Obviously the use of loot boxes and their equivalents in various games cops a fair bit of flack in the community (some justified, some not).
However, the idea of ‘gambling’ to obtain rare items or complete collections has been around for as long as consumerism.
I’ve never been into any kind of ‘gambling to complete collections’ (closest I got was getting all of the Simpsons Tazos in Doritos packs back in the mid 90s). So I can’t speak from personal experience. Nor do I collect baseball cards, either in real life or in-game.
So I wonder why is the idea of the developers employing micro transactions to purchase packs to have a chance at acquiring the wanted players so despised?
People speak so fondly of baseball cards and the excitement of opening packs, yet hasn’t the same ‘micro transaction’ strategy been used for a hundred years in real life in the form of baseball cards, except without disclosing the odds of acquiring a rare item? Or even any indication of what in fact is a rare item? On the contrary, in this game, the odds are explicitly stated so wouldn’t you say that’s a bit fairer for the user?
I can think of one justified counter-argument. With care, some baseball cards can increase in value over time, whereas contents of loot boxes (in this game, player cards) are basically worthless within a year or two.
However that’s not the issue I’m questioning. What I really want to know is, do we hate loot boxes in real life as much as we hate loot boxes in video games?