Menu Close

Opinion: Loot Boxes, A Looming Threat To The Industry?

Mois-s-Ram-rez 6 Comments

If you grew up in the 80s and/or the 90s, you might remember how it typically was for purchasing videogames: you paid, you received.

With the power of the internet, it is no secret that things have drastically changed as far as how we spend our money. With the ability patch games and distribute post-release content, requiring only an internet connection from the receiving party, it is no wonder developers have taken advantage of this, both for good and bad…

What good can come of this? Fixing games, for starters. Gaming development has become increasingly complex with the way technology evolves daily. Among other good things, DLC, when done correctly. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is an example of this, delivering some of the best expansions I have ever seen in a game and doubling the game’s worth and duration.

But when does it go downhill? When games are released to meet a deadline, despite not receiving enough polish. Like mentioned above, DLC can be well done, but it can also be shady. Anyone remember the Street Fighter X Tekken fiasco ? The too long, didn’t read version is: Capcom released a game with paid, disc-locked DLC. As expected, an outrage ensued and left gamer's thinking about such practice.

Expansions, DLC, microtransactions, these are nothing new. Microtransactions, particularly, have come under a lot of fire lately. In some instances because consumers believe certain content should be free, others because some games rely on a pay-to-win model, but now, loot boxes have come under a lot of fire as well.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, a “Loot Box” is a form of DLC that consists in receiving a virtual box containing goods for which you have to use some kind of special token or currency to open. Now, this doesn’t sound too bad, right? Developers have been using them for years, and to be honest, a lot of the things you can find in them are merely cosmetic and have no effect whatsoever on gameplay.

The problem is when loot boxes get too involved in a game. As a recent example, EA has come under fire for their managing of loot boxes for the upcoming Star Wars: Battlefront 2, as reported by Polygon , where loot boxes actually affect player stats, thus giving advantage to those who outright spend more money. Shadow of War publisher, Warner Bros., has also been the target of criticism for including a bonus ending to the game’s story as something purchasable, though this has more to do with microtransactions in general. To be fair, players will have the option of grinding, but it is just too time consuming and makes purchasing a better option.

The problem is becoming so big, that a U.K lawmaker has gotten involved in the controversy , also reported by Polygon, citing the need “to protect vulnerable adults and children from illegal gambling, in-game gambling and loot boxes within computer games.” Many are now worried about how this system will be handled in the future.

With all of this being said, what do you think of this “problem”? Personally, I think we are definitely going in the wrong direction. While it is true that many games let you get everything with lots of playtime, and while it is also true that a lot of things loot boxes offer are merely cosmetic, it can become a greater threat if we, the consumers, have no say in the matter.

Related Game(s): Loot boxes

Read more →

Opinion: Should Online-Only Games Have A Full, Standard Retail Price?

Mois-s-Ram-rez 2 Comments

In an age where cellphones rule, where Wi-Fi connections are aplenty, and connectivity galore, it is not uncommon to see a slew of games that require an online connection to be able to play.

Now, this type of requirement is evidently essential for multiplayer action, since to be able to communicate with someone, you actually need an online connection. But what happens if you just want to play solo and don’t have the “need” for the web?

There are more than a handful of games that require an online connection even if you don’t want partake any kind of social or multiplayer activity. The Crew is an example of this, as it requires a consistent online connection; then again, Ubisoft marketed this game as somewhat “social”. And I know for a fact that this game had a standard 60$ price tag when it came out, at least in my nearest retailer. On the other hand, we have Rainbow Six Siege, where you can technically play offline, but with severely limited options (and I mean severely). But just as with The Crew, it really was intended to be a multiplayer oriented game, so you know what you were getting into.

That being said, do you think these games, that either require an online connection, or that have every limited options (Destiny, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, etc.) without one, should be sold at the standard retail price?

Personally, I think that even though you know what you are buying, there should be some kind of consideration. We’ve all been there: your internet is cut off, you reach the monthly cap, the optical fiber cable was stolen, and many more scenarios. The Friday the 13th Game, for example, has a much lower price tag, as do games like Rocket League and Dead by Daylight.

So what do you think? Do these games warrant a full price?

Related Game(s): Multiplayer games

Read more →

Would you like a Witcher 4?

Mois-s-Ram-rez 2 Comments

It is no secret that The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is one of the best games of the decade, and many would argue perhaps ever. Although the game received an 8.7 in our review , which you can read here, it received widespread critical acclaim from virtually every major reviewer out there.

After having played this masterpiece for the third time recently , and after going through a denial of sort regarding the ending to one fine trilogy, I was left wondering if we need a Witcher 4, or if I actually want one.

A Gamespot report earlier this year indicated that a Witcher sequel was not out of the question, though the source in mind did state that one would not be here early, if ever.

The highly anticipated conclusion to Geralt’s story left many hungry for more, even after the beautifully crafted DLC, and although The Witcher 3 will always hold a special place in my heart, I’m not sure a Witcher 4 is really needed. The story ended, at least for me, in a comforting and satisfying style; I will certainly miss Geralt, but his story has concluded, and I do believe making more games would just be superfluous it, unless we talk about severe spin-offs, such as the new Gwent game (which I have yet to try), or maybe a new, unlikely protagonist. Besides, CD Projekt Red really poured everything it had and really cares for the franchise. I doubt they’d want to ruin what they have created.

It is also no secret that not only in videogames, but in many other entertainment industries, sequels, prequels, remakes, remasters and reboots are hip, but objectively speaking, many of these additions to already established franchises are merely milking them, and we certainly do NOT want that for our beloved Witcher series.

What do you think? Did the DLC leave you satisfied? Would you consider maybe a different protagonist?

In case you have been living under a rock, here is the trailer for this beautiful gem: