[Megathread] Mass Effect Andromeda

[rhorle]

The map pack in question was the microtransaction (if we're talking DLC type stuff). The gold earned from it is not. Edit: There is an argument to be made about the level of fairness in a game if you could earn more gold than other players simply by purchasing the map pack, but I suppose that's a completely different argument all together.

This is where you argument fails. If a loot box bought with gold, even if not all of that gold was bought through a rmt, is considered bought with a micro transaction then why isn't gold, and items, earned through a micro transaction that revealed them?

It isn't my own bias. I am not thumping any chest. You are ignoring your own logic just to label anything bought with gold bought with a micro transaction as a micro transaction. If you didn't use a micro transaction to buy something it isn't bought with a micro transaction. You keep creating new rules for what is and what is not a micro transaction in order to validate why Origins loot boxes are a micro transaction.

I am not the one who can't see the forest for the trees here. I am not the one claiming something that is not a micro transaction is one.

The larger issue in play that people discuss isn't based upon the accounting behind every bit of currency involved, though. It's a conceptual framework that is being applied to express displeasure with the amount of in-game content that is tied to transactions made after the initial cost.

This here signifies the lack of understanding by you and others. The issue is fundamentally tied to the currency involved. Because the issue of Origins having a paid loot boxes is directly tied to them using the in-game currency that can be bought. If the issue was as you said then there is no need to call the Heka chests a paid micro transaction. There is enough of actual micro transactions in the game to express displeasure over.

The complaint rose from paid loot boxes in Origins. There are no paid loot boxes in origins. That is a simple fact. There is paid gold transactions. There is paid ability points. There is paid cosmetic items. There is paid weapons/shields. There is paid crafting mats. There is paid map points. There is literally no paid loot boxes.

I comprehend you and others just fine. I don't have to accept stupid to comprehend stupid. You even contradict yourself with the map pack and what is earned through/with it not being a micro transaction. Yet buying a loot box with gold partly earned through a micro transaction is a micro transaction for that loot box. Like I said not accepting stupid is not the same as not comprehending it.

[Elim Garak]

The next time you go to a casino you should realize that chips are not real money and go crazy losing them. This is not paid slot machine...

[Sheevah]

This is where you argument fails. If a loot box bought with gold, even if not all of that gold was bought through a rmt, is considered bought with a micro transaction then why isn't gold, and items, earned through a micro transaction that revealed them?

It isn't my own bias. I am not thumping any chest. You are ignoring your own logic just to label anything bought with gold bought with a micro transaction as a micro transaction. If you didn't use a micro transaction to buy something it isn't bought with a micro transaction. You keep creating new rules for what is and what is not a micro transaction in order to validate why Origins loot boxes are a micro transaction.

It's not new rules at all. You're drawing a line between apples and oranges that doesn't exist. A microtransaction is something that allows you to obtain something without requiring gameplay to unlock it. Gold, items, etc. earned from a new location unlocked via a microtransaction are not a microtransaction themselves due to the gameplay required to obtain them. To reiterate though, it could be considered very shady for a company to allow the people that paid for an extra location to have access to better gear, more spending, etc., unless we're talking about full-blown expansion sets.

This here signifies the lack of understanding by you and others. The issue is fundamentally tied to the currency involved. Because the issue of Origins having a paid loot boxes is directly tied to them using the in-game currency that can be bought. If the issue was as you said then there is no need to call the Heka chests a paid micro transaction. There is enough of actual micro transactions in the game to express displeasure over.

The complaint rose from paid loot boxes in Origins. There are no paid loot boxes in origins. That is a simple fact. There is paid gold transactions. There is paid ability points. There is paid cosmetic items. There is paid weapons/shields. There is paid crafting mats. There is paid map points. There is literally no paid loot boxes.

You can say there are "no paid loot boxes". That's fine. It's also an admission to being deliberately obtuse to the fact that you can pay to get loot boxes, which is what people are presenting to you. They are mechanically different, but conceptually identical.

I comprehend you and others just fine. I don't have to accept stupid to comprehend stupid. You even contradict yourself with the map pack and what is earned through/with it not being a micro transaction. Yet buying a loot box with gold partly earned through a micro transaction is a micro transaction for that loot box. Like I said not accepting stupid is not the same as not comprehending it.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly do not comprehend the other side when you keep talking about how there are contradictions between microtransactions and earning things after the fact that are related to the initial purchase that, apparently, in your own little world, would have to be labeled as a microtransaction. Your failure to grasp what is being said doesn't invalidate the other side.

For the loot box comment at the end, the purchase of the lootbox is not the microtransaction. The microtransaction is the purchase of the currency. However, in an instance where you are using currency obtained via a microtransaction to make a purchase you could not have made without it, it is then attributable to the microtransaction. It's akin to wanting to buy a stereo for 100 bucks, but only having seventy-five to work with. If/when you use credit to fill the gap, then you bought that stereo with credit. In the same way, buying a lootbox with a combination of earned in-game currency and currency obtained via a microtransaction is attributable to the microtransaction, because you could not have made the purchase of the lootbox at all without it. I really don't see why you're trying to make it sound so much more complicated than it is.

[rhorle]

The next time you go to a casino you should realize that chips are not real money and go crazy losing them. This is not paid slot machine...

So I should realize something that isn't true? Start taking those anti crazy pills because you are making zero sense.

[Edge-]

So I should realize something that isn't true? Start taking those anti crazy pills because you are making zero sense.

Those chips aren't real money, though. They have value because of their association with real money, but you cannot spend them anywhere outside of the casino. The casino is the only place that will recognize those chips as money.

Just like cash shop/in-game currency you purchase in games.

You're picking a real odd topic to be contrarian on. Microtransactions are microtransactions - whether that be direct-sale, sale via cash-shop exclusive currency that you must purchase beforehand, or purchase via in-game currency that you purchased with real money, so the items still has a real-world value associated with it.

[rhorle]

You can say there are "no paid loot boxes". That's fine. It's also an admission to being deliberately obtuse to the fact that you can pay to get loot boxes, which is what people are presenting to you. They are mechanically different, but conceptually identical.

You can not buy a loot box with Helix credits. You can not pay money to get a loot box. There are literally no paid loot boxes. Show me where I can exchange real life currency, or helix credits, for a loot box. You can't.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly do not comprehend the other side when you keep talking about how there are contradictions between microtransactions and earning things after the fact that are related to the initial purchase that, apparently, in your own little world, would have to be labeled as a microtransaction. Your failure to grasp what is being said doesn't invalidate the other side.

I am not failing to grasp anything. You are claiming that anything bought with gold from a micro transaction is considered a micro transaction. I am applying that logic and rule to everything else you buy in a RMT. You keep arguing it is different but identical in order to not be wrong.

If I buy I buy 2,000 in-game currency for 200 helix credits it is a RMT when I use 3,000 gold to buy a loot box.
If I buy a map pack which earns me gold from those locations it is not a RMT when I use 3,000 gold to buy a loot box.
If I buy buy 4,000 in-game currency for 400 helix credits when I already have 3,000 gold and buy one loot box you would still consider it a RMT loot box.


Why are you including secondary purchases as a paid transaction when you buy gold but not when you buy other items? You are never paying real life money for a loot box. It is that simple yet you are writing paragraphs on why it isn't that simple then claiming I am the one making things more complicated then it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Those chips aren't real money, though. They have value because of their association with real money, but you cannot spend them anywhere outside of the casino. The casino is the only place that will recognize those chips as money.

If they are recognizing them as money then how can they not be real money? Your own words disprove your argument. Seriously. Also up until a few years ago places, outside of casinos, in Vegas still accepted casino chips in lieu of cash.

You're picking a real odd topic to be contrarian on. Microtransactions are microtransactions - whether that be direct-sale, sale via cash-shop exclusive currency that you must purchase beforehand, or purchase via in-game currency that you purchased with real money, so the items still has a real-world value associated with it.

If I buy 2,000 drachmas with 200 helix credits, and have 10,000 drachmas in game. What part of the 2,000 drachams went towards the purchase price of the loot box? What part of my drachmas earned 100% in-game went towards the box? How many transactions later does it lose the micro transaction label?

What if I buy a token in wow and use that gold to buy crafting mats. I then craft an item and sell it to a player. Is that player buying a paid item? Using your logic they would be because that item was crafted through gold bought with real money. But that player never paid any real money for the crafted item. That isn't what a micro transaction is.

[Edge-]

If they are recognizing them as money then how can they not be real money? Your own words disprove your argument. Seriously.

Let me know how it goes when you try to exchange them at a bank for real money, or when a restaurant or clothing store accepts them as legal tender.

Hint: They won't.

Because while the chips have a real world value associated with them, they're not real money. The only place that will recognize that value is the casino where you purchased them, and that is the only place that will exchange it for you.

Exactly like in-game/cash shop currency.What if I buy a token in wow and use that gold to buy crafting mats. I then craft an item and sell it to a player. Is that player buying a paid item? Using your logic they would be because that item was crafted through gold bought with real money. But that player never paid any real money for the crafted item. That isn't what a micro transaction is.

No, because that's entirely different than what we're actually talking about. Not sure why you even brought it up.

[Sheevah]

Rhorle, we're just going to have to disagree on this one, I'm afraid. I don't have the time or patience to deal with the same fallacious arguments you keep presenting post after post in a civil manner, and I'd rather not let the matter devolve into an exchange of petty insults. Furthermore, we're not even discussing the game this thread was meant to be devoted to.

So, with that in mind, try to have a good day, and I'm sure we'll cross paths again some other day on some other topic. Take care until then.

[rhorle]

Because while the chips have a real world value associated with them, they're not real money. The only place that will recognize that value is the casino where you purchased them, and that is the only place that will exchange it for you.

Gold doesn't have a real world value associated with it in Origins. It can't even buy you anything in the real world and you can't directly buy gold with real world money. You just proved that loot boxes are not paid while arguing that they are. Again you contradict yourself. I never claimed that casino chips were legal tender every where. You are the one that said they are not real money in once sentence while saying they are money at casinos. That is a contradiction.

No, because that's entirely different than what we're actually talking about. Not sure why you even brought it up.

[/quote]

Not it isn't. We are talking about using in-game currency to buy an in-game loot box. You and others are labeling that loot box as a paid loot box because you can buy the in-game currency with real money. Try to understand the subject before commenting. You and others have labeled anything bought with in-game currency that you paid real money for as a micro transaction.

What I stated was applying that logic to other situations of gold being bought and buying in-game stuff with it. It is funny how you dismiss it as not relevant when it wholly disproves what you are saying.

[Jademist]

I know there's economic reasons for why BioWare let themselves be bought by EA but man...oh man...

[rhorle]

Rhorle, we're just going to have to disagree on this one, I'm afraid. I don't have the time or patience to deal with the same fallacious arguments you keep presenting post after post in a civil manner, and I'd rather not let the matter devolve into an exchange of petty insults. Furthermore, we're not even discussing the game this thread was meant to be devoted to.

Then quit making the same fallacious arguments. There are no paid loot boxes in AC:Origins. Being able to buy the in-game currency does not make the loot box a paid loot box. It still makes it a in-game currency bought loot box. You can pay real money for it through a serious of steps. Just as you won't admit that a item crafted through gold bought for real money is a micro transaction the loot box in Origins is not paid.

If you put it into the context of future micro transaction systems then it does have a relevance to a future Mass effect game. Since we know that EA will be at least keeping the loot box model for any future ME game if not more. Though the current backlash over BF2 may change expansions of that system.

[Sheevah]

Then quit making the same fallacious arguments. There are no paid loot boxes in AC:Origins. Being able to buy the in-game currency does not make the loot box a paid loot box. It still makes it a in-game currency bought loot box. You can pay real money for it through a serious of steps. Just as you won't admit that a item crafted through gold bought for real money is a micro transaction the loot box in Origins is not paid.

We simply don't agree on the premise the arguments are based off of, hence why we cannot have what either of us feel is a reasonable discussion. I believe there is an inherent link between obtaining in-game items with currency that can be purchased with real money that is detrimental to the gaming world, and you seem not to mind it as much (or at the very least are extremely concerned with the labels attached to it). There's no fault in that. You're certainly entitled to your stance, but we cannot discuss the matter in a productive fashion due to our starting points being so vastly different.

So, as I proposed, I feel it's best I just excuse myself from this conversation, as I don't really feel like there is a beneficial end game for either party involved. I admire your passion and wish you the best, though.

[rhorle]

I believe there is an inherent link between obtaining in-game items with currency that can be purchased with real money that is detrimental to the gaming world, and you seem not to mind it as much (or at the very least are extremely concerned with the labels attached to it).

That isn't what is being discussed though. What is being discussed is the loot boxes being considered a paid transaction even though they are bought for an in-game currency. You can still have a problem with buying in-game currency with out the loot box being labeled a paid transaction. As I said it is a lack of understanding the issue but it isn't on my part as you keep claiming.

[Sheevah]

That isn't what is being discussed though. What is being discussed is the loot boxes being considered a paid transaction even though they are bought for an in-game currency. You can still have a problem with buying in-game currency with out the loot box being labeled a paid transaction. As I said it is a lack of understanding the issue but it isn't on my part as you keep claiming.

That cannot reasonably be your hang up in all of this. I have stated numerous times (as have others) that the purchase of the loot box in that scenario is *not* a paid transaction itself, but can be effectively the same and attributable to a paid transaction under certain circumstances.

[rhorle]

That cannot reasonably be your hang up in all of this. I have stated numerous times (as have others) that the purchase of the loot box in that scenario is *not* a paid transaction itself, but can be effectively the same and attributable to a paid transaction under certain circumstances.

If it is not a paid transaction then under certain circumstances it still would not be one. There is never and real money, or helix, credits exchanged for the Heka chest. Again when I've pointed out say a crafting item that would have to be considered a paid transaction under the "certain circumstances" you and others have either not answered or said that it isn't a paid transaction.

Same "certain circumstances" but different labels? Something doesn't mess with the rules being attributed.

[Sheevah]

If it is not a paid transaction then under certain circumstances it still would not be one. There is never and real money, or helix, credits exchanged for the Heka chest. Again when I've pointed out say a crafting item that would have to be considered a paid transaction under the "certain circumstances" you and others have either not answered or said that it isn't a paid transaction.

Same "certain circumstances" but different labels? Something doesn't mess with the rules being attributed.

And this is back to where we have a communication breakdown. Being "effectively the same and attributable to" is where it repeatedly falls apart and is the same semantical/technical definition aspect in the equation that I mentioned in my first couple of posts.

Effectively the same and attributable to = mechanically unique, but fundamentally identical

So, with that in mind, let me ask you a question:

What is the difference in purchasing a loot box for $5 or buying $5 of in-game currency with the express intent of purchasing a loot box? In both scenarios, are you not paying $5 to obtain a lootbox?

[Elim Garak]

When I go for some groceries, I don't buy them directly in fact I just take them and then pay the cashier to look the other way.

[rhorle]

What is the difference in purchasing a loot box for $5 or buying $5 of in-game currency with the express intent of purchasing a loot box? In both scenarios, are you not paying $5 to obtain a lootbox?

Nothing. But that doesn't make option 2 a paid loot box. It has nothing to do with effectively the same because they are two very different things. Paid loot boxes and not paid loot boxes are two entirely different concepts. If they were effectively the same you wouldn't have an objection to them as you are displaying now. Because they are effectively the same right?

If you couldn't buy in-game currency would you consider it a paid loot box?
If you couldn't buy in-game currency is the loot box a bad concept?

Those two questions are what determine if it is effectively the same. I am going to assume your answers are Yes to both of those questions because why wouldn't they?

[minteK917]

That moment when you turn-off your ad-block only to see that sugoi Rhorle-Effect striking hard again all over the thread ~ Anyway Bioware future is riding on this next dragon age, if they manage to fuck that up as well, I highly doubt they will survive much longer despite how good Anthem manages to do ~

I come to think that this could actually be a good thing. Mabye bioware employee could end up making a new studios outside of EA. But then again when a companie does like respawn, eventually EA buys them until they die again.

[Sheevah]

Nothing. But that doesn't make option 2 a paid loot box. It has nothing to do with effectively the same because they are two very different things. Paid loot boxes and not paid loot boxes are two entirely different concepts. If they were effectively the same you wouldn't have an objection to them as you are displaying now. Because they are effectively the same right?

You are free to call it whatever you want, but if you can buy a loot box via real world money (even if it requires currency exchanges), then there isn't an issue for me when someone labels it a paid loot box. This seems to be something we disagree on.

If you couldn't buy in-game currency would you consider it a paid loot box?

I wouldn't label anything that couldn't readily be obtained with with real money a paid loot box.

If you couldn't buy in-game currency is the loot box a bad concept?

I don't think loot boxes are inherently evil. Heck, I don't think having paid loot boxes is automatically evil. I think paid content can be good or bad based upon whether or not it appears to be cut content, offers a competitive edge, is deemed a requirement for playing the game "properly", etc. .

Those two questions are what determine if it is effectively the same. I am going to assume your answers are Yes to both of those questions because why wouldn't they?

They wouldn't be because we haven't been effectively communicating, either because we have failed to properly articulate our points, or because we haven't been listening to/comprehending each other due to our preconcieved biases or unfamiliarity with some of the subject matter (I know litle to nothing about AC:O Lootbox systems/currency exchanges, so I've been trying to follow what's presented and filling in the gaps to make sense of it based upon a conceptual framework).