so you do agree that there is at least a difference of approach between online and physical that can alter your behavior during the betting process.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe
- Thread starter Froz3n
- Start date
so you do agree that there is at least a difference of approach between online and physical that can alter your behavior during the betting process.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Are you equating regulating casinos with the level of regulation you would like to see for loot box games?Try taking a 16 yr old into a casino in Vegas sometime. I dare ya.
I don't necessarily disagree that govt regulation isn't always the best route. But some is necessary at times to protect the public good.
Memorabilia
Member
Does anyone know the answer to that question yet? I think that's the nature of this debate, right? That's the question: How much, if any, should any given society regulate gambling mechanisms found within games?
BlitzerRadic
Member
You obviously don't know much about sports cards. There are plenty of websites that will break open a box for you and stream it so you can enjoy the dopamine rush from comfort of your own couch.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Take a stab at it. For kids, a console has parental controls that allow parents to prevent kids from buying anything without the parents input. Game boxes tell consumers that the game has in-game purchases. There isnt a way to card gamers online to check and see if they are old enough to buy an M-rated game, but again, parents can restrict M-rated games. What more would you like to see to prevent people from buying crates or coins or shards or whatever is being sold in-game to get a roll of the dice for some gear or a pink trucker hat?
Memorabilia
Member
Well, that's moving the goal-posts. If we're comparing actual, PHYSICAL card collecting vs loot-boxes then there are obvious key differences.
Also, "Streaming" a card to someone doesn't make it magically appear in that persons hand or make it actually appear in their collection at home. Unless someone invented transporter tech when I wasn't looking. So, I don't see how that actually constitutes "buying or collecting" the real card. That seems ludicrous on it's face. Lol Do these streamers pop open the packs and then rush ship the cards to people? In that specific case then yes, it has more in common with digital dopamine reinforcement techniques like loot-boxes. Even this still lacks the context, however, of a game designed from the ground up to elicit the constant reinforcement behavior. Loot-boxes are essentially Skinner-boxes shoe-horned into a game. Ever seen a mouse go nuts on a food bar? Lol
This is actually a really interesting debate, all things considered.
everyone in this thread is talking about this in absolute, everything is either black or white, the reality is that every sales technique should be investigated individually and regulated accordingly, I'm starting to think that associating lootboxes with the workd gambling was ultimately a bad idea because everyone is then drawn to these gross over generalizations.
trading card games, loot boxes, and everything else need to be regulated as separate entities because they all work in different grey areas
Memorabilia
Member
Absolutely. Agree 100%. Gambling aside, my biggest problem with loot-boxes is they necessarily change core game design. I'm not saying it cannot be done well so as to minimize the negative effects on the gameplay loop. Rather, the problem seems to be that more often than not its an abused mechanism thats shoved in as a way to make up for lack-luster sales.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Well, that's moving the goal-posts. If we're comparing actual, PHYSICAL card collecting vs loot-boxes then there are obvious key differences.
Also, "Streaming" a card to someone doesn't make it magically appear in that persons hand or make it actually appear in their collection at home. So, I fail to see how that actually constitutes buying or collecting the actual card. That seems ludicrous on it's face. Lol But...in that specific case then yes, it has more in common with digital dopamine reinforcement techniques like loot-boxes. Even this still lacks the context, however, of a game designed from the ground up to elicit the constant reinforcement behavior.
This is actually a really interesting debate, all things considered.
If you open a loot box, the item isn't in your hand either.
You own the cards if you buy into a box break. The website that did the break for you ships them to you at a later date. Or you can buy a box from anywhere and have it shipped to you and open the box yourself.
Either way the mechanic is the same, the dopamine rush is the same. I should know, I've been collecting sports cards since I was a kid. I have countless memories of being in the shop and someone bought an expensive pack of cards hoping to get that $100 rare card only to get a bunch of commons. Like seriously, how is that any different from opening a loot box?
Memorabilia
Member
That's good to know and learn. Thanks for sharing that.
I collected a lot of football and basketball cards (and comic books) as a kid. But that was in the mid to late 90s before these techniques were added to the sales loop.So, I guess the logical next question is: What percentage of card collecting is done this way vs the old fashioned way? Do most kids watch Youtube video pack openings rather than go to an actual store?
The skinner/loot box hidden within a game is more insidious. But I can see how digital unpacking could be addictive as well. I guess the question is, does the existence of addictive digital card unpacking make it ok for companies to implement addictive skinner boxes into their games? Should either or both be regulated?
LordRaptor
Member
You can make people relaxed and more comfortable with spending money- for example clocks are generally not found inside a casino so people do not reaslise how much time has passed - in a specific real world environment, but people who have no interest in gambling generally do not go to casinos in the first place.
As for making an environment conducive to spending money - thats retail. All retail.
Thats why supermarkets put the fresh produce at the front of the store, the deals they want to offload on the aisles and the impulse purchases at the queues for the tills, and all the other sinister psychological predatory techniques to induce sales.
This is unrelated to lootcrates being blind buys and not gambling, regardless of the physicaly location that you are playing a game in though.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
agree 100%
BlitzerRadic
Member
That's good to know and learn. Thanks for sharing that.
90's is when card companies first started adding rare foil/refractor/autograph etc. cards to the mix. IMO, this when buying packs and boxes really took off because the cost to buy these rare cards outright was insane. As a kid, the only way I could ever hope to get any of these cards was to save my money and get them out of a pack.
No idea, but box breaking is very popular now because it mitigates risk of buying an entire expensive box. Plus, its fun to see what other people are pulling out of their packs.
IMO, the loot box "problem" is only a problem because people have no self control or cant control their children as the items have no real world value. Physical cards are more addictive because they can be sold. People will rationalize buying more boxes because if they get cards of value they can sell it to make back the money they already spent, which just digs them deeper into the hole at a slower rate.
but do you agree that an online environment can also be made conducive to spending in a unique way by utilizing different methods that can be too incredibly effective? don't you think that even if some of those practices can't be considered full blown "gambling" they are still potentially dangerous and people would benefit from regulation?
LordRaptor
Member
There are gambling websites, but they do not ape the aesthetic of titles like Battlefront; because that aesthetic is very specifically targeted at a specific demographic.
Most gambling websites are populated by what are basically poor mans 360 avatars or miis, because those hold more mass appeal to the general public.
You also do not have to try very hard to get people to gamble - gambling is fun, and if you are a winner you get the tangible reward of free money. There aren't any additional 'tricks' that can be used than a casino is already using, and someone who logs onto a gambling site to, I dunno, play a couple of games of Bingo or Texas Hold'em while they wait for dinner or whatever is going to play a few games then log out.
People with gambling problems are less than 5% of the population, and gambling regulations exist to keep games 'fair', not to try and prevent people gambling.
But then I wonder how loose these regulations are? Mobile games surely don't have strict regulations, does that mean we will have double standards pertaining gambling in video games when it comes to console and portable/mobile games? It seems silly to suggest, but I'd say games should be regulated by the same standards as casinos if both have gambling - and then the companies behind these games should be taxed on their gambling revenue the same as casinos etc
LordRaptor
Member
Because lootboxes are not widely considered to be gambling, they are considered to be blind purchases - exactly like trading cards.
That is literally why they are not regulated as gambling.
Belgium obviously decided differently to how most every other jurisprudence in the world categorises this, so we'll see how that goes.
AdmiralMikey
Member
Video game prices have been due to go up for a long time. The new standard of $60 was set when the Xbox 360 launched in 2005 and that standard hasn't changed. Some publishers have experimented with higher quality titles at lower prices, like Ninja Theory's Hellblade at a price of $30, but overall games shouldn't be pidgeonholed into a standard $60.
For some publishers, $60 clearly isn't enough, and that's OK. Not all games are created equal and since the cost of developing some games has gone up, then the base price can go up to match development costs. I think that's a better solution than publishers trying to find clever ways to rip off of free-to-play game models to take that $60 from you up front and then continue to try to bilk you of more money for months/years afterwards.
For some publishers, $60 clearly isn't enough, and that's OK. Not all games are created equal and since the cost of developing some games has gone up, then the base price can go up to match development costs. I think that's a better solution than publishers trying to find clever ways to rip off of free-to-play game models to take that $60 from you up front and then continue to try to bilk you of more money for months/years afterwards.
keep games "fair"? in gambling? I don't think fairness is the right word to describe any form of regulated or unregulated gambling, they are unfair by definition, making gambling fair would mean giving every game a 50/50 chance instead of the skewed probabilities in favor of the dealer, the majority of regulations exist to contain gambling so that you have greater control over who should and shouldn't gamble. regulations are not there to prevent people that meet the required criteria from gambling, but they do attempt to stop people that DON'T meet those criteria.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes. Fair as in 'not crooked'.
As in the winners of a hand are not friends of the dealer.
Or if everyone bets on Black the wheel doesn't automatically stop on Red.
Everyone knows that the house always wins longterm. That's not the point.
There's nothing wrong with those lootboxes. It's progression hindering and P2W boxes that ARE the problem. Unfortunately, the mob took the general scope of things as in all boxes because they felt that's the only way to do it, instead of focusing on the bad boxes.
This is coming from someone who has spent thousands over the years on F2P games.
Xist2inspire
Member
I'm honestly having a hard time understanding the outrage about lootboxes, especially when a lot of the loudest arguments against them sound eerily similar to the old "violent games make people violent!" issue. That brought about regulation of course, but nowadays it's obvious that:
1) Those regulations (ESRB ratings) did absolutely nothing in the long run as far as violent games making their way into kids' hands, as (surprise) it's ultimately up to adults to be responsible in order for that to happen. Oh, and the industry continued to make whatever the hell it wanted to make, leading to today's largely mature-focused mainstream gaming market, which is far less kid-friendly than it was back then.
2) The effect of violent games on our youth doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bad as the vocal critics had led us to believe. So maybe cooler heads would have prevailed after all?
I just don't get how arguments against violence in video games lead to a deluge of "We have the ESRB, it's the parents' job to be aware of what their kids play!" and "Well I played violent games/watched violent movies when I was a kid, and I'm fine!" comments, yet when lootboxes are brought up, you then hear things like "Companies shouldn't be selling this stuff directly to kids!" and "You're going to turn people, and especially kids, into gambling addicts!" It's almost like the issue isn't the actual issue itself, it's the effects on the things that (primarily adult) gamers like. The outcry against violence in games could lead to less mature-focused games, so "Boooo." The outcry against lootboxes could lead to gamers getting access to content that they, fairly or unfairly, feel has been denied them, so "Yaaaaay!"
I agree that lootboxes need to be looked at and tweaked a bit, maybe even a lot, but the outcry against them has been bordering on ridiculous for a while now, and I don't think it'll have the results the detractors are hoping for...unless they're fine with ESRB Ratings-esque band-aid "regulations," and if that's the case, then a lot of people really need to calm down if that's all it'll take to satisfy them.
1) Those regulations (ESRB ratings) did absolutely nothing in the long run as far as violent games making their way into kids' hands, as (surprise) it's ultimately up to adults to be responsible in order for that to happen. Oh, and the industry continued to make whatever the hell it wanted to make, leading to today's largely mature-focused mainstream gaming market, which is far less kid-friendly than it was back then.
2) The effect of violent games on our youth doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bad as the vocal critics had led us to believe. So maybe cooler heads would have prevailed after all?
I just don't get how arguments against violence in video games lead to a deluge of "We have the ESRB, it's the parents' job to be aware of what their kids play!" and "Well I played violent games/watched violent movies when I was a kid, and I'm fine!" comments, yet when lootboxes are brought up, you then hear things like "Companies shouldn't be selling this stuff directly to kids!" and "You're going to turn people, and especially kids, into gambling addicts!" It's almost like the issue isn't the actual issue itself, it's the effects on the things that (primarily adult) gamers like. The outcry against violence in games could lead to less mature-focused games, so "Boooo." The outcry against lootboxes could lead to gamers getting access to content that they, fairly or unfairly, feel has been denied them, so "Yaaaaay!"
I agree that lootboxes need to be looked at and tweaked a bit, maybe even a lot, but the outcry against them has been bordering on ridiculous for a while now, and I don't think it'll have the results the detractors are hoping for...unless they're fine with ESRB Ratings-esque band-aid "regulations," and if that's the case, then a lot of people really need to calm down if that's all it'll take to satisfy them.
so you don't think that regulations that help keep minors away from addicting and predatory systems are necessary?
LordRaptor
Member
You're right, but as with any bandwagon, the people jumping aboard have disparate motivations.
There are absolutely people decrying all lootboxes as evil personified because like Veruca Salt they want specific thing right now! and fuck you and anyone else who tells them they can't have exactly what they want exactly how they want it
you need to define what exactly you mean by addicting and predatory systems, because thats videogames in general.
Try taking a videogame away from a kid while they're mid game and meltdown ensues.
videogames in general don't always have "create the most addicting system" as their goal, unless you think that creating an enjoyable experience is the same thing, (which i do not). if all videogames are addictive and predatory in nature then so are sports which are structured in a similar way to videogames and reward your brain in a similar way.
You speak like videogames are intrinsically predatory no matter how they're built, which is not true, games like What Remains of Edith Finch or Ico(extreme example to make a point) are non designed to be predatory and milk you of your money through manipulation of the brain' reward system, they are created to tell a story in an immersive and interactive way. arcade games like metal slugs on the other hand are specifically designed to be addicting and they predate on your money and psyche.
I think we need regulations on who should have access to the latter type of games.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Loot boxes are the digital evolution of baseball cards which have existed for decades with no regulation, no complaints. I've spent thousands of dollars on baseball cards and there are plenty of people like myself who have spent as much and a lot more.
the fact that it existed for a long time with no complaints doesn't mean that it can't create harmful addiction and have long term negative effects on the psyche of developing minds, to be fair i don't know for sure too if they do or if they do not but the signs are there, patterns are similar to other proven dangerous practises, so I at the very least ask for investigation to better understand how these games(whether digital or physical) can negatively impact young minds, the problem is that nobody asked these questions before, it seems like we are starting now(even if in a rather chaotic and disorganized way) and to me that's ultimately a good thing.
LordRaptor
Member
I personally do not think it is a governments job - or anybodies really - to regulate access to games based on genre and not content.
Saying minors should not be able to play a game containing graphic sexual or violent content is a vastly different proposition to saying minors should not be allowed to play RPGs, or arcade games.
when i talked about arcade games i was specifically referring to arcade machines, which metal slug, the game that i mentioned, was designed for. Also i wasn't necessarily asking for regulations genre wide, but there is a difference in potentially negative influence between an rpg like mass effect 2 and an rpg like wow and I would argue that even if the visual content of wow is harmless to minors it still should be allowed to be played only by adults, because of the vastly more complex and effective structures of addiction built into the gameplay (one of the reason for this is that the game wants your money every month).
Regulation should be done on a game by game basis like the ESRB and PEGI are already doing, but should also be enforced better both online and at retail with deeper investigation into the function and goal of the game and not just its content.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Baseball cards are a physical item. In the past we could trade them or hold on to them. To me they had value. What value is there in loot boxes other than to compensate for poor game design?
Can't a treasure chest in lets say Zelda count as a box of loot?
Where do you draw the line? Banning it all would be shit. Kind of like censorship.
I'm all for purchasable loot boxes being banned and removed. Other ones like in for example Borderlands seem to be acceptable by people. Because they're free I wonder? It's a shitty design having thousands of random guns (all uninspiring and generic) in loot crates like in B2 if you ask me, but that game didn't get any shit for having it?
Where do you draw the line? Banning it all would be shit. Kind of like censorship.
I'm all for purchasable loot boxes being banned and removed. Other ones like in for example Borderlands seem to be acceptable by people. Because they're free I wonder? It's a shitty design having thousands of random guns (all uninspiring and generic) in loot crates like in B2 if you ask me, but that game didn't get any shit for having it?
TacoMasters
Member
Loot Boxes aren't necessarily gambling, so I don't understand the push for this. Seems like a waste of time for something that holds no real value...
You and others with this sentiment need to ask yourselves why can't devs sell you the content directly? Why not sell the skin itself instead of stuffing it in a crate with other random stuff that goes from a 100% chance of obtaining to now a 5% chance of getting, and that's if the devs aren't manipulating the odds on the fly.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
China has new laws that forces developers to reveal those odds. Is that good enough?
The way I see it free to play models could excuse this poor design choice but in AAA games there should be some consumer protection put in place.
Tevious
Member
OuterLimits
Member
I have more sympathy for the gambling addicts I see at convenience stores scratching away on a giant pile of lottery tickets. Seriously, in my state of Virginia they are selling $30 fucking scratch tickets now. Years ago when it started, they only offered $1 tickets.
So if the Virginia state government ever starts crying about loot boxes preying on those with gambling addictions, they can fuck right off.
I wouldn't be against making games with loot boxes M rated though. Parents should also make sure 12 year old Johnny doesn't have their credit card.
So if the Virginia state government ever starts crying about loot boxes preying on those with gambling addictions, they can fuck right off.
I wouldn't be against making games with loot boxes M rated though. Parents should also make sure 12 year old Johnny doesn't have their credit card.
Tarin02543
Member
EA are scumbags.
mokalovesoulmate
Member
I have a question.
Do you guys agree with:
1) Multiplayer-focused game: initial price start at $120. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. Free 4 expansions (new maps?) per 3 months, so the game is supported with new contents and updates for throughout 1 year, or more with bugfixes. Contents through expansions also obtainable via normal progression. Digital-only game and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $90. The game's price will be fixed between $120 and $90. Matchmaking servers set for 20 years.
2) Single-player only game: initial price start at $100. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. Free 2 story expansions per 3 or more months. so the game is supported with new contents and updates for at least 1 year. Contents through expansions also obtainable via normal progression. (Think this scheme as HZD but unfortunately HZD only have 1 expansion, lol). Digital-only games and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $70. The game's price will be fixed between $100 and $70.
3) Single-player only game: initial price start at $60. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. No story expansions either but the game will be supported through bugfixes. (Think this scheme as HZD but no frozen wilds). Digital-only games and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $40. The game's price will be fixed between $60 and $40. If the game is too good for most gamers and asked for expansion, the 1 expansion would be $20 and never discounted.
Those are for AAA games and publishers. No more in-the-middle monetisation.
What do you think? Suggestion are welcome but please no consumer rage.
Do you guys agree with:
1) Multiplayer-focused game: initial price start at $120. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. Free 4 expansions (new maps?) per 3 months, so the game is supported with new contents and updates for throughout 1 year, or more with bugfixes. Contents through expansions also obtainable via normal progression. Digital-only game and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $90. The game's price will be fixed between $120 and $90. Matchmaking servers set for 20 years.
2) Single-player only game: initial price start at $100. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. Free 2 story expansions per 3 or more months. so the game is supported with new contents and updates for at least 1 year. Contents through expansions also obtainable via normal progression. (Think this scheme as HZD but unfortunately HZD only have 1 expansion, lol). Digital-only games and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $70. The game's price will be fixed between $100 and $70.
3) Single-player only game: initial price start at $60. No season pass. No microtransaction. No lootbox/similar. No story expansions either but the game will be supported through bugfixes. (Think this scheme as HZD but no frozen wilds). Digital-only games and will not be discounted for at least 1 year. The game would be discounted on specific seasons: new years, holiday, but the game would be discounted into maximum $40. The game's price will be fixed between $60 and $40. If the game is too good for most gamers and asked for expansion, the 1 expansion would be $20 and never discounted.
Those are for AAA games and publishers. No more in-the-middle monetisation.
What do you think? Suggestion are welcome but please no consumer rage.
CadetMahoney
Member
Also they think the "gambling" definition is some rock solid thing that can't change.
Japan already has a model where things that clearly aren't gambling (or close to it) are still regulated under "gambling laws". Namely no money winnings for games of pure skill (streetfighter arcade tournaments for example).
LordRaptor
Member
I mean.... if your concern is the use of psychology to make things appealing being accessed by minors, then you inherently are asking for certain genres to be forbidden.
and I can't get behind that.
I'm fine with regulations making probabilities of lootcrate drops be openly displayed.
It literally won't change anything.
That's why I'm hugely sceptical that that is what the anti-lootcrate brigade actually want, or that that being the end result will satisfy them in any way.
using psychology to simply make things appealing and using psychology to make things addicting in a predatory way are 2 very different things, RNG loot in mmos like wow uses the psychology of games of chance(which is one of the main components of gambling) to keep people playing because they always hope for more, which I consider predatory in nature. fixed mission rewards in standard rpgs use the psychology of a promised reward after a challenge which motivate and enhance the feeling of accomplishment and it still keeps people playing but I don't consider that predatory because it doesn't train the brain to seek forms of play that take your sense of satisfaction hostage and put it in the hands of pure chance, which can lead into actual, more dangerous gambling later on, especially if you're exposed to these forms of play at a very young age.
Memorabilia
Member
But that's not how addiction reinforcement works. Addiction is based on a dopamine cycle that can be cranked to max FREQUENCY in instant online only transactions. The physical aspect was never "addictive" to me, for example outside of some nebulous idea of "completing a collection". The dopamine payoff of acquisition was much too slow to really have any effect on me. And it's much too slow to compare to this fully digital stuff in general.
To your other point, this goes way beyond "self control". Everyone's biology is different and everyone has a different tolerance for dopamine release before it becomes "addictive". Just like some people can take one drink or snort and be an alcoholic or coke-head... While others can drink like a fish and snort half the coke in Columbia and not get addicted.
Youtubed pack/box breaks do sound like they've changed things for the worse. But I still don't see how this compares with installing insta-skinner boxes within a game designed to keep you playing so that you interact with more skinner boxes. I never sat in a card or comic book store for 4, 6, 8, 10 hours just opening card packs. But I can easily imagine millions of gamers spending that period of time in marathon gaming sessions being exposed to insta-purchase lootboxes.
Im sure that watching a Youtube unveiling of a box of cards is addictive to a degree, but you can't honestly say with a straight face that the dopamine rush is as consistently/repetitively reinforced as in many of the worst offending mobile progenitors that EA aped the design from in order to create this lootbox system within BF2.
It may be splitting hairs as many would consider "addictive" is "addictive". And I dont disagree there's something addictive about collecting cards or comic books (at least with comic books back in the day, you knew exactly what you were buying). But it isn't the physical aspect that makes it so. It's the speed and ease and consistency of *repeated* transactions... How many times in a given period of time can that "What am I going to get?" rush be instilled? If anything, collecting physical items is arguably a positive in that at least the buyer has something tangible to show for his/her money (which may appreciate in value...I can't believe what some of my old cards are worth... It's ridiculous...!). And acquiring physical items actually SLOWS that addictive dopamine feedback cycle.
People who defend this shit really need to ask themselves WHY devs/publishers don't simply sell you items that you want? Like using a comic book instead of sports card sales model....
LordRaptor
Member
Because ongoing revenue is better than single purchase revenue.
It is the reason why mobile carriers subsidise your phone, and it is the reason why most productivity software is moving to subscription based and not purchase based.
Memorabilia
Member
But deliberately addictive sales systems like lootboxes aren't the same as relatively innocuous subsidized phones or subscription apps (yeah, I get that you're trying to conflate these models so that we'll look at lootboxes as just another way the "poor corporations" have to do biz to keep the lights on).
And not that it matters to this discussion, but I dont have a subsidized phone. Never have, never will. Straight cash unlocked, baby. And I'll never use a sub-based word processor. No thanks.