Support NeoGAF

[lefty1117]

I Wonder what the industry alternative will be when lootboxes gets regulated or forced out, surely they will not stop there predatory practices or will they.?

Will probably mean more DLC and potentially game content withheld from initial release to be sold as addon DLC (at least in a more blatant fashion, I'm sure it happens now). When that stream is cleaned up through customer backlash or regulation, then we'll get to the final state where this is all headed: $100 standard edition games.

 

[cryptoadam]

Won't change shit as long as retards keep pre-ordering games, buy MTX, lootboxes and other game as service product.

Even on a 'Gaming' forum like Neogaf people aren't concerned and smart enough to refrain from buying those product.

Yeah look in the mirror, you ruin your own hobby dumbass.

I think gamers are wiseing up to the BS.

Star Wars got HUGE backlash and tanked in sales. War of Morder (or whatever that LOTR game was called) got negative reviews due to its MTX.

We aren't all the way there, but MTX's right now give your game a big black eye. If its close to P2W or anything outside of cosmetics your game is getting the slant eye from most and expect some big back lash.

BF V would be a MTX hell hole if it wasn't for the Star Wars backlash.

 

[Zog]

Will probably mean more DLC and potentially game content withheld from initial release to be sold as addon DLC (at least in a more blatant fashion, I'm sure it happens now). When that stream is cleaned up through customer backlash or regulation, then we'll get to the final state where this is all headed: $100 standard edition games.

the reason we don't currently have $100 standard prices is because most consumers won't pay it. This is why they try to break the full price up into installments via DLC and MTX's. If the price ever becomes a standard $100 then I believe many people will just stop buying new games.

 

[Clear]

My bad I honestly thought you meant to use the word "milking". But this does still need to be regulated. Industries like this are regulated for a reason.

I'd agree with you if I thought it'd be effective, unfortunately though I just see at best it resulting in a bunch of guidelines to be worked around.

I say at best because setting up regulations is pointless without policing and enforcement, and who wants that responsibility?

Its potentially complicated and expensive. I mean for example if you decide selling cash items that solely offer random in-game rewards is banned or restricted, does that mean selling fixed quantity packs of in-game currency for real money is also illegal, if that currency can be used in-game to buy items both determined and randomized?

How deep does it need to be buried in the game design before it becomes acceptable, like say a random reward chest or coffer in a rpg? And who gets to decide where the line is drawn deep in these grey areas?

ESRB is just a bureaucracy, how many M rated games are played by kids regardless of whether they are deemed legally of age? So folding it into that mechanism is likely to be toothless and ineffectual in a real-world sense.

I could go on for paragraphs, but the point is that although the problem seems simple, implementing a remedy is complicated. Right now the people designing these monetization systems don't need to hide them in a legal sense, however when any sort of legislation comes in, they'll start obfuscating the method in order to skirt the guidelines.

 

[Halo is Back]

"Let's say you have an addictive personality... a compulsion you can't really control" Yeah and we should all pay for your "inability" to not reach into your back pocket, take out your credit card, punch the digits into the game, and waste all of your life savings into it. From the moment you watch an ad for Overwatch loot boxes, suddenly Blizzard takes control of your body and forces you to throw your money away. It's never you, it's the developer/publisher doing it for you. Got it.

As for the "strawman" argument, it doesn't matter if you, I, or any other being on this forum considers loot boxes or DLC gambling or not. You now have the government making that distinction. There's no scenario in which this doesn't end with us getting fucked in the ass.

You people have the industry you deserve.

Do you not understand addiction at all? These systems are DESIGNED to be addictive, taking pages from the psychology of gambling. Please educate yourself.

 

[Halo is Back]

"Addiction" is the new "Think of the children" BS people use to justify government overreach.
If you have difficulties controlling yourself from ruining your life by making shit decisions? EA selling Darth Vader for $2 is the least of your problems.

Riiiigt so addiction dose not exist.....

 

[TLZ]

Took your fn time, you did.

 

[EDMIX]

I hope they age restrict such games to adults only and tax the hell out of them.

I think they should tax it, I don't think the games need a adult rating as much as the ESRB needs to be enforced. PSN and XBL have done good jobs of having parental controls that lock out how money is spent, they can doubledown to make sure children are not out here doing this.

 

[Endless Fluff]

Won't change shit as long as retards keep pre-ordering games, buy MTX, lootboxes and other game as service product.

Even on a 'Gaming' forum like Neogaf people aren't concerned and smart enough to refrain from buying those product.

Yeah look in the mirror, you ruin your own hobby dumbass.

Lootboxes/MTAs are mainly targeted at whales and dolphins, they pretty much are responsible for most of the revenue devs/pubs make with this shit. Even if every normal gamer would stop buying MTAs, it wouldn't change much. Devs/Pubs would still built their games around MTAs and lootboxes as long as there are whales swimming around, and they will always be there.... and devs/pubs want to hunt for them, they all want that guy that spents millions.

 

[EDMIX]

Tell me. At what point do EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and the like force you buy those loot boxes?
Is Yves Guillemont literally holding a gun to your head telling you to buy all those Rainbow Six Siege extras?
If you have no other choice but to buy loot boxes because "it's addictive", you have bigger issues than a costume on Overwatch.

Is DLC gambling? How about pre-orders? Does a Kickstarter count too? After all, you're spending money on a product you have no posible way of knowing if it's worth the investment until you play it.

Congratulations. Now instead of you making that distinction, you have the government doing it for you, and they'll take the broadest posible definition, and every time thet happens, the consumer is the one that pays the price.

"Loot boxes are destroying game design"
"Rich people overpower the common people"
"I care about the medium."
> Proceeds to seek help from the only entity more malevolent than those "greedy, evil corporations".

I think in a situation where someone is buying something like a loot box with the understanding they are getting a CHANCE to get something to help them WIN something, that can be seen that way yes.

In terms of pre-orders or DLC or anything like that, I agree with you. No one is forcing anyone to buy any game before it releases or buy any content post launch and I feel the community as a whole seems to be very immature about this subject. Its going to end up actually hurting this whole loot box gambling thing as the community has a nasty history of basically seeking out a publisher, getting mad at said publisher and then deciding to ignore when their favorite publisher does the same thing.

So I agree that no one is forcing anyone to actually buy DLC or Pre-orders or Lootboxes for that matter, but I disagree that it can't be seen as gambling as, it might be a stretch, I can see how legally it can be seen that way IF the person is getting a chance to get something that allows them to win or continue to play etc.

If its just for cosmetics, I think its a bit blown out of proportion. Gamers need to take a solid stand against it IF its being used as a pay to win type thing ,stop arguing over just pure emotions and simply try to come to a understanding that if its pay to win, it can harm a child.

When we start talking about things that have nothing to actually do with WINING the match or game and its just a optional cosmetic, we are welcoming a situation where they might start just taxing games as "gambling" in general.

So yes folks ,someone can see loot boxes as gambling IF its pay to win, as in they are buying it for a chance to either win or continue playing.

If we are saying this about lootboxes in general regardless of what the actual content is, understand the law might start seeing that about ALL DLC.

So I get someone can get addicted to gambling, but if we are now saying ANY type of DLC is that, when do they start calling all games gambling SOLELY based on someone being able to be addicted to it?

You can be addicted to any damn game and have it not have any of what we are talking about.

So I'd say, relax on having hard edge approaches folks as this might be opening the door for something that would hurt more then help. So I get what Brian is trying to and disagree on some of it, but do feel we can find other ways to deal with this as you folks could be welcoming the Government to start just labeling anything that can be addicting "gambling"

So lets have cool heads when trying to find reasonable solutions to this folks.

 

[Kreydo]

Even if every normal gamer would stop buying MTAs, it wouldn't change much. Devs/Pubs would still built their games around MTAs and lootboxes as long as there are whales swimming around, and they will always be there.... and devs/pubs want to hunt for them, they all want that guy that spents millions.

No, true whales are a thing but they can't make AAA game full of predatory and scammy practicing exist by just themeselves.

Those who hurt gaming are the mainstream consumer and the compulsive no-brain gamer, and there is hundred of them already here on Neogaf... I'm just pointing the obvious, go on the last Assassin Creed thread, look how many ''''gamer'''' PRE-ORDERED the game! You even have thread about Double-dip, some people are proud to say they will double-dip some AAA game with MT!

So even when the supposed most CONCERNED, 'educated' and aware customers are still doing the publisher landry, you can't expect the mainstream to change their habit, and things will only get worse about gaming.

As an old school MMORPG player i saw the whole genre being ruined by those people who pretend to 'love' games.
Always with their retarded and selfish rhetoric : "chill out", "It's my money hurhurr", "I do what I want" etc.

Everytime you pre-order you send a message to the publisher to fuck you even more, and everytime a 'gamer' buy a MT because it's just cosmetic he basicaly shit on my front door.

 

[Endless Fluff]

You do know that the richest people on earth, that 1%, own half the money on this planet?

It doesn't matter if some people pre-order or buy MTAs for 50-100 bucks a year, it's a minority that spends more than all those common folk combined.
If you look at the f2p/mobile market, you see that only 2.2% spent money on the games.

 

[Spukc]

Hahaha this is amazing news.

GET

THE

FUCK

OUT

MY

GAMES

 

[sol_bad]

I am still astounded that anyone can even defend MTX. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. They NEVER improve a game, why the fuck do people defend them?????

 

[Thiagosc777]

I am still astounded that anyone can even defend MTX. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. They NEVER improve a game, why the fuck do people defend them?????

Yes. Every game with microtransactions is balanced to be less fun if you don't purchase them. It's not optional and everyone is affected, whether they choose to buy them or not.

 

[zenspider]

Shouldn’t they also investigate trading cards too?

I'm not 'for' loot boxes, and think they probably are psychologically nefarious to a portion of the population and to children.

But! The baseball card analogy is a compelling one (I think I heard it from Reggie Fils-Amie?), and spoke to my inner libertarian.

The only'll regulation I would hope for here is honest disclosure about thier function made clear on the packaging - mainly because gaming has the worst return policy in commerce - and let people decide for themselves to participate in these monetization schemes.

 

[Petrae]

I think they should tax it, I don't think the games need a adult rating as much as the ESRB needs to be enforced. PSN and XBL have done good jobs of having parental controls that lock out how money is spent, they can doubledown to make sure children are not out here doing this.

The ESRB, on the consumer end, is toothless. It’s easy to circumvent and most parents don’t care about it. If the parent says, “Just sell me the damned game for my son!”, then that’s what retailers do.

These games really should be 18+ to play, which is the age of legal responsibility in the US, but that would earn a rating of AO— which is death to retailers. No retailer will stock AO games. Moving the rating to M does little, except to anger parents (and even some legitimately aged gaming consumers) who are forced to show ID at the very least and feel that it’s a waste of time to do so.

Let’s also not forget that the ESRB is a pawn of the video game industry. Its very existence has merely been to show the US government that the industry “cares” about age-appropriate content, when it really doesn’t. Giving the ESRB more “power” essentially gives the industry more power and less consumer protection.

I doubt the FTC will do anything, but if Hell freezes over and something *does* happen, anything having to do with the ESRB should raise immediate red flags.

 

[ar0s]

"Let's say you have an addictive personality... a compulsion you can't really control" Yeah and we should all pay for your "inability" to not reach into your back pocket, take out your credit card, punch the digits into the game, and waste all of your life savings into it. From the moment you watch an ad for Overwatch loot boxes, suddenly Blizzard takes control of your body and forces you to throw your money away. It's never you, it's the developer/publisher doing it for you. Got it.

Disappointed we have no facepalm emoji.

You genuinely enjoy lootboxes from a consumer perspective?

I'm getting the impression you are on the other side and obviously you would enjoy making money from them. If this is the case you should just be open about it rather than trying to pretend you are on the side of consumers and not big business & gambling.

Look at the recent report on young and teenage gamblers in the UK. A vast number - and I would bet my life savings on the fact it is mobile/console gaming's lootboxes that have desensitised them to this trend and got them addicted to gambling for a better version of exactly the same buzz and experience.

 

[Halo is Back]

Disappointed we have no facepalm emoji.

You genuinely enjoy lootboxes from a consumer perspective?

I'm getting the impression you are on the other side and obviously you would enjoy making money from them. If this is the case you should just be open about it rather than trying to pretend you are on the side of consumers and not big business & gambling.

Look at the recent report on young and teenage gamblers in the UK. A vast number - and I would bet my life savings on the fact it is mobile/console gaming's lootboxes that have desensitised them to this trend and got them addicted to gambling for a better version of exactly the same buzz and experience.

But its player choice they enhance the user's experience........heavy sarcasm

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

So yes folks ,someone can see loot boxes as gambling IF its pay to win, as in they are buying it for a chance to either win or continue playing.

If we are saying this about lootboxes in general regardless of what the actual content is, understand the law might start seeing that about ALL DLC.

I do hope people aren't just angry at publishers because they don't deliver their own type of games.. but your right there is a discord of action taking place in the community due to the fanboy hatred getting mixed up in the loot box discussions. I can only speak for myself, and i can vouch that i try as little to deal with Loot boxes as i can.. the only game that i have installed and enjoy playing is Quake Champions and yes it has loot boxes and i wish very much it would go away.. No i have not supported this game because of that and i am just enjoying my free rump once in a while "meaning i have access to two characters one permanent character and one that changes every week or so).. i'm not even playing it that much to be honest.

More on your point about DLC's:

ESRB seems to try and mix Loot boxes with general MTX and overall DLC's business plan by forcing every game to advertise Ingame purchase label, which hits not only Loot box games but all DLC games, this action from ESRB is not a fair way as it will influence not only Loot box riddled games but games like Witcher 3, Cyberpunk and further more might even confuse Goverments regulation offices so it will bring destruction to the whole industry and not just the loot boxes, perhaps thats ESRB's plan so public gets angry and start calling for the Crash to happen. in either case i think ESRB playing with fire and is likely to cause a upcoming downfall, because if they are going to make the public know about ingame purchases on every single game with DLC plans and the publics response is to react to that in a very negative way "not buying" then this sounds like the beginning of 2nd video game crash, i say though that ESRB is bringing this on themselves, they are trying to defend this predatory practice by making it look like general DLC business. its disgusting and shouldn't be encouraged. Witcher 3, Dark Souls, Hitman reboot has excellent DLC content because they act like further content to the game and is pushed out in yearly fashion, further more the DLC is never pushed on the customer by Email advertising or ingame HUD changes of predatory scheming.

 

[Sakura]

Whether you think it is gambling or not, I don't understand why people would be defending lootboxes or be against lootbox regulation.

 

[sol_bad]

I'm not 'for' loot boxes, and think they probably are psychologically nefarious to a portion of the population and to children.

But! The baseball card analogy is a compelling one (I think I heard it from Reggie Fils-Amie?), and spoke to my inner libertarian.

The only'll regulation I would hope for here is honest disclosure about thier function made clear on the packaging - mainly because gaming has the worst return policy in commerce - and let people decide for themselves to participate in these monetization schemes.

I'm sorry but it is not the same thing. Baseball cards, comic cards, those blind buy kids toys, they are physical items. You can sell them and/or trade them with people. That is THE product. I remember back when I bought X-Men cards as a teenager there were odds for the rarer cards. I basically kept buying the blind buy packets until I had the majority of the standard set and I built up quite a number of the rarer cards. I then bought the individual cards I needed for their determined value at the time. I also collected Monsters in My Pocket, they were also blind buy toys and (I may be wrong) but I am positive that they also had odds.

With video games you are already paying $60 for THE product, you are buying THE game. Then there is a tact on virtual card system or a loot box system. They present digital items that you can not sell or trade.

Now companies like to go on about "choice" but these digital items don't really offer choice. All you can do is put money down and hope for the best. With physical items, like I mentioned above you actually have real choice. I can choose to continue buying blind packets and hope for the best or I can choose to buy the individual cards/toy for whatever their value was., I can also choose to sell/trade my doubles. You don't have this choice with the digital items. Even if you did have the choice to buy the digital items you want, it's the company that decides the items worth and not the market. Judging by what publishers charge now for shitty items in games like Fallout 76, I wouldn't trust them for a second on what they would charge for an extremely rare digital card. The market should decide the value, not the publisher or manufacturer of said digital/physical items.

Now for the games that do allow you to sell digital items, maybe someone can help me here. But is there anything like a "beckett" that helps consumers understand digital item values? I honestly have no idea how becketts worked or who decided on the value of various cards but there has to be a similar system for the digital realm. We can't just have random people selling whatever for however much.

Physical and digital blind buys are 2 entirely different things.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Whether you think it is gambling or not, I don't understand why people would be defending lootboxes or against lootbox regulation.

I think its more about government regulation. No one wants to see the government take control over video games. If someone was scammed out of money then take it to claims court, bury them in lawsuits until they can't afford to be in business or force them to change their product to accommodate what we want. What's worse is the value digital items have had over the years. That skin CSGO, that item in Second Life, or other misc Blizzard auction houses/MMO's. It was just a matter of time before the industry developed the technology to incorporate this type of tactic. Hiding content behind small installation files and etc. I think the industry should learn their lesson, but I don't exactly know if getting the government involved will make things better or worse.

 

[iconmaster]

The IGDA is wisely calling on the industry to self-regulate in light of this news. I don't think this will accomplish much, but it's good to see.

From their FAQ: "The IGDA is an independent non-profit professional association focused on individual game developers. Trade associations like the ESA, BIU, etc. are focused on supporting game companies."

It's the trade associations that need to make this push if they really want the fed to stay out of it.

 

[brian0057]

Disappointed we have no facepalm emoji.

You genuinely enjoy lootboxes from a consumer perspective?

I'm getting the impression you are on the other side and obviously you would enjoy making money from them. If this is the case you should just be open about it rather than trying to pretend you are on the side of consumers and not big business & gambling.

Look at the recent report on young and teenage gamblers in the UK. A vast number - and I would bet my life savings on the fact it is mobile/console gaming's lootboxes that have desensitised them to this trend and got them addicted to gambling for a better version of exactly the same buzz and experience.

Nice strawman.
Why don't you read my previous post about my position on this issue? My mouth doesn't need your words in it.

"Young and teenage gamblers in the UK... lootboxes that have desensitised them". I'm sure their parents credit card was magically linked to the phones this kids and teenagers have. Absolutely no one but the developers of Candy Crush are the ones to blame. They telepathically forced their parents to spend thousands of dollars on in-game crap. They held them hostage until they spent every last cent of their bank accounts. Neither the parents nor the young ones are at fault.

And before you come at me with that hackneyed rejoinder of "addiction is a real problem, you know?", unless those kids/adults/whoever are:

• Drinking their lives away.
• Shooting shit up their arms.
• Snorting it of a table.
• Popping pills with a bottle of Jack
• Inhaling grass like there's no tomorrow.
• etc.

I feel no sympathy for you and your shit decision making. I don't see people demand that those skydiving, rock climbing, or any extreme activity be verboten so that "adrenaline addicts" don't kill themselves by engaging in an activity that they know full well can end up with them as a red stain on field somewhere and do it anyway.

 

[Fuz]

The IGDA is wisely calling on the industry to self-regulate in light of this news. I don't think this will accomplish much, but it's good to see.

From their FAQ: "The IGDA is an independent non-profit professional association focused on individual game developers. Trade associations like the ESA, BIU, etc. are focused on supporting game companies."

It's the trade associations that need to make this push if they really want the fed to stay out of it.

As an industry and community, we should take the following steps immediately:

• Affirm an industry commitment to not market loot boxes to children
• Clearly disclose the odds of different rewards when purchasing loot boxes (as many games already do to comply with Chinese law)
• Launch a coordinated education campaign that boosts awareness of the parental controls that are available to appropriately limit how players engage with games

Nope, nope, nope. Not nearly enough.

 

[iconmaster]

Nope, nope, nope. Not nearly enough.

Agreed, yes. Here's what I'd like to see (instead of new laws):

- A clear ESRB label on loot box games, and not the obfuscatory nonsense "in-game purchases." Something like "paid randomized rewards."
- Published box odds. This makes it hard to manipulatively tweak the odds at open-time without opening yourself to claims of fraud.
- Console-wide simple parental controls on in-game purchases. This exists on iOS. Consoles roll it all into "spending limits" which is not what a parent is looking for.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'd agree with you if I thought it'd be effective, unfortunately though I just see at best it resulting in a bunch of guidelines to be worked around.

I say at best because setting up regulations is pointless without policing and enforcement, and who wants that responsibility?

Its potentially complicated and expensive. I mean for example if you decide selling cash items that solely offer random in-game rewards is banned or restricted, does that mean selling fixed quantity packs of in-game currency for real money is also illegal, if that currency can be used in-game to buy items both determined and randomized?

How deep does it need to be buried in the game design before it becomes acceptable, like say a random reward chest or coffer in a rpg? And who gets to decide where the line is drawn deep in these grey areas?

ESRB is just a bureaucracy, how many M rated games are played by kids regardless of whether they are deemed legally of age? So folding it into that mechanism is likely to be toothless and ineffectual in a real-world sense.

I could go on for paragraphs, but the point is that although the problem seems simple, implementing a remedy is complicated. Right now the people designing these monetization systems don't need to hide them in a legal sense, however when any sort of legislation comes in, they'll start obfuscating the method in order to skirt the guidelines.

Don't make perfection the enemy of the good. You make good points, but that shouldn't stop the FTC, the ESRB, or any group trying to get a handle on loot boxes and how they are used and/or disclosed. And if the first set of rules aren't great, they can always be modified. But at the minimum we need some group or groups to at least care and recognize that this is a problem.

The IGDA is wisely calling on the industry to self-regulate in light of this news. I don't think this will accomplish much, but it's good to see.

From their FAQ: "The IGDA is an independent non-profit professional association focused on individual game developers. Trade associations like the ESA, BIU, etc. are focused on supporting game companies."

It's the trade associations that need to make this push if they really want the fed to stay out of it.

This is perfect! The IGDA is doing the right thing here. And the truth is the Federal Government doesn't want to come up with the regulations either. They'll like to stay out. The downside is the big publishers now if they self-regulate, that'll hurt profits some because it may alert an addict that maybe he or she shouldn't start purchasing any MTX for the game or maybe not even download or buy the game since they see a label on the front of the box.

 

[Rest]

I wish I could thumbsdown posts.

Shouldn’t they also investigate trading cards too?

No, trading cards have a set value defined by the manufacturer, and second hand value is decided by the public thereafter, which is out of the hands of the manufacturer.

 

[zenspider]

I'm sorry but it is not the same thing. Baseball cards, comic cards, those blind buy kids toys, they are physical items. You can sell them and/or trade them with people. That is THE product. I remember back when I bought X-Men cards as a teenager there were odds for the rarer cards. I basically kept buying the blind buy packets until I had the majority of the standard set and I built up quite a number of the rarer cards. I then bought the individual cards I needed for their determined value at the time. I also collected Monsters in My Pocket, they were also blind buy toys and (I may be wrong) but I am positive that they also had odds.

With video games you are already paying $60 for THE product, you are buying THE game. Then there is a tact on virtual card system or a loot box system. They present digital items that you can not sell or trade.

Now companies like to go on about "choice" but these digital items don't really offer choice. All you can do is put money down and hope for the best. With physical items, like I mentioned above you actually have real choice. I can choose to continue buying blind packets and hope for the best or I can choose to buy the individual cards/toy for whatever their value was., I can also choose to sell/trade my doubles. You don't have this choice with the digital items. Even if you did have the choice to buy the digital items you want, it's the company that decides the items worth and not the market. Judging by what publishers charge now for shitty items in games like Fallout 76, I wouldn't trust them for a second on what they would charge for an extremely rare digital card. The market should decide the value, not the publisher or manufacturer of said digital/physical items.

Now for the games that do allow you to sell digital items, maybe someone can help me here. But is there anything like a "beckett" that helps consumers understand digital item values? I honestly have no idea how becketts worked or who decided on the value of various cards but there has to be a similar system for the digital realm. We can't just have random people selling whatever for however much.

Physical and digital blind buys are 2 entirely different things.

This is interesting.

As far as the transactional relationship goes, it is the same - so it's not entirely different things, but it sounds like your saying an 'aftermarket' mitigates these potentional issues with physical blind buys.

Regardless of implementation, do you think an aftermarket would mitigate these issues with lootboxes? Do you think that's a better solutionthan an outright ban?

I'll just say my issue with an outright ban or regulation is that is - on some level - a legislation on design. It touches the game loop, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

 

[sol_bad]

brian0057

Why are you so scared about loot boxes being removed from games?
Could you potentially have an addiction yourself?

 

[NickFire]

This is interesting.

As far as the transactional relationship goes, it is the same - so it's not entirely different things, but it sounds like your saying an 'aftermarket' mitigates these potentional issues with physical blind buys.

Regardless of implementation, do you think an aftermarket would mitigate these issues with lootboxes? Do you think that's a better solutionthan an outright ban?

I'll just say my issue with an outright ban or regulation is that is - on some level - a legislation on design. It touches the game loop, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

That's a very reasonable counter point to those of us who want to see someone step in. Slippery slopes are not a fallacy in my opinion and I can understand worrying if this will become the start of one. But I am ok with the risk here. Although I recognize the reasonableness of your point, I just don't agree it's a real concern because its the commercial practice that will be targeted, not the actual design of games IMO. And IMO as well, and at least as pertains to the US government, I think they'd get enough backlash if they start encroaching into 1st amendment issues to quickly back up. Plus, I don't think government intervention would go far. Just the real threat that we are about to implement this would probably clean up the practice quite a bit.

 

[Barakov]

Well, that took long enough. There was a hope that the games industry would regulate itself. But Activision, Ubisoft and others and are unable to regulate themselves and gave in to their greed. It's clear that it pisses off nearly everyone who plays games so it needs to be gone. Hopefully, this leads to more than just an "investigation".

 

[brian0057]

brian0057

Why are you so scared about loot boxes being removed from games?
Could you potentially have an addiction yourself?

I don't even play multiplayer games. CS 1.6 was the last time I was online.
I couldn't give less of damn if a certain game has loot boxes or not since I don't play them.

My problem is with people willing and eager to let the government fuck them in the ass just so that EA can burn.
And once that's done, and EA is nothing more than a smoldering wreckage, the government will still fuck them in the ass.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I don't even play multiplayer games. CS 1.6 was the last time I was online.
I couldn't give less of damn if a certain game has loot boxes or not since I don't play them.

My problem is with people willing and eager to let the government fuck them in the ass just so that EA can burn.
And once that's done, and EA is nothing more than a smoldering wreckage, the government will still fuck them in the ass.

Why? Many things are regulated by the government. Certain drugs are controlled, some substances are forbidden to minors, some chemicals are banned because they are hazardous to health, gambling is regulated, car manufacturers have to follow a mininum standard for safety, etc. Dude, there are regulations for the safe disposal of toxic materials, and companies have to follow them or they get heavy fines.

I don't understand your irrationality. Why is gaming the one special place in the universe where regulation cannot exist? Gaming companies are clearly incapable of regulating themselves. It's time for the government to step in.

 

[brian0057]

Certain drugs are controlled,

They can kill people.

some substances are forbidden to minors

They can kill minors.

some chemicals are banned because they are hazardous to health

Of course.

car manufacturers have to follow a mininum standard for safety

Without those standards, people can die.

gambling is regulated

Debatable. Just like loot boxes and micro-transactions, the company or entity offering the service is only half of the equation. The other half is you.
Engage with it at your own peril. Don't wanna risk losing thousands of dollars? Don't gamble/purchase. No one at any point during the whole process of you giving your money away and winning/losing money is forcing you to do it. No drug, beverage, or substance of any kind is involved here to justify your lack of control.
Wanna skydive? Go ahead. Wanna scale the tallest mountain in the world? Be my guest. Just remember that you are doing all of those things knowing full well of what might happen if it goes south.

I don't understand your irrationality. Why is gaming the one special place in the universe where regulation cannot exist? Gaming companies are clearly incapable of regulating themselves. It's time for the government to step in.

See above.

 

[mneuro]

Will probably mean more DLC and potentially game content withheld from initial release to be sold as addon DLC (at least in a more blatant fashion, I'm sure it happens now). When that stream is cleaned up through customer backlash or regulation, then we'll get to the final state where this is all headed: $100 standard edition games.

My opinion is that $100 games won't happen. Companies may briefly try it, but the average consumer won't pay that for games. Most people won't pay $60 and wait for prices to drop. Loot boxes could be the start of another video game crash like the 80s if game companies don't start respecting their customers and release single price complete games again.

 

[Halo is Back]

I think loot boxes should absolutely be abolished from games as a whole. There is nothing good about them. They compromise game design and are rigged against the player. However I think Micro transaction should stay. At least then you know exactly what you are getting. They don't compromise game design and still offer a source of revenue for companies. Just offer a market with set prices no In game currency BS and I am totally fine with that.

 

[Zog]

I think loot boxes should absolutely be abolished from games as a whole. There is nothing good about them. They compromise game design

Ok

However I think Micro transaction should stay. At least then you know exactly what you are getting. They don't compromise game design

Please explain how MTX's do not compromise game design but loot boxes do.

 

[Halo is Back]

Ok



Please explain how MTX's do not compromise game design but loot boxes do.

Loot Boxes are always tied to in game currency and that currency is tied to progression. Thus is hurts progression. Titanfall 2 is a perfect example of what Im talking about. You want cool elite skins for your Titan? Cool just pay $10 and its done. How dose that hurt game design? Everything else can be earned in game. Save the premium stuff for the people who want to spend money on it.

 

[cryptoadam]

This is interesting.

As far as the transactional relationship goes, it is the same - so it's not entirely different things, but it sounds like your saying an 'aftermarket' mitigates these potentional issues with physical blind buys.

Regardless of implementation, do you think an aftermarket would mitigate these issues with lootboxes? Do you think that's a better solutionthan an outright ban?

I'll just say my issue with an outright ban or regulation is that is - on some level - a legislation on design. It touches the game loop, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

But the game loop sucks. I will take SWBF2 as an example. It was set up to be so slow and unrewarding that the game loop was useless because it was designed to get people to buy loot boxes or quit. On top of it it was very close to P2W because the more cards and upgraded cards you had the better you were. So your choice was to grind for like 500 hours or pay up.

A game loop based on paid loot boxes to me is not something worth saving. Its not a game at that point, its just a digital interface to suck money out of you.

 

[Halo is Back]

But the game loop sucks. I will take SWBF2 as an example. It was set up to be so slow and unrewarding that the game loop was useless because it was designed to get people to buy loot boxes or quit. On top of it it was very close to P2W because the more cards and upgraded cards you had the better you were. So your choice was to grind for like 500 hours or pay up.

A game loop based on paid loot boxes to me is not something worth saving. Its not a game at that point, its just a digital interface to suck money out of you.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Not only dose it make you grind hours upon hours just to get a few loot boxes you STILL may get crap within them. Borderline scam if you ask me.

 

[cryptoadam]

Exactly. Not only dose it make you grind hours upon hours just to get a few loot boxes you STILL may get crap within them. Borderline scam if you ask me.

Have you ever heard anyone say wow this game is so much better with Loot Boxes?

I don't think anyone has ever said anything positive about loot boxes unless its to say they aren't as scammy as some other ones.

Loot boxes are not an integral or important or even fun part of a game.

 

[Zog]

Loot Boxes are always tied to in game currency and that currency is tied to progression. Thus is hurts progression. Titanfall 2 is a perfect example of what Im talking about. You want cool elite skins for your Titan? Cool just pay $10 and its done. How dose that hurt game design? Everything else can be earned in game. Save the premium stuff for the people who want to spend money on it.

Aren't MTX 's often tied to speeding up a timer?

I would say that any DLC that is planned during the production of a game affects the game design.

 

[Zog]

Have you ever heard anyone say wow this game is so much better with Loot Boxes?

I've never heard anyone say 'I sure am glad this DLC was cut from the game so we could buy it separately' either but people do still defend DLC that was announced before the game was finished.

 

[Kenpachii]

My opinion is that $100 games won't happen. Companies may briefly try it, but the average consumer won't pay that for games. Most people won't pay $60 and wait for prices to drop. Loot boxes could be the start of another video game crash like the 80s if game companies don't start respecting their customers and release single price complete games again.

That stirling guy had a great piece about it. EA will have some issue's if lootboxes and online predatory practices get banned. It's pretty much there entire business now.

 

[Halo is Back]

Aren't MTX 's often tied to speeding up a timer?

I would say that any DLC that is planned during the production of a game affects the game design.

As far as my experience goes no, not always but in some games yes. However, I am not defending that. I just think a market with skins and elite collectables is ok as long as you pay up front no BS. But, unfortunately we can't ban MTX's. I feel loot boxes are far more damaging to games and players.

Most DLC is planned way before the release of the game it just makes sense from a business and development perspective. I only have an issue when its day one DLC or if its released just a few weeks after launch.

 

[cryptoadam]

I've never heard anyone say 'I sure am glad this DLC was cut from the game so we could buy it separately' either but people do still defend DLC that was announced before the game was finished.

I am not a huge fan of DLC, but at least its an extension of the game and you know what you are buying. And lots of DLC add a ton of value. BF Premium pass was great. It split the player base, but the maps, weapons, modes etc... that you got for the DLC was tremendous value. BF V DLC is free but is clearly content cut from the game and I have bitched about it.

There is no reason for MTX loot boxes in gaming, its just to drag out games and suck money out of you. Loot has always existed in games, just now they want to charge you for the loot and make the entire game way more difficult and even bad/boring if you don't pay for the loot.

 

[Zog]

I guess I just see Loot Boxes as the logical extension of MTX's and those are the logical extension of DLC. They are the same lineage. They are and have always been connected. I don't understand people trying to justify one but not the others.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I guess I just see Loot Boxes as the logical extension of MTX's and those are the logical extension of DLC. They are the same lineage. They are and have always been connected. I don't understand people trying to justify one but not the others.

One is random, you do not know what you are getting when you pay. The other you know exactly what you get. I think most would agree that, if given the option, they would rather have the ability to buy exactly what they want and not something based entirely on RNG.