Good its become political, now we need the mainstream media to talk about in primetime
and then we can all sit back and wait for games to become what they were back in the good ol days
"Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport"...
The dumbest timeline.
"Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport"...
The dumbest timeline.
Blame PEGI for not doing anything.
The good: long overdue. Has needed regulating for ages and am glad someone is taking the initiative.
The bad: Tory ministers are barely competent enough to take a shit right now. The idea of what they might do here is terrifying.
In lootbox terms, that you can only get D-Vas Epic skins once you have a full collection of D-Vas Legendary skins.
An additional thing I came across: almost winning gives gamblers an almost identical reaction to that of winning. It makes a near miss effectively a win and encourages the person to continue to seek out that winning feeling, which has then become the winning/near-winning feeling.
A normal person would consider a near win as a loss, however the gambler would react as if it was a win.
http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media-cent...sforgamblersfireoffawinresponseinthebrain.php
Whilst I can't specifically think of any games that capitalise on this, from reading the above article it seems gambling companies do deliberately make players feel that near win feeling.
From the Overwatch comments we know that the loot boxes are designed to be as enticing as possible and it may be the case that they also play on this behaviour.
Overwatch's loot box is a masterpiece of audio-visual design. "It's all about building the anticipation. When the box is there you're excited at the possibilities of what could be inside," says senior game designer Jeremy Craig. Click the Open loot box button and the box bursts open, sending four disks into the sky. Their rarity is indicated by coloured streaks to further build the suspense. "Seeing purple or gold you start to think about what specific legendary or epic you've unlocked. This all happens so fast, but it was those discrete steps that we felt maximized excitement and anticipation."
Hearthstone's opening animation is likewise engineered to trigger anticipation, and also to make the cards desirable objects and to imbue them with a sense of value. From the start it was important that they'd evoke real collectible cards. As Thompson says: "Ripping that foil pack and feeling it give, that moment of excitement that anything's possible."
Rather than hitting a button and watching, as you do when opening most loot boxes, from Battlefield 1 to Overwatch, you have to drag a pack over to what Blizzard calls the altar. There's a brief moment as blue magical power builds, and then, in the case of the classic packs, the cards suddenly burst out in a shower of glitter and gold. With Journey to Un'goro packs, they emerge in a crackle of lightning (which echoes its evolve mechanic), and a shattering of ice in the Knights of the Frozen Throne packs.
Seems like Japan is doing some things with regulation. Or at least devs and pubs are adhering better to self-regulation. That is not happening in the West. It's going the opposite way if anything, we're quickly moving on from "cosmetic only".
Do you mean the other way around? You have to earn all the epics before you can get legendary? So it's like some sort of progression based system?
Good its become political, now we need the mainstream media to talk about in primetime
An additional thing I came across: almost winning gives gamblers an almost identical reaction to that of winning. It makes a near miss effectively a win and encourages the person to continue to seek out that winning feeling, which has then become the winning/near-winning feeling.
A normal person would consider a near win as a loss, however the gambler would react as if it was a win.
http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media-cent...sforgamblersfireoffawinresponseinthebrain.php
Whilst I can't specifically think of any games that capitalise on this, from reading the above article it seems gambling companies do deliberately make players feel that near win feeling.
From the Overwatch comments we know that the loot boxes are designed to be as enticing as possible and it may be the case that they also play on this behaviour.
Same.I don't see any drawback to regulating (or eliminating for that matter) real-money based random reward schemes. Go ahead.
So out of curiosity, what is the argument AGAINST lootboxes being gambling? How are they not gambling?
So out of curiosity, what is the argument AGAINST lootboxes being gambling? How are they not gambling?
So out of curiosity, what is the argument AGAINST lootboxes being gambling? How are they not gambling?
So out of curiosity, what is the argument AGAINST lootboxes being gambling? How are they not gambling?
Why does it matter if they are?
So out of curiosity, what is the argument AGAINST lootboxes being gambling? How are they not gambling?
People defend Overwatch lootcrates because the game has free dlc. I counter that by pointing out that they could just let people buy the skin they want instead of doing a blind box. (Like titanfall 2).
It doesn't matter how super rare your skin drop was its worth nothing on the big mac index
Basically comes down to you always get a reward, even if it is worthless junk.
So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
Then you couldn't earn the skin for free. No thanks.
I've seen a friend drop mutliple $1000s into an phone f2p game's loot boxes (knowing the odds and not regretting it), so I'm interested in how this all shakes out.
Knew the odds. Didn't regret.
What's the problem?
So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
I don't know what's more disgusting, the companies doing it or the people defending it.
So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
+ everyone else who responded:
Thanks. I'm curious to see whether this is considered a significant enough distinction in law.
I've seen a friend drop mutliple $1000s into an phone f2p game's loot boxes (knowing the odds and not regretting it), so I'm interested in how this all shakes out.
A member of the United Kingdoms parliament has opened an inquiry into the loot-box model of microtransactions in console games, on behalf of a constituent who asked him about the legality of the practice.
I hope they do, it's long overdue.
That being said, as a gamer yes i would like to see them go away because there is literally no benefit to me or developers. As a human being there is still a point to be made about how economically damaging this can be.
Sorry, thought it was an ao ratingI think that is a bit hyperbolic
and there is more on that list
Yeah. And I personally dont like them because they are explorative and prey on peoples possible lack of impulse and addictive behaviours which is an incredibly disgusting business practiceSo the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
No one's goal is to make it impossible to spend money on video games. People argue against exploitative methods like loot boxes. People will always be able to spend a lot of money if they truly want to. That's usually not what regulations are designed to prevent.
Sorry, thought it was an ao rating
Right, I'm just wonder how many of the people who are spending serious cash on lootboxes actually feel like they've been exploited or ripped off. That is, how much good the legislation and regulation would do by helping those people avoid it.
1. No benefit to buyer
2. No benefit to seller
3. "Economically damaging"
Everybody is losing! Who is buying these things?
No wonder GAF has a crusade on its hands with such hyperbole.