BANGS
Banned
100%. They wanted a random box of items, and got it. Every. Time.
-
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.
Valve Removes Digital Item Markets from the Netherlands.
- Thread starter Phoenix RISING
- Start date
I think we are having 2 totally different conversations here. I'm gonna bow out of this before I lose any more IQ points.
You are talking about ownership and you do not own the content of the disc. If you want to believe it or not. You own the blank disc nothing else. You really need to lookup software laws and how this all works. So in this regard the piece of software has the same laws as digital purchase except with the digital one they can enforce you t not sell it again.
metareferential
Member
"blind" loot-boxes are a predatory economic practice. It's even worse than a lottery.
What we need is a law forcing EA and others to reveal lootboxes' content and chances, kind of like what China is doing.
This will make loot-boxes go away (or at least they'll be way less relevant) and we'll just have a marketplace for in-game items.
Publishers are actively scamming us into buying worthless shit, since we don't know how rare an item actually is.
As I said, way worse than gambling. At least in a casino I can calculate the odds (and that's why I stay away from all gambling).
Last edited:
I can only say you totally missed my point. You specifically asked the difference between kids stickers and digital items. And apparently I need to have a mastery of copyright law on digital goods required to tell the difference. From looking at your replies, we are having totally different conversations, and I cant be bothered to get on track. Anyway, best of luck to you. I hope you get it figured out, whatever it is.
BANGS
Banned
Publishers aren't scamming you at all. You are scamming yourself if you buy those stupid things... The publisher isn't making false promises of greatness inside the loot boxes. It's on you if you make the mistake of buying one...
This makes perfect sense. Having the ability to trade in your 'winnings' for money is the definition of gambling, lol.
The fact that Valve is playing the victim, and the fact that people are actually defending loot boxes is just kind of funny. This isn't about censoring video games and never has been, it's about extending control to an activity (gambling) that has been regulated for decades.
The fact that Valve is playing the victim, and the fact that people are actually defending loot boxes is just kind of funny. This isn't about censoring video games and never has been, it's about extending control to an activity (gambling) that has been regulated for decades.
joe_zazen
Member
I’d like to know the science behind this. Anyone here working on EA Ultimate Team as a monetization specialist? Any Supercell addiction experts?
joe_zazen
Member
If it was 18+, yeah, go nuts. Brains are mature at 25 and the most resistant to these kinds of things after that age. The younger you are, the more likely you will be making irrational decsions, like getting addicted to FiFa card packs, starting to smoke, getting into debt, etc. So prevent kids from playing gambling-like games is the issue here for people with a broader world view than ‘omg, no free maps packs.’ There is also evidence that the younger a person is when they start gambling, the high the risk of gambling addiction.
Helios
Member
Yes, yes they are. It's the whole reason loot boxes are so popular. The common item that you usually get from them are worth jack shit and not be worth the money if it was sold alone. That's the sole purpose of the lootboxes really, to sell most people stuff that isn't worth the buying price but give one guy something good.
Look at something like TF2. It's almost never a good idea to unbox normal crates unless you're willing to spend over $100, and even than you might not get anything good in return. But how would someone that just installed the game know that? There are no odds specified and he doesn't know the economy.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
I fail to see where the false promise comes in here... You knowingly buy a box of random shit, you aren't promised a box of good shit...
Then he shouldn't buy it if he doesn't know what he's getting. Who the hell is dumb enough to buy random nothings anyway? It's not a scam to take advantage of people's desire for bullshit...
joe_zazen
Member
What if he is twelve?
BANGS
Banned
Then he would need his parents' permission to buy such things and they would decide...
Helios
Member
I doubt we'll reach a middle ground if you think taking advantage of people is not scamming.
Just to explain things, I don't think the government should restrict lootboxes or make them illegal. The only thing that should be mandatory is to show odds just like in China. But in general, I think the government should stay out of this. The industry and communities as a whole should frown upon such tactics and call them out.
BANGS
Banned
This is where we agree, and is exactly what's happening for the most part barring some exceptions...
That's not a scam. If that were the case, cigarettes and McDonald's would be a scam. A scam is dishonest by definition...
Last edited:
metareferential
Member
Publishers actually are making false promises. Just look at the Fifa FUT situation.
Saying that a lootbox has "the best chances to pack the best items" is different than saying "epic items have a 0.002 chance of being packed". Consumers deserve transparency.
And yes, when I buy those lootboxes I know what's happening. It doesn't change the issue though.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
But if that 0.002 chance is still the best chance of getting the item, they aren't lying. If they are lying, then that is illegal and you should pursue a class action lawsuit...
BANGS
Banned
When did I do that? I'm only defending the rights of the consumer to buy what the want. People used to be able to buy/trade items with each other and now they can't, so now they can ONLY get these items via lootbox. How is this a victory for anyone?
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Are we having a conversation or are you just making random statements?
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Discussing physical items is a red herring. I have already mentioned that the Dutch law that Valve is violating applies to digital items.
Indeed, "what if" and what is actually happening are two totally different conversations.
metareferential
Member
They are hiding the odds altogether. That's the problem (and more likely than not those odds are manipulated to influence the specific game's economy).
BANGS
Banned
So they aren't lying and making false promises... they're just hiding the odds. Gotcha. Don't buy lootboxes like that then and only by lootboxes that tell you the odds. The other games will follow suit...
metareferential
Member
I don't think the market will regulate itself in this matter. But yes, that's one solution.
BANGS
Banned
Of course they will, the market follows the money. If a bunch of morons are buying loot boxes full of shit, they'll continue to sell them. If people don't want to buy them and instead want things more al la carte, the market wants your money and will do what you ask. Obviously not every game will cater to you, but the industry in general goes where the money goes. Don't blame "the corporations, man" for lootboxes, blame the gamers that purchase them en masse...
metareferential
Member
The market follows the money or the regulations.
I want regulations. Different views of the world, I guess.
radewagon
Member
Okay. Fine. It's been a while but I guess the thread's still bumping. Here's the problem with your arguments. You presume to believe that people must like lootboxes because people buy them. You also believe that the solution to the lootbox problem is for people to not buy them. The key to all of it is the markets and consumer choice. Unfortunately, you are pretty wrong about some of your assumptions.
Assumption 1: Lootboxes must be liked because people buy them: Lootboxes are purchased because people want what is in them. People really like, for example, Overwatch skins. They don't particularly care for the delivery method. In fact, most would prefer to simply pay for the skins outright. Better yet, most gamers would prefer to buy them DIRECTLY with earned currency. However, since Blizzard doesn't allow the consumer to choose to buy it a la carte, the consumer is forced to gamble for them. In this way, lootboxes aren't really about consumer choice. They're quite the opposite. They are about holding content hostage and forcing fans into a rigged market in order to better take advantage of them.
Assumption 2: If people stop buying the lootboxes, they'll go away: This assumption is MOSTLY wrong. By setting up lootboxes, a company can stand to make a ton of money on content that they might have either A) given away to players that unlocked the content via gameplay, or B) sold at a reasonable price in an a la carte marketplace. In order for a lootbox boycott to work, the money lost would have to be incredibly extreme because in many cases, the amount of money made from lootboxes only has to be more than (realistically) zero dollars because that's how much money a company gets when giving away the content from gameplay-based achievements. In that sense, a lootbox boycott can only work if the disdain for them is so large that it encroaches on the install base of the software itself. In other words, people have to boycott the game, not the lootbox. Boycotting lootboxes will never work because there will always be enough people with dispensible income that are willing to spend irresponsible amounts of money on content that is being held hostage by a gambling-style lootbox system. And to reiterate, it's not the lootbox they want to spend money on, they simply aren't allowed to choose a better method of delivery.
Assumption 3: Consumer choice and the markets: Consumer choice and market forces don't really have much of an effect when there are monopolies. Now granted, the games industry isn't anywhere near being a monopoly because of all the awesome and healthy competition, but in terms of being able to monopolize things on a micro (not macro) scale, game companies have incredible amounts of power. They have, essentially, absolute control over the supply of their digital products. If Blizzard wanted to, they could release timed exclusive skins to drive up demand and then force their player base to jump through whatever hoops they wanted them to jump through in order to get said content because there is literally no other way to acquire it. And, again, even if many people boycotted that action, it wouldn't matter because releasing it like that would still, easily, make more money than the alternative (which, again, could be as easy as making more than zero dollars).
There's hope, obviously. . . Look at Battlefront 2. The push back wasn't just lootboxes but the game itself. It got negative press and many people chose not to buy it. This kind of thing could work. But that's not an issue of not buying the lootbox. Not buying the lootbox.... well, that's not a solution. Not buying the game is where the real solution is.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
People like lootboxes enough to buy them, it's that simple. If they didn't like them, they wouldn't buy them. They wouldn't gamble on something so insignificant as Overwatch skins if they didn't feel it was worth it. People like the delivery method enough to either tolerate it, or ouright enjoy it much like kids like blind box toys and such...
Well I'm not about boycotts. That's kind of like an artificial and dishonest market shift. We'll talk more on that later but regardless, what I'm saying is if people don't buy lootboxes, there will never be a reason for developers to include them. Why pay a programmer and whoever else good money to make a system that isn't profitable? If it IS profitable though, that's because people are still buying them, and they should be catered to. There is more than enough room in this industry for games with and without lootboxes for different types of gamers. We can't expect every game to cater to only us...
Then they are doing good business. Nobody is being "forced" to if they're throwing money at them for a really inconvenient product. I can't really feel bad for people for having to buy skins in a video game a certain way when they're clearly willing to do it...
Battlefront 2 was a tragedy. I was right there with everyone willing to boycott the game due to the pay to win aspect of the lootboxes. I really wanted to play the game but I couldn't justify supporting such nonsense. Then it happened, Dice announced they hear us that pay to win mechanics ruins they game, they are pulling them out, and will add microtransactions back in once they figure out how to do it right.
I shouted "we won!" and immediatley pre-ordered and downloaded the game, having it ready to play at launch. What did everyone else do? Still sat there and boycotted the game and bitched a moaned that the game wasn't good enough for them. These assholes who pretended they cared and acted like they wanted a great star wars game couldn't put their money where their mouth was. They had no intention of forcing EA to make a better game via the boycott, they just wanted to be part of some hater bandwagon. They just kept focusing on the fact that microtransactions, despite obviously only comming back in a way that would not be P2W, are coming back. People kept foaming at the mouth saying P2W aspects would be back in two weeks, in a month, after Christmas, next year, etc. No amount of time going by with them doing the right thing was enough to convince them. It truly was a sad, disgusting thing to see and this is why I'll never join a boycott again. Look at the game now, it's still being supported with really great updates despite losing tons of money due to shutting down the microtransactions for so long. No pay to win mechanics, just a pretty-decent-yet-somewhat-mediocre game that doesn't deserve a fraction of the hate it gets...
Voting with your wallet works both ways. You have to not buy things when they suck, and support things that cater to you, especially after you demand it. Do you think EA will cave next time when a bunch of people threaten to boycott a game and EA knows you won't pay them to fix it? EA will just laugh and tell you to fuck off, because you had no intention of buying their product anyway. These fake outrage reactions do nothing to help people, just be genuine and use your money wisely and things will work out your way...
BANGS
Banned
Yes.
radewagon
Member
Do I think they'll cave at the next "threat?" Probably not. They're totes greedy. They'll cave when they see their sales figures drop, though. As for why people didn't buy the game after EA changed their ways, well, that's obvious. They didn't trust EA anymore. That was EA's greed that did that. If they are lucky, they can regain it before their next title. Battlefront II, however, is pretty much a lost cause. They know it, too, so don't feel bad for them. Consumer trust is very hard to get back. Smart business people that EA are, they knew that that was a potential outcome of their scummy tactics.
BANGS
Banned
EA never broke anyone's trust though. They never outright lied about what they were doing with the game. Anyways we're way off topic no reason to continue but thanks for the conversation...