I am more than happy to live with less content if it means stories like the one @38thDoe linked above don't happen.
" Every seasonal event has something for all of the 26 characters. Every characters gets 1-2 new lines, Icon or 2, new poses, animations, About one in four characters gets a new skin."
This is not worth driving people thousands of dollars into debt for.
So, i identified 3 major arguments they made.
1. It's not gambling. To wich i call BS.
2. We players owe to developers to reward them when they make "good" loot box systems. To which i call BS so loud they're about send a firetruck, ambulance and half the army to see what's going on.
3. and that we, the players, are the cause for rising cost because of constant demand for ever higher graphical fidelity. Which i'm going to call BS*, with a footnote.
* No, we players are not calling for ever higher fidelity, some subsets of players do, but not all, probably not even the majority.
Plenty of players are happy to play old games with worse graphics, or buy games without photorealistic graphics.
I think the main reason for constant graphics wars, is that graphics is easy.
No, i don't mean they are easy to do, but they are easy to see when they have been done right.
You can quantify graphics, you can put objective metrics on it, you can take a screenshot or a short video and have an instant marketing material.
It's not (all) the players demanding better graphics, but the publishers and marketers, and so they end up using more and more money, to compete over smaller customer base.
I think the EC crew like having jobs, so they don't want the industry to crash or shrink in a major way, which is understandable.
But i think the industry is bloated, too many games, not enough players, and way too many games are so similar that it's almost impossible to tell them apart with a glance.
Regulate the lootboxes, let those who can't adapt sink, we can make do with less games for a while if it means a healthier economy and better games.
I agree with EC on all points, especially the "it's not gambling" one, but especially the 3rd one, because this "we don't really want games to look as polished as they do" thing that's gotten real popular of late, is such a complete ass covering exercise for people who want to just ignore that there's a real reason publishers have alternate revenue streams and it's not lolsogreedy.
I mean, they used to manage to sell DLC map packs, and if a player in a party didn't have that map, that map wasn't playable by the party. This is a situation that already has a solution.
Which lead to a fragmented community and overall harmed the health of the game.
Did it really though? You're going to play with people you like to play with or else total randos. If your friends have the map pack, you're more likely to buy the map pack. If you just run around with randos, you're perfectly content to just play on the maps you have. I mean, this was the formula for a number of years, and I don't remember it being a huge issue. It seems like the bigger issue has come with subscriptions and shitty map packs that aren't worth the subscription fee.
Well, it's also a problem for things like matchmaking.
You would double your matchmaking buckets, so it's going to take longer to find games (unless your playerbase is huge and the number of people who own the DLC is high, and even then...), which is one of those things that'll make people go play something else, which just exacerbates the problem.
It's an idea that had it's time, but it's pretty much binned now, and for good reason.
Yes, it's binned because Lootboxes allow developers to make more money for less effort by exploting loopholes in gambling laws to steal money from children and idiots.
The old ways worked just fine.. Expansion packs, map packs etc all made plenty of dosh for developers. They only don't seem to work now because we allow developers to effectively be gambling kingpins as wells.
They clearly didn't.
They didn't work well compared to massive and endemic illegal gambling and theft from children its true. If your standard of 'work' is making the most money for the company.
If your standard of 'work' is "Did they produce enjoyable games and enable game companies to stay in business?" then yes, yes they did.
Well no.
What it costs to make a game has been constantly rising, and the price of games hasn't. The number of units needed to break even keeps rising, so things like DLC, micro transactions, season passes, and lootboxes have all been attempts to make up the difference.
The costs to make a high-end AAA game have been going up due to the insistence of AAA publishers on pushing wholly unnecessary "necessary" features and building a system of planned obsolescence in order to force people into buying the same game with minor updates sold as a sequel, plus an increasing hunger for maximizing profit while minimizing effort.
The cost of developing a game is less than it's ever been, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally thousands of games getting made every year as opposed to the dozens that used to be made from thirty years ago. The performance-to-hardware cost is as favorable as it's ever been, audiences are larger than they've ever been, and the availability of tools and knowledge is infinitely better than that of a few decades prior.
Rather than accept that spending on game development should be less, publishers have doubled-down on ramping up budgets to try and capture more sales because that's easier than making more new ideas. That's not at all the same thing actual game costs going up. If publishers were making games where selling 3-5 million copies was considered healthy and reasonable, and budgeting appropriately, then this crap with lootboxes and microtransactions wouldn't be needed because games would be profitable on their own merits instead of trying to rip people off with lootboxes and microtransactions.
I have exactly zero time for these kinds of "publishers are dumb and awful" screeds, sorry,
Publishers are NOT dumb. The decision they are making is smart. It makes them more money. Lots of cash. Its an incredibly smart business decision, and they have no need to or motivation to self regulate.
The game situation has become like this. Most games will lose money, or make small amounts and be failures. Most people who buy you games will cost you money. However, some games will be immense financial successes based on the fact that some games will attract a small fraction of 'whales' who will spend 100's to 1000's times the base cost of the game on items which cost you nothing to produce.
The portfolio in total makes money. Lots of it. More money than you would make if you instead spent money carefully on smart decisions and smaller games, even though those would make you money. As such, it becomes very hard to attract investment to smaller games, since your time averaged return is better spent paying people to slightly up the chance of making megabucks on a AAA title.
Look at it this way. Would you rather invest $1 million dollars each month to increase by 1% your chance of making $150 million. Or would you rather spend $1 million dollars each month to make $1.1 million dollars. Remember that you will make this investment every month forever. The smart choice is the high risk high reward. Over the long term it pays out better. So huge sums are spent on marginal improvements to games.
Is this before or after they "steal from children and idiots"?
I said they weren't stupid, and had no incentive to change. I didn't say they weren't evil.
Lootboxes do not make their money from well informed players making smart buying decisions. Because well informed players making smart buying decisions don't buy lootboxes because lootboxes are a scam. Maybe you grab one or two, but the publishers don't care about that. The people they are moving on are the 1% of players who are either...
1) Children with their parents credit cards
2) Gambling addicts
These people spend a lot of money! It is an EXCELLENT financial decision to do things which slightly increase the chances of you getting money from those people, because they will spend ENORMOUS amounts for stuff which costs you nothing
I'm fairly certain that "child buys a bajillion lootboxes" story is only notable because of how rare it is, and even then in the states at least you're not on the hook for unauthorized charges past 50 dollars, and its the same in civilised countries.
And in addition, most credit card companies will just reverse those charges anyway, because nobody wants the bad publicity of dealing with it. So that's that nonsense put to bed.
So, I guess that just leaves the "whales" - who aren't really the main target anymore. They used to be, sure, and they still exist. But the thing with whales is you only have a finite number and they can only really be the whales of one game at a time. So you're actually better off getting occasional revenue from more people than lots from a few.
I guess that makes anyone whose ever bought a lootbox an idiot. Harsh
Children don't buy a billion lootboxes each. Children, who make poor purchasing decisions, buy all the lootboxes they can afford using their pocket money spending hundreds of dollars on marginal, often duplicated content. Whales spend thousands of dollars on the same.
It seems to me that you are the one busily arguing that publishers are idiots. If people don't gamble their money away in an inneficient way on these products, and make poor purchasing decisions which lead them to spend more for less content, then WHY don't the publishers just release the content in a cash store.
Because the 'content' is targetted at whales and children in a desperate attempt to rake in money from the addictive nature of gambling.
Wait, I thought the problem was that children were using their parents credit card and spending a lot of money.
Now it's kids spending their pocket money poorly? I'm almost certain that's what always happens to pocket money.
I don't really buy into your reasoning, because it seems to have started at "this targets children" and has worked backwards to fit.
Lootboxes are bad, they add nothing to gaming, and should be illegal. They create predatory practices amongst bad actors in the industry, and force the 'good actors' to copy their ways to attract investment.
They do add a steady income stream and longer tail for after market upkeep and content.
On traditional development cycle, launching a game meant that most devs get fired, as there's no need for that many workers. On loot-box economy, there's more work for artists and other content creators.
No.
Loot boxes are not required to get an income stream. You can require a subscription, or sell skins and such directly. Both will cost you some players, but they are not exploitive.
Loot boxes are required to maximize profits using deceptive sale tactics and with less need for content.
Subscription isn't a viable model outside MMORPGS and even in that genre, fast majority of games have moved to F2P/P2W train.
And less content from lootbox-based games is just plain wrong. I'm using OW as an example again, because that's what is most familiar to me.
There's glut of content coming out of every orifice. Every seasonal event has something for all of the 26 characters. Every characters gets 1-2 new lines, Icon or 2, new poses, animations, About one in four characters gets a new skin.
Outside of the box content, they subsidize following: Seasonal events are in about every 2-3 months with new game modes. 3 new maps per year, 3 new characters per year.
If the monthly subscription model is not working, that's because players do no believe it is worth their money.
Of course the publishers need less content: They could sell all of this content directly, but if the average player want only 10% of those skins, the publishers would need 10 times the content. By using gambling, they can force players to buy more, without having to produce more.
It's all about exploiting gambling addiction and obfuscating cost.
I used to think Overwatch had a good model, and them the anniversary happened and I realized their idea of celebrating was me throwing the price of the game down the drain again to get the couple of skins I wanted. So fuck that. My opinion has only gotten more sour since.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Lootboxes -> More revenue
More revenue -> More resources for future games
More resources for future games -> Better games
Better games -> Better sales
Better sales -> More revenue, lather, rinse, repeat
With the caveat that "better games" usually means "better graphics" so you fall into the trap of where two games which are in direct conflict and one has loot boxes and the other doesn't, the one with better graphics "wins" (ie, has higher sales), so once one game introduces loot boxes, others will too.
This sequence makes two assumptions which I believe are faulty: first, it assumes that containing/not containing loot boxes is orthogonal to "better games". This cannot be assumed, because gameplay balance and gameplay itself is inherently influenced by the presence of loot boxes. Secondly, and more importantly, it assumes all revenues from loot boxes are fed back into game development instead of going into the pockets of executives, which *looks at our society* good fucking luck with that.
Meanwhile, the mechanic operates based off of the same chemical reactions which drive gambling, and have already been responsible for individuals dumping more money than they can reasonably afford due to exploitive mechanics. And the only benefit which they provide (other than the rush of gambling which can be filled by gambling, but be limited to individuals who are of an age which society has already deemed is better capable of HANDLING those urges, rather than exposing pre-teens to that behavior) is a competitive advantage against any gaming company which DOESN'T have loot boxes, so the only way to prevent the arms race is to regulate or ban them entirely.
Lootboxes are most definitely gambling. It's like those lotteries at the fair with the colored balls. You pay a ticket and get to spin it once. Most often you're going to win a keychain because you're guaranteed something, but you have the "chance" to win a prize of greater value. That is gambling! It doesn't matter that you're guaranteed something because you're not playing that lottery hoping for the keychain, you're aiming for the big prize.
+14
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
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.
Magic the Gathering has basically gotten away with it for so long because they have very carefully never officially endorsed any sort of secondary market.
Magic: The Gathering gets away with it, in part, because the possibility of a secondary market exists that they derive little or no direct profit from--people can, and do, sell their "winnings" which by its nature undermines part, though hardly all, of the complaint. It doesn't mean it's no gambling, but it does mean the thing they treat as a marketplace product can be bought at a marketplace like a product to some limited degree, as oppose to none at all.
Overwatch (and games in general) completely control every aspect of distribution of the winnings--and what happens to them in perpetuity. I doubt it would happen, but Blizzard has every single right to decide tomorrow that x costume or y emote animation is undesirable or technically problematic, can remove them, and is under no obligation to replace them (though even if it did, it wouldn't fundamentally change the problem). Of course, the alternative--the ability to sell digital winnings in Battlegrounds or Counterstrike comes with its own problems, in large part because of the content being entirely digital.
The details matter, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
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.
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.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Lootboxes are most definitely gambling. It's like those lotteries at the fair with the colored balls. You pay a ticket and get to spin it once. Most often you're going to win a keychain because you're guaranteed something, but you have the "chance" to win a prize of greater value. That is gambling! It doesn't matter that you're guaranteed something because you're not playing that lottery hoping for the keychain, you're aiming for the big prize.
None of that is gambling!
In gambling you can try to recover your lost $100 by using more money. And try to recover that money by spending even more. That's true gambling.
In raffles/lootboxes you spend money and you get small items of no monetary value. There's no temptation to throw good money after the bad, because you can't recover any spent money.
Only exception to this would be games where you can resell the items for monetary compensation. That would make it gambling.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If there is no temptation to throw good money after bad, why do I keep hearing "Oh, I didn't get x skin, guess I'll pay another 10 bucks"
So, i identified 3 major arguments they made.
1. It's not gambling. To wich i call BS.
2. We players owe to developers to reward them when they make "good" loot box systems. To which i call BS so loud they're about send a firetruck, ambulance and half the army to see what's going on.
3. and that we, the players, are the cause for rising cost because of constant demand for ever higher graphical fidelity. Which i'm going to call BS*, with a footnote.
* No, we players are not calling for ever higher fidelity, some subsets of players do, but not all, probably not even the majority.
Plenty of players are happy to play old games with worse graphics, or buy games without photorealistic graphics.
I think the main reason for constant graphics wars, is that graphics is easy.
No, i don't mean they are easy to do, but they are easy to see when they have been done right.
You can quantify graphics, you can put objective metrics on it, you can take a screenshot or a short video and have an instant marketing material.
It's not (all) the players demanding better graphics, but the publishers and marketers, and so they end up using more and more money, to compete over smaller customer base.
I think the EC crew like having jobs, so they don't want the industry to crash or shrink in a major way, which is understandable.
But i think the industry is bloated, too many games, not enough players, and way too many games are so similar that it's almost impossible to tell them apart with a glance.
Regulate the lootboxes, let those who can't adapt sink, we can make do with less games for a while if it means a healthier economy and better games.
I don't even think you would get LESS games. I think you would get MORE games and better ones. Lootboxes are toxic for game quality, since they are gambling. If gambling is the core of the game, then the game doesn't need to be good, because people can be addicted to gambling. The idea of 'I might win big!' has its own value to people. And so, rather than spending the money on building a cohesive and interesting narrative or game structure which will keep people playing long term because the game is good (and is also something which requires some cash and plenty of human talent, rather than just piles of cash) you invest in ANYTHING you possibly can to bring a few more players in the door and get them to have a few first spins at the lootbox.
Look at other gambling games. Blackjack is not a fundamentally 'good game', nor is roulette. You don't bring people in to gamble by making good games. You bring them in with flashing lights and ringing bells and a promise that YOU could be the one to win. You don't target your games at keeping a wide variety of people at the table for a long time all having fun, you design your games such that whales and the foolhardy stay at the table as long as possible accompanied by a rotating cast of 'transient' players who only serve to be around for a while to amplify the effects of the flashing lights and make the game seem more fun. You then ply everyone with alcohol such that the transient players are more amused by their few seconds at the game, and more people are likely to get drawn in to staying and gambling for long periods. None of this is based on any level on 'good game' devlopment. In fact, the only game development that exists is making sure that the game is quick such that people are asked to start trying to win again IMMEDIATELY after their losses so that they have less time to think about losing.
This is exactly what games with lootboxes try to do. Its how lootbox games make money.
Subscription based models work just great, they just don't work when the opponent for INVESTMENT attraction is based on illegal gambling (Free to play and lootboxes)
Lootboxes are most definitely gambling. It's like those lotteries at the fair with the colored balls. You pay a ticket and get to spin it once. Most often you're going to win a keychain because you're guaranteed something, but you have the "chance" to win a prize of greater value. That is gambling! It doesn't matter that you're guaranteed something because you're not playing that lottery hoping for the keychain, you're aiming for the big prize.
None of that is gambling!
In gambling you can try to recover your lost $100 by using more money. And try to recover that money by spending even more. That's true gambling.
In raffles/lootboxes you spend money and you get small items of no monetary value. There's no temptation to throw good money after the bad, because you can't recover any spent money.
Only exception to this would be games where you can resell the items for monetary compensation. That would make it gambling.
Loot boxes are based on throwing good money after bad, you silly goose! That's the whole point! That's why publishers use loot boxes instead of direct sales!
You pay, you randomly get something you don't want, so you pay again. And again. And again.
This also applies to buying boosters to get a specific card or mini (the number of SW minis I have...), or those bubble toys.
Lootboxes are most definitely gambling. It's like those lotteries at the fair with the colored balls. You pay a ticket and get to spin it once. Most often you're going to win a keychain because you're guaranteed something, but you have the "chance" to win a prize of greater value. That is gambling! It doesn't matter that you're guaranteed something because you're not playing that lottery hoping for the keychain, you're aiming for the big prize.
None of that is gambling!
In gambling you can try to recover your lost $100 by using more money. And try to recover that money by spending even more. That's true gambling.
In raffles/lootboxes you spend money and you get small items of no monetary value. There's no temptation to throw good money after the bad, because you can't recover any spent money.
Only exception to this would be games where you can resell the items for monetary compensation. That would make it gambling.
People are incapable of distinguishing between money and prizes, and the act of winning is equally 'rewarding' to the brain whether you receive cash or a prize you wanted. When you play a lootbox game for a long period your brain has assigned a 'value' to the item, and will feel that it has 'won its money back' once it has got the item it wanted. In fact, the more you spend at the lootbox table, the more valuable the prize becomes. Because it's perceived rarity is always increasing. The majority of gamblers aren't gambling to get their money back, in fact, most gambling addicts don't even have any idea how much money they have lost. Only how much money they have won.
You are probably not a compulsive gambler, because I can tell you are focusing on the losses, and on 'recovering' them. A compulsive gambler does not have 'losses', they only count their wins. The same with a lootbox player. Lootboxes are honestly a little worse, because they also check the 'sunk cost fallacy' box in your brain. If you do track your recent spending you might think, "URGHH, I've spent $10 and not got this skin I would have paid $10 for! I've paid 100% and got NOTHING back. I should keep playing. Better to pay 150% of the fair value and at least get the thing, than pay 100% and get nothing"
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.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
There's no difference between booster packs and lootboxes, so I don't see the point of painting this as a some kind of acceptable losses scenario.
Lootboxes are most definitely gambling. It's like those lotteries at the fair with the colored balls. You pay a ticket and get to spin it once. Most often you're going to win a keychain because you're guaranteed something, but you have the "chance" to win a prize of greater value. That is gambling! It doesn't matter that you're guaranteed something because you're not playing that lottery hoping for the keychain, you're aiming for the big prize.
None of that is gambling!
In gambling you can try to recover your lost $100 by using more money. And try to recover that money by spending even more. That's true gambling.
Uh, no?
Playing any game of chance that requires you to spend money is gambling, regardless of whether or not you are playing "for" money. You're spending money to take a risky (risky as in unlikely) chance that you will obtain something you desire. Whether what you desire is a new car, a free vacation, that sweet new skin for Widowmaker, whatever.
If there is no temptation to throw good money after bad, why do I keep hearing "Oh, I didn't get x skin, guess I'll pay another 10 bucks"
That's not good money after bad.
Have you gambled your rent money away and now desperately trying to win it back with your electric bill money?
that's good money, bad money-situation.
Ok. Simple question: why not sell the exact same items, individually, without any randomness ?
Question before I launch into a diatribe:
Are we distinguishing mobile game gacha from retail game lootboxes?
Because the two are fundamentally very similar, but not exactly the same in a lot of their design considerations due to how they interact with or don't interact with game mechanics, e.g. Overwatch's gameplay is not mechanically driven by what players get from lootboxes, even though the player's desire to play is stimulated by what they get from lootboxes.
If there is no temptation to throw good money after bad, why do I keep hearing "Oh, I didn't get x skin, guess I'll pay another 10 bucks"
That's not good money after bad.
Have you gambled your rent money away and now desperately trying to win it back with your electric bill money?
that's good money, bad money-situation.
Ok. Simple question: why not sell the exact same items, individually, without any randomness ?
Question before I launch into a diatribe:
Are we distinguishing mobile game gacha from retail game lootboxes?
Because the two are fundamentally very similar, but not exactly the same in a lot of their design considerations due to how they interact with or don't interact with game mechanics, e.g. Overwatch's gameplay is not mechanically driven by what players get from lootboxes, even though the player's desire to play is stimulated by what they get from lootboxes.
There isn't that much difference. The former does more damage but it's the same idea.
Unsurprisingly, I have no problem with lootboxes, so they can stay as far as I'm concerned.
I assume you are also ok with wage theft and horrible working conditions for developers, as well as loan sharks and illegal gambling.
You know, destructive things that don't affect you personally.
OK.
That's a bit of a leap.
(I tried to trim the quote tree here, if I got it wrong let me know.)
I agree that this is an unfair jump. Concern just isn't fungible. There is a great article/book on how most people would ruin expensive shoes to save a drowning stranger but wouldn't donate the same amount to charity for someone across the globe. But it is important to be aware of those problems. Addiction disorders are a major problem in our society that we could help with careful regulation that would have a minimal impact on your preferences.
Given that, I DO think a fair comparison to your stance is:
"I never have a problem with alcohol and I enjoy it from time to time. I do not know any alcoholics. The availability of cheap alcohol keeps my favorite restaurant open. Therefore, I do not think alcohol should be regulated in any way."
If there is no temptation to throw good money after bad, why do I keep hearing "Oh, I didn't get x skin, guess I'll pay another 10 bucks"
That's not good money after bad.
Have you gambled your rent money away and now desperately trying to win it back with your electric bill money?
that's good money, bad money-situation.
Ok. Simple question: why not sell the exact same items, individually, without any randomness ?
Question before I launch into a diatribe:
Are we distinguishing mobile game gacha from retail game lootboxes?
Because the two are fundamentally very similar, but not exactly the same in a lot of their design considerations due to how they interact with or don't interact with game mechanics, e.g. Overwatch's gameplay is not mechanically driven by what players get from lootboxes, even though the player's desire to play is stimulated by what they get from lootboxes.
For the sake of getting an actual answer, let's limit the question to loot boxes in AAA games.
Why not sell the same items directly, instead of selling them randomly ?
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.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
There's no difference between booster packs and lootboxes, so I don't see the point of painting this as a some kind of acceptable losses scenario.
Actually its completely different. When I buy a pack of magic the gathering cards I receive 14 physical cards, 1 land, and 1 promotional card. These are physical items which I become the whole and complete owner of. If I like my cards, then I may keep them. However, if I do NOT like them, I possess them as physical items. I may return to the gaming shop and sell them there, or sell them online.
In addition, if all I want from the set is a single card, then I can look up the price of that card and purchase it. Or trade with my friends to get it. My control over the physical items makes it fundamentally different from the digital item which does not have the option to sell for real currency or purchase for cash.
If you have lootboxes, and then combine them with a 'fair trade' store where players may trade items either between each other or for items of equal value with the 'game', and also include a cash marketplace where any item in a lootbox may be purchased for real currency then the majority of my issues go away since at that point the only remaining 'functional' lootbox is the 'surprise!' lootbox where all items inside are desirable, and there are no duplicates. The 'surprise!' lootbox is just fine with me. It effectively makes them just a different way to buy DLC for those who like surprises.
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.
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
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.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
There's no difference between booster packs and lootboxes, so I don't see the point of painting this as a some kind of acceptable losses scenario.
I'm confused, please make up your mind. You're saying that lootboxes and booster packs are no different from one another, so if we have to put the screws to one we must put the screws to the other?
Okay. Let's do that. Your proposal is acceptable.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
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.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
There's no difference between booster packs and lootboxes, so I don't see the point of painting this as a some kind of acceptable losses scenario.
Actually its completely different. When I buy a pack of magic the gathering cards I receive 14 physical cards, 1 land, and 1 promotional card. These are physical items which I become the whole and complete owner of. If I like my cards, then I may keep them. However, if I do NOT like them, I possess them as physical items. I may return to the gaming shop and sell them there, or sell them online.
In addition, if all I want from the set is a single card, then I can look up the price of that card and purchase it. Or trade with my friends to get it. My control over the physical items makes it fundamentally different from the digital item which does not have the option to sell for real currency or purchase for cash.
If you have lootboxes, and then combine them with a 'fair trade' store where players may trade items either between each other or for items of equal value with the 'game', and also include a cash marketplace where any item in a lootbox may be purchased for real currency then the majority of my issues go away since at that point the only remaining 'functional' lootbox is the 'surprise!' lootbox where all items inside are desirable, and there are no duplicates. The 'surprise!' lootbox is just fine with me. It effectively makes them just a different way to buy DLC for those who like surprises.
I don't agree.
The original point as to why lootboxes are definitely gambling made a comparison to "lotteries at the fair", wherein you pay, something random happens, and you always get "something" and this is gambling. Therefore because you in a lootbox, you pay, something random happens, and you always get something, they're the same.
Which, if we take this comparison as valid, then you can replace the word lootbox with booster pack and it's exactly the same, any differences as to why it's actually not gambling all take place after the fact, so they don't matter.
I guess some people skipped the early pages, but Magic cards have been explicitly brought up a number of times in this debate.
As others have summarized, sure, go ahead, look at them too! I'm a fan of the game, and despite not buying cards in years, have a substantial collection tucked away in my closet for either use or sale one day.
The minor bit of leeway I think most people grant WOTC is that A) there does exist a secondary market for purchases. I *can* spend a thousand dollars on booster boxes hoping for a specific mythic rare, or I can just put down $10-100 (or whatever, as I said, I haven't bought cards in years) and buy it outright. Similarly, anything I do crack open that I don't want, I can sell to others or trade. And 2) Magic cards aren't 'soulbound', which really is just an extrapolation from A. If I don't like what I opened, I can get rid of it in one fashion or another. If I don't like my lootbox contents, well shit, I'm out of luck, they're mine. In some games I might be lucky to convert them into 'dust' or some other crafting agent, to convert into something I do want, but often at a substantial loss of efficiency.
And really, it boils down to 'we can do more than one thing at a time'. Go ahead, slap some regulations on WOTC while we're calling out EA and other companies for predatory practices. It may not be gambling, but it's gambling adjacent enough, preying upon enough similar psychological drives and blind spots, that even as a (occasionally begrudging) fan of several games that use them, fine, sure, go ahead and hit them up together if need be.
As I've expressed before, my preference is for more of a Warframe style 'cosmetics purchased directly, none of this random shit' style anyways. I will happily throw them a few bucks now and then for a flaming cape or wings or whatever shit looks coolest, because I didn't have to throw away $100 in random chances until I either got what I wanted or gave up in frustration.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+13
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
Am I being exploited here?
Yes.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
Am I being exploited here?
Yes. Your turn:
Why are they sold randomly instead of deterministically ?
Just because it isn't an issue to me, doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
I'm sure there are whales who make millions per year, where throwing like 10 grand at a stupid game so they can have the nicest hats or whatever is not that big a deal.
That doesn't mean it isn't a toxic and predatory business practice.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
Am I being exploited here?
Yes.
More precisely:
Did you buy a lootbox hoping to get a specific item? Did you fail to get it? Did you decide to buy another box in hopes of getting it?
If the answer to all 3 was yes, then yes, that is exploitation. Just because you're OK with it doesn't change the fact.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
+2
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
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.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
Am I being exploited here?
Yes. Your turn:
Why are they sold randomly instead of deterministically ?
Seeing as I know exactly what I'm getting into, I think all of you falling over yourselves to call me a rube is a little premature on your part, and also flat out wrong.
And for your zinger of a question "Because that makes more money."
Posts
" Every seasonal event has something for all of the 26 characters. Every characters gets 1-2 new lines, Icon or 2, new poses, animations, About one in four characters gets a new skin."
This is not worth driving people thousands of dollars into debt for.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
I agree with EC on all points, especially the "it's not gambling" one, but especially the 3rd one, because this "we don't really want games to look as polished as they do" thing that's gotten real popular of late, is such a complete ass covering exercise for people who want to just ignore that there's a real reason publishers have alternate revenue streams and it's not lolsogreedy.
If the monthly subscription model is not working, that's because players do no believe it is worth their money.
Of course the publishers need less content: They could sell all of this content directly, but if the average player want only 10% of those skins, the publishers would need 10 times the content. By using gambling, they can force players to buy more, without having to produce more.
It's all about exploiting gambling addiction and obfuscating cost.
This is how the logic goes:
Lootboxes -> More revenue
More revenue -> More resources for future games
More resources for future games -> Better games
Better games -> Better sales
Better sales -> More revenue, lather, rinse, repeat
With the caveat that "better games" usually means "better graphics" so you fall into the trap of where two games which are in direct conflict and one has loot boxes and the other doesn't, the one with better graphics "wins" (ie, has higher sales), so once one game introduces loot boxes, others will too.
This sequence makes two assumptions which I believe are faulty: first, it assumes that containing/not containing loot boxes is orthogonal to "better games". This cannot be assumed, because gameplay balance and gameplay itself is inherently influenced by the presence of loot boxes. Secondly, and more importantly, it assumes all revenues from loot boxes are fed back into game development instead of going into the pockets of executives, which *looks at our society* good fucking luck with that.
Meanwhile, the mechanic operates based off of the same chemical reactions which drive gambling, and have already been responsible for individuals dumping more money than they can reasonably afford due to exploitive mechanics. And the only benefit which they provide (other than the rush of gambling which can be filled by gambling, but be limited to individuals who are of an age which society has already deemed is better capable of HANDLING those urges, rather than exposing pre-teens to that behavior) is a competitive advantage against any gaming company which DOESN'T have loot boxes, so the only way to prevent the arms race is to regulate or ban them entirely.
And if this palaver about lootboxes actually achieves anything, then we absolutely should treat them the same way.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Overwatch (and games in general) completely control every aspect of distribution of the winnings--and what happens to them in perpetuity. I doubt it would happen, but Blizzard has every single right to decide tomorrow that x costume or y emote animation is undesirable or technically problematic, can remove them, and is under no obligation to replace them (though even if it did, it wouldn't fundamentally change the problem). Of course, the alternative--the ability to sell digital winnings in Battlegrounds or Counterstrike comes with its own problems, in large part because of the content being entirely digital.
The details matter, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
...Okay. Deal.
I mean, personally I'm of the opinion that you cannot simply use a catch-all rule for everything. Some degree of insight and intent should go into everything, and the rules tweaked as need be. But in the short term, if the only way to regulate lootboxes is to say "Well then we have to regulate all these other things too yup yup" then... okay. Do it.
None of that is gambling!
In gambling you can try to recover your lost $100 by using more money. And try to recover that money by spending even more. That's true gambling.
In raffles/lootboxes you spend money and you get small items of no monetary value. There's no temptation to throw good money after the bad, because you can't recover any spent money.
Only exception to this would be games where you can resell the items for monetary compensation. That would make it gambling.
I don't even think you would get LESS games. I think you would get MORE games and better ones. Lootboxes are toxic for game quality, since they are gambling. If gambling is the core of the game, then the game doesn't need to be good, because people can be addicted to gambling. The idea of 'I might win big!' has its own value to people. And so, rather than spending the money on building a cohesive and interesting narrative or game structure which will keep people playing long term because the game is good (and is also something which requires some cash and plenty of human talent, rather than just piles of cash) you invest in ANYTHING you possibly can to bring a few more players in the door and get them to have a few first spins at the lootbox.
Look at other gambling games. Blackjack is not a fundamentally 'good game', nor is roulette. You don't bring people in to gamble by making good games. You bring them in with flashing lights and ringing bells and a promise that YOU could be the one to win. You don't target your games at keeping a wide variety of people at the table for a long time all having fun, you design your games such that whales and the foolhardy stay at the table as long as possible accompanied by a rotating cast of 'transient' players who only serve to be around for a while to amplify the effects of the flashing lights and make the game seem more fun. You then ply everyone with alcohol such that the transient players are more amused by their few seconds at the game, and more people are likely to get drawn in to staying and gambling for long periods. None of this is based on any level on 'good game' devlopment. In fact, the only game development that exists is making sure that the game is quick such that people are asked to start trying to win again IMMEDIATELY after their losses so that they have less time to think about losing.
This is exactly what games with lootboxes try to do. Its how lootbox games make money.
Subscription based models work just great, they just don't work when the opponent for INVESTMENT attraction is based on illegal gambling (Free to play and lootboxes)
Loot boxes are based on throwing good money after bad, you silly goose! That's the whole point! That's why publishers use loot boxes instead of direct sales!
You pay, you randomly get something you don't want, so you pay again. And again. And again.
This also applies to buying boosters to get a specific card or mini (the number of SW minis I have...), or those bubble toys.
That's not good money after bad.
Have you gambled your rent money away and now desperately trying to win it back with your electric bill money?
that's good money, bad money-situation.
People are incapable of distinguishing between money and prizes, and the act of winning is equally 'rewarding' to the brain whether you receive cash or a prize you wanted. When you play a lootbox game for a long period your brain has assigned a 'value' to the item, and will feel that it has 'won its money back' once it has got the item it wanted. In fact, the more you spend at the lootbox table, the more valuable the prize becomes. Because it's perceived rarity is always increasing. The majority of gamblers aren't gambling to get their money back, in fact, most gambling addicts don't even have any idea how much money they have lost. Only how much money they have won.
You are probably not a compulsive gambler, because I can tell you are focusing on the losses, and on 'recovering' them. A compulsive gambler does not have 'losses', they only count their wins. The same with a lootbox player. Lootboxes are honestly a little worse, because they also check the 'sunk cost fallacy' box in your brain. If you do track your recent spending you might think, "URGHH, I've spent $10 and not got this skin I would have paid $10 for! I've paid 100% and got NOTHING back. I should keep playing. Better to pay 150% of the fair value and at least get the thing, than pay 100% and get nothing"
Ok. Simple question: why not sell the exact same items, individually, without any randomness ?
There's no difference between booster packs and lootboxes, so I don't see the point of painting this as a some kind of acceptable losses scenario.
Uh, no?
Playing any game of chance that requires you to spend money is gambling, regardless of whether or not you are playing "for" money. You're spending money to take a risky (risky as in unlikely) chance that you will obtain something you desire. Whether what you desire is a new car, a free vacation, that sweet new skin for Widowmaker, whatever.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Question before I launch into a diatribe:
Are we distinguishing mobile game gacha from retail game lootboxes?
Because the two are fundamentally very similar, but not exactly the same in a lot of their design considerations due to how they interact with or don't interact with game mechanics, e.g. Overwatch's gameplay is not mechanically driven by what players get from lootboxes, even though the player's desire to play is stimulated by what they get from lootboxes.
There isn't that much difference. The former does more damage but it's the same idea.
(I tried to trim the quote tree here, if I got it wrong let me know.)
I agree that this is an unfair jump. Concern just isn't fungible. There is a great article/book on how most people would ruin expensive shoes to save a drowning stranger but wouldn't donate the same amount to charity for someone across the globe. But it is important to be aware of those problems. Addiction disorders are a major problem in our society that we could help with careful regulation that would have a minimal impact on your preferences.
Given that, I DO think a fair comparison to your stance is:
"I never have a problem with alcohol and I enjoy it from time to time. I do not know any alcoholics. The availability of cheap alcohol keeps my favorite restaurant open. Therefore, I do not think alcohol should be regulated in any way."
For the sake of getting an actual answer, let's limit the question to loot boxes in AAA games.
Why not sell the same items directly, instead of selling them randomly ?
Actually its completely different. When I buy a pack of magic the gathering cards I receive 14 physical cards, 1 land, and 1 promotional card. These are physical items which I become the whole and complete owner of. If I like my cards, then I may keep them. However, if I do NOT like them, I possess them as physical items. I may return to the gaming shop and sell them there, or sell them online.
In addition, if all I want from the set is a single card, then I can look up the price of that card and purchase it. Or trade with my friends to get it. My control over the physical items makes it fundamentally different from the digital item which does not have the option to sell for real currency or purchase for cash.
If you have lootboxes, and then combine them with a 'fair trade' store where players may trade items either between each other or for items of equal value with the 'game', and also include a cash marketplace where any item in a lootbox may be purchased for real currency then the majority of my issues go away since at that point the only remaining 'functional' lootbox is the 'surprise!' lootbox where all items inside are desirable, and there are no duplicates. The 'surprise!' lootbox is just fine with me. It effectively makes them just a different way to buy DLC for those who like surprises.
There's a solution already existing though... Paradox and Starbreeze have proven that expansions don't need to break up the playerbase.
I have already paid more for Stellaris after buying it than it costed in the first place, and I'm actually enthusiastic about paying more soon to get Apocalypse.
That's how you get income stream without exploiting players.
I'm confused, please make up your mind. You're saying that lootboxes and booster packs are no different from one another, so if we have to put the screws to one we must put the screws to the other?
Okay. Let's do that. Your proposal is acceptable.
I don't agree.
The original point as to why lootboxes are definitely gambling made a comparison to "lotteries at the fair", wherein you pay, something random happens, and you always get "something" and this is gambling. Therefore because you in a lootbox, you pay, something random happens, and you always get something, they're the same.
Which, if we take this comparison as valid, then you can replace the word lootbox with booster pack and it's exactly the same, any differences as to why it's actually not gambling all take place after the fact, so they don't matter.
As others have summarized, sure, go ahead, look at them too! I'm a fan of the game, and despite not buying cards in years, have a substantial collection tucked away in my closet for either use or sale one day.
The minor bit of leeway I think most people grant WOTC is that A) there does exist a secondary market for purchases. I *can* spend a thousand dollars on booster boxes hoping for a specific mythic rare, or I can just put down $10-100 (or whatever, as I said, I haven't bought cards in years) and buy it outright. Similarly, anything I do crack open that I don't want, I can sell to others or trade. And 2) Magic cards aren't 'soulbound', which really is just an extrapolation from A. If I don't like what I opened, I can get rid of it in one fashion or another. If I don't like my lootbox contents, well shit, I'm out of luck, they're mine. In some games I might be lucky to convert them into 'dust' or some other crafting agent, to convert into something I do want, but often at a substantial loss of efficiency.
And really, it boils down to 'we can do more than one thing at a time'. Go ahead, slap some regulations on WOTC while we're calling out EA and other companies for predatory practices. It may not be gambling, but it's gambling adjacent enough, preying upon enough similar psychological drives and blind spots, that even as a (occasionally begrudging) fan of several games that use them, fine, sure, go ahead and hit them up together if need be.
As I've expressed before, my preference is for more of a Warframe style 'cosmetics purchased directly, none of this random shit' style anyways. I will happily throw them a few bucks now and then for a flaming cape or wings or whatever shit looks coolest, because I didn't have to throw away $100 in random chances until I either got what I wanted or gave up in frustration.
I've bought overwatch lootboxes before, and I'll probably do so again before this event wraps up.
And I'm happy to do so.
Am I being exploited here?
Yes.
Sure, why not?
Why are they sold randomly instead of deterministically ?
I'm sure there are whales who make millions per year, where throwing like 10 grand at a stupid game so they can have the nicest hats or whatever is not that big a deal.
That doesn't mean it isn't a toxic and predatory business practice.
A willing junkie is still a junkie, so yes.
More precisely:
Did you buy a lootbox hoping to get a specific item? Did you fail to get it? Did you decide to buy another box in hopes of getting it?
If the answer to all 3 was yes, then yes, that is exploitation. Just because you're OK with it doesn't change the fact.
Seeing as I know exactly what I'm getting into, I think all of you falling over yourselves to call me a rube is a little premature on your part, and also flat out wrong.
And for your zinger of a question "Because that makes more money."