Support NeoGAF

[Permanently A]

Man I'm someone who thinks "well cosmetic lootboxes aren't all bad, after all they fund future content updates" but now I'm realizing that, those content updates aren't worth it if they're being built on the back of profits essentially made by exploitation...

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Man I'm someone who thinks "well cosmetic lootboxes aren't all bad, after all they fund future content updates" but now I'm realizing that, those content updates aren't worth it if they're being built on the back of profits essentially made by exploitation...

Now even look at OW.

People thought for the Summer and Halloween event we might get a new mode, but its more like rehashed ones

 

[The Last Wizard]

I’m glad that gaming websites have taken up this task of informing the public of this shitty practice. There are still way too many lootbox apologists on GAF.

Way too many. The corporations have done a damn good job at making people work against their own interests. If you want a good example of apologists just look at any overwatch and rocket league thread.

 

[Brotherhood93]

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.

I understand that argument to an extent but then most other hobbies aren't so mysterious about what you're actually getting for your money. You'll have to forgive my ignorance on sneaker collecting but I would imagine it goes something like person sees sneakers they want, person buys sneakers. What I assume doesn't happen is somebody buys a random box on eBay that may contain some sneakers they want or perhaps just a pair of completely worthless laces. I can only think of collectable card games that work on a similar principle to lootboxes, there are probably others, but even they are generally more open than your traditional video game loot box.

Call me crazy but I really don't see how it is an unrealistic or unreasonable expectation to just be able to pay for what I want whether that's a pair of sneakers or digital items in a video game.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Literally as soon as your game has lootboxes or the like it detracts from the game in a pretty serious and core way. I don't know how anyone can defend it in any way.

Because people are free to decide what is for them or not. This just seems like the new thing that core gamers get angry about on forums which means journos write articles about the latest game or method or how its all evil, which then creates more comments on forums from said core gamers.

I've bought lootboxes or there equivalent before and will continue yo do so, as and when I want to. Are some exploitative? Yeah. Are they all? No. But that's just like all forms of commercialism, in every walk of life.

 

[Fisty]

Yep, and this is why I won't be buying full-price games with them anymore.

"They help save time for the end-game grind"
-then why did you make the grind so bad?

"The rising cost of game dev"
-learn to better budget and scope the games

"They don't affect gameplay"
-then why are they in the game at all?

"You dont have to buy them"
- the game is influenced by their presence, even if you don't buy in

 

[backflip10019]

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?

Well, that's why I said "likely." I would be gobsmacked to learn of someone who spent so much on loot boxes that they were seriously injured financially. Though I agree research should be done in the area.

I just hate this idea that personal responsibility goes out the window entirely when talking about these things.

 

[Alo0oy]

Despite my criticism in this thread, I'm not against loot boxes in retail games, they just need to be done in a less exploitative way.

From the retail games I played, Destiny and Uncharted 4 have the best loot box systems, with Destiny I never felt compelled to spend money on silver, the loot boxes aren't even worth it, you get crappy shaders and emotes that you're never going to use, you might occasionally get an exotic sparrow or an ornament, but those aren't compelling enough to spend money. With Uncharted 4, every single loot box gave you something interesting, you never open a loot box and feel like you got nothing (thus being compelled to spend money to get a better loot box).

I haven't played TF2 but I heard it was alright in that game.

 

[Falk]

Way too many. The corporations have done a damn good job at making people work against their own interests. If you want a good example of apologists just look at any overwatch and rocket league thread.

I'm genuinely curious for some example posts, as I don't really read either OT.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

It may not be formal gambling, but it is just as predatory, empty, and morally off as slots. There will always be a market for this kind of stuff, unfortunately, but I'm hoping that it levels out after this fever and it becomes easier to ignore in the AAA space. Just wish more pubs would go back to valuing a diversified portfolio over egg-basket mega projects or just charge more upfront if budgets are that much of an issue. I'm not obligated to subsidize your untenable business model with some bottomless money pit. Thankfully we always have the indie space.

 

[border]

“the only reason the loot box exists is to prey on the economically vulnerable.”

This is, at best, completely unsubstantiated.

“For every person who can step away, plenty of people can’t.”

This is an outright falsehood. Mobile statistics show us that the ratio of paying players to non-paying is like 1:1000 or more.

 

[Sjefen]

Great articlr, its All the things I wanted to say but couldnt because English is not my first language. Loot boxes is designed for the bottom line exploiting gamers using slot machine mechanics. Its a fucking awful pratice and brings a bad taste in my mouth thinking about it.

 

[Alo0oy]

I think it's also an attempt to make lootbox monies off a target market that would generally discount F2P games to begin with.

That's also true.

I wouldn't call it an improvement. I would rather get money to buy what I want.

Duplicates is what pissed me off the most, with guaranteed uniques, you at least made progress every single time you opened a box, and you're closer to the item you wanted.

 

[CookTrain]

It may not be formal gambling, but it is just as predatory, empty, and morally off as slots.

There's an interesting thought experiment. I wonder what the broader reaction would look like if the lootboxes took the visual form of more typical gambling, like slot machines. Would people be more or less critical if, outcome being exactly the same, the presentation was that of a one arm bandit or a roulette wheel, whatever.

 

[Auraela]

So are shinies of cards etc in shops but cool they arent as bad because they are aimed at kids mostly

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

“the only reason the loot box exists is to prey on the economically vulnerable.L

This is, at best, completely unsubstantiated.

Why not let them buy exactly like they want like Titanfall 2 does? Why hire mental health professionals to help design the lootboxes?

 

[Vital Tundra]

EVERYONE jumped jumped down my throught for even suggesting that Overwatch had an exploitative system for those with addictive personalities and stuff and thats its wrong on reddit. Most responses were pretty much "Who cares if whales want to buy a ton of lootboxes, because of them the games content is free." I said they should have a little more empathy and they pretty much said "fuck off, they can go find some help if they can't stop buying lootboxes." People are assholes and idiots.

 

[Falk]

There's an interesting thought experiment. I wonder what the broader reaction would look like if the lootboxes took the visual form of more typical gambling, like slot machines. Would people be more or less critical if, outcome being exactly the same, the presentation was that of a one arm bandit or a roulette wheel, whatever.

Tangential but FFRK got you covered

Hilariously enough this was for a limited time event with a finite drawbox you could completely empty out (so no RNG in the end if you grinded enough)

 

[KingV]

I don't understand why either because there's not a single game that is made better by the existence of these things.

Somehow they argue that games would cost $100 without them.

Except they would not, because many people would not buy $100 base games.

And what’s sick, is that The implication is that the average player is spending $40 on lootboxes. Except, we know that <10% buy lootboxes in free to play games, so it’s probably similar in full price titles. So, if games would theoretically cost $100, then the real implication would be that that 10% is spending an average of $400 on lootboxes. Which is just madness.

 

[Fisty]

Why not let them buy exactly like they want like Titanfall 2 does? Why hire mental health professionals to help design the lootboxes?

Yeah they don't make the loot boxes for everyone, mobile gaming has already showed them that they only need that 1-2% group of whales to make the system more than worth the time it takes to slap the system together

So are shinies of cards etc in shops but cool they arent as bad because they are aimed at kids mostly

Yeah cool let's bring the absolute worst part of TCG and CCGs to full-price games, they do it there so it's fine

 

[CookTrain]

Tangential but FFRK got you covered

Hilariously enough this was for a limited time event with a finite drawbox you could completely empty out (so no RNG in the end if you grinded enough)

I was having a similar thought of the prize wheel in Forza Horizon as well.

So I guess it actually wouldn't draw too much more ire, it seems.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Somehow they argue that games would cost $100 without them.

Except they would not, because many people would not buy $100 base games.

And what's sick, is that The implication is that the average player is spending $40 on lootboxes. Except, we know that <10% buy lootboxes in free to play games, so it's probably similar in full price titles. So, if games would theoretically cost $100, then the real implication would be that that 10% is spending an average of $400 on lootboxes. Which is just madness.

There are lots of special editions that cost over $100 and they still have lootboxes in them.

 

[nynt9]

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.

It should also be pointed out that addictive properties exist in games regardless of loot boxes. Many developers inherently strive to make people come back to their game as much as possible. It’s inherently a part of making a product. Similarly with exploitative/psychological practices. Why do you think marketing exists? The entire point of marketing is to paint your product in a fashion that is as appealing as possible without literally lying, and try to hook people into investing into your product. These practices are all inherent to consumerism.

Sure, loot boxes provide a next level of the interaction with which you can very easily spend an obnoxious amount of money, but I don’t think people are being critical enough of the same practices applied throughout the rest of the process of interacting with a game. Do RPGs have long grinds because they make the game more fun, or is it because they keep the player playing for a longer time, making it feel like they got their money’s worth with as little resources spent during development as possible?

 

[Spaced Harrier]

I guess the obvious question is: how many people is this actually hurting?

I went for a meal with some people from work the other day and we were chatting about games, I was speaking about Let It Die as its Wharton currently playing (he bought my blast suggestion, Yakuza already)

I was explaining how its free to play and they give you lots of the premium currency. Though it does get a bit grindy they higher you climb. But I've out in and enjoyed tens or a hundred hours and spent nothing.

He turned around and told me he dropped €500 on a mobile game.

I know how much he earns, he cannot afford that.

I told him not to download the game, even though I genuinely believe it's a fair game, and dropping 30 or 60 would be fine. Someone like him could do actual damage to himself.

Unfortunately he really liked shadow of mordor, so we will see if he gets sucked in in the sequel.

Where he is now stuck with this stuff in his face.

 

[KingV]

So are shinies of cards etc in shops but cool they arent as bad because they are aimed at kids mostly

They’re not as bad mostly because they are not as accessible.

Like you have to go to the shop, buy them, stand in line, look someone in the face as you buy 50 packs of pokemon cards and then go somewhere to open them. Lots of ways to back out of that decision and kids have to go somewhere to do it.

The thing that makes lootboxes more insidious, is A person can just sit at the computer and blow through $100 of lootboxes without even leaving the game.

Both are at least somewhat exploitative, however, if that’s your point.

 

[LordRaptor]

“the only reason the loot box exists is to prey on the economically vulnerable.”

This is, at best, completely unsubstantiated.

And easily extrapolated outwards, because gaming is inherently an expensive hobby.

New mid-gen console refreshes that don't play any games you can't already play? That's a paddlin.
Bragging about "4K" and "HDR" so you want to go buy a brand new TV? That's a paddlin.
Talking about "downgrades" and zoom and enhancing differences invisible to most peoples normal eye duing normal gameplay? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin

 

[Weltall Zero]

I think something the article doesn't quite nail in differenciating is any single f2p game doesn't operate in a vacuum. In ecosystems (say, Japan) where there are dozens of other alternatives, if you so much as piss off a playerbase with the appearance of being unfair people can and do leave for the alternatives, to the point official statements and/or adjustments are made to salvage flashpoint situations.

In other words, there's a marked difference between games built around a gacha system in which they have to be balanced accordingly to (or, practically, at least make a public-facing attempt to) maintain a healthy playerbase to minimize churn (and which only the successful games do really, really well, in no small part thanks to big data analysis, etc) and retail games where loot boxes are a small, relatively insignificant subsystem, rather than the literal deciding factor on progress.

Since games like Overwatch and most other retail games with lootbox flashpoints in recent history don't completely sink or swim based on the randomized loot systems the way gacha games do (e.g. people play Battlefront because they want Star Wars, not because they want to get more currency for random draws to maybe progress further) that sink-or-swim factor based on perception of how fair the system is isn't quite as pronounced. Even so, at least people are talking about it now - It'll take at least a long while for the latter to get to some form of 'appearance of fairness equilibrium', if it hasn't (hopefully) gone away by then.

edit: legibility

That's a great point, and I think the other factor of this is sunken cost. Even if we may sometimes be outraged that a game we already paid for is asking for more money, we are more likely to spend money in a game we've already spent money in, especially if the second amount is small, because we're already economically invested.

 

[border]

Why not let them buy exactly like they want like Titanfall 2 does? Why hire mental health professionals to help design the lootboxes?

The idea that these games deliberately target or disproportionately affect the underprivileged is what is completely unsubstantiated — it’s all nothing but the author’s wishing and idle speculation. “Somebody out there can not afford this probably, therefore it is wrong.”

 

[Ouroboros]

This is old news. Jim Fucking Sterling son told me this weeks ago.

 

[Fisty]

And easily extrapolated outwards, because gaming is inherently an expensive hobby.

New mid-gen console refreshes that don't play any games you can't already play? That's a paddlin.
Bragging about "4K" and "HDR" so you want to go buy a brand new TV? That's a paddlin.
Talking about "downgrades" and zoom and enhancing differences invisible to most peoples normal eye duing normal gameplay? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin

None of those affect people that are prone to gambling addiction

 

[nynt9]

They’re not as bad mostly because they are not as accessible.

Like you have to go to the shop, buy them, stand in line, look someone in the face as you buy 50 packs of pokemon cards and then go somewhere to open them. Lots of ways to back out of that decision and kids have to go somewhere to do it.

The thing that makes lootboxes more insidious, is A person can just sit at the computer and blow through $100 of lootboxes without even leaving the game.

Both are at least somewhat exploitative, however, if that’s your point.

You know you can buy hundreds of packs online at a click right? In MTG many sites that list decks have a “buy this deck” button and you can pay like $3200 at the drop of a hat to get it.

I know it’s not the same thing as the loop of buying loot crates but it’s very easy to do this, I know people who fell into that trap of buying MTG cards online when they couldn’t afford to eat the next day.

 

[Auraela]

They’re not as bad mostly because they are not as accessible.

Like you have to go to the shop, buy them, stand in line, look someone in the face as you buy 50 packs of pokemon cards and then go somewhere to open them. Lots of ways to back out of that decision and kids have to go somewhere to do it.

The thing that makes lootboxes more insidious, is A person can just sit at the computer and blow through $100 of lootboxes without even leaving the game.

Both are at least somewhat exploitative, however, if that’s your point.

Thats my main point yea both very exploitable. My main belief is the fact that these loot boxes appeae worse because most of us are adults with money readily avaliable by our side. Where as with above the kid has to ask first for money.

This isnt 100% the time ofcourse but i believe thats why loot boxes seem worse.

 

[PhantomThief]

Yep, and this is why I won't be buying full-price games with them anymore.

"They help save time for the end-game grind"
-then why did you make the grind so bad?

"The rising cost of game dev"
-learn to better budget and scope the games

"They don't affect gameplay"
-then why are they in the game at all?

"You dont have to buy them"
- the game is influenced by their presence, even if you don't buy in

Yup great arguments

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

Kotaku just keep raising that bar. Glad to see that some will still call this out. It's become completely normalised by now that we should pay £60 for a game and then if we want any of the cosmetics we like the look of then throw down bullshit sums of money in hopes of getting it.

Glad to see some publications calling it out as predatory as it is rather than a 'necessary evil' to cover the rising costs of development.

Like if we stop and think for a second where does this go? When development gets even more expensive what's next? How much content will be gated behind loot boxes?

The two options seem to be reducing scope for AAA games or literally just ever increasing costs through increasingly predatory approaches. I can't see how the latter doesn't lead to the death of the industry eventually.

 

[LordRaptor]

None of those affect people that are prone to gambling addiction

All of those exploit gamings "whales", the economically vulnerable.

Except gaming sites are more than happy to hype the fuck out of the latest AAA blockbuster and how it plays amazingly on the new 4K HDR sub-ms response time TV, so you better preorder RIGHT NOW because you might MISS OUT, because thats just what being a real gamer is all about, no problems here

 

[danowat]

All of those exploit gamings "whales", the economically vulnerable.

Except gaming sites are more than happy to hype the fuck out of the latest AAA blockbuster and how it plays amazingly on the new 4K HDR sub-ms response time TV, so you better preorder RIGHT NOW because you might MISS OUT, because thats just what being a real gamer is all about, no problems here

I get what you're getting at, but these are one shot items with a residual value.

They aren't a bottom less pit expressly design for a 'hit' over and over.

There is only one reason that loot boxes are in games, and that is to make money, with an endless revenue stream, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

 

[Branduil]

I understand that argument to an extent but then most other hobbies aren't so mysterious about what you're actually getting for your money. You'll have to forgive my ignorance on sneaker collecting but I would imagine it goes something like person sees sneakers they want, person buys sneakers. What I assume doesn't happen is somebody buys a random box on eBay that may contain some sneakers they want or perhaps just a pair of completely worthless laces. I can only think of collectable card games that work on a similar principle to lootboxes, there are probably others, but even they are generally more open than your traditional video game loot box.

Call me crazy but I really don't see how it is an unrealistic or unreasonable expectation to just be able to pay for what I want whether that's a pair of sneakers or digital items in a video game.

Also, with a real-life CCG, you can actually directly buy cards from people if you really want to.

 

[Fisty]

All of those exploit gamings "whales", the economically vulnerable.

Except gaming sites are more than happy to hype the fuck out of the latest AAA blockbuster and how it plays amazingly on the new 4K HDR sub-ms response time TV, so you better preorder RIGHT NOW because you might MISS OUT, because thats just what being a real gamer is all about, no problems here

You dont go to the store and pay $750 for a chance to get a 4K HDR TV, only to get a car stereo so you have to try again

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Whatboutism arguments arent defending lootcrates, its just trying to deflect blame away to another bad thing.

 

[LordRaptor]

There is only one reason that loot boxes are in games, and that is to make money, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

Right.
And the only reason AAA publishers are making games at all is to make money.
Same with console manufacturers making consoles.

Where is this line being drawn that buying the latest consoles and all the latest games day one is just normal behaviour for a gamer, but only buying one game a year but spending additional money within that game is some poor unknowing stupid easily manipulated idiot whale?

e:

Whatboutism arguments arent defending lootcrates, its just trying to deflect blame away to another bad thing.

Its not whataboutism. It's not deflection.

self-proclaimed "real gamers" shout loudly how spending a lot of money under one circumstance is sinister and all possible measures should be taken to prevent it.
That identical group will on the other hand defend to the death how spending a lot of money under a different set of circumstances is just what "being a real gamer" entails, and if you don't like it, fuck off to mobile or whatever.

Do you really not see that there is a big questionable hole in definitionshere when talking about "whales" and "economically vulnerable" when talking about gaming?
Have you ever read a "Monthly pick up" post n GAF?

 

[KingV]

Well, that's why I said "likely." I would be gobsmacked to learn of someone who spent so much on loot boxes that they were seriously injured financially. Though I agree research should be done in the area.

I just hate this idea that personal responsibility goes out the window entirely when talking about these things.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?page=1

Go forth and be gobsmacked.

 

[danowat]

Right.
And the only reason AAA publishers are making games at all is to make money.
Same with console manufacturers making consoles.

Where is this line being drawn that buying the latest consoles and all the latest games day one is just normal behaviour for a gamer, but only buying one game a year but spending additional money within that game is some poor unknowing stupid easily manipulated idiot whale?

You can't compare physical items with intrinsic value, to lootboxes that don't have any, and are pure physcological hooks, designed to provide an endless revenue stream by physcological manipulation.

 

[shiftcaps]

Unpopular opinion, but I think the article is a little ridiculous. Is this what society has come to that grown adults with credit-cards need indignant journalists to jump to their defense because they can't keep their impulses to buy new dress-up clothes or stats for their electronic avatars in check? Give me a break. People need to take accountability for their actions. We're not talking bottled water in post-Harvey Houston here, we're talking luxury toys.

It's the same thing with slot machines. You go to Vegas, and 99% of the people there can enjoy slot machines for what they are. You put in your payment, you pull the lever, you get all the crazy lights and sounds, and whether you win or lose, you paid for the experience, and you walk away when you're done. But is the entire industry exploitative because a small portion of the adult audience can't keep their shit together?

I collected baseball cards as a kid. Packs were blind, special edition cards were all over the place, and you never knew what you were going to get. Never heard anyone wringing their hands about the evil baseball card industry.

Personally, I think loot boxes are bad for the gaming experience, but for none of the reasons outlined in the article. Capitalism comes with its goods and its bads, and thankfully, there's an easy solution. If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. And if you really don't like 'em, speak out loudly. It's already having some positive impact. But you'll never convince me that my mailman is a victim because he can't stop buying electronic skins for his goblin.

 

[KingV]

You know you can buy hundreds of packs online at a click right? In MTG many sites that list decks have a “buy this deck” button and you can pay like $3200 at the drop of a hat to get it.

I know it’s not the same thing as the loop of buying loot crates but it’s very easy to do this, I know people who fell into that trap of buying MTG cards online when they couldn’t afford to eat the next day.

I don’t play any collectible card games for this reason, but at the same time haven’t thought much about it.

Loot boxes have made me look at them more negatively, because I do actually play video games and the parallels are a bit clearer to me now.

 

[The Technomancer]

Vinny Caravella had a great section about this on the latest Beastcast: the relationship between the player and the developer/publisher in this case is not an even one. They have access to mountains more data about human behavior and internal testing about how to make purchasing loot boxes as desirable and compulsively easy as possible. We do not have corresponding amounts of information about what, exactly, they have done to make them so

 

[Fisty]

Right.
And the only reason AAA publishers are making games at all is to make money.
Same with console manufacturers making consoles.

Where is this line being drawn that buying the latest consoles and all the latest games day one is just normal behaviour for a gamer, but only buying one game a year but spending additional money within that game is some poor unknowing stupid easily manipulated idiot whale?

So which game got you? You sound pretty invested in this

It's the same thing with slot machines. You go to Vegas, and 99% of the people there can enjoy slot machines for what they are. You put in your payment, you pull the lever, you get all the crazy lights and sounds, and whether you win or lose, you paid for the experience, and you walk away when you're done. But is the entire industry exploitative because a small portion of the adult audience can't keep their shit together?

Maybe some of us don't want to be reminded of a Vegas casino when relaxing and enjoying our video games? And yes casinos use the same manipulative tactics, enough that they have to advertise gambling addiction hotlines all over the damn city.

 

[nicoga3000]

I'm one of the bad ones - I don't care if lootboxes are purely cosmetic. It's when they offer ANY gameplay advantage or "shortcut" that I get upset.

But I understand the disdain for any and all lootboxes, though.

 

[redcrayon]

Thats my main point yea both very exploitable. My main belief is the fact that these loot boxes appeae worse because most of us are adults with money readily avaliable by our side. Where as with above the kid has to ask first for money.

This isnt 100% the time ofcourse but i believe thats why loot boxes seem worse.

Loot boxes seem worse than trading cards because they are worse. With cards you can trade with other players, there is an economy outside publisher control, they are physical items easily sold or traded or collected. With digital trinkets they are worthless, its you vs the publisher, with no way to do anything else with them afterwards. I collected stickers and cards as a kid and swapsies was a huge part of it.

The people selling such things also weren't able to easily and continually tweak the odds or any other element based on micro data in order to maximise spend either. That's what makes it feel cynical to me. If the punters aren't biting they start offering more freebies until they do. That's what makes it feel closer to gambling to me- the small army of people on staff analysing the data on a daily basis to get and keep people hooked.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Unpopular opinion, but I think the article is a little ridiculous. Is this what society has come to that grown adults with credit-cards need indignant journalists to jump to their defense because they can't keep their impulses to buy new dress-up clothes or stats for their electronic avatars in check? Give me a break. People need to take accountability for their actions. We're not talking bottled water in post-Harvey Houston here, we're talking luxury toys.

It's the same thing with slot machines. You go to Vegas, and 99% of the people there can enjoy slot machines for what they are. You put in your payment, you pull the lever, you get all the crazy lights and sounds, and whether you win or lose, you paid for the experience, and you walk away when you're done.

But is the entire industry exploitative because a small portion of the adult audience can't keep their shit together?

I collected baseball cards as a key. Packs were blind, special edition cards were all over the place, and you never knew what you were going to get. Never heard anyone wringing their hands about the evil baseball card industry.

Personally, I think loot boxes are bad for the gaming experience, but for none of the reasons outlined in the article. Capitalism comes with its goods and its bads, and thankfully, there's an easy solution. If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. And if you really don't like 'em, speak out loudly. It's already having some positive impact. But you'll never convince me that my mailman is a victim because he can't stop buying electronic skins for his goblin.

"Why dont these addicts just learn to control themselves?!"

Vinny Caravella had a great section about this on the latest Beastcast: the relationship between the player and the developer/publisher in this case is not an even one. They have access to mountains more data about human behavior and internal testing about how to make purchasing loot boxes as desirable and compulsively easy as possible. We do not have corresponding amounts of information about what, exactly, they have done to make them so

Alex also pointed out that Blizzard has psychologists on staff.

 

[LordRaptor]

You can't compare physical items with intrinsic value, to lootboxes that don't have any, and are pure physcological hooks, designed to provide an endless revenue stream by physcological manipulation.

I'm not comparing them, I am questioning the whole 'these only exist to """""exploit""""" the """""economically vulnerable"""""' statement.

"Real gamers" don't like lootboxes, so therefore anyone buying lootboxes is being exploited, Q.E.D.