on the topic of loot boxes...
- Thread starter treos
- Start date
- Jul 25, 2017
- 126
- 551
I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with net neutrality, but I'm all for it, I think.
Don't know about you, but I hate games that do the loot box/micro-transaction system myself.
- Jul 19, 2017
- 1,899
- 4,038
That's fucking absurd. It' not a great practice, but honestly you may as well make CCGs illegal as well if you consider loot boxes a problem.
- Jun 10, 2017
- 10,094
- 14,738
In Belgium the government don't goes against loot boxes by themselves, but against the system of micro-transactions related to them. I assume that it's the same thing for these 6 US states.
The problem isn't the loot boxes, there's nothing wrong with them. Earning a reward in the game, without knowing what you'll get is legal and just gaming. But the instant you have to pay for it, or even just the possibility to pay for it, it become gambling. Just because it's the definition of gambling ; you pay for something without knowing what this something will be, it can worth the price, or not, you can have spend more for what you get, or not even spend a cent for it.
That's why Belgian government goes after this system, stating that it should be subject to gambling laws. Don't know exactly this laws in Belgium, but if it was in my country (France), it would mean that the game's editor need a special authorization and the game must be restricted to 18 yo and more.
This said, it's not really related to net neutrality, so it's probably not the best place to talk about this.
- Jul 19, 2017
- 1,899
- 4,038
Does the Belgian government consider Magic the Gathering or Pokemon cards gambling? Because they should or hell, any sort of collectible card, or gachapon selling machines? It's not much different, outside of what the format is. It just seems like another well-intentioned, but ultimately over reaching attempt to regulate games. And it's really not based on much at all. The consumers have ALREADY rejected the worst systems, and BF 2 is getting savaged as well by all accounts. No good is going to come from self important bureaucrats who know jack shit about actual gaming coming in and messing with it.
I mean by the same logic we need to ban Hearthstone, or pretty much any Japanese f2p game too.
- Jul 25, 2017
- 126
- 551
Legally, it's a bit of a grey area. Kinda
When gambling, the idea is that you put up X amount of currency, and then there is an % chance to receive goods/services/currency from X-Y (typically 0, or nothing), up to X+Y (Where the upper range of Y would be something much more valuable depending on the chances). Higher risk, higher reward - Sound about right?
Say for example, you buy a trading card pack - and by your accounts it's a really terrible pack; nothing in there that you want or value. There's not really a problem with this, so long as what you received is worth what you paid for - meaning there's no potential for loss, and only the potential for gain. Of course, it's sometimes hard to quantify what the worth of items are (especially virtual items) when there's not a real market for them (you can't (re)sell in-game items or loot crates typically, for example).
Naturally it's a lot easier when it comes to trading cards than it does for games, slot machines or fantasy football - since there's no actual(physical) goods or services you receive if you 'lose' your 'bet'. All that is an extremely rudimentary explanation, but you get the idea.
It's hard for me to come to a conclusion about what I think about all of this. Because I don't want those annoying micro-transaction systems and loot crates, but I also don't want governments coming in and destroying things that clearly aren't gambling, simply because these issues are so hard to define. It would be nice if consumers had the capability to mass protest/boycott those systems out of existence without getting governments involved at all - that's about the only good solution I can come up with.
- Oct 19, 2017
- 189
- 92
so the net neutrality thread doesn't go further off topic than it already has.
edit: seems bungie/activision is no better than EA when it comes to this stuff:
who here likes holiday events in MMOs? what about that destiny 2 Dawning event? you know, the one where you'll barely be able to get any of the loot because bungie/activision chose to show just how greedy they can be.
oh and they tried to sneak an ad onto peoples ps4 desktop today.
they also have the destiny 2 forums flooded with over 100 pages of threads all saying the same thing: "Remove the eververse!"
eververse being the destiny/destiny 2 loot box and microtransaction shop for the games.
edit: seems bungie/activision is no better than EA when it comes to this stuff:
who here likes holiday events in MMOs? what about that destiny 2 Dawning event? you know, the one where you'll barely be able to get any of the loot because bungie/activision chose to show just how greedy they can be.
oh and they tried to sneak an ad onto peoples ps4 desktop today.
they also have the destiny 2 forums flooded with over 100 pages of threads all saying the same thing: "Remove the eververse!"
eververse being the destiny/destiny 2 loot box and microtransaction shop for the games.
Last edited:
- Oct 19, 2017
- 189
- 92
You must be registered to see the links
there, different thread for the loot box topic.
*points to the destiny 2 forums* uh... dude? they've got like 100+ threads flooding the forums. pretty much the entire player base for the gaming telling them they want the loot boxes and microtransactions all gone but bungie has their fingers in their ears while singing the "lalala can't hear you" song as loud as they can. something tells me the people working at bungie and activision dumber than those at EA. at least EA backed off. bungie/activision? well...
anyway, see the link above. i made a new thread for this topic.
no, i'm sorry as i didn't think to make 2 different threads for these topics. oops :/
- Jul 25, 2017
- 126
- 551
I don't see how any of that matters to be honest. Last time I checked, Destiny 2 still had loot crates, so that protest/boycotts even on 100+ forum threads apparently, does nothing. (Edit - Did EA really back off? I thought that was a temporary back-off and then they continued it) Even if it did, you have an example of a single game out of thousands that have those systems in place.
We just aren't going to see solutions for micro-transactions and loot crates in the pure form of a protest/boycott. The only vague hope I would have, is that developers understand how much people hate them, and choose not to implement those systems. (It's difficult for them too, because they have to contend with the money-grubbing business-types that are prone to ruin games if it means they can make a little more profit - So they get slammed from both fronts external and internal.)
P.S. - Since all of this is off topic, I would ask a mod move these posts to the other thread that has been created. I think the thread would be devoid of context if we all just started quoting posts from this thread. My apologies for the annoyance.
Last edited:
- Oct 19, 2017
- 189
- 92
unfortunately, that still counts as gambling since you're paying irl money for a "chance" at getting what you want out of a pool of potential prizes instead of buying it outright.
- Sep 21, 2017
- 319
- 410
FYI the stuff from Eververse is 99.5% Cosmetic and the other 0.5% just lets you see Chests on the map (but there is a 4 hour buff for that you can buy very cheap for ingame credits) or ressources (an alternative to tokens for faction which are so bad they are not even worth it) or 10% more XP (which in the end will only give you more lootboxes for cosmetic stuff after you reached maxlevel after 5 hours without XP buff).
Don't get me wrong... i hate the Eververse, i hate Bungie for making a Christmas Event and hiding all the good stuff behind a paywall but in the end if you are not a compulsive collector of every pixelshit there is.. you can just ignore it.
DLC's on the other hand... ... ..
Don't get me wrong... i hate the Eververse, i hate Bungie for making a Christmas Event and hiding all the good stuff behind a paywall but in the end if you are not a compulsive collector of every pixelshit there is.. you can just ignore it.
DLC's on the other hand... ... ..
It's understandable that consumers want more for their money but let's not pretend there's a moral case here. The tie to gambling is grasping at straws. Chance plays a huge part in video games: is Pokemon gambling your time since you never know what's hiding in that patch of grass? Is card packs in card games like Hearthstone gambling?
Businesses seek to maximize profit just as individuals seek to maximize utility. In this case, businesses found a new avenue for profit that have, or threatens to, price certain previous consumers out of parts of their products--in other words, buyers want a lower price while sellers want a higher price, nothing new or nefarious here.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics/finance can see that loot boxes/dlcs/what-have-you lead to greater market efficiency by allowing sellers to price-discriminate to appeal to different consumers, which lead to greater utility for both sellers AND buyers, i.e., win-win for both. Buyers with either greater means and/or less patience can now trade their relative abundance in money for their lack in time while those with less means or greater patience can save money by doing the reverse and grind away to their heart's content. All in all, more customers being charged as much as they're willing to spend--profit maximization and good business.
Businesses seek to maximize profit just as individuals seek to maximize utility. In this case, businesses found a new avenue for profit that have, or threatens to, price certain previous consumers out of parts of their products--in other words, buyers want a lower price while sellers want a higher price, nothing new or nefarious here.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics/finance can see that loot boxes/dlcs/what-have-you lead to greater market efficiency by allowing sellers to price-discriminate to appeal to different consumers, which lead to greater utility for both sellers AND buyers, i.e., win-win for both. Buyers with either greater means and/or less patience can now trade their relative abundance in money for their lack in time while those with less means or greater patience can save money by doing the reverse and grind away to their heart's content. All in all, more customers being charged as much as they're willing to spend--profit maximization and good business.
- Sep 21, 2017
- 319
- 410
It's in nearly all cases not about loot boxes being there to give players the choice to either buy them for additionals or not but about developers and companys reducing Games to a service for said lootboxes and no longer makes games as a product for the enjoyment of the customer/consumer.
Best example what a piece of shit this can become is Battlefront 2, designed from the start not as a game but as a shell around lootbox gambling because everything was programmed to be tied to lootboxes. It's like paying for your Drivers license that allows you to drive... but if you want to you have to buy a car: 5 Bucks per Box and you have a 5% chance per box to get either a tire, a seat, a door, a steering wheel etc.
Even worse are the psychologically, shady and purely abusive tricks and tactics those games try... see Activisions patent, see popups, limited time availability so you panic-pay in the end to get something you missed, RNG itself where noone discloses the chances to get something good or the dilution of the loot-table with 90% crap, advertisements what other players just got from a box you can not hide and more and more and more.
Destiny 2 sucks because over 200 items were introduced in the last DLC and Dawning event but only a very small percentages of those are actually in loot tables for playing the game.. the rest is Eververse.
- Jul 25, 2017
- 126
- 551
I talked about that briefly in
You must be registered to see the links
. -You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
It's not win-win for both, and that's the point. Part of gambling entails that you understand exactly what you're spending your money on. At a casino you can do the math and determine the odds of your win/lose ratio, if you were so inclined. Gambling establishments are required to show exactly what the odds are to win for any given game.
None of these game companies ever, ever show what the odds are to win any given item. They may show 10 different items in a loot crate, but it's definitely not 1/10 chance to win some of those items.
Battlefront 2 is extremely egregious because you are almost incapable of continuing to play a game that you already paid for, unless you pay for the loot crates and thereby unlock more content. ( I think I saw one news report that said some characters/items/levels would take over 2 years of continuous playtime to unlock without spending money? That's pretty messed up if it's true.)
- Sep 21, 2017
- 319
- 410
As my final statement on the Topic of lootboxes i only can say: Lootboxes are gambling and have no place in games.
Games that have them in them should have conditions:
a) Game should not be advertised as such but as a gambling software
b) not sold to anyone under the age of 18/21
c) should limit a users monthly spending on said boxes to prevent addicts from going into debt with that shit
d) should not be allowed to include links or advertises to the lootbox system ingame
Everything else should be illegal and people going against it to make a quick buck out of addicts, children and psychological tricks belong in jail. Period.
A Game should be a game... to have fun... and not restrictive funneing to a gambling system that only wants your money and not your enjoyment.
Games that have them in them should have conditions:
a) Game should not be advertised as such but as a gambling software
b) not sold to anyone under the age of 18/21
c) should limit a users monthly spending on said boxes to prevent addicts from going into debt with that shit
d) should not be allowed to include links or advertises to the lootbox system ingame
Everything else should be illegal and people going against it to make a quick buck out of addicts, children and psychological tricks belong in jail. Period.
A Game should be a game... to have fun... and not restrictive funneing to a gambling system that only wants your money and not your enjoyment.
- Oct 19, 2017
- 189
- 92
iirc china and...was it the UK that mare recently followed suit? passed a law where game devs that use loot boxes in their games are now required to show the % chances of what you get in each loot box. it's not much but it's some progress.
actually... YongYea did some great coverage of the battlefront 2 situation. so much so that it was pretty much non-stop battlefront 2 coverage on his channel for a while.
i don't remember which video discussed how long it'd take to unlock heroes and whatnot but it was well over 400 hours iirc.
oh and thanks to the battlefront 2 thing, EA has the honor of having the single lowest rated comment in reddit history by a LOT.
edit: here's the video showing a reddit post talking about how long it'd take to unlock heroes in battlefront 2 before EA cut the prices of said hereoes... and iirc the reward for beating the single player campaign by the same %. as well as talking about the comment that got them the most down votes.
Last edited:
I wouldn't go as far as banning or saying loot boxes is a form of gambling. It's the design of the loot box system that makes it a form of gambling. For example
Scenario 1: Loot boxes contain nothing but cosmetic items, and gives no advantages to anyone whether it's those who pay or play, and can be obtain regardless. Paying just means you get a higher chance to get that cool looking outfit faster than the ones who play. You might even go as far as to say well that's a stupid idea, why pay money for a small chance to get that cool looking outfit? True, but at the heart of this is, the dev's are giving something back in exchange for your support.
Scenario 2: Now lets revisit scenario 1. But the loot boxes changes from everyone being able to get that sweet outfit to only those who pay. In my opinion this is where I would consider it to being gambling. Sure it doesn't give you that sweet edge in battle, but it's no different. As there's a risk/reward in place, as only those who have the cash to fork over can only get this special outfit, and there's no way to obtain this through playtime.
The moment the game decides to start placing prices on special items only obtainable through buying their loot boxes / keys I'd say that's a form of gambling. Just like CS:GO, I'd say that's gambling. Last time I checked, there was no way of obtaining keys through playing the game.
All in all with the loot box ordeal, I'd say it falls into that gray area. Just like adult and violent games.
Scenario 1: Loot boxes contain nothing but cosmetic items, and gives no advantages to anyone whether it's those who pay or play, and can be obtain regardless. Paying just means you get a higher chance to get that cool looking outfit faster than the ones who play. You might even go as far as to say well that's a stupid idea, why pay money for a small chance to get that cool looking outfit? True, but at the heart of this is, the dev's are giving something back in exchange for your support.
Scenario 2: Now lets revisit scenario 1. But the loot boxes changes from everyone being able to get that sweet outfit to only those who pay. In my opinion this is where I would consider it to being gambling. Sure it doesn't give you that sweet edge in battle, but it's no different. As there's a risk/reward in place, as only those who have the cash to fork over can only get this special outfit, and there's no way to obtain this through playtime.
The moment the game decides to start placing prices on special items only obtainable through buying their loot boxes / keys I'd say that's a form of gambling. Just like CS:GO, I'd say that's gambling. Last time I checked, there was no way of obtaining keys through playing the game.
All in all with the loot box ordeal, I'd say it falls into that gray area. Just like adult and violent games.
- Sep 21, 2017
- 319
- 410
As soon as the game suffers from lootboxes they become something banworthy.. example D2: You pay for the game (60 Bucks) to have a playable and enjoyable product with content, stuff to do (this includes updates, Events, generally stuff you expect from any game these days for continued future entertainment) but all new loot goes in majority into the lootboxes you have to pay for additionally to those 60 Bucks you already paid if you want that "content". Additionally new content is normally given via DLC you ALSO have to pay for. That's when a game suffers.
Why not just accept that the price for videos games have gone up?
Paying $60 is like paying for the base model of a car--buying a car without any options probably results in a lackluster ride that the manufacturer didn't intend for most customers. But hey, this leaves it up to the individual consumer to make this tradeoff between experience and cost based on their individual preferences and cirumstance, while making it possible for those least willing or able to buy the options to at least get the car/game.
Paying $60 is like paying for the base model of a car--buying a car without any options probably results in a lackluster ride that the manufacturer didn't intend for most customers. But hey, this leaves it up to the individual consumer to make this tradeoff between experience and cost based on their individual preferences and cirumstance, while making it possible for those least willing or able to buy the options to at least get the car/game.