What's ok to hide behind loot boxes in Anthem?

I clicked off all the cosmetic options. While I did not click off "companions", I think that companion visual customizations are a fair game as well, i.e. just changing their looks. Premium companions like Treek is okay too imo, as long as you just pay for it, not just RNG.

I really, really hate any kind of lootbox. They are designed to seduce you in spending a few bucks here, and then there and then some more. Even the cosmetic ones. It's crack dealing.

Nah it's just gambling. With crack dealing, at least you know it's crack, otherwise you're in for a bad time.

"Oh shit this ain't crack it's flakka!" 

Gotta earn that Biggest John achievement so the publisher can keep their pimp hand strong.

This. So much this.

I really wouldn't want anything "hidden", its why I am willing to accept what BioWare has released with Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect: Andromeda or at least the spirit of its design. Its just an alternate way to get the same items, now I would greatly prefer a system where I had more choice in what I am paying for.

They're definitely not gonna drop the RNG element, it's what makes it so addicting in the first place. It's not like they haven't tried "Get what you pay for" microtransactions before, this is just more effective.

www.pcgamer.com/the-evolution-of-loot-boxes/

Bioware was hardly the first.

as for why it wasn't such a big deal in ME3: I'd sum it up to it still being a SP focused game, it's easy to ignore things on the multiplayer side if more than half the playerbase doesn't even touch it. Furthermore it was easy to get credits to buy the crates without spending money, it wasn't very predatory as what's out now. I honestly can't remember if they were even RNG based as I haven't played ME3 MP in years, I know for sure that I could get a crate or two after every platinum game. I think that might also be part of it, games today have extended how long you play before getting enough in game currency to buy. Halo 5 requires 5-10 arena games and about 3-4 warzone games to get a gold pack (they're really the only thing that has good gear). Gears of war 4 requires a dozen games to get elite packs (same case here, if you want the "good" stuff, you've got to play a lot to get it. 

Even if ME3 did have RNG based crates (cause again, I honestly can't remember) I don't recall it being as bad as what games are now.

nothing

cut the crap with the loot boxes

if you REALLY NEED IT then maybe just freaking cosmetic things

Before SWBF2 disaster this would've been acceptable but people's tolerance to EAs greed is at an all time low, I just cannot see gamers being cool about any microtransaction in an EA game now.

For some that may be true, but I see no logic in something being acceptable before but not now.

I understand that the predatory pay2win economy of BFII was unreasonable, but to then reject the mechanism out of hand in all circumstances on the basis of specific flawed instances is as illogical as boycotting all of EA because some of the games have stuffed up. It's akin to not liking broccoli and therefore rejecting all vegetables, that might make sense to a 6-year old, but I think most people can exercise a little more nuance than that.

If microtransactions are non-predatory, are genuinely optional (don't create an unreasonable grind) and are used as game 'short-cuts' that fund ongoing free content, then I'm not troubled by those out of a point principle.



As the core game will be different, those who want a traditional single-player experience may not want to play at all.
Those who are already accustomed to multiplayer may be more forgiving of such an economy implemented well.

I'm not defending predatory economies, but I don't find the view that they cannot exist under any circumstances to be very practical.