One of the most prominent topics of discussion these last few weeks has undoubtedly been the loot crate systems and microtransactions that have been appearing in several triple-A titles, most notably Star Wars Battlefront II.
The topic is obviously of interest to many development studios, where the opinions can be very contrasting, as many developers have been opposed to them, while others are in favour. Among them we find Rami Ismail, co-founder of Vlambeer, who has recently expressed a favourable opinion about loot crates and their integration into gameplay.
Ismail is convinced that this practice can't be compared to "bad game design", rather that it's just a model that could become inevitable if things don't change, either on the development front or in terms of those who buy games.
To this point he said: "They're not bad design, they mesh well with certain progression systems, they're highly lucrative and effective if implemented well, and they've been part of gaming since forever - even if you think of them as card game booster cards".
"The whole notion that they're always a top-down affair forced by the publisher is preposterous, even though that makes for a nice story in the head of internet 'experts'."
Randy Pitchford, chairman and CEO of Gearbox Software, also had something to say regarding this issue, claiming that despite the abuse of this monetisation system, he doesn't believe that loot crate are bad:
"As an artist and creator who very much loves the nature of the 'loot box' as it appears in our Borderlands games, I'm concerned that the words 'loot box' are being used as short hand for a practice I am not in favour of," he says. "Can we find another term for what we object to?"
Thanks, Games Industry.