Looks like the CoD version of the Tower from Destiny. Odd.

Christ. Just watched a playthrough of a stealth section. I'm out.

Rancid.

There must be a load of people gobbling it up though, the move to EA Access is all a part of it. So you feel like you're getting the game for nowt and are then more likely to spend a bit of money to catch up to the grinders who unlock this stuff after spending money upfront on the game when it's released.

The Belgian Gambling Commission have opened an investigation into the use of loot crates in video games (specifically Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront)

Please excuse the formatting...

"The gambling commission is investigating the new video game SW: Battlefront II. In this game, you can pay money for upgrades, only you don't know what you're getting beforehand. Overwatch, another popular game, is also being investigated.

[...]

The game features loot crates, which offer items but the contents are random. "Therein lies the problem", says director of the gambling commission Peter Naessens to VTM news. "It depends on luck and at that point you're gambling."

The commission says this game poses a danger to minors, who are under (social) pressure to spend a lot of money on the game.That's why they're starting an investigation. "If we are dealing with a game of chance, they need to have a permit."

In the worst case scenario, this could lead to fines of hundreds of thousands of euros. The game could also be removed from stores. EA, developer of the game, declined to comment."

To flip this about, is there any game/franchise/situation where you'd happily throw your money at it?

afgavinstan wrote:

To flip this about, is there any game/franchise/situation where you'd happily throw your money at it?

No.

Also, Payback looks like a PS3 game with its juddery framerate.

I've put a few quid into World Of Warships in the past, which is free to play. Have been quite happy to do so to, It's mostly pretty reasonable in it's implementation I think, I never spent more than the cost of a full game. There was some stuff that was far too expensive like special premium ships, but most of them are more like reskins anyway.

MoesTavern wrote:

The Steam marketplace offers a way around it somewhat by letting people buy and sell their stuff. Prices can be high but you're getting the specific item you want. I wouldn't mind seeing something similar for consoles.

This is basically what I've tried, several times, to explain itt - a well implemented system offers the ability to dust/craft/exchange, meaning everything has value.

What recent AAA titles are doing is pretty ugly stuff, but please differentiate between F2P and traditional.

On the subject of lucky dip / loot / gacha, as a mid 30s professional guy I have no problem spending on a little gamble; the whole process of lucky dip is enjoyable for me, and many others. The rush of excitement when the 'tells' appear (a lot of gacha will give visible cues as to the rarity you're about to receive). It's a rush, like any gambling, and I'm happy to assign a portion of my disposable income to it, same as many will bung a fiver on an accumulator, or down the races once in a while.

I should stress that I'm not trying defend things such as that we're seeing in SWBF, and children most certainly need protecting, but this whole 'throw it all the bin' isn't a particularly nuanced approach to the problem.

I agree with Nick, but let's call it what it is.

I think the argument that it's not gambling hinges on there being no difference in real-world value between a rare item and a common one ie they are both just 1s and 0s and worth nothing at all.

Is anyone arguing that it isn't gambling?

Plus these items do have a real-world value, you only have to see people trying to sell their accounts to realise that.

I suppose is a distinction that, in gacha, you always get *something*, so you are paying for an item, you just don't know what. In trad. gambling on the other hand, you can pay and get nothing.

MoesTavern wrote:

People criticise shark cards in GTA online but at least with those you know exactly what you're getting for your dosh.

The ability to glitch free money in the early days was so brilliant it felt like genius design. A game about doing crime without consequences turned sim. I stopped playing before Rockstar patched it, so I don't know if my character was ever given a dunces' hat.

It devalued everything when every third player had millions, but the grind was ridiculous. They should've tied items to skill-based mission trees, and apartments should've belonged to individuals via a pink-slip system. To keep players from sitting on theirs, they'd have to accept at least one mandatory challenge every week or lose it.

I think it'd be nice to let owners choose their challenges, with a maximum percentage for repeat events.

With the mission trees, I was thinking about progressively harder race missions to unlock faster cars; progressively harder flight missions...

For the luxury planes you could have Pilotwings-graded landings or similar. Stunt courses for the street bikes. Just tie whatever it is you're trying to unlock to a kindred test of relevant difficulty. Like silver ships in WipEout HD, which are a badge of ability.

More than anything, I think it needs a lot more players per server. With so few players you invariably flock together, at which point there's little to do besides shoot each other. And quite a few people dissed San Andreas' MP mod for its primitiveness!