As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Lootboxes, Microtransactions, and [Gambling in Gaming]

1313234363762

Posts

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    So is Artifact going to be separate from this? In that it's a digital CCG but follows all the same rules and norms of a real life CCG.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    So is Artifact going to be separate from this? In that it's a digital CCG but follows all the same rules and norms of a real life CCG.
    There was a statement released a couple of days ago that regulators were also going to be looking at the Steam marketplace and trading, so we shall see.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »

    As I understand it, the statement from those EU nations says that they're focused on "Tackling unlicensed third-party websites offering illegal gambling linked to popular video games" and not lootboxes themselves.
    So EA don't have to do anything on that front, it's not their problem.

    Actually, it's looking like while that 3rd party shit got them awake, lootboxes are going under the magnifying glass too. EA has acted with utter arrogance through the entire loot bubble, so yeah, I think they have an over-inflated view of their chances, and even if they lose, the belgians are gonna try and update their rules.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Australia jumping on the "fuck lootboxes" train.

    https://www.pcgamer.com/loot-boxes-are-psychologically-akin-to-gambling-according-to-australian-study/
    Loot boxes in games could lead to problem gambling, according to a study by the Australian Environment and Communications Reference Committee. Over 7,400 game enthusiasts were surveyed for the study, the results of which were presented during a public hearing in Canberra yesterday, as part of the Australian senate inquiry into micro-transactions and chance-based items.

    Participants who suffered a serious gambling problem were more likely to spend money on loot boxes, the study found. "These results support the position of academics who claim that loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling," reads the submission.

    "Spending large amounts of money on loot boxes was associated with problematic levels of spending on other forms of gambling. This is what one would expect if loot boxes psychologically constituted a form of gambling. It is not what one would expect if loot boxes were, instead, psychologically comparable to baseball cards."

    The report suggests that loot boxes could act as a gateway to problem gambling, noting that loot boxes share "important characteristics" with problem gambling. "They may therefore condition gamers to require the excitement associated with gambling , leading to problem gambling." The opposite could be true, too, so says the study: problem gamblers might find themselves attracted to loot boxes.

    Among the ECRC's recommendations is that games with loot boxes be restricted to players of legal gambling age (18-years-old, in Australia). Games would also be required to carry warnings about the presence of loot boxes, as well as parental advisories.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    This is what one would expect if loot boxes psychologically constituted a form of gambling. It is not what one would expect if loot boxes were, instead, psychologically comparable to baseball cards
    No.
    Baseball cards are loot boxes.
    The only difference is in the degree of value/rarity of the reward.
    Which is the reason third party betting sites are a problem; the rewards are larger and so become a more meaningful pot than "5 baseball cards".

    discrider on
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    That study also send to be misattributed?
    The ECRC is the government body conducting the review into loot boxes, not the research body that would have conducted a study and then submitted it to them.
    Unless perhaps the study was a simple web poll.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?

    I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.

    This is how we got the ESRB (and on the other end how Australia got "rating declined" game bans) - the industry should know this. Do X even if you don't want to, or the government will do W X Y and Z, and while a lot of people want W and few tears would be shed for Z, nobody wants Y.

    This is what Jim Sterling and a few others have been saying for a while: They weren't saying that government intervention was good or correct (Sterling even said several times that if it happened it would probably be full of intrusion and overreach), only that if EA and others didn't start policing their own shit, somebody else inevitably would.

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    They're an 800lb gorilla that's about to discover there's a 2000lb gorilla out there.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    Short version: two radio operators go back and forth ordering one another to adjust course. One eventually says, "This is the USS varies-by-telling. Adjust your course or we will ram you." The other answers, "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

    Standard unstoppable force/immovable object story, except it's clear the battleship is punching above it's weight class threatening to ram the shore. They'd win against any ship on the sea but the rocks don't care. EA has a lot of weight to throw around, but they're throwing it around in a game where their opponent sets and can change the rules.

    Hevach on
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Hevach wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    Short version: two radio operators go back and forth ordering one another to adjust course. One eventually says, "This is the USS varies-by-telling. Adjust your course or we will ram you." The other answers, "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

    Standard unstoppable force/immovable object story, except it's clear the battleship is punching above it's weight class threatening to ram the shore. They'd win against any ship on the sea but the rocks don't care. EA has a lot of weight to throw around, but they're throwing it around in a game where their opponent sets and can change the rules.

    And has specifically stated they will try and change the rules if beaten the first time.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Challenging those who make the rules and winning isn't unheard of.

    sig.gif
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Challenging those who make the rules and winning isn't unheard of.

    And those folks setting the rules have specifically stated that if they find a loophole, they will try to close it.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Of course the only thing EA would take a hardline stance on would be the ability to exploit the psychologically vulnerable for $$$.

    Dac on
    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    From what I understand EA has a huge percentage of their revenue tied to loot boxes. Further, they don’t have as many unique IPs in development as other publishers. I’ve heard people comment that they’re probably overvalued as a company because of this. If loot boxes get taken out of the picture it’ll hurt their bottom line in a way that may take years to overcome. Hell, their current business model depends so much on loot boxes that they ended up squandering the Star Wars license. A Star Wars game in the same vein as God of War is missing, despite how absurdly profitable it would be.

    "I see everything twice!"


  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Never put your eggs in one lootbasket, folks.

  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Some choice quotations from the new Eurogamer article on F19:
    And now, we come to Ultimate Team, FIFA's most popular mode, its biggest money-spinner and, for me, the game at its most fascinating. FUT remains a deeply problematic experience, but it's one I cannot tear myself away from. Amid the furore over loot boxes, pay-to-win accusations and child gambling concern, FUT is relentlessly compelling. The appeal is clear: building a team you've grinded for then using it online to beat other players is right up my personality type. Fussing with team chemistry, which, thankfully, is more transparent this year, boosting stats with special cards and hunting down special versions of my favourite players is more than a joy - it's an all-year-round obsession. Packing a superstar, a Ones to Watch card or a Team of the Week player is a genuine thrill. I feel like I should apologise for liking opening packs in FUT, but the truth is I don't just like it, I love it. There's a reason EA makes billions from selling the packs. I'm part of the problem.
    Is buying card packs gambling? As I've said before, I go back and forth on the answer. Sometimes I think, well, it's just like buying football stickers. Of course it's not gambling. Then, usually when I'm desperate for one more hit, I find myself convinced it is. The thing is, if I'm not sure, then how must children rationalise it? Kids make up an enormous portion of the FIFA audience and as a parent, I'm not sure I want my kids to get stuck into FIFA Ultimate Team. I am worried it would teach them how to gamble. FIFA 19, like FIFA 18, does nothing to calm my fears.

    FUT is built around encouraging players to buy more packs, whether that's with earnt FUT Coins or with real-world money. It is exploitative and it is a huge amount of fun. As I enjoy the satisfaction that comes from creating a world-class FUT squad, I worry about how I got there. FUT is not a black and white issue. It is a murky business, one operated with a fine-tooth comb by the revenue generators at EA Sports who crunch the data and watch the numbers go up with each perfectly-timed promotion. Team of the Week cards, Ones to Watch cards, Ultimate Scream cards... every week there's some new incentive to buy packs because standard cards are never enough.
    i9qB8TV.jpg

    The old PA comic with journalists reminding themselves of what exists in their underwear is going to need to be pulled out at some point. With that aside, the FUT streams on Twitch yesterday were huge, and they were almost nothing but card openings. Whenever I see a Fifa advert, it's a twitch streamer opening packs. I've never seen them advertise gameplay. And you can see the same with cardpack opening videos for most CCGs, and lootbox videos for Overwatch and other properties (and even things like Vermintide 2, which have lootboxes you can only earn through gameplay, and no MTs besides new level DLC).

    I really, really hope EA gets completely fucked over this. To the point of no longer existing. They aren't the only publisher with skeletons in the closet (and the back yard, and the neighbour's back yard), but holy shit they have picked the most psychopathic hill to die on ever.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Some choice quotations from the new Eurogamer article on F19:

    <snip>

    As a big fan back in the day of the venerable old F-19 Stealth Fighter, that made my heart skip a beat. Tease :lol:

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?

    I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
    To comply, they would have to completely shut down FIFA Ultimate Team in Belgium. FUT makes literally half of their income against all other properties. That's ignoring also having to shut down the mini-lootboxes they've included in other games. The problem here (also seen in CCGs) is that the games necessarily include randomised loot as part of how the game is designed, and it's difficult to cut that out without just turning off the game. Eventually, things like Hearthstone are going to get hit in the same way eventually, I would expect. Compare this to something like Overwatch, where Blizzard can immediately disabled lootbox purchase in a given area, and the game still works for everyone in that area.

    But even having said that, I feel like EA just looked at the situation and their income and said "even if we accept we're going to lose the money tree eventually, we will still make more money than we'd be fined if we keep on selling."

    Yeah no the EU doesn't work that way. Fines are against worldwide turnover. It will not be worth paying the fine.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Dac wrote: »
    Of course the only think EA would take a hardline stance on would be the ability to exploit the psychologically vulnerable for $$$.

    This very thread is stuffed full of apologetics for the practice. I don't know why you'd think it's only EA.

  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    As a big fan back in the day of the venerable old F-19 Stealth Fighter, that made my heart skip a beat. Tease :lol:
    I actually played the follow-up (or the demo of it maybe?), F-117A. I liked the way it came with an entire paper overlay for your keyboard to tell you what all the buttons did lol.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Challenging those who make the rules and winning isn't unheard of.

    Theres not going to be EA freedom fighters, hiding in the jungle, fighting for the revolution to make lootboxes legal, nor worldwide marches protesting for the right of kids to gamble.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Jazz wrote: »
    As a big fan back in the day of the venerable old F-19 Stealth Fighter, that made my heart skip a beat. Tease :lol:
    I actually played the follow-up (or the demo of it maybe?), F-117A. I liked the way it came with an entire paper overlay for your keyboard to tell you what all the buttons did lol.

    Yeah, F-117A was the sort-of sequel, sort-of expansion that came out a couple of years later after the USAF finally admitted the thing actually existed! It was still classified to the point of its whole existence being officially denied when F-19 came out (and although the hypothesized F-19 looked completely different to the real F-117A, it was otherwise remarkably accurate!). And yes, the keyboard overlay was awesome.

    Anyway, this is totally off-topic, so we'd better leave it there :)

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    I wouldn't have a huge problem considering randomized CCG boosters gambling.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2018
    As has been discussed previously in the thread, just because CCG and Baseball card packs are lootboxes, doesn't make them a perfect 1:1 contrast against digital lootboxes, and all of the main issues that surround them.

    Being able to resell cards on any number of secondary markets, or trade between friends, or light them on fire when in need of tinder in a pinch (not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the ink is toxic when burned, but in an emergency...), there are a number of avenues to utilize physical cards one doesn't want.

    While I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has put untold research into making opening packs the most satisfying experience they can (and I've opened more than my share of cardboard crack over the decades), it's nothing compared to the Vegas slot machine style explosion of sound and colour that many of these digital versions incorporate.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to defend the notion. If some regulatory body wants to force CCG/Trading card companies to adhere to some sensible rules (I don't know, posting chances of getting a particular card in a pack, by rarity), fine, let's do it.

    But there are elements present with digital lootbox systems that rarely work the same way. Sure, some will provide 'dust' or whatever if you get duplicates, or even some kind of trading mechanics, but the really predatory/annoying ones are those that I'm most worried about hitting with the 'go to the corner and think about what you've done' kind of legislation. If Magic and Pokemon card games get some enhancements, great, but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years. These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Couscous wrote: »
    I wouldn't have a huge problem considering randomized CCG boosters gambling.

    They are definitely gambling

    But so are baseball cards

    But also everything forar said.

    Unlike lootboxes for a digital game occupied by transient players that might eventually collapse...i still use magic cards from when i was 12 because we can build out our house decks so when i'm chilling with friends i can just throw down a game of magic with everyone.

    Sleep on
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Unlike lootboxes for a digital game occupied by transient players that might eventually collapse...i still use magic cards from when i was 12 because we can build out our house decks so when i'm chilling with friends i can just throw down a game of magic with everyone.
    This is a function of the card itself, not the method of acquisition.

    You could also make the same argument that any lootbox game like FUT/Hearthstone that allows you play local multiplayer or vs AI will allow you to use the cards long after the internet multiplayer scene dies, and I don't feel that holds water.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Challenging those who make the rules and winning isn't unheard of.

    Theres not going to be EA freedom fighters, hiding in the jungle, fighting for the revolution to make lootboxes legal, nor worldwide marches protesting for the right of kids to gamble.

    Ok, cool.
    But state bodies and indeed governments themselves been taken to court and losing, is not something that never ever happens.
    So maybe the idea that "EA dun fucked up" isn't as self evident as people wish it to be?

    sig.gif
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Sure, sometimes unethical practices are successfully defended by the exploiters. Doesn't mean I won't cheer for any regulators actively trying to protect people against explotation, and hope they finally use the full extent of their powers.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »

    EA is the embodiment of the urban legend of the battleship ordering a lighthouse to change course.

    I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you.

    And yeah, EA is used to throwing their weight around, but when was the last time they tried to throw it against the people who make the rules?

    Challenging those who make the rules and winning isn't unheard of.

    Theres not going to be EA freedom fighters, hiding in the jungle, fighting for the revolution to make lootboxes legal, nor worldwide marches protesting for the right of kids to gamble.

    Ok, cool.
    But state bodies and indeed governments themselves been taken to court and losing, is not something that never ever happens.
    So maybe the idea that "EA dun fucked up" isn't as self evident as people wish it to be?

    It’s fairly evident given the EU’s much stronger customer protections and the clear evidence that loot boxes are exploitative.

    Brown vs Board of Education this ain’t.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Don't worry about it, guys. EA will just blame the bottom falling out of their revenue on Anthem.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Forar wrote: »
    These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    A lot of this is the need to buy them in a physical store. That puts time between the purchase decision and the purchase itself, which, like many things, reduces the impulse to purchase.

    However online CCG's have precisely the same problem and Hearthstone et all should get hit with gambling regulations simple due to effect. And i would not see a problem with adding those to physical CCG's either.

    FIFA is the "big obvious problem" but Hearthstone still has $400 Million in revenue per year. Its still a predatory loot box system its just not hitting as large a target demographic because the CCG market is more saturated than the "sports game" market. Total CCG revenues are likely higher than FIFA i total especially if you add up the sum of physical and online goods. Hearthstone and MtG together probably get close to matching FIFA and there are still a lot of other CCG's out there. They're all gatcha games by another name.

    Edit: if you're wondering whether or not i totally changed tracks in this post its because I did. I 100% did not realize the amount of revenue that CCG's were bringing in. Burn them all down.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    As has been discussed previously in the thread, just because CCG and Baseball card packs are lootboxes, doesn't make them a perfect 1:1 contrast against digital lootboxes, and all of the main issues that surround them.

    Being able to resell cards on any number of secondary markets, or trade between friends, or light them on fire when in need of tinder in a pinch (not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the ink is toxic when burned, but in an emergency...), there are a number of avenues to utilize physical cards one doesn't want.

    While I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has put untold research into making opening packs the most satisfying experience they can (and I've opened more than my share of cardboard crack over the decades), it's nothing compared to the Vegas slot machine style explosion of sound and colour that many of these digital versions incorporate.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to defend the notion. If some regulatory body wants to force CCG/Trading card companies to adhere to some sensible rules (I don't know, posting chances of getting a particular card in a pack, by rarity), fine, let's do it.

    But there are elements present with digital lootbox systems that rarely work the same way. Sure, some will provide 'dust' or whatever if you get duplicates, or even some kind of trading mechanics, but the really predatory/annoying ones are those that I'm most worried about hitting with the 'go to the corner and think about what you've done' kind of legislation. If Magic and Pokemon card games get some enhancements, great, but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years. These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    ?
    Last I played it was like $150*3 to buy the Magic booster boxes, and to accumulate most of the rares needed to have a full set of cards.
    7 sets in rotation every 2 years; buy in required again and again to keep playing Standard competitions.

    Longer lived players would try to minimise cost by reselling cards or only buying cards that they needed, but that didn't feel like a satisfying answer as it presupposes meta knowledge as to what cards are good, or just has you copying online deck lists.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    A lot of this is the need to buy them in a physical store. That puts time between the purchase decision and the purchase itself, which, like many things, reduces the impulse to purchase.

    However online CCG's have precisely the same problem and Hearthstone et all should get hit with gambling regulations simple due to effect. And i would not see a problem with adding those to physical CCG's either.

    FIFA is the "big obvious problem" but Hearthstone still has $400 Million in revenue per year. Its still a predatory loot box system its just not hitting as large a target demographic because the CCG market is more saturated than the "sports game" market. Total CCG revenues are likely higher than FIFA i total especially if you add up the sum of physical and online goods. Hearthstone and MtG together probably get close to matching FIFA and there are still a lot of other CCG's out there. They're all gatcha games by another name.

    Edit: if you're wondering whether or not i totally changed tracks in this post its because I did. I 100% did not realize the amount of revenue that CCG's were bringing in. Burn them all down.

    I have seen a variety of studies which make it pretty clear that its the secondary market which exists for physical objects which allows an assessment of fair value and prevents the worst transgressions (game breaking items at 1/1e6 drop rates are 'fine' in online games, because their effects are localized to the person who pulls the item, whereas in physical games those game breaking items (regardless of rarity)) will swiftly be traded to the most 'important' players in the market, who will proceed to destroy the game.

    As such, the tolerance for nonsense is far lower. In addition, the ability to play offline with cards (or just, write your own card in sharpie on the front of an old one) minimizes the gateway effect on non-gamblers.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    As has been discussed previously in the thread, just because CCG and Baseball card packs are lootboxes, doesn't make them a perfect 1:1 contrast against digital lootboxes, and all of the main issues that surround them.

    Being able to resell cards on any number of secondary markets, or trade between friends, or light them on fire when in need of tinder in a pinch (not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the ink is toxic when burned, but in an emergency...), there are a number of avenues to utilize physical cards one doesn't want.

    While I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has put untold research into making opening packs the most satisfying experience they can (and I've opened more than my share of cardboard crack over the decades), it's nothing compared to the Vegas slot machine style explosion of sound and colour that many of these digital versions incorporate.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to defend the notion. If some regulatory body wants to force CCG/Trading card companies to adhere to some sensible rules (I don't know, posting chances of getting a particular card in a pack, by rarity), fine, let's do it.

    But there are elements present with digital lootbox systems that rarely work the same way. Sure, some will provide 'dust' or whatever if you get duplicates, or even some kind of trading mechanics, but the really predatory/annoying ones are those that I'm most worried about hitting with the 'go to the corner and think about what you've done' kind of legislation. If Magic and Pokemon card games get some enhancements, great, but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years. These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    ?
    Last I played it was like $150*3 to buy the Magic booster boxes, and to accumulate most of the rares needed to have a full set of cards.
    7 sets in rotation every 2 years; buy in required again and again to keep playing Standard competitions.

    Longer lived players would try to minimise cost by reselling cards or only buying cards that they needed, but that didn't feel like a satisfying answer as it presupposes meta knowledge as to what cards are good, or just has you copying online deck lists.

    I'm not sure what you're questioning here. Care to clarify?

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Forar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    As has been discussed previously in the thread, just because CCG and Baseball card packs are lootboxes, doesn't make them a perfect 1:1 contrast against digital lootboxes, and all of the main issues that surround them.

    Being able to resell cards on any number of secondary markets, or trade between friends, or light them on fire when in need of tinder in a pinch (not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the ink is toxic when burned, but in an emergency...), there are a number of avenues to utilize physical cards one doesn't want.

    While I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has put untold research into making opening packs the most satisfying experience they can (and I've opened more than my share of cardboard crack over the decades), it's nothing compared to the Vegas slot machine style explosion of sound and colour that many of these digital versions incorporate.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to defend the notion. If some regulatory body wants to force CCG/Trading card companies to adhere to some sensible rules (I don't know, posting chances of getting a particular card in a pack, by rarity), fine, let's do it.

    But there are elements present with digital lootbox systems that rarely work the same way. Sure, some will provide 'dust' or whatever if you get duplicates, or even some kind of trading mechanics, but the really predatory/annoying ones are those that I'm most worried about hitting with the 'go to the corner and think about what you've done' kind of legislation. If Magic and Pokemon card games get some enhancements, great, but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years. These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    ?
    Last I played it was like $150*3 to buy the Magic booster boxes, and to accumulate most of the rares needed to have a full set of cards.
    7 sets in rotation every 2 years; buy in required again and again to keep playing Standard competitions.

    Longer lived players would try to minimise cost by reselling cards or only buying cards that they needed, but that didn't feel like a satisfying answer as it presupposes meta knowledge as to what cards are good, or just has you copying online deck lists.

    I'm not sure what you're questioning here. Care to clarify?


    ...
    but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years.

    The outlay for Magic would be roughly a grand and a half per year, assuming you need a full set.
    And I can't imagine the outlay being much different if you just need a full set of playable rares.

    discrider on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    As has been discussed previously in the thread, just because CCG and Baseball card packs are lootboxes, doesn't make them a perfect 1:1 contrast against digital lootboxes, and all of the main issues that surround them.

    Being able to resell cards on any number of secondary markets, or trade between friends, or light them on fire when in need of tinder in a pinch (not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the ink is toxic when burned, but in an emergency...), there are a number of avenues to utilize physical cards one doesn't want.

    While I'm sure Wizards of the Coast has put untold research into making opening packs the most satisfying experience they can (and I've opened more than my share of cardboard crack over the decades), it's nothing compared to the Vegas slot machine style explosion of sound and colour that many of these digital versions incorporate.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to defend the notion. If some regulatory body wants to force CCG/Trading card companies to adhere to some sensible rules (I don't know, posting chances of getting a particular card in a pack, by rarity), fine, let's do it.

    But there are elements present with digital lootbox systems that rarely work the same way. Sure, some will provide 'dust' or whatever if you get duplicates, or even some kind of trading mechanics, but the really predatory/annoying ones are those that I'm most worried about hitting with the 'go to the corner and think about what you've done' kind of legislation. If Magic and Pokemon card games get some enhancements, great, but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years. These kinds of elements are exacerbating factors, that while we might find some fringe story about some guy buying $10,000 in Magic booster boxes, I doubt it's a fraction as often as seems to happen with 'whales' in "Freemium" games that these kinds of lootboxes (read; predatory ones) typically utilize and rely upon.

    ?
    Last I played it was like $150*3 to buy the Magic booster boxes, and to accumulate most of the rares needed to have a full set of cards.
    7 sets in rotation every 2 years; buy in required again and again to keep playing Standard competitions.

    Longer lived players would try to minimise cost by reselling cards or only buying cards that they needed, but that didn't feel like a satisfying answer as it presupposes meta knowledge as to what cards are good, or just has you copying online deck lists.

    I'm not sure what you're questioning here. Care to clarify?


    ...
    but I also can't recall the last time I heard about someone buying a grand worth of Magic cards on a whim the same way news stories about people (or their kids) splurging on 'smurfberries' have cropped up over the years.

    The outlay for Magic would be roughly a grand and a half per year, assuming you need a full set.
    And I can't imagine the outlay being much different if you just need a full set of playable rares.

    The outlay for magic is nowhere near that level, and if you did make an outlay anywhere near that level you would be assured in exchange that you would receive multiple elite tier decks of your exact design featuring perfectly pristine new, unplayed cards.

    Magic CAN be expensive, however, when it becomes expensive it becomes predictable. People do not buy packs to get mythics they want. They just buy the mythics for $50 each on the resale market.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Longer lived players would try to minimise cost by reselling cards or only buying cards that they needed, but that didn't feel like a satisfying answer as it presupposes meta knowledge as to what cards are good, or just has you copying online deck lists.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    What exactly is your point here about the cost of playing Magic?

    I ate an engineer
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    What exactly is your point here about the cost of playing Magic?

    That it is a similar amount of expense to other lootbox games, if not more so due to its card treadmill.

Sign In or Register to comment.