Microtransactions are No longer profitable

General Discussion
EA has recently lost 3.1 Billion dollars merely because of their microtransaction schemes in Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Dear Blizzard
You guys now have a reason to remove microtransactions from the series. Gamers are beginning to speak with their wallets. Imagine the reaction they would get if they removed Microtransactions. They wouldn't lose money. They would gain money from many gamers that wont touch games with Microtransactions.

Overwatch is incredibly lucky to have released before the Microtransaction craze hit HARD. I think its time to remove them as a whole. They would also remove the chance of a rating rise due to gambling.

If this Microtransaction stuff goes on more and more I see a gaming market crash coming very soon. So please remove microtransactions.

-Love Krusher99
Just Krusher99 things.
It's not the micro transactions that are the problem. It is the gambling and pay2win that is the problem.
The problem isn't microtransactions themselves, it's when they're basically unavoidable and/or provide an advantage over people who didn't buy them. Overwatch only uses them for cosmetics, and you can get lootboxes at a reasonable pace, especially with the Arcade. The problem with SWBF2's lootboxes is that actual items were locked behind lootboxes, which had potential to make the game unplayable (if you didn't have any heroes unlocked, and you try to play heroes mode). Lootboxes in that game are also very hard to obtain, given some of their progression mechanics.
Except EA, and it seems other companies, put Competitive edges in their boxes, Blizzard doesn't. There is no "Improved Character", or "Higher DPS modification" in Overwatch Lootboxes... everything is just Cosmetic, to make you look pretty. This is where Blizzard proved themselves superior.
For the most part the majority seems fine with the Loot Boxes in OW. It's just that it's a slippery slope down into P2W territory. You can't just apply OW's MTX system to other games, otherwise:

- there would need to be multiple skins for each playable character
- there would need to be useless "filler" content like sprays and voice lines
- there would need to be emotes

Animations, 3D modeling, graphical art, and voice acting would all be necessary, which not a lot of Devs can come by. Adding P2W perks and a reach out to heros is just easier since most of that can be added on the back-end by devs that code/balance the game in the first place.

OW's system does work and is balanced, but it's just overall MTX is bad since there are no regulations, and it proves to be profitable, at least before BF2. Thus a lot of devs/publishers jump on that train, and here we are now.

tl;dr: OW doesn't have bad MTX, it just contributed to proving how effective and lucrative it is then other try and take it 1 step further.
EA lost 3.1 Billion dollars?
(pops champagne cork)
(everybody cheers)
Karma's a b*tch, ain't she? That's what happens when you're greedy and you push things too far.
EA saw the backlash they did because they tied lootboxes to a pay-to-win model in a $60 game. Overwatch keeps their lootboxes cosmetic, and was cheaper than Battlefront 2 to boot. If you get wrecked in comp, it's not because the other team bought more boxes.

Honestly, I'd love it if all the cosmetics were tied to some sort of hero progression or ranking system instead of monetized boxes. But I don't expect to see Blizzard get the same level of hate EA got anytime soon.
Haven't really been paying attention to the whole gambling thing, the only time i actually paid attention was in this context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDcNJedoZE

Is that it? That's not the lootbox i'm familiar with.
11/29/2017 06:59 PMPosted by DSPMankey
EA saw the backlash they did because they tied lootboxes to a pay-to-win model in a $60 game. Overwatch keeps their lootboxes cosmetic, and was cheaper than Battlefront 2 to boot. If you get wrecked in comp, it's not because the other team bought more boxes.

Honestly, I'd love it if all the cosmetics were tied to some sort of hero progression or ranking system instead of monetized boxes. But I don't expect to see Blizzard get the same level of hate EA got anytime soon.
not on console
The problem is putting paid content behind random chance with the odds of you getting trash you have no interest in (sprays) over the objects you are really trying to obtain.

Or as most would call it gambling marketed at children.
11/29/2017 07:09 PMPosted by Egg
Egg


OMG. THIS.
I never hopped on the lootbox bandwagon that’s been going around and have been pretty annoyed by Overwatch’s gambling system, but the lootbox system needs to stay in Overwatch.

Lootboxes, in Overwatch’s case, are what keep the servers running and the constant stream of free characters, maps, and events coming. Removing their only source of income, besides the initial purchase of the game, would force Blizzard to require a subscription service in order to play on PC.

EA’s model can go down in flames for all I care though. Overwatch’s lootboxes only give out cosmetic items while EA gives players who spend lots of cash tactical advantages. Lootboxes as a whole are frustrating at their very core, yet they’re what’s keeping PC players from having to buy a subscription and a constant stream of free content coming to all platforms. The way I see it, they’re a necessary evil in Overwatch.
Overwatch loot boxes are just cosmetics and don’t affect any actual gameplay. In SWBF2, loot boxes are necessary to purchase characters like Luke and Darth Vader and upgrade your characters which gives players who PTW an unfair advantage. Besides, Overwatch is very flexible with their loot boxes. You get a free one every time a new event starts, you can get 3 free lot boxes weekly, and by leveling up you get a free loot box. And Overwatch might be Blizzards must successful game, but they still need some way to earn some money. It’s a fair trade off which fans agree too since Blizzard clearly listens to their fans, whereas EA just wants to suck as much money as they can into all their games through micro transactions.
As many have said, microtransactions are only a problem if they give you a benefit over other players. I have no problem at all with microtransactions if they're only cosmetic.
no disney got involved
11/29/2017 09:46 PMPosted by me9o210
I never hopped on the lootbox bandwagon that’s been going around and have been pretty annoyed by Overwatch’s gambling system, but the lootbox system needs to stay in Overwatch.

Lootboxes, in Overwatch’s case, are what keep the servers running and the constant stream of free characters, maps, and events coming. Removing their only source of income, besides the initial purchase of the game, would force Blizzard to require a subscription service in order to play on PC.

EA’s model can go down in flames for all I care though. Overwatch’s lootboxes only give out cosmetic items while EA gives players who spend lots of cash tactical advantages. Lootboxes as a whole are frustrating at their very core, yet they’re what’s keeping PC players from having to buy a subscription and a constant stream of free content coming to all platforms. The way I see it, they’re a necessary evil in Overwatch.


We can all agree EA pushed it too far. But as for lootboxes being a "necessary evil" and "gambling," I'd love to hear your opinion on TCGs.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum