Member
This is from "Ubi_Warlock" on Steam discussions from 14th of November: https://steamcommunity.com/app/64108...48299720281493
Hey,
As has been pointed out, these loot crates are purely cosmetic. I do appreciate why players feel the way they do about them (not a huge fan myself), however, as it was also pointed out, you can always just not buy them.
Ultimately, they're intended for players who want something to help them stand out from the crowd when playing online, or even just those who are big fans of the game and want to support us further.
Yes, it means that some players end up spending more on our games than others and that does result in increased profits for us. It also helps us to put more money into new titles and to understand what players look for in their games. If players simply didn't buy these crates, they would not be added into games in future.
All in all, loot crates / cosmetic items in general have been a huge boon for the Gaming Industry, being a driving factor in the increased popularity of Gaming over the past decade or so.
They aren't a bad thing if done right.
Your feedback on the topic is still very much appreciated as this is a hotly debated topic. I do hope you consider the impact it would actually have on your enjoyment of the game though.
- Ubisoft Support
I actually didn't realize that some articles 2 weeks ago were actually based on a comment on Trials Rising (I don't read every article on Lootboxes because I just get unnecessarily upset), only got to know this from the latest The Jimquisition...
If this is actually the stance you(RedLynx) and Ubisoft are wanting to have officially (it's in a couple of news articles so it has become that), I'm absolutely horrified and disappointed. There is nothing I agree with in that reply and it is trickled with lies.
The "It's just cosmetic" excuse is getting old (even if it's not literally said, it's still implied). If it was "just cosmetic", like it was a non-factor in the profits a game makes (which people seem to imply), why do you then later say that cosmetics have been a major boon to the gaming industry?As has been pointed out, these loot crates are purely cosmetic. I do appreciate why players feel the way they do about them (not a huge fan myself), however, as it was also pointed out, you can always just not buy them.
You can also just not put the Lootboxes in the game, and let me buy the game on PC, PS4 and Switch with the DLCs. How about that? 0€ vs. 120€+ from my wallet to your bank. You had a beta half a year in advance of release, and STILL there's time to remove this from the game.
Also if you're not a huge fan yourself, why are you defending this to the next level? No one has taken the defense of lootboxes THIS far.
If you want to both stand out and support the game, why not have the same microtransaction system that exists in Fusion? Just implement it in a better way, so players have more of an incentive to actually spend money. Also take my idea of adding rewards to milestones like getting every Platinum/Diamond medal, and make sure those stand out. Getting rewarded by achieving something difficult is much more enjoyable than getting rewarded by chance. Or are people seriously more interested in turning every game to a casino hotel in Vegas?Ultimately, they're intended for players who want something to help them stand out from the crowd when playing online, or even just those who are big fans of the game and want to support us further.
There has been zero proof that lootboxes have been a driving factor in the popularity of gaming (although it has definitely cast the game industry in a negative way with governments putting in regulations AGAINST lootboxes). AND ESPECIALLY NOT WITHIN THE LAST DECADE. DECADE! Do you know how long a decade is? So if we go back to 2010 (if we take a decade as 2010-2019, let's be generous here, you said "or so"), where were the lootboxes... googles "games in 2010". Maybe FIFA was still the only game with lootboxes in their Ultimate Team garbage. 2010 was YEARS before even EA, the inventor of lootboxes, put them into their other games.All in all, loot crates / cosmetic items in general have been a huge boon for the Gaming Industry, being a driving factor in the increased popularity of Gaming over the past decade or so.
The biggest boost to the gaming industry has most likely been Battle Royale and Sony's amazing effort at developing AAA games to be played without needing to see even a hint of microtransactions. The success of Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War and Spider-Man from Sony and the absolute gigant within Battle Royale, Fortnite, has been the most notable growth in unexpected sales figures. Esports becoming more and more mainstream is also helping getting people interested in games. When the Smash 4 Finals at EVO 2017 were broadcast LIVE on Disney XD, you know Esports has been a contributor.
You're a liar and a corporate shill. Lootboxes didn't become a known mass producer of money for investors and publishers before 2015 (Black Ops 3 being the proving grounds for Activision), and 2014 was the first year Call of Duty tried with lootboxes in Advanced Warfare, but without being able to buy them. Lootboxes have also only been a huge boon to the greed of investors and the biggest publishers, NOT for the quality of games.
What if players simply didn't buy these games? Would you not add games to your lootboxes then?If players simply didn't buy these crates, they would not be added into games in future.
It's a form of gambling. Gambling is bad for the consumer and it's a potentially destructive addiction. There's a reason gambling is heavily regulated in every country and why gambling has a LOT of restrictions in many countries. Lootboxes are starting to be a part of those regulations, and you know what happens? Publishers decide abiding to regulations isn't worth it, so they just remove the Lootboxes or make the game unavailable.They aren't a bad thing if done right.
This is honestly a confusing statement. Is this actually suggesting me to consider how removing a gambling system in a game could affect my enjoyment of it? I know how it would affect my enjoyment of it, I would actually play it.Your feedback on the topic is still very much appreciated as this is a hotly debated topic. I do hope you consider the impact it would actually have on your enjoyment of the game though.
Trials is still a game franchise which cannot risk its reputation on a temporary gambling scheme like Lootboxes. You clearly have not realized how easy it is for me and most players to go back to Trials Evo and Fusion and never touch Rising and be just as happy. Even with Fusion, people were still avoiding it in favor of Evo. This is a much more fragile game franchise than Ubisoft and their investors think it is, and you at RedLynx must convince them that Lootboxes are NOT the way to go for this game. They'll probably point at Trials Frontier and see the figures for that. But guess what, Frontier is a FREE game. Rising is a 25€ game.
I have nothing more to say other than I will NOT buy Rising if Lootboxes are in it at any point during its lifespan. The regulations will continue to trickle in from governments as long as this continues. If you want a future-proof game that can work as a "GaaS" as long as you'd want it to, remove Lootboxes.
I hope the next response from Ubisoft or RedLynx is through a blog post or a press release, not an aging Steam discussions thread. You still have the chance to change my mind and the minds of many others in the community of buying the game. You still have two months. Your call. Thanks for reading this and I hope this can be solved in a way that's supportive of both the community and the developers.
Member
I really don't have any issues at all with loot boxes. If they are purely cosmetic, I don't see a problem. Even at $25, you get a TON of value with the base game, not to mention all of the (eventually) tens of thousands of additional tracks on Track Central. Sounds like the loot boxes are if you want some special-looking gear that is otherwise inaccessible in the main game. Don't want to pay for that? Don't.
Member
«Even at $25, you get a TON of value». Does that make it immune from complaints and criticism? Does that mean that whatever that can be easily IMPROVED in the game, should stay worse than what it clearly could be? Also the «purely cosmetic» deal is still a weightless defense of lootboxes. Wouldn’t it be better if you could pay $5-20 for cosmetics, instead of having to pay for RNG to decide, to get what you want? It’s an improvement over lootboxes for the consumer, and eventually, for the developer as well. Have to mention that lootboxes could get the same treatment in Finland as they did in Belgium. How funny it would be if the game was made illegal in the country it was made in.
I pay for cosmetics in games that have storefronts, where I see the price of an item, and I will get that item when I pay. It’s like going into a clothes store, picking the clothes you want, and then get those clothes when you pay! It’s so convenient!
Stop defending lootboxes. Since the creation of PEGI and ESRB, there hasn’t been a single major government involvement in games. Until lootboxes became a spreading disease. Now, multiple governments have taken action against lootboxes, and more are to follow the coming years if this doesn’t stop.
Your comment is not helping ANYONE. Not even yourself. You were better off not saying anything. Want a better game? Then stop defending lootboxes.
And RedLynx, if your 2 week delay is to remove lootboxes entirely (or at least the paid lootboxes, for them to NEVER return to Trials ever again), I love you for it. I much rather prefer a delayed game if it helps fine tuning and/or fixing it. If you need premium cosmetics, just do it like you did in Fusion. You just don’t have to scatter free Acorns around in Rising. I’m sure you have the talent to figure out a solution which is better than lootboxes. At least I hope so.
Senior Member
Senior Member
The boom in gaming is a result of cell phones and social media culture. Less people going outside and being social means more people watching tv/streaming and playing video games. The technological advances in a short span is a factor as well.
Microtransactions are responsible for the financial boom and degradation of quality gaming experiences we’re experiencing. Games are being designed to get consumers to spend more at the cost of being an enjoyable experience.
In time, studies will show the negative effects that having gambling systems in games will affect our future generations. Eventually, there will be a major push against these predatory practices. In the meantime, we’re under the mercy of developers not to exploit consumers’ addictive nature and weak will.
How developers choose to approach this practice is important. In the case of the beta, i’d say its mostly benign. I did say that i expect that to change with the full release, though.
