Assassin's Creed Origins Will Let You Spend Your Egyptian Pounds on Loot Boxes

Ha! Pyramid scheme, nice! Loot crates on a single player game seems odd. As long as it doesn't affect the game too much as in cosmetics and such, I'm fine with it.

Urgh I can’t say I am enjoying this shifting trend of micro transactions in single player games. I suppose balance is the real issue. If it’s entirely possible to play and enjoy the game without he need for additional purchase, I’m sure most people wouldn’t have too much to fuss over. If however the balancing is off and players feel hamstrung without further real money investment, there will likely be a lot of angry players. Of course until the game can be played it’s rather hard to judge.

I do think it’s a small step away from Middle-Earth as the micro-transactions for gear and orcs is very likely to effect the multiplayer element, which suggests that the micro transaction purchases providing a distinct advantage against other players.

Yay, another game I'll save money on by not buying.

@Dichotomy I’m sure a number of players will be speaking with their wallets like you. The game is going to sell massively regardless though considering it’s the first AC game in a few years.

Getting sick of these loot boxes been in everything now especially single player games! Not usually one to care about microtransactions usually as they don't really affect me, but loot boxes in games really annoy me if that's the only way you can get certain gear, as if there's something you want it just takes forever to actually get when normally you could just buy it for a in game currency etc.

There's a difference, imo. In AC it's singleplayer only, if you wanna spend some more money it's ok, it's your own experience and money so go ahead...it's not like buying those items will annoy anyone else.
In Shadow of War buying the boxes affects the character level and the game has a multiplayer component, right? So it gives you advantages over people that don't want to spend more money on a 70 euros game...

Preowned it is, same as Shadow of War.
Not supporting this practice. Publishers will continue to push the envelope, to see just how much they can get away with.

And my stance on this game changes not one bit.
Wasn't interested before, and I'm certainly not now.

Oh, spending real money for a mere chance to get a good item. My interest in this game has now dropped.

As long as the game doesn't try to constantly shove the idea of the boxes being there down your throat, I don't care.

Most reviews of Shadow of War claim they never even went into the Market tab and completed the game, so as long as it's no different here, just an annoyance we have to live with.

A lot of people seem upset about micro transactions in SP games, and i see most of their points, but at the end of the day, they're not forcing us to use them. Ignore them and they'll get the message that they're wasting their efforts and aren't getting our money.

@RedMageLanakyn It's more about how worrying it is that they're starting to design games to be more tedious, in order to nudge you towards buying the boxes to make the game more enjoyable. That was acceptable in multiplayer games which have always been about how much you can be bothered to grind, but it feels wrong in a story driven experience.

Do people really buy these things in single player games? So utterly pointless.

@Kai_ I agree, and I fully encourage anyone who despises these practices to vote with their wallets on games that partake. Unfortunately companies will always try to capitalize on what's popular and what can make them some easy money, and right now it's loot boxes.

All of that being said, if the game can still be enjoyed and completed while ignoring the loot boxes, then I don't really see an issue. This is just something we need to let run it's course, and hopefully enough people vote with their wallets by either not buying the game or loot boxes so they can move onto their next money-making scheme.

Ubisoft, Ubisoft never changes

Keep microtransactions and loot boxes to Free to Start stuff please. That way we don't pay you for your work upfront and then some more, plus F2S games need monetisation otherwise its just a sink.

Now in full price games? Ive got an issue. Is there a company that hasn't done this yet?

As long as devs/publishers continue to make money, then loot boxes will continue to be implemented in games.

As far as AC: origins goes, I can't see the need to purchase Loot boxes regardless. There looks to be a lot of opportunity to find loot and even upgrade the loot you find too with certain NPC's. It seems that the 'Loot crates' actually take away from the exploration and hunting aspects of the game - a way for those that are not interested in doing those activities to buy better gear - almost like a short cut but IF you do all the exploration etc yourself, surely you will get 'better' gear because you will be at a higher level?

Anyway, if gamers don't want Loot crates in games, then stop buying them! Unfortunately there will probably be those gamers with more money than sense and buy but I can hope that 'one day' even they won't be able to buy enough to ensure this practice continues...

@SwitchGlitch Wow, hurling insults because we can see the reality of the situation, and are spelling it out, classy. If someone has an addiction problem, i think loot boxes are the least of their problems. Also, if they refuse to acknowledge they have a problem and don't seek help, that's 100% on them. If you want to call me a "thicko, naive idiot" because myself and the dozens of people that reviewed the game can simply choose to NOT click on a tab in the menu, then so be it I guess. If you continue to hurl out insults, you'll make yourself look like the idiot though.

@SwitchGlitch Of course they are going to continue to use them - as long as they continue to make money. There is no underhanded method that they can 'disguise' the fact that 'additional' purchases become 'compulsory' or even 'Necessary' without the gaming press being aware of that. Its also pushing the limits of 'Pay to Win' at the moment too in some games - take SW:BF2 with its 'star cards' and in game bonuses these can give in competitive MP.

Personally I would rather see these things completely disappear rather than just become regulated. Its bad enough that they 'could' sell 'cosmetic' items as 'DLC' but that is still preferable to selling the 'slim' chance that you may get the cosmetic item you actually want which then in turn encourages people to keep plowing money into RNG boxes to try and get those items. I don't buy a chance to play the 'game' I wanted but could also get some games I already own or games I have no desire to play - I pay the money to get the 'game' I want/expect.

I have NO issue with RNG as an 'in-game' reward - for things like leveling up etc but the only micro-transaction content should sell cosmetic only items and you get exactly the item you purchase - not a 'chance' to get it. Even that is perhaps pushing things too much for a AAA game to have 'micro-transaction cosmetic items' for sale but at least its giving gamers the chance to buy 'exactly' what they wanted. I still think 'EVERYTHING' should be available in-game and at most, with in-game currency and that 'currency' cannot be bought with real money either! If people want to look 'badass' - grind for it - not buy a shortcut to these.

To a degree, gamers are responsible for this practice and the fact its becoming much more prevalent. If they didn't spend the money, they would have died away. There also seems to be an acceptance in certain games - like Titanfall 2 and Star Wars BF2 because they are offering the 'season' of DLC free. If you look at Activisions Statements of finance, they are making billions every year and had their biggest profits ever - mostly because of the sales of 'loot boxes' in games like CoD and Overwatch. Other publishers see that and want a slice of that pie so implement these into their games too. Its not a surprise to see Ubisoft, EA etc all having their own 'RNG micro-transaction' options in their games too. Unless gamers make a stand and vote with their wallets, the likelihood that every AAA Game will have some form of RNG loot for sale with real money is only going to increase.

I have no doubt that devs/publishers will continue to find ways to exploit their customers to try and boost profit margins. We have seen things like Online Passes, obvious DLC that should be part of the game etc. If they fail with RNG loot, they will no doubt try another way to extract 'more' money from its customer base. That being said, the gaming community have forced Devs to drop other 'schemes'. Voting with wallets though can and does make a difference. The gaming press can also help when reviewing games and high-lighting these as 'negatives' and dropping their scores which in turn can affect sales, and hit the devs/publishers where it hurts most.

@SwitchGlitch Maybe you should actually go back and read my first two comments, in which I not only didn't defend these practices, i flat out encouraged people to vote with their wallets, much as Bamnozzy did. I simply stated the reality we live in, which, as you also said, they will continue to find ways to take our money if loot boxes doesn't pan out for them. I agree with what you said about loot boxes and addictive personalities, just not the way you said it when you started name calling. It's uncalled for.

Ramsey and Co. are doing the right thing by calling out these practices, and also by stating the games either can or cannot be played without intrusive messaging or advertisement.

@RedMageLanakyn I think it should be illegal gambling is not legal under 18 so why is it legal in games. Ill vote with my wallet no sale.

@KitsuneNight All do it now Ubisoft is not the one who started it was Counterstrike or Activision.

@AFCC Lootboxes dont belong in any game multiplayer does not make it right

@Elodin @Deadlyblack
Thats how it starts i was like you in start but i see now they throw it every game Fortza is a great example how they put in rewards in lootboxes for getting bonus money ingame for unlocks. Its getting scary how normal it is now. It looks now that i will only get niche games without those Microtransactions.

@Flaming_Kaiser I'm not sure what the regulations are in terms of how micro transactions are classified, but the first line of defense should be the parents of kids under 18 when it comes to their online activities.

_{Sorry man, but posting a link to a petition is against the rules here I am afraid. Thanks for understading -Tasuki-}

First Shadow of War and now Assassin's Creed. I'm really interested on both games, including AC because it will be in Egypt, but this practice really makes me want to not buy these games on the release date...

FED UP WITH THIS NOW

If your thick crack on and buy lootboxes for full priced games. If your even more academically retarded then condone these practises.

We knew it was coming.

Every single f:#!ing game. Its beyond a joke.

@RedMageLanakyn but you cant turn them off. Kids cant go in bookies so why is it ok to let them see lootboxes? If its so unharmful wheres the option to turn them off or block them?

I cant be bothered going down this road again. But my son spent hundreds of pounds unknown to us until we got a bill. Hes autistic and didnt realise it was real money.

Thats the problem. We didnt know he was upstairs spending hundreds of pounds at a time we couldn't afford it. It shouldnt be allowed.

Tbf Ass Creed isnt for kids so nothing to do with this article in hindsight.

@themcnoisy I'm not saying it's ok, but i also don't know what the process would be for creating legislature against it. The first thing we did when we gave our 5 year old an Amazon tablet was make 100% sure there was no way for her to purchase anything. We wiped all credit card information, and made it so purchases weren't possible without a password. I have that on all my consoles in case she accidentally boots one up and starts pressing buttons. There are ways to prevent it, you have to be proactive about learning the in's and out's of the technology you're giving your kids. By the way, I don't mean that as a criticism of your parenting either, we all make mistakes, sometimes expensive ones, when it comes to parenting. Definitely not an easy job!

It's also a matter of pure gameplay. Until now it was normal to grind if you wanted a certain armour in Monster Hunter, a certain weapon in Souls game and so on; what if devs start reducing drop rate of items in any ARPG just to sell you a loot box?

@Flaming_Kaiser

ubisoft and actiblizz are the most obnoxious about it

@andreoni79 Apart from gambling, that is my main concern. These current games might not technically need additional in game purchases but if we let it, eventually we will.

_{Please don't mod other people. If there's a problem use the report button instead of calling users out. Thanks -Tasuki-}

@Kidfried With those Microtransactions you knew what you got this is gambling. Tastefull and microtransactions dont belong in one sentence when it involves a €/$60 plus game which even has a seasonpass.

@RedMageLanakyn i get that. I do. But its everything about loot boxes which is wrong.

The system was fine, buy a game - maybe some dlc to support the developer - then thats it.

Now its all over the shop with season passes, micros, loot boxes etc. None hardcore gamers are fed up with it and buy less games as loads of similar crap is free on the ipad. So we have to suck it in. And I say no.

But actually I see your point about parenting responsibility. But when your kids are over 12 years of age they dont want you to know, and in many ways can hide what they do online.

@BLP_Software But don't Sony have like a child lock setting on the PS4? I've only got XB1s in the house for now and on my son's Xbox I've got it on 'lock it down' setting, he's unable to purchase anything without a password which I only know, there's been plenty of times I've walked in his room and saw him trying to buy £55 games and micro transactions from certain games.

@themcnoisy I kinda figured that would happen once they get to junior high and start hitting adolescence.

As far as loot boxes and DLC, I'm in the mindset now that I won't buy DLC until it's heavily discounted. There are the occasional exceptions, maybe one out of every 20 games I buy, but that's it. I honestly can't remember the last time I even bought a loot box, I just don't get into all the crazy "epic costumes" or weapon skins. They are everywhere though, and it does need to stop. Unfortunately there are always those people that have more money than they know what to do with and just go ballistic. Youtubers and streamers seem pretty adamant about opening loot boxes to show their incredible luck-and money spending abilities.

@MaccaMUFC And if they get past that? Its all on you now. They take no responsibility for it.

@BLP_Software Well if the parent doesn't keep their password and/or bank card secure then thats their problem, they have a responsibility to their kids and possessions.

Umm...developers are to blame that you are not able to secure your device from unwanted purchases? You can’t be for real...I mean...no...you can’t be.

One day, people will realize there’s a difference between supporting the game and the MT in it, but that day is yet to come. Until then, we’ll just have to keep reading “MT? I’m not buying it.”

@fisher No, the real issue are the implications of the MTs. This means developers will make certain aspects of their game more tedious or grindy in order to get us to buy their lootboxes, to make it ourselves easier or to get that one item or piece of gear. This will affect the game, even if you decide not to buy them.

@Kidfried Panini stickers and collectible cards are things you can collect, exchange with other collectors and play with. Recently I dusted off my +20 years old Magic cards to play with friends who shared my passion when young and still have their decks. You can also sell your old Panini album for real money.
Basically devs could copy this concept and let gamers swap the items in their inventory to give the loot boxes a social paint.

@Kidfried The difference with Panini Stickers and Pokemon cards is that they have 'value' even if they have little value to yourself (because you have that sticker/card already) but at least you can trade that 'sticker/card' with a friend to get the sticker/card you wanted. Also Panini will sell you the exact stickers you want when you reach the final stage. I have 3 completed Panini books from the late 80's - 86/87, 87/88 & 88/89 I believe and each of those was completed in a 'relatively' short time by swapping with friends and purchasing the final lot direct from Panini. Also I believe that some Pokemon cards have enormous 'cash' value - in fact one sold for £44000 last year.

Therefore its very different from 'Loot' crates as both of these of these do give you 'something' of value that can be sold or traded. Loot boxes give you nothing of value in that you are 'stuck' with the items and have no way to sell/trade for the items you wanted. Even in 'gambling' though, there is 'some' chance that you can get more than you invested back. You bet on the right thing, you can easily get much more than your stake back. Same with 'slot machines' - you could get 'lucky' and hit the jackpot or at least get more back than you put in. Loot boxes though get nothing of any value. A rare, legendary or even 'exotic' item has no more value than a 'common'. Ok so it may have some better aesthetics or something but its 'valueless'. If you have that 'Exotic' item already, a second or more isn't going to be worth 'something' that you can trade with a friend to get one of the 'exotics' you wanted in return. Its artificial. Also any of the 'loot' is also very limited to the life cycle of that game. I bet if you had a big collection of Pokemon Cards or several completed Panini albums, they have 'value' but nothing in these loot boxes have 'value'.

One place I haven't seen discussed here is the effect on vulnerable adults. In the UK people who have problems with gambling can ban themselves from being allowed to gamble, but obviously this will not extend to practices such as loot boxes as the law, as always, takes a long time to catch up with the digital world. By classing loot boxes as what they are, i.e. a form of gambling, the number of safeguards in place would effectively help protect these people as well as making it much harder for children to be exposed to the system.

In the UK the classification of these practices as gambling would have the effect of making the game an 18, disallow credit betting (all transactions would have to be done through either debit card or real money thus making it harder to acrue debt through gambling), force openess of odds on getting items and force the game to have to check whether you have banned yourself from gambling and thus remove all signs of them from the game or not allow the game to be sold at point of purchase or else suffer hefty fines.

To put it another way, it would make this practice so unappealing to companies they would stop invading our games with this rubbish as it would cost them too many sales in the visibility of what they are doing, and it would be much harder for them to sell the game due to the legislation in place over gambling.

I think there are two seperate issues here. The first is whether micro-transactions and loot boxes belong in full price releases, particularly if they affect the game play. The second is the lack of regulation for lootboxes and whether this constitutes gambling.

On the first, I think no one likes these, the argument is whether this makes a difference to the gamer if they aren't going to purchase, like the Assassins Creed Origins point. For example, Shadow of War, to see the 'true ending' and credits requires at least 30 hours of grind after the main storyline (with no cutscenes or anything) or you can buy your way out of it. To me, this is what worries me - unncessary grind to encourage further expenditure.

On the gambling point, I see loot boxes as a form of gambling. It should be subject to the same laws as your native country which has measures in place to hinder childrens access to it and provide support for people with problems. They won't solve gambling problems but people should know that behaviour is categorized as gambling.

@Tasuki No worries man, didn't realise and won't do again

A game I may get in the bargain bin still get to finish black flag on my ps3, probably my last Ac game ever to be honest may even buy the trilogy on ps4 since I lived brotherhood AC2 and revelations. The way games are going now I won't be buying the likes of ps5 because of all this loot box will be I'm everything

When I saw the thumbnail I thought mr creed was buying furniture

Regardless of my opinion on the subject as a whole, the one thing that does strike me, is the incoherent desperation by the devs.

Now that game shelf lives are pretty short, before discounting etc kicks-in and/or the product is usurped by something "newer", the ultimate need to make money in the quickest way possible is becoming more unscrupulous than ever.. yet these same devs bang on about a game as a service...

As per usual, their cake and eat it philosophy is there for all to see and I only forsee it getting worse before getting better.

Microtransactions should not be in single player games full stop.

@RedMageLanakyn I don't care about your first two comments. I was simply replying to you because you replied to me. But if it's true that you aren't defending these practices, then I'm all for whatever you said. So why were we even arguing?

@Tasuki You think I care if you remove my comments? I delete them the next day anyway

@Tasuki Oh and I'll just use another profile if you decide to send me on "a vacation from the site". So go ahead, big guy.

As from Eurogamer's interview, these are not purchasable with real money though.

What remains to be seen is if you can purchase ingame currency with real money, but that's always been pointless in AC games.

"So go ahead, big guy."

LOL!

@JohnnyBastos You literally laughed out loud at that? It was supposed to be a pop at the idea that a tiny bit of control over others makes some people feel big. Did you get that part?... I thought not. I'll let you go about your business.

@Tasuki Yes. I don't think you do. Still, even if you could, it's not exactly going to be a detriment to my life (not being able to make a few comments on what is quite frankly a boring replacement for CVG). But you know, you've got to get your information from somewhere.

This will be the year Loot Crate gets a proper entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

_{He's gone, there is no need to carry on. -Tasuki-}

You should play Mario instead

@RedMageLanakyn Fair enough, wasn't aware he was gone.

This was one I was looking forward to. Well I just cancelled my pre-order. As others have said if I really end up wanting to play this is will be a second hand buy so my cash is removed from the developer economy. I think its going to get harder and harder to find games that don't try and turn us into gambling addicts as time goes on. I am hoping any game that has a gambling aspect gets a 18 cert in the future and a gambling warning on all advertising. That may help steam the flow

I feel those who defend these loot boxes in games are making a rod for their own backs. Publishers will keep pushing to exploit more and more each time they see they have gotten away with it.
But hey ho, do what you need to do, I won't be buying this.

@SwitchGlitch "You literally laughed out loud at that?"

Technically, I laughed out loud at your macho posturing on the internet.

A day after, I come back to THIS ?!
Whats going on here ?

Shenanigans ?

They just confirmed no real world cash can be used, just in game excess. So pre-order reinstated. I am looking forward to a AC games for the first time in many years. Really hope this lives up to some of the early years pleasure from this franchise.