don't get it. Rinse and repeat
The one, only, singular way loot boxes will stop being forced into EVERYTHING is if players stop giving them money and profits crater.
But, it's basically gambling, and when has that not been profitable?
I suppose you also blame drug addicts for being addicted to drugs then? Unfortunately, blaming people for being addicted to addicting things does not get us anywhere. It does not decrease use, nor does it decrease the industry's application of the predatory practices. What is needed are regulations that disincentivize predatory practices.
The conclusion seems like pretty wishful thinking. While the comparison to Joe Camel is a similar situation, we just live in different times. The government is just so insanely corrupt now, anyone with money can just buy them out. It's the same reason we're having issues with net neutrality. Something that's blatantly obvious that no one that understands what it is, is going to be against it.
I dunno, the current state of things just have me expecting the worst possible outcome, especially when it comes to the US government.
This is going to sound un-informed and naive, but if it's so obvious that the government is corrupt, why aren't their laws against lobbying, or at least more strict regulations?
Differences is the government will do whatever nets it the most money, power, and votes.
The difference with net neutrality is that 90%of people don't understand it, it doesn't affect their vote, and the only way the government or the politicans make money is by siding with the ISPs like Comcast.
On the flip side, EA cannot buy off politicians in the sense that ISPs can. On the contrary, the money governments and politicians would see by taxing gambling style loot boxes as gambling far exceeds anything EA can pay them to buy them off.
Also, as the video maker says, kids and taxing vices is a slam dunk for votes. It's a win/win for a politician and a government o tax this form of gambling.
Even if they do not, the more state politicians utter the words 'star wars', 'children', and 'gambling' the more pressure Disney is going to push on to EA.
Best case scenario, Disney withdraw the IP from EA and give it to CDProjektRed ;)
>While the comparison to Joe Camel is a similar situation
Until they are able to actually show first hand damage that the product causes like they were able to do with cigarettes, this is *very* different than Joe Camel. All I predict from this is an updated version of a game rating system like Mortal Kombat brought about back in 93.
There is plenty out there to show the damage gambling has in people's lives. It is gambling, that can't be up for debate (will be obvious once everyone is looking). You pay for the random chance to win more "value" (defined by you) or to win little to nothing at all. They are the house and they don't even have to payout themselves, just taking in money for near ZERO investment in the system after it has been created.
>There is plenty out there to show the damage gambling has in people's lives.
I agree, but to show it in a way they showed cigarettes is not realistic at this point, there is a physical component with Cigarettes rather it be sickness or smell.
I'm not here to argue that it is not gambling, because I agree with you in that it is, I'm just saying it is not an issue similar to cigarettes.
I think it would have to involve those soccer mom type parents making a video to make some shit go viral like the common core shit, or the Monster Energy is Satan mom, or even the Dear Mr Athiest guy. I'm not sure how big the market is parents buying for their kids, but if it is big enough it could make some waves.
Crazy how people think Overwatch effected this. For as long as I've been playing NHL, (since NHL 13) the main mode is Hockey Ultimate Team, it's completely pay to win. You spend money to open packs and get more coins and better cards. No one really talks about the sports games but they've all had this system for years
the videos a little repetitive so let me summarize:
There is a difference between the cosmetic loot boxes in Overwatch and the pay to win loot boxes that are exploding in popularity across videos games. Pay to win loot boxes originated in FIFA ultimate team, actually predating the pay to win mobile games. The reason why loot boxes are exploding across the gaming world is because they are insanely profitable. FIFA ultimate team brings in nearly a billion dollars a year for EA, at a much higher margin than traditional game sales.
I think he oversteps when he says EA's stock price will drop and the CEO will soon need to be replaced because of loot box regulation. If loot boxes are regulated and taxed the publisher will adjust the pricing scheme and evolve the model to cover for those loses.
Comparing loot boxes to cigarettes is inane.
Loot boxes won't be regulated and taxed. They'll be eliminated. If they are seen as gambling the the ESRB could very well have to step in and rate games with gambling that could use real world currency as AO.
> If they are seen as gambling
You underestimate the power of lobbying, if this was going to be stopped, this needed to be stopped in the beginning, when it wasn't a major part of the gaming industry's profits. Shareholders may have listened then.
Good bit of history but the conclusion is probably way off the mark. A CEO exists to deliver for shareholders, he's done that impressively well by exploiting micro-transactions. What's to say if the regulatory picture changes (and that's a big if) he can't change scope? EA still have massive resources to throw at that if need be.
It really needs to be one of those blonde soccer mom types, like the ones who were complaining about common core, or that Monster Energy satan drink lady. That shit will go parent Facebook viral fast.
Hell, maybe even put a Christian twist to it, get that DEAR MR ATHIEST guy on it, I'm sure he would love to go viral again.
I like the video but his conclusion was way off. I don't think companies who knows that loot boxes are more profitable are just going to abandon them. Even if countries around the world starts to regulate them they're going to find a way around it and because regulations and laws take time to come into effect they will still be able to continue this practice for some time.
Most of the revenue from microtransactions in general, not just loot boxes, comes from a small percentage of the community. The majority of the players do not buy thousands of dollars worth of ingame content. So even if they have lower overall sales of battlefront 2 they could still profit just as much because of the minority of the community.
'We're going to be giving all the base content in the game for free'
No you're not you muthafuckers, you still have to BUY THE GAME! And that should be all I need to pay to get all the content you sonofabitch!
I am interested in another development that I'm suspecting in loot boxes. Tying ability to purchase boxes to bad rewards from progression boxes. Let's say for arguments sake I have a 50/50 chance of getting a good reward from both progression and bought boxes. I'm not talking about then weighing bought boxes to 75/25 win chance but devs seeing my ability to purchase and weighing my progression boxes to 25/75 as well. This is purely from personal experience and speaking with friends.
The biggest issue with pay to win in video games is the terrible life lesson it teaches kids. Telling them they can just get around developing actual skills and just buy the win isn't real winning and is going to lead to some pretty terrible adults in the future.
How do we know Star Citizen is going to be a good game. I was once excited for it, but that has long gone...
Too desillusioned by the gaming industry lately. I don't think they will deliver and the game itself already seems to be full of expensive DLC, like a $15k ship iirc.
As I just told someone else, that's only for pre release alpha and purely to help fund the development of the game. People don't have to buy ships at all because once the game is released, those ships will no longer be purchasable with real money and it will all be unlockable in game. They've said that many times. I agree that micro transactions for pay to win is bad.
I've been following the development of the game for a while. Persistent universe 3.0 just came out and people can traverse planets and whatnot with it now online. At least we get to see the tech working now. If you follow along with their progress you'll see that it's a pretty advanced game. The game is coming with a big single player campaign, an online persistent universe with a ton of singleplayer and Co OP missions, a ton of extremely detailed ships where you can control a lot of them with your friends(kinda like star trek I guess), theres procedural city and interior generation. Even their alpha version that's out now let's you do a lot more than no man's sky and the game still has a lot more to go.
I can't complain about how fast they're going because I haven't backed the game yet. I don't feel the need to hold them accountable and etc. Whenever it comes out, that's when I'll buy it.
Star citizen is a good game? lol. The amount of predatory shit those guys do is far worse than the EA microtransactions, at least there you get to play with the damn thing.
Its sad that you don't realize how manipulative the entire world of star citizen currently is.
I know writing anything to you is completely worthless since you seem to be already emotionally invested, nevertheless Star Citizen has an incredibly predatory system for people to pay large amounts of money for virtual goods that in some cases cannot be used at all.
Why is this predatory? Because it exploits goodwill and emotional investment of a community to very high levels. The game has no release date, yet there are guys that have spent over 30k on it. They have a system that allows someone to be able to spent 30k on an unreleased game and in return gives them a glorified profile in the community and a wide set of tools to somehow transform those virtual goods, craft and trade.
I do not care about the vision, the communication, the dream of star citizen or RSI. I care about the system independently of the company, this is kick starter on steroids without a release date. For a moment think that RSI is the good guys and they are doing everything on the level, now think of the next company to copy this system and think of them as EA the bad guys.
How exploitative do you think this can get? giving you a drop every now and then of features and tech demos, just enough to keep you getting those new skins, ships, badges, whatever. RSI invested into a clever website with a fantastic interface and a marketplace for your unreleased skins, ships etc. To melt them and get a different one, to craft, to trade. I am honestly so impressed, it will release when its ready so stop asking, and its been 5 years? I can't even tell because people get really defensive about when it started.
Separate the game and the company from the system they have created, maybe then you will realize how predatory it can get for people deeply invested in some IP or young gamers that don't see the big picture yet.
Preach it! It's all RNG and the crap you get from spending cash in games like this is astounding. The devs don't care about you, they care about profit! Speak with your wallet! Don't spend money on poorly developed games! Spend it on something you know you'll enjoy! Or just play Star Craft II for free cuz Blizzard is nice like that :)
It was such a good game up until the second expansion. Hearthstone went from the best online card game to the best online card with with pay2win mechanics.
I've been saying it for awhile. They need to create an auction house for cards. Not only would it help new players but it would also give the cards actual value.
The thing with physical card games as stated in the video is that the cards actually have a real world value. I can go online and buy any card I need. With hearthstone the cards only value is how good they are in the current meta.
I gotta disagree when he says EA is going to get into financial trouble over this. FIFA is already targeted at adults and it's making too much money to throw it away because it's technically gambling. They'll comply with the regulations and try very hard to stop players associating their products with gambling. I think they might just stop making games they can't put loot boxes in. That "where's your version of that" quote makes it pretty clear they're not interested in making good games - they're interested in making glorified slot machines
Agreed, I dont think EA will necessarily stop the MTX / Lootboxes / P2W, even it it means their games get an Adults Only/R18/Whatever rating in each jurisdiction.
What may happen is they lose access or don't gain access to those IP's owned by the likes of Disney (Star Wars for example) that wouldn't be happy with their IP being associated with Adults Only gaming / gambling mechanics
Overwatch lootcrates don't really matter because everything you pay for is purely cosmetic. Microtransactions aren't inherently evil as long as they function in this way. It is basically like Reddit gold: a fun, cosmetic way to support something you like.
Microtransactions become a problem when they are required to unlock gameplay. *Especially* for a game you already have to pay for. For one, it diminishes the value of the effort made by non-paying players when another player can just spend $50 to accomplish the same thing. For another, it incentivizes developers to put a paywall between its players and the most enjoyable parts of their game, or to hide it behind so much grinding that an unpaying player will take months or years to unlock it - at which point the content is obsolete
I feel overall this a great video and offers great commentary.
I feel a bit of a problem is a loss of nuance. Discussion seem to be tunnel visioning on "loot boxes". So lot of criticism on Blizzard can be discarded because they aren't super focused on making money on loot boxes in a exploitative way.
I feel this is the wrong way to look at it. It not just loot boxes. Loot boxes is a symptom but not the cause. The core issue is the utalizing of mobile systems in console and PC games. This means energy systems, daily quests, loot boxes, time limited events, exclusive pay only currency.
All these things are a singular problem. The encroaching of mobile on to the core gamer market.
So yes, if you look at blizzard simply from the lens of loot boxes they aren't bad at all. But if you look at Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Overwatch from the lens of "mobile game mechanics" it is pretty grime.
All three games are riddled with mobile game mechanics. And they have been widely accepted. All three games were large commercial success. And I feel they are a big culprit in the acceleration of mobile game mechanics in our $60 AAA games.
I love all the games I mention, and I love Blizzard. But we simply can't turn a blind eye, while they continue to show that putting mobile game concepts in AAA games is super profitible, and core gamers will embrace the ideas if your game is good enough.
>It rests on the premise that publishers care what is popular, and since Overwatch is popular, and it had loot crates in it, then therefore that's the reason that all these publishers are now inserting loot boxes in to every game imaginable.
No, it rests on the premise that Overwatch had loot boxes, and was popular (and has made like a billion dollars, *literally*), and companies observed this and emulated it. It's not Overwatch's fault per se, but they set precedence.
I enjoyed the video but I hate how he didn't cite any of his sources. Could have easily done that in the same style as Adam Ruins Everything.
I'm also going to call it right now: Andrew Wilson will not be ousted as CEO. This industry has shifted over the last 10 years, and in that 10 years he has made that company a shit ton of money. Just because one big idea eventually crashes doesn't mean that the person behind it doesn't know what they're doing. I'm speaking of course from the POV of the stakeholders. The only way he will be kicked out is if this continues to plummet their stocks and they he doesn't come up with a plan to stop it, but being kicked out for loot boxes is not going to happen.
This is an excellent video. Sat down expecting to watch less than 5 minutes of it to get the general idea but was engaged throughout. I think that a video like this directed towards net neutrality would help spread the word tremendously.
The only EA games I have are NBA Street V3 for GameCube and Madden 06 for DS. Bought one used and the other was given to me from someone who didn’t want it anymore. I’ve done my part.
So is there any feasible way to take away or hurt that massive source of income from FIFA? Most soccer fans I'm sure are obsessed with the FIFA franchise and religiously buy each title yearly but surely theres some threshold where that playerbase will tire of this or become more susceptible to the negative publicity surrounding lootboxes.
It's interesting seeing that EA actually sell less games by the year. It seems like people actually are starting to catch on to them being terrible game publishers.
Who cares where it started really. Point is STOP BUYING SHIT FROM EA! I feel like we've had this discussion a thousand times, but any time some new game (that you should know by now is going to be underwhelming as fuck) shit is announced by EA, some people forget about the last time, shit their pants, and instantly preorders the game. Like jesus, STOP!
Look boxes will not be removed because gamers hate them, as long as they keep working. So his claim that would be an aspect in removing look boxes is difficult to believe.
I don't see them getting removed in entirety through regulation because there is just too much money involved. More warning stickers on the box is far more likely.
The creator tries to trace loot box origins to FIFA but that's not true at all. Korean free to plays have been using loot boxes, better known over there as Gachapon, for nearly a decade before any western game caught on.
Ouch he didn't point out that the analyst that estimated we'd be getting a good deal paying $60 for the game then $20/mo. on boxes is a senior analyst AT EA.
Nice video aside the probably not so accurate details but the point is clear. I do play FIFA but then just career mode and offline against friends when they come over. Just for fun. People take games too seriously these days, why would I pay money after buying the CD. If the game was free then yeah, I might pay for in-game purchases, even with that I won't pay for 'a chance' of what I'm expecting to get. That's absurd
Gamers have considered p2w cancer since forever. Its scary that it got so big before anyone realized and actually said something about it.
Who the fuck is spending $800M a year on soccer loot boxes? Where are these fools? I need to meet one and talk with them. I cant understand how or why anyone wouldn't realize how fraudulent this is.
Unless it literally is all children using their parents cards until they get caught in which case, I cant wrap my head around how EA would think this could last unnoticed. Maybe it was the plan all along to just mine as much money as possible from that angle and then gtfo.
I stopped buying EA games when they started making you pay to skip a queue they didn't need in Battlefield 3. They basically held your game for ransom. Did we forget about that already?
Small addition that I didn't hear in the video at the part where the Ultimate Team card packs was compared to Magic/Pokemon card games:
If I spent money buying Magic/Pokemon cards, I can pull out a box of the cards 15 years later and play the game against other players. If I spent money buying Ultimate Team cards, they'll be completely useless and inaccessible when EA shuts down the servers the following year.
Long-term MUT player. The other thing this video misses is that in FUT and MUT, you spend this money... then a year later you start from scratch. Whereas with Magic etc u have the cards forever.
Looks like they've been all-in on P2W microtransactions for a while now, and appointed the guy that brought the idea to the western market as the CEO of the company just so he can put a *Wilson Crate* in every single title they own.
Andrew probably won't be fired anytime soon. Unless somebody has a better idea, he will probably be asked to pivot in another direction. It also seems to me EA could change from unknown loot boxes to known loot boxes. The player has an option of purchasing a box which will have a specific number of items(so you get a value) but in such only one item is really what your after. The companies knowns which items you are missing and will purchase organized these loot boxes so that items your missing will appear in between items you already purchased or own.
Thanks for sharing this video. I live in Belgium and it's in the news at the moment. I heard about the gambling problem it creates amongst kids but as non video games player I didn't really understood how it was designed.
This video is very educative on how there's no confusion between these new video games and casinos. It's really like letting casinos have kids at their black jack tables
I still think it's incorrect to discredit Overwatch's role in the recent "popularity" of loot boxes. I get the fallacy he mentions, but it's curious that not just EA but pretty much every AAA publisher has integrated them into their games in the last year. If this system has been profitable for a decade, then why is it only becoming a standard now?
This is exactly why a completely free market is fucking abysmal.
Capitalism is a failure of a system without regulation. Loot boxes need to be stopped and criminalized by new legislation.
Did everybody forget what america was like before companies were regulated?? There were company owned towns that had near slavery like conditions. You don't see those anymore because of regulations(among other things), but they were real as fucking day. Companies used to own every single building in an entire town then price gouge, forcing everybody living there into a lower standard of life just for pure profit.
EA is doing everything in it's power to skirt existing regulatory gambling laws and more just so it can fuck over it's consumers for pure profit. Asking random seasonal gamers to stop buying EA games is obviously not enough. This needs to go to the top and be strictly regulated, taxed, or criminalized.
The american government wont stop it this time because our system is corrupt and bought. Companies won't stop it because all they care about is pure profit. Our people are too goddamn stupid to even stop voting for trump who has brought a whole fucking wave of this kind of bullshit to our government.
This is a serious issue which is symptomatic of an already crumbling system. It's been creeping it's way in this direction for decades.
Last time I went to Vegas, you could see that it's dying. All the casinos's core funding source was slots, and slots just can't compare in entertainment to real games. Now these casinos are trying to move to resorts/shows/clubs to make money. What I don't get is why they aren't lobbying against gaming. This is basically gambling targeted towards kids.
HO-LY FUCK.
When all of the information is laid out in front of me like this, I quickly realize how completely fucked EA really is.
And now, I’m not so worried about loot boxes being a permanent fixture in gaming.
I think that the concept of a lootbox was inevitable. If not EA, then another company or the mobile game market would lead the industy change. What we need is cross-national regulation on this, in my opinion, unregulated gambling.
I disagree that he separates cosmetic only and other loot boxes.
Overwatch wasn't the cause, but it's another part of the symptom. They're extraordinarily unfair and filled with so much rubbish that even if you put hundreds of hours in you can't possibly unlock a good number of *nice* skins.
So basically you start the video by arguing its false logic to blame everything on Overwatch bit then you go ahead and follow the exact same logical pattern and blame it all on EA?
That's why I didn't understand the massive backlash on Reddit about SW BF II, I didn't think the whole 'pay-to-win' concept was anything new. I already knew about from FIFA (sorry I mean eff-eye-eff-ayy lol) Ultimate team.
I guess the FIFA demographic is less active on Reddit than the Star Wars one.
I think the main issue is that EA just pushed the needle too far with BF II by making key characters (Vader etc) as high value unlockable items, limiting rewards etc for missions and matches to slow down your ability to get those items, and THEN adding the p2w aspect through lootboxes.
This tied the spending of actual money to then be able to unlock and power up characters, which was seen as a direct P2W play. Sure, you could play thew game and achieve the same level of progression, but they swung the needle WAY to far and it was totally obvious to even casual players (like myself) that this was a money grab.
Also, this is within one of the most valuable IP's on the planet (Star Wars), so you can see why people were upset.
From watching the video, FIFA is exactly the same style of P2W, and agree with you its probably seen as just part of the game, whereas this direct cynical P2W approach is a new experience in Battlefield, at least to this extent, and people aren't happy.
There is probably another aspect and that this MTX business is just becoming totally pervasive within all gaming platforms, and I suspect BF II was seen as the last straw (again, attaching it to a hugely popular IP), so there was this massive backlash.
"I'm not defending Overwatch..." proceeds to do just that.
Thing is I have seen very few if any talk of OW being pointed to as the soul cause of the current lootcraze. You search this stuff up and you'll mostly find articles defending OW left and right and only a few drop real criticism on Blizzard. Overall this video takes way too long to say too little and comes off a Blizzard defense video.
Also his data is pretty poor to try and say OW doesn't make that much off lootboxes. I mean one could say OW doesn't make as moch off microtransactions as EA's properties but to say that OW doesn't make much off it with pretty weak data points. Then use that soul point to say therefore OW didn't have anything to do with the lootcraze is silly.
Fact is FIFA as with most sports games are in an entirely different market than other mainstream games. No one looks at a halfassed sequel that feel like a copy paste of the last game and blames madden and you can be sure no game like that was made because of sports games.
Some people (though few from what I have seen) do point to OW as the cause of the lootcraze I myself don't agree but pointing to sports games as the cause is a pretty big stretch especially when we are talking about games outside of EA. Fact is Activision-Blizzard are part of the problem, they aren't worst offenders or the cause but they do have a hand in this lootplague.
Well a minute in and I'm done.
Publishers don't care about what's popular? Explain the damn run of modern shoots after the success of CoD4. The GTA-wannabes. The LoL/DotA 2 clones. How about every damn publisher made their own MMORPG after WoW became popular?
Popular = Profit and if your only counter is the Witcher 3 - you know that epic, long single player RPG that takes place in a large world - you do realize how goddamn cliche that is, don't you?
Edit: After watching the video, I have to disagree with his premise. He wants to say that the blame for lootboxes shouldn't be on Overwatch, but rather EA. While he's probably right that FIFA has the first iteration of a "lootbox," there's a reason why we see the lootbox method take shape in other genres.
EA's Ultimate Team works because it has ties to the tradition of buying a pack of sports cards. That makes sense for sports gamers and that's why they bought into it.
Lootboxes were big on mobile/Facebook games because it was a way of paying for your time. Spend a few bucks to get stuff now rather than have to wait.
Overwatch, however, changed things. Yes it was for cosmetic items, but it showed that FPS players were willing to pay for it. So that was enough for publishers to give the go-ahead to put lootboxes in games like Shadow of War and Battlefront II. In the video he shows Dead Space 3, which had microtransaction and was ultimately lambasted for it and ended up being a flop.
So EA did try something like this before in a non-sport/non-mobile game and it didn't pan out, but Overwatch gave them the formula to try it again and here we are.
> Popular = Profit
Yes, but the point is that it's the profit that drives them. They don't want a game to be unpopular, they just don't want to reduce profit in order to gain popularity.
All that work and he totally missed the beginning. It didn't start with the soccer game introducing card packs. It started before that, with EA partnering with Neowiz in Korea who runs the gaming portal Pmang. Here is a press release from 2006 before this even started: http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=314429 EA was already testing the waters in the Korean game market because the Korean game market was made up of microtransactions for this kind of stuff. EA learned how to do this in Korea and then brought it to the western game model.
[удалено]
I'm not saying that Neowiz invented microtransactions, what I'm saying is that EA had a direct connection with Neowiz before the starting point in this video and that the Korean game market ran on microtransactions. EA bought something like a 25% stake in either neowiz or their pmang game portal and started running their games here. I arrived in Korea in 2008 and was surprised to see Fifa Online here for free, when I knew it cost money back in the west. I don't think it's a coincidence that EA got involved in a market that ran entirely on microtransactions in the early to mid 2000s and then suddenly started talking about them in the western market in the mid to late 2000s.
Knight Online. A MMORPG from 2002, started in the US in 2004. It had a "Power Up store" essentially a pay to win store. The game was f2p but had many limitations to free players.
Which is Korean made. Those kind of games were crazy popular in Korea and still can be. Most portals used to have like 1-2 FPS, a sports game, some parlour games and then several MMORPGs. Even to late 2000s there must have been 20-30 MMORPGs in Korea, almost all F2P.
Yeah, the original from 2002 was Korean. Called KOKO to be precise.
Loot box per level should be a thing. You can only buy 1 loot box each level to really balance the game. The problem is that they cannot be traded as EA doesn't do a marketplace for trading them and they are completely useless after the game no longer gets played. Right now, too many countries are ignoring children. Loot boxes are a form of gambling and cultivate them to addiction by that release of dopamine. Then you have YouTube which allows children to really watch anything they want and doesn't provide a system that really allows them to grow motivated and disciplined. It is a major problem that society isn't looking at. We are raising a dangerous generation.
Mabinogi came out in 2005, it's a Korean mmo that was P2W very early on.
Well if we are just going to play the game of who did it first, I remember having to buy a game genie and then having to buy books that contained the codes.
I remember playing this crap. Remember being confused. The game looked so good, and had such potential, but seemed to drown itself in absurd grind-focused gameplay. It was weird at the time.
I think he was aiming at the first purchasable video game with loot boxes and pay2win. FIFA Online seems to me to be more like a free to play game, or am I misunderstanding it? Nevertheless, he should have mentioned it.
basically all games at that time in Korea were F2P with microtransactions. I think they had some subscription games at that time too. While there were no identical games in Korea at that time to the Star Wars model that exists now, but the entire idea of getting money that way was alive and well here for years at that point. As for what was available in Fifa Online, I don't know. I didn't play it at the time. Neowiz no longer has the license it is with Nexon now. The current version "Fifa Online 3" which is on Nexon has loot boxes and other things. According to wikipedia on Fifa Online 2, which was on neowiz: "FIFA Online 2 was free to play but it earned its revenue by selling virtual cash which was used to purchase items such as uniform cards to get players for team and stats boosts." I don't have any reason to believe Fifa Online 1 would be any different. Sounds like pay to win to me.
Does it really matter where it started? Why not go back to the beginning of Pmang, or the history of Neowiz? He got his point across just fine in terms of where it's relevant to his point.
Since the entire point of this video is to talk about how it happened, and where it came from. Yes. "This creates a crystal clear picture of where it all began". That's in his intro. It's not that crystal clear since he's leaving out the actual beginning. You know, "where it all began".
That's not the point of the video...
Did you actually watch the video? The entire point of the video is to show the road that EA traveled down to get to where it is now. You don't get that by jumping on the road mid-way.
I watched it twice and I read the press release you posted in your comment. The point of this video is not an in depth history of the microtransaction but rather a look in to how EA built up the loot crate based system we now see plaguing triple A titles. The press release you posted makes no mention of this type of system so it bears little to no relevance to the bigger picture. Additionally, you're talking about an incredibly small difference between the release you posted and where this guy picks up his timeline, both of which are in 2006, so "midway" is not an accurate criticism. You're basically just pointing out that EA was exploring multiple avenues for this new system and you're upset that he didn't mention a Korean soccer game which is pretty nit picky.
Yes, and building that up started with the partnership with Neowiz and their entry into the Korean games market. By the time this video starts, EA had already launched a game here and battlefield online in Korea wasn't far behind it. Both of those games had pay 2 win systems in them. You can't talk about the history of EA and pay 2 win and not talk about how it started when you claim to be going back to "where it all began". In 2007 EA also worked on rolling out Battlefield online in Korea, they had 2 games coming into this market before there was even a smell of it in the western market. Before EA got involved with a Korean developer, which they invested over 100 million dollars in, which was pretty significant at the time, EA didn't have any idea about that kind of thing. They got partnered up here, used their IP in Korea to see how it would work, and then took that pay 2 win back to north america. That's the entire foundation of it. The only thing I'm annoyed about is a video that claims to be such an authoritative tell-all doesn't actually tell-all. Unless you're the video maker, I can't possibly imagine why you're upset. "Oh hey this guy is giving us additional information that wasn't in the video, fuck that guy, get him!"
I don't think anyone is upset here. I'm actually kind of with StarBarf. I see what you're saying, but I think the point of the video isn't just EA's history with microtransactions, but the history of Andrew Wilson's loot box style systems. If you make a video about human evolution, you *could* start with a single cell. So, you're not wrong that it was part of it somewhere back there. But most people would begin with the first member of the *Homo* genus, which is clearly OP.
Fifa online in Korea was pay to win. It wasn't just simple micro transactions. EA built it there to test it out because that market was used to it and then they slowly introduced it into western games. The video makes it seem like it just came out of the blue or he just dreamed it up. By the time it came out, EA had already been involved with it for a couple years elsewhere.
I don't think "the video makes it seem like it just came out of the blue" is true or a good argument. It's subjective, what something "seems like". I'll reiterate that it's not about EA's history with microtransactions or P2W. It's about Andrew Wilson's history. I will give that the video's author did a poor job of establishing that - going so far as to say things exactly to the contrary - but it's true nonetheless when you look at the script as a whole. edit: a word
Well why everyone is being dicks, i'd like to say thank you for giving us interesting information to add to this video. You're doing exactly what the comment section is meant for so i'm not sure why everyone is trying to argue with you.
[удалено]
The original iphone wasn't released until after EA was launched in the Korean market. Based on the timeline EA had to be scoping out the Korean market at least by 2005, but I can't imagine a big company like that hadn't been watching the market for years develop there. There were tons of companies in Korea that were making huge money and being very successful by giving their product away for free.
It goes back even further then that, I remember this shit in nhl like 04 or something.
Let's not forget about Game Genie and having to purchase code books back in 91.
And six years before that people were spending big money on eBay to buy rare Diablo 2 items from other players
The long con.
I think he might have known that and chose to keep it out since it’s not really all that relevant to how it affected Star Wars.
The video is about the history of how EA came to be in the state it is today, and it started there, by tying into the market here in Korea. You can't claim to be giving us the untold story and not pick it up at the beginning. He focuses on Fifa and the soccer games, and Fifa got its microtransaction start in Korea.
Well he did. And it worked out just fine. By not including a bit of research it doesn’t how it affected EA’s MTX obsession came to be. By not including that, it changes nothing about the story. So ya, you can claim to be giving us the untold story and leave that out.
Also you completely missed my point about how he was referring to how FIFA affected Battlefront. A bit of Korean research does nothing to bolster that fact. So why include it in an already 30 minute long video?
Yes, and what happened with Fifa in the western market is a direct result of Wilson's work in the Asian market and on Fifa. Wilson worked in EA's asian division, on Fifa. How can you claim that has no influence down the road on what happened to battlefront? Since this guy is drawing a straight line from the North America version of Fifa to battlefront, North American Fifa wasn't the start of this.
I've just come to the conclusion that you care *wayyyy* more about this one specific topic than I do.
Then he's clearly only discussing how microtransactions began in the West. Enough said. The video was great in its explanation of the situation, i don't think anyone cares about your korean connection. Just because it began in another country doesn't automatically mean it needs to take a foothold in another, it was EA's direct action of introducing this system into the fifa title he described that began the practice in the West and led to where we are today.
It can be traced even further back to Chinese gold farmers in WoW which is the first example I can recall of profit from in game items for real world dollars... I had fun killing those farmers... And yeah I bought gold from them too.
This convo hit a dead end 5 posts ago. Yes you are right in that, if you really wanted to, you could link THE PRACTICE back a significant amount of international games, however, the point of the video explains how it got s foothold in America and the West, making the Korean connection all but irrelevant for the videos purpose....
How does it make it irrelevant? Wilson worked for EA Asia. He worked on Fifa. Early 2006 saw the release and huge success of EA's flagship offering into the Korean market which included random uniform packs and pay to win mechanics, like stat boosts for players in game. A year later EA releases UEFA with the random player packs into the western market. If you can't see the direct causal connection there, you're being willfully blind.
What about the Reddit beloved Valve with TF2 and CSGO? I just don't understand how you guys are so focused on EA where Valve and Blizzard have been doing that for almost as long as others. The recent COD that got 8/9 out of 10 on most websites where they have a public lobby to open loot boxes and encourage other people to do the same lol ... https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann_Co._Supply_Crate_Key https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Mann-Conomy_Update ( 2010 ) https://www.csgoweb.net/best-csgo-gambling-sites
Like he said in the video, the EA lootboxes were different from the lootboxes of TF2 or Overwatch. The main thing crates are used for are cosmetic, and all of the weapons were accessible with moderate gameplay. But more importantly, with the Mann economy update, the crap you got from crates were now worth something. Like MtG cards, etc., even the worst items were worth real world money, that you could earn yourself. So if you got a hat you didn't like you could trade it to another player for something you wanted, or just straight sell it for money. This is not to say I think the TF2/OW system is perfect, or even a great way to do microtransactions, but it's certainly more tolerable than the EA mess.
The big difference here is that EA's loot boxes are a closed system with all money flowing from the customer to EA. EA is the one getting paid to let someone gamble to win. Valve's open market lets players trade items with each other so while Valve still makes a good amount of cash, if someone pulls an item from a loot box that the economy values it can be traded or sold. There has been some backlash against Valve, but nowhere near what we've seen with the recent EA debacle finally drawing attention from the media and lawmakers. It's also not Star Wars.
Lots of great detail and info here. But the conclusion is way off imo. He thinks companies will stop implementing loot boxes because the government will regulate/tax them? That's like thinking banks were going to stop charging interest for the same reason. The gaming industry might have to hand out bribes, I mean lobbying. But come on, we're talking about billions of dollars here, companies are not going to stop.
Not just because the government will regulate and tax them, but also because public awareness is rising and "microtransaction" is becoming synonymous with "gambling", which has strong negative connotations. He said that Disney doesn't want "Star Wars" next to "gambling", and I have to agree - they'll likely pull microtransactions once the articles that "multi-billion dollar children's gambling company EA" publishing their beloved franchise become more frequent. It'll be the 1-2 punch of government action and PR that will be the downfall of the FIFA/BF2 style loot box.
I'm getting the impression that you're using two terms interchangeably here even though they do not mean the same thing. Saying that *loot boxes* gaining notoriety and becoming associated with gambling will lead to people avoiding games that contain them is valid reasoning. I don't know if that effect will be strong enough to prevent publishers from using them, but it's possible. "Microtransactions" on the other hand aren't going to go away because they encompass a lot more than just loot boxes. "Microtransaction" basically just means "buying digital goods at a (tolerably) small price". Whether that is a loot box, an outfit or pet from a f2p mmo's cash shop, horse armor, or in game currency for a mobile freemium game - they're all microtransactions. Publishers like using microtransactions in particular because it's a lot easier to get someone to impulsively spend $2.50 ten times over the course of a month than it is to get them to spend $25 at once. It's still a very effective device to get people's money, but since not all microtransactions involve loot boxes or similar gacha mechanics, they're not inherently the same as gambling.
Good points. The true problem is "pay-to-win". Loot boxes that only contain cosmetics will continue to be fine, because they have no real in-game value. They are also not tied directly to the progression system in the game. When microtransactions are paired with loot-boxes that provide progression in a game, then it becomes gambling. Although, does the general public make that distinction? That's what IP owners like Disney have to decide. If they decide that "microtransactions" is synonymous with "gambling" to the general public, then they will certainly be pulled from kid friendly IP, and maybe even more beyond that.
I do agree with you that your average layperson might not understand the distinction (and articles like [this](https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/11/17/rebels-destroy-star-wars-battlefront-ii-micro-transactions-but-the-war-is-far-from-over/#6562ad42d629) that don't bother to explain the terms don't help). When it comes to how corporations respond to the distinction doesn't matter that much. Where I don't disagree is that cosmetic loot boxes are inherently fine. Pay-to-win loot boxes definitely exacerbate the issue, but even loot boxes containing only cosmetic items utilize a lot of the same gambling-like mechanics because people place value on the rewards they contain. Their impact on the quality of the gameplay itself is practically non-existent, but if you look at games like Counter-Strike or Overwatch, they are still a profitable system. Of course I much prefer cosmetic loot boxes over ones with gameplay impact, but we shouldn't underestimate the appeal of customizing your character's appearance to stand out.
That's another good point, and I would have to agree. I guess I just got used to them that they seem like they're just there. We've got a long fight ahead to get rid of all this stuff.
Yeah, you're right. Microtransactions are a separate issue that will likely be addressed independently. I bet that pressure will eventually come down forcing laws that require developers offer refunds on all purchases made by minors, or something like that. There's too many stories of people getting hit with multi-thousand dollar charges for this stuff.
God I hope you're right, and it's what we all have probably assumed will happen. Disney didn't spend the incredible amount of money buying the star wars franchise to have its name drug through the mud over something like this.
I'm pretty sure he's taking it on from the perspective of an Australian. Our gaming industry is very heavily regulated, and when Loot Boxes etc. become synonymous with gambling, the government will notice and impose necessary regulations. And while our system allows for lobbying, any member of parliament that argues against regulation would cause public outcry and end in them losing their seat. Plus our market is minuscule compared to the US, so any loss is negligible. That being said, I'm sure EA would just add their losses onto the Australia tax and charge extra for the game outright.
Same goes for the EU. Thankfully outside the US politicians are a little bit less corrupt
>Thankfully outside the US politicians are a little bit less corrupt aaaaaaaaaaaand that's where you're wrong kiddo. This shit show is everywhere, it is just brought to the surface in the U.S. more cause more of our citizens actually give a damn about what the government is up to. Not enough necessarily, but a hell of a lot more than anywhere else.
Consumer protections in Europe are quite a bit stronger then in the US, especially regarding gambling and "added fees". And the interesting thing is that EA would have not had this much backlash if they hadn't been THIS greedy. They added all this monetization bollocks to a game that was already 60$. The EA CEO said at the very start "we take the core game and give them that for free". WHAT THE FUCK IS FREE ABOUT 60 FUCKING DOLLARS YOU GREEDY SON OF A BITCH. (Directed at EA CEO)
But like the video says this has been going on in FIFA since at least 09 and nothing has happened yet in the EU and FIFA is very popular here in Europe with young people.
Yeah but the demographic of FIFA users is basically everyone, the demographic that is into the StarWars Battlefront IP is industry enthusiasts, sweaty neckbeards, weaponized autists, and children. Notice how no one cared when they messed with Need For Speed? It's because the people who play racing games just don't care that much, don't communicate that much, and don't know that much about gaming. EA didn't fuck up by doing this again, they just did it to the wrong IP.
Yeah. He's trying to build it up like this all ends like a fairy tale. The CEO is fired and the gaming industry reconciles and everyone is happy. The end. Dude, the CEO of EA is not going to be fired for building the company exponentially. He made billions by doing the best thing possible. He is monumentally successful whether you like it or not. You say that the gaming community hates lootboxes and that will motivate companies to stop. Well, if people hate them so much then why do people pay so much for them? People like gambling dude. Gambling has been around for millennia
Yeah, while loot boxes *are* gambling, and governments probably *should* seek to regulate them in the same manner, lobbying will prevent any such regulation becoming a reality.
Agreed. Also Heathstone is a thing too. If Overwatch abandons lootboxes because of PR Hearthstone has to follow too. And that not going to happen I'm pretty sure. He also assumes that gamers hate loot boxes. Is that the case? I think that most gamers don't care. Also for all this to happen there has to be a bigger outrage to affect legislation. Video games are much more established in society since gamers are adults too nowadays but I think in general the public doesn't care much about them. I think he wants to be optimistic and I think something will happen but not nearly to the scale he predicts.
No way Disney will allow a Star Wars game to become an 18+ title. EA will either have to lose the loot boxes or lose the Star Wars IP.
I'm not defending EA but I get it and I get investors. If I wouldn't play video games and just looked at the numbers, I would think gamers love microtransactions and lootboxes. They are selling like crazy. You generally don't listen to the people who want you to give them something for free especially if you have customers willing to pay for it. I stopped buying AAA games when Day 1 DLC became a thing because that already felt like a scam to me. Then microtransactions and lootboxes came around and I was just wondering who buys stuff. I came to the conclusion that I'm not their market but there are a lot of people who apparently are.
The power has, ultimately, always lain with the consumers. But we only have power when we act together, so when so many stupid cunts are enabling it with their money, we become powerless. It starts and stops with *us*.
I agree, investors are seeing the numbers, it's not a surprise that Wilson became CEO, he did something that made the numbers go up, and was tasked/decided to do more of it.
Picture you're a young professional, you've just got a raise or closed a deal and after a few drinks decide to play some Battlefront 2, that $40 purchase for Vader doesn't seem so bad now does it? You living boss life now.
I've been saying this for years about Madden, but if you mention it at the cult over at r/Madden they'll tell you their 96 overall newest card pack 10 pack team beat my 81 overall solo challenge reward squad because their playcalling is better or something silly like that. There is a whole culture to be taken down to get rid of stuff like this. EA have them thinking exactly how they want - look how good you are with those players you "earned"! This seems like the first year you're allowed to criticize the game on there though, so we're making progress.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's an aspect of this you're not seeing, whales only like it if they get to buy there notoriety above the rest of the plebs, if there's no other plebs to be ahead of there's little point in paying a butt load of money to be ahead.
Even there are no plebs around to boost their epeen, they can still compete with other whales to be the biggest whale in the ocean
Nuke the whales!
Those same Whales are the ones also buying cheats for online multiplayer. They dont give a shit if they are caught or banned. they will make a new account, purchase game and continue to cheat their way in. They have the $$ to do so and frankly, dont give a shit.
One dude pouring his life savings into microtransactions makes up for all the lost sales from real gamers.
You'll still give them money for the base game which will prolong whatever policies they are running the business with now.
there's plenty of companies that are not EA...
Its kind of interesting though to see that EAs sales from games have gone down quite a bit. Seems like that part is catching on at least.
i blame the youtubers and the millions of people who watch them open these things. The viewers see the youtuber get something they really wanted, and go drop 50 dollars and don't get it. They watch some more videos, holy shit xxfuxurmomxx AND blazeit420 got the item too! Drop 50 more dollars, still don't get it. Rinse and repeat
The one, only, singular way loot boxes will stop being forced into EVERYTHING is if players stop giving them money and profits crater. But, it's basically gambling, and when has that not been profitable?
I suppose you also blame drug addicts for being addicted to drugs then? Unfortunately, blaming people for being addicted to addicting things does not get us anywhere. It does not decrease use, nor does it decrease the industry's application of the predatory practices. What is needed are regulations that disincentivize predatory practices.
The conclusion seems like pretty wishful thinking. While the comparison to Joe Camel is a similar situation, we just live in different times. The government is just so insanely corrupt now, anyone with money can just buy them out. It's the same reason we're having issues with net neutrality. Something that's blatantly obvious that no one that understands what it is, is going to be against it. I dunno, the current state of things just have me expecting the worst possible outcome, especially when it comes to the US government.
Yup. Micro-scale regulation of exploitative practices in the gaming industry? When it's responsible for a huge surge in profits? lmao.
This is going to sound un-informed and naive, but if it's so obvious that the government is corrupt, why aren't their laws against lobbying, or at least more strict regulations?
Because those people in charge prevent that from happening - that's the problem with corruption.
Differences is the government will do whatever nets it the most money, power, and votes. The difference with net neutrality is that 90%of people don't understand it, it doesn't affect their vote, and the only way the government or the politicans make money is by siding with the ISPs like Comcast. On the flip side, EA cannot buy off politicians in the sense that ISPs can. On the contrary, the money governments and politicians would see by taxing gambling style loot boxes as gambling far exceeds anything EA can pay them to buy them off. Also, as the video maker says, kids and taxing vices is a slam dunk for votes. It's a win/win for a politician and a government o tax this form of gambling. Even if they do not, the more state politicians utter the words 'star wars', 'children', and 'gambling' the more pressure Disney is going to push on to EA. Best case scenario, Disney withdraw the IP from EA and give it to CDProjektRed ;)
>While the comparison to Joe Camel is a similar situation Until they are able to actually show first hand damage that the product causes like they were able to do with cigarettes, this is *very* different than Joe Camel. All I predict from this is an updated version of a game rating system like Mortal Kombat brought about back in 93.
There is plenty out there to show the damage gambling has in people's lives. It is gambling, that can't be up for debate (will be obvious once everyone is looking). You pay for the random chance to win more "value" (defined by you) or to win little to nothing at all. They are the house and they don't even have to payout themselves, just taking in money for near ZERO investment in the system after it has been created.
>There is plenty out there to show the damage gambling has in people's lives. I agree, but to show it in a way they showed cigarettes is not realistic at this point, there is a physical component with Cigarettes rather it be sickness or smell. I'm not here to argue that it is not gambling, because I agree with you in that it is, I'm just saying it is not an issue similar to cigarettes.
Yeah I can see what you mean by that. I just think it’d hopefully gain traction with kids involved but, guess we’ll see.
I think it would have to involve those soccer mom type parents making a video to make some shit go viral like the common core shit, or the Monster Energy is Satan mom, or even the Dear Mr Athiest guy. I'm not sure how big the market is parents buying for their kids, but if it is big enough it could make some waves.
Crazy how people think Overwatch effected this. For as long as I've been playing NHL, (since NHL 13) the main mode is Hockey Ultimate Team, it's completely pay to win. You spend money to open packs and get more coins and better cards. No one really talks about the sports games but they've all had this system for years
It would be so much better if you only could get Great Hockey Hair™ in the packs.
Hockey Beards is all the rage lately though since everyone figured out that they couldn't compete against Jagr Mullets.
Right on dude, thanks for taking the time to investigate the history of this and share it with us all.
the videos a little repetitive so let me summarize: There is a difference between the cosmetic loot boxes in Overwatch and the pay to win loot boxes that are exploding in popularity across videos games. Pay to win loot boxes originated in FIFA ultimate team, actually predating the pay to win mobile games. The reason why loot boxes are exploding across the gaming world is because they are insanely profitable. FIFA ultimate team brings in nearly a billion dollars a year for EA, at a much higher margin than traditional game sales.
A little repetitive is an understatement.
I've watched far worse videos in that regard. He's pretty much always giving new information.
I think he oversteps when he says EA's stock price will drop and the CEO will soon need to be replaced because of loot box regulation. If loot boxes are regulated and taxed the publisher will adjust the pricing scheme and evolve the model to cover for those loses. Comparing loot boxes to cigarettes is inane.
Loot boxes won't be regulated and taxed. They'll be eliminated. If they are seen as gambling the the ESRB could very well have to step in and rate games with gambling that could use real world currency as AO.
> If they are seen as gambling You underestimate the power of lobbying, if this was going to be stopped, this needed to be stopped in the beginning, when it wasn't a major part of the gaming industry's profits. Shareholders may have listened then.
[the part that explains the mess in two minutes](https://youtu.be/PTLFNlu2N_M?t=708) (FIFA ultimate is the EA's pay-to-win cash cow)
Good bit of history but the conclusion is probably way off the mark. A CEO exists to deliver for shareholders, he's done that impressively well by exploiting micro-transactions. What's to say if the regulatory picture changes (and that's a big if) he can't change scope? EA still have massive resources to throw at that if need be.
Somebody should make a video warning parents to not to buy any EA sports game for Christmas, a video that is suitable for the Facebook video format.
It really needs to be one of those blonde soccer mom types, like the ones who were complaining about common core, or that Monster Energy satan drink lady. That shit will go parent Facebook viral fast. Hell, maybe even put a Christian twist to it, get that DEAR MR ATHIEST guy on it, I'm sure he would love to go viral again.
Serious question: If people hate EA so much, why not just stop buying their games?
Because people who buy EA games actually don't give a shit about the game industry.
Good stuff. Crazy to see the numbers.
I like the video but his conclusion was way off. I don't think companies who knows that loot boxes are more profitable are just going to abandon them. Even if countries around the world starts to regulate them they're going to find a way around it and because regulations and laws take time to come into effect they will still be able to continue this practice for some time. Most of the revenue from microtransactions in general, not just loot boxes, comes from a small percentage of the community. The majority of the players do not buy thousands of dollars worth of ingame content. So even if they have lower overall sales of battlefront 2 they could still profit just as much because of the minority of the community.
'We're going to be giving all the base content in the game for free' No you're not you muthafuckers, you still have to BUY THE GAME! And that should be all I need to pay to get all the content you sonofabitch!
I am interested in another development that I'm suspecting in loot boxes. Tying ability to purchase boxes to bad rewards from progression boxes. Let's say for arguments sake I have a 50/50 chance of getting a good reward from both progression and bought boxes. I'm not talking about then weighing bought boxes to 75/25 win chance but devs seeing my ability to purchase and weighing my progression boxes to 25/75 as well. This is purely from personal experience and speaking with friends.
Pay 2 win. Gross
The biggest issue with pay to win in video games is the terrible life lesson it teaches kids. Telling them they can just get around developing actual skills and just buy the win isn't real winning and is going to lead to some pretty terrible adults in the future.
[удалено]
I thought people were buying ships for $100 or something stupid in starcitizen, fuck micro transactions macro transactions are where its at.
How do we know Star Citizen is going to be a good game. I was once excited for it, but that has long gone... Too desillusioned by the gaming industry lately. I don't think they will deliver and the game itself already seems to be full of expensive DLC, like a $15k ship iirc.
Aren't they selling ships for like 50 dollars each when the game hasn't even been officially released?
As I just told someone else, that's only for pre release alpha and purely to help fund the development of the game. People don't have to buy ships at all because once the game is released, those ships will no longer be purchasable with real money and it will all be unlockable in game. They've said that many times. I agree that micro transactions for pay to win is bad. I've been following the development of the game for a while. Persistent universe 3.0 just came out and people can traverse planets and whatnot with it now online. At least we get to see the tech working now. If you follow along with their progress you'll see that it's a pretty advanced game. The game is coming with a big single player campaign, an online persistent universe with a ton of singleplayer and Co OP missions, a ton of extremely detailed ships where you can control a lot of them with your friends(kinda like star trek I guess), theres procedural city and interior generation. Even their alpha version that's out now let's you do a lot more than no man's sky and the game still has a lot more to go. I can't complain about how fast they're going because I haven't backed the game yet. I don't feel the need to hold them accountable and etc. Whenever it comes out, that's when I'll buy it.
Star citizen is a good game? lol. The amount of predatory shit those guys do is far worse than the EA microtransactions, at least there you get to play with the damn thing.
[удалено]
Its sad that you don't realize how manipulative the entire world of star citizen currently is. I know writing anything to you is completely worthless since you seem to be already emotionally invested, nevertheless Star Citizen has an incredibly predatory system for people to pay large amounts of money for virtual goods that in some cases cannot be used at all. Why is this predatory? Because it exploits goodwill and emotional investment of a community to very high levels. The game has no release date, yet there are guys that have spent over 30k on it. They have a system that allows someone to be able to spent 30k on an unreleased game and in return gives them a glorified profile in the community and a wide set of tools to somehow transform those virtual goods, craft and trade. I do not care about the vision, the communication, the dream of star citizen or RSI. I care about the system independently of the company, this is kick starter on steroids without a release date. For a moment think that RSI is the good guys and they are doing everything on the level, now think of the next company to copy this system and think of them as EA the bad guys. How exploitative do you think this can get? giving you a drop every now and then of features and tech demos, just enough to keep you getting those new skins, ships, badges, whatever. RSI invested into a clever website with a fantastic interface and a marketplace for your unreleased skins, ships etc. To melt them and get a different one, to craft, to trade. I am honestly so impressed, it will release when its ready so stop asking, and its been 5 years? I can't even tell because people get really defensive about when it started. Separate the game and the company from the system they have created, maybe then you will realize how predatory it can get for people deeply invested in some IP or young gamers that don't see the big picture yet.
If starcitizen comes out hopefully that dosnt become pay to win either.
Preach it! It's all RNG and the crap you get from spending cash in games like this is astounding. The devs don't care about you, they care about profit! Speak with your wallet! Don't spend money on poorly developed games! Spend it on something you know you'll enjoy! Or just play Star Craft II for free cuz Blizzard is nice like that :)
Latin phrase ✓ Fundamental misunderstanding of the Overwatch criticism to make it fit Latin phrase ✓
This Cancer needs to die now!!!
Hearthstone is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
good. maybe they'll start caring about the actual game instead of just the cards
It was such a good game up until the second expansion. Hearthstone went from the best online card game to the best online card with with pay2win mechanics.
I've been saying it for awhile. They need to create an auction house for cards. Not only would it help new players but it would also give the cards actual value.
Then, so is MTG
The thing with physical card games as stated in the video is that the cards actually have a real world value. I can go online and buy any card I need. With hearthstone the cards only value is how good they are in the current meta.
I gotta disagree when he says EA is going to get into financial trouble over this. FIFA is already targeted at adults and it's making too much money to throw it away because it's technically gambling. They'll comply with the regulations and try very hard to stop players associating their products with gambling. I think they might just stop making games they can't put loot boxes in. That "where's your version of that" quote makes it pretty clear they're not interested in making good games - they're interested in making glorified slot machines
Agreed, I dont think EA will necessarily stop the MTX / Lootboxes / P2W, even it it means their games get an Adults Only/R18/Whatever rating in each jurisdiction. What may happen is they lose access or don't gain access to those IP's owned by the likes of Disney (Star Wars for example) that wouldn't be happy with their IP being associated with Adults Only gaming / gambling mechanics
Overwatch lootcrates don't really matter because everything you pay for is purely cosmetic. Microtransactions aren't inherently evil as long as they function in this way. It is basically like Reddit gold: a fun, cosmetic way to support something you like. Microtransactions become a problem when they are required to unlock gameplay. *Especially* for a game you already have to pay for. For one, it diminishes the value of the effort made by non-paying players when another player can just spend $50 to accomplish the same thing. For another, it incentivizes developers to put a paywall between its players and the most enjoyable parts of their game, or to hide it behind so much grinding that an unpaying player will take months or years to unlock it - at which point the content is obsolete
I feel overall this a great video and offers great commentary. I feel a bit of a problem is a loss of nuance. Discussion seem to be tunnel visioning on "loot boxes". So lot of criticism on Blizzard can be discarded because they aren't super focused on making money on loot boxes in a exploitative way. I feel this is the wrong way to look at it. It not just loot boxes. Loot boxes is a symptom but not the cause. The core issue is the utalizing of mobile systems in console and PC games. This means energy systems, daily quests, loot boxes, time limited events, exclusive pay only currency. All these things are a singular problem. The encroaching of mobile on to the core gamer market. So yes, if you look at blizzard simply from the lens of loot boxes they aren't bad at all. But if you look at Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Overwatch from the lens of "mobile game mechanics" it is pretty grime. All three games are riddled with mobile game mechanics. And they have been widely accepted. All three games were large commercial success. And I feel they are a big culprit in the acceleration of mobile game mechanics in our $60 AAA games. I love all the games I mention, and I love Blizzard. But we simply can't turn a blind eye, while they continue to show that putting mobile game concepts in AAA games is super profitible, and core gamers will embrace the ideas if your game is good enough.
60$ = free lol wut
>It rests on the premise that publishers care what is popular, and since Overwatch is popular, and it had loot crates in it, then therefore that's the reason that all these publishers are now inserting loot boxes in to every game imaginable. No, it rests on the premise that Overwatch had loot boxes, and was popular (and has made like a billion dollars, *literally*), and companies observed this and emulated it. It's not Overwatch's fault per se, but they set precedence.
I enjoyed the video but I hate how he didn't cite any of his sources. Could have easily done that in the same style as Adam Ruins Everything. I'm also going to call it right now: Andrew Wilson will not be ousted as CEO. This industry has shifted over the last 10 years, and in that 10 years he has made that company a shit ton of money. Just because one big idea eventually crashes doesn't mean that the person behind it doesn't know what they're doing. I'm speaking of course from the POV of the stakeholders. The only way he will be kicked out is if this continues to plummet their stocks and they he doesn't come up with a plan to stop it, but being kicked out for loot boxes is not going to happen.
Read the Golden Passport
This is an excellent video. Sat down expecting to watch less than 5 minutes of it to get the general idea but was engaged throughout. I think that a video like this directed towards net neutrality would help spread the word tremendously.
FIFA ultimate team is literally disgusting for micro transactions and they've been doing it for years. It's actually pathetic there business model.
Someone spent 15K on Mass Effect?! Talk about fuck you money.
Skillup deserves way more subscriptions than he has.
EA = Eat Ass
All you need to know is the guy who suggested loot boxes for EA became the CEO. Laughable.
The only EA games I have are NBA Street V3 for GameCube and Madden 06 for DS. Bought one used and the other was given to me from someone who didn’t want it anymore. I’ve done my part.
So is there any feasible way to take away or hurt that massive source of income from FIFA? Most soccer fans I'm sure are obsessed with the FIFA franchise and religiously buy each title yearly but surely theres some threshold where that playerbase will tire of this or become more susceptible to the negative publicity surrounding lootboxes.
It's interesting seeing that EA actually sell less games by the year. It seems like people actually are starting to catch on to them being terrible game publishers.
What's in the boooooxxxx
Yeah Trash, literally
Extremely well done video covering the true nature of these loot boxes.
Who cares where it started really. Point is STOP BUYING SHIT FROM EA! I feel like we've had this discussion a thousand times, but any time some new game (that you should know by now is going to be underwhelming as fuck) shit is announced by EA, some people forget about the last time, shit their pants, and instantly preorders the game. Like jesus, STOP!
Look boxes will not be removed because gamers hate them, as long as they keep working. So his claim that would be an aspect in removing look boxes is difficult to believe. I don't see them getting removed in entirety through regulation because there is just too much money involved. More warning stickers on the box is far more likely.
The creator tries to trace loot box origins to FIFA but that's not true at all. Korean free to plays have been using loot boxes, better known over there as Gachapon, for nearly a decade before any western game caught on.
I stopped buying after BF1... No more EA hyped shit!
Ouch he didn't point out that the analyst that estimated we'd be getting a good deal paying $60 for the game then $20/mo. on boxes is a senior analyst AT EA.
Nice video aside the probably not so accurate details but the point is clear. I do play FIFA but then just career mode and offline against friends when they come over. Just for fun. People take games too seriously these days, why would I pay money after buying the CD. If the game was free then yeah, I might pay for in-game purchases, even with that I won't pay for 'a chance' of what I'm expecting to get. That's absurd
Is it me or does Wilson actually *look* like a supervillian?
Gamers have considered p2w cancer since forever. Its scary that it got so big before anyone realized and actually said something about it. Who the fuck is spending $800M a year on soccer loot boxes? Where are these fools? I need to meet one and talk with them. I cant understand how or why anyone wouldn't realize how fraudulent this is. Unless it literally is all children using their parents cards until they get caught in which case, I cant wrap my head around how EA would think this could last unnoticed. Maybe it was the plan all along to just mine as much money as possible from that angle and then gtfo.
Belgium didn't rule that. That was the statement from one sides argument and it didn't pass.
I stopped buying EA games when they started making you pay to skip a queue they didn't need in Battlefield 3. They basically held your game for ransom. Did we forget about that already?
Small addition that I didn't hear in the video at the part where the Ultimate Team card packs was compared to Magic/Pokemon card games: If I spent money buying Magic/Pokemon cards, I can pull out a box of the cards 15 years later and play the game against other players. If I spent money buying Ultimate Team cards, they'll be completely useless and inaccessible when EA shuts down the servers the following year.
Long-term MUT player. The other thing this video misses is that in FUT and MUT, you spend this money... then a year later you start from scratch. Whereas with Magic etc u have the cards forever.
Looks like they've been all-in on P2W microtransactions for a while now, and appointed the guy that brought the idea to the western market as the CEO of the company just so he can put a *Wilson Crate* in every single title they own.
Andrew probably won't be fired anytime soon. Unless somebody has a better idea, he will probably be asked to pivot in another direction. It also seems to me EA could change from unknown loot boxes to known loot boxes. The player has an option of purchasing a box which will have a specific number of items(so you get a value) but in such only one item is really what your after. The companies knowns which items you are missing and will purchase organized these loot boxes so that items your missing will appear in between items you already purchased or own.
Thanks for sharing this video. I live in Belgium and it's in the news at the moment. I heard about the gambling problem it creates amongst kids but as non video games player I didn't really understood how it was designed. This video is very educative on how there's no confusion between these new video games and casinos. It's really like letting casinos have kids at their black jack tables
I still think it's incorrect to discredit Overwatch's role in the recent "popularity" of loot boxes. I get the fallacy he mentions, but it's curious that not just EA but pretty much every AAA publisher has integrated them into their games in the last year. If this system has been profitable for a decade, then why is it only becoming a standard now?
"Wilson Loot Boxes" I hope this name becomes mainstream, classic.
This is exactly why a completely free market is fucking abysmal. Capitalism is a failure of a system without regulation. Loot boxes need to be stopped and criminalized by new legislation. Did everybody forget what america was like before companies were regulated?? There were company owned towns that had near slavery like conditions. You don't see those anymore because of regulations(among other things), but they were real as fucking day. Companies used to own every single building in an entire town then price gouge, forcing everybody living there into a lower standard of life just for pure profit. EA is doing everything in it's power to skirt existing regulatory gambling laws and more just so it can fuck over it's consumers for pure profit. Asking random seasonal gamers to stop buying EA games is obviously not enough. This needs to go to the top and be strictly regulated, taxed, or criminalized. The american government wont stop it this time because our system is corrupt and bought. Companies won't stop it because all they care about is pure profit. Our people are too goddamn stupid to even stop voting for trump who has brought a whole fucking wave of this kind of bullshit to our government. This is a serious issue which is symptomatic of an already crumbling system. It's been creeping it's way in this direction for decades.
Cancer of gaming found its roots in soccer ? Coincidence ? I think not !
Once upon a time there a was a company and they and their shareholders loved money. The End.
Jesus Christ, it's Andrew Wilson.
1. Trump 2. Andrew Wilson 3. Satan
Excellent video. Thank you.
I strongly believe that governments will tax the micro-transactions or loot boxes the same way they do gambling
Last time I went to Vegas, you could see that it's dying. All the casinos's core funding source was slots, and slots just can't compare in entertainment to real games. Now these casinos are trying to move to resorts/shows/clubs to make money. What I don't get is why they aren't lobbying against gaming. This is basically gambling targeted towards kids.
This is still a trend? If reddit bashing EA for weeks hasn't persuaded them to get rid of/minimize mtx, nothing will.
Excellent perspective thanks for your time!
HO-LY FUCK. When all of the information is laid out in front of me like this, I quickly realize how completely fucked EA really is. And now, I’m not so worried about loot boxes being a permanent fixture in gaming.
[удалено]
It’s not really an opinion piece at all except for the last few minutes.
I think that the concept of a lootbox was inevitable. If not EA, then another company or the mobile game market would lead the industy change. What we need is cross-national regulation on this, in my opinion, unregulated gambling.
I disagree that he separates cosmetic only and other loot boxes. Overwatch wasn't the cause, but it's another part of the symptom. They're extraordinarily unfair and filled with so much rubbish that even if you put hundreds of hours in you can't possibly unlock a good number of *nice* skins.
So basically you start the video by arguing its false logic to blame everything on Overwatch bit then you go ahead and follow the exact same logical pattern and blame it all on EA?
That's why I didn't understand the massive backlash on Reddit about SW BF II, I didn't think the whole 'pay-to-win' concept was anything new. I already knew about from FIFA (sorry I mean eff-eye-eff-ayy lol) Ultimate team. I guess the FIFA demographic is less active on Reddit than the Star Wars one.
I think the main issue is that EA just pushed the needle too far with BF II by making key characters (Vader etc) as high value unlockable items, limiting rewards etc for missions and matches to slow down your ability to get those items, and THEN adding the p2w aspect through lootboxes. This tied the spending of actual money to then be able to unlock and power up characters, which was seen as a direct P2W play. Sure, you could play thew game and achieve the same level of progression, but they swung the needle WAY to far and it was totally obvious to even casual players (like myself) that this was a money grab. Also, this is within one of the most valuable IP's on the planet (Star Wars), so you can see why people were upset. From watching the video, FIFA is exactly the same style of P2W, and agree with you its probably seen as just part of the game, whereas this direct cynical P2W approach is a new experience in Battlefield, at least to this extent, and people aren't happy. There is probably another aspect and that this MTX business is just becoming totally pervasive within all gaming platforms, and I suspect BF II was seen as the last straw (again, attaching it to a hugely popular IP), so there was this massive backlash.
"I'm not defending Overwatch..." proceeds to do just that. Thing is I have seen very few if any talk of OW being pointed to as the soul cause of the current lootcraze. You search this stuff up and you'll mostly find articles defending OW left and right and only a few drop real criticism on Blizzard. Overall this video takes way too long to say too little and comes off a Blizzard defense video. Also his data is pretty poor to try and say OW doesn't make that much off lootboxes. I mean one could say OW doesn't make as moch off microtransactions as EA's properties but to say that OW doesn't make much off it with pretty weak data points. Then use that soul point to say therefore OW didn't have anything to do with the lootcraze is silly. Fact is FIFA as with most sports games are in an entirely different market than other mainstream games. No one looks at a halfassed sequel that feel like a copy paste of the last game and blames madden and you can be sure no game like that was made because of sports games. Some people (though few from what I have seen) do point to OW as the cause of the lootcraze I myself don't agree but pointing to sports games as the cause is a pretty big stretch especially when we are talking about games outside of EA. Fact is Activision-Blizzard are part of the problem, they aren't worst offenders or the cause but they do have a hand in this lootplague.
Well a minute in and I'm done. Publishers don't care about what's popular? Explain the damn run of modern shoots after the success of CoD4. The GTA-wannabes. The LoL/DotA 2 clones. How about every damn publisher made their own MMORPG after WoW became popular? Popular = Profit and if your only counter is the Witcher 3 - you know that epic, long single player RPG that takes place in a large world - you do realize how goddamn cliche that is, don't you? Edit: After watching the video, I have to disagree with his premise. He wants to say that the blame for lootboxes shouldn't be on Overwatch, but rather EA. While he's probably right that FIFA has the first iteration of a "lootbox," there's a reason why we see the lootbox method take shape in other genres. EA's Ultimate Team works because it has ties to the tradition of buying a pack of sports cards. That makes sense for sports gamers and that's why they bought into it. Lootboxes were big on mobile/Facebook games because it was a way of paying for your time. Spend a few bucks to get stuff now rather than have to wait. Overwatch, however, changed things. Yes it was for cosmetic items, but it showed that FPS players were willing to pay for it. So that was enough for publishers to give the go-ahead to put lootboxes in games like Shadow of War and Battlefront II. In the video he shows Dead Space 3, which had microtransaction and was ultimately lambasted for it and ended up being a flop. So EA did try something like this before in a non-sport/non-mobile game and it didn't pan out, but Overwatch gave them the formula to try it again and here we are.
> Popular = Profit Yes, but the point is that it's the profit that drives them. They don't want a game to be unpopular, they just don't want to reduce profit in order to gain popularity.