Hacker News Reader

Comment by arayh | Hacker News Reader

So this is mostly a confirmation that the "loot box" monetization model has been resoundingly successful? This controversial model exploits gamer psychology, is sometimes implemented along the veins of "pay to win", and is seen by some as a sort of in-game form of gambling.

View on HN

Other game types exists, friend.

I've collectively dumped hundreds of hours in Factorio, Stardew Valley, and Kerbal Space Program.

You dont have to look very far to find games which have long play times and no lootboxes (which is a fairly recent thing). Sometimes, games are just good without exploitative mechanics

I think between factorio, oxygen not included, minecraft, no mans sky and gemcraft (tower defense game) I'm probably in nearing 10 thousand hours of collective gameplay for a grand total of under $200. $0.02/hr is a hard number to beat. I don't think its possible for a movie or a song.

Even though these numbers are very anecdotal. The amount of money spent on a game vs the number of hours played shows that extra value could be extracted from the customer.

Netflix/Spotify model comes to mind. The collective pool of subscriptions fund creation of AAA titles just like the EA pass.

Perhaps, though I notice not a single one of the games I listed is an AAA title. I'm struggling to think of any AAA title that has held my attention for longer than 25 hours. I'd hate to subsidize the cost of an AAA title on the backs of indie developers who seem to be making games with a lot more sticking power/entertainment value.

I was an early fan of KSP. I've spent long, long hours in FTL. My latest gaming obsession was Heat Signature. No lootboxes in any of those. (Except as a joke in Heat Signature, and you can't convert real world currency into one of those.)

> Factorio, Stardew Valley, and Kerbal Space Program

Can u recommend some sort of a factorio for star-exploration type game ?

Kerbal itself is far too complex and detailed oriented for me

I've put >200 hours into Trials easy.. Tons of time into Dirt.

Love single player games with good story, but really sink time into challenging dexterity games I can play in short sessions for a break.

KSP and Rimworld combined make up almost 1000 hours of my time in the last 3 years for a total cost of $35.

Now that's value for money.

The "loot box" is starting to die in preference for the "battle pass", which basically offers transparent incentives for continued & skilled play by paying a single fee for a set amount of time, usually called a "season".

This is one of the reasons why Fortnite has been so successful: its easier to justify a single 10 dollar payment for a few weeks and know what you're getting based on what you play.

I wouldn't say that's the reason. This statistic has already been true for some time in the US, I believe. I think this article is specifically talking about UK produced games. I could be wrong, though.

The loot box model was tried with the new Star Wars Battlefront II, and it had an amazing amount of pushback, to the extent the developer gave up on the model in the game. It seems these days the most successful monetization model is in-game purchases, particularly for skins and whatnot, a la Fortnite.

I'm completely convinced that cosmetic/skin purchases are by far the best way to make a sustainable continuously updated pvp game. Nobody feels bad about not being able to invest money to be able to win, it encourages (and funds!) active development of the game and its visuals, and rare/cool skins and associated animations can be delightful to see even on other players.

I think it can create new jobs in the future (and maybe now?) as well. If you had an open market where aspiring artists could design and sell skins for something like Fortnite, with the developers taking a cut of the profits, it could be worth learning Photoshop/CAD and just selling assets. I think the Unity store is like this.

It would be challenging for the developers to make sure 3rd party skins were balanced for competitive play.

You mean like camo giving an advantage?

The reason for the backlash on StarWars was because you pay for (some of) the game, where as FortniteBR is free. And I believe StarWars made it so you can pay to be the more powerful characters, where as I believe FortniteBR doesn't contain any Pay-to-Win

It is gambling...

There is no real "loot box" system in Black Ops, and all stuff which can be bought is just for "cosmetics".

I have not played the game, so this is only from what I've read [0], but it is my understanding that they designed a progression system that strongly pushes people to pay. Also, while not strictly "loot boxes", you are still able to indirectly pay for random items because the drops are linked to level progression, which can be sped up with micro-transactions.

[0] https://kotaku.com/the-free-gear-in-black-ops-4-is-an-unforg...

Cosmetics are a billion dollar industry, why do you write it off so quickly? People pay money to make their face look different from others, why wouldn't they pay money to make their digital self different?

Because reading the comment thread, it's utterly antithetical to loot boxes. One is cosmetic and the other is functional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com