This stuff is a bane on the industry and needs removed from all games. So disappointed that Rocket League features this. If they really want to do games as a service then just charge a moderate monthly fee or something. This stuff is predatory and will be making mint off of people who can't afford it and they know this.
-
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
LordRaptor
Member
Its the literal counterpoint to "The Monetising of the product ruins modern game design, not like all those old games that literally never did anything wrong because there were no financial aspects to making games in Ye Goode Olde Days"
Steve Youngblood
Member
When the underlying argument is psychology is being employed to make you want something you dont need, how are they not comparable? I mean when people make analogous comparisons, its never a 1:1 perfect match. Nobody is saying they are literally the same thing. But honestly, presenting utilizing an understanding of human psychology to get people to spend money on things is slightly head scratching without a ton of elaboration in terms of what actually makes this so unique.
Bill R Boggess
Member
So even though I have no intention of spending any money on a single Loot Box, I should pass on playing games like Mordor, AC: Origins, and SW: Battlefront 2 to send a message?
Isn't not buying these boxes in-game enough?
Because I certainly have no intention of missing out on some of my most anticipated games of the year.
You want to see something gamers are vehemently against? More than loot boxes? Monthly fees.
PhantomThief
Banned
Except, there is a very real difference to padding out your game for quality sake, or because you don't want players to finish your game too fast
And
Putting in a greedy f2p practice like lootboxes to get through the game quicker and make the grind so annoying and boring that players almost feel forced to buy the shortcut bullshit that they ( devs/pubs ) have put in.
I guess if you want to argue that it's totally the same as what they did back then, then I don't know how a logical, normal thinking person could even think that lol.
Back then we got complete games, now we get them cut up and sold back to us in little chunks.
You think a monthly fee on top of PS+ is better than lootboxes? Hahaha come on man.
PhantomThief
Banned
Are they? I never saw people complain about Xbox Live. Psn only got flak because at first it was free. But gamers are very happy to pay for online play. Where is this push against paying for online play? Because I don't see it.
It's also way less intrusive than something like lootboxes and always online locking players out of features.
Charge the people who want to play a game like Rocket League. A game that has constant support and can justify charging people a fee to play. I'd much rather that than them bleeding a few folk dry for cosmetic nonsense because those people are vulnerable to that.
DominusLeges
Member
If you want the situation to change then I'd say yes you and lots of others would need to decide not to support games with these sorts of practices at all. Buying the base game is still a sort of tacit approval of these monetization systems whether or not you participate in them because you are populating their servers making these games and these systems more appealing to others. At least that's the way I see it anyway
Debatable tbqh.
You really don't remember people bitching about PS+ going to a monthly fee with the PS4 launch?
It's just like lootboxes in that sense. Only a vocal minority whines but at the end of the day it's something consumers will pay for.
Read above. The economic violence argument, especially when combined with a power analysis, means that in at least one important way the morality of each is based on similar principles. These companies, for both systemic institutional and historical reasons, have access to information about the best ways to manipulate people and the means by which to do it. Commercials and lootboxes are both based on that. But there are also important fundamental differences between the two. We'd need a strong argument to be call them analogous I'd say.
Right and this is why specifically the economic power argument needs to be nuanced, but I'd say the alternative comparisons, especially to gambling which is regulated, are clear enough for the need for an argument to fall on those who say the two are indeed analogous.
People are always going to complain for being forced to pay for something that was free before.
LordRaptor
Member
Padding a game is padding a game.
Whether its to artificially extend playtime so you don't flip it, or so you're tempted to buy 'boosters', its still padding.
People need to take off their rose tinted glasses and maybe play these "perfect" old games with modern design sensibilities.
DominusLeges
Member
I mean at least a monthly fee is a flat cost and not an endless randomized Skinner box designed to extract as much out of you as possible. Neither is good but one isn't quite as exploitative (or potentially profitable) as the other is.
PhantomThief
Banned
Thats why I said in that very post that only PSN got flak for it because it was free at first. If it was paid for online since the start like on Xbox 360 back in the day, there wouls be no outrage.
I never see people ranting about how XBL cpsts money because you know what, as gamers we have accepted it already. There was not enough pushback from gamers to turn that ship around.
That's why we still have a change against lootboxes. We must voice our opinions if we want to nip this shit in the bud. Because otherwise it will keep perpetuating untill every damn game has lootboxes, 60 dollar or not.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Ive argued in other threads that Im honestly sympathetic to concerns about whaling practices. If we want to deep dive into specific systems and outline actionable concerns, Im all ears. When people call for transparency in the odds of drops or in how the pity mechanics work, I actually agree. If anyone has ideas on how to protect whales from spending obscene amounts of money, Im willing to listen and can probably easily be brought on board in terms of advocating it.
Im absolutely not a pro free market loon who thinks the unchecked invisible hand of the market is always right. I dont own stock in a single video game company so its not like I care about stock prices needing to endlessly rise.
When the author of the piece writes about being addicted to spending money on gacha mobile crap, Im sympathetic. Can we mitigate the chances of this happening? We should try!
But if the solution is yeah, we can get rid of this shit entirely or make the ESRB slap an AO rating on it so that its effectively killed because I dont like it anyway and want game design to go back to the way it was in the glorious PS2 era then I fear weve become old people yelling at clouds.
I just want to point out it's hard to take somebody's opinions on monetization systems seriously when they choose to to not participate in a monetization system people generally find okay on principle.
This is kinda why I don't trust or like a lot of arguments about GAF on this topic. It seems less like people who actually mess with this stuff, and more like people who just don't like monetization in games period and want something done about it. I feel it's kind of shitty to point to real problems with whaling and abuse as a means to an end. I agree with Steve, we should be looking into the mechanics of whaling and abuse specifically and figure out the best way to deal with it.
Edit: I can also say with 100% certainty there are devs/pubs that know this stuff and don't release it. That's a very bad thing. Instead of screaming "shut it all down" I'd rather that get investigated on the idea of preventing abuse now and later.
PhantomThief
Banned
Id rather play a game that has padding to artificially lengthen a game,
then play a game which has padding because it wants to steer you in the direction of spending more money to overcome the grind ( which they have built in with that exact ourpose in mind ).
I hope you can understand there is a very real difference. It has 0 to do with "rose tinted glasses".
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I've seen whale $ for games smaller than OW but were way more predatory and exploitive and the 10k spent by a few players didn't seem to ruin them financially, they were well off people with good income.
Gambling also has the undesired "I can make it back" mentality. Someone could lose their $5k savings in a single hand and really beat themselves up. Heck, it could be their last $20 and the regret / pain is the same. If they're desperate enough they'll scrounge up enough and try again. There isn't this side to lootboxes because, truthfully, money is more valuable to the world and you than a skin a character has.
Heck, I lost more at a cash game last night to QQ high flush to my KK on a pre-flop 4-bet shove. This was just a home game and I lost more than most people would spend on OW.
Yes, and way too much focus on temporary events (which are all about skins of course).
I dont see enough new content to justify the whole "loot crates" business in Overwatch; it's not "loot crates done right" at all, to me.
It's crazy how they slowly moved the line for what is acceptable, and people are already used to it or even defending it in certain games. Now we have 60$ games with not much content and loot crates where you can spend a lot of money without getting what you want. Basically throwing money out of the window.
In a world where the majority of the gaming demographic is on or below the poverty line, publishers have no qualms milking dry pockets to dust. Squeezing extra money out of consumers so that Bobby Kottick can make the tough decision of "Which island do I buy this year?" is acceptable for too many. These practices need to go.
Why? This is just an ad hominem, and one that doesn't make much sense. Regardless of if I buy games that use these types of monetization systems they still affect me. More importantly this has nothing to do with the theoretical moral validity of preying on the weak. It shouldn't matter if it affects me.
Of course this also completely undermines any voting with your wallet argument. Apparently voting with your wallet the wrong way means your ideas don't matter.
Because it's not morally affecting you. It's just not. The game design implications of monetization are known, and they are also somewhat subjective. The ethical debate is way way way harder to dig into and we don't know that much about it yet.
Idk. Call it what it is, but you're argument stinks like shit when you prop up "I don't like this thing for x reason" when the debate is about y reason.
I haven't even made a single value statement about loot boxes in this thread. I think the issue is complicated, and I haven't made up my mind.
Did you not read that post you quoted? My whole point is that I'm not pointing about whaling and abuse as a means to an end. I was turning that on its head. I don't care about how these microtransactions affect AAA games because I don't play that many. I can more about the fundamental questions of businesses and the political-economy of marketing strategies more generally. The whole point of what I was saying there is established I don't have a horse in the game design aspect of this.
I think that's a good thing as I established earlier. But it should be supplemental to humanistic approaches to understanding what is going on as well.
Also who is funding it.
I didn't, and haven't, screamed "shut it all down".
Citation needed.
I find it hard to believe that 50%+ of the adults buying and playing console games are below the poverty line.
This is a good question. Somebody is going to have to figure it out. It make even take a new group or government intervention. That would suck, but it might have to happen.
I guess I shouldn't target you specifically, it's just things I see in a lot of arguments around here.
Kinda sorta, being that I'm embedded in a wider societal context I am complicit in it. But I'm not going to make you accept that way of looking at this.
What I will say is that it doesn't matter if something is morally affecting me. I can still make an argument that it's hurting someone else and that's a bad thing. Again this is just ad hominem, but it's also coupled with a pretty sad understand of what it means to try to be a moral person. Turns out we can care if people other than ourselves are wronged.
What do you mean we don't know much about that yet. We're having a debate here and now. More information would be useful for that debate, but lacking information, which will always be a thing, doesn't stop us from having conversations.
Again I'm not making a claim about the game design really.
Well my point in that post is it doesn't. I did that by literally turning it on its head and saying the game design argument can supplement the more important moral one.
Ironically even if you disagree with me I'm actually doing what you want in this thread.
I think what's going on here is that you misunderstood my post there.
You seem to be ignoring a lot of my posts. Please reread them, you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm doing here. I'm overwhelming concerned with the moral argument, the general form of good argumentation is merely secondary for me here. What you're taking issue with was actually an example to show how this thinking can run into problems when reversed. I don't care about the game design angle. I care about the moral one. I can use the game design one to supplement my moral one, because issues are generally complicated and multifaceted, and any good argument could be useful.
I've probably spent tens of thousands of dollars across multiple games and other places (like paperdoll websites that have gachas) and I will likely continue to do so in the future.
I'm not even wealthy, I work a part time job and pay my own bills, but I usually have an entertainment budget of $60-$150/mo that I set aside, and I'll typically blow that on mobile games or other gachas.
Is it exploitative? most certainly, and I'm fully aware that I'm nothing but a minor piggy bank to the publishers and developers, but I'll continue to pay for these services going forward until they're removed or regulated because of one aspect that I never really see addressed when it comes to gacha and similar things: the social aspect.
When you see everyone that has the Newest & Best shiny thing, and then you're stuck there wearing the old thing, you want to buy the Newest & Best too. It's not even exclusive to gachas and lootboxes, really -- it's part of being human, keeping up with the Joneses, but given then random nature it becomes particularly vicious, because when all of your friends have those cool new items or skins but you're still stuck wearing the old boring items from last month, you're tempted to go over budget and spend even more until you get it.
I've done it with Overwatch as well -- I spent $200+ a few months into the game, because I wanted to have new skins to show off to everyone else. I wanted that false sense of superiority that often comes with cosmetic items, and having myself and a few friends all wear those skins while the "plebs" were wearing default skins was a rush, which you end up chasing during every new event if you aren't lucky enough to unlock the skins for your characters immediately.
It is 100% predatory and I won't sit here and defend it, although it's incredibly hypocritical of me because while I'll naysay it, I continue to support these practices with my money through sheer desire to stay fashionable, or to gain whatever edge I can over others.
Heck, I even spent $100 on ME:A MP because everyone was talking about how good specific classes and weapons were, and I wanted to be one of the elite players with those good items, so I dropped cash until I got them.
It's worth keeping in mind though, addiction and gambling problems are a key source of worry for these issues, but we can't take these things in a vaccuum and have to consider other potential influences and peer pressure into buying and engaging in this behavior which lets us be preyed upon, which makes even cosmetic only boxes very harmful.
I'm not even wealthy, I work a part time job and pay my own bills, but I usually have an entertainment budget of $60-$150/mo that I set aside, and I'll typically blow that on mobile games or other gachas.
Is it exploitative? most certainly, and I'm fully aware that I'm nothing but a minor piggy bank to the publishers and developers, but I'll continue to pay for these services going forward until they're removed or regulated because of one aspect that I never really see addressed when it comes to gacha and similar things: the social aspect.
When you see everyone that has the Newest & Best shiny thing, and then you're stuck there wearing the old thing, you want to buy the Newest & Best too. It's not even exclusive to gachas and lootboxes, really -- it's part of being human, keeping up with the Joneses, but given then random nature it becomes particularly vicious, because when all of your friends have those cool new items or skins but you're still stuck wearing the old boring items from last month, you're tempted to go over budget and spend even more until you get it.
I've done it with Overwatch as well -- I spent $200+ a few months into the game, because I wanted to have new skins to show off to everyone else. I wanted that false sense of superiority that often comes with cosmetic items, and having myself and a few friends all wear those skins while the "plebs" were wearing default skins was a rush, which you end up chasing during every new event if you aren't lucky enough to unlock the skins for your characters immediately.
It is 100% predatory and I won't sit here and defend it, although it's incredibly hypocritical of me because while I'll naysay it, I continue to support these practices with my money through sheer desire to stay fashionable, or to gain whatever edge I can over others.
Heck, I even spent $100 on ME:A MP because everyone was talking about how good specific classes and weapons were, and I wanted to be one of the elite players with those good items, so I dropped cash until I got them.
It's worth keeping in mind though, addiction and gambling problems are a key source of worry for these issues, but we can't take these things in a vaccuum and have to consider other potential influences and peer pressure into buying and engaging in this behavior which lets us be preyed upon, which makes even cosmetic only boxes very harmful.
See, this is what I think is just kinda dumb. Like, I don't give a fuck what you wanna say with "good arguing" or whatever. I'm just gonna lay out an opinion real quick. I think the game design issues on this have close to 0 bearing on what the actual issue is. As Steve said, if you don't like the design but lots of other people do, that's really on you. If people love lootboxes and think they are fun, then that's kind of just it. Whether or not you personally like that really does not and should not matter.
What I would like to matter a whole lot more is specifically pinning down when and where the moral stuff kicks in. Where does it become the individual's responsibility, where does it become the publishers, and at what point does it stop being healthy to interact with. I don't see those arguments coming up. I do see a lot of all or nothing or hiding them behind games suffering or thinking of the children.
All I see is "this is morally bad" or "I never liked this" or something like that. If it's going to be a moral issue, talk about the specific morals.
So now lootboxes are wrong because they implement psychological incentives and teases to try to get you to buy something? Well fuck any video game with tv advertising! And don't stop there. Let's get rid of every other retail product in existence too. I always hated those chimney cleaning Pennysaver coupons exploiting my desire to save money.
I still haven't seen a good argument as to why loot crates are better than just being able to buy the thing you want. It still provides the secondary revenue stream for the dev while being more fair to players.
It's just a way to trick you into paying more for something. If I want a costume in Street Fighter V, I can go to the store, see the price and decide if I'm willing to pay it. Fair. They can charge more if it's more desirable or lower the price if it's not selling.
Now, these publishers know you wouldn't pay, say, $15 dollars for a certain item, so they hold out the carrot that you might be able to get it for the price of a loot box. But, you may end up spending $30 in loot boxes to get what you want. And, there's definitely going to be a "sunk cost" mentality among some players to keep going until they get what they want, since they've already put money in.
The next argument will be that you still get something. But, if it's not the thing I want, I might as well have gotten nothing.
Put it this way. If I want to buy a Milky-way, I go the store, hand them 99 cents and they give me a Milky-way. I don't hand them 99 cents and they hand me a random candy and I have to keep giving them 99 cents each time hoping to get it or just give up, having given them $5 dollars already for things I don't want. Meanwhile I'm stuck with 3 bags of candy corn and 2 bags of circus peanuts. Sure, I could try sell someone the candy corn and circus peanuts, but I'll be lucky if they'd give me a few cents each.
It's just a way to trick you into paying more for something. If I want a costume in Street Fighter V, I can go to the store, see the price and decide if I'm willing to pay it. Fair. They can charge more if it's more desirable or lower the price if it's not selling.
Now, these publishers know you wouldn't pay, say, $15 dollars for a certain item, so they hold out the carrot that you might be able to get it for the price of a loot box. But, you may end up spending $30 in loot boxes to get what you want. And, there's definitely going to be a "sunk cost" mentality among some players to keep going until they get what they want, since they've already put money in.
The next argument will be that you still get something. But, if it's not the thing I want, I might as well have gotten nothing.
Put it this way. If I want to buy a Milky-way, I go the store, hand them 99 cents and they give me a Milky-way. I don't hand them 99 cents and they hand me a random candy and I have to keep giving them 99 cents each time hoping to get it or just give up, having given them $5 dollars already for things I don't want. Meanwhile I'm stuck with 3 bags of candy corn and 2 bags of circus peanuts. Sure, I could try sell someone the candy corn and circus peanuts, but I'll be lucky if they'd give me a few cents each.
The story in the OP talks about how spending money on loot boxes is a secret shame that people hide on their credit card.
The game design itself is about taking more money from people then what they intended to spend using psychological tricks as bold and calculated as the hook-up artist.
Most people seem okay with it, because we are used to corporations being shitty. I think it's weird to put a neutral face or show apathy towards transparently exploitative business practice. I don't need to wait for more addicts to come forward to tell you the framework that companies use now are unethical.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
If you can get literally all of the cosmetics without paying a dime, then yeah, I'm okay with that.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
See, I'd gladly buy a skin pack for heroes in Battlefront II, or a themed customization set for troopers, or even a direct shortcut kit to bypass rank requirements for weapons and abilities.
Lootcrates are an absolutely unneeded obfuscation.
Lootcrates are an absolutely unneeded obfuscation.
People must gamble their life savings away on loot boxes before we can admit a business practice is unethical or immoral? That seems like a pretty high bar.
So it's not gambling, according to the ESRB, because you always win something. But, that something has no real world value that can be traded or sold later - like a Lego blind pack. Technically, you aren't winning anything. You're giving publishers your money for the chance of winning some digital goodies that will disappear when the servers turn off.
(And I'm guilty of buying loot boxes too. I still think they are scummy and exploitive.)
(And I'm guilty of buying loot boxes too. I still think they are scummy and exploitive.)
Steve Youngblood
Member
Does it have to go that far specifically? No. But I think if the argument is one of public safety, we have to do better than merely making subjective assessments about how other people tend to spend their money. I dont deny that victims of whaling are out there. How widespread is this problem? Can we mitigate it? This issue is more complex than me simply surmising I dont like loot boxes and they should go away.
The Last Wizard
Member
In rocket league you cant earn keys to unlock lootboxes unless you buy them wish cash or trade another player. People defend it vehemently even though its standard that a game with lootboxes allows the players to earn keys in game.
In the case of overwatch, you see people excited to spend a bunch of money on lootboxes that arent guaranteed to give them the skin they want every event. Plus theres the constant excuse that many dont care about this cause others are subsidizing new content when the content hasnt even really been substantial, just a bunch of time fates content. Few things have been added to the base game.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
She says she paid for iTunes to mask the charges, not others.
What people intend to spend is arbitrary. You need case examples of this addiction hurting someone financially. All business seeks to exploit for money or else we'd be doing things for free so society and civilization could be better.
Kiddy Dong
Member
Say what you will about Kotaku, but this was extremely well written and captures the problem with loot boxes precisely. The fact that so many are dismissive of loot boxes is exactly what the publishers want - hook in the addicts and let everyone else justify their existence with "just cosmetic".
Transistor
Banned
I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply won't be buying any full priced games that support this practice
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Again, for me, it's better to have the boxes as long as they can be unlocked for free.
What you're asking for would make a game like Overwatch worse for me.