By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Loot boxes added to Black Ops 4

V-r0cK said:
Mar1217 said:

Your example doesn't even compare :

1. Trading cards game had always the benefits of the physical value you get from the cards you buy and also the fact they can be actually sold back for money. Lootboxes on the other end no, they're just an amount of numeric data you unlock for a given amount without having the outright possession of it since you possess nothing on the digital side of thing, the compagny does however.

2. Pokémon Go is ... Free-to-play. COD is not.

Wanna imitate other free-to-play models ? You go free-to-play then. There's absolutely no excuse for them doing so then just pure scummery and greed, face it.

So you're saying its ok to have loot boxes as long as your game is free-to-play?

People say stuff like Activision and EA are 'greedy'.  Sure they implemented the tool to TRY and get more money out of you but who's decision is it to actually give them your money??  It's not them.

Am I missing something here?  Does loot box mean YOU MUST give them your money?  Like I said this doesn't change the game at all so how is this really affecting you or those that complain about it?  

In reality there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to complain about this period.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy this lol 

Appart from the psychological tricks used to make you unable to act loggicaly and act right in the hands of what they expect you to do then, yeah you're missing the point. The need they create within you with these cool skins, equipments ,weapons and the rest is there to make you feel as if you would be missing on content by not buying it. No need to hold a gun at your head when they know the intricacies of psychological and how to prey into feable minds. 

And to answer the first question, yes, it is completly tolerable since it's the only way for the game to be sustainable financially, a game like COD sells itself with a prenium price tag upfront like any games on the market. No need for further monetization, specially for franchises that sell upon millions and millions of copies.

Plz, tell me. Why would you defend the immoral approach of greed ?

Here me out guys, I'm not stating anything about the game except the trashy economic systems it is utilizing to exploit it's customers at the maximum capacity it can, need I remind you, you already paid UPFRONT ! Nothing justifies the use of further monetization when you're using a prenium model, the rest is just immoral pure greed.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network

Ah, a reason to be even less interested in the game than I already was. I don't mind!



KManX89 said:
Mar1217 said: 

Also, you can buy or trade for specific cards, you can't do that with loot box items. 

But that's only with the help of other parties because you cant get specific cards from buying a pack of cards, just like you cant get a specific item from a loot box.

As for trading, well you can't do that with almost anything digital ie. digital games or movies.

The experience you get from buying a loot box is nothing new that we haven't experienced with other things in the world, so why do some people act like these loot boxes are the worst thing ever created? lol

Mar1217 said:
V-r0cK said:

So you're saying its ok to have loot boxes as long as your game is free-to-play?

People say stuff like Activision and EA are 'greedy'.  Sure they implemented the tool to TRY and get more money out of you but who's decision is it to actually give them your money??  It's not them.

Am I missing something here?  Does loot box mean YOU MUST give them your money?  Like I said this doesn't change the game at all so how is this really affecting you or those that complain about it?  

In reality there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to complain about this period.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy this lol 

Appart from the psychological tricks used to make you unable to act loggicaly and act right in the hands of what they expect you to do then, yeah you're missing the point. The need they create within you with these cool skins, equipments ,weapons and the rest is there to make you feel as if you would be missing on content by not buying it. No need to hold a gun at your head when they know the intricacies of psychological and how to prey into feable minds. 

And to answer the first question, yes, it is completly tolerable since it's the only way for the game to be sustainable financially, a game like COD sells itself with a prenium price tag upfront like any games on the market. No need for further monetization, specially for franchises that sell upon millions and millions of copies.

Plz, tell me. Why would you defend the immoral approach of greed ?

Here me out guys, I'm not stating anything about the game except the trashy economic systems it is utilizing to exploit it's customers at the maximum capacity it can, need I remind you, you already paid UPFRONT ! Nothing justifies the use of further monetization when you're using a prenium model, the rest is just immoral pure greed.

Bold #1:  You're not missing anything if they give you free loot boxes, your chances of getting something from a free loot box is just the same as buying.  The only difference is that they gave "an option" for those that dont want to put in the time to earn the free loot boxes at a price.

Bold #2: So say like Fornite makes billions and billions of dollars simply because they started out free to play, while BO4 only makes hundreds of millions, does that mean Activision should not be allowed to try and make more money to get to Fortnite's level only because people bought the game already?

Bold #3: I'm not defending anything, I'm looking at this as a business point of view.  Is it really greed if ... 1) you still offer the same feature/items for free and 2) you provide an option to choose to buy them at a faster pace IF the consumer wants to.  If nobody is paying for these loot boxes then it's no harm, no foul.  And if Activision sees that nobody is buying then they know that nobody wants this anymore.  Another thing I'm curious to see is that Fortnite and Apex Legends are doing great as a free-to-play, makes me wonder as a business point would Activition provide their Black Out mode to be free to play in the future, or maybe their next Black Out game would be free to.  But if that happens then people would be ok for loot boxes?

Bold #4:  Yes we did pay upfront for the game.  And I was fully aware that I paid for what was said be in the game that I bought:  A MP mode with 14 maps and set of guns and skins, a zombie mode with 2 maps, a battle royale mode etc.  That is the 'premium'.  So why do some people feel entitled to receive more for free after they bought the game? Do you expect Activision to continue to spend the time and money to keep on making new maps, skins, weapons etc just to give for free?  These weren't promised and anybody that bought the game knows/should know that.

Granted just because one company may do it differently but doesn't mean all companies need to follow the same way. That's just business.

Last edited by V-r0cK - on 28 February 2019

V-r0cK said:
Mar1217 said:

Your example doesn't even compare :

1. Trading cards game had always the benefits of the physical value you get from the cards you buy and also the fact they can be actually sold back for money. Lootboxes on the other end no, they're just an amount of numeric data you unlock for a given amount without having the outright possession of it since you possess nothing on the digital side of thing, the compagny does however.

2. Pokémon Go is ... Free-to-play. COD is not.

Wanna imitate other free-to-play models ? You go free-to-play then. There's absolutely no excuse for them doing so then just pure scummery and greed, face it.

So you're saying its ok to have loot boxes as long as your game is free-to-play?

People say stuff like Activision and EA are 'greedy'.  Sure they implemented the tool to TRY and get more money out of you but who's decision is it to actually give them your money??  It's not them.

Am I missing something here?  Does loot box mean YOU MUST give them your money?  Like I said this doesn't change the game at all so how is this really affecting you or those that complain about it?  

In reality there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to complain about this period.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy this lol 

You already paid 60$ for a game plus whatever for the map pack, meaning you paid for the game already. Additional monetisation after that is just greed unless you bring something meaningful.

Loot box mechanics are well known to hot the exact same boxes in your mind and brain than gambling does, hence why there's so much of a push to label them as gambling. So anybody who has a gambling addiction or in a risk to get addicted will shell out tons of cash (and often taking loans just to be able to get their fix) in those games. At least a casino is regulated and only admits adults who don't look too addicted, but videogames don't have those barriers.

@Underlined: So with this you could argue drugs are no problem at all either, as nobody is putting a gun at their head to take those either. And yet these are outlawed due to the effects they have. Hell, casinos are outlawed in many states and regions because the addictions they can cause, and yet you're saying lootboxes, who affect the exact same people as casinos are fine? With such an attitude, you're not putting a gun at their head - you're the one pulling the trigger!



V-r0cK said:
KManX89 said:

Also, you can buy or trade for specific cards, you can't do that with loot box items. 

But that's only with the help of other parties because you cant get specific cards from buying a pack of cards, just like you cant get a specific item from a loot box.

As for trading, well you can't do that with almost anything digital ie. digital games or movies.

The experience you get from buying a loot box is nothing new that we haven't experienced with other things in the world, so why do some people act like these loot boxes are the worst thing ever created? lol

Mar1217 said:

Appart from the psychological tricks used to make you unable to act loggicaly and act right in the hands of what they expect you to do then, yeah you're missing the point. The need they create within you with these cool skins, equipments ,weapons and the rest is there to make you feel as if you would be missing on content by not buying it. No need to hold a gun at your head when they know the intricacies of psychological and how to prey into feable minds. 

And to answer the first question, yes, it is completly tolerable since it's the only way for the game to be sustainable financially, a game like COD sells itself with a prenium price tag upfront like any games on the market. No need for further monetization, specially for franchises that sell upon millions and millions of copies.

Plz, tell me. Why would you defend the immoral approach of greed ?

Here me out guys, I'm not stating anything about the game except the trashy economic systems it is utilizing to exploit it's customers at the maximum capacity it can, need I remind you, you already paid UPFRONT ! Nothing justifies the use of further monetization when you're using a prenium model, the rest is just immoral pure greed.

Bold #1:  You're not missing anything if they give you free loot boxes, your chances of getting something from a free loot box is just the same as buying.  The only difference is that they gave "an option" for those that dont want to put in the time to earn the free loot boxes at a price.

Bold #2: So say like Fornite makes billions and billions of dollars simply because they started out free to play, while BO4 only makes hundreds of millions, does that mean Activision should not be allowed to try and make more money to get to Fortnite's level only because people bought the game already?

Bold #3: I'm not defending anything, I'm looking at this as a business point of view.  Is it really greed if ... 1) you still offer the same feature/items for free and 2) you provide an option to choose to buy them at a faster pace IF the consumer wants to.  If nobody is paying for these loot boxes then it's no harm, no foul.  And if Activision sees that nobody is buying then they know that nobody wants this anymore.  Another thing I'm curious to see is that Fortnite and Apex Legends are doing great as a free-to-play, makes me wonder as a business point would Activition provide their Black Out mode to be free to play in the future, or maybe their next Black Out game would be free to.  But if that happens then people would be ok for loot boxes?

Bold #4:  Yes we did pay upfront for the game.  And I was fully aware that I paid for what was said be in the game that I bought:  A MP mode with 14 maps and set of guns and skins, a zombie mode with 2 maps, a battle royale mode etc.  That is the 'premium'.  So why do some people feel entitled to receive more for free after they bought the game? Do you expect Activision to continue to spend the time and money to keep on making new maps, skins, weapons etc just to give for free?  These weren't promised and anybody that bought the game knows/should know that.

Granted just because one company may do it differently but doesn't mean all companies need to follow the same way. That's just business.

Ththing about loot boxes in games that you already pay for is that it changes the design of the game.

iYou can choose to not buy lootboxes but you cannot choose to not have them in the game. This matters because the existence of them negatively effects your gaming experience due to how the game is balanced against you to try to get you to buy lootboxes.

It's like that with all micro-transactions which is what makes them so annoying and anti consumer. For example the last gun to unlock in the tiers system would take 50+ hours to unlock without spending money. We already know this wouldn't be the case without micro-transactions and would probably take a couple hours max to unlock if you couldn't buy them.

Its just always annoying when someone says "you don't have to spend money" when it doesn't take much to realise just how much their presence alone affects the gaming experience.

It makes me miss the days when wll the cosmetic items etc you could just buy outright with money. But lootboxes make it so these things are more expensive. If theirs a new costume pack instead of selling it for £5 they can make the probability such that if someone wanted to get them all it could take up to or more than £50 to randomly get them all. It's a disgusting business practice.

(Wow the keyboard typing on this site on smartphones is broken as hell) . 



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz said:
V-r0cK said:

But that's only with the help of other parties because you cant get specific cards from buying a pack of cards, just like you cant get a specific item from a loot box.

As for trading, well you can't do that with almost anything digital ie. digital games or movies.

The experience you get from buying a loot box is nothing new that we haven't experienced with other things in the world, so why do some people act like these loot boxes are the worst thing ever created? lol

Bold #1:  You're not missing anything if they give you free loot boxes, your chances of getting something from a free loot box is just the same as buying.  The only difference is that they gave "an option" for those that dont want to put in the time to earn the free loot boxes at a price.

Bold #2: So say like Fornite makes billions and billions of dollars simply because they started out free to play, while BO4 only makes hundreds of millions, does that mean Activision should not be allowed to try and make more money to get to Fortnite's level only because people bought the game already?

Bold #3: I'm not defending anything, I'm looking at this as a business point of view.  Is it really greed if ... 1) you still offer the same feature/items for free and 2) you provide an option to choose to buy them at a faster pace IF the consumer wants to.  If nobody is paying for these loot boxes then it's no harm, no foul.  And if Activision sees that nobody is buying then they know that nobody wants this anymore.  Another thing I'm curious to see is that Fortnite and Apex Legends are doing great as a free-to-play, makes me wonder as a business point would Activition provide their Black Out mode to be free to play in the future, or maybe their next Black Out game would be free to.  But if that happens then people would be ok for loot boxes?

Bold #4:  Yes we did pay upfront for the game.  And I was fully aware that I paid for what was said be in the game that I bought:  A MP mode with 14 maps and set of guns and skins, a zombie mode with 2 maps, a battle royale mode etc.  That is the 'premium'.  So why do some people feel entitled to receive more for free after they bought the game? Do you expect Activision to continue to spend the time and money to keep on making new maps, skins, weapons etc just to give for free?  These weren't promised and anybody that bought the game knows/should know that.

Granted just because one company may do it differently but doesn't mean all companies need to follow the same way. That's just business.

Ththing about loot boxes in games that you already pay for is that it changes the design of the game.

iYou can choose to not buy lootboxes but you cannot choose to not have them in the game. This matters because the existence of them negatively effects your gaming experience due to how the game is balanced against you to try to get you to buy lootboxes.

It's like that with all micro-transactions which is what makes them so annoying and anti consumer. For example the last gun to unlock in the tiers system would take 50+ hours to unlock without spending money. We already know this wouldn't be the case without micro-transactions and would probably take a couple hours max to unlock if you couldn't buy them.

Its just always annoying when someone says "you don't have to spend money" when it doesn't take much to realise just how much their presence alone affects the gaming experience.

It makes me miss the days when wll the cosmetic items etc you could just buy outright with money. But lootboxes make it so these things are more expensive. If theirs a new costume pack instead of selling it for £5 they can make the probability such that if someone wanted to get them all it could take up to or more than £50 to randomly get them all. It's a disgusting business practice.

(Wow the keyboard typing on this site on smartphones is broken as hell) . 

This. Games with microtransactions/loot boxes are often literally made to be a CHORE to play without paying for them. Look no further than NBA 2K18 and how much 2K/Take Two tried to squeeze additional money out of players in order to bypass the grind: 

It's more or less the same shit with BO4 with all the tiers it forces you to tediously grind through without paying to skip said grind. Saying "this doesn't change the game at all" and "nobody is holding a gun to your head" is pure ignorance. 



ArchangelMadzz said:
V-r0cK said: 

Ththing about loot boxes in games that you already pay for is that it changes the design of the game.

iYou can choose to not buy lootboxes but you cannot choose to not have them in the game. This matters because the existence of them negatively effects your gaming experience due to how the game is balanced against you to try to get you to buy lootboxes.

It's like that with all micro-transactions which is what makes them so annoying and anti consumer. For example the last gun to unlock in the tiers system would take 50+ hours to unlock without spending money. We already know this wouldn't be the case without micro-transactions and would probably take a couple hours max to unlock if you couldn't buy them.

Its just always annoying when someone says "you don't have to spend money" when it doesn't take much to realise just how much their presence alone affects the gaming experience.

It makes me miss the days when wll the cosmetic items etc you could just buy outright with money. But lootboxes make it so these things are more expensive. If theirs a new costume pack instead of selling it for £5 they can make the probability such that if someone wanted to get them all it could take up to or more than £50 to randomly get them all. It's a disgusting business practice.

(Wow the keyboard typing on this site on smartphones is broken as hell) . 

I understand what you're saying.  At least you seem to actually know about the game whereas I feel others are just ranting for the cause.

Thanks everyone for going into these debates with me, I needed to find a way to kill time at work and usually I like to start things up here to do it lol.  Personally I'm not a fan of loot boxes either nor have I ever supported the cause, but at least Activision did make it optional (regardless of how tedious it may be to earn it for free).  That's pretty much all I was only getting at.  Anybody that actually plays the game would know this. 

The complainers should at least save their hate on a game that fully hides their content behind a loot box system.  Black Ops 4 isn't exactly the worst example :/

Got off work now, so I'm going to head home and play some Black Ops 4.  Dont worry, loot boxes will never be touching my wallet lol

P.S. Why stop at loot boxes? Lets stop DLC too! Gawd i miss the days when you know that when you bought a game and feels complete.  FFXV wouldve done a lot better if only lol



V-r0cK said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Ththing about loot boxes in games that you already pay for is that it changes the design of the game.

iYou can choose to not buy lootboxes but you cannot choose to not have them in the game. This matters because the existence of them negatively effects your gaming experience due to how the game is balanced against you to try to get you to buy lootboxes.

It's like that with all micro-transactions which is what makes them so annoying and anti consumer. For example the last gun to unlock in the tiers system would take 50+ hours to unlock without spending money. We already know this wouldn't be the case without micro-transactions and would probably take a couple hours max to unlock if you couldn't buy them.

Its just always annoying when someone says "you don't have to spend money" when it doesn't take much to realise just how much their presence alone affects the gaming experience.

It makes me miss the days when wll the cosmetic items etc you could just buy outright with money. But lootboxes make it so these things are more expensive. If theirs a new costume pack instead of selling it for £5 they can make the probability such that if someone wanted to get them all it could take up to or more than £50 to randomly get them all. It's a disgusting business practice.

(Wow the keyboard typing on this site on smartphones is broken as hell) . 

I understand what you're saying.  At least you seem to actually know about the game whereas I feel others are just ranting for the cause.

Thanks everyone for going into these debates with me, I needed to find a way to kill time at work and usually I like to start things up here to do it lol.  Personally I'm not a fan of loot boxes either nor have I ever supported the cause, but at least Activision did make it optional (regardless of how tedious it may be to earn it for free).  That's pretty much all I was only getting at.  Anybody that actually plays the game would know this. 

The complainers should at least save their hate on a game that fully hides their content behind a loot box system.  Black Ops 4 isn't exactly the worst example :/

Got off work now, so I'm going to head home and play some Black Ops 4.  Dont worry, loot boxes will never be touching my wallet lol

P.S. Why stop at loot boxes? Lets stop DLC too! Gawd i miss the days when you know that when you bought a game and feels complete.  FFXV wouldve done a lot better if only lol

Its not the worst example but the fact they waited to add them in after people already reviewed and boughtbthe game is shitty.

The worst micro-transactions for me is Street Fighter V. At launch they had 5/6 or so extra characters ready, but put them behind a paywall for £5 each which adds up. You could unlock them through gameplay but if you played online and won every single game for 2 hours a day it would take months to unlock every character. And we know that if that wasn't there it would just take completing the story mode with different characters to unlock everyone. 

I couldn't continue playing after seeing how impossibly long it would take to 'earn' characters. 



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

KiigelHeart said:
KManX89 said:

Is anyone really surprised, though? It's Activi$ion for sake of fuck. If you don't know to avoid like the plague anything by the evil 4 companies (EA, Acti, Konami, Ubisoft) by now, then you're pretty much inviting yourself to be conned with grindy/money-sucking bullshit or even illegal shit like, I don't know, false advertising. 

When will people learn that Activi$ion is Activi$ion and they'll never change until they stop buying their games (!)?

Why Ubisoft? They release good games and the game I'm currently playing, AC: Odyssey, sure has tons of content for your buck.

I agree with that, Ubisoft has been doing a very good job the last few years.



ArchangelMadzz said:

Its not the worst example but the fact they waited to add them in after people already reviewed and boughtbthe game is shitty.

The worst micro-transactions for me is Street Fighter V. At launch they had 5/6 or so extra characters ready, but put them behind a paywall for £5 each which adds up. You could unlock them through gameplay but if you played online and won every single game for 2 hours a day it would take months to unlock every character. And we know that if that wasn't there it would just take completing the story mode with different characters to unlock everyone. 

I couldn't continue playing after seeing how impossibly long it would take to 'earn' characters. 

If anything, I find that Activation screwed themselves for adding loot boxes in later.  Everybody that I know that plays BO4 couldn't care less about it now because we've all been playing the game without it already.  And being an avid BO4 player you actually unlock tier items fast and get free loot boxes pretty fast too.  If they added loot boxes in the beginning it may have been a different story, but also Activision wouldve been shamed upon moreso.  

Man you're right about SFV, that was just too much for me.  I liked that they gave the option to unlock the characters for free, but they make you grind forever.  Probably the worst example of a game that gives you the option of free characters that also has the option to buy them.  I have the game (friend gave to me), but I think i rather wait for Ultra SFV when its all done lol