Keep on tilting at the windmills. Do your own research.
You're just trying to defend against going completely out of context and now you have nothing to say. Haha. Seriously man, you're not on any high horse here.
I'm not defending anything. I didn't say they're good or bad. I don't care if you like loot crates or expensive microtransactions or what or hate them. From your rambling I can't actually tell what you like and don't or what "side" you think you're on.
You said Crazy was exaggerating with a $100 microtransaction. I said he's not and gave one of many examples to explain he's not exaggerating. Mounts in Neverwinter Online can cost $50 or more each, per character. Do you get it now? Micro transactions aren't very micro anymore. They often cost as much or more than a game and double or more than an expac.
The house in ESO is $125 while Morrowind itself is only ~$40. You can buy the latest DLC for around 2k Crowns (about $20). I won't pay that for a house. I'm not suggesting you do. You were incorrect claiming exaggeration. That's different from defending something. It's pointing out a flaw in the argument.
Keep on tilting means keep on going with your agenda to right a perceived wrong that is likely futile. It's a reference to Don Quixote.
Crazy said a gun for $100, that's what I replied to. You took "anything" as literal and out of context. His comment was an exaggeration. Maybe I need to clarify things more when I post so that forum knights who just want to jump in and try correct someone to get some weird personal satisfaction aren't confused, I don't know.. localization and all that. You're just refusing to accept a miscommunication now so, you're right, it probably is futile.
You're right that microtransactions are getting worse. Loot crates are getting worse. I just hate it all really. I'll complain about the crates and I'll complain about the transactions. That house price is crazy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I don't want to be punished though my taxes because of dumb fucks spending their rent and not being able to feed their children because their addiction to this tripe.
Again, what are we solving here? Are we solving for the 80% or are we solving for the 20%? Actually, it's more like we're probably solving for the 0.005%. We're essentially suggesting to implement something to prevent someone from spending all their money on it, which would be an exceptional case. I would suggest that regardless of the regulations put in place, whatever the game companies counter with, this person would still have a problem and end up spending all their money on it, whether it be a straight-up cash shop or some other gimmick. What you're suggesting is that we create a bubble room for people who can't control themselves, instead of maybe creating a MUCH less expensive support system for these types of people (or the ones who WANT help) in order to actually HELP them.
It's a predatory business practice.
I'm a manufacturer, I make metal parts and I have regulations that I have to abide by. Just because its the entertainment industry doesn't mean they should get a free pass.
How about when you buy your next house you buy it via a loot box and that will decide whether you get a mansion or a bamboo hut.
I'm not certain why it's predatory. Again, if we go back to trading cards, are they predatory? I would say if anything was predatory here it was the progression system.
Its a fine line
If purchasing trading cards were at your finger tips 24/7 and gave you instant gratification. Yes I would classify them as predatory.
Again, though, now we need to, what? Regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to drink or purchase? How many cigarettes they can have? How many guns or bullets they can own?
Again, we have to ask whether we're solving a problem or inventing a problem that we've decided needs to be resolved. You could be spending tens of millions of dollars to solve the problem of 2 people. There is no evidence that this is a problem at all.
Also, again, is this a priority? If we're talking about predatory business practices, I would tend to focus on efforts on the pharmaceutical industry where Americans are paying much higher prices (like up to 10 times or more higher) than most other places in the world for drugs that they need to keep themselves alive. THAT is a pandemic issue, if we're talking about things that are real issues. Oh! And the explanation given for the increased prices is, generally, regulation. So, yeah, let's solve this problem with regulation.... please!
A couple things:
As I've said before, the idea that a government can't focus on multiple things is completely illogical. They can and do have different task forces and committees for that very reason. Drop the "is this the focus we want?" red herring.
We already regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to purchase and drink. Bartenders can and have been punished for serving someone who is clearly too intoxicated for their own good (generally it's something owners take care of internally to avoid bad press/liability). They have a responsibility to cut someone off who's getting too drunk for the public space.
There's a metric shit ton of data that supports the idea that we should limit the ability of citizens to purchase and keep firearms, specifically semi-automatic rifles. Mentioning that is points on the board for the side you're arguing against, much like the alcohol comment.
Finally, your comment about prices being hiked because of regulations will need a lot more support before it becomes a legitimate one.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
It's takes ~4500 hours or ~$2100 to unlock everything in this game. This isn't about people's freedom or children starving. Also Sense of achievement my ass. This is ridiculous!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If they do make significant changes I would be surprised. The business strategy of gaming companies for over a decade now has been "lets see what we can get away with". You put it out there, you see if you can ride out the disapproval. I doubt this is a turning point, without regulation there is always going to be another scam coming down the road.
Please keep your nanny state regulations out of my video games. Use your free will and simply don't support companies/games you don't like.
When nearly an entire industry decides to go down the line of dubious practices, it is rather hard to "simply" support companies/games you like. But also, why should I have to narrow my choices because a gaming company demands I sign away my first born to play? But I am not expecting anything for free here, there is such a thing as fair practice in business, this is not it.
I am not in favour of regulation, I don't like it and usually speak out against it. But I think the gaming industry is pushing bad practice so strongly now that there is no other option.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
Again, though, now we need to, what? Regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to drink or purchase? How many cigarettes they can have? How many guns or bullets they can own?
Again, we have to ask whether we're solving a problem or inventing a problem that we've decided needs to be resolved. You could be spending tens of millions of dollars to solve the problem of 2 people. There is no evidence that this is a problem at all.
Also, again, is this a priority? If we're talking about predatory business practices, I would tend to focus on efforts on the pharmaceutical industry where Americans are paying much higher prices (like up to 10 times or more higher) than most other places in the world for drugs that they need to keep themselves alive. THAT is a pandemic issue, if we're talking about things that are real issues. Oh! And the explanation given for the increased prices is, generally, regulation. So, yeah, let's solve this problem with regulation.... please!
A couple things:
As I've said before, the idea that a government can't focus on multiple things is completely illogical. They can and do have different task forces and committees for that very reason. Drop the "is this the focus we want?" red herring.
We already regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to purchase and drink. Bartenders can and have been punished for serving someone who is clearly too intoxicated for their own good (generally it's something owners take care of internally to avoid bad press/liability). They have a responsibility to cut someone off who's getting too drunk for the public space.
There's a metric shit ton of data that supports the idea that we should limit the ability of citizens to purchase and keep firearms, specifically semi-automatic rifles. Mentioning that is points on the board for the side you're arguing against, much like the alcohol comment.
Finally, your comment about prices being hiked because of regulations will need a lot more support before it becomes a legitimate one.
Sure, a bartender can limit how much alcohol I can buy, but I could buy 10 cases of beer without issue. So as long as I'm getting drunk at home before I drive, it's all good. What I'm saying is there isn't a registry that monitors how much alcohol I buy and restricts my ability to purchase more for a set amount of time. It doesn't regulate.
I take back my comment on focusing on what's important. You're totally right, and it's been proven by the governments decision to remove the law which prevented the import of elephant heads into the US. Congrats America! *slow clap*
I don't want to be punished though my taxes because of dumb fucks spending their rent and not being able to feed their children because their addiction to this tripe.
Again, what are we solving here? Are we solving for the 80% or are we solving for the 20%? Actually, it's more like we're probably solving for the 0.005%. We're essentially suggesting to implement something to prevent someone from spending all their money on it, which would be an exceptional case. I would suggest that regardless of the regulations put in place, whatever the game companies counter with, this person would still have a problem and end up spending all their money on it, whether it be a straight-up cash shop or some other gimmick. What you're suggesting is that we create a bubble room for people who can't control themselves, instead of maybe creating a MUCH less expensive support system for these types of people (or the ones who WANT help) in order to actually HELP them.
It's a predatory business practice.
I'm a manufacturer, I make metal parts and I have regulations that I have to abide by. Just because its the entertainment industry doesn't mean they should get a free pass.
How about when you buy your next house you buy it via a loot box and that will decide whether you get a mansion or a bamboo hut.
regulations are usually limited to issues that directly affect health and safety or the larger economy.
if we start to regulate games too much then the amount of regulations we would end up having in the economy as a whole would be outrageous..we cant go around regulating every business decision and consider it remotely like a free market economy
So you're OK with full on sex and violence on games that kids can play because of the free market economy or is it just the monetary considerations you want to exempt from regulation?
me personally? yes
but you still seem to not understand the point.
1. Loot boxes and lead in your water have two VERY different affects. 2. if free market principles can not work in video games then they can not work ANYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
give it a rest, we can't legislate morality into games, if we do the first thing to go is going to be violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So, I read through a lot of the AMA answers, most were pretty shit. No admissions of wrong doing or any stated intentions to get stuff changed, just the usual "we acknowledge your complaints, we'll keep monitoring the situation".
On the subject of gambling, I'm all in favour of more regulation when it comes to gaming. First off, I think gambling is just stupid anyway, at least as far as gambling as a business goes. It is designed from the ground up for the house to win, so we as customers are setup to lose. It is how businesses make money off gambling and it works extremely well. I have no problem with people doing things like placing bets amongst friends, or shoving £5 each into a pot for poker night (thought I personally avoid both) because at least in those situations you aren't being deliberately setup to lose, plus the enjoyment is being derived from the activity (watching a game/race or playing cards) and the cash aspect is just a nice bonus at the end.
So, within gaming, I firmly believe that we should be regulating gambling. Specifically, we should be regulating any mechanic where a customer can pay real money to gamble on an item. Whether that regulation takes the form of banning the practice (my preference) or just shoving an 18+ rating on games that monetise gambling doesn't really matter. The result should be the same - a reduced amount of gambling in games (which is good for gamers) or reduced sales of games that include gambling (which should prompt developers to focus on making better games that will sell better).
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So.. If I played roulette and they give me $1 even if I lose the bet, I wasn't gambling?
Based on that logic every casino in the world can start doing that and open their doors to children.
Big sign outside saying "You always win $1.00!". You bet $10 but you didn't 'lose' $9, you 'won' $1.. so overall, you won???
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So.. If I played roulette and they give me $1 even if I lose the bet, I wasn't gambling?
People are using the term gambling in a negative manner.
All I'm saying is if you never lose when you gamble what's the problem. How is it bad?
Take your example. If I go to a casino but every time I bet I always get back what I paid, if I'm lucky maybe more why is it bad?
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So.. If I played roulette and they give me $1 even if I lose the bet, I wasn't gambling?
People are using the term gambling in a negative manner.
All I'm saying is if you never lose when you gamble what's the problem. How is it bad?
Take your example. If I go to a casino but every time I bet I always get back what I paid, if I'm lucky maybe more why is it bad?
Addiction? Anything can be addictive.
I agree. well to be exact I am on the fence about gambling. I honestly dont know if its actually bad or just fine. I dont determine that by what laws say and I dont care enough to look more into it
and yes...for those who are prone to addiction anything enjoyable can be addictive.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So.. If I played roulette and they give me $1 even if I lose the bet, I wasn't gambling?
People are using the term gambling in a negative manner.
All I'm saying is if you never lose when you gamble what's the problem. How is it bad?
Take your example. If I go to a casino but every time I bet I always get back what I paid, if I'm lucky maybe more why is it bad?
Addiction? Anything can be addictive.
If you don't get something of equal value in return then it has to be classed as gambling.
With BF2 as the example.. You get 4 or 5 cards each box. Even if all the cards are duplicates you get 200 or 400 credits in return per card. The boxes cost 4000 credits. You can not get equal value back. It's unlikely you'll even get half the value back.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
So.. If I played roulette and they give me $1 even if I lose the bet, I wasn't gambling?
People are using the term gambling in a negative manner.
All I'm saying is if you never lose when you gamble what's the problem. How is it bad?
Take your example. If I go to a casino but every time I bet I always get back what I paid, if I'm lucky maybe more why is it bad?
Addiction? Anything can be addictive.
If you don't get something of equal value in return then it has to be classed as gambling.
But maybe that's why BF2 has shut down micro transactions for now to re-evaluate worth.
Worth is very subjective aswell. Look at old MMO's with the mandatory subscriptions. Did I think they justified the cost against the F2P B2P games I play today. No, not buy a long shot.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
Many casinos offer free VIP cards that accrue points as you lose that can be redeemed for items/comps. So you technically never lose there, either. Doesn't affect the regulations they must adhere to.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
Many casinos offer free VIP cards that accrue points as you lose that can be redeemed for items/comps. So you technically never lose there, either. Doesn't affect the regulations they must adhere to.
So should trading cards then as well, they need to adhere to gambling regulations.
Despite their differences there's more in common with loot boxes and trading cards than casinos.
Whether your "winnings" last forever or not is irrelevant.
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
Many casinos offer free VIP cards that accrue points as you lose that can be redeemed for items/comps. So you technically never lose there, either. Doesn't affect the regulations they must adhere to.
So should trading cards then as well, they need to adhere to gambling regulations.
Despite their differences there's more in common with loot boxes and trading cards than casinos.
Whether your "winnings" last forever or not is irrelevant.
Again, the difference between physical trading cards and lootboxes is a rather large and key difference. Publishers need only give 30 days warning and can not only reduce your winnings to zero, but actually take access to them away from you completely.
See NBA 2K14. The online support ran for a mere 13 months before being shuttered, despite the publisher not pulling the boxes from stores that detailed there was online multiplayer support. That's not just "hey we're not making any more trading cards," it's the equivalent of "we're not making any more trading cards, the value of all your cards is now nothing, and we're confiscating them all to make damn well sure you don't get to enjoy any value from them whatsoever."
Considering the VIP cards are loaded with points whose value is completely determined by the casino who issued the cards, I'd say gaming lootboxes actually have just as much (if not more) in common with those setups than with physical trading cards, specifically since those points often do expire, just like NBA2K14's online support.
(EDIT- Should've noted I used the example of 2K as I was reading an article that mentioned it yesterday. Also had year wrong, updated to reflect accurate year to 2K14)
I think we're getting to hung up on winning. What about the losing which is a huge part of gambling.
You've bought a product, a loot box that contains items of worth. And the items within are judged to be worth at least the cost of the loot box by the seller.
What have I lost when I've purchased items of value?
And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.
But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
Many casinos offer free VIP cards that accrue points as you lose that can be redeemed for items/comps. So you technically never lose there, either. Doesn't affect the regulations they must adhere to.
So should trading cards then as well, they need to adhere to gambling regulations.
Despite their differences there's more in common with loot boxes and trading cards than casinos.
Whether your "winnings" last forever or not is irrelevant.
Its important to distinguish between gambling as a concept, and types of gambling that are regulated by law.
Anything where you pay real money for a chance at a return is gambling. That includes lotteries, trading card packs, raffles, loot boxes. This is pretty much globally recognised and all legal investigations have shown this to be true.
However, gambling regulations in the majority of countries only cover gambling activities where the return is either money or can be converted into money in a guaranteed manner (e.g. exchanging tokens for cash). This is how game developers get away with it. In the EU for example, the Isle of Mann is the only country that follows a different model in that it doesn't care what format the gambling return comes in - money, cards or digital goods.
So, in the Isle of Mann, SWBF2's lootboxes are illegal.
The legal investigations being launched by Belgium and other countries are generally not focusing on whether in-game gambling breaks the law or not. They already know it doesn't. The investigations are mostly focusing on determining whether other laws have been broken (in the UK, for example, EA can get prosecuted for aggressively pushing lootboxes on players under other consumer protection laws) and also on how to create new legislation to regulate in game gambling.
I think we're getting to hung up on winning. What about the losing which is a huge part of gambling.
You've bought a product, a loot box that contains items of worth. And the items within are judged to be worth at least the cost of the loot box by the seller.
What have I lost when I've purchased items of value?
The biggest issue is the amount of control the producers have over the value of your items. They can go even further than devaluing your item through flooding the market with copies; they can straight up take them away for any reason. That's a larger issue than lootboxes, but it exacerbates the lootbox issue.
The fact is that what they're giving you really has no value whatsoever save for the arbitrary value given to it by the producer. This is unique to digital items. As I mentioned, manufacturers of trading cards can flood the market with copies, but even in these instances, we see value added to having "first edition" types of these cards. Nothing about digital items can retain any value outside of what the producer gives it, and it's the only form of gambling in which the producer can take your winnings back at any time for any reason.
So, I read through a lot of the AMA answers, most were pretty shit. No admissions of wrong doing or any stated intentions to get stuff changed, just the usual "we acknowledge your complaints, we'll keep monitoring the situation".
My favorite and most revealing was their response to why there is a 14 hour cooldown on doing single player missions as well as very poor rewards:
As we want to let players earn Credits offline via a more relaxed game mode, we needed to also find a way to make sure it wouldn't be exploited in a way that would impact Multiplayer. Because of that we made the decision to limit the number of Credits earned to stop potential abuse.
There it is. Note the admission that getting too many credits by doing single player missions would "impact Multiplayer" and remember that there is no limit (except temporarily at the moment) to outright buying credits which, by their own admission, would impact multiplayer.
So they explain one form of impacting multiplayer away in the name of fairness and balance while 100% allowing it to be impacted with cash.
Their BS doesn't get any more plain than that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Again, though, now we need to, what? Regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to drink or purchase? How many cigarettes they can have? How many guns or bullets they can own?
Again, we have to ask whether we're solving a problem or inventing a problem that we've decided needs to be resolved. You could be spending tens of millions of dollars to solve the problem of 2 people. There is no evidence that this is a problem at all.
Also, again, is this a priority? If we're talking about predatory business practices, I would tend to focus on efforts on the pharmaceutical industry where Americans are paying much higher prices (like up to 10 times or more higher) than most other places in the world for drugs that they need to keep themselves alive. THAT is a pandemic issue, if we're talking about things that are real issues. Oh! And the explanation given for the increased prices is, generally, regulation. So, yeah, let's solve this problem with regulation.... please!
A couple things:
As I've said before, the idea that a government can't focus on multiple things is completely illogical. They can and do have different task forces and committees for that very reason. Drop the "is this the focus we want?" red herring.
We already regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to purchase and drink. Bartenders can and have been punished for serving someone who is clearly too intoxicated for their own good (generally it's something owners take care of internally to avoid bad press/liability). They have a responsibility to cut someone off who's getting too drunk for the public space.
There's a metric shit ton of data that supports the idea that we should limit the ability of citizens to purchase and keep firearms, specifically semi-automatic rifles. Mentioning that is points on the board for the side you're arguing against, much like the alcohol comment.
Finally, your comment about prices being hiked because of regulations will need a lot more support before it becomes a legitimate one.
Sure, a bartender can limit how much alcohol I can buy, but I could buy 10 cases of beer without issue. So as long as I'm getting drunk at home before I drive, it's all good. What I'm saying is there isn't a registry that monitors how much alcohol I buy and restricts my ability to purchase more for a set amount of time. It doesn't regulate.
I take back my comment on focusing on what's important. You're totally right, and it's been proven by the governments decision to remove the law which prevented the import of elephant heads into the US. Congrats America! *slow clap*
Depending on how you pay for that beer, you are being monitored and your personal information and spending habits are being sold off for profit.
Comments
You're right that microtransactions are getting worse. Loot crates are getting worse. I just hate it all really. I'll complain about the crates and I'll complain about the transactions. That house price is crazy.
As I've said before, the idea that a government can't focus on multiple things is completely illogical. They can and do have different task forces and committees for that very reason. Drop the "is this the focus we want?" red herring.
We already regulate how much alcohol someone is allowed to purchase and drink. Bartenders can and have been punished for serving someone who is clearly too intoxicated for their own good (generally it's something owners take care of internally to avoid bad press/liability). They have a responsibility to cut someone off who's getting too drunk for the public space.
There's a metric shit ton of data that supports the idea that we should limit the ability of citizens to purchase and keep firearms, specifically semi-automatic rifles. Mentioning that is points on the board for the side you're arguing against, much like the alcohol comment.
Finally, your comment about prices being hiked because of regulations will need a lot more support before it becomes a legitimate one.
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/When nearly an entire industry decides to go down the line of dubious practices, it is rather hard to "simply" support companies/games you like. But also, why should I have to narrow my choices because a gaming company demands I sign away my first born to play? But I am not expecting anything for free here, there is such a thing as fair practice in business, this is not it.
I am not in favour of regulation, I don't like it and usually speak out against it. But I think the gaming industry is pushing bad practice so strongly now that there is no other option.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
Sure, a bartender can limit how much alcohol I can buy, but I could buy 10 cases of beer without issue. So as long as I'm getting drunk at home before I drive, it's all good. What I'm saying is there isn't a registry that monitors how much alcohol I buy and restricts my ability to purchase more for a set amount of time. It doesn't regulate.
I take back my comment on focusing on what's important. You're totally right, and it's been proven by the governments decision to remove the law which prevented the import of elephant heads into the US. Congrats America! *slow clap*
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
yes
but you still seem to not understand the point.
1. Loot boxes and lead in your water have two VERY different affects.
2. if free market principles can not work in video games then they can not work ANYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
give it a rest, we can't legislate morality into games, if we do the first thing to go is going to be violence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
On the subject of gambling, I'm all in favour of more regulation when it comes to gaming. First off, I think gambling is just stupid anyway, at least as far as gambling as a business goes. It is designed from the ground up for the house to win, so we as customers are setup to lose. It is how businesses make money off gambling and it works extremely well. I have no problem with people doing things like placing bets amongst friends, or shoving £5 each into a pot for poker night (thought I personally avoid both) because at least in those situations you aren't being deliberately setup to lose, plus the enjoyment is being derived from the activity (watching a game/race or playing cards) and the cash aspect is just a nice bonus at the end.
So, within gaming, I firmly believe that we should be regulating gambling. Specifically, we should be regulating any mechanic where a customer can pay real money to gamble on an item. Whether that regulation takes the form of banning the practice (my preference) or just shoving an 18+ rating on games that monetise gambling doesn't really matter. The result should be the same - a reduced amount of gambling in games (which is good for gamers) or reduced sales of games that include gambling (which should prompt developers to focus on making better games that will sell better).
Based on that logic every casino in the world can start doing that and open their doors to children.
Big sign outside saying "You always win $1.00!". You bet $10 but you didn't 'lose' $9, you 'won' $1.. so overall, you won???
All I'm saying is if you never lose when you gamble what's the problem. How is it bad?
Take your example. If I go to a casino but every time I bet I always get back what I paid, if I'm lucky maybe more why is it bad?
Addiction? Anything can be addictive.
well to be exact I am on the fence about gambling. I honestly dont know if its actually bad or just fine. I dont determine that by what laws say and I dont care enough to look more into it
and yes...for those who are prone to addiction anything enjoyable can be addictive.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
With BF2 as the example.. You get 4 or 5 cards each box. Even if all the cards are duplicates you get 200 or 400 credits in return per card. The boxes cost 4000 credits. You can not get equal value back. It's unlikely you'll even get half the value back.
Worth is very subjective aswell. Look at old MMO's with the mandatory subscriptions. Did I think they justified the cost against the F2P B2P games I play today. No, not buy a long shot.
Despite their differences there's more in common with loot boxes and trading cards than casinos.
Whether your "winnings" last forever or not is irrelevant.
See NBA 2K14. The online support ran for a mere 13 months before being shuttered, despite the publisher not pulling the boxes from stores that detailed there was online multiplayer support. That's not just "hey we're not making any more trading cards," it's the equivalent of "we're not making any more trading cards, the value of all your cards is now nothing, and we're confiscating them all to make damn well sure you don't get to enjoy any value from them whatsoever."
Considering the VIP cards are loaded with points whose value is completely determined by the casino who issued the cards, I'd say gaming lootboxes actually have just as much (if not more) in common with those setups than with physical trading cards, specifically since those points often do expire, just like NBA2K14's online support.
(EDIT- Should've noted I used the example of 2K as I was reading an article that mentioned it yesterday. Also had year wrong, updated to reflect accurate year to 2K14)
You've bought a product, a loot box that contains items of worth. And the items within are judged to be worth at least the cost of the loot box by the seller.
What have I lost when I've purchased items of value?
Anything where you pay real money for a chance at a return is gambling. That includes lotteries, trading card packs, raffles, loot boxes. This is pretty much globally recognised and all legal investigations have shown this to be true.
However, gambling regulations in the majority of countries only cover gambling activities where the return is either money or can be converted into money in a guaranteed manner (e.g. exchanging tokens for cash). This is how game developers get away with it. In the EU for example, the Isle of Mann is the only country that follows a different model in that it doesn't care what format the gambling return comes in - money, cards or digital goods.
So, in the Isle of Mann, SWBF2's lootboxes are illegal.
The legal investigations being launched by Belgium and other countries are generally not focusing on whether in-game gambling breaks the law or not. They already know it doesn't. The investigations are mostly focusing on determining whether other laws have been broken (in the UK, for example, EA can get prosecuted for aggressively pushing lootboxes on players under other consumer protection laws) and also on how to create new legislation to regulate in game gambling.
The fact is that what they're giving you really has no value whatsoever save for the arbitrary value given to it by the producer. This is unique to digital items. As I mentioned, manufacturers of trading cards can flood the market with copies, but even in these instances, we see value added to having "first edition" types of these cards. Nothing about digital items can retain any value outside of what the producer gives it, and it's the only form of gambling in which the producer can take your winnings back at any time for any reason.
There it is. Note the admission that getting too many credits by doing single player missions would "impact Multiplayer" and remember that there is no limit (except temporarily at the moment) to outright buying credits which, by their own admission, would impact multiplayer.
So they explain one form of impacting multiplayer away in the name of fairness and balance while 100% allowing it to be impacted with cash.
Their BS doesn't get any more plain than that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Unless of course its *regulated*
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee