Loot boxes and microtransactions have amassed a seriously bad reputation over the last few years. Once the preserve of free to play and/or mobile games, they’re now seen time and again in big budget AAA titles of all description. In the last few months, Middle-earth: Shadow of War, Forza Motorsport 7, Star Wars Battlefront II, Assassin’s Creed Origins and of course NBA 2K18 have all been put under the spotlight for how they integrate microtransactions and randomised rewards to varying degrees.
Open Critic, a review aggregator, tweeted last night that they’re “going to take a stand against loot boxes,” and will include information about what these provide and how they work in games.
We're going to take a stand against loot boxes. We're looking into ways to add business model information to OpenCritic.
— OpenCritic (@Open_Critic) October 9, 2017
Some of our early axis:
 – Random / Loot box vs "Sure-thing" / buying direct
 – Cosmetic vs buying power— OpenCritic (@Open_Critic) October 9, 2017
– Exclusively paid vs can be acquired in game
 – Prompts during gameplay vs dedicated store
 – 100% unlock completion time with no payment— OpenCritic (@Open_Critic) October 9, 2017
As combative as the opening statement was, this is a good and healthy move on the whole. Publishers need to be more open about their plans for microtransactions and what they will offer to players, because it feels like every game is currently being put under the microscope and the first impressions, the knee jerk reactions are that they are bad and negative.
The difficulty will be in not making these reductive statements. The impact that microtransactions and loot boxes have is something that’s bound to be rather personal, but it’s very easy for people to dismiss games out of hand.
So to get back to those games I mentioned above:
- Middle-earth: Shadow of War – Generally unobtrusive and time saving.
- Forza Motorsport 7 – Jury is still out as microtransactions have not yet been added, but ‘mods’ from loot boxes alter the rate at which you can earn in-game cash.
- Star Wars Battlefront II – Microtransactions can buy loot boxes that are the route to random drops of character enhancing abilities.
- Assassin’s Creed Origins – No microtransactions and loot boxes are bought with in-game currency.
- NBA 2K18 – Microtransactions and the global Virtual Currency impacts the game’s balance both on and offline.
Source: Open Critic
MrYd
I thought their whole reason to exist was because they wanted to be a fairer and more open version of Metacritic? With a clear and open system for calculating their aggregate scores?
So it’s fine for them to provide that information, but “a stand against loot boxes” really isn’t a position they should be taking. Surely that’s down to the people reviewing the games? Open Critic shouldn’t be publicly expressing an opinion either way.
They also really don’t help with the way they classify scores. 70 is “fair”? And 69 or lower is “weak”?
They’re also the Metacritic for gamergate people, aren’t they?
TheShepanator
“They’re also the Metacritic for gamergate people”
Do you now boycott Lidl because that terrorist left his tube bomb in a Lidl bag? They don’t choose their audience, seems a bit stupid to use it as a mark against them.
Besides that, reviews are subjective by definition. Reviewers can try to be as objective as they can but at the end of the day it’s still their opinion. I welcome the move, until now there wasn’t a quick and easy way to see if a game had these anti-consumer features.
Stefan L
Firstly, no. They’re not “Metacritic for gamergate”, they’re just a different review score aggregator trying to push that information differently.
As for “fair” or “weak”, it’s down to where it stands in the overall scheme of things. Currently it’s lowest 40%, but that’s being adjusted to lowest 30% to be labelled as “weak”.
And finally, yeah it’s perhaps a bit incendiary to say they’re making a stand, but I think it’s a good decision to help make that kind of information more publicly available. The difficulty is that reviews can and should judge whether loot boxes or microtransactions have an effect on the game, and that these informed opinions could be lost. Case in point being Shadow of War, where there’s so much anguish over their inclusion and then reviews have said it’s dumb to have it, but doesn’t get in the way.
MrYd
They’re using the lowest 40% (or 30%) as “weak”? That’s fairly stupid. The adjustment will presumably drop it down to 50 or 60% to be classed as weak? When that really (should) mean “average”.
But then it’s that whole problem of inflated review scores most sites use. One of the reasons I like you guys so much, actually. You give slightly lower scores than the average review, but quite clearly state your review policy and the fact that 6/10 is “above average” (which doesn’t sound like “weak” to me).
And it’s definitely a good idea to make that information available, no problems with that. It’s their position of “taking a stand” that might be a problem, depending on if they actually meant it that way or not.