This misses a ton of what is going on though. Games as Service is a design decision as much as a business decision and design is where it emerged from. MMOs are like the quintessential GaS and the entire point is to deliver constant content updates and management of the game. That's what the developers were trying to do, that's what the players wanted from it. Monthly fees were basically invented as a business model to support that design.
The idea that games as service/living games/live service/whatever you wanna call it is inherently some sort of exploitative practice is silly. There's ways to go about funding the operation that are exploitative but the design itself exists to support a specific kind of gameplay people want.
Shit, this even goes all the way back to horse armour mentioned above. DLC is nothing strange or new. It's just expansion packs, which used to be super common for popular games. It's just a different delivery method that allowed more freedom in the size and pricing of additional content.
The major complaints with horse armour were not that it was unethical, but that it was overpriced. Which, I mean, I would agree with. But with that or more so other things, there's a lot of people who seem to think they are getting their money's worth. Which is irritating but not necessarily wrong.
shryke on
+7
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Similar to how a company not being able to pay minimum wages is a failed company a game that can not continue without exploitation is a failed game.
Considering some of the biggest titans of the industry got there without them (League's original model prior to loot boxes being put in for example or just any subscription mmo) I have very little sympathy for devs who wish to keep making their game on the backs of exploitation.
You can equally say this of casino's, alcohol or any other vice.
We still regulate them.
We sure can say that.
We probably shouldn't because it's very much a false equivalency and the broadest of possible brushes.
Look, lootboxes need to go. I get that, trust me. Randomized prizes you pay for is horrendously fucking exploitative and by definition is gambling.
A game provided for free that continues to exist due to MTX that provides no benefit to the single player game at all is another. You can even get limited, far nicer cosmetics by completing league challenges which, again, are free.
Do we call Paradox's system of continual content expansion exploitative as well?
Or how about Nintendo re-releasing the same fucking game over and over after they knowingly cut off access to the older versions and have people pay for it again?
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited June 2019
I think that for the most part, everyone here agrees that randomized mystery lootboxes that you can buy with real money need to die.
Similar to how a company not being able to pay minimum wages is a failed company a game that can not continue without exploitation is a failed game.
Considering some of the biggest titans of the industry got there without them (League's original model prior to loot boxes being put in for example or just any subscription mmo) I have very little sympathy for devs who wish to keep making their game on the backs of exploitation.
You can equally say this of casino's, alcohol or any other vice.
We still regulate them.
We sure can say that.
We probably shouldn't because it's very much a false equivalency and the broadest of possible brushes.
Look, lootboxes need to go. I get that, trust me. Randomized prizes you pay for is horrendously fucking exploitative and by definition is gambling.
A game provided for free that continues to exist due to MTX that provides no benefit to the single player game at all is another. You can even get limited, far nicer cosmetics by completing league challenges which, again, are free.
Do we call Paradox's system of continual content expansion exploitative as well?
Or how about Nintendo re-releasing the same fucking game over and over after they knowingly cut off access to the older versions and have people pay for it again?
Literally no one is calling monetization as a blanket thing exploitative.
It's the FOMO, random priced garbage that needs to die.
lootboxes that lock actual game content behind a paywall? Not fine.
A good example of the former is CSGO or Overwatch. A 'good' example of the second one is literally every mobile game with their timed mechanics, or EA games like battlefield where they lock weapons behind lootcrates to 'encourage' people to spend another $50 for a gun that isn't the basic shotgun or rifle in order to actually play the game.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Similar to how a company not being able to pay minimum wages is a failed company a game that can not continue without exploitation is a failed game.
Considering some of the biggest titans of the industry got there without them (League's original model prior to loot boxes being put in for example or just any subscription mmo) I have very little sympathy for devs who wish to keep making their game on the backs of exploitation.
You can equally say this of casino's, alcohol or any other vice.
We still regulate them.
We sure can say that.
We probably shouldn't because it's very much a false equivalency and the broadest of possible brushes.
Look, lootboxes need to go. I get that, trust me. Randomized prizes you pay for is horrendously fucking exploitative and by definition is gambling.
A game provided for free that continues to exist due to MTX that provides no benefit to the single player game at all is another. You can even get limited, far nicer cosmetics by completing league challenges which, again, are free.
Do we call Paradox's system of continual content expansion exploitative as well?
Or how about Nintendo re-releasing the same fucking game over and over after they knowingly cut off access to the older versions and have people pay for it again?
Literally no one is calling monetization as a blanket thing exploitative.
It's the FOMO, random priced garbage that needs to die.
Oh okay, fair enough. My apologies, I think I misread.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
lootboxes that lock actual game content behind a paywall? Not fine.
A good example of the former is CSGO or Overwatch. A 'good' example of the second one is literally every mobile game with their timed mechanics, or EA games like battlefield where they lock weapons behind lootcrates to 'encourage' people to spend another $50 for a gun that isn't the basic shotgun or rifle in order to actually play the game.
I'd even argue that loot boxes with cosmetics are skirting the line, unless they can be gotten without payment at a somewhat reasonable rate.
Hell, selling cosmetics directly without the gambling aspect, but keeping the lootboxes as the free option is probably the best way to do this.
lootboxes that lock actual game content behind a paywall? Not fine.
A good example of the former is CSGO or Overwatch. A 'good' example of the second one is literally every mobile game with their timed mechanics, or EA games like battlefield where they lock weapons behind lootcrates to 'encourage' people to spend another $50 for a gun that isn't the basic shotgun or rifle in order to actually play the game.
Ehhhhhh
I’m only okay with loot boxes even for cosmetic stuff if it’s available to buy some way. And even then I don’t *like* it but I’d find it an acceptable compromise.
Overwatch is close to what I’d be okay with except they don’t let you buy skins outright.
Similar to how a company not being able to pay minimum wages is a failed company a game that can not continue without exploitation is a failed game.
Considering some of the biggest titans of the industry got there without them (League's original model prior to loot boxes being put in for example or just any subscription mmo) I have very little sympathy for devs who wish to keep making their game on the backs of exploitation.
You can equally say this of casino's, alcohol or any other vice.
We still regulate them.
We sure can say that.
We probably shouldn't because it's very much a false equivalency and the broadest of possible brushes.
Look, lootboxes need to go. I get that, trust me. Randomized prizes you pay for is horrendously fucking exploitative and by definition is gambling.
A game provided for free that continues to exist due to MTX that provides no benefit to the single player game at all is another. You can even get limited, far nicer cosmetics by completing league challenges which, again, are free.
Do we call Paradox's system of continual content expansion exploitative as well?
Or how about Nintendo re-releasing the same fucking game over and over after they knowingly cut off access to the older versions and have people pay for it again?
Literally no one is calling monetization as a blanket thing exploitative.
It's the FOMO, random priced garbage that needs to die.
Lootboxes with cosmetics suck ass because they're just as good at exploiting people and then capital G gamers will tell you it's fine because you can just not buy the thing designed to exploit you.
Part of why I stopped playing Overwatch was because I'd become deathly anxious about the limited time boxes, both in fear of not getting the skin I wanted while they were available and the worry of knowing another event would be along to do it again if I remained invested in the game at all.
lootboxes that lock actual game content behind a paywall? Not fine.
A good example of the former is CSGO or Overwatch. A 'good' example of the second one is literally every mobile game with their timed mechanics, or EA games like battlefield where they lock weapons behind lootcrates to 'encourage' people to spend another $50 for a gun that isn't the basic shotgun or rifle in order to actually play the game.
Ehhhhhh
I’m only okay with loot boxes even for cosmetic stuff if it’s available to buy some way. And even then I don’t *like* it but I’d find it an acceptable compromise.
Overwatch is close to what I’d be okay with except they don’t let you buy skins outright.
yeah I like the HotS system better where you can just buy what you want
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Lootboxes with cosmetics suck ass because they're just as good at exploiting people and then capital G gamers will tell you it's fine because you can just not buy the thing designed to exploit you.
Part of why I stopped playing Overwatch was because I'd become deathly anxious about the limited time boxes, both in fear of not getting the skin I wanted while they were available and the worry of knowing another event would be along to do it again if I remained invested in the game at all.
It was a big part of why I quit too. Every event I’d drop $20-$40 to make sure I got the skins I wanted. It’s only because I got to experience losing a home as a kid to gambling that I knew I had to just quit.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I dont know man, that sounds like dota 2 has the same issue with lootboxes, so I cant really see the fine line to walk, particularly with all the re-selling of random boxes stuff, definitely not fit for all audiences.
Dota 2's prior battle passes also rewards leveling up with gambling via a roulette wheel or ball drop games and encourage gambling on the outcomes of your own matches. They turned Dota 2 into a giant gambling machine and were always looking for new ways to make people gamble more.
Maybe you can make the case their lootboxes aren't as bad but I'd still be suspect because of all the other ways to gamble they incorporated into their passes. Valve are actively looking to wear people down and make them comfortable with gambling. i.e. it doesn't matter if their boxes are better when they're boiling the frog.
I mean, it's not great and I'd rather they didn't.
Pay to win is still 100x more of a problem.
Pay to win is worse yes, but I consider them basically the same from an addiction standpoint. For many players, cosmetic rewards are just as real and valuable as gameplay unlocks. So the psychology behind that urge to gamble on the chance for desirable rewards is no different at all.
Cosmetic rewards were also one of the baby steps that got us where we are. Once upon a time, they were everything wrong with microtransactions and the biggest scandals in video game money grabbing were player skins and horse armor. That they're now the lesser evil that we now greet as a great victory is a kind of market Stockholm Syndrome - the captors have stopped beating us and let us have bread again and we love them for it, completely forgetting that we used to get steak for dinner.
Horse armor: such a joke once that Bethesda doubled the price one April Fools day (as all Oblivion's other DLC went half price).
Seems a long time ago now.
And now some devs are trying to say that cosmetics don't count for DLC at all.
Limiting loot boxes to cosmetics only addresses a game balance issue, not the predatory, gambling-adjecent exploitation model. It's conflating what are fundamentally two different issues. People who argue that as an acceptable middle ground are missing the point.
While some have certainly said as much, I think it's important to either call out a specific viewpoint, or collectively recognize that many view sold cosmetics NOT IN LOOTBOXES as an acceptable middleground as well, which isn't the same thing.
I get that Overwatch is making plenty of money off this, and that it has been cited as a lesser evil. I'm not saying that nobody is saying that (err...), but encompassing the total views shared these last few pages, I and others have also noted that it's possible to have an ongoing revenue model while not engaging in randomized bullshit.
Then again, if there was anyone who was cool with rndm stuff... >.>
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Only randomize loot that is intrinsically tied to gameplay and doesn’t cost money should be considered acceptable. So opening a chest in a dungeon or boss drops are cool. A box of random items that you buy with fun bucks, that are also purchased with real money, is predatory bullshit and should be regulated.
Only randomize loot that is intrinsically tied to gameplay and doesn’t cost money should be considered acceptable. So opening a chest in a dungeon or boss drops are cool. A box of random items that you buy with fun bucks, that are also purchased with real money, is predatory bullshit and should be regulated.
Stuff like randomized weapons at every stage in Left 4 Dead I love. When it's the item I'm hoping for I get that fun rush of getting what I want. When it's not I get to enjoy playing the game in a more challenging way.
That's when randomization is excellently implemented. You can't buy your way in to it, it's not essential, and no matter the outcome it's still fun.
I would argue that non-monetized addictive elements are also exploitative
While they certainly can be, I think at that point you’re arguing that videogames in general can be addictive.
They don't just happen to be, they're intentionally designed to be addictive
I mean
Yeah
Also
Every consumer product in existence
A lot of those are pretty awful too!
Yeah but
I think the idea of regulating "people enjoying the dopamine response they get doing X" is... well, it's a bit far afield. Putting the kibosh on law-subverting gambling is a bit more in focus.
The whole thing is tainted and scummy now anyways.
"We could sell you the item directly for $10. Instead we'll sell you a lottery ticket for $1 for a chance at getting the item. Playing on the psychological hope that you'll get it for $1, but we know the probability odds works out that you're highly likely to spend $20 to get it.".
That's just disgusting.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
The whole thing is tainted and scummy now anyways.
"We could sell you the item directly for $10. Instead we'll sell you a lottery ticket for $1 for a chance at getting the item. Playing on the psychological hope that you'll get it for $1, but we know the probability odds works out that you're highly likely to spend $20 to get it.".
That's just disgusting.
add about a zero or two to most of those numbers for mobile
+11
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Sweet.
Or, and hear me out, you could not be silly.
Those are all things game companies have done to try and get people to play more, and they've admitted it.
That was the line of reasoning, right? To ban all things game companies do to make their stuff addicting?
You're not going to bother spinning the Wheel of MTX on a character you find ugly in a game that doesn't feel rewarding. And we've already established the person I was talking to feels that these addictive game elements are immoral regardless if they are or are not monetized.
So maybe I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the argument here is?
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Sweet.
That's correct, yes
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Games don't need to prey on addictive tendencies to be fun
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Sweet.
Or, and hear me out, you could not be silly.
Those are all things game companies have done to try and get people to play more, and they've admitted it.
That was the line of reasoning, right? To ban all things game companies do to make their stuff addicting?
Let's make all games grey blobs. Then they won't be addicting.
Obviously, I'm joking. Much as I hate addictive mechanics and exploitative addictive lootboxes, banning pretty much all video game rpg mechanics and good looking art is a step too far.
Better to say let's make sure they cannot put in mechanics designed to extract money from the playerbase as a revenue stream by preying on the psychology of gambling and addiction.
Trying to ban addictive elements from video games is not something I can see feasibly working because where does one draw the line on what's considered addictive? Is it something that could be addictive to 75% of the playerbase? 30% 2%? The line is there somewhere and it's going to be different from person to person.
Posts
The idea that games as service/living games/live service/whatever you wanna call it is inherently some sort of exploitative practice is silly. There's ways to go about funding the operation that are exploitative but the design itself exists to support a specific kind of gameplay people want.
Shit, this even goes all the way back to horse armour mentioned above. DLC is nothing strange or new. It's just expansion packs, which used to be super common for popular games. It's just a different delivery method that allowed more freedom in the size and pricing of additional content.
The major complaints with horse armour were not that it was unethical, but that it was overpriced. Which, I mean, I would agree with. But with that or more so other things, there's a lot of people who seem to think they are getting their money's worth. Which is irritating but not necessarily wrong.
We sure can say that.
We probably shouldn't because it's very much a false equivalency and the broadest of possible brushes.
Look, lootboxes need to go. I get that, trust me. Randomized prizes you pay for is horrendously fucking exploitative and by definition is gambling.
A game provided for free that continues to exist due to MTX that provides no benefit to the single player game at all is another. You can even get limited, far nicer cosmetics by completing league challenges which, again, are free.
Do we call Paradox's system of continual content expansion exploitative as well?
Or how about Nintendo re-releasing the same fucking game over and over after they knowingly cut off access to the older versions and have people pay for it again?
Literally no one is calling monetization as a blanket thing exploitative.
It's the FOMO, random priced garbage that needs to die.
lootboxes that lock actual game content behind a paywall? Not fine.
A good example of the former is CSGO or Overwatch. A 'good' example of the second one is literally every mobile game with their timed mechanics, or EA games like battlefield where they lock weapons behind lootcrates to 'encourage' people to spend another $50 for a gun that isn't the basic shotgun or rifle in order to actually play the game.
Oh okay, fair enough. My apologies, I think I misread.
I'd even argue that loot boxes with cosmetics are skirting the line, unless they can be gotten without payment at a somewhat reasonable rate.
Hell, selling cosmetics directly without the gambling aspect, but keeping the lootboxes as the free option is probably the best way to do this.
Ehhhhhh
I’m only okay with loot boxes even for cosmetic stuff if it’s available to buy some way. And even then I don’t *like* it but I’d find it an acceptable compromise.
Overwatch is close to what I’d be okay with except they don’t let you buy skins outright.
There's multiple people last page saying that.
Part of why I stopped playing Overwatch was because I'd become deathly anxious about the limited time boxes, both in fear of not getting the skin I wanted while they were available and the worry of knowing another event would be along to do it again if I remained invested in the game at all.
yeah I like the HotS system better where you can just buy what you want
It was a big part of why I quit too. Every event I’d drop $20-$40 to make sure I got the skins I wanted. It’s only because I got to experience losing a home as a kid to gambling that I knew I had to just quit.
And now some devs are trying to say that cosmetics don't count for DLC at all.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
he's also a magician
I get that Overwatch is making plenty of money off this, and that it has been cited as a lesser evil. I'm not saying that nobody is saying that (err...), but encompassing the total views shared these last few pages, I and others have also noted that it's possible to have an ongoing revenue model while not engaging in randomized bullshit.
Then again, if there was anyone who was cool with rndm stuff... >.>
Some people certainly needed to step away from their computer when a given WoW Raid Boss failed to drop the item they'd been hoping to get for months.
"20% drop chance" my ass. Oh well, pack it up, guess we do it again next week after the reset...
While they certainly can be, I think at that point you’re arguing that videogames in general can be addictive.
Stuff like randomized weapons at every stage in Left 4 Dead I love. When it's the item I'm hoping for I get that fun rush of getting what I want. When it's not I get to enjoy playing the game in a more challenging way.
That's when randomization is excellently implemented. You can't buy your way in to it, it's not essential, and no matter the outcome it's still fun.
I would argue that the subscription-based setup of WoW leads directly into weekly raid timers with low drop rates.
They don't just happen to be, they're intentionally designed to be addictive
I mean
Yeah
Also
Every consumer product in existence
A lot of those are pretty awful too!
Yeah but
I think the idea of regulating "people enjoying the dopamine response they get doing X" is... well, it's a bit far afield. Putting the kibosh on law-subverting gambling is a bit more in focus.
I don't think just treating lootboxes as a particular excess of an otherwise broadly acceptable addictive design strategy is going to cut it
So just
Make games not fun?
That will certainly solve the MTX problems
But yeah this seems like a really vague thing to try to regulate, especially since the science on what addiction is is not clear
"We could sell you the item directly for $10. Instead we'll sell you a lottery ticket for $1 for a chance at getting the item. Playing on the psychological hope that you'll get it for $1, but we know the probability odds works out that you're highly likely to spend $20 to get it.".
That's just disgusting.
You should tell that to the companies who are using the science to intentionally make their products more addicting
add about a zero or two to most of those numbers for mobile
Okay.
Youre no longer allowed, by law, to have character levels or colorful effects, two things used to lure in gamers.
You can't make more powerful weapon pickups, rewards, achievements, secrets unlocked by completing tasks under certain conditions, or customizable avatars.
Aspirational content and streamers are now verboten
Sweet.
Or, and hear me out, you could not be silly.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Those are all things game companies have done to try and get people to play more, and they've admitted it.
That was the line of reasoning, right? To ban all things game companies do to make their stuff addicting?
You're not going to bother spinning the Wheel of MTX on a character you find ugly in a game that doesn't feel rewarding. And we've already established the person I was talking to feels that these addictive game elements are immoral regardless if they are or are not monetized.
So maybe I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the argument here is?
That's correct, yes
Ah, so "make games boring" was the general idea.
Let's make all games grey blobs. Then they won't be addicting.
Obviously, I'm joking. Much as I hate addictive mechanics and exploitative addictive lootboxes, banning pretty much all video game rpg mechanics and good looking art is a step too far.
Better to say let's make sure they cannot put in mechanics designed to extract money from the playerbase as a revenue stream by preying on the psychology of gambling and addiction.
Trying to ban addictive elements from video games is not something I can see feasibly working because where does one draw the line on what's considered addictive? Is it something that could be addictive to 75% of the playerbase? 30% 2%? The line is there somewhere and it's going to be different from person to person.