i still remember the kid that wasted tons of $ on FIFA , or hell clash royale and even mi nephew was caught buying games from the apple store....at least trying too....
Lootboxes are gambling , u have a % chance to get X , % to get Y and 99% chance to get crap.
the issue here is that videogames 1 were powerups , cosmetics , then boxes with packs, then random boxes with a chance of awesome mount , or some cool looking gear , or pet w/e...
u dont need to go far away to see how the model has changed in f2p games....the issue is that the infection has corrupted B2P games too paying 50$ or more and still having microtransactions and loot boxes is a big NO-NO , if at least this games had free updates , but no , DLCS galore...3 maps 25$ , new charactes 20$....
It's one thing to run a dungeon and at the boss when loot drops you roll and it is also RNG but when you lose after playing through a dungeon it is never the same as losing when you buy with real money a loot box and then you open it and get a random item hoping each time you purchase the box you're going to get the weapon you want. In the former case it is part of playing the game and the latter case it is the developers playing you.
Games are a matter of chance while that is true comparing the chance of buying loot boxes to rolling for gear from a boss is clearly not even the same thing and trying to say it is is disingenuous.
Incorrect. If you pay for a game (be it single purchase, monthly sub, dlc,etc) and you do not get the same value of randomized loot as someone else, then the only thing that determines if this is gambling or not is whether the items have value. If they do, it is gambling. If they dont, it is not. That is how gambling is defined, almost universally, worldwide.
This is why no developer/publisher ever takes the gambling debate seriously. This is also why they allow it to continue to come up... because as long as the debate is about gambling (which they know is incorrect) it prevents actual discussion about the things that are actually wrong about lootboxes, that can force them to change business practices.
P.S. You do realize that if lootboxes were gambling, everyone who ever bought one would be a criminal.
My post has been taken to mean I was talking in legal terms. The post was in answer to @Torval when he likened loot boxes to playing a game.
Naturally I will not presume to know the laws in USA regarding gambling and by the way the laws in Malaysia are different since we have only one legal casino in the whole country. The country also has a history of people practising all sorts of pyramid schemes that are rooted in their culture like kutu among the Malays and the Chinese love to gamble Mahjong being a huge favourite but that is another story.
What I was trying to distinguish which I may have better been served by quoting Torval was that RNG when you roll for loot is not the same as opening a loot box .
You should not also forget that while the loot boxes may not fall under the legal definition of gambling and I presume companies like Blizzard and EA must have an army of lawyers who are well versed in the gambling laws that does not prevent the public from forming their own opinion about what gambling is in layman's terms . Now in this public opinion may well dictate what is the outcome of the continued use of loot boxes in games in which children may play. It does not matter that you will not succeed in suing them for practising gambling when the public outcry ultimately drowns those considerations.
Right now it is the court of public opinion that is holding the fort.
Right now it is the court of public opinion that is holding the fort.
Mobs do not decide what's legal(yet).
Like I said nothing legal but they can force companies to rethink their methods because of the negative publicity. Who is to say that some regulations will not be introduced to make loot boxes come with certain notifications and limits. Also when you get this type of attention the tax collector is also going to be interested in exactly how lucrative this aspect is and although this cost will ultimately be passed down to the consumer the loot boxes itself might undergo some form of transformation to something less egregious.
Fast forward to 2017, EA, SWBF2 and other publishers. Games as a service is all the rage in genres that were never about that. Do you think that developers are making shooters more MMOish because that's what we want and because MMOs are evolving as some here like to argue? Yeah right. They are shoehorning the "as a service" part simply so they can create an environment where they can use all the tried and true F2P MMO tricks to prey on their consumers.
I'd argue it's a matter of keeping overhead costs low and cashing in as far as they can on one title, rather than jumping straight into new games with zero return coming from the costs.
The EA's of the world may differ in that at least to a degree, because they have the overhead to jump right into creating sequels.. Which they do tend to do. Still it's not like it's only the EA's that are moving toward this "as a service model".... Even many indies are.. PUBG, Survival titles, etc...
Correct me if I'm behind the times because my impression has always been that only a small percentage partake in extended monetary output in terms of micro transactions (especially in non MMOs). Most still earn their lot within the game...
As for your question... I'm a deep game kinda guy so I won't play your typical shooter, so yes I would prefer devs put more MMO/RPGesque replay-value in their games, even shooters.
maybe these games and monetization models are aimed at this market
We always talk about how they dumb all these games down. Well who do you think they're dumbing them down for?
I've never felt the dumbing down had to do with kids, considering games were often more challenging when I was a kid back in the 80's. I've always felt that was done to get more non-gamers into the medium, mostly casual stay at home adults with lots of spare time. Hence the extreme popularity of titles like The SIMs as an example.
Those casual stay at home adults were kids, many of them probably at the same that you were a kid.
If you have to dumb things down for them now, do you think you would of had to dumb things down when they were a kid?
On a side note: I remember a couple titles back in the eighties/early nineties that had a helpline in case you got stuck.
It's one thing to run a dungeon and at the boss when loot drops you roll and it is also RNG but when you lose after playing through a dungeon it is never the same as losing when you buy with real money a loot box and then you open it and get a random item hoping each time you purchase the box you're going to get the weapon you want. In the former case it is part of playing the game and the latter case it is the developers playing you.
Games are a matter of chance while that is true comparing the chance of buying loot boxes to rolling for gear from a boss is clearly not even the same thing and trying to say it is is disingenuous.
Incorrect. If you pay for a game (be it single purchase, monthly sub, dlc,etc) and you do not get the same value of randomized loot as someone else, then the only thing that determines if this is gambling or not is whether the items have value. If they do, it is gambling. If they dont, it is not. That is how gambling is defined, almost universally, worldwide.
This is why no developer/publisher ever takes the gambling debate seriously. This is also why they allow it to continue to come up... because as long as the debate is about gambling (which they know is incorrect) it prevents actual discussion about the things that are actually wrong about lootboxes, that can force them to change business practices.
P.S. You do realize that if lootboxes were gambling, everyone who ever bought one would be a criminal.
The price for a sub or box is for the experience of the game itself, not specifically on an outcome of an RNG roll. It's also the reason the items received don't have individual value (even when directly purchased from a cash shop); they're considered part of the overall gaming product itself. Their value is totally dependent upon the game as a whole. Without Azeroth, the mount you purchased doesn't exist.
To give them monetary value individually would imply that they can retain any value whatsoever outside of the confines of the game for which they were created. Something that's not currently feasible.
And the price for a slot machine is for the flashing lights and bells...
The requirements for gambling do not require intent, they require: consideration, chance, prize.
Consideration and chance are standard for (commercial) games. The only portion that in dispute is the prize. It comes down to the question of if virtual items have value. If they do, then they are gambling.... and that would make players criminals where gambling is not legal. It also means that earned items can be taxable, and even where gambling is legal, many people would be in violations of laws because of this unclaimed income.
The argument made by gaming companies is that these items do not have any value. Which if true, means that the games (and lootboxes that contain virtual items) are not gambling. This is why all companies know that they are safe in offering them.
P.S. We already have an international legal precedent with Diablo III, which was banned from Korea, because it was deemed gambling until sales of items were prohibited from the game.
Again, the reasoning behind why they don't hold value is largely because they're non-existent except in the context of the game they're created for. And considering players don't even "own" the game itself in the traditional sense, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even where items can be sold for real cash between players, there's no actual ownership of the items, and their value is nil except in the context of the game itself. If Blizzard decided to sunset Diablo 3, the true value of the items, individually, becomes very apparent ($0.00), even had they been sold between players for $1,000,000 during the time in which the game was being supported. It follows, then, that even in the case of the items being sold for real cash, their value still only exists in the context of the game experience itself. None of that really changes the fact that lootboxes prey very directly on the same psychology as true cash gambling, though. And that is altogether very different than the idea that we pay for access to the game itself (subscriptions, box prices), though some wish to equate the two to prove their argument.
The comparison to the flashing lights and bells is a humorous one, but it's reductio ad absurdum.
EDIT- Also, that would only make players criminals if they continued after the law was created. At least, here in America, we don't apply such laws retroactively.
For a determination of if something is gambling, it does not matter why/why not something holds value, but only if it does/does not. The material nature of the item is not relevant. For example, bitcoin is gambling, but virtual items are not. The difference is not the virtual nature of the item, but rather that one is allowed to be sold, and the other is not (by terms). This also what was ruled for Diablo III when they added the marketplace (to allow legal sales of the item).
Just because games/lootboxes are not legally gambling, does not mean that they are not deceptive or even predatory. It just means that as long as the debate is about gambling, that nothing can be done to address the real issues.
It's one thing to run a dungeon and at the boss when loot drops you roll and it is also RNG but when you lose after playing through a dungeon it is never the same as losing when you buy with real money a loot box and then you open it and get a random item hoping each time you purchase the box you're going to get the weapon you want. In the former case it is part of playing the game and the latter case it is the developers playing you.
Games are a matter of chance while that is true comparing the chance of buying loot boxes to rolling for gear from a boss is clearly not even the same thing and trying to say it is is disingenuous.
Incorrect. If you pay for a game (be it single purchase, monthly sub, dlc,etc) and you do not get the same value of randomized loot as someone else, then the only thing that determines if this is gambling or not is whether the items have value. If they do, it is gambling. If they dont, it is not. That is how gambling is defined, almost universally, worldwide.
This is why no developer/publisher ever takes the gambling debate seriously. This is also why they allow it to continue to come up... because as long as the debate is about gambling (which they know is incorrect) it prevents actual discussion about the things that are actually wrong about lootboxes, that can force them to change business practices.
P.S. You do realize that if lootboxes were gambling, everyone who ever bought one would be a criminal.
The price for a sub or box is for the experience of the game itself, not specifically on an outcome of an RNG roll. It's also the reason the items received don't have individual value (even when directly purchased from a cash shop); they're considered part of the overall gaming product itself. Their value is totally dependent upon the game as a whole. Without Azeroth, the mount you purchased doesn't exist.
To give them monetary value individually would imply that they can retain any value whatsoever outside of the confines of the game for which they were created. Something that's not currently feasible.
And the price for a slot machine is for the flashing lights and bells...
The requirements for gambling do not require intent, they require: consideration, chance, prize.
Consideration and chance are standard for (commercial) games. The only portion that in dispute is the prize. It comes down to the question of if virtual items have value. If they do, then they are gambling.... and that would make players criminals where gambling is not legal. It also means that earned items can be taxable, and even where gambling is legal, many people would be in violations of laws because of this unclaimed income.
The argument made by gaming companies is that these items do not have any value. Which if true, means that the games (and lootboxes that contain virtual items) are not gambling. This is why all companies know that they are safe in offering them.
P.S. We already have an international legal precedent with Diablo III, which was banned from Korea, because it was deemed gambling until sales of items were prohibited from the game.
Again, the reasoning behind why they don't hold value is largely because they're non-existent except in the context of the game they're created for. And considering players don't even "own" the game itself in the traditional sense, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even where items can be sold for real cash between players, there's no actual ownership of the items, and their value is nil except in the context of the game itself. If Blizzard decided to sunset Diablo 3, the true value of the items, individually, becomes very apparent ($0.00), even had they been sold between players for $1,000,000 during the time in which the game was being supported. It follows, then, that even in the case of the items being sold for real cash, their value still only exists in the context of the game experience itself. None of that really changes the fact that lootboxes prey very directly on the same psychology as true cash gambling, though. And that is altogether very different than the idea that we pay for access to the game itself (subscriptions, box prices), though some wish to equate the two to prove their argument.
The comparison to the flashing lights and bells is a humorous one, but it's reductio ad absurdum.
EDIT- Also, that would only make players criminals if they continued after the law was created. At least, here in America, we don't apply such laws retroactively.
For a determination of if something is gambling, it does not matter why/why not something holds value, but only if it does/does not. The material nature of the item is not relevant. For example, bitcoin is gambling, but virtual items are not. The difference is not the virtual nature of the item, but rather that one is allowed to be sold, and the other is not (by terms). This also what was ruled for Diablo III when they added the marketplace (to allow legal sales of the item).
Just because games/lootboxes are not legally gambling, does not mean that they are not deceptive or even predatory. It just means that as long as the debate is about gambling, that nothing can be done to address the real issues.
Bitcoin isn't tied to a specific program- it's a virtual currency that can be used almost universally. I get there was a ruling on Diablo 3's items, but I disagree that you can say that those items retain any kind of inherently monetary value because they are only worth anything in the context of the game in which they were created for. It's not claiming that American courts would rule one way or another (I think it was S. Korea you mentioned ruled on D3, right?). I certainly think American courts lean more towards giving digital industries a wide berth because they're timid about opening that can of worms, so I could certainly see it being realistic that they would view those items differently from Bitcoin or physical items. But again, all of that is just surmising the minds of folks we don't personally know (American judges), and you might be right that they would view it exactly as the Korean court did.
Agreed on the 2nd paragraph. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the issue is how those items prey directly and deliberately on the same psychology that gambling does. The payment is directly for the game of chance; there's no enjoyable gaming experience attached, it's directly akin to a purchase of a slot machine pull. The industry has taken the next step by deliberately creating experiences that push the gamer towards pulling the lever. At that point, it's become predatory and the industry has shown a remarkable inability to self-regulate.
Bitcoin isn't tied to a specific program- it's a virtual currency that can be used almost universally. I get there was a ruling on Diablo 3's items, but I disagree that you can say that those items retain any kind of inherently monetary value because they are only worth anything in the context of the game in which they were created for. It's not claiming that American courts would rule one way or another (I think it was S. Korea you mentioned ruled on D3, right?). I certainly think American courts lean more towards giving digital industries a wide berth because they're timid about opening that can of worms, so I could certainly see it being realistic that they would view those items differently from Bitcoin or physical items. But again, all of that is just surmising the minds of folks we don't personally know (American judges), and you might be right that they would view it exactly as the Korean court did.
Agreed on the 2nd paragraph. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the issue is how those items prey directly and deliberately on the same psychology that gambling does. The payment is directly for the game of chance; there's no enjoyable gaming experience attached, it's directly akin to a purchase of a slot machine pull. The industry has taken the next step by deliberately creating experiences that push the gamer towards pulling the lever. At that point, it's become predatory and the industry has shown a remarkable inability to self-regulate.
Items being limited to a single game are again irrelevant. Casino chips are limited to a casino, credits on a slot machine are limited to that very machine. What makes it gambling is the fact that they have been determined to have value. This is most easily demonstrated by being able to be redeemed for money.
I agree that the US has been much more recalcitrant towards dealing with Virtual Items. They want to have their cake and eat it too. However, they still have the same definition of gambling as the rest of the world, even if they don't want to look at examples. (US Judges have NOT looked at these issues, as they have never been brought to the courts for review).
The gambling psychology is used constantly by games, and has been since long before loot boxes were common. This is not new, or even unrecognized. It is how they have made money, and retained customers for decades. It does not seem like something that either the public, or governments finds problematic.
What is new (ish) with lootboxes is how they obscure the cost of goods, and how they are promoted. This is what has changed, and what can easily be regulated. This is where you will see the changes, and where the outrage should be focused. This is the easy win that has not happened because so much effort/outrage has been re-directed to the whole 'gambling' thing that it gets missed.
Bitcoin isn't tied to a specific program- it's a virtual currency that can be used almost universally. I get there was a ruling on Diablo 3's items, but I disagree that you can say that those items retain any kind of inherently monetary value because they are only worth anything in the context of the game in which they were created for. It's not claiming that American courts would rule one way or another (I think it was S. Korea you mentioned ruled on D3, right?). I certainly think American courts lean more towards giving digital industries a wide berth because they're timid about opening that can of worms, so I could certainly see it being realistic that they would view those items differently from Bitcoin or physical items. But again, all of that is just surmising the minds of folks we don't personally know (American judges), and you might be right that they would view it exactly as the Korean court did.
Agreed on the 2nd paragraph. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the issue is how those items prey directly and deliberately on the same psychology that gambling does. The payment is directly for the game of chance; there's no enjoyable gaming experience attached, it's directly akin to a purchase of a slot machine pull. The industry has taken the next step by deliberately creating experiences that push the gamer towards pulling the lever. At that point, it's become predatory and the industry has shown a remarkable inability to self-regulate.
Items being limited to a single game are again irrelevant. Casino chips are limited to a casino, credits on a slot machine are limited to that very machine. What makes it gambling is the fact that they have been determined to have value. This is most easily demonstrated by being able to be redeemed for money.
I agree that the US has been much more recalcitrant towards dealing with Virtual Items. They want to have their cake and eat it too. However, they still have the same definition of gambling as the rest of the world, even if they don't want to look at examples. (US Judges have NOT looked at these issues, as they have never been brought to the courts for review).
The gambling psychology is used constantly by games, and has been since long before loot boxes were common. This is not new, or even unrecognized. It is how they have made money, and retained customers for decades. It does not seem like something that either the public, or governments finds problematic.
What is new (ish) with lootboxes is how they obscure the cost of goods, and how they are promoted. This is what has changed, and what can easily be regulated. This is where you will see the changes, and where the outrage should be focused. This is the easy win that has not happened because so much effort/outrage has been re-directed to the whole 'gambling' thing that it gets missed.
True, casino chips are limited to a specific casino. However, they're merely a placeholder for the cash. I'm not sure I would consider that the equivalent of a digital game item, as there's still vastly different natures, because again, the items are part of the game experience. The idea is that the items help augment the experience the player is paying for, not existing solely (or even primarily) for the chance to be redeemed for money equivalents. But again, that's speaking more to intent, as you mentioned. There's also the difference in that, as highlighted by the recent MHO closure, casinos are an incredibly more reliable institution with regards to solvency that presents more good faith that they will have the ability to honor the value of your chips.
I do wonder where American laws will land once courts take up the issue of digital goods head on. They have, prior to now, seemed totally content to skirt the issue. I have to admit, in the defense of governments worldwide, there's a webbed mess of grey that makes it a tough issue to tackle.
Fast forward to 2017, EA, SWBF2 and other publishers. Games as a service is all the rage in genres that were never about that. Do you think that developers are making shooters more MMOish because that's what we want and because MMOs are evolving as some here like to argue? Yeah right. They are shoehorning the "as a service" part simply so they can create an environment where they can use all the tried and true F2P MMO tricks to prey on their consumers.
I'd argue it's a matter of keeping overhead costs low and cashing in as far as they can on one title, rather than jumping straight into new games with zero return coming from the costs.
The EA's of the world may differ in that at least to a degree, because they have the overhead to jump right into creating sequels.. Which they do tend to do. Still it's not like it's only the EA's that are moving toward this "as a service model".... Even many indies are.. PUBG, Survival titles, etc...
Correct me if I'm behind the times because my impression has always been that only a small percentage partake in extended monetary output in terms of micro transactions (especially in non MMOs). Most still earn their lot within the game...
As for your question... I'm a deep game kinda guy so I won't play your typical shooter, so yes I would prefer devs put more MMO/RPGesque replay-value in their games, even shooters.
maybe these games and monetization models are aimed at this market
We always talk about how they dumb all these games down. Well who do you think they're dumbing them down for?
I've never felt the dumbing down had to do with kids, considering games were often more challenging when I was a kid back in the 80's. I've always felt that was done to get more non-gamers into the medium, mostly casual stay at home adults with lots of spare time. Hence the extreme popularity of titles like The SIMs as an example.
Those casual stay at home adults were kids, many of them probably at the same that you were a kid.
If you have to dumb things down for them now, do you think you would of had to dumb things down when they were a kid?
On a side note: I remember a couple titles back in the eighties/early nineties that had a helpline in case you got stuck.
I was specifically talking about my parents actually, they used to try playing games in the nintendo era and couldn't handle the timing needed to even play titles like Mario. Yet later they really got into adventure games and the sims during the 90s. MMOs somewhat after that (WOW).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
EA didn't drop their loot crates either. They stopped selling them for an interim period until they decide how to rework the system. At least that is the message I got when I read their statement.
In a matter of fact, EA did drop the loot boxes.
And not just those, all microstransactions were removed from the game for the time being.
Whether loot boxes will be back and what form is to be seen.
EA didn't drop their loot crates either. They stopped selling them for an interim period until they decide how to rework the system. At least that is the message I got when I read their statement.
In a matter of fact, EA did drop the loot boxes.
And not just those, all microstransactions were removed from the game for the time being.
Whether loot boxes will be back and what form is to be seen.
An article I just read said they're also taking them out of Need for speed, to rework them. My bet is they use that game as a testing ground for changes, before doing anything with their higher profile titles like Battlefront.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Like I said nothing legal but they can force companies to rethink their methods because of the negative publicity.
What other companies dropped loot boxes apart fom EA...?
I think you are grossly overestimating the situation and the outrcy.
If not for new Star Wars episode release in a few weeks, very likely the loot boxes wouldn't be dropped.
Companies won't give up on significant part of their revenue just because some sensentional headlines no one will remember in 3 weeks.
Here is the reality:
Public opinion may have their layman terms but those have no place in discussion of any legal changes. The case simply has no legs to stand on.
All this debacle is left with is 'think of the children' rhetorics which won't get you anywhere....
Actually, there have been quite a few companies with upcoming games who have publicly said they won't include lootboxes due to this. CD Projekt being one of them saying,
"we'll leave the greed to others"
So i would disagree, it's slowly becoming a nefarious thing and looked down upon. Also this has been a hot topic for several months already, so I doubt it will be dropped in a few weeks
Maybe companies won't do anything, but if push comes to shove and they end up in the same position or similar to EA. I think changes will be made. A year ago i would probably have agreed with you, but the fact EA took them out, even if it was just because of the move, that they even made a move, Imho, is surprising in it's self.
Actually, there have been quite a few companies with upcoming games who have publicly said they won't include lootboxes due to this. CD Projekt being one of them saying,
"we'll leave the greed to others"
So i would disagree, it's slowly becoming a nefarious thing and looked down upon. Also this has been a hot topic for several months already, so I doubt it will be dropped in a few weeks
Maybe companies won't do anything, but if push comes to shove and they end up in the same position or similar to EA. I think changes will be made. A year ago i would probably have agreed with you, but the fact EA took them out, even if it was just because of the move, that they even made a move, Imho, is surprising in it's self.
So one small polish lucky developer with successful franchise that counts the game cost in peanuts and 1 loot box removal due Star Wars episode being realesed shortly is an indicator of an industry move...?
Torval said: Gamers need to choose the right battle
They already did, they spend money on loot boxes and play games with them every day...
What you are implying there is that some small vocal minority should be deciding for everyone else how specific products should be monetized and how people should spend their own money.
I think it is quite possible that once the fuss dies down EA will try its hand at loot boxes in some form again. I was wondering is the anything else in SWB that involves real money for a random chance of something? What about other EA games?
Torval said: Gamers need to choose the right battle
They already did, they spend money on loot boxes and play games with them every day...
What you are implying there is that some small vocal minority should be deciding for everyone else how specific products should be monetized and how people should spend their own money.
I always wondered who was buying those loot boxes. It's Nixon's silent majority. That's what they're up to these days.
"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
That doesn't mean they're satisfied with the business arrangement
No, that is exactly what that means.
And here you are, being willfully obtuse.
I think what he is saying is, if you buy it, you're supporting it...Hence you accept it, at least in corporate terms. What you say later matters little. Which is technically true.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Torval said: Gamers need to choose the right battle
They already did, they spend money on loot boxes and play games with them every day...
That doesn't mean they're satisfied with the business arrangement, only that they're willing to put up with it. Some companies do change their business model and product offerings based on customer feedback. Microsoft has made a lot of changes to their Office offerings based on customer feedback. Customers have also lobbied for regulation regarding unfair practices.
So saying, "Dur they bought the boxes so it's okay" is about as obtuse as trying to frame the problem as a gambling issue.
While true, companies have listened to feedback for changes. It's usually only when a company feels not doing so will hurt their bottom-line. Otherwise they continue as is.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Lootboxes are gambling , u have a % chance to get X , % to get Y and 99% chance to get crap.
the issue here is that videogames 1 were powerups , cosmetics , then boxes with packs, then random boxes with a chance of awesome mount , or some cool looking gear , or pet w/e...
u dont need to go far away to see how the model has changed in f2p games....the issue is that the infection has corrupted B2P games too paying 50$ or more and still having microtransactions and loot boxes is a big NO-NO , if at least this games had free updates , but no , DLCS galore...3 maps 25$ , new charactes 20$....
Naturally I will not presume to know the laws in USA regarding gambling and by the way the laws in Malaysia are different since we have only one legal casino in the whole country. The country also has a history of people practising all sorts of pyramid schemes that are rooted in their culture like kutu among the Malays and the Chinese love to gamble Mahjong being a huge favourite but that is another story.
What I was trying to distinguish which I may have better been served by quoting Torval was that RNG when you roll for loot is not the same as opening a loot box .
You should not also forget that while the loot boxes may not fall under the legal definition of gambling and I presume companies like Blizzard and EA must have an army of lawyers who are well versed in the gambling laws that does not prevent the public from forming their own opinion about what gambling is in layman's terms . Now in this public opinion may well dictate what is the outcome of the continued use of loot boxes in games in which children may play. It does not matter that you will not succeed in suing them for practising gambling when the public outcry ultimately drowns those considerations.
Right now it is the court of public opinion that is holding the fort.
I think you are grossly overestimating the situation and the outrcy.
If not for new Star Wars episode release in a few weeks, very likely the loot boxes wouldn't be dropped.
Companies won't give up on significant part of their revenue just because some sensentional headlines no one will remember in 3 weeks.
Here is the reality:
Public opinion may have their layman terms but those have no place in discussion of any legal changes. The case simply has no legs to stand on.
All this debacle is left with is 'think of the children' rhetorics which won't get you anywhere....
If you have to dumb things down for them now, do you think you would of had to dumb things down when they were a kid?
On a side note: I remember a couple titles back in the eighties/early nineties that had a helpline in case you got stuck.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
For a determination of if something is gambling, it does not matter why/why not something holds value, but only if it does/does not. The material nature of the item is not relevant. For example, bitcoin is gambling, but virtual items are not. The difference is not the virtual nature of the item, but rather that one is allowed to be sold, and the other is not (by terms). This also what was ruled for Diablo III when they added the marketplace (to allow legal sales of the item).
Just because games/lootboxes are not legally gambling, does not mean that they are not deceptive or even predatory. It just means that as long as the debate is about gambling, that nothing can be done to address the real issues.
Agreed on the 2nd paragraph. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the issue is how those items prey directly and deliberately on the same psychology that gambling does. The payment is directly for the game of chance; there's no enjoyable gaming experience attached, it's directly akin to a purchase of a slot machine pull. The industry has taken the next step by deliberately creating experiences that push the gamer towards pulling the lever. At that point, it's become predatory and the industry has shown a remarkable inability to self-regulate.
I agree that the US has been much more recalcitrant towards dealing with Virtual Items. They want to have their cake and eat it too. However, they still have the same definition of gambling as the rest of the world, even if they don't want to look at examples. (US Judges have NOT looked at these issues, as they have never been brought to the courts for review).
The gambling psychology is used constantly by games, and has been since long before loot boxes were common. This is not new, or even unrecognized. It is how they have made money, and retained customers for decades. It does not seem like something that either the public, or governments finds problematic.
What is new (ish) with lootboxes is how they obscure the cost of goods, and how they are promoted. This is what has changed, and what can easily be regulated. This is where you will see the changes, and where the outrage should be focused. This is the easy win that has not happened because so much effort/outrage has been re-directed to the whole 'gambling' thing that it gets missed.
I do wonder where American laws will land once courts take up the issue of digital goods head on. They have, prior to now, seemed totally content to skirt the issue. I have to admit, in the defense of governments worldwide, there's a webbed mess of grey that makes it a tough issue to tackle.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And not just those, all microstransactions were removed from the game for the time being.
Whether loot boxes will be back and what form is to be seen.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
All I could find is that they boosted rewards, nothing that would imply removal of MT or just crates.
"we'll leave the greed to others"
So i would disagree, it's slowly becoming a nefarious thing and looked down upon. Also this has been a hot topic for several months already, so I doubt it will be dropped in a few weeks
Maybe companies won't do anything, but if push comes to shove and they end up in the same position or similar to EA. I think changes will be made. A year ago i would probably have agreed with you, but the fact EA took them out, even if it was just because of the move, that they even made a move, Imho, is surprising in it's self.
I think you are just seeing what you want to see.
What you are implying there is that some small vocal minority should be deciding for everyone else how specific products should be monetized and how people should spend their own money.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Considering the game isn't doing too hot mechanically, seems a good throw away game to see what folks will accept. At least to me.
I misspoke when I said they were removing them should have said removing the "need" for them..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson