Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
CaliburxZero

A thought on consumer-friendly practices with Early Access ship lootboxes.

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles

So, after seeing the dumpsterfire that is Italian cruisers, this highlights what is already a given but a fact that WG should be reminded of.  As the statement suggests, this line is in "Early Access" therefore we as consumers take risks when purchasing these boxes twofold:  Getting a "quality" (balanced) product in-game, but also when it comes to spending money towards these lootboxes.

Yes, I am aware of the solid monetary value when accounting for all the contents of the box, but let's be real here:  The vast majority are looking for the "grand prizes", aka the missions to receive the ships.  That is the primary purpose of these boxes, to give people these ships in a way early so that WG can use this as a revenue source.

HOWEVER... I think its about time that WG respects people who are investing into these boxes a bit better in two ways:

1.  The odds of obtaining missions for each ship are publicized.  While stated by WG on an official capacity that the odds are "equal" for ships, we don't know what those odds actually are.  Letting your customers know *exactly* what they are buying shouldn't even be a question.

And bonus on this first part, I think WG should be showing some back-end code to truly show the rates of these ships.  Insurmountable piles of anecdotal evidence suggests that the T8 of the line is *NOT* close to the others in the line, and as someone who has purchased boxes every single EA lootbox event to date, this suspicion would line up with this perception.  If that is truly the case, it would put me and others at ease this is truly the case especially those who are left disenfranchised from purchasing many boxes without receiving that T8 ship.

2.  After hitting X amount of box opens, it should guarantee a ship mission or perhaps a specific ship at X amount of boxes with it being tiered, naturally the higher tier ship, the more boxes you must open.  While I know this will cut into potential profits of WG for these events, this would make many people happy I would suspect (at least it would for me) and make people assess just exactly how much money they would have to spend.  Mobile games that are successful such as Honkai Impact 3rd which is insanely popular already does this.  Furthermore, Legislation around the world is looking at lootboxes as a potential link to gambling.  I suggest becoming more transparent and pro-consumer in your monetization schemes before society and its laws come back to reap what you've sown.  

And mind you, I'm aware WG is by far not as bad about this as other companies are.  Still though, that is no excuse that we as a community can't ask for better when we throw our dollar out there, and they as a business can benefit by potentially making things nicer to draw in more customers.

As a final note, I do feel this could stand  to be applied to the christmas boxes as well.  The "failsafe thresholds" of when something is guaranteed though, is very much so up for debate on what is fair for both the player/consumer, and WG.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles

One of the things I noticed from this event based on talking to people is that Amalfi is practically impossible to get. The three others can be obtained with relative ease. But if you wanted that tier 8, you were going to pay out the nose for it. The fact that those odds were clearly jobbed by itself sets off alarm bells.

Of course, then again, the entire line is crap, so...

Edited by Battlecruiser_PrncsRoyal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
Just now, Battlecruiser_PrncsRoyal said:

One of the things I noticed from this event based on talking to people is that Amalfi is practically impossible to get. The three others can be obtained with relative ease. But if you wanted that tier 8, you were going to pay out the nose for it. The fact that those odds were clearly jobbed by itself sets off alarm bells.

Agreed.  I spent a fair bit and outside of the Zara permanent camo, all of my tokens I have earned to boot at trying to get her and still don't own her.  Ultimately, alot of improvement to this system can be done that's fair to everyone.  

To people reading this thread, if you agree with my ideas or at least part of it, please show your support.  Perhaps with enough, we can possibly get the people upstairs to at least consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,010
Members
2,439 posts
5,370 battles
2 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_PrncsRoyal said:

One of the things I noticed from this event based on talking to people is that Amalfi is practically impossible to get. The three others can be obtained with relative ease. But if you wanted that tier 8, you were going to pay out the nose for it. The fact that those odds were clearly jobbed by itself sets off alarm bells.

Of course, then again, the entire line is crap, so...

I have the Amalfi and i enjoy her. Have over 500k XP in her so far....so i think the T8 is not crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,585 posts
13,004 battles

I support what you're saying, I suppose I should leave it at that; but there are many many many factors as to why they are setup currently as is. 

note: I am heavily against lootboxes in general (have been for at least a decade now) and am an avid live game holdem player. Take what you will from that. 

Edited by Rollingonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
7 minutes ago, Rollingonit said:

I support what you're saying, I suppose I should leave it at that; but there are many many many factors as to why they are setup currently as is. 

note: I am heavily against lootboxes in general (have been for at least a decade now) and am an avid live game holdem player. Take what you will from that. 

I am too, but the reality is its not likely for WG and other gaming companies to get rid of them short of legal mandates.  So I believe we should try to strike a good middle-ground with us as the consumer, and them as the business.  If its here to stay, may as well make the best of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
26 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

I am too, but the reality is its not likely for WG and other gaming companies to get rid of them short of legal mandates.  So I believe we should try to strike a good middle-ground with us as the consumer, and them as the business.  If its here to stay, may as well make the best of it.

Very true but WG at least puts some value into their boxes even if you don't get the bigger prizes where the other companies boxes more often than not will have nothing with a dollar value anywhere near what you paid for it.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

Very true but WG at least puts some value into their boxes even if you don't get the bigger prizes where the other companies boxes more often than not will have nothing with a dollar value anywhere near what you paid for it.

I've acknowledged that fact in my OP, and it is indeed true however that doesn't mean it can't be better or at the very least, more honest about what you're buying for rates to make an informed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
Just now, CaliburxZero said:

I've acknowledged that fact in my OP, and it is indeed true however that doesn't mean it can't be better or at the very least, more honest about what you're buying for rates to make an informed decision.

The drop rates really are not that much of an issue. The real issue is that people with gambling addiction, I know someone that spent an insane amount of money to get a tech tree ship early in a previous roll out, I was on TeamSpeak with him. I liked that the currency for the Italian cruisers was not doubloons aka real money and instead the special currency we earned in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
12 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

The drop rates really are not that much of an issue. The real issue is that people with gambling addiction, I know someone that spent an insane amount of money to get a tech tree ship early in a previous roll out, I was on TeamSpeak with him. I liked that the currency for the Italian cruisers was not doubloons aka real money and instead the special currency we earned in game.

They are if you are aiming for the T8 of the line for sure for the vast majority of people.  The reality is, you're crazy as a consumer if you believe you aren't entitled to the right to know your chances when you place money down.  This is a question of ethics more than anything else.

And regardless of the token system, as LWM has broken down... said tokens do have *real world* aka monetary value and it can be quantified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,343 posts
19,581 battles

The Italian cruiser line is a bad example to use for this. The failsafe already exists: they're tech tree ships. Wait until 0.8.10 and you can get all the ships in the line for no cash down.

As far as non-tech tree ships, WG has also added a bottom-out condition for those by putting them in their finite-draws "random bundles" system. In the absolute worst case, you got Genova after 22 draws. This applies to all ships in the random bundles, which if you've noticed is how they've been giving out most everything lately. Everything else has been either straight cash (Bayard, Yudachi) or in-game currency like coal (Yoshino, Thunderer) or Research Bureau (Colbert, Ohio).

Can you think of any ship that's been RNG-only without a non-RNG method available in the following two patches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
1,075 posts
3,883 battles

As the result of inquiries and pending legislation in the US, many game companies are already moving proactively to publish the odds for their loot boxes, but what are the chances of WG following suit?

From Wikipedia.org:

The FTC held a public hearing on loot boxes on August 7, 2019, addressing industry representative and reviewing public comments submitted prior to the meeting.[190][191][192] During the meeting, ESA representatives stated that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are working on developing requirements for new or updated games using loot boxes, published on their respective console systems, to disclose the odds for items from loot boxes. Other publishers within the ESA, including Activision Blizzard, Bandai Namco, Bethesda, Bungie, Electronic Arts, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft, Warner Bros., and Wizards of the Coast, also stated they are committed to doing the same for other gaming platforms such as on personal computers, as to align with the existing requirements for the iOS App Store and Google Play mobile platforms. These efforts are expected to be in place before the end of 2020, according to the ESA.[193][194]Nintendo issued a new policy the next day to reflect the statement made to the FTC, requiring loot box odds to be published for all new and updated games on its systems, and assuring such games with in-game purchases could be regulated by parents on their Nintendo Switch Online app.[195]Epic Games affirmed they would also follow similar policies as adopted by the ESA and other publishers, already having taken steps to eliminate loot boxes from Fortnite, Rocket League and other games in its portfolio.[196]

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
11 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

The Italian cruiser line is a bad example to use for this. The failsafe already exists: they're tech tree ships. Wait until 0.8.10 and you can get all the ships in the line for no cash down.

As far as non-tech tree ships, WG has also added a bottom-out condition for those by putting them in their finite-draws "random bundles" system. In the absolute worst case, you got Genova after 22 draws. This applies to all ships in the random bundles, which if you've noticed is how they've been giving out most everything lately. Everything else has been either straight cash (Bayard, Yudachi) or in-game currency like coal (Yoshino, Thunderer) or Research Bureau (Colbert, Ohio).

Can you think of any ship that's been RNG-only without a non-RNG method available in the following two patches?

As someone earlier in this thread has mentioned, there are some with gambling addictions or those who have a tendency to blow their cash on new shiny thing.  I always have a set limit for myself, so it doesn't bother me.  What I don't appreciate however is the illusion that all T5-8 tech tree ships are "equal" chance as I have not seen any evidence to support this from all data given from the community not to mention a breakdown of all CCs and their results.

As a common practice of haggling, you usually want to ask for more than what you expect.  In this case, I didn't expect all my ideas to go through even in a best-case scenario, so having some odds disclosed and proof is more or less what i'd be happy with.

In any case, those patient enough of course that failsafe exists.  However, that still doesn't justify the (non)existence of a guarantee when X dollars are spent.  

As for your question, this is something that grows with each passing year:  The christmas lootboxes that lock unobtainables such as Missouri, Kron, Musashi, Belfast, Kutuzov, etc. behind them with pure RNG only.  Yes, they are OP ships and were ripped out.  But if that's the case, then ***Keep them off the storefront, period.***  Not dangle them in front of people who missed out and make them drop boatloads (pun intended) of cash.  

That wasn't the main focus of my point here to make, however to what you have asked specifically, as we get more OP premiums this is an issue that will grow guaranteed over time.

Side note:  The highlight of Italian cruisers is a emphasis on the idea that people buying into these boxes such as myself to support the game are really stepping into *two* different risks when purchasing, and WG needs to be reminded of this.  The line has not been tuned 100% clearly during this time period, and while one could argue this is a thing for easily 6+ months, this is the highest risk of buying a half-baked product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,343 posts
19,581 battles
6 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

What I don't appreciate however is the illusion that all T5-8 tech tree ships are "equal" chance as I have not seen any evidence to support this from all data given from the community not to mention a breakdown of all CCs and their results.

It's worth going back to find the source quote on this. As far as I've seen, the only time a WG employee has advertised "equal" odds, it was around the draws of the random bundle system. Not mission drops out of boxes.

 

9 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

In any case, those patient enough of course that failsafe exists.  However, that still doesn't justify the (non)existence of a guarantee when X dollars are spent.

Are you sure? They could claim you're already a guaranteed winner, you're just paying money for a chance to win sooner, and you're not entitled to any guarantees around that part.

 

11 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

The christmas lootboxes that lock unobtainables such as Missouri, Kron, Musashi, Belfast, Kutuzov, etc. behind them with pure RNG only.

It will be interesting to see whether they do so again this year. The Random Bundle system, which looks to be tailor-made to skirt lootbox regulation, only came in this year; if it's driven by a change in the regulatory climate, it's possible they'll back off the Christmas box drops this year as well. Or include a stupidly expensive megawhale bundle with those ships, so there's technically a no-RNG option.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
16 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

And mind you, I'm aware WG is by far not as bad about this as other companies are. 

Actually they are much worse; other than EA, none of the other major publishers have tied actual in game rewards such as playable characters (ships), performance boosts (flags) or other PTW elements to lootboxes in a non-mobile product. And unlike EA, who was called out HARD for it, Wargaming slips under the radar because they and their products are largely considered low quality jokes, afterthoughts in the larger gaming Industry.

That said, they are not long for the earth; legislation in the UK, EU, China, Japan, and individual states in the US are likely to, in the very near future (year or two) essentially outlaw them and localizing away from major parts of their market (the EU server is the BIGGEST server, bigger than the RU server) to stake out claims. Greed does eventually catch up.

6 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

It will be interesting to see whether they do so again this year. The Random Bundle system, which looks to be tailor-made to skirt lootbox regulation, only came in this year; if it's driven by a change in the regulatory climate, it's possible they'll back off the Christmas box drops this year as well.

I doubt it; I strongly suspect they will push them harder than ever, for the simple reason that this may be the swan song of the staggering money that these boxes make and you don't voluntarily make less money when the hammer is inevitably coming down tomorrow. I can't even blame them at this point as they are between a rock and a hardplace; regulatory is about to clamp down HARD on these in their larger markets (especially the EU), but they may not want the negative press, but as it stands it is legal *now* (sorta at least) and it is just leaving money on the table that cannot be reclaimed later.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
1 minute ago, Edgecase said:

It's worth going back to find the source quote on this. As far as I've seen, the only time a WG employee has advertised "equal" odds, it was around the draws of the random bundle system. Not mission drops out of boxes.

 

Are you sure? They could claim you're already a guaranteed winner, you're just paying money for a chance to win sooner, and you're not entitled to any guarantees around that part.

 

It will be interesting to see whether they do so again this year. The Random Bundle system, which looks to be tailor-made to skirt lootbox regulation, only came in this year; if it's driven by a change in the regulatory climate, it's possible they'll back off the Christmas box drops this year as well. Or include a stupidly expensive megawhale bundle with those ships, so there's technically a no-RNG option.

-  Fem has stated this in an official capacity on this.  I'm lazy to find her stating this, too many pasta bote angry threads to remember but it was about 2 weeks or so ago.  She did claim that all missions have an equal chance of dropping out of the boxes.  This is why I have been pressing this ever since.

-  No, you're not entitled.  That is the part I would like to see changed, however.  One could argue that the missions have a monetary value such as the cost of FXP to achieve X tier ship fully-researched.  Other games do this already in one form or another and I can cite these games if you'd like.  Its not so crazy as to want WG to do this as well in a perfect world where lootboxes are here to stay.

-  I would be 110% A-Okay with that.  At least there, there is no risk.  Sure, they can ask for alot of money but at least you know ***exactly*** what you're buying, and that's the primary point I am making here.  We as consumer should know exactly what we are buying and every major detail that goes along with it.  Even if the advertised sticker price is ridiculous, at least people have an option to sit there and go "yeah, that price is worth it to me" and pull the trigger and even if its price gouged its still a much better alternative to throwing money at your screen with the HOPE of getting RNG ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles

Let's be real, here. WG would never implement anything that could be considered "consumer-friendly". They're about as anti-consumer as a corporation can get without just Being Electronic Arts.

 

And mind, that's only by virtue of there being a lag of around 1 year between EA doing something stupid and WG copying it.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Actually they are much worse; other than EA, none of the other major publishers have tied actual in game rewards such as playable characters (ships), performance boosts (flags) or other PTW elements to lootboxes in a non-mobile product. And unlike EA, who was called out HARD for it, Wargaming slips under the radar because they and their products are largely considered low quality jokes, afterthoughts in the larger gaming Industry.

That said, they are not long for the earth; legislation in the UK, EU, China, Japan, and individual states in the US are likely to, in the very near future (year or two) essentially outlaw them and localizing away from major parts of their market (the EU server is the BIGGEST server, bigger than the RU server) to stake out claims. Greed does eventually catch up.

If the world's laws catch up to deny this then yes, all's well that ends well I suppose.  Mmmmm I am very anti Electronic Arts, and while you see me gripe on these forums about WG... I'm not 100% sold on it.  Its a tough weigh.  But I can definitely respect and see why you and others say that they are worse than EA.

2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Let's be real, here. WG would never implement anything that could be considered "consumer-friendly". They're about as anti-consumer as a corporation can get without just Being Electronic Arts.

Even if they are not, like any other company that is anti-consumer, if people like myself manage to gain enough of an uproar to the point where their public image gets compromised that would cut into potential profits they will "Bend the knee" like any other major corporation would (EX: Naval Training Center) and do what is best for profit.  

Corporations are not ethically driven at all 99.9% of the time despite posturing for it, WG is not special in this regard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,569
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
19,909 battles
16 hours ago, CaliburxZero said:

So, after seeing the dumpsterfire that is Italian cruisers, this highlights what is already a given but a fact that WG should be reminded of.  As the statement suggests, this line is in "Early Access" therefore we as consumers take risks when purchasing these boxes twofold:  Getting a "quality" (balanced) product in-game, but also when it comes to spending money towards these lootboxes.

Yes, I am aware of the solid monetary value when accounting for all the contents of the box, but let's be real here:  The vast majority are looking for the "grand prizes", aka the missions to receive the ships.  That is the primary purpose of these boxes, to give people these ships in a way early so that WG can use this as a revenue source.

HOWEVER... I think its about time that WG respects people who are investing into these boxes a bit better in two ways:

1.  The odds of obtaining missions for each ship are publicized.  While stated by WG on an official capacity that the odds are "equal" for ships, we don't know what those odds actually are.  Letting your customers know *exactly* what they are buying shouldn't even be a question.

And bonus on this first part, I think WG should be showing some back-end code to truly show the rates of these ships.  Insurmountable piles of anecdotal evidence suggests that the T8 of the line is *NOT* close to the others in the line, and as someone who has purchased boxes every single EA lootbox event to date, this suspicion would line up with this perception.  If that is truly the case, it would put me and others at ease this is truly the case especially those who are left disenfranchised from purchasing many boxes without receiving that T8 ship.

2.  After hitting X amount of box opens, it should guarantee a ship mission or perhaps a specific ship at X amount of boxes with it being tiered, naturally the higher tier ship, the more boxes you must open.  While I know this will cut into potential profits of WG for these events, this would make many people happy I would suspect (at least it would for me) and make people assess just exactly how much money they would have to spend.  Mobile games that are successful such as Honkai Impact 3rd which is insanely popular already does this.  Furthermore, Legislation around the world is looking at lootboxes as a potential link to gambling.  I suggest becoming more transparent and pro-consumer in your monetization schemes before society and its laws come back to reap what you've sown.  

And mind you, I'm aware WG is by far not as bad about this as other companies are.  Still though, that is no excuse that we as a community can't ask for better when we throw our dollar out there, and they as a business can benefit by potentially making things nicer to draw in more customers.

As a final note, I do feel this could stand  to be applied to the christmas boxes as well.  The "failsafe thresholds" of when something is guaranteed though, is very much so up for debate on what is fair for both the player/consumer, and WG.

Your premise is all wrong … 

Take out the "consumer-friendly" part 

In fact, remove the word "consumer" and "satisfaction" while you're at it :)

 

You will PAY and you will LOVE IT!

Edited by Commander_367

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
1 minute ago, Commander_367 said:

Your premise is all wrong … 

Take out the "consumer-friendly" part 

In fact, remove the word "consumer" and "satisfaction" while you're at it :)

That's nice.  I won't be.  

Even authoritarian governments such as China demand odds be disclosed for lootboxes to protect its people.  Nice try :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
1,712 posts
4,168 battles

You should take the "EA" out of your title.  Wargame doesn't even come close to EA's "loot" boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
Just now, Gasboy said:

You should take the "EA" out of your title.  Wargame doesn't even come close to EA's "loot" boxes.

EA in this case means, EARLY ACCESS.  Not ELECTRONIC ARTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
1,712 posts
4,168 battles
Just now, CaliburxZero said:

EA in this case means, EARLY ACCESS.  Not ELECTRONIC ARTS.

I don't believe that you didn't do it on purpose, or didn't intend for that association to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,343 posts
19,581 battles
12 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

Fem has stated this in an official capacity on this.  I'm lazy to find her stating this, too many pasta bote angry threads to remember but it was about 2 weeks or so ago.  She did claim that all missions have an equal chance of dropping out of the boxes.  This is why I have been pressing this ever since.

A search for posts containing the word "equal" by Fem turned up nothing relevant. If you plan to keep pressing it, you may need to find the thread, or evidence of its deletion/retraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,505
[--K--]
[--K--]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,382 posts
9,778 battles
6 minutes ago, Gasboy said:

I don't believe that you didn't do it on purpose, or didn't intend for that association to be made.

I don't really care what you think.  And before you try to state that, notice the change in thread title I did just because you did that.  

Stick your foot in your mouth further, friend. 

5 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

A search for posts containing the word "equal" by Fem turned up nothing relevant. If you plan to keep pressing it, you may need to find the thread, or evidence of its deletion/retraction.

bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×