I don't play World of Tanks so I don't know the nature of the said lootboxes. Are they 100% cosmetic-only or is there any kind of "pay to win" component too?
 

Only the styles are cosmetic. Everything else at the very least helps you to speed up your progress. Some things improve your performance in battle, but not to an extent where they make it impossible to win if you don't pay. One typical putdown for paid features like premium ammo calls it "the practical alternative to skill", as without premium ammo you need more skill to aim.

However it is hard to judge how a paying casual player would fare against a Free2Play skilled player, because that would be a rare matchup. There are a lot of casual players that don't spend money, because, hey, they are just playing casually. And there are a lot of skilled players who do pay money, because if you play competitively, a 10% advantage matters more to you than if you are casual. Given the older demographics of World of Tanks, I don't think there are many competitive players who don't at least buy those premium days for $10 a month.
 

> Only the styles are cosmetic.
> Everything else at the very least
> helps you to speed up your progress.

In that case I personally think you did it wrong, because you supported a horrible business model that should be eradicated. I know you're comfortably wealthy and you don't care about spending a few bucks here and there. That's perfectly fine and -in general- it makes sense at your/my age. But when the lootobxes aren't 100% cosmetic-only I think there is an issue to fix and condone. By spending money you actively supported it. I thought you were absolutely against this behaviour, to be honest, no matter how tiny the advantage is (that's not the issue here).
 

I would be against in-game advantages that you can get *only* from a lootbox, forcing you to gamble to get them. However the features I am talking about, like gold, premium days, credits, or premium tanks, are also available all year long for direct purchase in the shop.

From all the lootbox business models I have seen, the World of Tanks one is a rarity for the high guaranteed value you get out of each box. Between my personal experience and streamers I've seen opening lootboxes it seems that on average buying lootboxes for €100 will net you rewards worth well over €150, even if you "aren't lucky". The lootbox event is limited in time (they only exist during the Christmas period), and there is nothing with an extremely low rarity in there. €100 pretty much got me everything there is, although of course there is a theoretical possibility that you only want this one rare tank and have to spend over €100 on lootboxes to get it.

So basically I am buying the same gold and stuff that I would usually buy, only at a discount, and gain an additional chance of getting a rare premium tank (which isn't an in-game advantage) or a fancy cosmetic style. Compared to the typical EA lootbox this is pretty harmless stuff.
 

> Compared to the typical EA lootbox this is pretty harmless stuff.

I totally agree with you but my point stands: WoT gives you the option to pay for a (possible) gameplay advantage over those who don't pay (and have to grind for months for the same loot chance). I think there shouldn't be any kind of "lootbox" mechanic at all, unless it's for cosmetic stuff (exclusively).

It's totally unfair, unless you divide your playerbase between whales and leechers. If you let a whale free to play with a leecher then you've got a P2W model. Better than EA? Yes, probably. But still a horrible business model that should never be supported.
 

@Rugus

"I totally agree with you but my point stands: WoT gives you the option to pay for a (possible) gameplay advantage over those who don't pay (and have to grind for months for the same loot chance). I think there shouldn't be any kind of "lootbox" mechanic at all, unless it's for cosmetic stuff (exclusively)."......."It's totally unfair, unless you divide your playerbase between whales and leechers"

Therein lies the rub. The problem isn't only with the revenue model. The problem is with the matchmaker system and the now tired meme of F2P players being viewed as fodder for the paying players. Not only do the WoT developers get to sell an advantage for money, they also get to choose the way the playerbase is matched through a very questionable matchmaker system. If F2P players were given the opportunity to ONLY play against other F2P players, and paying players were only matched against other paying players, then the monetization method debate points would be rendered moot.

The only remaining issue would be how much of an advantage a paying player could gain over another paying player by virtue of how often they opened up their wallet and how much they spend. If the issue, as Tobold has pointed out many times here, is with supporting the developers, why should it matter if the paying players are only matched against other paying players? Would the revenue "dry up" if paying players were no longer able to use the F2P players as fodder? I think the answer to that question would indicate a clear and separate distinction between those who sincerely believe they are supporting the developer versus those who firmly believe they are supporting the developer, but also buying an advantage at the same time.
 

"I would be against in-game advantages that you can get *only* from a lootbox, forcing you to gamble to get them."

The two 'rare' tanks are exactly that. They are only available if you gamble on lootboxes and win. And of course the odds of winning them are very low. I have seen people in my clan boasting of their gamble paying off and winning a double-barrelled tank in their €99 lootbox purchase. And that has encouraged others to gamble €99 to win the same pixel tank, with mixed results (did Quickybaby open more than €200 worth of lootboxes before winning it? I can't remember).

This is a predatory practice, and I hope the rest of the EU follows Belgium's lead.
 

I wouldn't call the two rare tanks an "in-game advantage". There is obviously a novelty to the double-barreled tank, but otherwise it isn't any better than a regular IS-3. And the German heavy isn't all that great either. Last year's IS-3A was more of an advantage. And all of these tanks are less good than let's say a Defender, which is sold directly and not via lootbox.
 

Have I understood it correcly that you've just spent an amount that could buy you two AAA games on single "event" in dying game?
 

The good thing about having money is that you don't have to choose between spending money on virtual items or spending it on two AAA games, you can simply do both. Games as a hobby are extremely cheap compared to other hobbies adults do.
 

@Rugus I'm late to this conversation but WoT itself is pretty pay2win to begin with so lootboxes containing items that benefit players is normal to anyone playing that game.
 

@Bogeyed The problem with these particular lootboxes isn't that they contain P2W items in a P2W game, it's that they have a very small chance of containing a particular P2W item that cannot be obtained otherwise. So it encourages gambling. People have spent hundreds of dollars/euros/pounds failing to win this item.
 

Sorry Bigeye, my spellchecker did that.