
The User Experience of Lootboxes - kawera
https://blog.prototypr.io/the-user-experience-of-lootboxes-fcfe92206a6b
======
dvt
I am morally opposed to exposing children to faux-gambling to make Blizzard or
Valve an extra buck -- or get them to spend an extra 20 minutes in game. The
argument that loot boxes are "only cosmetic" is also a terrible argument. The
game experience involves customizing your character. Cosmetic items are _by
definition_ part of the game and, therefore, enhance gameplay. Many lawsuits
were lost a few years ago where dozens of skin selling/trading/gambling sites
had to be shut down. At least I'm happy governments all over the world took a
stand.

But unfortunately, this trend won't stop until consumers also take a stand and
vote with their wallets. I was excited for Battlefront and the new Shadow of
War games but decided not to buy (or pirate) either. On the other hand, maybe
litigation is the only way to change these exploitative grey-area practices.

~~~
Macha
The issue is unlike previous anti-consumer practices (like day-1 DLC), no more
does one customer = one wallet vote. Sure, 50 of us could not buy the game,
but that one whale who spends $3000 has just outvoted us with his wallet.

~~~
wand3r
At least it prepares kids for how the real world works...

~~~
ryanianian
...at a time at which they're unprepared for making financial decisions.

------
mikestew
One of things I don’t like about loot boxes is that it doesn’t involve
shooting avatars. I didn’t buy CoD WWII so that I could take sixty seconds to
load The Headquarters, wander around, push the lever, wait for the drop
animation, wait for the opening animation. Only to get a box full of shit I
already have (I’ve just quit opening them now). I want to shoot shit, not
stand around doing paperwork.

So in summary, if this is the direction games are going, I guess I’ll start
looking at more board games, and get better on that mandolin. Because this is
_not_ how I care to spend even a minimal amount of my gaming time.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ironically, you like the game less, the more it gets close to true military
life experience :).

That said, I sympathize. Things tangential to the core gameplay should be...
tangential. The problem is that these days, the idea of what constitutes
"gameplay" differs is different for the studios than it is for the players.

~~~
philipov
I don't think it's ironic. Games are not there to be accurate simulacra of
life; that's what life is for. People usually play games to _escape_ from the
tedium of realism. If I wanted to spend more of my time grinding, I'd work
longer hours.

~~~
platz
which is why i find the genre of Simulation so interesting. of which Flight
Sims seem to be most well known, most typical example of. In the old Falcon 4,
there was a large manual that one required just to operate the radar screens.
and folks would learn them . Perhaps it provided some feeling of mastery over
a complex task - and knowing it derived from something from reality/nature
meant that task was in some way grounded in "truth".

In something newer like the DCS series each aircraft has rows of knobs - that
_represent reality_ as closely as possible. Of course you can expand
Simulation to all sorts of domains. e.g. for tanks Steel Beasts is almost a
game in the proper sense, but quite simulation influenced (actual militaries
use it to train tank teams).

Finally, why restrict yourself to avation/military... you could truly attempt
simulate any experience. essentially, you would de-gamify it.

i think the core values of simulation are free-form structure, customization,
exploration, experimentation.

Are engaging with these sims "fun"? I dont' know, but folks sure seem to spend
a lot of time "playing" them. They must be getting something out of it.

I'm interested how far you could take this, how far you could expand into
something engaging that not along the well-trodden path of flight/military/car
stuff.

~~~
saurik
People who own planes generally report it being fun to fly; it is just also
extremely expensive to do often and there is a massive element of risk if you
don't know what you are doing or your luck with the weather runs out for you
and your small plane that you are flying with your limited skills. I don't be
know many people who report "going into the military was extremely fun and I
would do it constantly if I just had access to enough sufficiently-evil
enemies to kill".

~~~
platz
> I don't be know many people who report "going into the military was
> extremely fun and I would do it constantly if I just had access to enough
> sufficiently-evil enemies to kill".

That statement to me shows you even have difficulty conceptualizing what a
non-gamified model even look like! (.e.g "sufficiently-evil enemies to kill").

Simulation has much more elements of tedium (no "pacing"), just like real
life.

Or the learning curve is not constructed just so to be the perfect on-ramp,
just like real life. The learning curve is simply what nature/environment
demands.

e.g. "Enemies" are not "sufficiently evil", or even presented to you at proper
game-enjoyment level times/pacing.

It is why simulations are not really "games", they are not "fun" (but the can
be, but that isn't the "point"), but my point was that something draws people
to them, and they engage with them. It's interesting to think about why.

~~~
saurik
I brought that up to isolate the moral ambiguity of war, not to imply
something about gamification. The reason I did that was because, without that
comment, I think you would have to be a sick and twisted person to consider
shooting at and killing other people to be "fun", even if it were thrilling
and challenging and engaging and whatever else you find "fun".

Flight simulators do not have the same moral quandary, so we don't have to
worry about it there: we can ask the question "is flying fun"... and you seem
to have ignored my premise which is that the answer is apparently "yes":
people who own planes report that flying is fun.

However, most people can't fly, as it requires you to have a ton of disposable
income to own the plane and contract the hanger and pay for the fuel. The
people I know who own planes hardly ever get to fly them, and when you do get
to fly you are often almost "forced to" in order to keep your training up to
date.

Regardless, it is worth noting that you have now slipped into the territory of
having defined a simulation as something inherently not fun, so we should ask
if a flight simulator even qualifies for your circular definition, and it
turns out it doesn't :/.

So, the reason why a true combat simulator (with the caveat that the enemy is
"sufficiently evil") would be "not fun" is that most of combat is "hurry up
and wait", maintaining your equipment, and doing training exercises. What
makes a first person shooter fun is that you get to do only the parts that are
thrilling, challenging, and engaging: even your gun is maintained by other
people.

A flight simulator is thereby not really a simulator, as if it were 99% of
your time would be spent making money to buy fuel. You would only get to fly a
couple times a month at most, and your plane would even be in the shop a lot.
You would be managing your flight certification credits more than your air
traffic control, and you would have a pretty limited set of destinations.

In Flight Simulator, you can fly any plane, from anywhere to anywhere, the
plane always works (unless you _ask_ for it to not work), you get to decide
how bad (aka, "exciting") the weather is, and the fuel is effectively free.
You get to spend all of your time doing the parts that are thrilling,
challenging, and engaging.

The closest you can get to this experience in the real world is flying
commercially, whether for a large airline (in which case you do get to fly
large aircraft--which is both interesting and boring--but mostly in good
weather on someone else's schedule) or you start your own small business
flying people around (in which case we would expect a bunch of sales and
accounting hours).

~~~
philipov
One quibble: You don't have to own a plane to fly. You can rent small prop
planes at an airport.

~~~
mrguyorama
Getting your License requires a significant money and time investment. The
kind of investment that a significant amount of people cannot make. Meanwhile
FSX is under 20 dollars and runs on a laptop from 2007, which a nice joystick
costing about 30 dollars. It even lets you turn down the simulation-ness, if
you just want to play around instead of follow checklists.

------
autarch
Extra Credits did a good video on AAA game pricing recently
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8))
that talks about why developers are going down the lootbox and
microtransaction roads.

Their argument is basically that AAA games are just way too cheap. The price
has been at $60 for a long time, and even though the market has expanded since
then, it's still not enough to cover the development costs, which have
skyrocketed. Finding other revenue streams has become a necessity. The
alternative would be $80 or $100 AAA games.

~~~
onion2k
_The alternative would be $80 or $100 AAA games._

Or lowering production costs. Less reliance on expensive licenses and must-be-
bigger-than-the-last-one sequels and more original content instead would be a
good starting point.

~~~
freehunter
Relying on more original content would actually be more expensive if they were
trying to maintain the same quality. Having to develop a new IP and new story
from scratch, plus new assets and models, plus the major chance that it might
not actually succeed... it's a risk-averse model. Everyone knows that CoD will
sell, or Madden, or GTA. It's guaranteed money, even if it's a relatively
small profit. Small profit is better than maybe zero maybe negative.

~~~
onion2k
CoD, Madden and GTA are big enough to make a profit at $60 though. We're not
talking about those titles really. We're talking about the games that try to
compete with them, and don't sell enough $60 copies to be worthwhile. Those
are the games that need to reduce their production costs, or just not get
made, rather than introducing things like loot boxes.

------
detcader
In Magic, booster packs are actually useful for drafting. Adults in the MtG
community constantly stress that you shouldn't buy booster packs for yourself
--they're made for draft play.

In pretty much all video games that have them, you can't draft with loot
boxes, or it wouldn't make any sense. I played Destiny 2 recently and had a
good amount of fun, but much of the game felt so artificial and designed
around a boardroom-brainstormed economic strategy. It seems this has just
resulted in chaos in the fan community. I strongly recommend Monster Hunter
World instead. Loot-based, grindy action game, without loot boxes.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Could you explain what "draft play" means?

Also: I hereby regret that I didn't make contact with adult CCG communities
when I was ~10-13 and into Magic and other games; with my cousin, we've spent
plenty of our pocket money buying booster packs...

~~~
EdgarVerona
Ah, by draft we are referring to a mode of play in modern CCGs: one where
players gather around a table, passing packs around and picking cards from
them for the purpose of making a deck _on the spot_ , and then playing with
that deck in the subsequent tournament.

With drafting, having a randomized pack actually serves a purpose other than
gambling, in that the unknown nature of the contents of the pack means that
the people sitting at the table picking cards for their deck don't know what
will be coming and what others have picked (which makes the act of this
drafting itself an interesting skill and entertaining experience separate from
merely "opening a pack hoping for a good card")

------
NelsonMinar
I hate to think how many talented designers and engineers are building systems
to convince their marks to spend more money than they intended to spend. Or
maybe can afford.

~~~
epicide
This is basically the concept of Dark UI Patterns. Great video on some
examples here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVyFio8gw4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVyFio8gw4)

I find the Ryan Air example particularly interesting.

------
sexydefinesher
I cant say that i want to support this direction videogames are going in. We
get less content and still need to pay full price and then theres the pressure
to buy all the dlc and microtransactions. At least before lootboxes you could
buy exactly what you wanted, now you need to grind 100h and just hope you get
the correct one.

Im happy i bought my overwatch key on g2a, those people buying keys in bulk
and then doing chargeback can have the money rather than Blizzard.

edit: To expand upon, most of these costs are invented the game makers. In
games like CS source you didnt need to buy any skins, you could make your own
and replace the in-game models to see them client side and if you wanted
everyone to see it you could have the server you ran the game on use it. But
now no one lets you host your own server and prevents you from mixtering with
the game files, so now you need to pay for simple recolors that you could have
made yourself before or get through the community.

And another reason not to buy games anymore is that you really dont own them.
When steam finally dies one day your 'license' expires and all your games are
gone, not like it mattered anyway since more and more games require
verification from servers owned by the developer/publisher either to play
online or to verify your copy (doors in Diablo 3 are server side iirc). These
servers then close down to force you to buy the latest game in the series. Or
nobody bothers to keep them online when the company gets purchased or closed.
And rarely to never at all do they let anyone set up third party servers
because why would they. /rant

~~~
Nexxxeh
Have you played Overwatch?

Overwatch is ONLY cosmetics in lootboxes, has high drop-rate in normal play.
They give them out like candy. They literally gave you more at Christmas.

It's rubbish suggesting you have to grind, you earn lootboxes for virtually
EVERYTHING because you are constantly earning XP for playing almost every
game, QP or ranked or arcade.

There's a reasonable in-game currency, no external trading, and is frankly an
example of loot boxes done right.

Your attitude is "I'd rather defraud the devs, even though the game I have is
the opposite of Pay-to-Win."

I don't get it.

~~~
platz
> defraud the devs

I seriously don't understand game culture these days. The rhetoric seems to
hint at things I don't understand.

I herald from the relatively pastoral times of doom, mortal kombat, x-com,
worms.

Reading discussions between gamers and about games these these days feels like
a postmodernist imbroglio involving Derrida and lacan.

~~~
Impossible
Those games are all classics, but they would all be considered small indie
games by todays standards. I guess the answer is check out popular (or
especially not so popular!) indie titles if you're nostalgic for those days
rather than be enraged by heavily marketed AAA titles.

~~~
platz
I'm not talking about indie vs AAA. (games from then also required significant
effort - the same effort now simply get you better games.)

I'm talking about what divisiveness exists in the industry as a whole, today,
compared to what divisiveness exists in the industry as a whole then.

~~~
Impossible
Ah, divisiveness in the industry as a whole now vs then is probably due to the
ubiquity of the web (specifically social media) and having a much larger
audience with videogames as a stronger part of their core identity. The PC
gaming market in the early and mid 90s was growing rapidly, but still pretty
niche. There are also far more developers and a larger diversity in developers
and players. Often with indie developers (and occasionally in AAA) the
divisiveness is animosity toward developers for not making games that cater to
the majority audience.

------
alkonaut
EA/Dice in Battlefield moved from a perfectly healthy grind-to-improve
mechanic where you got improvements and unlocks by grind and achievement that
actually felt worth doing (BF3 and BF4). I even had zero issues with the
possibility of buying these perks for money.

Then they release their latest iteration and they completely ruin it. Some
extremely complex mechanic of crates giving crap that seems to be cosmetic
only? I mean who is feeling rewarded in any way by having a purple gun if it
works the same?

~~~
reificator
Can we just not have grind? I liked multiplayer back when there was no
progression, you just came back because it was actually fun.

I already have a job, that's not what I've ever wanted out of video games.

~~~
alkonaut
In “simple” FPS I agree (e.g quake style shooters etc). But in BF where there
is tanks and planes and a hundred modes I like the incentive it gives me to
vary my playing with unlocks for “fly a plane for an hour” etc. After a
hundred hours or so you have most stuff and there isn’t much progression for
many hundred hours after that.

I agree it shouldn’t be useless grind, it should be rewards for varying it up.
Such as just trying something, or getting 5 kills with a gun. When you go out
of your comfort zone, you are initially shit (naturally), so without the lure
of an unlock “if I can just not suck for enough time to shoot down 3 planes”
you stick with where you would have just gone back to the comfort zone
otherwise.

Not something you need hundreds of hours of _repetitive_ play to do. So
perhaps “grind” is the wrong term for this type of progression. Getting to the
_end_ if the progression might be a grind if you want to do it deliberately.
But I enjoyed the progressions of BF3 and 4 and I probably would have had less
fun without it. I did the first 1000h because the first 100h had those rewards
that compensated for me sucking as a player.

~~~
reificator
I don't know, I just get sick of the feeling that every game needs progression
systems. Constant popups telling me I've accomplished something and here's
your reward make me feel like all my accomplishments are meaningless and just
exist to beef up an arbitrary number on a server somewhere. I really like
FPSes, but I don't remember the last time I had fun playing a new one because
the skinnerbox mentality takes so much away from the design.

I don't mind modern mechanics that don't have to do with telling me how great
I am. Ironsights are great and even going back to Left 4 Dead 2 from 2009 felt
like going decades backwards in design. Cover systems range from okay to
really good. (Red Orchestra 2 being my favorite on that front) Regenerating
health is... okay well I don't like regenerating health much because it
encourages corridor based level design rather than the classic exploration
you'd get from Doom or Jedi Knight 2 or whatever.

And I'm especially upset that the single "element" pulled in when a game has
"RPG elements" is the leveling system. That's not what makes an RPG an RPG,
that's just the system that best fits tabletop games.

I miss when I could hop into a game, and apart from skill, everyone is on the
same level.

------
EdgarVerona
I have two points I'd like to make.

First, I disagree with those who have been saying that piracy or purchasing
keys from the grey market are solutions: those are just making the problem
_worse_ , not better. These gambling-like mechanics are coming from companies
looking for a way to remain economically viable when their base prices stay
the same even as the cost of development goes up, and stealing the product is
just going to make this already bad situation much worse.

That being said, I am also firmly against the loot box model. While many
genres of games use behavioral conditioning as a means to the end of making
the game entertaining, the conditioning inherent in loot boxes represents a
much tighter loop: one where the primary act of deriving enjoyment comes not
from the experience of the game, but rather comes exclusively from that
conditioning itself. When you look at it that way, the only difference between
a loot box and gambling is that gambling has the additional harmful effect of
being a "closed loop": that is to say, the solution to gambling may appear to
a user to be "gamble more to make up your losses." But to me, that doesn't
excuse loot boxes; it merely makes gambling a particularly egregious cousin
within the genre of variable ratio scheduling-based "entertainment".

When I look at loot boxes, I see something that is (at least, in the general
case) well-intentioned: the designers feel a need to find a way in this
difficult market to retain viability, as mentioned recently by Extra Credits.
They're in a hard spot, and a very personal one: indeed, their jobs and the
jobs of their co-workers are on the line. Designers may also look at the
entertainment caused by the reinforcement of conditioning and see that as
providing value in itself: the act of "scoring big" on a random roll is indeed
thrilling to people, and it is easy to believe that providing that to people
provides them "value". But is it thrilling for the right reasons? Is that
really value? Are we optimizing for the wrong measurement? My feeling is that
this potentially well-intentioned pivot to loot boxes has and is derived from
models of behavioral conditioning that feel harmful to end users even if they
came from well-intentioned reasoning.

I would like to see the industry move away from this model; I know that right
now a higher initial price tag is a hard pill to swallow, but at various times
in the industry the price has been higher (adjusted for inflation), and the
market accepted it. I think for example about the SNES era, where SNES games
defaulted even back then to $80 for a new AAA game (adjusted for inflation,
that'd be ~$140 today): the initial price was steep, but the market held and
the people found value in it. There is also something to be said about
profitability being obtained by being able to reach our much wider target
audience - profit by volume, which is something that loot boxes take advantage
of but that other models could take advantage of as well.

This is by no means an easy problem to solve, and I don't know where the
industry will end up. The kinds of pressures mentioned recently by Extra
Credits are very real, and loot boxes present a very obvious way to circumvent
that issue. But I hope that an alternative model can be found; one that
derives itself less from gambling and behavioral conditioning and more toward
providing an obvious, easily calculable cost-to-benefit.

------
crankylinuxuser
Yep. And this is why I play emulated and pirated games. These older games
don't use loot boxes, DLC, or the myriad of other tricks and traps to sink
more money after the initial purchase.

I'll also play more current games where I actually __buy __the game outright,
although that 's changed from computer to board games. I know what I'm getting
with a board game. None of that stupid lootbox crap, or the Diablo3 method of
forcing people to buy crap on eBay to play "single player game".

The game companies have forced me to migrate to local games. And Emulation
serves its purpose very well. It assumes the same hardware, and just works.
Yeah, it's breaking copyright, but well - I'd get screwed in buying legit. So
well, whatever. Arr.

