I think there's definitely more nuance to the situation than even this poll can/does capture.
Here are my complete thoughts on the microtransaction/loot box debate, in detail.
First of all, Free to Play games should absolutely have microtransactions. How else are they supposed to make money? Whether or not those microtransactions come in the form of loot boxes is inconsequential to me, since its a free-to-play title, but I'd largely prefer them to be non-loot boxes, of course. Still, I'm OK with basically any form of monetization here, because that's the price you pay for playing a free-to-play title. I do put my foot down when it comes to pay-to-win stuff, though. I'm OK with small advantages coming from lootboxes or microtransactions (pay to progress faster, in other words), but nothing significant.
Second, multiplayer titles that receive frequent FREE updates and DO NOT have DLC or other forms of monetization. In this situation, I'm also 100% OK with microtransactions, and I'm OK with COSMETIC loot boxes. I used to feel differently - I used to feel that, even in the case of Overwatch, loot boxes in general were both predatory and anti-consumer. While I still feel they are predatory, I also recognize that with the ongoing costs associated with a game like Overwatch (Server costs, bigger billing departments, and ongoing development, free content and heroes etc.), they are necessary. Why specifically loot boxes? Why not "buy cosmetics outright"? Because loot boxes allow a very small portion of the player base to finance a ton of free content for the rest of the playerbase (I'm referring to the "whales" and "dolphins", of course). Is it predatory? Again, yes, but Blizzard understands its basically the best method available right now to keep the game going.
The other category here is multiplayer titles that do NOT receive free content updates, and see annual releases (Call of duty, Battlefield, etc.), and get paid DLC. These can have microtransactions, but MOST CERTAINLY NOT loot boxes. Why? Because they never reach the point where they need to start recouping ongoing development costs. These games re-release annually, and are constantly seeing a stream of massive revenue from that alone. They also have PAID (not free!) DLC, map packs, expansions, and more. There is no excuse for loot boxes at all here.
Finally, singleplayer titles. No microtransactions, period. End of story. They do NOT belong in singleplayer titles, and I will NOT purchase games that have them. There is absolutely no excuse. Singleplayer games do not have anywhere near the level of ongoing expenses a game like Overwatch has, and especially with games like the Witcher 3, large DLC packs can come in at $30+ with great success, and you still see stuff like deluxe editions, collectors editions, pre-order bonuses, product partnerships (Doritos and mountain dew, anyone?) and more that bring in additional revenue.
Here are my complete thoughts on the microtransaction/loot box debate, in detail.
First of all, Free to Play games should absolutely have microtransactions. How else are they supposed to make money? Whether or not those microtransactions come in the form of loot boxes is inconsequential to me, since its a free-to-play title, but I'd largely prefer them to be non-loot boxes, of course. Still, I'm OK with basically any form of monetization here, because that's the price you pay for playing a free-to-play title. I do put my foot down when it comes to pay-to-win stuff, though. I'm OK with small advantages coming from lootboxes or microtransactions (pay to progress faster, in other words), but nothing significant.
Second, multiplayer titles that receive frequent FREE updates and DO NOT have DLC or other forms of monetization. In this situation, I'm also 100% OK with microtransactions, and I'm OK with COSMETIC loot boxes. I used to feel differently - I used to feel that, even in the case of Overwatch, loot boxes in general were both predatory and anti-consumer. While I still feel they are predatory, I also recognize that with the ongoing costs associated with a game like Overwatch (Server costs, bigger billing departments, and ongoing development, free content and heroes etc.), they are necessary. Why specifically loot boxes? Why not "buy cosmetics outright"? Because loot boxes allow a very small portion of the player base to finance a ton of free content for the rest of the playerbase (I'm referring to the "whales" and "dolphins", of course). Is it predatory? Again, yes, but Blizzard understands its basically the best method available right now to keep the game going.
The other category here is multiplayer titles that do NOT receive free content updates, and see annual releases (Call of duty, Battlefield, etc.), and get paid DLC. These can have microtransactions, but MOST CERTAINLY NOT loot boxes. Why? Because they never reach the point where they need to start recouping ongoing development costs. These games re-release annually, and are constantly seeing a stream of massive revenue from that alone. They also have PAID (not free!) DLC, map packs, expansions, and more. There is no excuse for loot boxes at all here.
Finally, singleplayer titles. No microtransactions, period. End of story. They do NOT belong in singleplayer titles, and I will NOT purchase games that have them. There is absolutely no excuse. Singleplayer games do not have anywhere near the level of ongoing expenses a game like Overwatch has, and especially with games like the Witcher 3, large DLC packs can come in at $30+ with great success, and you still see stuff like deluxe editions, collectors editions, pre-order bonuses, product partnerships (Doritos and mountain dew, anyone?) and more that bring in additional revenue.
Last edited: