Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

1246720

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited May 2018
    DMKano said:
    mklinic said:
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....


    The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

    Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning 
    No, lootboxes are actually worse, because you never actually own what you win.  It'd be like gambling at a casino with your real money knowing that, no matter how much you win, at the end of the night, it's all gotta be given back to the house.
    Slapshot1188ScotAsm0deusNilden

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,705
    edited May 2018
    DMKano said:
    mklinic said:
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....


    The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

    Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning 
    By that logic all a slot machine would need to do is drop a penny guaranteed every pull...or a ticket for a prize like an arcade.
    Asm0deusNildencraftseeker

    "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

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,208
    Damn. Now what do I do with my stockpile of Belgium loot boxes?
    ScotAsm0deus

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • time007time007 Member UncommonPosts: 1,050
    In an official statement from the Belgian Gaming Commision, they declare that lootboxes are gambling:

    https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf

    With the definitions that they give, they make it clear that all lootboxes are now illegal in Belgium. They recommend criminal prosecution on this basis. (Note: They will not proceed with this until the Minister of Justice meets with industry stakeholders).

    I would expect to see lootboxes pulled ASAP, but also to see legal challenges to several of the definitions that they have given. I am also not certain how this affects the EU in general vs just Belgium.

    thats good news.  one less way for companies to take advantage of consumers

    IMPORTANT:  Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING.  Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally.  If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead.  I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING.  Thank you.
    image

  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,470
    PsYcHoGBR said:
    It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

    The rulings are different in Netherlands and Belgium, the criteria are slightly different in each country, but there are loopholes that will allow companies to keep lootboxes in place with tweaks.

    Like Blizzard did in China by including lootboxes as "gifts" when purchasing game currency - as this is a direct sale with a free gift - so not subject to gambling laws



  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,156
    edited May 2018
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


     The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes.  It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

    This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.
    mklinic said:
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....
    You are correct. This new interpretation (specifically based on the subjective value of items) could be applied to many things that were not considered gambling in the past.

    DMKano said:
    PsYcHoGBR said:
    It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

    The rulings are different in Netherlands and Belgium, the criteria are slightly different in each country, but there are loopholes that will allow companies to keep lootboxes in place with tweaks.

    Like Blizzard did in China by including lootboxes as "gifts" when purchasing game currency - as this is a direct sale with a free gift - so not subject to gambling laws



    There is discussion at this point of having a joint conference for the EU to consolidate these rulings, and apply them consistently across all members. I would expect something like this, as there are more reports coming out, and it makes sense from both a political and business sense.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,705
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


     The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes.  It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

    This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.
    The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company. 
    Asm0deus

    "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

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,156
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


     The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes.  It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

    This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.
    The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company. 
    That is correct. It is also how the company makes money.  Just look at the diamond industry, they only exist because they can artificially inflate the rarity of diamonds.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,705
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


     The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes.  It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

    This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.
    The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company. 
    That is correct. It is also how the company makes money.  Just look at the diamond industry, they only exist because they can artificially inflate the rarity of diamonds.
    Sure but when I buy a diamond I buy the exact cut, carat, clarity and color I want.  I don’t get one at random.
    Asm0deusMadFrenchie

    "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

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,786
    Why do companies sell loot boxes?  Because people buy so many of them.  Why do people buy so many of them?  The same reason people buy so many lottery tickets.  People tend to overestimate very small probabilities.  That's just one particular way that a lot of people are stupid.
    Slapshot1188Asm0deusYaevinduskMadFrenchie
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,130
    Just to be clear, paid-for-lootboxes have always been gambling. You pay money, there is an element of chance, and then win/loss rewards. 

    This Belgian ruling simply moves paid-for-lootboxes from the unregulated form of gambling, into the regulated form of gambling, by removing the current loophole regarding a real world value on the reward. 


    To me, this is a great step forwards. Repeated gambling causes serious harm, the reward aspect is almost immaterial as long as it is valued by the player. Lootboxes do cause real harm, just like other forms of gambling, so closing this loophole is really positive. Here's hoping that more countries follow suit and that further loopholes aren't found. Gambling just shouldn't be part of computer games. 
    Asm0deusSlapshot1188
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,131
    Sounds like politicians are looking for a new source of tax revenue to squander - a loot box tax must be needed since it's "gambling."
    Again, do realize that taxation IS one of the ways politicians discourage behavior they see as unhealthy for society.  That's why booze and cigarettes are taxed so highly.
    It works too. No one drinks or smokes. This is more like prohibition. That worked out well didn't it.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,131
    DMKano said:
    mklinic said:
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....


    The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

    Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning 
    No, lootboxes are actually worse, because you never actually own what you win.  It'd be like gambling at a casino with your real money knowing that, no matter how much you win, at the end of the night, it's all gotta be given back to the house.
    You don't own win from the boss loot chest either.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,131
    Amathe said:
    Damn. Now what do I do with my stockpile of Belgium loot boxes?
    Sell them to Citizen Dick. I hear they're very big in Belgium. :lol:
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,058
    This topic is on page 4 already, and I'm totally flabbergasted that I haven't seen a dozen "I'm moving to Belgium" replies.  If this was some kind of devious ploy to increase immigration to Belgium, I'd say it failed.  :#




    QuizzicalAsm0deus

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,131
    Mendel said:
    This topic is on page 4 already, and I'm totally flabbergasted that I haven't seen a dozen "I'm moving to Belgium" replies.  If this was some kind of devious ploy to increase immigration to Belgium, I'd say it failed.  :#
    Even Hercule Poirot lives in England. :tongue: Maybe Belgium is like Delaware. :lol:
    Mendel
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    mklinic said:
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....


    The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

    Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning 
    No, lootboxes are actually worse, because you never actually own what you win.  It'd be like gambling at a casino with your real money knowing that, no matter how much you win, at the end of the night, it's all gotta be given back to the house.
    You don't own win from the boss loot chest either.
    No, but you're not paying for the loot roll.  You're paying for the gameplay experience associated with the boss fight and any other PvE content associated with it.
    Asm0deus

    image
  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Member RarePosts: 2,090
    edited May 2018
    This is, to me, mainly about updating a law to help catch up with technology.  As well as archaic descriptions of what gambling is, and how virtual worlds and currencies are described and understood as.

    It was inevitable ever since Second Life and similar games official sold real estate in the virtual world and loopholes like saying "this has no real world vale" are being targeted.

    Implementing the sciences of gambling and releasing the chemicals into the brain thereof is as much a part of gambling as "real money."  In fact, it is more so:  What do you hear from someone who goes to Los Vegas and is told that they'll likely lose money?  "I don't care.  It's the experience of gambling that I'm after."  Or some such.  The thrill.  The random chance to potentially get something additional is there.  The same goes with virtual lootboxes.  Except they take all of the fun out of it -- the travel, the drinks, the people, the sites... basically the memories you form and the hungover regret of the morning... and then just get you to pay real world money for something they or others say has no real world value by using the same principles of flashing lights, minor rewards and the potential of something you might like.  The thrill of it.  This is still preying on that thrill, and the fact that we're especially concerned about minors when it comes to this is more than just a little telling.  They who don't know withstraint with real money for something that supposedly isn't worth real money... but historically has been and is still being sold for real money.

    First and foremost that's poppycock.  It has value the moment someone agrees to pay for the chance to get something.  Otherwise nothing has value if you aren't willing to pay for it.  You have heard the phrase "increasing the value of my account" many times, I'd imagine.  People paying exorbitant prices for virtual items.  These accounts have value no matter what anyone says, even if they're locked in ownership.  An account that has paid enough to have everything unlocked is more valuable and worth more than a fresh account that someone just bought.  If one has an option to get an account with everything unlocked over a fresh one, it is obvious what most will pick.

    But I do understand the ramifications of going about this in the wrong ways.  As well as companies just moving onto new ways of scamming money out of people.  The potential irrelevance as a whole in fixing one thing only to find another has popped up.  Along with new issues that a new ruling gives that weren't thought of or made exceptions with at the time.  They may even have to define terms that were otherwise ambiguous in the past just to use as reference in this.
    Asm0deuscameltosis
    Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing).  German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century.  Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now).  I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things).  In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while.  If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.

    Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this.  If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own.  Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis.  Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,451
    Stepping back for a minute from the legal and moral aspects of the gambling mechanics, the thing I hate the most about these loot crates is that being as lucrative as they are for the sellers, any game that has them - especially the ones that have them that are "just cosmetic" - spend an inordinate amount of time developing this shit at the expense of development for the actual game play.

    I've seen this happen in ESO with the incredible proliferation of new looks for mounts and outfit styles - many of those loot crate exclusives. A large portion of every new update is all about that. They're even introducing new outfit looks in the crown shop with Summerset that are not even crafting styles... just outfit looks.

    Say what you will about this stuff but from the perspective of that shrinking portion of the player base that wants to quest, PvE, explore and PvP, this second-life like shit does nothing to make game play better.

    And to that increasing portion of the population that mostly just wants to dress-up, it's a disrespectful way to sell them a chance to get what they actually want. These are the players that will spend and spend because the stuff in those crates actually matters to them.

    Now carry on with your prognostications about how things will change in the future... or not :)
    Asm0deusMendelTorvalcameltosis
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,841
    edited May 2018
    This is, to me, mainly about updating a law to help catch up with technology.  As well as archaic descriptions of what gambling is, and how virtual worlds and currencies are described and understood as.

    ...snip...
    Indeed fully agree and I have said as much on other threads about this topic!

    I also agree with what Iselin has just said about how many games with lootboxes seems to spend far too much time working on lootboxes rather than actual content.



    Just wanted to say I am impressed with everyone participating in this thread as of now we are on page 4 and while the topic can be a hot button issue and we don't all agree on things we are all discussing this quite civilly without any rants, raves or hissy fits and personal attacks, tis a nice change from the usual!

    :smiley:
    Mendel

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,156
    Superman0X said:
    Superman0X said:
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


     The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes.  It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

    This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.
    The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company. 
    That is correct. It is also how the company makes money.  Just look at the diamond industry, they only exist because they can artificially inflate the rarity of diamonds.
    Sure but when I buy a diamond I buy the exact cut, carat, clarity and color I want.  I don’t get one at random.
    The diamond market sells you an overpriced item directly, because they have a well established falsehood that no one is challenging. The gaming market is not like that, so they obscure the high price of the item by using randomization.
    Torval
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,156
    edited May 2018
    Quizzical said:
    Why do companies sell loot boxes?  Because people buy so many of them.  Why do people buy so many of them?  The same reason people buy so many lottery tickets.  People tend to overestimate very small probabilities.  That's just one particular way that a lot of people are stupid.
    1. To obscure the high price of the chase items.
    2. To provide lower value items in a volume that would not normally be purchased.

    Torval
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,964
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    cheyane

    You stay sassy!

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,131
    Iselin said:
    Stepping back for a minute from the legal and moral aspects of the gambling mechanics, the thing I hate the most about these loot crates is that being as lucrative as they are for the sellers, any game that has them - especially the ones that have them that are "just cosmetic" - spend an inordinate amount of time developing this shit at the expense of development for the actual game play.

    I've seen this happen in ESO with the incredible proliferation of new looks for mounts and outfit styles - many of those loot crate exclusives. A large portion of every new update is all about that. They're even introducing new outfit looks in the crown shop with Summerset that are not even crafting styles... just outfit looks.

    Say what you will about this stuff but from the perspective of that shrinking portion of the player base that wants to quest, PvE, explore and PvP, this second-life like shit does nothing to make game play better.

    And to that increasing portion of the population that mostly just wants to dress-up, it's a disrespectful way to sell them a chance to get what they actually want. These are the players that will spend and spend because the stuff in those crates actually matters to them.

    Now carry on with your prognostications about how things will change in the future... or not :)
    That is what pisses me off most. The things I used to play for in MMOs are all in the cash shop now so they can advertise "no p2w". Epeeners don't care as long as they can play the game free or cheaper.

    The second life people don't mind spending that stupid amount of money in the cash shop. They do it in SL. The esports tryhards don't care because they're too pro for dressup. It's the RPG players and traditional mmo players that get boned. Not only is my gameplay in the cash shop, I get to help subsidize the game for people who don't give a shit about RPG quality.

    Why this Belgium push will fail I think is for the same reasons publishers haven't been able to rid themselves of gold farmers or the perpetually toxic asshats. It's a moving target. Studios and pubs will suffle all this around. The easily placated will rah and cheer while we get screwed in more insidious ways.

    I'm waiting for the "crypto mining in the game client" craze to take off. It'll make Denuvo look like a portable app. Hopefully that will fizzle.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,233
    Tamanous said:
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    Lewis Caroll always loved it
    image
This discussion has been closed.