I don't mean punishing said games via scores, but in terms of sale. While I think games selling poorly due to the use of loot boxes may be a way to get the message across to developers, on the other hand having having a good game bomb would be quite unfortunate. 

You are the real MVP.

Nothing about lootboxes is consumer friendly. Those who defend this practice are masochists (unless of course, they are implementing the lootboxes and profiting from them). There is no justification for this system. It devalues the game, so people will spend money to add value to the full-priced game that they have purchased. It also preys on those with gambling and/or compulsive spending tendencies and/or addictive personalities. Games marketed towards children can have these lootbox systems, therefore it also targets those who struggle to rationally analyse or criticise such practices. 

What makes this worse than gambling, is the fact that gambling actually provides a chance (albeit an incredibly slim chance) at monetary gain. Lootboxes give you the chance to gain a cosmetic look within a game, or the chance at getting an overpowered perk - thus disadvantaging other players - coercing them to get the lootbox to stay competitive. Thus spending money to roll an imaginary die. Like Vivster pointed out, lootcrates are an exploitative system.

Lootboxes lock away content that is already a part of the game. Some people have complained that DLC does this, however, at least DLC will guarantee you that content and will usually offer content post release. DLC usually consists of new content when done right (Witcher 3, Skyrim, Mario Kart 8 etc.). 

Yeah but the difference is that Fireemblem and Uncharted 4 have a big singleplayer campaign and enough content on its own, not that it would excuse microtransactions but brings things into perspective. Its beyond me how people can say that Blizzard is doing microtransactions right but now all of the sudden EA or Warner Brothers arent? If you add 2+2 together Overtwach is the worse package for a 60$ game.

From what i know the Gold is giving you much less value what you paid if you transfor a duplicate into gold. And i still fail to see your argument how randomized lootboxes are supposed to give you free DLC, but traditional microtransactions arent? If you can buy whatever you want with Gold in overwatch why not giving only Gold instead of 4 random items? Wouldnt that be easier to unlock everything, kinda how microtransactions used to work before overwatch?

Sounds like someone is moving goal posts... Also if the implementation of EA/WB is the same as overwatch, then I have no issues. Keyword is "same."

Gold does give you much less for duplicate but I fail to see how that is relevant. I never said traditional Micro-transactions can't give you free dlc but from my experience, traditional micro-transactions lock items and etc behind a paywall with no way to unlock them via in-game currency or the ability to unlock them requires an unreasonable amount of time.

It would be easier but less profitable for blizzard most likely since people would just buy the skins they want and then not spend a cent more. Plus the "whales" won't spend as much as they potentially could. I never said there isn't greed involved with microtransactions and the way it is implemented in overwatch but what I am saying is between the way overwatch has implemented it's micro-transactions vs the general pay for dlc method, I'd rather have overwatch's implementation.

There are obviously better "for the gamers" way to do post game content. I think splatoon's way is the most consumer friendly method where you get a single player campaign and free dlc for a year with tons of updates and zero microtransactions and many more things but it's clear the companies don't want to adopt that method since it doesn't make enough money for them. So if the future has to be between paid dlc, traditional micro-transactions with locked content behind them without any way to unlock them with in-game currency/unlocking them with an unreasonable amount of time or overwatch's lootbox implementation with free dlc that affects the gameplay and cosmetics that can be unlocked within a reasonable time. I'd rather choose overwatch's implementation than the other two.

-Blizzcon is locking DLC behind a paywall.

-Blizzard has made enough money from charging for online in world warcraft, hearthstone or the 60$ price tag of overwatch. Poor poor blizzard, its not as profitable for them.

-There are tons of games having microtransactions where everything is for free without lootboxes.

-How about this? Instead wastiung recources for new updates and DLC and ccharging for microtransactions, how about making a brand new game which you can sell for 60$ again? Certainly it doesnt work with this company, they need 10 years to release a beta for a game, if they havent canceled it allready.

Actually, it's just cosmetics that don't affect gameplay in anyway as far as Overwatch is concerned. Not dlc that directly affects gameplay. If you really want to be nit picky then sure, one skin per year gets locked behind a paywall but apart from that... I still prefer overwatch's method.

"-Blizzard has made enough money from charging for online in world warcraft, hearthstone or the 60$ price tag of overwatch. Poor poor blizzard, its not as profitable for them."

Ok? What does that have to do with anything? You do realize every company does dlc or micro-transactions or lootboxes right regardless of how well some of their games have done before right? I mean heck, uncharted 4 has both micro-transactions and lootboxes even though the franchise has been widely successful lul.

"-There are tons of games having microtransactions where everything is for free without lootboxes."

Huh? That doesn't make any sense... If a game has micro-transactions... Clearly not everything is free...

You seem very tilted lmao. Did Blizzard kill your dog or something? Companies making dlc/micro-transactions/updates instead of using those resources towards a new game isn't a Blizzard issue, it's an industry issue since we see many companies do it including Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft/EA/WB/etc...

Well... i honestly don't know why they were banned. Could've been or not. But yeah... my argument wasn't hanging on it. ;)

Yeah but guess whos most  lazy one with producing new games? From 2004 they only released 7 games okay. I am pretty sure the game list is massive for Nintendo, Sony, WB or EA during the same timeframe. Its quite redicolous how Blizzard has 10 times more revenue than Capcom, while Capcom has brought 50 times more released games than blizzard on the table, and most of them are good if not even better than Blizzards 7 games.

I am not excusing Uncharted 4 but again at least it has a big single player campaign. With overwatch the cosmetic items are playing a larger role than in uncharted 4 or other games who have a lot more content than overwatch. For me cosmetic items locked behind a microtransaction sheme is just as bad  as singleplayer microtransctions, espacially in overwatch which doesnt have a singleplayer caompaign.

''Huh? That doesn't make any sense... If a game has micro-transactions... Clearly not everything is free...''

But that's not relevant to anything... Really you are just moving goal posts at this point.

But it does sound like you are giving UC4 more of a pass compared to overwatch or really any blizzard games... Starcraft 2 LoTV has a single player campaign which in length is similar to UC4

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9154

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20077

They both have micro-transactions for online but UC4 takes it one step further by also having lootboxes...

Now let me guess what your argument is going to be... It will probably be something like oh but UC4 has better graphics and is more fun for me so it makes it more okay than in sc2 which is just an rts... To which I will say... Sounds like you are bias.

"Yeah and neither it is with overwatches randomized lootbox microtransactions, whats your point?"

My point is... Again... The dlc that affects gameplay is free in overwatch... The micro-transactions are obviously not...

I think this is just going around in circles with a lot of moving goal posts so I am gonna go ahead and probably not reply after this comment. You can have the last word since it's pretty clear that it's less about how blizzard is "ruining gaming" and more about "I hate blizzard cause they molested me when I was younger"

Uncharted 4 has loot boxes? LOL. What in the actual fuck?

If you completely ignore that Amiibos exist, then sure. Personally I'd take a shady DLC/microtransaction deal over what Nintendo does with Amiibos, locking content behind your ability to find and buy an expensive toy.

Anyways, why would you blame Blizzard, when their interpretation of lootboxes is like... one of the only ones to do it right? Isn't the blame on those who take that idea and turn it into a negative? Your hard on for giving Blizzard shit isn't an excuse for such a large leap in logic.