Dupes have two purposes - pad out the number of available drops, which decreases the chances of getting the desired item, and granting the player some token amount of FunBux, encouraging the next lootbox purchase. It's a very slick system.
Yep. The primary purpose of dupes is to make sure your chances to win don't actually go up as you spend money. If you had zero dupes, a player willing to spend a bunch of money could be quite certain of getting everything. In a gacha/lootbox system, though, people can easily spend 300 dollars on rolling the gacha and NOT get the thing they wanted. Which is the entire reason for the booster pack model in the first place!
Dupes have two purposes - pad out the number of available drops, which decreases the chances of getting the desired item, and granting the player some token amount of FunBux, encouraging the next lootbox purchase. It's a very slick system.
Yep. The primary purpose of dupes is to make sure your chances to win don't actually go up as you spend money. If you had zero dupes, a player willing to spend a bunch of money could be quite certain of getting everything. In a gacha/lootbox system, though, people can easily spend 300 dollars on rolling the gacha and NOT get the thing they wanted. Which is the entire reason for the booster pack model in the first place!
Random curiosity, how did I wind up quoted here
Because I was agreeing with and elaborating on your first point? The idea is that dupes are there to make sure your chances of getting the desired item suck so you spend more money. I was just adding that it's not just reducing the flat chance, but making sure it doesn't ever go up so you always have to deal with the same shitty chance of desired item.
Paradox's expansions are...very different. Games like Stellaris certainly get radical updates, and a lot of them, but there is very clearly zero hosting cost on their side (aside from whatever it takes for you to get the game form them). And if you don't have the actual DLC (and not the updated game itself), you don't play multiplayer with those do, as far as I know.
Only the host needs the DLC, though some features like alt-history paths or ascension perks/machine empires require DLC. Might be different for older games like Victoria 2.
Division of a multiplayer base is unfortunate--but it's not like you couldn't play some games of the original Titanfall on XB1 two years after it came out (prior to the sequel coming out).
It's inconvenient, but not the end of the world. And it's not calculatingly predatory at least.
There's a solution already existing though... Paradox and Starbreeze have proven that expansions don't need to break up the playerbase.
Starbreeze banking on The Walking Dead after posting pre-tax loss of $22.2M
Paradox interactive seems profitable based on their Year of the end reports.
Don't they do mostly single-player and small-scale multiplayer games?*
*Meaning that they don't have continuous huge hosting expenses, like modern FPS, Moba and MMORPG-games do.
Many modern FPSs choose to incur hosting expenses because they don't want to allow players to dedicated server tools as a deliberate strategy of planned obsolescence.
Dupes have two purposes - pad out the number of available drops, which decreases the chances of getting the desired item, and granting the player some token amount of FunBux, encouraging the next lootbox purchase. It's a very slick system.
Yep. The primary purpose of dupes is to make sure your chances to win don't actually go up as you spend money. If you had zero dupes, a player willing to spend a bunch of money could be quite certain of getting everything. In a gacha/lootbox system, though, people can easily spend 300 dollars on rolling the gacha and NOT get the thing they wanted. Which is the entire reason for the booster pack model in the first place!
Random curiosity, how did I wind up quoted here
Because I was agreeing with and elaborating on your first point? The idea is that dupes are there to make sure your chances of getting the desired item suck so you spend more money. I was just adding that it's not just reducing the flat chance, but making sure it doesn't ever go up so you always have to deal with the same shitty chance of desired item.
I think he's confused because that was my quote, lol. There's a lot of quote chains floating in here, I assume something got mixed up.
Paradox's expansions are...very different. Games like Stellaris certainly get radical updates, and a lot of them, but there is very clearly zero hosting cost on their side (aside from whatever it takes for you to get the game form them). And if you don't have the actual DLC (and not the updated game itself), you don't play multiplayer with those do, as far as I know.
Only the host needs the DLC, though some features like alt-history paths or ascension perks/machine empires require DLC. Might be different for older games like Victoria 2.
Division of a multiplayer base is unfortunate--but it's not like you couldn't play some games of the original Titanfall on XB1 two years after it came out (prior to the sequel coming out).
It's inconvenient, but not the end of the world. And it's not calculatingly predatory at least.
There's a solution already existing though... Paradox and Starbreeze have proven that expansions don't need to break up the playerbase.
Starbreeze banking on The Walking Dead after posting pre-tax loss of $22.2M
Paradox interactive seems profitable based on their Year of the end reports.
Don't they do mostly single-player and small-scale multiplayer games?*
*Meaning that they don't have continuous huge hosting expenses, like modern FPS, Moba and MMORPG-games do.
Many modern FPSs choose to incur hosting expenses because they don't want to allow players to dedicated server tools as a deliberate strategy of planned obsolescence.
Private servers were pita to both upkeep or to find a good one with stable population.
I'm happy that they've become obsolete and I can just multiplay with a press of a button.
jammu on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Paradox's expansions are...very different. Games like Stellaris certainly get radical updates, and a lot of them, but there is very clearly zero hosting cost on their side (aside from whatever it takes for you to get the game form them). And if you don't have the actual DLC (and not the updated game itself), you don't play multiplayer with those do, as far as I know.
Only the host needs the DLC, though some features like alt-history paths or ascension perks/machine empires require DLC. Might be different for older games like Victoria 2.
Division of a multiplayer base is unfortunate--but it's not like you couldn't play some games of the original Titanfall on XB1 two years after it came out (prior to the sequel coming out).
It's inconvenient, but not the end of the world. And it's not calculatingly predatory at least.
There's a solution already existing though... Paradox and Starbreeze have proven that expansions don't need to break up the playerbase.
Starbreeze banking on The Walking Dead after posting pre-tax loss of $22.2M
Paradox interactive seems profitable based on their Year of the end reports.
Don't they do mostly single-player and small-scale multiplayer games?*
*Meaning that they don't have continuous huge hosting expenses, like modern FPS, Moba and MMORPG-games do.
Many modern FPSs choose to incur hosting expenses because they don't want to allow players to dedicated server tools as a deliberate strategy of planned obsolescence.
Private servers were pita to both upkeep or to find a good one with stable population.
I'm happy that they've become obsolete and I can just multiplay with a press of a button.
I quite liked dedicated servers.
I feel they might be the reason I find the player base in modern games to be more toxic, as non-private servers don't have the incentive/ability to police themselves, so I can't find a managed community.
On loot boxes, I actually regret that I didn't talk to Game Design at my online casino developer job about TF2s implementation of lootboxes, i.e. you "win" a loot box, then have to pay to open it.
I don't recall us having any similar mechanics in any of our games at the time.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
The disappearance for support of dedicated servers is a pretty great example of the big publishers being completely full of shit when it comes to saying which features players find important. Dedicated servers give players a controlled, stable environment in which to enjoy all the features of the game at the hands of an admin while also providing strong anti-cheat and anti-griefer control, giving games a reliable life expectancy much, much longer than the current fuckawful trend of cloud-type servers or (ugh) player-based hosting (both of which are infested with cheaters and griefers).
The garbage balance that makes competitive Overwatch intolerable trash didn't happen with the PA TF2 servers, because fixing fucked-up balance was as easy as a pass with an autobalance script. Somebody being an asshole? Not for long, because they just get banned.
Valve has a lot to answer for, in addition to being a Trotskyist party in corporate form, with it's talk of "flat organizational structure" -- followed by purges which take them from 15,000 to 300.
Dupes have two purposes - pad out the number of available drops, which decreases the chances of getting the desired item, and granting the player some token amount of FunBux, encouraging the next lootbox purchase. It's a very slick system.
Yep. The primary purpose of dupes is to make sure your chances to win don't actually go up as you spend money. If you had zero dupes, a player willing to spend a bunch of money could be quite certain of getting everything. In a gacha/lootbox system, though, people can easily spend 300 dollars on rolling the gacha and NOT get the thing they wanted. Which is the entire reason for the booster pack model in the first place!
Padding out available drops isn't just about reducing your chance of getting what you want. It's mostly about giving you that happy feeling of getting a ton of things given to you.
One of the core things with how players react to games is that getting stuff, even if it's useless stuff, feels better then getting nothing. This is used in basically every loot system if the developers know what they are doing, not just lootboxes.
Valve has a lot to answer for, in addition to being a Trotskyist party in corporate form, with it's talk of "flat organizational structure" -- followed by purges which take them from 15,000 to 300.
WhaT?
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
More like they figured out they could make way more money a lot easier without making a bunch of ganes.
Talking about specific business models here is irrelevant. Lootboxes are not the only way to make money they are just the most profitable way. Developers will make due if they can't exploit people's psychological weakness to gambling. They did it before, they'll do it again.
There is literally no reason to discuss how game's work in specifics as if that's relevant to lootboxes vs other business models. It isn't.
I actually think that a few publishers and developers might be in serious trouble if loot boxes go away. I've been waiting for a second crash since Black Isle closed. I do agree we're getting a bit off topic though.
Valve has a lot to answer for, in addition to being a Trotskyist party in corporate form, with it's talk of "flat organizational structure" -- followed by purges which take them from 15,000 to 300.
"The day I got fired I was walking up to the elevator and one of the mechanical engineers said 'Did you hear so-and-so was laid off?' It was someone on our project. I was mad. I hopped in the elevator and went straight up to our team - and I found Rick, and he said 'I was fired. You too.'
"I couldn't believe it. The handbook said that if you get too far off course they will tell you about it."
Dupes have two purposes - pad out the number of available drops, which decreases the chances of getting the desired item, and granting the player some token amount of FunBux, encouraging the next lootbox purchase. It's a very slick system.
Yep. The primary purpose of dupes is to make sure your chances to win don't actually go up as you spend money. If you had zero dupes, a player willing to spend a bunch of money could be quite certain of getting everything. In a gacha/lootbox system, though, people can easily spend 300 dollars on rolling the gacha and NOT get the thing they wanted. Which is the entire reason for the booster pack model in the first place!
Random curiosity, how did I wind up quoted here
Because I was agreeing with and elaborating on your first point? The idea is that dupes are there to make sure your chances of getting the desired item suck so you spend more money. I was just adding that it's not just reducing the flat chance, but making sure it doesn't ever go up so you always have to deal with the same shitty chance of desired item.
Well yes but I didn't make that post
I ate an engineer
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The question of whether loot boxes fulfill the technical definition of gambling is a legal matter, but the moral/ethical case is a lot simpler, or at least involves less math.
A practice is immoral if it needlesslycauses people to self-harm to extremity.
Needlessly: loot boxes are not integral artistic elements of gameplay; video game profits hold no moral weight, especially when there are less harmful options, like raising prices or lowering costs.
Causes: gambling or not, loot boxes clearly tap into the same sort of psychological impulses of addiction and compulsion; players often regret their purchases and report feeling manipulated or pressured by the game into spending money they don’t wish to spend
harm to extremity: some players spend a ruinous amount of money, and at current prices even “low” amounts of lootboxing in games like Overwatch or gacha can involve spending an outsized amount of money compared to a reasonable amount of entertainment
Or to put it another way, loot boxes are manipulative, addicting, compelling, exploitative, and sometimes ruinous in a manner quite similar to gambling and above and beyond even the worst of non-financial manipulative games.
Therefore to protect both addicts and consumers in general, we should do something about it.
If lootboxes are gambling, we're going to have to reassess a lot of other things, like Magic cards and football stickers and so on.
And if this palaver about lootboxes actually achieves anything, then we absolutely should treat them the same way.
The main difference is that I can buy those other things without having to gamble for them. For older magic and football cards, buying them direct is pretty much your only option. The reason to gamble is in the hopes of getting an expensive card at a lower price. In other words, the only time you have to gamble is because you actually want to. Imagine if Verizon made you buy raffle tickets for a new phone, phone than just selling you a phone directly.
Gambling in MTG isn't a major issue in iydrlg. After all, MTG is a game involving chance. Bringing a non-random deck to a tournament is grounds for disqualification. There's also the fact that you're literally putting money on the line at tournaments in the hopes of winning a prize.
The bigger problem is the "pay to win" mechanic. which leads to bad game play. You need a large community to keep the game interesting, and "pay to win" limits your community. Different games will have different scales on how much you need to spend. Competitive players have the option of forming teams and pooling resources, thus saving money.
In the case of loot boxes, you're combining "pay to win" system that doesn't provide the option of pooling resources or buying direct.
Parents need simple information. We can’t overwhelm them with a lot of detail... We have not found that parents are differentiating between these different mechanics.
(...)
I’m sure you’re all asking why aren’t we doing something more specific to loot boxes. We’ve done a lot of research over the past several weeks and months, particularly among parents. What we’ve learned is that a large majority of parents don’t know what a loot box is. Even those who claim they do, don’t really understand what a loot box is. So it’s very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, to make sure that we’re capturing loot boxes, but also other in-game transactions.
Parents don't know what loot boxes are. So rather than explain what they are and inspire horror and outrage, we've decided to wish upon a star that people forget they are mad about this instead.
I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that "we've done a lot of research" bit, too. Did they just pick the oldest parents of teenagers here? Because I'm pretty skeptical that a large majority of parents of tweens and teens, who would generally be in their late 30's and early 40's, are completely unaware of lootboxes as a concept these days. And extra bullshit that it would be too much to explain. I mean really.
It helps to remember that the ESRB's job is not to protect children or inform parents, it's to prevent regulations.
In this case, it looks like they are trying to do so by screaming "nothing to see here", rather than by voluntarily doing (roughly) the right thing.
This should tell you how much money they make exploiting gambling addicts, because I doubt that it's going to work that well, and if governments start paying attention, they might also start asking other questions...
It’s also bullshit that parents don’t know what loot boxes are. Parents play games and purchase loot boxes just as often as kids do. More so, since it’s the parents with the credit cards!
It helps to remember that the ESRB's job is not to protect children or inform parents, it's to prevent regulations.
In this case, it looks like they are trying to do so by screaming "nothing to see here", rather than by voluntarily doing (roughly) the right thing.
This should tell you how much money they make exploiting gambling addicts, because I doubt that it's going to work that well, and if governments start paying attention, they might also start asking other questions...
Most of the industry in general looks like it wants to go the route of pretending there is nothing to see there, and the ESA sole purpose is representing industry interests so it isn't a surprise.
Censorship Strikes Back Roundtable (Presented by IGDA)
Global gains against game censorship are suddenly at risk from a combination of actions against our industry. With the World Health Organization classifying "gaming disorder" a mental health condition and burgeoning legislation around the world against Loot Boxes, a handful of government officials again wield outsized power over our creative and business decisions. Additionally, Augmented Reality (AR) faces bans in parks, military bases, churches around the world, and a total ban in China. What are developers to do? Join us for a discussion on how we can protect our rights.
Takeaway
Game developers and allies will get updates on the latest assaults on their self-expression and business rights, learn about potential implications of recent government changes, find out what has worked in the past, and learn how to protect themselves and support their peers. They will learn about what works in their country and what they can do to be an advocate for change no matter where in the world they live and work.
Intended Audience
The intended audience is all game developers and allies who want to protect themselves, their work, and their peers from video game censorship.
Riiiiiiight.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
“This game contains addictive luck-based mechanics that cost real money and may be harmful for minors” is all you need on the box for parents to understand.
“This game contains addictive luck-based mechanics that cost real money and may be harmful for minors” is all you need on the box for parents to understand.
Parents don't read boxes (including the already existing ratings and rating breakdowns). You'd need to restrict sale of games containing those elements to adults if you were going to have any sort of impact.
+4
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
“This game contains addictive luck-based mechanics that cost real money and may be harmful for minors” is all you need on the box for parents to understand.
Or the ESRB could use one of their already existing ratings.
"ADULTS ONLY
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency." http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx
Well that's weird, a solution already exist but they're not using it. Could it possibly be because most big chains don't carry AO rated games and they'd lose a whole bunch of money if they did start slapping that rating on games? No, surely that's got nothing to do with it.
"Parents don't understand lootboxes and we sure as hell aren't going to explain how they are designed to exploit their children. But we are going to design these new text box to go on every game released from here on out."
“This game contains addictive luck-based mechanics that cost real money and may be harmful for minors” is all you need on the box for parents to understand.
Parents don't read boxes (including the already existing ratings and rating breakdowns). You'd need to restrict sale of games containing those elements to adults if you were going to have any sort of impact.
Given that it's the parents they want to exploit, and that the industry seems intent to become an unregulated casino, I don't think a warning label would be enough, yes.
Especially since it would have to be on all games, if the trend continue.
+2
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Censorship Strikes Back Roundtable (Presented by IGDA)
Global gains against game censorship are suddenly at risk from a combination of actions against our industry. With the World Health Organization classifying "gaming disorder" a mental health condition and burgeoning legislation around the world against Loot Boxes, a handful of government officials again wield outsized power over our creative and business decisions. Additionally, Augmented Reality (AR) faces bans in parks, military bases, churches around the world, and a total ban in China. What are developers to do? Join us for a discussion on how we can protect our rights.
Takeaway
Game developers and allies will get updates on the latest assaults on their self-expression and business rights, learn about potential implications of recent government changes, find out what has worked in the past, and learn how to protect themselves and support their peers. They will learn about what works in their country and what they can do to be an advocate for change no matter where in the world they live and work.
Intended Audience
The intended audience is all game developers and allies who want to protect themselves, their work, and their peers from video game censorship.
Riiiiiiight.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but holy crap.
Yes, there is always concern that there might be A Politician with too much power and too little knowledge making sweeping changes, as with e.g. porn laws, but complaining that you're not allowed to use AR in parks or churches? And framing it as "protecting the rights of game developers?" How out of touch are you? Even an atheist like myself understands that a church, mosque, synagogue or any other sort of temple is a place of respect and not a place to be walking around chasing Pokémon, or geocaching, or whatever else people come up with (one of the better Extra Credits videos touches on the need, in designing AR games, to make them both safe in the real world, and respectful of cultural norms). The WHO classifying gaming disorder is specifically to protect people from serious negative habits in gaming that impede their ability to function normally, it's not an attack on gamers.
There is no "human right" to sell lootboxes, or get people addicted to games, or be able to game absolutely anywhere with no consideration for others. Attempting to disguise your greed by reframing it as a discussion of 'our rights' is despicable.
Censorship Strikes Back Roundtable (Presented by IGDA)
Global gains against game censorship are suddenly at risk from a combination of actions against our industry. With the World Health Organization classifying "gaming disorder" a mental health condition and burgeoning legislation around the world against Loot Boxes, a handful of government officials again wield outsized power over our creative and business decisions. Additionally, Augmented Reality (AR) faces bans in parks, military bases, churches around the world, and a total ban in China. What are developers to do? Join us for a discussion on how we can protect our rights.
Takeaway
Game developers and allies will get updates on the latest assaults on their self-expression and business rights, learn about potential implications of recent government changes, find out what has worked in the past, and learn how to protect themselves and support their peers. They will learn about what works in their country and what they can do to be an advocate for change no matter where in the world they live and work.
Intended Audience
The intended audience is all game developers and allies who want to protect themselves, their work, and their peers from video game censorship.
Riiiiiiight.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but holy crap.
Yes, there is always concern that there might be A Politician with too much power and too little knowledge making sweeping changes, as with e.g. porn laws, but complaining that you're not allowed to use AR in parks or churches? And framing it as "protecting the rights of game developers?" How out of touch are you? Even an atheist like myself understands that a church, mosque, synagogue or any other sort of temple is a place of respect and not a place to be walking around chasing Pokémon, or geocaching, or whatever else people come up with (one of the better Extra Credits videos touches on the need, in designing AR games, to make them both safe in the real world, and respectful of cultural norms). The WHO classifying gaming disorder is specifically to protect people from serious negative habits in gaming that impede their ability to function normally, it's not an attack on gamers.
There is no "human right" to sell lootboxes, or get people addicted to games, or be able to game absolutely anywhere with no consideration for others. Attempting to disguise your greed by reframing it as a discussion of 'our rights' is despicable.
A brief aside: during the height of Pokémon Go, I had Facebook friends who expressed their annoyance that certain public spaces--literally, cemeteries, memorials, religious houses, etc.--were being to crack down on use of the game among visitors (and thus would be featured on news).
Someone, that a Japanese shrine was getting irritated about people roaming around catching Pokémon and attempting to limit it didn't click with them. I think I pointed out that the Holocaust Memorial Museum also imposes limits on people's behaviors in certain area and that apparently made more sense.
The Holocaust Museum released an official statement during PGO's height telling people to stop trying to catch Pokémon inside it.
+5
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Censorship Strikes Back Roundtable (Presented by IGDA)
Global gains against game censorship are suddenly at risk from a combination of actions against our industry.
There are so many implications in this one tiny sentence alone. The fact that they are essentially equating regulating/banning a form of gambling, with what is clearly an argument implying the censorship of art is astounding. It's also a familiar sounding dog-whistle that they are clearly trying to use in riling up gamers against the (former) common enemy of Government regulation. This time I'm curious if they genuinely think gamers will be interested in actually defending them, given the responses to loot boxes in say Battlefront 2.
If it comes down to it, I do think the ESA and ESRB are going to ultimately lose a lot of face if government regulatory bodies come crashing down on them. They're not going to get the wider gaming community on their side for this and regulation really does need to catch up to what Loot Boxes actually are.
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Right, unlike with the NRA, the video game lobby doesn't have actual video gamers captive. If anything, the most active among us are the most aware of how predatory the practice is.
Right, unlike with the NRA, the video game lobby doesn't have actual video gamers captive. If anything, the most active among us are the most aware of how predatory the practice is.
I would actually disagree. I think the NRA is pretty comparable. The majority of gun owners are mildly against regulations or comfortable with minor ones, while there's an aggressive enthusiast group of participants who strongly oppose all regulation on moral grounds, backed by an industry that opposes all regulation on financial grounds.
They're actually super comparable now that I think about it.
Nah.
The most vocal gamers are, I believe, the 'hard-core' gamers, who like to invest time into a game rather than money, so as to become better at that game than the other players.
They are opposed to regulation in the game that may allow new players to compete, but are similarly diametrically opposed to any sort of payment that affords an in-game advantage.
Loot boxes have only escaped question most of the time because they don't tend to afford an in-game advantage.
These vocal players may welcome industry regulation, if it prevents new players from purchasing game advantages and is framed as such.
I don't know that loot boxes actually have many allies in the gaming community. Nobody really benefits from them except publishers. At best people think they're tolerable, but we've all seen the abuse cases. Hardcore gamers particularly tend to be hostile towards mobile gaming where this stuff is rampant.
+15
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Extra Credits did another episode about loot boxes, relevant to this thread. They bring up a lot of questions about actual legal proposals on the issue and the ramifications that can come with those things if they get followed through on. The short of it is a lot of unintended splash damage as a result of rushed legislation.
Extra Credits did another episode about loot boxes, relevant to this thread. They bring up a lot of questions about actual legal proposals on the issue and the ramifications that can come with those things if they get followed through on. The short of it is a lot of unintended splash damage as a result of rushed legislation.
AKA the video that got me to unsubscribe. If the industry did not want regulations, then the industry should have avoided exploitive practices. Governments are doing their job: protecting people against harm.
The video is good. And I do agree that lootbox need more research and I even agree that just changing legislation to say: “all lootbox is now gambling and under the same laws and regulations.” is not the best solution. Their ideas of publishing odds and putting in popups of spending info and confirmation are both great. I would love to see those go in, Edit: as bare minimum and as a start.
My main issue with the video and my main rebuttal: The splash damage they mention is every bit of it predicated on the games keeping loot box systems intact with no changes. If the lootbox system is removed, no problem exists. I suspect that might be the goal of some politicians (or their constituents) moving on the situation.
It’s trying to point out: “think of the unintended consiquences! If lootboxes are gambling or not for under 21, these bad things are gonna happen!” While I was thinking, “in that case, why can’t you just remove the loot boxes?” I’m also completely unmoved by the argument that it constrains the art they can produce.
Posts
Random curiosity, how did I wind up quoted here
Because I was agreeing with and elaborating on your first point? The idea is that dupes are there to make sure your chances of getting the desired item suck so you spend more money. I was just adding that it's not just reducing the flat chance, but making sure it doesn't ever go up so you always have to deal with the same shitty chance of desired item.
Only the host needs the DLC, though some features like alt-history paths or ascension perks/machine empires require DLC. Might be different for older games like Victoria 2.
Many modern FPSs choose to incur hosting expenses because they don't want to allow players to dedicated server tools as a deliberate strategy of planned obsolescence.
I think he's confused because that was my quote, lol. There's a lot of quote chains floating in here, I assume something got mixed up.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Private servers were pita to both upkeep or to find a good one with stable population.
I'm happy that they've become obsolete and I can just multiplay with a press of a button.
I quite liked dedicated servers.
I feel they might be the reason I find the player base in modern games to be more toxic, as non-private servers don't have the incentive/ability to police themselves, so I can't find a managed community.
On loot boxes, I actually regret that I didn't talk to Game Design at my online casino developer job about TF2s implementation of lootboxes, i.e. you "win" a loot box, then have to pay to open it.
I don't recall us having any similar mechanics in any of our games at the time.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The garbage balance that makes competitive Overwatch intolerable trash didn't happen with the PA TF2 servers, because fixing fucked-up balance was as easy as a pass with an autobalance script. Somebody being an asshole? Not for long, because they just get banned.
Padding out available drops isn't just about reducing your chance of getting what you want. It's mostly about giving you that happy feeling of getting a ton of things given to you.
One of the core things with how players react to games is that getting stuff, even if it's useless stuff, feels better then getting nothing. This is used in basically every loot system if the developers know what they are doing, not just lootboxes.
WhaT?
There is literally no reason to discuss how game's work in specifics as if that's relevant to lootboxes vs other business models. It isn't.
https://www.geekwire.com/2013/report-valve-letting-employees-part-great-cleansing/
https://www.geekwire.com/2013/valves-company-structure-felt-lot-high-school-employee/
https://www.mcvuk.com/development/valves-perfect-hiring-hierarchy-has-hidden-management-clique-like-high-school
Well yes but I didn't make that post
A practice is immoral if it needlessly causes people to self-harm to extremity.
Needlessly: loot boxes are not integral artistic elements of gameplay; video game profits hold no moral weight, especially when there are less harmful options, like raising prices or lowering costs.
Causes: gambling or not, loot boxes clearly tap into the same sort of psychological impulses of addiction and compulsion; players often regret their purchases and report feeling manipulated or pressured by the game into spending money they don’t wish to spend
harm to extremity: some players spend a ruinous amount of money, and at current prices even “low” amounts of lootboxing in games like Overwatch or gacha can involve spending an outsized amount of money compared to a reasonable amount of entertainment
Or to put it another way, loot boxes are manipulative, addicting, compelling, exploitative, and sometimes ruinous in a manner quite similar to gambling and above and beyond even the worst of non-financial manipulative games.
Therefore to protect both addicts and consumers in general, we should do something about it.
The main difference is that I can buy those other things without having to gamble for them. For older magic and football cards, buying them direct is pretty much your only option. The reason to gamble is in the hopes of getting an expensive card at a lower price. In other words, the only time you have to gamble is because you actually want to. Imagine if Verizon made you buy raffle tickets for a new phone, phone than just selling you a phone directly.
Gambling in MTG isn't a major issue in iydrlg. After all, MTG is a game involving chance. Bringing a non-random deck to a tournament is grounds for disqualification. There's also the fact that you're literally putting money on the line at tournaments in the hopes of winning a prize.
The bigger problem is the "pay to win" mechanic. which leads to bad game play. You need a large community to keep the game interesting, and "pay to win" limits your community. Different games will have different scales on how much you need to spend. Competitive players have the option of forming teams and pooling resources, thus saving money.
In the case of loot boxes, you're combining "pay to win" system that doesn't provide the option of pooling resources or buying direct.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
In this case, it looks like they are trying to do so by screaming "nothing to see here", rather than by voluntarily doing (roughly) the right thing.
This should tell you how much money they make exploiting gambling addicts, because I doubt that it's going to work that well, and if governments start paying attention, they might also start asking other questions...
Most of the industry in general looks like it wants to go the route of pretending there is nothing to see there, and the ESA sole purpose is representing industry interests so it isn't a surprise.
http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/censorship-strikes-back-roundtable-presented-by-igda/856303 Riiiiiiight.
Or the ESRB could use one of their already existing ratings.
"ADULTS ONLY
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency."
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx
Well that's weird, a solution already exist but they're not using it. Could it possibly be because most big chains don't carry AO rated games and they'd lose a whole bunch of money if they did start slapping that rating on games? No, surely that's got nothing to do with it.
Given that it's the parents they want to exploit, and that the industry seems intent to become an unregulated casino, I don't think a warning label would be enough, yes.
Especially since it would have to be on all games, if the trend continue.
Yes, there is always concern that there might be A Politician with too much power and too little knowledge making sweeping changes, as with e.g. porn laws, but complaining that you're not allowed to use AR in parks or churches? And framing it as "protecting the rights of game developers?" How out of touch are you? Even an atheist like myself understands that a church, mosque, synagogue or any other sort of temple is a place of respect and not a place to be walking around chasing Pokémon, or geocaching, or whatever else people come up with (one of the better Extra Credits videos touches on the need, in designing AR games, to make them both safe in the real world, and respectful of cultural norms). The WHO classifying gaming disorder is specifically to protect people from serious negative habits in gaming that impede their ability to function normally, it's not an attack on gamers.
There is no "human right" to sell lootboxes, or get people addicted to games, or be able to game absolutely anywhere with no consideration for others. Attempting to disguise your greed by reframing it as a discussion of 'our rights' is despicable.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
A brief aside: during the height of Pokémon Go, I had Facebook friends who expressed their annoyance that certain public spaces--literally, cemeteries, memorials, religious houses, etc.--were being to crack down on use of the game among visitors (and thus would be featured on news).
Someone, that a Japanese shrine was getting irritated about people roaming around catching Pokémon and attempting to limit it didn't click with them. I think I pointed out that the Holocaust Memorial Museum also imposes limits on people's behaviors in certain area and that apparently made more sense.
There are so many implications in this one tiny sentence alone. The fact that they are essentially equating regulating/banning a form of gambling, with what is clearly an argument implying the censorship of art is astounding. It's also a familiar sounding dog-whistle that they are clearly trying to use in riling up gamers against the (former) common enemy of Government regulation. This time I'm curious if they genuinely think gamers will be interested in actually defending them, given the responses to loot boxes in say Battlefront 2.
If it comes down to it, I do think the ESA and ESRB are going to ultimately lose a lot of face if government regulatory bodies come crashing down on them. They're not going to get the wider gaming community on their side for this and regulation really does need to catch up to what Loot Boxes actually are.
I would actually disagree. I think the NRA is pretty comparable. The majority of gun owners are mildly against regulations or comfortable with minor ones, while there's an aggressive enthusiast group of participants who strongly oppose all regulation on moral grounds, backed by an industry that opposes all regulation on financial grounds.
They're actually super comparable now that I think about it.
The most vocal gamers are, I believe, the 'hard-core' gamers, who like to invest time into a game rather than money, so as to become better at that game than the other players.
They are opposed to regulation in the game that may allow new players to compete, but are similarly diametrically opposed to any sort of payment that affords an in-game advantage.
Loot boxes have only escaped question most of the time because they don't tend to afford an in-game advantage.
These vocal players may welcome industry regulation, if it prevents new players from purchasing game advantages and is framed as such.
AKA the video that got me to unsubscribe. If the industry did not want regulations, then the industry should have avoided exploitive practices. Governments are doing their job: protecting people against harm.
My main issue with the video and my main rebuttal: The splash damage they mention is every bit of it predicated on the games keeping loot box systems intact with no changes. If the lootbox system is removed, no problem exists. I suspect that might be the goal of some politicians (or their constituents) moving on the situation.
It’s trying to point out: “think of the unintended consiquences! If lootboxes are gambling or not for under 21, these bad things are gonna happen!” While I was thinking, “in that case, why can’t you just remove the loot boxes?” I’m also completely unmoved by the argument that it constrains the art they can produce.