Loot Boxes in 2018: is it really worth it?

Amid news of EA Games bringing microtransactions back to Star Wars Battlefront 2, a move that had long been promised, the question has to be asked: are loot boxes even worth the negative press they’ll generate among consumers in 2018?

Gamers made a significant stand over the issue in the back end of 2017. The backlash over the implementation of loot boxes in Battlefront 2 was so powerful that even the corporate overlords of Disney were forced to take notice and step in to tighten the leash on EA’s executives. This was even enough to force microtransactions to be pulled from the game entirely for a while.

The handling of the fallout from the loot box scandal on EA’s part was just as disastrous; gamers rightfully mocked and ridiculed EA’s statement that loot boxes were supposed to give ‘a sense of pride and accomplishment’, and EA have even achieved the dubious honour of having one of Reddit’s most downvoted comments of all time. Goodwill was just about exhausted when EA stated to shareholders that the decision to remove microtransactions wouldn’t affect profit estimates. This made the situation even worse as it all but outright implied that the use of loot boxes on EA’s part was just a cynical cash grab, not, as had been claimed, an unfortunate necessity to be able to fund the spiralling cost of modern games development. In one fell swoop, practically every justification for microtransactions in full-priced games was dismantled, leaving a smouldering ruin of gambling regulations and unhappy customers.

Battlefront 2, then, is not a game on a good standing in any way. In the months after release for any FPS things get difficult: care has to be taken to keep gamers coming back for more. This all begs the question: was it even worth it to bring back microtransactions to Battlefront 2 considering the inevitable PR issues it would cause?

Imagine the goodwill that EA could have recovered for their IP if instead they listened to gamers and announced that microtransactions would be removed from the game entirely? While many of the more cynical amongst us would claim to see through such an act, many would find such a move to be a positive step. In fact, arguably now would be the best time to make such an announcement, with Battlefront 2 being a few months old surely it would be in desperate need of the good PR that would be generated to revive its player base. Dropping microtransactions would be the shot in the arm to help the game continue to survive as a multiplayer FPS.

Instead, however, we have a sad, predictable and cynical move from a corporation that feels increasingly disconnected from its customers, with many gamers commenting that they will now leave the game alongside the calls of ‘told you so’ from cynics the world over. The poor PR generated from the move must be costing millions, and will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect with player engagement and could cost the company any profit generated from the game in the coming months.

So why would any game company in 2018 continue to be associated with such a maligned practice as loot boxes? Surely any short term revenue boost through such cynical means will be miniscule compared to the loss of goodwill from customers in the long run. In 2018 is it really going to be worth it for any mainstream game to implement loot boxes, knowing that with 2017’s end the microtransaction bubble has burst? Surely by now any loot box announcement will be met with such cynicism and vitriol that any small amount of revenue squeezed from such a move would be insignificant compared to the unsustainable loss of customer goodwill.

No. The ship has sailed on loot boxes and the damage is done. Gamers have proven that they will not take such moves blindly. Surely now, it is time to put the final nail into the loot box’s coffin and accept that whatever measly, cynical cash that can be grudgingly squeezed from consumer’s fingers is not worth the unsustainable loss of goodwill that will soon put AAA gaming’s future in the balance. Loot boxes are dead, it’s time to move on.

Classic Sonic's Sustainability

With this year marking the release of both Sonic Mania and Sonic Forces, a worrying trend seems to have stuck itself to new Sonic games; that of leveraging ‘classic’ imagery and sentiment as a crutch to stay relevant. This isn’t entirely new, but it is an unsustainable method that will only yield returns for so long before we get tired.

Sonic Mania looks like a wonderful throwback to a time gone past, and looks well worth playing – the reviews of the game agree with this point. But the problem is in the game’s premise rather than its execution. It is part of a growing number of ‘flashback’ titles that leverage a desire for Sonic to ‘go back to his roots’ (a cliché phrasing of modern Sonic criticism if ever there was one).

How sustainable is this idea, really? Between Sonic 4 episodes 1 and 2, Sonic Generations, Sonic Mania, Classic Sonic’s return in Sonic Forces, not to mention a huge number of re-releases on virtual console systems, how much longer can SEGA milk what’s left of gamer’s nostalgia before gamers get bored of this trend? We can only see remakes and re-releases of Green Hill Zone so many times before it will inevitably lose its charm.

The unfortunate fact is that despite major positive steps forward in the form of Sonic Colours and Generations, the series still evokes an image of Bambi on ice, with shaky foundations that look so horribly precarious it’s almost hard to watch as the series goes on.

In its struggle for an identity in modern times, Sonic’s leveraging of its classics may have been a successful experiment, with the appearance of Classic Sonic in Generations and Forces, but now the trend is quickly becoming a tired trope. It’s time for gamers’ favourite hedgehog to drop these crutches and run – after all, isn’t this what Sonic is best known for?

More than anything, SEGA needs to reinvent Sonic’s identity, perhaps by looking at current Sonic conventions and throwing them out of the window. The transition wouldn’t be painless; many fans cling dearly to their nostalgic love of the ‘classic’ Sonic series that ended in the 90’s. But it won’t be long before this love runs out and instead we groan every time we see SEGA march out Classic Sonic only to expose him to further indignity. Let Classic Sonic rest now, and perhaps nail the final coffin in Modern Sonic’s grave, and give us a true reinvention of the character and his conventions before he winds up stuck in that grave permanently. 

Videogames' Sad Cultural Problems

My writing has dwindled as of late because I got a job in a major British supermarket I’ve been finding it increasingly difficult to find enough hours in the day to maintain my hobbies and this website, as I have been working a huge amount of overtime. However, if there is one thing that working at a retailer has taught me about videogames, it is that there is still the sad, annoying perception of gaming as a children’s activity.

Working at checkouts, one of the biggest things that shocks me about selling games is parents’ sheer ignorance and lack of willingness to engage with gaming at all. It is seen as something to shut a child up for a while, to placate them, instead of something to be used as a potential teaching tool. This is deeply frustrating; as I have written before, gaming can be a very productive activity if it is used in the right way. If we can teach audiences to engage with games and think academically, critical thinking abilities will continue to go from strength to strength. It’s telling that books and movies both have large bodies of academia devoted to their analysis, and the development of this kind of environment for gaming is an inevitable step that I would rather come sooner than later.

If only parents saw videogames as something more than an expensive, minor annoyance, then we may continue to see the development of videogames as a medium to be taken more seriously. Hopefully as the games we play continue to bridge the generational gap this will happen less and less; something that I tried to do as a worker was encourage the shoppers to engage with their children about the games they enjoy; I would often encourage such parents toward puzzle-solving or creative videogames as a great way to develop a child’s critical thinking skills in a way that also speaks to their generation. As to whether my attempts have been successful is another matter.

Perhaps the worst cultural issue with videogames, however, is the issue of parents ignoring age ratings. PEGI, BBFC and ESRB ratings, among others, exist for a reason, but sadly even today seem to be taken as a joke. Given gaming’s bad reputation and moral panic around videogame violence, such an ignorance to the issues of buying clearly unsuitable games for children is shocking. I’ve seen Call of Duty being bought clearly with the intention as a gift for very young people, and as a gamer and a responsible retail employee I brought this to the parents’ attention, only to be treated with a kind of dismissive scoff. It’s even worse when you consider that the gamings’ cover art in itself shows the kind of violence on offer. It’s more clear than ever what the exact content of a videogame is, and it’s made sad to see the sheer level of ignorance and lack of judgement on parents’ part when it comes to their purchasing choices.

Gaming needs desperately to continue to discourage the purchase of games for unsuitable audiences, for both its reputation as a medium and for the enjoyment of its consumers. We’ve all experienced abuse from younger gamers that make online shooters a fairly toxic place to be in, and suffered the annoyance of squeaky, immature players shouting down our microphones. Gaming is a great hobby, and a wonderful community to be part of, but it’s so sad to see the medium continue to not be taken seriously in the 21st century. It is my hope that soon we will be able to break through these cultural barriers and continue to make videogames among the most welcoming of modern day hobbies.

Asking About Nintendo's Approach

Many gamers are quick to throw disrespect at Nintendo. They are seen as having a ‘kiddy’ public image and suffered a PR disaster in the aftermath of the Wii, due to their embracing of the ‘casual’ market. Many gamers that consider themselves ‘hardcore’, or ‘mature’ have turned their back on the company. There are a lot of gamers that, thanks to the highly-emotional nature of console wars, have called for Nintendo to cease console production and move purely into software, or even to abandon the games industry entirely.

I think that this opinion is jumping to an early conclusion when you consider Nintendo’s position within the industry. Not only that, but losing Nintendo would be a sad thing for every gamer that is interested in the future of gaming.

A lot of people think that Nintendo don’t have the resources to build a powerful gaming machine that can rival Sony and Microsoft. On the other hand, many people also think that they do have the resources, but that it is a foolish decision for Nintendo not to make a graphical powerhouse machine to compete on the same level.

However, this argument is flawed on many of its premises. For one, in financial and resources terms, Nintendo are a huge company. They can easily afford to build a machine that can blow the PS4 and Xbox One out of the water. 

Any PC gamer can attest to the fact that one can cheaply and easily build a rig that can achieve far more than any of these consoles, sometimes even at a cheaper outset than the consoles themselves. 

If they wanted to, Nintendo could build a console that wipes the floor with any machine on the market today, and for that matter, so could Microsoft. Sony I’m not too sure about, given the dire financial straits that they reportedly suffered in the past, but I’m sure they could do so as well given the investment in PSVR and PS4 Pro.

The issue is that such an approach is ultimately futile. It is the nature of consoles that on the day of the release, enthusiast-level PC gamers can build machines that make them look like a joke. All we have right now is an arms-race of ever-higher graphical power, and what is that really achieving? All we’ve gotten is Call of Duty but with more freckles on our characters’ arms. It is not a foolish decision for Nintendo to do away with what really is a futile way of competing with the market.

Fighting on the battlefield of graphics is an exercise in silliness. It is the logical equivalent of those sad arguments we all had as kids between making ever more powerful superheroes that can beat everyone else’s heroes; ‘my guy has a super-everything shield and super-ultra-rays that can smash through your everything shield!’

It is especially futile now that we seem to be approaching the graphical level of diminishing returns. Looking at the pure improvements on offer, I would say that the current generation has achieved very little in terms of extra prettiness. Games certainly do look more polished, sure, but the jump from PS2 to PS3 was a far bigger leap than PS3 to PS4 in graphical terms. It’s gotten to the point that we’re literally splitting hairs; we’re impressed because Lara Croft has a few more strands of hair on one system than on another.

That’s not to say that graphical investment is bad; I love better looking games and some of the stand outs of this generation look simply gorgeous. But most gamers understand and live by the motto of ‘graphics don’t matter’. I personally believe that it is art design, not the graphics that makes a game look beautiful. Some of the Wii U games look astonishing; I dare you not to be charmed by the bombastic show of colours that is Mario Kart 8. What is more important is not the sheer horsepower under the hood but how you use that horsepower to achieve a beautiful result.

However, when we consider Nintendo’s situation, we should really understand what it would mean to make a ‘graphical’ console. It would be making a statement that they intend to compete on the level of Sony and Microsoft. Ultimately, these consoles become mass-market machines. This market includes Fifa, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed and more; the big third-party titles that bring in the billions. Nintendo would be making a statement that its selling point was now exactly the same as the other consoles.

But is this a good idea, really? As much as there have been third-party games that have published on Nintendo platforms, how successful have they been in the past? How confident are we that third party developers would, given they have no obligations to, throw their weight behind Nintendo, given their sometimes-shaky relationship with the company in the past? My guess is that if the past is any indication, Nintendo simply cannot afford to rely on that kind of investment.

Not only that, but is that what we need as an industry? Do we need another company to sell us Call of Duty on a new machine with more graphical detail, with more fish that move away from us as we swim to them? I remember there being a massive call not long ago about innovation in gaming.

Like it or not, Nintendo is a company that asks questions. Why do we need to use controllers? Why should we have to stop gaming when the TV is turned off? Why do we need just one screen on a portable device?

I hate to use the word ‘innovative’ in reference to Nintendo because it is a tired argument, but perhaps there is a reason it is a tired argument with regards to Nintendo’s strategy. I think that what Nintendo is trying to do is a hell of a lot more healthy than what other companies are trying to do in the gaming industry. Ultimately, what I feel about Nintendo is that they are trying to bring better ways to engage with gaming, rather than just running through the motions.

We need companies that ask questions, and come up with answers that nobody asked for. We need companies that feel comfortable making Wii U’s instead of Xboxes. We need a company that focuses less on the mainstream trends, and instead focuses on how to bring gaming forward as a medium. Nintendo may have been guilty of some major cock-ups, but ultimately, I see that their vision is to ask questions. Crazy questions, stupid ones even. But they are questions nonetheless, ones that challenge our views.

Of course, that is not to say that Nintendo is without criticism; their treatment of some of their IP has been awful, and the way they have monetised nostalgia is downright unethical at times. The Wii U was a colossal failure because of Nintendo’s obsession with reinventing the wheel time and again. Their approach to mobile and online spaces has been sadly lacking and oftentimes woeful, and again, unethical if you look at the way they treat Let’s Players.

But for all of the ire we can fire in Nintendo’s direction, do we really think that the games industry would be a better place without them? Nintendo are a gaming institution, and are as important, if not more important than the Sonys and Microsofts of the world. Given that the Switch has shown moderate success,  there is still something to be said about asking questions. 

In terms of the ‘console wars’, I think Nintendo see the futility of the graphical arms race, and what it is ultimately offering to the games industry. We don’t need consoles that bring us more power; that race is already won with the PC. What we need in the industry is innovation. What we need is a company that asks questions. And for all their criticisms, I think we all know that if Nintendo leave the console industry entirely, it won’t be a day for celebration. It would be a day for mourning.