The odds is definitely the biggest thing for me. After that thread the other day talking about... "dynamic" crate contents, the fact we have no transparency that there's any randomness involved at all was brought into stark relief for me.
-
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.
Kotaku: (Cosmetic & Game-related) Loot Boxes Are Designed To Exploit Us
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
The odds is definitely the biggest thing for me. After that thread the other day talking about... "dynamic" crate contents, the fact we have no transparency that there's any randomness involved at all was brought into stark relief for me.
Right, I see what you mean. I highly doubt that the current trajectory of things is one of apathy though
"Made buyable individually" would fall apart unless they were priced insanely high. There would literally be no point to have purchaseable loot boxes (not a bad thing mind you) if you could get something for 5 bucks. Realistically, direct purchases would need to be limited in some way to not invalidate the point of lootboxes, insidious or otherwise.
Something like a once-a-month pick that resets at the start of every month, or if lootbox pulls had some kind of ceiling, e.g. pulling <some arbitrary number here> times let you pick whatever you want.
I think this is a fundamental point.
Surely 'like' is highly subjective, especially when we are talking about things that are supposed to be compulsive and engineered in such a way that they become pure physcological hooks.
People might be driven to do these things, rather than like them.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
There are F2P mechanics in premium games with season passes and many are pay 2 win. To add insult to injury its not enough just to have microtransactions, they hide them behind predatory lootboxes and theres literally zero regulation right now.
That's the issue.
Brotherhood93
Member
Think this is one of the points the author was addressing in her tweets that just because you don't care about cosmetics it doesn't mean everybody else feels the same way and it is just as exploitative to people who do care as gameplay-affecting items.
I've said in the past that I don't care if all lootboxes contain is cosmetic items because I have and never will care about what my character looks like that much but I realise this is pretty selfish of me. It's a bit like me saying I don't care about lootboxes in Battlefront 2 because I'm not going to play it. Your point is also slightly irrelevant because these games aren't charging $40 instead of $60.
Loot boxes have been around in MMO's for quite a while, and back when I played SWTOR I knew a good few people who spent thousands on loot crates in those. They had cosmetics/mounts etc.
Just because it's cosmetic stuff, it doesn't change things for everyone. Some people really like cosmetics.
angelic
Banned
It's like we're making our way back to Dungeon Keeper mobile levels of slowing down player progression (until you pay). I used to enjoy 2x weekends, now I feel like progress is 1/4 of what it should be, and 2x weekends bring it up to half what it should be.
Playing a week of snes mini without any games trying to sell me shit has been a real treat.
Chairmanchuck
Member
For a lot of game the customization is pretty big.
Dark Souls e.g. or even Skyrim or Fallout, even though you barely see your character.
I don't think this would really work. People can want shortcuts for anything, for a myriad of reasons. Even a game where you level up real fast, people would still want the 2x XP boost to level up faster than that. Unless you keep trimming leveling up times till they're pretty much instant, you're never getting rid of this, so you shouldn't really consider when designing your game
irrotational
Member
I think the point is in the original tweets. A lot of people just say "I don't buy them, so it's fine" completely missing the point that some people are just wired differently and *cant* avoid them. Either they're unaware or they have the implied belief that the "addicts" are weak willed and should just make better choices.
There is an analogy with troubleshooting posts where some people always pop in and say they're fine.. Which does nothing to help the troubleshooter except make them feel worse that their situation is broken. At best its tone deafness to other people's problems.
ever grinded a korean mmo
I mean, the comparison here (and where the contention of the term 'gloating' comes from) is that they're talking about a game system in the thread about the game. That'd be similar to posting "game runs great!" in an OT.
Someone posting in this thread for example that they're whaling and fine with it, yes, that'd be gloating and analogous to posting "got mine f u" in a troubleshooting thread.
At that point, isn't it a distinction without a difference, though? Games are supposed to be fun and addictive, inherently that was how games started out in arcades and we've wrapped back around to with micro transactions.
I just can't get to the point of "economic violence" (lol) that they're calling out. We ultimately have tons of choices in gaming and can vote with our wallets. Unless you actually have hard evidence that there's some higher percentage of people getting ruined by these games than normal gambling I don't see any way you can justify banning the practice.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I honestly dont think the answer is as clear cut as you think. I mean, people might instinctively think that a system where they buy the skin they want directly for a set amount is more fair, but I dont necessarily think theyd find such a system as fun.
angelic
Banned
I like the loop when it's fun and free. I dont like it when a single gun costs 600 scrap, and I get 30 scrap per hour.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Out of curiosity, do you think Activision would hand out their whale data just for fun? Or do you think they would have to be legally obligated to show it?
I'm going to go on a limb here and say that they'll keep that data to themselves if they have the choice.
yes, Lineage. i remember the grinding being a big part of the appeal of it even.
That's not my point. I play mobile games as well, in some of them i can get to lvl 50 in two hours or less, and they still offer xp boost MTs anyway. you can always exploit the desire of people to end their games faster.
To corroborate that, I point to people who recreationally play games like Poker with buddies without actual money stakes. Plenty of people enjoy the chance of something, regardless. I suspect even if you could get exactly what you want for the same price as a random roll, the random rolls would still make a good chunk of change.
They won't be, at least in their current format, you always get something for your money, there is no risk of losing anything.
GHG
Gold Member
Apart from your money/in game credits.
If anything, I feel like regulation should exist not as gambling but simply for what they are. How that'd work with the myriad countries and legislation in which games operate, that's a problem someone way smarter than me would have to float an answer for.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I honestly feel like people have not thought this through. This sort of design philosophy has been permeating tons of product development over about a century. Focusing on addictive properties is frankly a loser argument in my mind. Focusing on how addictive aspects cause harm could be fruitful, but I think we need better human interest stories on the extent to which specific people are harmed, and at least some attempt to quantify how widespread this devastation is.
This is a good point. There's no chasing the big payoff that will set you back to the starting point financially, only diminishing returns in the form of increasing duplicates.
Brotherhood93
Member
I'm not sure I understand your argument here though. I reckon if we saw the amount of money some people spend on lootboxes it would be eye-opening but we're never going to see those figures, I don't even want to know how much money people spend on FIFA UT packs.
Also, if we take your example of $100 p/m, that could still be a very significant amount of a person's money if they're in a low-income job or unemployed. It seems like you agree that the system is using methods of exploitation, is that not enough to fight back against it? I'd say if people are being manipulated into spending more money on things than they are worth (and I know that's a difficult thing to judge when talking about digital items) then there is a problem.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
Most of the public don't read gaming sites
ArkhamFantasy
Member
How are we suppose to get this data again? I've asked this question 3 times and nobody has answered. Why would Activision give this data up voluntarily?
Alexander DeLarge
Member
"Gambling is accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing any game of chance, for money or other thing of value."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/
So the only way it's not considered gambling is if you're unable to outright buy the cosmetic/in game item because that would be attaching a value to it?
Some of these items have a value of hundreds of dollars on various online marketplaces.
That doesn't really matter to my point. If your entire evidence that loot boxes are disproportionately damaging is anecdotal, you can't present a strong argument. Of course Activision isn't interested in releasing financial details on its player base.
The article is basically an addict saying that it's the responsibility of everyone else but themselves to do something to help them, and that doesn't sit right with me in the absence of any qualitative research.
Why would activision even have that data to begin with? Sure, they can check who spent one billion dollars in MTs the past month, but they have no way of checking if that person had enough money to spend that cash and still be fine or if they took loans to cover their lootbox addiction and now are being evicted of their homes for it
A publisher wouldn't necessarily have information on the motivation with which people spend, only how spending data reacts to variations in business models.
On that note, I don't think a publishers would necessarily have a survey along the lines of 'do you spend impulsively?' or 'can you actually afford what you're spending?'. That'd seems to me like it should be the domain of a neutral third party.
edit: beaten
Steve Youngblood
Member
If people are out there being thrown out of their apartments/houses because they gambled their life savings on Overwatch loot boxes, you think that they are out there in hiding refusing to talk?
Hey, Im writing a human interest piece for NeoGAF.com about victims of whaling practices. If you or anyone you know has suffered, let me know.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
Even then it'd need to be implemented competitively because they're up against games that I've played for hundreds of hours and haven't ever felt like I was being pressured into spending a dime. Warframe, Guild Wars 2's base game (outside of the paid expansion packs), Planetside 2 and even something like Dota are excellent examples of free2play done right.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
They can show researchers, regulators, the government, etc. Who these people are. And to be honest, they probably know how much money they make with the amount of data they have on consumers nowadays.
they did it like 4 months ago
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Or just let them buy exactly what they want, like Titanfall 2.
Sure, $100/month might be way more than someone ought to be spending on a game. But then the question is whether the game is particularly bad about this. Like, lots of people spend more than they can afford on their hobbies. Generally the people making money off of those hobbies have thought about what they can do to make giving them money be as appealing as possible. Some people collect sneakers, which can be pretty expensive but which are often manufactured very cheaply, and the companies making them often go to some trouble to exploit certain psychological tendencies of their target market. Practically the whole point of advertisements of any sort is to trick people into wanting and buying stuff.
Like I said, it just seems to me that the standard justification for regulating gambling has to do with just how much harm it otherwise could do. It is not clear to me that games with loot boxes are particularly more harmful than most other hobbies.
FWIW, from time to time, we've definitely seen posters on the myriad gacha game OTs on GAF obviously spending a little more than they could really afford to on entertainment. Response has almost always been 'seek help', but I agree there needs to be some definite, qualitative and quantitative surveying done if legislation is to begin to get anywhere with this.
backflip10019
Member
Do lootboxes prey on people with addiction issues? Likely yes.
Have they ever ruined anyone financially and made them lose their house? Likely no.
It's a complicated issue but phrases like "economic violence" are completely hyperbolic.
Have they ever ruined anyone financially and made them lose their house? Likely no.
It's a complicated issue but phrases like "economic violence" are completely hyperbolic.
That's why they don't want a F2P mode, releasing a F2P game is riskier, they can recoup the costs at launch week with a full retail release, even if their microtransactions system fails.
Essentially, they want the benefits of F2P without the risks that come with that model
To be fair, it's GAF. We see people spending more than they otherwise should be spending on all kinds of gaming products.
They removed duplicates? Good to know, not sure if I want to go back after getting screwed over so much, but I'm happy they improved the loot boxes.
Very good article. While I haven't spent thousands, I must've put around 100 euro total in gacha games, mostly in Dragon Ball, One Piece and Fire Emblem Heroes. There even was a time where I thought gacha games were fun, and I was actively looking for 'good' ones. I believe there's even a general thread on GAF about gacha games, meaning there are plenty of people who are attracted to these kinds of games because of what they are: gacha games.
And that in itself is a problem. I realized after a while, during my search for 'fun' gacha games, that I was doing something really stupid. I was so addicted to that rush of getting a rare pull, that I was actively seeking out more games that could make me feel that way. I mistakenly thought it was fun. And that's exactly what these gacha game publishers want, to get you hooked on that magical feeling of being super lucky. Luckily I realized this in time and I stopped playing those games altogether. I'm not touching a gacha game again. Though I will admit that if the Animal Crossing mobile game turns out to have gacha mechanics, I might be tempted again. It's pretty gross.
That said, I think mobile gacha games and loot boxes such as in Shadow of War and Battlefront are somewhat different, because the gambling is not the driving point of the game. It's getting awfully close though, and the practice needs to be stopped because as long as the lootbox system is working (and it is working), it will only become more exploitative.
Btw is this what FUT is about in Fifa games? I've never really looked it up but it sounds like straight up gacha crap, only you pull a Ronaldo instead of a 5 star Ike. Fifa is really popular with kids... :/
And that in itself is a problem. I realized after a while, during my search for 'fun' gacha games, that I was doing something really stupid. I was so addicted to that rush of getting a rare pull, that I was actively seeking out more games that could make me feel that way. I mistakenly thought it was fun. And that's exactly what these gacha game publishers want, to get you hooked on that magical feeling of being super lucky. Luckily I realized this in time and I stopped playing those games altogether. I'm not touching a gacha game again. Though I will admit that if the Animal Crossing mobile game turns out to have gacha mechanics, I might be tempted again. It's pretty gross.
That said, I think mobile gacha games and loot boxes such as in Shadow of War and Battlefront are somewhat different, because the gambling is not the driving point of the game. It's getting awfully close though, and the practice needs to be stopped because as long as the lootbox system is working (and it is working), it will only become more exploitative.
Btw is this what FUT is about in Fifa games? I've never really looked it up but it sounds like straight up gacha crap, only you pull a Ronaldo instead of a 5 star Ike. Fifa is really popular with kids... :/
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Two things
1.How do you know? You have no data to support this claim
2.Why does someone have to lose their house for us to call something bad, or for regulations to be put in place?
I think it's also an attempt to make lootbox monies off a target market that would generally discount F2P games to begin with.
I wouldn't call it an improvement. I would rather get money to buy what I want.
old manatee
Banned
Loot boxes specifically exploit people with gambling and addiction issues. It's like the way Publisher's Clearing House preys on elderly people, or scratch tickets prey on poor people. It's a cold, heartless business model.