Lootboxes - Extra Credits vs Jim Sterling

Extra Credits posted a video this week about their take on the whole lootbox controversy and whether lootboxes should even exist in video games. I found their view to be a lot more closely aligned with my own, while also acknowledging the counter points brought up by notable gaming commentator Jim Sterling. While we discussed the lootbox controversy in some depth in our own podcasts here on MMOs.com I found both of these videos (below) informative and interesting. I encourage anyone with a strong position on the lootbox controversy to at least listen to the opposing viewpoint with a open mind.

Critical of lootboxes: Jim Sterling

Less critical and open to lootboxes: Extra Credits

I'm curious where everyone stands on this issue. As I said earlier, my position is more closely aligned with Extra Credits than Jim Sterling, but I recognize that Jim has some valid points. Some monetization systems are obviously designed to take advantage of players when they're feeling most vulnerable. So what's your take?

Been playing MMOs since I first got my hands on Ultima Online when I was 12 years old. Played so many games from Star Wars Galaxies to MapleStory to DAoC to World of Warcraft. Long time League of Legends player too! I'm also Known as "ReMo" and "Remotay"

  • zeme

    The only thought I have on this is that it doesn't matter what I think. It's all about passing the Miller test, which is you take 100 random dudes and ask them if something is fucked up, if the majority say it's fucked up then it is.

    Gaming companies shouldn't be shooting for a majority, their Miller tests should be somewhere around 90/100 people saying their monetization isn't fucked up.

    The downside to a Miller test is that it's not what 100 bureaucrats, successful critics, or dedicated players think. It's what faggots think, and gaming is more full of faggots than it used to be so we'll see faggotier monetization being hailed as not pay to win or pay to win.