These past few months, everybody seems to have had their proverbial jimmies terminally
rustled over the sudden rise of the dreaded lootbox, so with the most egregious example
right around the corner, in the form of Battlefront 2… uh 2…
I'd like to present a different argument for why lootboxes are insulting.
Bear with me.
First, I'd like to address the problems with the most popular argument against lootboxes.
Everyone seems to just be going after the low hanging fruit.
The same people that rightfully jump on idiots like Jack Thompson for saying that video games
will make kids go all Duke Nukem on their friends, have ironically taken up the same
exact argument about lootboxes.
It's all "Oh won't somebody please think of the children?
Little Timmy might buy an Overwatch lootbox and then…
It's just a downward spiral!
Next thing you know he'll be throwing his life away at the craps table!"
We've gone from "videogames cause violence" to "videogames will get you hooked on gambling!"
It's the same fear mongering that anti-videogame activists use, and it just makes some of the
people who oppose lootboxes sound ridiculous.
Buying lootboxes are gambling in the same way that buying a game from Ubisoft is gambling.
You might get a game that's great like Rainbow 6: Siege, or you might get The Division.
Playing roulette, poker, or slots is betting real money or "tokens" in the form of chips
for a chance at more money or tokens, or an item that can be exchanged for real money.
There's no way to cash-out your star cards or weapon variants, they effectively have
no value.
And you're not betting your credits or COD points for a chance at more money.
I've referred to lootboxes as gambling in the past as short hand for a chance-based
activity, and that was incredibly imprecise of me.
Paying money for a chance at skins or ingame items is NOT gambling in the traditional,
legal sense.
Does that mean that I think they're not incredibly slimy and unfun?
Absolutely not.
I don't want them in my games as much as you do.
I'd argue that what actually makes lootboxes so terrible is that they inherently, by their
very design, make progression based games less fun.
They remove the direct connection between the work a player puts into a game, and the
reward they receive.
Back in the good old days of… any time before just about 3 years ago.
You'd have to complete a pre-defined task to unlock the items you wanted.
Get a certain number of kills with a weapon to unlock attachments for it.
Fair enough.
Get enough XP, unlock a new weapon.
That gives me a goal to work towards, and it'll be pretty rewarding when I finally get
150 kills with my weapon and unlock that attachment I wanted.
I personally think this system was at its best in games like Battlefield 3 with the
Assignment system, where players would be encouraged to do something… different to
unlock certain weapons.
It added a nice bit of variety, and emphasized the system's strengths.
The goal-oriented system lets players work DIRECTLY for the things they want.
Psychologically speaking, when you achieve a goal, your brain produces a chemical called
dopamine that makes you feel satisfied.
It's why getting things done makes you feel good.
Something I'm quite unfamiliar with…
On the other hand, a lootbox-based progression system like in Battlefront 2 forces the player
to work toward a CHANCE at getting what they want.
There's a disconnect between the effort a player puts in, and the reward they will receive
in return.
The player can't set their sights on one item in particular, they just have to open their
limited number of crates hoping that they get something that isn't completely worthless
to them.
This would be like if instead of paying you based on the hours you worked every two weeks,
instead your boss took you into a room and had you open a box, which would SOMETIMES
have your paycheck in it, but it would more likely have something of lesser value like
a t-shirt with the company name on it.
You would be an idiot to agree to work for someone under that pretense.
Of course, you're not really entitled to the items you get in a game like you are with
receiving a paycheck, but it certainly does make the whole experience less fun when your
ability to play the way you'd like isn't governed by your skill, but instead by a roll of the
dice.
However, just like how getting things done elicits a feeling of satisfaction, so does
random reinforcement from activities involving chance, it's why some people are susceptible
to developing a gambling addiction.
BUT this argument is flawed when it comes to lootboxes.
The random reinforcement someone gets when gambling is magnified by the stakes.
The chance to lose big or win big.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about lootboxes in games like Battlefront 2 and Battlefield
4, where lootboxes are earned directly as part of the progression system within the
game.
So, obtaining lootboxes through playing the game means that the tension of losing or winning
big isn't really present.
If anything, it's just negative reinforcement when a player works hard to obtain a new loot
crate, only to win items that have absolutely no interest in using.
In cases where lootboxes can be purchased with real money, spending a few dollars on
a crate that gives you a few attachments, skins, or starcards is much, much less exciting
than putting a real money on the line with the prospect of winning much more.
Because this threshold for excitement is so low, the way I see it, compare these even
these kinds of lootboxes to Casino gambling is a bit of a false equivalency.
They just end up being an obstacle rather than some new malicious and addictive element.
Not to say that SOME people won't get caught up in them, but for the majority of players
it's a design choice that is detrimental to actually enjoying the game.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending real-money crates that impact the gameplay,
they compromise the balance of a game and should NEVER be present in a multiplayer title.
I'm sure someone in the comments will try to make the counter argument that no, really,
lootboxes are actually a great thing.
They'll claim that it's "just there for people who don't have enough time to progress through
a game normally."
Problem with that is, why lock items behind a crate then?
Why not just sell an XP boost, or the items individually?
Like in siege…
This argument holds absolutely no water as soon as you ya know… use your brain.
Alright, so I've talked about lootboxes when it comes to actual gameplay modifiers in games
like Battlefront 2 and Battlefield 4.
But what about the cosmetics in games like Overwatch and COD: WW2?
I admit that whether or not your weapon looks like pepperoni pizza or not is much less important
than the actual balance of a game, but I can't help but feel that obtaining cosmetics
through random chance cheapens the game a bit.
In older titles, like COD 4, there was something neat about being killed by someone, only to
see that they had Red Tiger camo on their weapon.
So you knew they had obtained 150 headshots with it, so odds are they were at least reasonably
good.
Skins used to be kind of like a badge of honor, where you could show off your accolades and
achievements by what cosmetics you were displaying.
This wasn't just true of Call of Duty, this was widespread.
Halo 3 had things like the Hayabusa set, which showed that the player had found all the hidden
skulls in campaign.
That old system gave a meaning and depth to customizing your character that's lacking
in recent games.
Instead of a piece of gear saying "look how skilled I am" or "look how experienced with
this game I am" they just say "look how lucky I got".
Removing customization elements that actually had meaning feels, to me, like a step backward.
Not to mention that a lot of the time, their implementation is comically out of place.
I mean, COD WW2 has your lootboxes land in front of other players on Normandy beach.
On.
Normandy.
Beach.
Nothing says "once gritty war series returns to its roots" quite like dropping a crate
full of weapon skins onto the sight of one of the bloodiest invasions in history.
It seems so… shoehorned in.
There's actually an in game challenge for watching other players open supply drops,
THAT is frankly ridiculous.
It makes players opening boxes into a walking advertisement for them, and that is downright
shameful.
And the fact that Activision filed a patent for a system that will target players based
on their aspirations, and place them in games with better players using paid weapons that
would suit the new player's playstyle so that the newbie gets completely destroyed and HAS
to buy into that new weapon, means that this whole situation of players as advertisements
could actually get a whole lot worse.
I have no interest in becoming a part of the product the devs are selling.
Anyway…To summarize, lootboxes aren't insulting because they're corrupting the youth… or
the evil corporations are going to kill gaming or anything like that.
Well… actually… maybe EA…
No, lootboxes are insulting because they make playing games less fun.
And… isn't it the whole point of playing in the first place?
For more infomation >> Dica de fotografia 6 - Qual a diferença de zoom óptico e Zoom digital? - Duration: 2:48. 
For more infomation >> 💡 Trucchi Da Fare Con Acqua 💡 Esperimenti Con Acqua - Duration: 5:37. 
For more infomation >> BREAKING NEWS Trump Jr suggested review of sanctions law in Trump Tower meeting, Russian lawyer say - Duration: 2:44. 
For more infomation >> Hatsune Miku - Shihatsu to Kafka (始発とカフカ) - Rus sub - Duration: 5:19. 
For more infomation >> 日産、2018年末よりフォーミュラEに参戦！ 日本車メーカー初、ルノーや三菱とも協力 | ョーワイドナシ - Duration: 3:39. 
For more infomation >> VIDEO A Virginia bus driver's dark journey to Raqqa - Duration: 2:29. 
For more infomation >> BREAKING NEWS Tillerson Possible Trump Putin meeting still under discussion - Duration: 1:20. 
For more infomation >> VIDEO Democrats see a digital breakthrough in Virginia wins - Duration: 1:22. 
For more infomation >> BREAKING NEWS Trump blames US for trade gap with China - Duration: 1:07. 
For more infomation >> Top 15 Bollywood Celebrities Real Name Will Shock You Bollywood Stars Real name - Duration: 4:39. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét