[Megathread] Destiny

[Eleccybubb]

That's something else. I've not even really begun to get into the moral quandary that is the "loot boxes" which are, as you say, nothing short of gambling.

Loot boxes are fine if they tell you what you can get. Like the ones in PUBG. CSGO boxes are unknown to me. I remember there being a debacle over those but if someone can fill me in on that I'd be grateful.

Asia has actually introduced laws if I recall that after a specific amount of lootboxes they have to provide you with a decent item and tell you what can come from the box.

I know Hearthstone guarantees a Legendary every 10 packs now or something but the Asia laws are fuzzy to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeating that vapid tosh does not make it more relevant. No one makes anyone do anything in video games, because they're video games. That does not make publishers somehow immune to criticism for being scummy.

Cosmetic purchases that can be obtained ingame is scummy?

No making those cosmetics only obtainable by being purchased would be a bit scummy. Especially if they stated beforehand that the cosmetics in question would be obtainable from both sources.

What would be scummy in Destiny 2 is if they offered a 20 boost that put you at 300 power level or whatever the cap is with some of the best gear ingame.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Nobody is fucking debating whether it is content. My god give it a rest already. Yes shaders are content. They are optional content that can be obtained by either purchasing or playing the game. 2 methods which are fine.

The fact is that content is still optional and has no power impact on the player. If you suck at PvP or a Strike then changing your gear colour isn't suddenly going to fix that.

Here is the irony of what you're saying.

Say I don't play PvP. Activision however decides they'd like to squeeze more money out of the game by developing a card system for PvP only in which you're provided with temporary boosts and weapons. Sure you'll be able to earn them through normal play BUT you'll be able to get a lot more powerful cards and advantages more consistently if you're willing to expend real-world currency and thereby essentially ruining the PvP experience for many.

...Does that affect me? By your logic, no, it doesn't! Therefore I shouldn't care if they do such a thing. However in reality, had that choice been applied to something else, like cosmetics or PvE content it would've done harm to my personal experience with the game. Even if they did choose to tinker with PvP and left MY preferred aspects of the game alone, it could spell future trouble for me regardless as it shows they're already willing to take those steps to monetize features of the game that should've been all available from the outset with your initial buy.

Fact is, it does affect you whether you care or don't care about cosmetics. By accepting it you're giving further unspoken permission for Activision to continue with their shady practices and even expand upon them.

[Eleccybubb]

Here is the irony of what you're saying.

Say I don't play PvP. Activision however decides they'd like to squeeze more money out of the game by developing a card system in which you're provided with temporary boosts and weapons. Sure you'll be able to earn them through normal play BUT you'll be able to get a lot more powerful cards and advantages more consistently if you're willing to expend real-world currency and thereby essentially ruining the PvP experience for many.

...Does that affect me? By your logic, no, it doesn't! Therefore I shouldn't care if they do such a thing. However in reality, had that choice been applied to something else, like cosmetics or PvE content it would've done harm to my personal experience with the game. Even if they did choose to tinker with PvP and left MY preferred aspects of the game alone, it could spell future trouble for me regardless as it shows they're already willing to take those steps to monetize features of the game that should've been all available from the outset with your initial buy.

Fact is, it does affect you whether you care or don't care about cosmetics. By accepting it you're giving further unspoken permission for Activision to continue with their shady practices and even expand upon them.

And that will never happen. That is a poor example.

Pay for advantage/Pay to win is what it would be though. I'd put it on the side of pay to win. We are comparing a Pay for advantage/to win situation to a situation that isn't.

Offering another way to obtain a cosmetic optionally is fine. It's nowhere near shady.

What you described with PvP is absolutely shady. It would easily give someone a power advantage if they pay money in a situation that matters. Especially if the rumour of them wanting to make PvP an Esport is true.

Spraying your gear a different colour is not a power advantage. Yes I could buy that spray or I could play the game and get it. Colour of gear grants no advantage.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

And that will never happen. That is a poor example.

Pay for advantage/Pay to win is what it would be though. I'd put it on the side of pay to win.

Offering another way to obtain a cosmetic optionally is fine. It's nowhere near shady. What you described with PvP is absolutely shady. It would easily give someone an advantage in a situation that matters. Especially if the rumour of them wanting to make PvP an Esport is true.

...Didn't it essentially happen with the newest Halo in some measure? So never say never.

But even then, many people like you, would rally to the defense of their game and pronounce to all, "You can earn these weapons and power-ups by playing the game! You don't have to buy them to obtain them!" While ultimately, as per the usual, failing to address why so much content was diluted into a card system that encourages gambling. Even the "advantage" they'd achieve, you'd likely come to argue is merely temporary and skill should still ultimately trump all.

There's a million and one excuses you can come up for these sorts of transactions and schemes when you get down to it. Today it's the shaders, tomorrow its power-up cards, and the future...? Who knows. Seems like they can get what they want ultimately by putting incremental pressure upon the buyers and exercising patience and we, as a whole, are too stupid to realize where this is going.

[Eleccybubb]

...Didn't it essentially happen with the newest Halo in some measure? So never say never.

But even then, many people like you, would rally to the defense of their game and pronounce to all, "You can earn these weapons and power-ups by playing the game! You don't have to buy them to obtain them!" While ultimately, as per the usual, failing to address why so much content was diluted into a card system that encourages gambling. Even the "advantage" they'd achieve, you'd likely come to argue is merely temporary and skill should still ultimately trump all.

There's a million and one excuses you can come up for these sorts of transactions and schemes when you get down to it. Today it's the shaders, tomorrow its power-up cards, and the future...? Who knows. Seems like they can get what they want ultimately by putting incremental pressure upon the buyers and exercising patience and we, as a whole, are too stupid to realize where this is going.

Haven't played the new Halo so wouldn't know. Did actually want to get it for XB1 but couldn't at the time and tbh I've probably missed the chance for multiplayer.

And no. I wouldn't defend an actual shady practice such as that.

Selling colours is not shady. Making it the only way of obtaining them would be. Selling cosmetics is the norm these days. Selling high end gear would be shady.

[Archon14]

I have a bigger problem with cosmetics themselves than with the fact they're obtained through microtransactions.

Like that sprays are consumables and you can't keep the colors you already unlocked. So if I like one, then switch to another and I don't like it, I have to gamble for the first one again?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I have a bigger problem with cosmetics themselves than with the fact they're obtained through microtransactions.

Like that sprays are consumables and you can't keep the colors you already unlocked. So if I like one, then switch to another and I don't like it, I have to gamble for the first one again?

That's the point of them being consumable.

You've achieved enlightenment my child.

- - - Updated - - -

Haven't played the new Halo so wouldn't know. Did actually want to get it for XB1 but couldn't at the time and tbh I've probably missed the chance for multiplayer.

And no. I wouldn't defend an actual shady practice such as that.

Selling colours is not shady. Making it the only way of obtaining them would be. Selling cosmetics is the norm these days. Selling high end gear would be shady.

To be fair, selling anything in a fully-priced game that also charges for it's DLC is pretty shady.

[Eleccybubb]

That's the point of them being consumable.

You've achieved enlightenment my child.

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair, selling anything in a fully-priced game that also charges for it's DLC is pretty shady.

I disagree. Cosmetics yes. Pay to win shit no.

Bit off-topic here and forgive this but most F2P games do it and sadly the market has ended up flooded with a lot of those P2W games.

Which frustrates me because I would kill to have a hugely popular F2P MMORPG that has no P2W bs.

[Archon14]

That's the point of them being consumable.

You've achieved enlightenment my child.

There are consumables that give permanent unlocks in other mmos. Try harder next time.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

There are consumables that give permanent unlocks in other mmos. Try harder next time.

They were permanent in Destiny 1.

They made them consumables in Destiny 2 for a reason, doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

[Archon14]

doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I agree, having to buy them constantly for your favourite color combination is a dumb idea.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I disagree. Cosmetics yes. Pay to win shit no.

Bit off-topic here and forgive this but most F2P games do it and sadly the market has ended up flooded with a lot of those P2W games.

Which frustrates me because I would kill to have a hugely popular F2P MMORPG that has no P2W bs.

Then how about I gut out all of your gear skins, weapon skins, ability skins, hell even the sky-boxes because why the fuck not and have you "earn" them through randomized loot boxes that may or may not give you anything pertinent? I mean, they are only cosmetic are they not? Meanwhile you can run around as some unidentifiable blob with stats. You merely paid for the ability be present and accounted for in the game. That's what that sixty bucks was. You still have the same advantages as everyone else you're just blob-guy for now until you get lucky or pay up.

...And your sky-boxes look rather mundane until then but I mean, how often do you look up anyway!?

Again, there is no end to this sense of logic. Your sixty dollar entry fee either counts for something or it doesn't and a line needs to be readily drawn in the sand. Mine is concerning the shaders. I refuse to buy into the game due to this. I could've passed on the season pass(see what I did there?). Could've passed on the pre-order and the special editions. I am not, however, willing to see sections of the game(no matter how small or insignificant) get mutilated on the behalf of corporate greed. That's going too far. Either my purchase means something or it doesn't and whether you take a nibble or a bite out of my product, you're crossing a threshold with me.

It's simple as that when it comes to where I stand on this issue.

[Eleccybubb]

Then how about I gut out all of your gear skins, weapon skins, ability skins, hell even the sky-boxes because why the fuck not and have you "earn" them through randomized loot boxes that may or may not give you anything pertinent? I mean, they are only cosmetic are they not? Meanwhile you can run around as some unidentifiable blob with stats. You merely paid for the ability be present and accounted for in the game. That's what that sixty bucks was. You still have the same advantages as everyone else you're just blob-guy for now until you get lucky or pay up.

...And your sky-boxes look rather mundane until then but I mean, how often do you look up anyway!?

Again, there is no end to this sense of logic. Your sixty dollar entry fee either counts for something or it doesn't and a line needs to be readily drawn in the sand. Mine is concerning the shaders. I refuse to buy into the game due to this. I could've passed on the season pass(see what I did there?). Could've passed on the pre-order and the special editions. I am not, however, willing to see sections of the game(no matter how small or insignificant) get mutilated on the behalf of corporate greed. That's going too far. Either my purchase means something or it doesn't and whether you take a nibble or a bite out of my product, you're crossing a threshold with me.

It's simple as that when it comes to where I stand on this issue.

And you are allowed to have that stance just as I am allowed to disagree with it and say cosmetic purchases are fine and P2W ones aren't.

And don't be silly. No bloody company would ever start charging for sky-boxes. That's just beyond competent reasoning. Most companies also make extra skins for stuff like gear/weapons in that situation as well. So there would be no need to remove the ingame ones.

Gear skins, Ability skins, Weapon skins are all fine as long as they don't detract from main ones. Few games I've played have pretty good looking stuff ingame as well as their store.

Gear skins would be kind of pointless in a game where you spend the majority of it in first person though. I mean only time you see your character is in the hub, cutscenes or the menu.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

And you are allowed to have that stance just as I am allowed to disagree with it and say cosmetic purchases are fine and P2W ones aren't.

And don't be silly. No bloody company would ever start charging for sky-boxes. That's just beyond reasoning. Most companies also make extra skins for stuff like gear/weapons in that situation as well. So there would be no need to remove the ingame ones.

Gear skins, Ability skins, Weapon skins are all fine as long as they don't detract from main ones. Few games I've played have pretty good looking stuff ingame as well as their store.

Gear skins would be kind of pointless in a game where you spend the majority of it in first person though. I mean only time you see your character is in the hub, cutscenes or the menu.

Do not be so sure. As funny as it might sound now, it wasn't long ago that people thought it absurd to be nickled-and-dimed by a fully-priced game, cosmetics or not.

[Eleccybubb]

Do not be so sure. As funny as it might sound now, it wasn't long ago that people thought it absurd to be nickled-and-dimed by a fully-priced game, cosmetics or not.

I will be so sure. Claiming a company would charge you for the sky itself is ridiculous and very wild speculation at best.

I mean if it happens in this game I'd be laughing my ass off. I mean what would they have instead of the sky? Just a blank grey untextured box like a beta does?

I will happily come back here and say you were right if that happens in Destiny 2 and throw the game into a fire along with any other game that started doing it.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I will be so sure. Claiming a company would charge you for the sky itself is ridiculous and very wild speculation at best.

Why not? What do you think texture packs are? They're just skins to remodel your world. Fact is, these companies want to monetize anything and everything. The only barrier to achieving as much is what the consumer is willing to tolerate. Many companies went too far too fast early on, got speared for it. Now they're doing it in incremental advances. What used to be something standard fare, is now marketable as additional, purchasable content. What used to be practices reserved for F2P titles? Fair game for B2P.

Again, tolerate the shaders, it'll be your gear skins next. Tolerate the gear skins, it'll be your gun skins. Tolerate all of that and the current engrams, you might very well see subtle, small offerings of exotic gear through boxes. Just enough that people might get over it but again, on and on we go. Eventually that entry fee you pay for the base game, won't mean much as you end up basically paying full price for a game with equivalents elsewhere that are FREE upfront. Like Warframe for instance.

Hence the line. To you it's small, to me it's the beginning. Give me a game, in full, or don't be charging full price. That's my philosophy.

[Eleccybubb]

Why not? What do you think texture packs are? They're just skins to remodel your world. Fact is, these companies want to monetize anything and everything. The only barrier to achieving as much is what the consumer is willing to tolerate. Many companies went too far too fast early on, got speared for it. Now they're doing it in incremental advances. What used to be something standard fare, is now marketable as additional, purchasable content. What used to be practices reserved for F2P titles? Fair game for B2P.

Again, tolerate the shaders, it'll be your gear skins next. Tolerate the gear skins, it'll be your gun skins. Tolerate all of that and the current engrams, you might very well see subtle, small offerings of exotic gear through boxes. Just enough that people might get over it but again, on and on we go. Eventually that entry fee you pay for the base game, won't mean much as you end up basically paying full price for a game with equivalents elsewhere that are FREE upfront. Like Warframe for instance.

Hence the line. To you it's small, to me it's the beginning. Give me a game, in full, or don't be charging full price. That's my philosophy.

And again you are allowed to have that philosophy.

Gear skins are fine as long as work goes into ingame ones and Gun ones are as long as they work on ingame ones.

Wild speculation still to claim skyboxes will happen just because of one small thing.

And I've already stated if they ever start selling Exotics then that crosses into P2W.

As I said if they remove the skybox and make it purchasable then I'll come here and tag you and say you were right.

[Endus]

That's something else. I've not even really begun to get into the moral quandary that is the "loot boxes" which are, as you say, nothing short of gambling.

In the same sense that baseball card or TCG card packs are "gambling". In other words, the kind of "gambling" we're perfectly happy letting 7 year olds spend their allowance on pretty much everywhere.

So stop making this out to be predatory; it's bonkers.

To be fair, selling anything in a fully-priced game that also charges for it's DLC is pretty shady.

The problem here is you've manufactured a sense of entitlement that is in no way warranted.

The purchase price of the game (and many others) does not entitle you to all the content of said game, automatically. It entitles you to what you purchased, which is laid out, including the lootbox mechanics you're complaining about. You don't have any "right" to the content you're talking about, you don't have any "right" to not have additional purchases available. All that is manufactured in your head and is not an accurate or fair representation of the industry. It applies to literally no other industry. Buying a new car doesn't entitle you to next year's model when it comes out. Buying the bare-bones model doesn't entitle you to upgrades like leather seats for the same price. Buying a hamburger doesn't entitle you to get the fries that come with a combo meal, unless you buy the combo meal, or buy the fries separately after.

This argument doesn't work anywhere else, and it doesn't work in gaming, either.


There's an argument that pay-to-win models are "bad", because of the ongoing purchase requirement for success, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about cosmetics.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

And again you are entitled to the philosophy.

Gear skins are fine as long as work goes into ingame ones and Gun ones are as long as they work on ingame ones.

Wild speculation still to claim skyboxes will happen just because of one small thing.

And I've already stated if they ever start selling Exotics then that crosses into P2W.

As I said if they remove the skybox and make it purchasable then I'll come here and tag you and say you were right.

Again, skyboxes are just cosmetic. Not important to the game. Everything is to be monetized and you have to point it all out -- you know, if you're a corporate man looking to increase profitability. I'm a consumer however and my only retort is to answer with my wallet. I'd rather just assume the worst and stop paying into bad business trends that seem to be growing and not for the better. I know as an American, that's a crazy notion for me but here I am. Towing a line.

...and the fact is, game content is game content. Whether it's a weapon or a skin. The importance should matter at the end of the day when you're already paying large sums of money to play in the first place. We clearly have some seriously different viewpoints on what makes for a fair deal and what doesn't.

[oplawlz]

Cosmetic purchases that can be obtained ingame is scummy?

No making those cosmetics only obtainable by being purchased would be a bit scummy. Especially if they stated beforehand that the cosmetics in question would be obtainable from both sources.

What would be scummy in Destiny 2 is if they offered a 20 boost that put you at 300 power level or whatever the cap is with some of the best gear ingame.

Yes, that would also be scummy. The issue isn't selling cosmetics - the scummy part is making the only path to getting said cosmetics gambling and potentially buying a bunch of crap you don't want to get what you do. It's essentially taking advantage of people with certain personality flaws.

To your earlier point I think Blizzard is just as scummy with the OW boxes, and as a result I haven't spent a dime on the game beyond the box price. If they let me just buy the skins I want for a reasonable price I would do so, as proven by my ashamedly swollen League of Legends account :P Riot has proven that the business model works.