If these laws get pushed into NA, Korean games might end up being fun!
I rather doubt it. One of the main things holding Eastern MMOs back is that the western market is viewed as second class citizens. Publishers are unable to directly make changes and must go to the developers to suggest changes required for the Western gamer.
ArcheAge was one of the best games I've ever experienced during beta. It wasn't until the marketplace opened where it had started to suck.
Worse case scenario, EA - moves everything from RNG loot boxes to packs containing loot box contents you can buy.
So they remove RNG, but everything is still for sale in packs.
Guess what, no longer gambling and people will still buy them.
in the end EA will still profit.
Option 2.
EA is forced to dislose full contents of loot boxes and % chance of winning each item (basically China loot box system).
Again this would no longer constitue gambling (assuming legislation was in line with this) and EA would still make money off loot boxes.
So before people go thinking how politicians and the government are going to change the video game industry - even if new legislation passes - its not going to change much.
In the end - digital item mall will still be there, maybe with revealed RNG, or no RNG - but microtrans is here to stay
Well I'm sure most people dont think this is making micro-transactions go away and probably half the people fighting against loot boxes would want option 1 anyway. The whole thing about loot boxes is they usually pull in more money than directly selling stuff they know people want. So they easily mix that with stuff they know would not sell well in comparison while also increasing the percentage of said bad selling items thus grossing more money compared to selling a weapon or armor for 15~20$. That's honestly the real complaint people have about loot boxes. If anyone thinks this is going to get rid of micro-transactions some day, they are a bit delusional.
@MaxBaconI highly dissagree dude and the only real reason ya got kids populating CS:GO is cus its easy for em to get into without the need to pester their parents to pay for it, which is often a set back for most minors. Not to mention Star Wars has been a pop culture so to speak since I were a kid so I'm pretty sure most players, like myself, will be on there for the very fact that we still love Star Wars and obviously played Battlefront back in the day when this generation didn't even know WTF it was!!
Just had to comment on this. Aside from the fact that you are disastrously wrong on the demographic that plays this game, that's not what I'm commenting on.
Battlefront.. BACK IN THE DAY!?! HAHAHAHAH!
I might be an older gamer, but that really tickles me. I played the original CS, and it was full of nothing but kids, mind you. I played Ultima Online. Full of kids. Games are more accessible than ever today. Most parents don't even care. They are playing games with their 5 year old kids. Back in the day.. lol.. talk to me when you've played Renegade on DOS.
Now that I did a little more research, which Renegade are you actually referring to? because if you mean the 1987 beat em up no I haven't, I was only 5 back then and we didn't even own one of those computers. However, that game isn't even relivant and if we really must butt heads on really OLD games I used to play Pac'Man on the Atari 2600! Hardly seems relivant though.
Understandable. There's also marked difference in the nature of the industries that would require differences in outsourcing- video games aren't concerned with responding to natural disasters, which is one area where insurance has to utilize outsourcing (independent adjusters). That's why I made the general point and ensure I mentioned it was coming solely from my perspective at another corporate entity.
As far as Indies goes, that's really the nature of the business. Of course most will fail, and as tools become more and more readily available to assist Indies in creating games, more will fail. That's not really indicative of any need to utilize predatory monetization to increase profits for individual titles, but indicative of a market saturation that's producing a lot of extraneous titles that are not popular and/or quality enough to float.
Steam is a huge platform for these indie titles. The Greenlight program was specifically created to assist Indies in getting exposure for their titles. I don't doubt these kinds of platforms will continue to operate and expand so long as there are some indie titles that can generate revenue through the assisted exposure. Case in point: just this year, Steam actually ended the program, citing that it still provided toomuch of a barrier to getting these titles on the platform and in front of gamers. The barrier for exposure, quite honestly, has never been lower for indie titles.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Worse case scenario, EA - moves everything from RNG loot boxes to packs containing loot box contents you can buy.
So they remove RNG, but everything is still for sale in packs.
Guess what, no longer gambling and people will still buy them.
in the end EA will still profit.
Option 2.
EA is forced to dislose full contents of loot boxes and % chance of winning each item (basically China loot box system).
Again this would no longer constitue gambling (assuming legislation was in line with this) and EA would still make money off loot boxes.
So before people go thinking how politicians and the government are going to change the video game industry - even if new legislation passes - its not going to change much.
In the end - digital item mall will still be there, maybe with revealed RNG, or no RNG - but microtrans is here to stay
Well I'm sure most people dont think this is making micro-transactions go away and probably half the people fighting against loot boxes would want option 1 anyway. The whole thing about loot boxes is they usually pull in more money than directly selling stuff they know people want. So they easily mix that with stuff they know would not sell well in comparison while also increasing the percentage of said bad selling items thus grossing more money compared to selling a weapon or armor for 15~20$. That's honestly the real complaint people have about loot boxes. If anyone thinks this is going to get rid of micro-transactions some day, they are a bit delusional.
EA is fairly committed with lootboxes for BattleFront 2. Based on that, I, personally, would recommend options like this (depending on what type of statement they want to make)
1. Copy Overwatch. They would put some of the key chase items (Darth Vader for instance) up for direct sale via crystals at obscene prices. They would NOT sell any lootboxes for crystals, but would give them for free with the purchase of crystals (i.e. $10 crystal purchase would get you 100 crystals and 5 FREE lootboxes). As it would take 20000 crystals to buy that one chase item, people would get lots of free lootboxes along the way, but would be guaranteed that one chase at the end (if they get that far). This means that EA would never sell any lootboxes, and it circumvents the problem. It is also sends a clear signal to the people trying to block lootboxes.
2. Sell Boosters. They would not sell any items via crystals, except for boosts to credits earned, which result in more lootboxes. This again circumvents the issue, but does so in a more friendly manner. It does give them less controls, is less aggressive for their sales team, and take a bit more work to deploy/optimize.
There are other half measures that they could take, but because the focus is on them directly, I would recommend something like just described.
They simply need to put the drop rates of items with every box. Make you look at them before buying, and look at them before opening. This will push A LOT of people from purchases when they know they have a 0.1% chance at the "rare" item they want.
Gaming is cheaper than ever relative to inflation, and games COST more to make then ever.
DLC, loot boxes... industry does what industry needs to.
Want to see DLC and micro transactions go away? Expect to pay $80-90+ (US) for a now $60 game.
"I’ve made the argument over the last few years that games are essentially cheaper than they’ve ever been. An NES game in 1990 cost, on average, about $50. That’s $89 in 2013 money. Your $70 N64 cartridges in 1998 would require the equivalent of $100 today. Heck, the $50 PlayStation 2 game you bought in 2005 is worth $60, the exact price of a typical retail game in 2013. This isn't to say that salaries (or hourly pay) have kept up with inflation and the cost-of-living -- it decidedly hasn't -- but it is to say that, dollar-to-dollar over the past 35 years, gaming hardware and software is generally cheaper than ever."
The audience is bigger now and it doesn't cost more to service a larger audience. Games can be distributed infinitely for hardly any cost, we're talking pennies here. Even for online games, the extra cost for server hosting and stability is extremely minor. Even without inflation, they make more from box sales than they ever did before.
The inflation argument doesn't fly with me. It may cost more to develop games now but more people are buying them. More people buying them doesn't increase the development costs.
Funding ongoing development should be supported, but the same thing applies; industry is bigger now. Creating an infinite revenue stream to fund DLC is not required to maintain regular development. They make millions off microtransactions.. and give you something like 3 new maps and a new game mode.. which usually costs you $15 anyway! It did not cost millions to produce that DLC and produce updates.
Look at the profit earnings of gaming companies, they makes loads of money. Microtransactions aren't about supporting the development costs, it's about extreme profit. Extreme. They make people absurdly rich.
Almost all of your points are cringeworthyly wrong.
the cost of running a AAA MMO with 10million players
vs a cost of running a small game is orders of magnitude difference.
I mean this is insane that you would ignore the staff cost alone for a large game - that requires a full operations team, security team, business intelligence team, database team, fraud payment and chargebacks support, platform team etc.... and thats not even taking into accout actual game dev staff and qa.
Hello?
The game market is crazy saturated, most games that are made and released have so few players that they never stand a chance of even breaking even.
More people are buying - but they keep buying big AAA titles they see advertised on TV.
hahahahahaha, make people absurdy rich??????
If this was the case everyone would be a game developer.
CEOs of large companies get absurdly rich, 99.9999% of people working in the video game industey are nowhere near "absurdly rich"
Come on man....
Nope, got to disagree with you.
The cost per player is the only statistic here that really matters and it works out as pennies per person, per month. Even subscription prices on their own made insane profits. How do you think WoW made so much money?
If a game has so few players that it can't even break even, it's not good enough. It's a competitive market. If it's not selling then that's tough. It's a business industry. You're arguing success vs failure. If something fails then it will fail to make money regardless of the business model. Are you suggesting that prices should be increased and we should all pay more because less people are playing a certain game? Now that is cringeworthy.
Are CEO's not people? I didn't say it makes everyone involved in the development process rich.
GODDAMNIT
Rimworld sold 800,000 copies at $24 each, that is 13.4 million dollars after Steam takes its 30% cut. Rimeworld was created by ONE PERSON.
fuck me
Yeh, and that guy is basically the CEO of Rimworld. Chill.
there are many similar examples. the indie market per dollar spent is blowing the fuck away of AAA titles...(at least it appears as such)
Minecraft
RimWorld Project Zombie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
Nice straw man you've got there. If that's the best argument you can bring why waste everyone's time, including your own posting at all.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
Nice straw man you've got there. If that's the best argument you can bring why waste everyone's time, including your own posting at all.
again..if there was a panel discussing this subject and someone on the panel said 'I think its ironic that they are worried about gambling in a game where its 100% about kiling something' I dont think anyone would flag them for being off topic.
just give it a rest....
the reactions to what I said is drawing more shit then my observation. fuck me I just want to be able to have that view point and have it heard, if you felt like I did you would understand how censoring my view on that really pisses me off.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
goddamnit drop it.
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
goddamnit drop it.
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Maybe we want to talk about it but in another thread where it belongs?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
goddamnit drop it.
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Maybe we want to talk about it but in another thread where it belongs?
then maybe you should stop replying to me about that subject and create a new thread!
you have talked about it in this thread now more than I have!
but I will say I find the contradiction deeply distrubing and the defensiveness to not talk about the contradiction to be just a disturbing but I learned a long time ago that humanity sucks balls I just need to learn to accept it.
now..create a new thread
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
goddamnit drop it.
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Maybe we want to talk about it but in another thread where it belongs?
then maybe you should stop replying to me about that subject and create a new thread!
you have talked about it in this thread now more than I have!
but I will say I find the contradiction deeply distrubing and the defensiveness to not talk about the contradiction to be just a disturbing but I learned a long time ago that humanity sucks balls I just need to learn to accept it.
now..create a new thread
Great to hear that you find it contradictory. I don't.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What Belgium and the Hawaiian politicians are saying is that they ain't buying the intermediary currency excuse or any of that shit.
Yup it's just a different mean to the same end, if what is supposed to be regulated is the end, then the mean needs to be embedded in the same one.
Yeah. Is there even any game in existence that uses real currency in game? They all have some system of selling you "crystals" or "crowns" or some other cute sounding special game currency as their way of getting around the A designation.
It's so fucking ridiculously transparent but the ESRB lets them get away with it. It's pretty obvious that they think their consumers are dumb asses and maybe... hmm... never mind, I won't expand that further
That's their first line of defense.
Their next one is that the goods obtained with those ____ (insert cute name here) don't have a real world value. Because, presumably, it is still 1952.
And then their trump card as expressed by the ESRB itself: "it's not gambling because you always get something."
And all of those things are said with a straight face. Although, I'm sure they need to practice in front of a mirror until they can say it without smirking.
You forgot the mic drop.
people concerned about 'crystals' in a game literally called 'Battle' front in which you spend 100% of your time shooting people. absurd world I live in
We get the idea that you don't like violence in games. I may of may not agree but this thread is not the place for that discussion any more than if I mentioned sexual outfits in games. Both could be discussion worthy if you want to start new ones, but not here.
No I personally adore violence in video games.
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true. 2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum 3. I really should not have to explain this 4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
1. Not calling you a hypocrite. Saying the discussion is separate from RNG loot boxes. Gambling is different from violence which is difference from sex. 2. That's simply your opinion. 3. Good 4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
yeah I think if there was a TV panel discussion and one of the hosts said 'I think its ironic how there is a concern of gambling for kids in a game that is 100% about shooting something' that nobody would consider that observation out of line or off topic so let it go I think you should
Violence in a video game is extremely different to violence in real life.
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
goddamnit drop it.
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Maybe we want to talk about it but in another thread where it belongs?
then maybe you should stop replying to me about that subject and create a new thread!
you have talked about it in this thread now more than I have!
but I will say I find the contradiction deeply distrubing and the defensiveness to not talk about the contradiction to be just a disturbing but I learned a long time ago that humanity sucks balls I just need to learn to accept it.
now..create a new thread
Great to hear that you find it contradictory. I don't.
you are still wanting to talk about it.
For someone who thinks the subject if off limits in this thread you sure do talk alot about the subject.
would you please just create a new thread I will meet you there
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@DMKano I wasn't aware revealing odds makes a game NOT gambling. Is that a fact? Las Vegas casinos do not have to disclose the odds on their slot machines. From what I've read, the only "game" that reveals the odds is state lottery.
I don't think the issue is of publishers making money or not, it's that if they choose to go the gambling box route they should go through the same headaches and rigors that a Casino, or online betting website does. It's a big deal, it's big business, with a A LOT ramifications.
Folks are hoping that with all the stipulations that come with running a legal gambling business, game companies will avoid the practice all together. That would put the fair play conversation back into the more winnable Subs/MT/RMT/P2W box.
Once companies started pissing around the gaming experience with pay gates, RNG loot boxes, and other ways to fleece the user base they fell down the slippery slope.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
@DMKano I wasn't aware revealing odds makes a game NOT gambling. Is that a fact? Las Vegas casinos do not have to disclose the odds on their slot machines. From what I've read, the only "game" that reveals the odds is state lottery.
I don't think the issue is of publishers making money or not, it's that if they choose to go the gambling box route they should go through the same headaches and rigors that a Casino, or online betting website does. It's a big deal, it's big business, with a A LOT ramifications.
Folks are hoping that with all the stipulations that come with running a legal gambling business, game companies will avoid the practice all together. That would put the fair play conversation back into the more winnable Subs/MT/RMT/P2W box.
Once companies started pissing around the gaming experience with pay gates, RNG loot boxes, and other ways to fleece the user base they fell down the slippery slope.
and the thing is, one cant force these developers to come up with good design choices. If players win the battle of lootboxes they are still left with retarded developers who dont understand quality game play well enough to create a good game in the first place.
People need to look elsewhere and to quote the bros 'some being a bitch about not looking at indies'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
EA may be able to get away with it due to its size, but the door has been blown wide open on smaller companies that try to do slot machine progression.
They will not be able to survive the massive 'exposed' assaults that will come in every form of public media that is driven by consumers (reddit, twitter, steam reviews, metacritic player reviews).
We already saw this in MMOs with Archeage and to some extent Black Desert but this didn't happen until well after release.
These types of games will be destroyed from day 1 and the studios will end up like SOE if they don't stop.
@DMKano I wasn't aware revealing odds makes a game NOT gambling. Is that a fact? Las Vegas casinos do not have to disclose the odds on their slot machines. From what I've read, the only "game" that reveals the odds is state lottery.
I don't think the issue is of publishers making money or not, it's that if they choose to go the gambling box route they should go through the same headaches and rigors that a Casino, or online betting website does. It's a big deal, it's big business, with a A LOT ramifications.
Folks are hoping that with all the stipulations that come with running a legal gambling business, game companies will avoid the practice all together. That would put the fair play conversation back into the more winnable Subs/MT/RMT/P2W box.
Once companies started pissing around the gaming experience with pay gates, RNG loot boxes, and other ways to fleece the user base they fell down the slippery slope.
and the thing is, one cant force these developers to come up with good design choices. If players win the battle of lootboxes they are still left with retarded developers who dont understand quality game play well enough to create a good game in the first place.
People need to look elsewhere and to quote the bros 'some being a bitch about not looking at indies'
What does this have to do with what I typed to DMKano though?
Are you saying developers make bad games so they should be able to sneak gambling mechanics in without the regulation that every other casino, online-poker, and betting site has to deal with? Explain... as a matter of fact don't. Just realized the screen name. Almost got me.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
@DMKano I wasn't aware revealing odds makes a game NOT gambling. Is that a fact? Las Vegas casinos do not have to disclose the odds on their slot machines. From what I've read, the only "game" that reveals the odds is state lottery.
I don't think the issue is of publishers making money or not, it's that if they choose to go the gambling box route they should go through the same headaches and rigors that a Casino, or online betting website does. It's a big deal, it's big business, with a A LOT ramifications.
Folks are hoping that with all the stipulations that come with running a legal gambling business, game companies will avoid the practice all together. That would put the fair play conversation back into the more winnable Subs/MT/RMT/P2W box.
Once companies started pissing around the gaming experience with pay gates, RNG loot boxes, and other ways to fleece the user base they fell down the slippery slope.
and the thing is, one cant force these developers to come up with good design choices. If players win the battle of lootboxes they are still left with retarded developers who dont understand quality game play well enough to create a good game in the first place.
People need to look elsewhere and to quote the bros 'some being a bitch about not looking at indies'
What does this have to do with what I typed to DMKano though?
Are you saying developers make bad games so they should be able to sneak gambling mechanics in without the regulation that every other casino, online-poker, and betting site has to deal with? Explain... as a matter of fact don't. Just realized the screen name. Almost got me.
no let me try this since your not getting it.
if you go down and hire a drug addict to build your roof you might be able to get him to work on time if you try really hard but he is going to fuck up somewhere else.
you are better off hiring someone who knows how to actually do the job, that way you dont have to worry about every single thing.
Not sure what is so confusing about 'developers who want to put in loot boxes are likely morons who will make other bad design choices so maybe you should look for a game that doesnt suck donkey balls instead' is hard to understand but I am here to help you out the best I can.
its a bit like going to chuck e cheese and trying to get them to make it a fine dinning establishment.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Well I'm sure most people dont think this is making micro-transactions go away and probably half the people fighting against loot boxes would want option 1 anyway. The whole thing about loot boxes is they usually pull in more money than directly selling stuff they know people want. So they easily mix that with stuff they know would not sell well in comparison while also increasing the percentage of said bad selling items thus grossing more money compared to selling a weapon or armor for 15~20$. That's honestly the real complaint people have about loot boxes. If anyone thinks this is going to get rid of micro-transactions some day, they are a bit delusional.
As far as Indies goes, that's really the nature of the business. Of course most will fail, and as tools become more and more readily available to assist Indies in creating games, more will fail. That's not really indicative of any need to utilize predatory monetization to increase profits for individual titles, but indicative of a market saturation that's producing a lot of extraneous titles that are not popular and/or quality enough to float.
Steam is a huge platform for these indie titles. The Greenlight program was specifically created to assist Indies in getting exposure for their titles. I don't doubt these kinds of platforms will continue to operate and expand so long as there are some indie titles that can generate revenue through the assisted exposure. Case in point: just this year, Steam actually ended the program, citing that it still provided too much of a barrier to getting these titles on the platform and in front of gamers. The barrier for exposure, quite honestly, has never been lower for indie titles.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
but that is not the point.
1. what I do, my hypocrisy does not make my observation any less true.
2. its the contrast that is the point, not violence in a vacuum
3. I really should not have to explain this
4. you should just avoid replying to me, it will go away on its own
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EA is fairly committed with lootboxes for BattleFront 2. Based on that, I, personally, would recommend options like this (depending on what type of statement they want to make)
1. Copy Overwatch. They would put some of the key chase items (Darth Vader for instance) up for direct sale via crystals at obscene prices. They would NOT sell any lootboxes for crystals, but would give them for free with the purchase of crystals (i.e. $10 crystal purchase would get you 100 crystals and 5 FREE lootboxes). As it would take 20000 crystals to buy that one chase item, people would get lots of free lootboxes along the way, but would be guaranteed that one chase at the end (if they get that far). This means that EA would never sell any lootboxes, and it circumvents the problem. It is also sends a clear signal to the people trying to block lootboxes.
2. Sell Boosters. They would not sell any items via crystals, except for boosts to credits earned, which result in more lootboxes. This again circumvents the issue, but does so in a more friendly manner. It does give them less controls, is less aggressive for their sales team, and take a bit more work to deploy/optimize.
There are other half measures that they could take, but because the focus is on them directly, I would recommend something like just described.
Project Zombie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. That's simply your opinion.
3. Good
4. You can likewise choose to stop. Ball is in your court.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gambling in a video game is the same as gambling in real life.
Regularly participating in violence in video games does not alter our brains and does not make us more likely to commit violence in real life.
Regularly participating in gambling in games does alter the way our brains work and does make us more likely to gamble outside of games.
just give it a rest....
the reactions to what I said is drawing more shit then my observation. fuck me I just want to be able to have that view point and have it heard, if you felt like I did you would understand how censoring my view on that really pisses me off.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
if you dont want to talk about it and you think its off topic then for the love of fuck stop talking about. it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
either you want to talk about it or you dont, cant have both. so which is it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
you have talked about it in this thread now more than I have!
but I will say I find the contradiction deeply distrubing and the defensiveness to not talk about the contradiction to be just a disturbing but I learned a long time ago that humanity sucks balls I just need to learn to accept it.
now..create a new thread
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
For someone who thinks the subject if off limits in this thread you sure do talk alot about the subject.
would you please just create a new thread I will meet you there
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Thank you for your time!
I don't think the issue is of publishers making money or not, it's that if they choose to go the gambling box route they should go through the same headaches and rigors that a Casino, or online betting website does. It's a big deal, it's big business, with a A LOT ramifications.
Folks are hoping that with all the stipulations that come with running a legal gambling business, game companies will avoid the practice all together. That would put the fair play conversation back into the more winnable Subs/MT/RMT/P2W box.
Once companies started pissing around the gaming experience with pay gates, RNG loot boxes, and other ways to fleece the user base they fell down the slippery slope.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If players win the battle of lootboxes they are still left with retarded developers who dont understand quality game play well enough to create a good game in the first place.
People need to look elsewhere and to quote the bros 'some being a bitch about not looking at indies'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They will not be able to survive the massive 'exposed' assaults that will come in every form of public media that is driven by consumers (reddit, twitter, steam reviews, metacritic player reviews).
We already saw this in MMOs with Archeage and to some extent Black Desert but this didn't happen until well after release.
These types of games will be destroyed from day 1 and the studios will end up like SOE if they don't stop.
Are you saying developers make bad games so they should be able to sneak gambling mechanics in without the regulation that every other casino, online-poker, and betting site has to deal with? Explain... as a matter of fact don't. Just realized the screen name. Almost got me.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if you go down and hire a drug addict to build your roof you might be able to get him to work on time if you try really hard but he is going to fuck up somewhere else.
you are better off hiring someone who knows how to actually do the job, that way you dont have to worry about every single thing.
Not sure what is so confusing about 'developers who want to put in loot boxes are likely morons who will make other bad design choices so maybe you should look for a game that doesnt suck donkey balls instead' is hard to understand but I am here to help you out the best I can.
its a bit like going to chuck e cheese and trying to get them to make it a fine dinning establishment.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me