Loot Boxes are Gambling - Get fucked EA

[Thunder]

Go read some journalism and make an informed purchasing decision.

lmao

why don't people just read some journalism [about the dangers of gambling] and let's allow microtransactions for rng

/s

but srsly, it'd be like purchasing a pair of pants but after x hrs of "wear" little spikes begin to protrude into your ass. It's not "buyer's remorse" if things are fundamentally different (as is intrinsic of many video games) at different intervals of play

and it seems steam is doing just fine with their no questions asked and idgaf time table refunds. This is pretty big, imo, if steam didn't do it I would naturally think that we'd have people scamming the system and returning every single game after they're done playing it lol

It's not a big deal for me personally (even though my primary interest in games is "endgame" related, so balance, top tier loot acquisition, and the upper bounds of difficulty the game offers - none of which "journalists" cover, afaik, it's just their shitty gameplay and commentary of the first x minutes of the game, lol), I've only ever returned ark and ever only failed to return mass effect andromeda and fallout 76 (the later I didn't even try as it was about 2 weeks after purchase that their first post-launch patch revealed their incompetence at fixing the game)

[arus2001]

Back home, but Google definitely isn't a no questions asked sort. I implicitly remember buying a small gem back for Tales of the Rays, only to find out a couple days later they were shutting the game down. I have no trouble supporting a game that intends to stay up, but to me, it just wound up being a hit and run.

[Karbuncle]

I'm all for it. Honestly, this is the best case scenario we're going to get. I truly hope it goes somewhere, these practices are just getting worse and worse since capitalism dictates that soaring profits must beget even higher soaring profits and that means more ways to milk you. As far as I'm concerned, just because its normalized, 50$+ For 10 "characters" or weapons in Gacha games is a scam, no matter how much I enjoy said games or how fair they are by other mobile garbage standards... I don't like what the gaming industry is becoming and the occasional diamond among the turds doesn't make up for the cesspool that Microtransactions have brought to us.

I must admit at the same time I don't know how the industry will survive this burst if it actually happens, in any way. But if it means a better industry rises from the ashes I think I could take it. Though, if I can go full conspiracy theory here, if the burst happened to kill a few publishers I shiver to think Google buying them up since its getting into that market and Google just becoming another Monopoly overlord..

[Salodin]

From what I've read, this is very limited to the gambling aspects of microtransactions. Not the sweeping changes to the gaming industry that yall are talking about.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Karbuncle]

From what I've read, this is very limited to the gambling aspects of microtransactions. Not the sweeping changes to the gaming industry that yall are talking about.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

A lot of Microtransactions could be considered Gambling or used for Gambling, the reason they even use fake currency is to skirt around the gambling laws. Lootboxes and Gacha being the major two that are likely to get shafted, and those are the ones that are most egregious in monetization in both AAA and mobile games. Though I do believe the bill specifies or points special interest to "Pay to Win" so theres that. That'd still bone the crap out of a lot of the Mobile industry.

While certainly not sweeping legislation, the changes they're proposing could have huge repercussions for an industry thats gotten used to the rampant unchecked profits these things bring.

You probably know all that though TBH I'm just clarifying myself :\

[arus2001]

With no other changes, you can pretty much bet the majority of games we're playing now will have their global versions pulled if things pass, as that's what has happened with some games in Belgium. Which really just goes back to my other thread relative to ownership and how these companies can just suddenly rip things we've bought from us without any form of compensation. So, yeah, I'll scoff at hypothetical Clash of Clans guy if he's actually against steps being taken to lower the costs of his enjoyment while affirming the same quality or greater in future content, as well as continued end of life access, because you don't have X amount of people nowhere involved in the actual creation process taking more than fair share of budget. You also can't really say something like "The Sword 1000 Truths costs $100!" as while there may be initial investment in its creation IRL, the duplication of the related data/access to it is something that literally doesn't cost $100 for every player that decides they want it. Which is further why I advocate reigning in the insane prices of things, as their sales en masse would still have meaning (and likely eclipse the benefit of whale only territory). From there, I dare say it'd put creators in the position to actually make good games to better profit instead of following the skinner box playbook and creating addicts with the gaming equivalent of stockholm syndrome when you suggest shaking up the status quo in their presence. And further part of the problem is we do have a generation of gamers who haven't seen games without this overarching cancer.

[fantasticdan]

I doubt anyone disagrees with the "illegal to sell RNG things" with respect to "microtransactions"

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate, what about TCG games and their randomized packs that have existed for 25+ years? Should those be age restricted or made illegal as well? If anything those are even closer to traditional gambling, since the cards can also easily be exchanged for real money.

This one is more of a stretch, but how about games with random rewards + subscription fees, like MMOs? If your in-game rewards are reliant on RNG, that only have a chance to be obtained a limited number of times per subscription period (like weekly raid lockouts), you can easily translate that into paying for a certain number of slot machine pulls per content/item per month. I have no doubt there are plenty of MMO players that have continued paying subscription fees for the express purpose of trying to obtain specific items through random drops.

Modern WoW has moved further in that direction, making item acquisition even more random in multiple ways. One example is titanforging(gear can randomly be higher item level, have additional stats, etc) which prevents a player from ever 'finishing' their gear, and allows even casual players to keep rolling the dice in lower tier content hoping for titanforges as a way to obtain higher level gear. It's a casino on top of a casino on top of a game you are recurrently paying to play.

[Malithar]

Some may not agree, but I'm concerned that stuff like this will ruin the gaming market. How many companies would be able to stay afloat when their profits absolutely plumet? This isn't a question of if they deserve what they're making or the morality behind the microtransactions and design. Many games that I enjoy playing have microtransactions or are gachas. I've only found myself spending hard (what I'd consider hard at least) on two, though I've played one for three years (FFBE) and sold the account for the other (Duel Links) for about 80% of what I had put in after I saw Konami was going hard on outclassing stuff every update.

If suddenly they're unable to have the option to monetize in this fashion, I'd think they (the games and the companies making them) would be quickly out of business. Investors won't stick around if they know nothing but missing quota by multitudes will be in the forecast. Microtransactions aren't just an EA or mobile game thing anymore either. Many prominent companies are involved and I'd think all would be at risk.

I don't disagree that it's a problem, specially for those who are susceptible to these tactics such as children and addicts. But by trying to protect those few, the rest may lose out on the ability to enjoy many games. Subscriptions and other DLC type of options wouldn't even come close to covering the differences in profit some of these games see.

Edit:

With no other changes, you can pretty much bet the majority of games we're playing now will have their global versions pulled if things pass, as that's what has happened with some games in Belgium.

Shoulda refreshed. This is also a concern of mine, though I'd like to believe the US is too big of a market to not offer an alternative. Belgium is just over 11m total people.

[arus2001]

I've generally viewed the decline of subscription MMOs as a good sign, as there certainly are some psychological pressures to getting the most bang for your buck or the grey area of paying for a chance at content. But more generally, I've also never really agreed with lockouts and felt if someone wants to spam something until they're sick of it, let them. Said players, however, can't turn around and complain there's nothing to do because they autism'd their way through content at a rate the average player wouldn't even come close to nor devs keep up with. Otherwise, there have been games that have sold bonus access to instances (usually on the Korean side of the genre), which most definitely translates to P2W. I personally couldn't justify multiple MMO subs when they were more common, myself, fully understanding the time requirements each would engender if I wanted to be a half-decent player. I'd go on to say the vast majority of people would also feel similarly, or at worst, be that type who still subs despite not touching a given game for months.

As for RNG'd gear, that doesn't bother me as much as the relative insistence that raiding is the premier endgame in so many titles across the MMO spectrum. Crafting usually suffers from this, because RMT, while if a game is kind enough to offer "welfare" alternatives, they're still going to be garbage compared to the raid stuff. And heaven help the casual if stuff is locked behind PvP, because PUGs will get steamrolled by pre-mades, or stragglers in an open world environment getting ganked by groups or highbies. Social RNG (who you find to party with, guilds that accept you, if when you play is peak time, etc.) is also a thing. On the other hand, games like Diablo can prove the RNG gear works, it's just a matter of how cruel drop rates are (especially if trade is enabled), the range on affixes, and general usability of a given piece. Both genres have had player friendly steps I personally wish they'd take, but then you get fanboyism/purists getting their panties in a twist because it usually means not paying gaming prestige and related trappings much heed. Hell, just imagine how different XI would've been if Kings and other HNMs were popped from the start, and that's just a move meant to further encourage accessibility of their content ilk.

But I also think a question devs need to ponder on when it comes to their games is how long they expect people to play. Some players foolishly think a singular game should keep them entertained for years with no or minimal updates. To me, that's being unreasonable, and obviously does the industry no good if it turns out only a small handful of games are where people flock. And the more long-term the expectation, the more taking a break is likely seen as anathema due to falling behind or even something as simple as instance attempts not building up and basically being lost on daily/weekly/monthly rollovers. It also winds up encouraging shortcuts in progression once content is so stacked that if you literally had players years apart, they'd never really be able to play together on the same level. Gonna cut myself off here for now, getting sleepy and perhaps too tangential because of it.

[Thunder]

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate, what about TCG games and their randomized packs that have existed for 25+ years? Should those be age restricted or made illegal as well? If anything those are even closer to traditional gambling, since the cards can also easily be exchanged for real money.

This one is more of a stretch, but how about games with random rewards + subscription fees, like MMOs? If your in-game rewards are reliant on RNG, that only have a chance to be obtained a limited number of times per subscription period (like weekly raid lockouts), you can easily translate that into paying for a certain number of slot machine pulls per content/item per month. I have no doubt there are plenty of MMO players that have continued paying subscription fees for the express purpose of trying to obtain specific items through random drops.

Modern WoW has moved further in that direction, making item acquisition even more random in multiple ways. One example is titanforging(gear can randomly be higher item level, have additional stats, etc) which prevents a player from ever 'finishing' their gear, and allows even casual players to keep rolling the dice in lower tier content hoping for titanforges as a way to obtain higher level gear. It's a casino on top of a casino on top of a game you are recurrently paying to play.

Really good points that didn't occur to me.

Personally.. I'd have ruled physical TCG card packs as totally illegal a long time ago due to [what must be fact] that people effectively pay more per card by buying packs due to it being RNG gated instead if the TCG company sold them individually or sold pre-made packs (like those first yu gi oh/kaiba packs). But it seems that the US has not ruled them illegal due to some combination of, big enough victims don't exist, the cards are actually yours and have value, the cards are all marked for the same value by the TCG company and it's individuals who willingly decide to buy/sell for more so technically it's not even rng.

The MMO rng gear (or virtual tcg) thoughts bring me to similar thoughts I had on return policies. Bleh, it's pretty complicated trying to justify anything other than "let it be". I think trying to justify buying game = rng due to not knowing exactly how it'll be and buying mmo = getting rng gear is a good enough devil's advocate question that makes me back off my stances to try and regulate it. Although I do still appreciate steam's return policy... and would like to see an extremely successful mmo not rely on RNG, but then how the hell does the MMO keep people playing if not for the psychological manipulation?

My mind keeps going back to questions of good game design, and what exactly that means.

[Roranora]

I fell off the wagon with most current games about 10 years ago and don't play any mobile games, so I'm wholly unqualified and too uniformed to make any measured comment.

But I will say this is a fairly fascinating read and the gaming industry's evolution seems destined to change further in ways that may be very difficult to predict.

[Thunder]

Some may not agree, but I'm concerned that stuff like this will ruin the gaming market. How many companies would be able to stay afloat when their profits absolutely plumet? This isn't a question of if they deserve what they're making or the morality behind the microtransactions and design. Many games that I enjoy playing have microtransactions or are gachas. I've only found myself spending hard (what I'd consider hard at least) on two, though I've played one for three years (FFBE) and sold the account for the other (Duel Links) for about 80% of what I had put in after I saw Konami was going hard on outclassing stuff every update.

If suddenly they're unable to have the option to monetize in this fashion, I'd think they (the games and the companies making them) would be quickly out of business. Investors won't stick around if they know nothing but missing quota by multitudes will be in the forecast. Microtransactions aren't just an EA or mobile game thing anymore either. Many prominent companies are involved and I'd think all would be at risk.

I don't disagree that it's a problem, specially for those who are susceptible to these tactics such as children and addicts. But by trying to protect those few, the rest may lose out on the ability to enjoy many games. Subscriptions and other DLC type of options wouldn't even come close to covering the differences in profit some of these games see.

Edit:



Shoulda refreshed. This is also a concern of mine, though I'd like to believe the US is too big of a market to not offer an alternative. Belgium is just over 11m total people.

I'd just like to add some reasons for the opposite; maybe the gaming market gets better after big die offs

From yesterday-today I've come up with,

Depends on how much game design suffers due to predatory practices. Could be that ALL "good" game design could be perverted into making more money if you just tack on some psychologically abusive tactics like gambling mechanics and so if it's allowed, why not?

Imagining the entire "market share" of gamers, how many would simply not participate if there weren't any lootboxes/gacha/etc? This might be bigger than I'm imagining considering I've underestimated gambling in gaming every single time before...

How much would the "cost of acquisition" of gamers/customers drop due to the market not being bloated by games that are afloat only due to gambling mechanics?

(edit: btw, the only game I've been "active" on in the past year or so has been a mobile gacha game that I've spent $0 on, so I do share the thought that maybe this game, which is p good imo, wouldn't exist if not for it's RIDICULOUS loot box pricing - although, it's really only "good" because the rng + not paying mean you get assfucked by the rng and the game is hard, so basically the rng is covering for the dev's inability to balance appropriately)

[Kalmado]

I'm another that does not play any mobile game. I've never made an in game purchase once in my life. I've always thought DLC in a way was bullshit because when I buy a game I want to buy the entire game at the time of purchase. I get it though. Times have changed. There is so much money at stake with micro transactions that these companies now count on. I'm on the side that it should all be cosmetic and nothing that would add any advantage to the player, even if it's a single player game. I pay for the game and to win I need to play the game for it's content, not spend $10 extra to do it faster. That's just my two cents though.

[dasva]

Really good points that didn't occur to me.

Personally.. I'd have ruled physical TCG card packs as totally illegal a long time ago due to [what must be fact] that people effectively pay more per card by buying packs due to it being RNG gated instead if the TCG company sold them individually or sold pre-made packs (like those first yu gi oh/kaiba packs). But it seems that the US has not ruled them illegal due to some combination of, big enough victims don't exist, the cards are actually yours and have value, the cards are all marked for the same value by the TCG company and it's individuals who willingly decide to buy/sell for more so technically it's not even rng.

The MMO rng gear (or virtual tcg) thoughts bring me to similar thoughts I had on return policies. Bleh, it's pretty complicated trying to justify anything other than "let it be". I think trying to justify buying game = rng due to not knowing exactly how it'll be and buying mmo = getting rng gear is a good enough devil's advocate question that makes me back off my stances to try and regulate it. Although I do still appreciate steam's return policy... and would like to see an extremely successful mmo not rely on RNG, but then how the hell does the MMO keep people playing if not for the psychological manipulation?

My mind keeps going back to questions of good game design, and what exactly that means.

The closest it came iirc was some case brought up against sports cards back in the day. Been awhile since I looked at it though pretty sure I posted a video about it awhile back here somewhere but iirc it came out legal in certain circumstances. I believe a lot of it came down to what you kind of hit on. The high value is purely in the secondary market so as long as they aren't directly selling us things at those values (though mtg is certainly skirting the line lately) and they didn't specifically seed the packs based on secondary market values (which again mtg skirts really close to. Arguably the masters sets are in fact just that) it's ok.

Also remember that a lot of TCGs have digital versions (and more and more are digital only) which also have no inherent value and there has been cases of collections seized after a ban (though iirc it got settled out of court because fuck trying to fight that lol) and now some of those digital TCGs are taking the T out of it *cough* MTGA *cough* so I doubt the actually owning and value as collectors items still completely holds up

Edit: actually found video though I think I might have read other stuff on it before

[Thunder]

Thanks, I hate it. Listened to his original video on lootboxes as well

Looks pretty bleak with respect to doing what I think is the bar minimum of "right", which is any $$ in direct exchange for any randomness is banned.

Seems every consideration in the first video could be circumvented by virtue of one of the two "loopholes" in the 2nd, and that's collectability. If you're a scummy video game just add a way to collect the guns/skins/cards in a collection book (coincidentally fortnite's save the world does this) and viola, all clear, because suddenly there's "reason" for people to be buying the lootboxes for the trash and the "chaser" is just promotional, lol

[Malithar]

Great points for sure.

Depends on how much game design suffers due to predatory practices. Could be that ALL "good" game design could be perverted into making more money if you just tack on some psychologically abusive tactics like gambling mechanics and so if it's allowed, why not?

I think in general, we've seen this with a large number of AAA games, not just F2P/mobile games. Maybe not quite what I'd consider psychologically abusive, but many skirt that line for sure. Assassin's Creed Odyssey seemed to carry an overall good reception, but at launch, the XP values were obviously tuned to create walls to steer you into purchasing XP boosters. To contrast that, DMC5 had red orb boosters available, though the game wasn't tuned in such a way to require you to purchase them. On a personal level, I don't mind DMC5's approach as I'm sure there's people out there that want to hasten the grind. If they want to pay a bit to do so, that's their prerogative. Many other AAA games could be used as examples for both sides here, CoD Blackout, FFXV, MK11, and Halo 5 all come to the front of my mind.

Imagining the entire "market share" of gamers, how many would simply not participate if there weren't any lootboxes/gacha/etc? This might be bigger than I'm imagining considering I've underestimated gambling in gaming every single time before...

Personally, I'm less concerned with how many would choose to not participate with the lack of microtransactions, and more concerned with companies just not offering the games period. Belgium is seeing this now. Outside of VPNs and other tactics to get around the region lock, many games with loot boxes just aren't offered. If they are offered, the microtransactions are removed and no alternative or adjustment is made. To circle back to the earlier example of Assassin's Creed (I don't know if it was offered there, I assume it was), you'd likely be stuck with dealing with the XP walls. As I mentioned above, I'd like to think the US is a big enough market that companies would try and offer an alternative rather than just pull out, but it's still concerning. Without microtransactions, a large majority of games lack a variable monetization strategy.

How much would the "cost of acquisition" of gamers/customers drop due to the market not being bloated by games that are afloat only due to gambling mechanics?

The gaming bubble burst of the Atari era was before my time, but I've looked at this kinda like that. There would be some core companies that could weather the situation, and indies would likely continue to strive as they are now, likely even more so. We'd hit a point where we'd wait for the next big move/design choice that moves the industry forward. I think the cost would take a massive drop due to the drop in competition which would reduce their expenses.

(edit: btw, the only game I've been "active" on in the past year or so has been a mobile gacha game that I've spent $0 on, so I do share the thought that maybe this game, which is p good imo, wouldn't exist if not for it's RIDICULOUS loot box pricing - although, it's really only "good" because the rng + not paying mean you get assfucked by the rng and the game is hard, so basically the rng is covering for the dev's inability to balance appropriately)

This kinda hits on the major issue of these types of games. Many players play with little investment which is fine, no shame or guilt to be had here. However, the game ends up supported by the 1% who make it their hobby, ambition, goal, or addiction to collect everything, always have the best teams/items, etc. There'll be those who invest a little, maybe they enjoy it enough to toss $10 a month or something, maybe they get the "gotta have it" bug and spend a few hundred here and there. In the end, it doesn't really matter. The game ends up making it's lion share off of whales who spend hundreds or even thousands a week with little chance of them stopping. It's why regardless of the pleas for better gacha/lootbox rates, the requests typically fall on deaf ears.

For awhile, I've been surprised that the mobile game FFXV A New Empire has remained in the top grossing for so long. I played it for like 30 minutes back when FFXV was new because I thought maybe it'd expand on the story, but there's nothing there really. Looking into the game play now, turns out it's just designed to be a whale fest and you've got the same few people who blow tens of thousands just to stay at the top. That's not really good game design, but should that experience not exist for those who want it? That's a hard question to answer IMO.

[Greatguardian]

I understand this is a video game forum and if anything is going to inflame passions on here it's game design, but for real y'all. At what point do you not just give adults the agency to be adults and not buy or play games with anti-consumer practices?

Providing legal protection for vulnerable populations (eg children) makes sense, but trying to legislate game design because you don't like some of the games people are making or because otherwise functional adults are making poor decisions then regretting them later seems silly.

At the end of the day, why does it matter to you how other people spend their disposable income? Because it results in developers prioritizing making games that you don't want to buy? Legislation isn't going to fix that. The things you like just aren't popular enough to drive investment. It sucks, but that's how life be sometimes. Welcome to the life every Mecha fan's been living for the last 15 years.

[Fiye]

Because these designs are build and tested to want you to throw money at it. The odds of getting some rare character or gear that'll help you build your team. The flashy animations that accompany them. The fear of missing out on a limited time banner!

These are all things that are designed to take advantage of people who are weak to these sorts of things. Why allow companies to take advantage of this?

[Thunder]

Legislation isn't going to fix that. The things you like just aren't popular enough to drive investment.

That's not necessarily true, people and their attention aren't infinite so by virtue of there being so many games whose design is to keep people's attention with gambling (or other predatory "bad" game design, but I think gambling is the only hill I'm willing to die on atm) the share of people's attention other, "good," games can get is decreased not proportional to how popular they are, but proportional to how powerful a psychologically exploitative game design can be

[Salodin]

Because that is their God given right lmao. Who the fuck are you to tell people they cant enjoy the things they enjoy? Next you're gonna say we should ban DC movies cause they make superhero movies look bad compared to marvel movies. That is literally what you guys are talking about in regards to developers and the type of games they make. They have the freedom to make any game they want, and adults have the chance to support the product or not. The only problem is using tactics to entice minors to basically gamble, and as a society, we've agreed they shouldn't be the target of such tactics.

You guys are taking one thing that needs fixing and cranking it up to 11 because you dont feel catered to as a gamer anymore. That's not Congress's problem lol. You are most definitely not the target demographic for most new video games, and most publishers you used to love now have a new beau.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk