MMORPG.com : General : Hawaii's Chris Lee: 'Step Up' to Changing Predatory Gaming Practices

124

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,953
    CrazKanuk said:
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.


    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    Torval

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,367
    CrazKanuk said:
     The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    Our solution of "not buying" is still viable. Inform people, just like food boxes, and let us make our own decisions.

    People have equated my stance to supporting loot crates. To the contrary, not at all. My position is that the grass isn't greener, the environment we have is acceptable, and consumer purchase power has the ability to correct it. What we need is better information and disclosure about costs and reward rates from every aspect.
    MadFrenchieCrazKanukRexKushman
  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,805
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.
    Post edited by Scot on

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,953
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.

    BUT THEY ARE!!!! It's already been acknowledged by you with that survey. That same survey has shown us that even with strict regulation of ACTUAL gambling, there are still many, many children who are engaging in gambling. So, again, what is the problem you're suggesting that they address? Gambling among children? That's about as direct a question as I can ask. Are you saying that they should be addressing gambling among children? OR!! Are you suggesting that they specifically address gambling mechanics in games? OR!!! Would you prefer that game companies remove predatory progression systems from games altogether? Each of these is a WILDLY different undertaking. Unfortunately, this step is, really, NOT a "good one". 
    Torval

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,015
    CrazKanuk said:
    The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    You are forgetting that this is GOVERNMENT regulation. They don't care about the details, they just make the laws, and everyone else has to figure out how to make it work.

    I do believe that the majority of the industry pushback is going to be on the 21/AO requirement, and how it would be regulated online. Rules like this are enforced in person by state issued ID's. There should be an equivalent system if they want it enforced online. (And no, the state doesnt actually want to deal with this... so it is an area that the industry can push back with results).
    TorvalCrazKanuk
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,318
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Asm0deus

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,015
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    Torval
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,015
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    Torval
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    Not sure I agree.  The vast majority of people I game with do not buy them.  If there are numbers that backup what you say (that most people participate) OK... but my personal experience is that few people buy a lot of them...not a lot buying a few.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,350
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    Not sure I agree.  The vast majority of people I game with do not buy them.  If there are numbers that backup what you say (that most people participate) OK... but my personal experience is that few people buy a lot of them...not a lot buying a few.

    Purely anecdotal, but I don't recall having purchased or knowing anyone who purchased loot boxes myself.

    I've always seen them as a terrible buy.  But, I also despise gambling (not morally, but just because it's an atrocious way to spend money imo) so it follows I would have little interest in loot boxes.

    image
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAMember UncommonPosts: 5,479
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAMember UncommonPosts: 5,479
    edited December 2017
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.

    Dude we were pitching pennies and playing marbles in the schoolyard for keepsies when we were seven. So were Egyptian children three thousand years ago. If you think children don't gamble you've never been one. Good grief what the hell are people teaching children these days? 
    Post edited by zymurgeist on
    Torval

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803
    edited December 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.


    Edit to add:   Again i will say that if they want to sell "loot boxes" the odds should be available for the contents at the purchase site.  Sell them if you want, but give consumers the actual information to make an informed decision.  I have yet to hear a single reason why that should not happen.




    Post edited by Slapshot1188 on

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,015
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.



    Actually, THIS thread is not about the market, it is about the Government. Due to complaints by citizens, they are now looking at regulating the market, regardless of customer desires.

    As for who buys items in games, well there is a high volume of people that purchase small amounts, and a small amount of people that purchase large amounts. The majority of the value comes from the large spenders, but the low buy in encourages many people to buy small amounts.
    Torval
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.



    Actually, THIS thread is not about the market, it is about the Government. Due to complaints by citizens, they are now looking at regulating the market, regardless of customer desires.

    As for who buys items in games, well there is a high volume of people that purchase small amounts, and a small amount of people that purchase large amounts. The majority of the value comes from the large spenders, but the low buy in encourages many people to buy small amounts.
    But where are your numbers coming from? Are they publicly available anywhere?  It would be better to see those than everyone (including me) using personal observations.

    I'd love to see the average and median spends of a player.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,367
    edited December 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    SWTOR has loot crates. Instead of buying them with Cartel coins I choose to use Credits (in game gold) to buy the rewards people don't want from their lootboxes. I don't buy off the GTN (auction house) a lot, but I've got some cool speeders and other cosmetics.

    That particular system works for me. What I don't like about paying for that game is that certain features are still locked behind the subscription. While I'm not a fan of the RNG boxes their presence annoys me less than the subscription.

    Anyway, that is an example of a game that has loot crates where the cost of items is lowered for players that don't even buy the loot crates.
    Post edited by Torval on
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAMember UncommonPosts: 5,479
    edited December 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.



    Actually, THIS thread is not about the market, it is about the Government. Due to complaints by citizens, they are now looking at regulating the market, regardless of customer desires.

    As for who buys items in games, well there is a high volume of people that purchase small amounts, and a small amount of people that purchase large amounts. The majority of the value comes from the large spenders, but the low buy in encourages many people to buy small amounts.
    I very much doubt even a significant fraction of the take comes from people who spend a large amount. Most gamers simply don't have that much disposable cash and the ones that do tend to be good at managing their money. It's a lot easier to get ten thousand people to make a five dollar purchase than to get ten people to make one thousand five dollar purchases. I'd wager income from people who buy a single loot box and no more far outweighs the income from people who buy more than fifty. 

    The market already decided loot box games are a winner and now a minority is trying to get the government to buck the trend. People forget the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Reagan was absolutely right about that. 
    Post edited by zymurgeist on
    Iselin

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803

    I very much doubt even a significant fraction of the take comes from people who spend a large amount. Most gamers simply don't have that much disposable cash and the ones that do tend to be good at managing their money. It's a lot easier to get ten thousand people to make a five dollar purchase than to get ten people to make one thousand five dollar purchases. I'd wager income from people who buy a single loot box and no more far outweighs the income from people who buy more than fifty. 

    The market already decided loot box games are a winner and now a minority is trying to get the government to buck the trend. People forget the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Reagan was absolutely right about that. 
    Nothing I have seen about Whales shows me that they are "good at managing money". Again, you say it's a minority.  I'd love to see the stats to back that up.  Maybe you're right, but my observations are quite different.

    And does anyone see a problem with requiring that Loot Boxes show the odds on their purchase site?  Is there anything wrong with giving people information to make informed decisions?


    IselinScot

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 10,455

    The market already decided loot box games are a winner and now a minority is trying to get the government to buck the trend. People forget the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Reagan was absolutely right about that. 
    Regan? You mean the guy that was elected in 1980? You don't suppose there was another agenda at work there?


    MadFrenchie
    “That's how the madness of the world tries to colonize you: from the outside in, forcing you to live in its reality.” 
    ― Jeff VanderMeerAnnihilation
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 10,455

    And does anyone see a problem with requiring that Loot Boxes show the odds on their purchase site?  Is there anything wrong with giving people information to make informed decisions?


    Such an obvious and small compromise and yet it's only done in China where the law requires it.

    Nothing shows the deceptive intent behind the sale of loot boxes better than the fact that it's not done voluntarily and routinely.
    ScotSlapshot1188
    “That's how the madness of the world tries to colonize you: from the outside in, forcing you to live in its reality.” 
    ― Jeff VanderMeerAnnihilation
  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,805
    edited December 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.

    BUT THEY ARE!!!! It's already been acknowledged by you with that survey. That same survey has shown us that even with strict regulation of ACTUAL gambling, there are still many, many children who are engaging in gambling. So, again, what is the problem you're suggesting that they address? Gambling among children? That's about as direct a question as I can ask. Are you saying that they should be addressing gambling among children? OR!! Are you suggesting that they specifically address gambling mechanics in games? OR!!! Would you prefer that game companies remove predatory progression systems from games altogether? Each of these is a WILDLY different undertaking. Unfortunately, this step is, really, NOT a "good one". 
    "Are you saying that they should be addressing gambling among children? Are you suggesting that they specifically address gambling mechanics in games? Would you prefer that game companies remove predatory progression systems from games altogether?"

    Stopping gambling in games helps do all those things. It is not either/or. It helps stop children gambling, it specifically stops gambling in games, it stops one of the predatory systems we find in gaming.

    You can want something to be done for more than one reason...I find it hard to believe I am having to explain that. It won't solve all child gambling, no one on here apart from you and Torval seems to think that's an issue. Most changes to regulations are like that, they don't stop all of anything.
    Post edited by Scot on

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,805
    edited December 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.

    Might I suggest that there may be other ways to make people with lless time and money competitive?

    How about making it just about time? I know shocking right...a principle of gaming ethos, that we play on a fair playing field is now shocking!
    Post edited by Scot on
    Slapshot1188

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803
    Iselin said:

    And does anyone see a problem with requiring that Loot Boxes show the odds on their purchase site?  Is there anything wrong with giving people information to make informed decisions?


    Such an obvious and small compromise and yet it's only done in China where the law requires it.

    Nothing shows the deceptive intent behind the sale of loot boxes better than the fact that it's not done voluntarily and routinely.
    Exactly my point.  All these folks are railing about how people should be able to make their own choices without government interference.  All I'm saying is that people should be given the info to MAKE that choice.  It's obvious that these gaming companies won't provide that information on their own. 

    And by odds I don't mean simply broken down by common, uncommon, rare etc...

    I mean specifically that there is a .00021 percent chance of getting the Sword of Doom and a .91 percent chance of getting a small healing potion.

    Scot

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 7,803

    Scot said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.

    Might I suggest that there may be other ways to make people with lless time and money competitive?

    How about making it just about time? I know shocking right...a principle of gaming ethos, that we play on a fair playing field is now shocking!
    Games should always depend on what happens inside them and not what happens externally.  

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

Sign In or Register to comment.