Dauntless developers are dropping loot boxes. Favour Warframe pay model.

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,508
154
63
#1
Phoenix Labs have announced that they’re stripping loot boxes from their free-to-play monster-hunting game, Dauntless. They say that this isn’t “entirely reactive” to the recent turn against the free-to-play system in the gaming public, but admit they’re “not deaf” to the backlash.


The past few months has seen a massive backlash against loot boxes, particularly those in Middle-earth: Shadow of War. Across the industry, developers and organisations like PEGI, the FTC, and the UK Gambling Commission, are being asked to take a stand for or against loot boxes. Phoenix Labs say they had plans to take the system out of their game before this happened.


“A couple of years ago we had taken loot boxes as a de facto choice and we hadn't revisited it,” design director Chris Cleroux of Phoenix Labs told us in a call last week. “One of the things that we felt was never really [...] the best of experiences was having a loot box based monetisation.”


The team is instead moving to a model similar to Warframe and Path of Exiles “where you choose the things that you're purchasing.” The developers describe this approach as “a lot more player-first.” Cleroux adds that the team’s design philosophy has always been that Dauntless shouldn’t be pay-to-win.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/dauntless/dauntless-loot-boxes
With all the shadiness going on recently regarding all this loot-box nonsense this little bit of news caught my fancy. It's nice to see Devs noticing gamers concerns and actively trying to work through them!

Notice here, i said Devs. The three studio's from the three games above all self publish! Publishers wouldn't know how to work through gamers concerns even if the answer came up and bit them in the arse.

If you've never played Warframe, their pay model is actually quite fair. The "core content" is pretty much free, the only things behind any kind of paywall are due to contractual obligations, or because they are cosmetics and have no impact on the actual game. If you purchase a colour pack for example, its yours, and you can colour everything you have with it, they don't artificially limit it to specific "things" for no apparent reason...
 

Vyse

Extreme Poster
Mar 27, 2006
26,804
360
83
#2
It's a shame to see games turn into a service with things like loot boxes, season passes and always online. You should never feel like your enjoyment is being held ransom. Especially when you're expected to pay 60 dollars for a game that might not perform as it should early on.

I really hope gaming, as a whole, can one day return to being like it was before. As it is now, you can have a great idea for a game and it might even be executed well in graphics and playability, but what's the point if certain parts are going to be locked away or that you can't even begin to play because of routine/unscheduled maintenance?
 
Last edited:

FinalxxSin

Dedicated Member
Jul 26, 2015
1,120
17
38
#5
[QUOTE="Vyse, post: 6533981]It's a shame to see games turn into a service with things like loot boxes, season passes and always online. You should never feel like your enjoyment is being held ransom. Especially when you're expected to pay 60 dollars for a game that might not perform as it should early on.

I really hope gaming, as a whole, can one day return to being like it was before.[/QUOTE]
Gaming is never going to return to what it once was due to gaming market being significantly different. Sure, technology has become greatly more advanced, but on the same hand it has created longer/more expensive development times. The front price tag of a game will always matter to a lot of people. For $60 USD, it's not always feasible to provide an experience to meet up with every single persons expectations. Large scale RPGs suffer the most in that aspect from what I have seen. With that being said, I have no problem with a game operating more on the premise of a service because it can expand the longevity of a title for a person. The only real downside imo is that often that said content is never put onto a disc. The problem comes down to poor execution of said service plan.
 

Vyse

Extreme Poster
Mar 27, 2006
26,804
360
83
#6
I would rather pay for an expansion pack because I know it will give me exactly what I paid for instead of loot boxes that provide bits and pieces of the game at random.

Why would anyone pay $5 to $10, $20 or more, on top of the initial $60 purchase of the game, only to end up paying more (likely hundreds of dollars) and still not own everything in the game? It is absolutely unacceptable and dishonest to the consumer.
 
Last edited:

FinalxxSin

Dedicated Member
Jul 26, 2015
1,120
17
38
#7
[QUOTE="Vyse, post: 6534286]I would rather pay for an expansion pack because I know it will give me exactly what I paid for instead of loot boxes that provide bits and pieces of the game at random.

Why would anyone pay $5 to $10, $20 or more, on top of the initial $60 purchase of the game, only to end up paying more (likely hundreds of dollars) and still not own everything in the game? It is absolutely unacceptable and dishonest to the consumer.[/QUOTE]
Yes, if those type of loot boxes want to be set up like that, then that's completely fine in my eyes. The problem would stem from how accessible those loot boxes would be. A fair method would be to have some means of in-game earning currency to be able to trade out for them within a reasonable amount of time. In other words, a player should never feel that he/she is forced to spend real money to get said loot boxes. A game that I'm playing right now, Tekken 7, has some form of loot boxes in the Treasure Battle. I get 1 - 3 at the end of every win with random items. A good chunk of the items are cosmetic, while others are more for the lawls that do not harm the game balance. The concept of Loot Boxes is not new at this point. Despite the bad examples that have been provided by companies such as EA, there are also good examples that exist as well. Loot Boxes themselves is not the issue; but the execution at times is.