Draugoth
Gold Member
Overwatch dropping paid loot boxes this month
Overwatch players will no longer be able to buy loot boxes after August 30, Blizzard has confirmed. While paid loot box…
www.gamesindustry.biz
-
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.
www.gamesindustry.biz
Trogdor1123
Member
Except you can trade the real cards and they stay in your possession until you want to get rid of them.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
This only states lootboxes for overwatch 1... I suspect what they mean is they don't want anyone getting any of the new loot rotation for overwatch 2 by saving loot boxes up before 2 launches.
If they are dropping it completely great, but there is no mention of not using Lootboxes for overwatch 2.
ManaByte
Member
No the article says they're facing a lawsuit over Hearthstone packs. Which like I said doesn't make sense because then you'll have to sue every trading card manufacturer on the planet and outlaw them being sold in packs in stores.
Moonjt9
Member
Physical items are different than digital items that don’t actually exist.
ManaByte
Member
When you open a pack of baseball or MTG cards, you don't know what you're getting. It's the same type of "gambling" people are claiming digital card packs are.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
Ah sorry thought it was more in line with how that might effect loot boxes in Overwatch 2.
Then essentially... yes as an outcome it could happen, at least to the digital versions of these games.
However physical items and digitally held items are two diffrent thing's it's kind of what the idea behind NFT's tried to solve before it was warped into a money making scam very quickly.
Essentially a physical item and a digital item are treated completely differently, for example there's a game called second life where people can sell me a digital home, does that have the same legal application as if I bought real property? The answer is of course no and the same thing applies to digital trading cards because their not real. The ability to physically hold something in your hand goes a long way.
So the fallout is that it would make sense to directly effect other digital versions of card games, but have no effect on the physical side of the business, it would need further cases directly against that side of the business to make any change there.
But as an easy alternative... they could just move to prebuilt deck packs rather than RNG card packs, people buy those all the time when I used to work in retail, often selling out far quicker than the little booster packs, always some kid wanting the latest championship deck with a shiny EX whatever on the front.
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Member
Kind of but you can still trade and maintain ownership outside of others control. It is only similar.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
wipeout364
Member
The article says paid loot boxes will not be in Overwatch 2. Interestingly it says Overwatch 1 will no longer be playable after Overwatch 2 launches.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
This was known.
They announced that a while ago.
No paid lootboxes in OW2 and no Overewatch after OW2 launches.
But its still weird that they would force EOL a title that still has a lot of players.
If it was F2P I would understand but Overwatch costs money.
They are banning you from playing a game you paid for even if its still alive.
From a business standpoint I understand, they want everyone to migrate to Overwatch 2......still kinda scummy.
SCB3
Member
And it doesn’t fit the definition of gambling, to me gambling means you can lose what you put it, with loot boxes and TCG you always get something
Tbh Overwatch is the best version of lootboxes tbh earn able and purely cosmetic
Heimdall_Xtreme
Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
Overwatch 2 is a Huge Mistake
ManaByte
Member
All of the OW1 maps are in OW2. So I don't really see the problem.
ManaByte
Member
Angel of BOOM!
Member
Basically this. And the argument cannot really be made that one is virtual and the other is physical because - using that logic - they could be sued for selling anything in game (even using direct money to buy something). Hey, let's sue Apple for selling "virtual" games on their app store...
The real reason why they are being sued is because they're virtual loot boxes; not just because they're virtual. Oh, they're probably also being sued because they're Activision and - in a litigious society - going after the ones with all the monizes is the thing to do.
IWasInSeinfeld
Member
Now I am actually scared.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
To be fair I believe this is one of the games Microsoft are using as prime example that the merger can go ahead because Activision Blizzard don't produce anything of consequence.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
The problem is I have to buy access to play them again.
I can still play old cods that has the same maps as the remastered versions.
None of my cods are obsolete.
Ow1 is a tile filler wasted in my library
rubenburgt
Member
It doesn't matter if the game has lootboxes or not, the game will remain shit.
Terrible balancing, no communication and greedy practices.
I give this game 3 months max, and that's me being very optimistic.
Terrible balancing, no communication and greedy practices.
I give this game 3 months max, and that's me being very optimistic.
01011001
Banned
? you are aware that Overwatch 2 is free 2 play right?
ManaByte
Member
No, OW2 was always going to use a battle pass and optional $25/$45 skins.
Heimdall_Xtreme
Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
I have a feeling that Overwatch 2 will be a video game that will be talked about a lot, because of how bad it will be.
It has had too many problems since early development of the game was leaked, along with controversy.
I definitely have a feeling that it will be much lower than the first.
It has had too many problems since early development of the game was leaked, along with controversy.
I definitely have a feeling that it will be much lower than the first.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Whoops no I wasn't
Cyberpunkd
Member
That’s the thing - with physical you get something tangible you can sell or trade, with digital cards you do not. It’s just replicable pixel art.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
getting tradable and tangible things makes it arguably more similar to gambling than most loot boxes
stuff like CS:GO are an exception here since you can trade that stuff
Last edited:
hemo memo
Gold Member
Fool me once.
Cert.in.Death
Member
How AB deployed lootboxes in OW was the least controversial method of the practice. Early-on there were issues, but they readily addressed and fixed them (duplication rates, odds, etc.).
Despite not constituting gambling, they can be viewed as predatory, particularly when they're aware that a large amount of their player base is within the 12-17 years range. That is a problem AB does not need on its plate, plus I believe that even they recognize that the whales will bypass spending money on lootboxes if there is a time-based earning equivalent (my mind jumps to certain streamers who had thousands of unopened lootboxes for the hell of it). So the model only targeted those who wanted keep pace with the playing segment of the community, a demographic that rapidly disappeared as the game aged.
Despite not constituting gambling, they can be viewed as predatory, particularly when they're aware that a large amount of their player base is within the 12-17 years range. That is a problem AB does not need on its plate, plus I believe that even they recognize that the whales will bypass spending money on lootboxes if there is a time-based earning equivalent (my mind jumps to certain streamers who had thousands of unopened lootboxes for the hell of it). So the model only targeted those who wanted keep pace with the playing segment of the community, a demographic that rapidly disappeared as the game aged.
PaddyOCanager
Member
People have sued and courts have already acknowledged that card packs are gambling. However, the issue is that until now, plaintiffs didn't have standing. You have to prove a sufficient connection to harm or damages and that threshold hasn't been met yet.
These companies have been playing with fire and pushing the envelope more and more. The more predatory they get, the greater chance a plaintiff is going to be able to prove harm.
ManaByte
Member
Citation needed, couldn't find any proof of court cases stating that.
PaddyOCanager
Member
Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 967 F. Supp. 405 (S.D. Cal. 1997)
Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 967 F. Supp. 405 (S.D. Cal. 1997) case opinion from the US District Court for the Southern District of California
law.justia.com
This case established the 3 elements for gambling in regards to "chase" cards under NY and NJ law.
ManaByte
Member
Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 967 F. Supp. 405 (S.D. Cal. 1997)
Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 967 F. Supp. 405 (S.D. Cal. 1997) case opinion from the US District Court for the Southern District of California
This case established the 3 elements for gambling in regards to "chase" cards under NY and NJ law.
That's specifically about chase cards (like the rare autograph cards), not the packs themselves.
The suit is because they did not publish odds. Baseball/Basketball and Football cards print the odds in the small print.
Last edited:
PaddyOCanager
Member
What? The case was about packs containing chase cards. WOTC includes "chase" cards all the time in their premium pack offerings, but no one is going to be able to prove standing in a case against them either. Doesn't mean it isn't gambling.
Barakov
Member
There's no pls here. They're forcing to switch to the sequel which kinda sucks.
01011001
Banned
I think they said there will be at least a classic mode available as a side thing
NewChoppa
Banned
IIRC they said they'd be bringing in a 6v6 mode which'd be similar to how OW1 is right now, they just wouldn't be balancing around it
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
DragonNCM
Member
You are right my friend, it will be bad for us......but you missing other point....it will be good for Blizzard
AREYOUOKAY?
Member
This kind of sucks because battle passes or straight up buying a single item for $20-50 is far far worse. At least in Overwatch 1 you could get as many loot boxes as you want for free.
Last edited:
LRKD
Member
This sucks! Overwatch 1 actually had a really good lootbox system tbh. Buying lootboxes is cringe, but the way overwatch 1 worked you never felt the need to buy skins, just play the game enough and save up some gold from free loot boxes and you could get all the skins you wanted.
I have no faith that they'll somehow do it better in Overwatch 2, especially after that survey asking players about $50 skins. Also really shit to force players into overwatch 2, it's gonna be a totally different game, and it sucks to lose access to the original.
I have no faith that they'll somehow do it better in Overwatch 2, especially after that survey asking players about $50 skins. Also really shit to force players into overwatch 2, it's gonna be a totally different game, and it sucks to lose access to the original.