The history of loot boxes, I urge you to watch this!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siipperi

Lets not pretend like developing lotro is somehow magically more pricier than few years ago.

---

Agreed. Look at Mordor. Little to no advertising, the release was digital (no physical production costs) and everything that was included in those ridiculous bundles was all in-game (digital) "merchandise" (again, no physical productions costs). I have no doubt if you compare the development costs to actual revenue they probably made a killing.

But what did we get in return? Misinformation about the high-elf race being included in the base package, the packages themselves were a slap in the face for any self-aware fan, loot-boxes, and no instances at launch. When we did get instances, we only got 2 and one of them is still being worked on. And then there is all of the ash/gear progression mess in-between. For anyone who thinks--just based on the Mordor experience alone--that we will get a fully realized Erebor, Dale, Laketown and North Mirkwood...you must have blinders on.

What is truly sad, this is the second week that the loot-box pox has dominated the discussion on these forums and the executive producer appears to be in hiding.
I mean, kudos to Cordovan for letting the discussion continue, but I'm curious as to why Sev is making the choice to say nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denhith

I'm curious as to why Sev is making the choice to say nothing.

---

I've got a few ideas.

Since the turmoil of lootboxes began, here's what I have been envisioning happens between 9 and 5 whenever a producers letter is not being written.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LCdPNT81vlv3y/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constrictions

Instead of providing a good or service that people love, and want to support, lootboxes are designed to lull those with lazy and/or selfish dispositions to "Gain instant rewards" (Quite akin to the classic get rich quick scheme mentality, which has people buying lottery tickets every week), and those with psychological vulnerabilities to chance based "rewards" (which has people in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for the mere thought that they could "score big").


So, sure. They're just doing their thing to make money as normal. But the fundamental basis of their current business model is morally shady at best. Wiser people would simply say that it is outright, intentional exploitation.

---

^^This pretty much needs to be the response to anyone who chimes in with "so what is the problem again?"

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denhith

AFor anyone who thinks--just based on the Mordor experience alone--that we will get a fully realized Erebor, Dale, Laketown and North Mirkwood...you must have blinders on.

---

Depends what one considers fully realized North Mirkwood, Erebor and dale. If one expects Northern Mirkwood to be size of south I think that's unreasonable since that's size of expansion. However they have already built whole dale-erebor area in the game years ago as continuous region back in Riders Of Rohan. It exists already on the map so just fleshing it out, make quests and story and some more detail and do Northern mirkwood. I don't think it's a reach to think it's ok area. Problem with lotro is always what's there besides the landscape and questing. Too often answer is nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siipperi

This is just classic case of must make all and any money that is possible in as short time span as possible, resulting to loss of long term success and drying out the company.

---

That is what I said, it is all about money , it does not look pretty, so yes, I agree with you there. I hope we will see some developers and publishers distance themselves from unethical practices, that kind of attitude won't get unnoticed. I think it is a cultural thing though, these days folk wants and need instant gratification and are willing to pay to get that dopamine rush, by the way this is true not only in gaming but in life in general. Slippery ( pun intended :p) slope really, hard to see how we could go back to better times and better business practices and models

Another update...
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-bat...es-loot-boxes/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denhith

Another update...
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-bat...es-loot-boxes/

---

"Battlefront II itself is a disappointment, with the framing of the game’s mechanics around this unpopular loot box model causing the rest of the game to suffer."

OH BoY! Does this sound familiar!

Some posters seem to misunderstand the positions of other posters (probably including me to some extent), which seems to be leading to an unproductive discussion. So I've tried to summarize the positions of those who object to lootboxes. Please let me know if I've done so correctly.

Lootboxes are bad for game design
---------------------------------
When a game's income relies heavily on lootboxes, devs must find a way to encourage players to buy them. There are at least two ways they can do this: (1) by putting items into lootboxes that do not affect gameplay but that are so desirable that players will buy them anyway, and/or (2) by putting items into lootboxes that do affect gameplay. When devs choose option #2, and lootbox sales aren't sufficient to satisfy corporate income goals, devs tend to modify game systems so that playing the game without buying lootboxes becomes increasingly unbearable, thereby ruining the game for those players who do not wish to buy lootboxes. This will eventually lead to many of those players leaving the game, and the resulting reduction in player volume will decrease the enjoyment of the game for everybody, including those who buy lootboxes, causing even more people to leave. This will, in turn, force devs to push the remaining players to buy more lootboxes to compensate for the loss of income from the players who have left, resulting in a death spiral that will eventually kill the game.

Lootboxes are bad for children and gambling addicts
--------------------------------------------------
Opening lootboxes triggers reward systems in the brain in a manner similar to gambling, and this design element is intentional. Mentally healthy adults can resist the temptation to buy lootboxes. However, most games, including Lotro, are designed to allow children to play and encourage them to do so. Children are generally unable to exercise sufficient self control and may spend more money buying lootboxes than they and/or their parents can afford. Similarly, gambling addicts lack the self-control of mentally healthy adults when it comes to lootboxes and may also spend more than they can afford.

Game companies have to make money somehow. As a subscriber I'd prefer that be through subscriptions. But most gamers have been trained to not pay subscriptions anymore as FTP games have become so common. It still works for WoW and FF14, but that's two games in a huge space. It works for only two games that have huge budgets and massive IP. As a capitalist I can't really blame the Developers. I blame the players. The players seem to embrace micro-transactions and in some ways the developers are just giving the players what they want even though they say they don't want it.

I do think it's sad that the Developers don't even play LoTRO though. I kind of get it. My dad was a car mechanic and always drove junkers. The last thing he wanted to do at the end of the day was work on his own car. LoTRO is an old game and there are newer things out that I'm sure the Developers find more compelling. But playing your own game under the same conditions as the players should be a basic prereq for any developer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bastiat1

Game companies have to make money somehow. As a subscriber I'd prefer that be through subscriptions. But most gamers have been trained to not pay subscriptions anymore as FTP games have become so common. It still works for WoW and FF14, but that's two games in a huge space. It works for only two games that have huge budgets and massive IP. As a capitalist I can't really blame the Developers. I blame the players. The players seem to embrace micro-transactions and in some ways the developers are just giving the players what they want even though they say they don't want it.

---

Having microtransactions is one thing, specifically choosing to go the lootbox route is quite another. Don't generalise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bastiat1

Game companies have to make money somehow. As a subscriber I'd prefer that be through subscriptions. But most gamers have been trained to not pay subscriptions anymore as FTP games have become so common. It still works for WoW and FF14, but that's two games in a huge space. It works for only two games that have huge budgets and massive IP. As a capitalist I can't really blame the Developers. I blame the players. The players seem to embrace micro-transactions and in some ways the developers are just giving the players what they want even though they say they don't want it.

---

I think micro-transactions are okay--but it depends on what they are actually for. WoW and FFXIV are subscription based and the majority of their micro-transactions are all fluff (housing, mounts, cosmetics, etc.) LotRO is subscription optional--and several of it's micro transactions directly affect game-play. This, of course, feeds the truth that certain content is designed with the store in mind (LIs and essences for example). The introduction of loot-boxes (as Rad has already pointed out) is an ugly duckling of a different color.

SSG needs to think/operate more like SE and Blizzard and less like EA.

Hmmm... with the haters in full flow and the forum drowning in negativity, I sense that soon we'll see another "Just a note of thanks" thread.

Do I remember this incorrectly?

Back when the store first launched didn't they promise that there would not be items that would only be able to be store bought?

Wasn't that one of the assurances they gave when people were losing their minds over the introduction of the store and pay-to-win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOBYOURUNCLE

Do I remember this incorrectly?

Back when the store first launched didn't they promise that there would not be items that would only be able to be store bought?

Wasn't that one of the assurances they gave when people were losing their minds over the introduction of the store and pay-to-win?

---

I don't remember that ever being promised, and I don't think that's ever been a policy. The Lotro Store has always had exclusive cosmetic items, for example. I do remember them promising there would only be cosmetic and "convenience" items in the store, but, unfortunately, the definition of "convenience item" continued to broaden until we now have the ability to buy our characters up to level 105, buy virtues, buy character stats, buy LI stats, and, of course, buy lootboxes with the chance of dropping high-level, high-quality gear.

We may as well face the fact that we'll never know anything regarding the state of the game, what the future holds(save for some vague updates), or why they make the decisions they do. The people running this game have been notoriously opaque in that regard. It doesn't do them any favors because people will naturally assume the worst. We'll know when the game is shutting down about 30 days before they do it, if we're lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOBYOURUNCLE

Do I remember this incorrectly?

Back when the store first launched didn't they promise that there would not be items that would only be able to be store bought?

Wasn't that one of the assurances they gave when people were losing their minds over the introduction of the store and pay-to-win?

---

Enjoy, in particular the last post of the thread.

https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...and-Stat-Tomes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denhith

I think micro-transactions are okay--but it depends on what they are actually for. WoW and FFXIV are subscription based and the majority of their micro-transactions are all fluff (housing, mounts, cosmetics, etc.) LotRO is subscription optional--and several of it's micro transactions directly affect game-play. This, of course, feeds the truth that certain content is designed with the store in mind (LIs and essences for example). The introduction of loot-boxes (as Rad has already pointed out) is an ugly duckling of a different color.

SSG needs to think/operate more like SE and Blizzard and less like EA.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrairieDog

Some posters seem to misunderstand the positions of other posters (probably including me to some extent), which seems to be leading to an unproductive discussion. So I've tried to summarize the positions of those who object to lootboxes. Please let me know if I've done so correctly.

Lootboxes are bad for game design
---------------------------------
When a game's income relies heavily on lootboxes, devs must find a way to encourage players to buy them. There are at least two ways they can do this: (1) by putting items into lootboxes that do not affect gameplay but that are so desirable that players will buy them anyway, and/or (2) by putting items into lootboxes that do affect gameplay. When devs choose option #2, and lootbox sales aren't sufficient to satisfy corporate income goals, devs tend to modify game systems so that playing the game without buying lootboxes becomes increasingly unbearable, thereby ruining the game for those players who do not wish to buy lootboxes. This will eventually lead to many of those players leaving the game, and the resulting reduction in player volume will decrease the enjoyment of the game for everybody, including those who buy lootboxes, causing even more people to leave. This will, in turn, force devs to push the remaining players to buy more lootboxes to compensate for the loss of income from the players who have left, resulting in a death spiral that will eventually kill the game.

Lootboxes are bad for children and gambling addicts
--------------------------------------------------
Opening lootboxes triggers reward systems in the brain in a manner similar to gambling, and this design element is intentional. Mentally healthy adults can resist the temptation to buy lootboxes. However, most games, including Lotro, are designed to allow children to play and encourage them to do so. Children are generally unable to exercise sufficient self control and may spend more money buying lootboxes than they and/or their parents can afford. Similarly, gambling addicts lack the self-control of mentally healthy adults when it comes to lootboxes and may also spend more than they can afford.

---

Good job summarizing, but I think we can not necessarily accuse SSG games of "intentionally" encouraging addictive overspending, although it seems safe to say that for some players addictive and/or compulsive behavior occurs. So the argument might be that just as a bartender is held accountable for continuing to serve drinks to someone clearly overdoing it, games need to be accountable or limited in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

Enjoy, in particular the last post of the thread.

https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...and-Stat-Tomes

---

I'm unclear what your point is, Bango. The last post claims stat tomes can be earned through gameplay, and stat tomes do drop during gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrairieDog

I'm unclear what your point is, Bango. The last post claims stat tomes can be earned through gameplay, and stat tomes do drop during gameplay.

---

Indeed, but isn't that the summation of the entire argument that excuses the existence of this lootboxes in game? Now perhaps back in 2010 it could have been argued that stat tome acquisition was never that arduous. But look where we are now as a game - lootbox gambling firmly embedded and with the same old excuse "oh the keys can be obtained in game therefore it's all ok" as the justification.

What Sap said then is the mantra that is trotted out in thread after thread as the excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BangoTwinkletoes

Indeed, but isn't that the summation of the entire argument that excuses the existence of this lootboxes in game? Now perhaps back in 2010 it could have been argued that stat tome acquisition was never that arduous. But look where we are now as a game - lootbox gambling firmly embedded and with the same old excuse "oh the keys can be obtained in game therefore it's all ok" as the justification.

What Sap said then is the mantra that is trotted out in thread after thread as the excuse.

---

Got it. Yes, that justification is indeed wearing thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paragnosis

I think we can not necessarily accuse SSG games of "intentionally" encouraging addictive overspending, although it seems safe to say that for some players addictive and/or compulsive behavior occurs. So the argument might be that just as a bartender is held accountable for continuing to serve drinks to someone clearly overdoing it, games need to be accountable or limited in some way.

---

Pharmacist sells medication to people in need.

See's heroin addict.

Decides this is a money opportunity.

Begins selling heroin.

Should the pharmacist be held accountable for doing something wrong?

Gambling is an evil in and of itself, which can be seen in the psychological damage it causes to a persons relationships and everyday living. If that's not enough to convince people, just look up the plethora of comorbid disorders that have been shown to be caused by gambling behaviours (depression, alcoholism, drug use, suicidality - just to name a few).

Perhaps the main difference is that while the heroin addicts 'drive' towards heroin is almost entirely internally based, lootboxes cannot work in the same way. The entire game has to be nudging people towards their purchase in order for the psychological factors to kick in.

Just have a look at the current gear progression system, and the lootbox drop rate, and tell us that this is not explicitly designed around encouraging the purchase of black steel keys.

The implementation of addictive gambling mechanics is intentional, and so is the design that encourages their use. Sure, behind company doors SSG might be framing this as an innocent business decision that anyone would make. But consider that even rapists and murderers often feel the need to convince themselves that they don't do anything wrong.
If you desire something (in this case, money) with such a drive, it's not a stretch to think that some consciences would slip for something far less evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constrictions

Pharmacist sells medication to people in need.

See's heroin addict.

Decides this is a money opportunity.

Begins selling heroin.

Should the pharmacist be held accountable for doing something wrong?

Gambling is an evil in and of itself, which can be seen in the psychological damage it causes to a persons relationships and everyday living. If that's not enough to convince people, just look up the plethora of comorbid disorders that have been shown to be caused by gambling behaviours (depression, alcoholism, drug use, suicidality - just to name a few).

Perhaps the main difference is that while the heroin addicts 'drive' towards heroin is almost entirely internally based, lootboxes cannot work in the same way. The entire game has to be nudging people towards their purchase in order for the psychological factors to kick in.

Just have a look at the current gear progression system, and the lootbox drop rate, and tell us that this is not explicitly designed around encouraging the purchase of black steel keys.

---

Waiting for a call for another prohibition. Also no sex before marriage and please! only with the opposite gender......

The evile itself :shaking heads:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esterian

Waiting for a call for another prohibition. Also no sex before marriage and please! only with the opposite gender......

The evile itself :shaking heads:

---

Sure, language about morality is not popular these days. But without it there's no valid grounds for a just society. I'm not a fan of any philosophy which, following its logical conclusions, would claim that murder, thievery or cheating is simply a matter of subjective preference and opinion.

And that's what a large proportion of lootbox defenders seem to be invoking. Such times we live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constrictions

Pharmacist sells medication to people in need.

See's heroin addict.

Decides this is a money opportunity.

Begins selling heroin.

Should the pharmacist be held accountable for doing something wrong?

Gambling is an evil in and of itself, which can be seen in the psychological damage it causes to a persons relationships and everyday living. If that's not enough to convince people, just look up the plethora of comorbid disorders that have been shown to be caused by gambling behaviours (depression, alcoholism, drug use, suicidality - just to name a few).

Perhaps the main difference is that while the heroin addicts 'drive' towards heroin is almost entirely internally based, lootboxes cannot work in the same way. The entire game has to be nudging people towards their purchase in order for the psychological factors to kick in.

Just have a look at the current gear progression system, and the lootbox drop rate, and tell us that this is not explicitly designed around encouraging the purchase of black steel keys.

The implementation of addictive gambling mechanics is intentional, and so is the design that encourages their use. Sure, behind company doors SSG might be framing this as an innocent business decision that anyone would make. But consider that even rapists and murderers often feel the need to convince themselves that they don't do anything wrong.
If you desire something (in this case, money) with such a drive, it's not a stretch to think that some consciences would slip for something far less evil.

---

Interesting. Aside from the lootbox issue there seems to be some evidence, and some concern among lawmakers, that certain types of games that depend on microtransactions for their profitability are in need of some restrictions. This seems to be the case for certain types of free applications that depend entirely on microtransactions for their profit.