Redhawk2007

Thank you for this extremely well-written piece. This is one of the best explainations of why this practice is so short-sighted and completely rediculous. I often get flack for posting on the official forums from defenders of this practice and it's all quite silly.

I can whole-hearted say i will not participate in this type of content and hope more people step up and do the same. It's about time to speak with your wallets against this type of practice.

I would love to see more players united against the lockboxes. They are predatory and manipulative in the very same way that combining a gear treadmill and a subscription fee is... Yet ArenaNet cheerfully waxed poetic on how unscrupulous the P2P market is. GW1 had an "honest" cash shop based on flat fees and a fair amount of my anticipation for GW2 was partly based on the assurance that the cash shop would mirror its predecessor. GW1 did just fine with an honest cash-for-(digital) goods system, why are we now tolerating anything different?

I have yet to buy a key or lockbox, though I've otherwise purchased gems and gem store items. I want Arena Net to do well, I want to support them, I want them to have the funds to pay happy, healthy workers and flood the game with polish and content. I don't want them to employ shady marketing practices.

Ship Crystin Cox back to NCSoft (edit: Nexon? whatever - MapleStory) where she belongs.

Posted to GW2 Forums, I don't expect it to last.  Please comment there as well.

TLDR: Points are boiled down here, but I encourage you to ready the body.

The Right to Make Money

No one is arguing against any individual or company’s right to make money.  What is generally a point of contention is how that money is made.  If oil was a clean, safe resource to produce, with absolutely no environmental impacts and operated in more of an open market than say, OPEC, there would be very few people who could complain about how they do business.  If the market crash had not occurred due to irresponsible lending and selling of securities, no one would have an issue with how much money the banking industry makes.

What this piece attempts to do is describe how poorly these practices are for consumers (ie: you) not just in terms of yourself, but for the game as a whole, and your fellow players.

More Money than a Flat Rate?

The product could in theory be sold on the  Cash Shop for a flat rate, especially if they are already being offered for a limited time.  The question becomes, why not?

There are various reasons.  The return on investment (ROI) of the lottery boxes is higher than that of a flat rate.  The cost of a flat rate in order to equal the return that the lottery boxes provide, a flat rate would appear to be too expensive, with too large of a price tag to pay in one expense.  This goes towards the wedge of individual experience, further below.

If it were a flat rate, you could determine whether you liked the product enough for it to be worth the flat rate quoted.  Or you could consider the product to be worth no money at all, at which point the company has lost your sale and has to make up the difference from a user who wants the product.

The drop rates are unknown until someone bothers to invest and do the research, either by grinding a lot of boxes or buying them outright, the latter of which is a net-positive for the company.  And by the time the results are recorded and posted, the company has already seen sales from consumers assuming that the drop rate cannot be that bad.

The Wedges of "Individual Experience" and "Personal Responsibility"

Divisiveness is the greatest weapon of any entity against a collective to shield from its greatest weakness. You want the populace to be split on issues because if a high percentage of the body every aligns itself against you, you will feel its effects.

The randomness of these boxes creates a variable experience.  However unlikely it is, it is possible for a lucky person to get the products he needs by opening a mere ten boxes.  Suddenly, his experience is “this is the best thing EVER.”  For another individual, they could open box upon box upon box and spend a large amount of money without getting a single claim ticket.

Since experiences vary, its harder to reach a consensus on drop rates.  There will be people satisfied with their experience and others who feel as if its unfair.  Some will be accused of merely being “unlucky.”  Some will engage ad hominem, attacking other consumers for buying so many boxes irresponsibly, despite that being the intent of the company.  Strife ensues and its much harder to direct blame against one specific entity as the customers squabble amongst one another.

It is therefore much harder to get consensus on implementation than if the product had a flat rate.

They benefit from these wedges to keep their customer-base from coming to a consensus on anything, even as far as debate the value of the implementation instead of the value of the product being offered for the price.

Instilling Urgency Artificially: Limited-Time Offers

If you could just grind these out through normal activity (gameplay), there are always going to be those who stick with the grind over the shortcut of buying the product outright.  So to convert even a tiny percentage of those people (a net positive for the company), the company has a limited time offer on the product.  That is greed.  The limited time offer on the product is nothing more than a trick, to artificially give a sense of urgency.

In games like Tribes: Ascend everyone can get access to everything.  If just takes time.  You can choose to grind it out or you can buy it outright.  There is no limited time offer.  There are sales to incentivize a period where you would like to see more income, but a gun in Tribes: Ascend is never going to disappear because you did not buy it this month. It is a psychological trick meant to make you spend more money, and is an anti-consumer practice.

This operates much like the Disney Vault, in which Disney only releases a movie for a limited time every seven years or so on home media.  This increases the scarcity of the movie and instills urgency to purchase the movie when it eventually becomes available.

Worse than Gambling

Gambling can be viewed as an experience. You play the game and the money is the barrier for playing the game, with more money as a reward for winning.  One usually goes in knowing that you will likely lose money, but there's also a chance you could come out of ahead.  It can get impersonal, such as with video poker machines or slot machines, but generally, it's an experience at playing a game of chance.

Common wisdom is that the results are stacked in the house's favor, and there is generally a poor outlook on people who think they can regularly come out ahead by playing, or in other words, playing to win.

Or going to a Dave & Buster’s (or Chuck E. Cheese’s).  Sure, you may be attempting to win tickets for a particular prize, but you are usually paying as much for the experience of playing the games themselves.  You get the experience.  It is a poor value and poor sense to play at these places just to win tickets and win prizes, especially without a particularly good run of luck, you would end up buying the prize outright than trying to win it with tickets.

But these lottery boxes are different.  You are not paying to gamble for the experience, generally.  There is actually no experience, or at least less of one.  The similarity is very much like buying a box of cereal you hate because it has an item you really want.  At that point, you are just ripping open the box, pouring out the cereal for the product and potentially getting nothing for your trouble.  Rinse and repeat ad nauseum until the limited time offer (artificially created sense of urgency) expires or you get the prize you want.

The Company’s Gamble

The company has its own gamble going.

It is relying on the obfuscated nature of its game of chance, with its accompanying ability to change the odds at their leisure, to keep its customer base arguing and speculating over the factual details as much as the subjective details.  If you knew all the details, it would be much easier to base an argument for (or against) purchasing the product outright and there would be less coloring and argument from individual experiences.

It is relying on the artificial sense of urgency to push people into buying the product without spending a lot of time thinking about it, as well as pushing those who attempted grind it out to ultimately buy into the lottery boxes from the Cash Shop at the eleventh hour.

It is relying on human nature.  There are people out there who are gullible, naive, have little foresight and in some cases, an addiction to gambling.  These people with a clinical lack of self-control who will hand over money to engage in this process in hopes of getting the rush of a win.

Defending the Indefensible

The fact of the matter is that there will always be people attempting to defend these practices.  Usually, the sum of the arguments is that the company has a right to make money.  But why?  Why are these practices worthy of money?  And why do these people, who can only benefit as a consumer if these practices were revised to be less abusive, defend them?  Why implement these practices over a flat rate, offered through the Cash Shop, unless this lottery box implementation makes more money.

I tend to look towards a rather quotable piece of TotalBiscuit:

What the hell happened to gamers looking out for each other?  When did that suddenly fall by the wayside in favor of being an unemployed PR representative for a company that has been milking you for money?  When did this happen? Was this with the advent of the Internet?  Is this a recent thing?  I can’t exactly pinpoint when it happened, but fanboy culture has gotten to the point of being actively detrimental to video games.  It benefits nobody whatsoever other than the companies in question.

It’s wonderful that they’ve got a small little army of people that are willing to actively suppress dissent.  Actively lie about the game.  Actively try to character assassinate people.  Engage in ad hominems.  Slam them over social networks.  Downvote videos.  Lie in the comments section.  It’s wonderful if they’re willing to do that, if you happen to be [the company] or any other company that has people like that.  It’s terrible for the rest of us.  It’s really really bad.

…

Gamers don’t look out for each other anymore.  And that’s really depressing.  The last thing that should be happening is gamers actively trying to mislead other gamers because they want to feel better about their purchase.  Or because they want more players in their game, even though the game is clearly not up to spec.  Where do you get off doing that?  That is morally bankrupt.  That is ethically unsound in the worst possible way.  It sucks, and you suck for doing it.

People who defend these practices want the games they play to succeed regardless of how the company in question behaves, because they have some investment.  They either want the game to have more players, be more successful so it will stick around for a long time, get more development, release expansions, etc, etc.

TLDR: Ultimately, it boils down to the idea that the lottery boxes offer a better return on investment than just simply slapping a flat rate on the product.  It adds nothing to the product itself and is just a method for increasing profits, without doing anything.  It is a form of predation on consumers, it should not be tolerated, but there will always be people willing to defend a company’s decision either out of apathy, a belief it does not nor will ever affect them or some other selfish reason.

Edit: I lost a ton of formatting moving from Google Docs, and I'm adding it back in.

blackthornarrow, on 24 April 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Actually, they tout the free content as part of the $60 we paid - so no it isn't free. I paid for it. If they didn't bother with the updates, the game would be a complete disaster.

The updates are paid for. Stop trying to tell people we should be happy to get free updates. They aren't free.

Jon Peters post 5 months ago:

Quote

Riiiiight - rejoice fellow rangers.

don't hold your breath for too long though - you'll almost certainly be very disappointed!

heatrr, on 28 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just because some of us had to do it doesn't mean it was right the first time. Why should WvW be a part of world exploration when it isn't part of the world?

Also, it's 8% total of the entire map completion. Are you saying that the other 92% was redundant and only that 8% matters? Since the rest is the "easy way out."

EvilSinzGW2, on 10 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

The poison that was hurting to the server so badly after SoS lost first place moved to BG and the server is actually a really nice place to be. Instead of being surrounded by huge egos, who can't bear losing a coverage game, we have people who just enjoy WvW and a co-operative server community. The attitude many of those guilds, commanders and leaders had were very harmful to the server and they took them with them, it's nicer without them.

It's amazing the difference less egos makes in a game, it was a rough month but losing all the people who only cared about winning and their egos was the best thing to happen to SoS. Looks like the people who went to BG didn't get what they wanted either, it's still not clear how their numbers match up on BG vs JQ, but it looks like the high morale and overtime of the first week wasn't enough to beat JQ's numbers and until attrition kicks in, JQ will continue to cruise along, although this time with more competition (so by moving these players are helping JQ and hurting tier one by continuing the unsustainable transfer wars - boredom of an uncompetitive tier one was probably going to hurt JQ in the long run, now they can win while being less bored). I just hope none of the tier two servers get screwed over by all of this, that competition is a little lopsided based on timezones (SoS guilds moving to BG screwed over a really awesome match up there) but during most time zones it's very competitive. I'd hate to see transfers ruin that.

The match in tier three has been really great during most time zones (Oceanic/SEA is unfortunately a little lopsided, similair to tier two and Kaineng or JQ's coverage during euro in tier one - but both Dragonbrand and Yak's Bend are still putting up active resistance). You see less zergs running around, so the ability to function effectively in smaller groups is enhanced by this. In tier one there were zergs to take every supply camp and sentry point, in tier three it feels more like strategy and tactics matter more than simple numbers (even the NPC allies like the hylek, dredge or ogres seem to matter more as well - they can help turn the tide in a small group push on a supply camp, in tier one they are loot bags, WvW feels like it works better in tier three than it did in tier one). As much as I don't personally search it out, there's also a lot more dueling and small skirmishes (1 v 1s, 1 v 2s, 2 v 3s etc) which take place without having to worry about giant zergs around every corner.

Dragonbrand and Yak's Bend are great competition so far. All the doom talk about PvDoor in tier three was completely untrue, even during Oceanic/SEA hours there is active resistance and during the rest of the day the tier is very competitive.

I'm really curious about how the design of WvW discourages people from turning up when they are weaker and encourages it when they are stronger (it seems obvious, but the strange thing is, the numbers are there, they just aren't getting involved unless they are winning). Numbers imbalance isn't a common thing in PvP (certainly not to the extent you see in WvW) so it's weird to see SoS in tier two Oceanic hours with outmanned and the next week in tier three with queues on maps. I know there are people around on every server who would be more inclined to WvW if they didn't face the issues of being crushed by numbers all the time. Seems like a flaw in WvW design, I really hope the March update gives more incentives to people to play even when they don't have the numbers (or coverage) avantage. Progression alone doesn't seem like it would be enough, to me the problem seems to lie in the limitations players feel in the face of superior numbers. I'd like to see ArenaNet look at why fair weather players are such a common and significant factor in WvW.

Lordkrall, on 16 March 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

I'll help you out:

1. Guild Wars 2 is our opportunity to question everything - This isn't so much a lie as a reason why nobody should be upset when we, the customers, question everything as well.

2. Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world - Besides the world of Tyria, there is absolutely nothing in this game that is like GW1 in any way shape or form.

3. We just don't want players to grind in Guild Wars 2. - Almost everything in Guild Wars 2 is a grind. Leveling is a massive grind, dungeon tokens are are a grind, badges of honor are a grind, ascended gear is a grind, legendaries are a grind, dailies are a grind, monthlies are a grind, karma is a grind. What in this game isn't a grind?

4. As a structure, the MMO has lost the ability to make the player feel like a hero. - Two word. Screw Traeherne.

5. The boss you just killed respawns ten minutes later. - http://guildwarstemple.com/dragontimer/


I seriously don't believe anyone is that blind as to not see any contradictions between the manifesto and the actual game.

Quote

I know you said you think the manifesto didn't lie. Other people would suggest quite the opposite. I red-bolded the parts that are the typical suspects in these threads.

Last, it is our prerogative to discuss the game however we feel. Many of the people here making complaints still play the game. We are allowed to voice our opinion. You trying to diminish that by saying we are like jilted lovers is your opinion, and it has no factual bearing on whether we can express our opinions or not. If you don't like it, you don't have to read about it.

90% of the responses to your legitimate complaints that will be posted in this thread:

Something wrong with the game mechanics?

• You're just bad at the game.
  
• The design is flawless.
  
• This game just isn't for you.

Something wrong with profession balance?

• Learn to play your profession better.
  
• Reroll.
  
• Your build just sucks.

Something wrong with cash flow, the TP, or anything else related to the in-game economy?

• Buy gems.
  
• Grind.
  
• You're just lazy and want everything automatically.

Something wrong with customer service?

• Anet has some of the best customer service around, you're just picky.
  
• You're a scammer who deserves to be treated bad.
  
• If you weren't such a douche then ANet would be nice to you.

Please refer to this nifty list before you post a thread related to any of the above questions. Repost and add on to this list in other threads if you're tired of terrible fan boy responses.

Well he has a valid point. And that anet deletes posts like that on there forum is just pathetic.

sambombe, on 18 February 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Exactly, just silly and lazy they made it that way, only damage counts meaning warrior = best chance of the best loot and every other profession has a lower chance because of less damage...

Completely stupid system.

Also, im sure others will disagree and I do admit I have zero proof and is completely speculation on my part, I think these "accidental restrictions" stories are complete and utter bullshit. Personally and again its just my opinion, I believe they put the "accidental loot restrictions" into the game intentionally but after seeing how noticable it was, with the rage coming from the community, Anet did what they seem to do best, back peddle and cover it up while making up some story to save face...

Im guessing they did not expect the restrictions to be as obvious as they were, also all the players who kept saying "your just getting bad rng" well that kind of shows that was utter rubbish in most cases.

Just a thought but I find it extremely hard to believe with Anets track history of diminishing returns, past restrictions and the ability they have of saying one thing but later going back on it....I find it extremely hard to believe they just "accidentily caused restrictions" that just accidentily effected the way loot / rewards were working and that just happend to be less than it was before....

Anet you are becoming masters at the new sport of back peddling bad design decisions while trying to make yourselves smell of roses.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but as said, I find it extremely hard to believe considering recent events from devolepment to launch to 6 months later...to say this was an accident or mistake made to the game build....sorry I do not buy it.

Alex Dimitri, on 18 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

Thats another thing, some say it's all in people's heads but honestly, there seems to be a change in ecto rates when salvaging, its alot less of a chance then it used to be, how did "accidental restrictions" cause that? Have they investigated that by any chance?

Whole story just seems like a PR department trying to spin a bad business / design choice.

Problem isn`t in getting the credit for the kill (thus loot itself) but it`s much more irritating then that, LOOT is pathetic to say the least !!!

The thing Anet should do is make drop rates MUCH bigger (that 0.005% they keep adding is just joke) i mean 1 hour per Lodestone in full MF gear ? Even rare items lately salvaged with Black Lion Salvage Kit don`t yield Ecto anymore (every 3rd does) like 1 max 2 !
I mean there is so much wrong with loot in this game that is hard to list all problems, saying that loot is bad is just such a HUGE understatement !!!!

Loot reward based in damage imput??? WTF Anet, what an epic fail. What about the support professions/build, that keep spamming boons for the party and does not sufficient damage??

When will the "abysmal" loot get fixed?

Any update on AoE looting?