All the kids seem happy so gambling in MMOs must be fine. Why don't we do away with the consoles and just send them to a casino?
it does beg the questions doesnt?
Like..are casinos bad for young people? if so why?
Kids and gambling...what could possibly go wrong?
kids and anything what could go wrong?
why are casinos specifically bad for young people? Because I dont know.
Violence seems to be acceptable mostly, so why gambling?
Studies have repeatedly shown that violent video games have little to no effect on a developing mind. There are exceptions when one only exposes themselves to particular types of games, but those exceptions involve unused parts of the brain shrinking, rather than any sort of desentisization or mental disorders.
Gambling at any age, but especially at young ages, leads to the development of addictive habits or at least exploits existing ones. Kids do not usually understand the value of money or financial responsibility, which is why we hear horror stories of kids racking up thousands of dollars of FIFA microtransactions on their mom's credit card.
where are the studies that show gambling is bad for childern but violence is not.
doesnt have to be the same article but in general I would like to see some information on your claim
And here we go, off topic and into the weeds.
Hey, here's a thought, go create a new thread for your questions and relate it to gaming somehow.
This thread is about RNG in loot boxes, and more specifically GW2.
Why do you guys even bother? You know by now that he wants to tun any thread where he posts into something about himself and his odd ideas... topic be damned.
I'm really convinced he's a chatbot. He's responses make perfect since from that viewpoint.
again who are you talking about exactly?
and more importantly...why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
RNG loot boxes in GW2? That's new...oh wait, RNG loot boxes have been in GW2 from day one. How is this worthy of complaints? To not expect this was coming would be pretty naive...gliders were a HoT gimmick but mounts will be everywhere for the rest of the game.
GW2 looks right any other korean/chinese import game right now in big cities. They only need little girl/loli race to complete the transformation. The game used to have nice art direction but they lost it to greed.
The heck are you talking about poor people? The complaint is people want to directly purchase the things they want, not have a CHANCE at purchasing something they want. GTFO troll.
But that way you'd only have to buy it once.
Once you get past all the (valid) objections about gambling and so on, what you're left with is a system that's as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
"But hey, you never know. You might get lucky!"... said every lottery ad ever.
It takes a pretty messed up mind to like loot box systems in all of their different incarnations.
People can get cool looking mounts without buying anything. No one has to participate in this. Like the ESO loot boxes for mounts. There are tons of nice looking in game rewards. People want something special for cheap and on their terms. They feel like they deserve it how they expect it to be offered. It's like people feel entitled to what they want.
Personally I don't care anymore. It's all about selling progression. It's all the same thing, whether I rent it and pound on a mob to get the RNG result or skip that and just buy my RNG chance in a store. Online gaming has become about selling progression since MMOs launched and no one way (other than a flat box fee) appeals to me.
If I think it's a bad deal then I don't buy it. Getting up in arms about it seems like a futile and ridiculous waste of time.
The recent revelations about matching based upon microtransactions and the Battlefront II system really proved your last paragraph to be a self-defeating position for consumers to take. The issue isn't that cosmetic RNG is so god awful, it's that RNG on cash shop items itself will only lead to more egregious efforts of monetization in the future when the consumer base passively accepts it. It's no longer a slippery slope fallacy; we've seen the evidentiary evolution of consumer apathy towards such practices, and it gets gradually uglier so long as that apathy persists.
Yeah, that's still all conjecture and hyperbole. It is a slippery slope because you've not used facts about anything. You've just stated an opinion which is perfectly valid, but not one I personally share or care much about.
What I mean is that unless a game is more expensive than I want to pay for the options for doing so are just different facets of the same thing. So I don't care if I have to sub or do RMT cash exchange like the BLTC or microtransactions or loot boxes. I don't do loot boxes because I prefer a sure thing over chance in a direct purchase. That's my preference so that's how I spend money.
All the other stuff is just noise to me. Noisy gamers constantly bitching about everything so that when a serious issue does occasionally pop up it gets drowned out in the roar.
So what's so bad about offering random skins for sale when there are sure fire direct ways to get attractive cosmetics?
And again, I'll point out that the industry has a revenue mark. They're going to push for that. If their established methods aren't meeting the mark they'll keep innovating to add new ways. This isn't a new way though. It's a way that they've always used, but now gamers are making a big stink about it. Why should anyone care? Choose your battles.
The industry has a revenue mark, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it's an appropriate mark. If they're taking underhanded methods to achieve the mark, that's evidence it's not a realistic mark.
Again, I'll use my own industry (insurance); we'd sure love to exceed our marks (or even meet them all), but we cannot give up ethical practices to do so. That includes shady monetization and predatory product presentation tactics to do so. Simply saying "but we NEED to be here and this is the only way we can see to do it!" would not fly with any state Department of Insurance in America.
We also have very huge and real penalties for violating said ethics practices; something that isn't needed in a hobby industry like video gaming. But that doesn't mean we should also give publishers such a wide berth and hope they keep our best interests at heart in the end. We've gotten ample evidence they couldn't give a rats ass about their consumers beyond the ARPU (whether your wish to acknowledge the writing on the wall or not, it's still there). That's fine, they're a business; but don't get your panties in a wad when me and other consumers attempt to call them for bullshit pulled in pursuit of that almighty dollar.
The heck are you talking about poor people? The complaint is people want to directly purchase the things they want, not have a CHANCE at purchasing something they want. GTFO troll.
But that way you'd only have to buy it once.
Once you get past all the (valid) objections about gambling and so on, what you're left with is a system that's as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
"But hey, you never know. You might get lucky!"... said every lottery ad ever.
It takes a pretty messed up mind to like loot box systems in all of their different incarnations.
People can get cool looking mounts without buying anything. No one has to participate in this. Like the ESO loot boxes for mounts. There are tons of nice looking in game rewards. People want something special for cheap and on their terms. They feel like they deserve it how they expect it to be offered. It's like people feel entitled to what they want.
Personally I don't care anymore. It's all about selling progression. It's all the same thing, whether I rent it and pound on a mob to get the RNG result or skip that and just buy my RNG chance in a store. Online gaming has become about selling progression since MMOs launched and no one way (other than a flat box fee) appeals to me.
If I think it's a bad deal then I don't buy it. Getting up in arms about it seems like a futile and ridiculous waste of time.
The recent revelations about matching based upon microtransactions and the Battlefront II system really proved your last paragraph to be a self-defeating position for consumers to take. The issue isn't that cosmetic RNG is so god awful, it's that RNG on cash shop items itself will only lead to more egregious efforts of monetization in the future when the consumer base passively accepts it. It's no longer a slippery slope fallacy; we've seen the evidentiary evolution of consumer apathy towards such practices, and it gets gradually uglier so long as that apathy persists.
Yeah, that's still all conjecture and hyperbole. It is a slippery slope because you've not used facts about anything. You've just stated an opinion which is perfectly valid, but not one I personally share or care much about.
What I mean is that unless a game is more expensive than I want to pay for the options for doing so are just different facets of the same thing. So I don't care if I have to sub or do RMT cash exchange like the BLTC or microtransactions or loot boxes. I don't do loot boxes because I prefer a sure thing over chance in a direct purchase. That's my preference so that's how I spend money.
All the other stuff is just noise to me. Noisy gamers constantly bitching about everything so that when a serious issue does occasionally pop up it gets drowned out in the roar.
So what's so bad about offering random skins for sale when there are sure fire direct ways to get attractive cosmetics?
And again, I'll point out that the industry has a revenue mark. They're going to push for that. If their established methods aren't meeting the mark they'll keep innovating to add new ways. This isn't a new way though. It's a way that they've always used, but now gamers are making a big stink about it. Why should anyone care? Choose your battles.
The industry has a revenue mark, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it's an appropriate mark. If they're taking underhanded methods to achieve the mark, that's evidence it's not a realistic mark.
Again, I'll use my own industry (insurance); we'd sure love to exceed our marks (or even meet them all), but we cannot give up ethical practices to do so. That includes shady monetization and predatory product presentation tactics to do so. Simply saying "but we NEED to be here and this is the only way we can see to do it!" would not fly with any state Department of Insurance in America.
We also have very huge and real penalties for violating said ethics practices; something that isn't needed in a hobby industry like video gaming. But that doesn't mean we should also give publishers such a wide berth and hope they keep our best interests at heart in the end. We've gotten ample evidence they couldn't give a rats ass about their consumers beyond the ARPU (whether your wish to acknowledge the writing on the wall or not, it's still there). That's fine, they're a business; but don't get your panties in a wad when me and other consumers attempt to call them for bullshit pulled in pursuit of that almighty dollar.
all true.
BUT..
you have to give a bullet proof solid reason why one should not do something. Which is why my questions are important. I personally believe gambling is a bad idea in games, I personally think companies will increase the features and try to exploit but I cant come up with a solid bullet proof reason I would feel comfortable telling a judge, which is why I am asking the questions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The heck are you talking about poor people? The complaint is people want to directly purchase the things they want, not have a CHANCE at purchasing something they want. GTFO troll.
But that way you'd only have to buy it once.
Once you get past all the (valid) objections about gambling and so on, what you're left with is a system that's as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
"But hey, you never know. You might get lucky!"... said every lottery ad ever.
It takes a pretty messed up mind to like loot box systems in all of their different incarnations.
People can get cool looking mounts without buying anything. No one has to participate in this. Like the ESO loot boxes for mounts. There are tons of nice looking in game rewards. People want something special for cheap and on their terms. They feel like they deserve it how they expect it to be offered. It's like people feel entitled to what they want.
Personally I don't care anymore. It's all about selling progression. It's all the same thing, whether I rent it and pound on a mob to get the RNG result or skip that and just buy my RNG chance in a store. Online gaming has become about selling progression since MMOs launched and no one way (other than a flat box fee) appeals to me.
If I think it's a bad deal then I don't buy it. Getting up in arms about it seems like a futile and ridiculous waste of time.
The recent revelations about matching based upon microtransactions and the Battlefront II system really proved your last paragraph to be a self-defeating position for consumers to take. The issue isn't that cosmetic RNG is so god awful, it's that RNG on cash shop items itself will only lead to more egregious efforts of monetization in the future when the consumer base passively accepts it. It's no longer a slippery slope fallacy; we've seen the evidentiary evolution of consumer apathy towards such practices, and it gets gradually uglier so long as that apathy persists.
Yeah, that's still all conjecture and hyperbole. It is a slippery slope because you've not used facts about anything. You've just stated an opinion which is perfectly valid, but not one I personally share or care much about.
What I mean is that unless a game is more expensive than I want to pay for the options for doing so are just different facets of the same thing. So I don't care if I have to sub or do RMT cash exchange like the BLTC or microtransactions or loot boxes. I don't do loot boxes because I prefer a sure thing over chance in a direct purchase. That's my preference so that's how I spend money.
All the other stuff is just noise to me. Noisy gamers constantly bitching about everything so that when a serious issue does occasionally pop up it gets drowned out in the roar.
So what's so bad about offering random skins for sale when there are sure fire direct ways to get attractive cosmetics?
And again, I'll point out that the industry has a revenue mark. They're going to push for that. If their established methods aren't meeting the mark they'll keep innovating to add new ways. This isn't a new way though. It's a way that they've always used, but now gamers are making a big stink about it. Why should anyone care? Choose your battles.
The industry has a revenue mark, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it's an appropriate mark. If they're taking underhanded methods to achieve the mark, that's evidence it's not a realistic mark.
Again, I'll use my own industry (insurance); we'd sure love to exceed our marks (or even meet them all), but we cannot give up ethical practices to do so. That includes shady monetization and predatory product presentation tactics to do so. Simply saying "but we NEED to be here and this is the only way we can see to do it!" would not fly with any state Department of Insurance in America.
We also have very huge and real penalties for violating said ethics practices; something that isn't needed in a hobby industry like video gaming. But that doesn't mean we should also give publishers such a wide berth and hope they keep our best interests at heart in the end. We've gotten ample evidence they couldn't give a rats ass about their consumers beyond the ARPU (whether your wish to acknowledge the writing on the wall or not, it's still there). That's fine, they're a business; but don't get your panties in a wad when me and other consumers attempt to call them for bullshit pulled in pursuit of that almighty dollar.
all true.
BUT..
you have to give a bullet proof solid reason why one should not do something. Which is why my questions are important. I personally believe gambling is a bad idea in games, I personally think companies will increase the features and try to exploit but I cant come up with a solid bullet proof reason I would feel comfortable telling a judge, which is why I am asking the questions
You're asking the wrong questions. Gambling is objectively something that is regulated and is illegal to expose minors too. You can argue whether that should be the case, but that is a pointless, off topic discussion.
The actual question is whether loot boxes legally constitute gambling and thus fall within existing regulations. That is the job of the federal government, not the ESRB. The government says "regulate this." The ESRB then determines whether that exists within each game and rates the game accordingly.
And we cannot trust the ESRB to make this decision of their own accord. Most ESRB members hold direct financial stake in the very industry they are rating.
The heck are you talking about poor people? The complaint is people want to directly purchase the things they want, not have a CHANCE at purchasing something they want. GTFO troll.
But that way you'd only have to buy it once.
Once you get past all the (valid) objections about gambling and so on, what you're left with is a system that's as consumer unfriendly as it gets.
"But hey, you never know. You might get lucky!"... said every lottery ad ever.
It takes a pretty messed up mind to like loot box systems in all of their different incarnations.
People can get cool looking mounts without buying anything. No one has to participate in this. Like the ESO loot boxes for mounts. There are tons of nice looking in game rewards. People want something special for cheap and on their terms. They feel like they deserve it how they expect it to be offered. It's like people feel entitled to what they want.
Personally I don't care anymore. It's all about selling progression. It's all the same thing, whether I rent it and pound on a mob to get the RNG result or skip that and just buy my RNG chance in a store. Online gaming has become about selling progression since MMOs launched and no one way (other than a flat box fee) appeals to me.
If I think it's a bad deal then I don't buy it. Getting up in arms about it seems like a futile and ridiculous waste of time.
The recent revelations about matching based upon microtransactions and the Battlefront II system really proved your last paragraph to be a self-defeating position for consumers to take. The issue isn't that cosmetic RNG is so god awful, it's that RNG on cash shop items itself will only lead to more egregious efforts of monetization in the future when the consumer base passively accepts it. It's no longer a slippery slope fallacy; we've seen the evidentiary evolution of consumer apathy towards such practices, and it gets gradually uglier so long as that apathy persists.
Yeah, that's still all conjecture and hyperbole. It is a slippery slope because you've not used facts about anything. You've just stated an opinion which is perfectly valid, but not one I personally share or care much about.
What I mean is that unless a game is more expensive than I want to pay for the options for doing so are just different facets of the same thing. So I don't care if I have to sub or do RMT cash exchange like the BLTC or microtransactions or loot boxes. I don't do loot boxes because I prefer a sure thing over chance in a direct purchase. That's my preference so that's how I spend money.
All the other stuff is just noise to me. Noisy gamers constantly bitching about everything so that when a serious issue does occasionally pop up it gets drowned out in the roar.
So what's so bad about offering random skins for sale when there are sure fire direct ways to get attractive cosmetics?
And again, I'll point out that the industry has a revenue mark. They're going to push for that. If their established methods aren't meeting the mark they'll keep innovating to add new ways. This isn't a new way though. It's a way that they've always used, but now gamers are making a big stink about it. Why should anyone care? Choose your battles.
The industry has a revenue mark, but that, in and of itself, does not mean it's an appropriate mark. If they're taking underhanded methods to achieve the mark, that's evidence it's not a realistic mark.
Again, I'll use my own industry (insurance); we'd sure love to exceed our marks (or even meet them all), but we cannot give up ethical practices to do so. That includes shady monetization and predatory product presentation tactics to do so. Simply saying "but we NEED to be here and this is the only way we can see to do it!" would not fly with any state Department of Insurance in America.
We also have very huge and real penalties for violating said ethics practices; something that isn't needed in a hobby industry like video gaming. But that doesn't mean we should also give publishers such a wide berth and hope they keep our best interests at heart in the end. We've gotten ample evidence they couldn't give a rats ass about their consumers beyond the ARPU (whether your wish to acknowledge the writing on the wall or not, it's still there). That's fine, they're a business; but don't get your panties in a wad when me and other consumers attempt to call them for bullshit pulled in pursuit of that almighty dollar.
all true.
BUT..
you have to give a bullet proof solid reason why one should not do something. Which is why my questions are important. I personally believe gambling is a bad idea in games, I personally think companies will increase the features and try to exploit but I cant come up with a solid bullet proof reason I would feel comfortable telling a judge, which is why I am asking the questions
You're asking the wrong questions. Gambling is objectively something that is regulated and is illegal to expose minors too. You can argue whether that should be the case, but that is a pointless, off topic discussion.
The actual question is whether loot boxes legally constitute gambling and thus fall within existing regulations. That is the job of the federal government, not the ESRB. The government says "regulate this." The ESRB then determines whether that exists within each game and rates the game accordingly.
And we cannot trust the ESRB to make this decision of their own accord. Most ESRB members hold direct financial stake in the very industry they are rating.
well those are very good points that I hadnt considered but I wouldnt go as far as to call it 'off topic' its just an oversight on my part I didnt think of the fact that it is illegal already for minors. I am not sure why it is but yeah if people are uncomfortable talking about that here then I guess its not worth asking and now a dead and boring thread but ok.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
With that said, it is so easy to make gold in GW2 by selling crafting materials in the market and then trading it for gems.
If something has RNG, it sucks, but at least here you have to option to buy gems with gold instead of real money. Can't say the same for games like Destiny, Overwatch, etc.
You want a specific item? pay for it. You want something that only comes out of an RNG spin? don't pay for it, either use gold to buy gems in that situation or avoid it completely.
Many people like to complain about things but then have no problem paying for those things because "it's their money".- Then don't complain when you get more of it in every game.
EDIT: TLDR; Greed only succeeds when people accept it and support it. And we only lose because of it.
With that said, it is so easy to make gold in GW2 by selling crafting materials in the market and then trading it for gems.
If something has RNG, it sucks, but at least here you have to option to buy gems with gold instead of real money. Can't say the same for games like Destiny, Overwatch, etc.
You want a specific item? pay for it. You want something that only comes out of an RNG spin? don't pay for it, either use gold to buy gems in that situation or avoid it completely.
Many people like to complain about things but then have no problem paying for those things because "it's their money".- Then don't complain when you get more of it in every game.
EDIT: TLDR; Greed only succeeds when people accept it and support it. And we only lose because of it.
The flip side, however, is that trading gold for gems inflates gem prices, making it more tempting for others to buy gems. You support the rng skins regardless of whether you earn or buy gems. Yesterday, for example, gem prices spiked by about 30 gold per 400 gems. You can bet that caused more people to buy them to take advantage of that.
Well, you're not paying $15 a month for a subscription, so guess what, you get to enjoy all the cash shop extravaganza nonsense they decide to throw at you. What, you thought B2P covers the cost of a MMO? Pffft, delusional.
Even if you pay $15 a month in a subscription based game you have to face the cash shop nonsense, extra charges for automated services, regular server downtimes during patches and scheduled maintenances, hefty content drought periods, etc.
In fact I can name only two popular games with outstandingly fair monetization and constant flow of quality content. It's so ironic that both games are F2P, namely Warframe and Path of Exile.
Well, you're not paying $15 a month for a subscription, so guess what, you get to enjoy all the cash shop extravaganza nonsense they decide to throw at you. What, you thought B2P covers the cost of a MMO? Pffft, delusional.
Even if you pay $15 a month in a subscription based game you have to face the cash shop nonsense, extra charges for automated services, regular server downtimes during patches and scheduled maintenances, hefty content drought periods, etc.
In fact I can name only two popular games with outstandingly fair monetization and constant flow of quality content. It's so ironic that both games are F2P, namely Warframe and Path of Exile.
Warframe is only fair because it is essentially a non-competitive, easy PvE-focused game. If it were anything else, it would be a poster boy for pay to win. You can buy almost anything.
I hate loot boxes and feel they are a cesspool to the gaming industry. These RNG adoption licenses are no different and im disappointed in ArenaNet for going down this route and for me it stinks of NCSoft now dictating what they should be adding to their cash shop.
With all the debacle about loot boxes going on, who on earth thought this was a good idea? Did they really not think that people would not be miffed at the addition of these boxes?
I hope this is the last time I see them in GW2 but unfortunately corporate greed always takes over and I imagine this won't be the last time they rear their ugly head in the cash shop.
Thing is, Arenanet has been a remarkably pro-consumer company right from the Guild Wars 1 days, but NCSoft is among the worst publishers in gaming, or at least the MMO sphere. I fully expect NCSoft to steer things in the wrong direction, up to and including making Guild Wars 3 a pay to win mobile game.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I am not sure its really a rip off.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I am not sure its really a rip off.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
A rip off in sense when you open them there are nothing your really wanted came out of it. Sure you get something in return that has relatively poor or no value in return. That is pretty much the reason North America's ESRB refuses to classify such RNG system as gambling, because you get something in return. RNG loot box is literally gambling simulation with that slight difference that put it into a grey area.
A scam would have implied a criminal intent on the seller behalf. A rip off implied bad value. There is a subtle difference.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I am not sure its really a rip off.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
A rip off in sense when you open them there are nothing your really wanted came out of it. Sure you get something in return that has relatively poor or no value in return. That is pretty much the reason North America's ESRB refuses to classify such RNG system as gambling, because you get something in return. RNG loot box is literally gambling simulation with that slight difference that put it into a grey area.
A scam would have implied a criminal intent on the seller behalf. A rip off implied bad value. There is a subtle difference.
that doesnt work well either in my mind.
If I say
'pick a number and you might get nothing, a dollar or a new car'
and you pick a number and get nothing, its not like I didnt warn you that its possible, your not entitled to get a car in that example.
but I get what you are saying, i am fighting a bit of symantics but I get the spirit of what you are trying to suggest
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I am not sure its really a rip off.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
A rip off in sense when you open them there are nothing your really wanted came out of it. Sure you get something in return that has relatively poor or no value in return. That is pretty much the reason North America's ESRB refuses to classify such RNG system as gambling, because you get something in return. RNG loot box is literally gambling simulation with that slight difference that put it into a grey area.
A scam would have implied a criminal intent on the seller behalf. A rip off implied bad value. There is a subtle difference.
The ESRB uses that excuse, but it's actually nonsense. If casinos guaranteed a penny on every roll, they would still fall under gambling regulations. The absence of a zero outcome does not make something not gambling.
This is nothing more than the ESRB defending the gaming industry from their own customers. The ESRB, after all, is not an independent regulatory board, but rather a board composed of the very industry heads responsible for these microtransactions in the first place. The gaming industry literally rates itself in order to keep the government from stepping in and doing it for them.
Loot box RNG in GW2 has been a rip off for a long time in this game (BL Chests). And player base was fine with it. Anet bounds to take it to another level one way or another. The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way. I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons. Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I am not sure its really a rip off.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
A rip off in sense when you open them there are nothing your really wanted came out of it. Sure you get something in return that has relatively poor or no value in return. That is pretty much the reason North America's ESRB refuses to classify such RNG system as gambling, because you get something in return. RNG loot box is literally gambling simulation with that slight difference that put it into a grey area.
A scam would have implied a criminal intent on the seller behalf. A rip off implied bad value. There is a subtle difference.
The ESRB uses that excuse, but it's actually nonsense. If casinos guaranteed a penny on every roll, they would still fall under gambling regulations. The absence of a zero outcome does not make something not gambling.
This is nothing more than the ESRB defending the gaming industry from their own customers. The ESRB, after all, is not an independent regulatory board, but rather a board composed of the very industry heads responsible for these microtransactions in the first place. The gaming industry literally rates itself in order to keep the government from stepping in and doing it for them.
but if I tell you 'I am going to sell you a big pile of shit, do you want this pile of shit'
and you say 'yes sir I want that pile of shit, here is my money please give me my shit'
then its kinda hard to argue. I am not saying the game overall is shit I am just trying to get people to think that a 'scam' and 'horrid game design' is not the same thing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
and more importantly...why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Again, I'll use my own industry (insurance); we'd sure love to exceed our marks (or even meet them all), but we cannot give up ethical practices to do so. That includes shady monetization and predatory product presentation tactics to do so. Simply saying "but we NEED to be here and this is the only way we can see to do it!" would not fly with any state Department of Insurance in America.
We also have very huge and real penalties for violating said ethics practices; something that isn't needed in a hobby industry like video gaming. But that doesn't mean we should also give publishers such a wide berth and hope they keep our best interests at heart in the end. We've gotten ample evidence they couldn't give a rats ass about their consumers beyond the ARPU (whether your wish to acknowledge the writing on the wall or not, it's still there). That's fine, they're a business; but don't get your panties in a wad when me and other consumers attempt to call them for bullshit pulled in pursuit of that almighty dollar.
BUT..
you have to give a bullet proof solid reason why one should not do something. Which is why my questions are important. I personally believe gambling is a bad idea in games, I personally think companies will increase the features and try to exploit but I cant come up with a solid bullet proof reason I would feel comfortable telling a judge, which is why I am asking the questions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Despite the pontification by the usual suspects I think most people understand that (even if they still use them)
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The actual question is whether loot boxes legally constitute gambling and thus fall within existing regulations. That is the job of the federal government, not the ESRB. The government says "regulate this." The ESRB then determines whether that exists within each game and rates the game accordingly.
And we cannot trust the ESRB to make this decision of their own accord. Most ESRB members hold direct financial stake in the very industry they are rating.
its just an oversight on my part I didnt think of the fact that it is illegal already for minors. I am not sure why it is but yeah if people are uncomfortable talking about that here then I guess its not worth asking and now a dead and boring thread but ok.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
With that said, it is so easy to make gold in GW2 by selling crafting materials in the market and then trading it for gems.
If something has RNG, it sucks, but at least here you have to option to buy gems with gold instead of real money. Can't say the same for games like Destiny, Overwatch, etc.
You want a specific item? pay for it. You want something that only comes out of an RNG spin? don't pay for it, either use gold to buy gems in that situation or avoid it completely.
Many people like to complain about things but then have no problem paying for those things because "it's their money".- Then don't complain when you get more of it in every game.
EDIT: TLDR; Greed only succeeds when people accept it and support it. And we only lose because of it.
Even if you pay $15 a month in a subscription based game you have to face the cash shop nonsense, extra charges for automated services, regular server downtimes during patches and scheduled maintenances, hefty content drought periods, etc.
In fact I can name only two popular games with outstandingly fair monetization and constant flow of quality content. It's so ironic that both games are F2P, namely Warframe and Path of Exile.
With all the debacle about loot boxes going on, who on earth thought this was a good idea? Did they really not think that people would not be miffed at the addition of these boxes?
I hope this is the last time I see them in GW2 but unfortunately corporate greed always takes over and I imagine this won't be the last time they rear their ugly head in the cash shop.
The standard copy and paste GW2 white knight defense has always been "it's not mandatory" for almost everything. So, it's not a surprise to see ppl defending it that way.
I suspect it's either PoF sales was subpar, Gemstore revenue post PoF is poor or it's just plain greed. It could be combination of those reasons.
Either way they need revenue. Perhaps they figured they weren't aggressive enough on gemstore with HoT and it's time to take it to another level with PoF.
Another big possibility is this is a publicity stunt, they'll fix it. And voila, good guy Anet.
I mean to me a 'rip off' or a 'scam' means I am telling you THIS but your really getting THAT.
so if I tell you 'I am going to take this hammer and stick it up your....' well that will be painful and unpleasant but its not a rip off or a scam.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Sure you get something in return that has relatively poor or no value in return.
That is pretty much the reason North America's ESRB refuses to classify such RNG system as gambling, because you get something in return.
RNG loot box is literally gambling simulation with that slight difference that put it into a grey area.
A scam would have implied a criminal intent on the seller behalf. A rip off implied bad value. There is a subtle difference.
If I say
'pick a number and you might get nothing, a dollar or a new car'
and you pick a number and get nothing, its not like I didnt warn you that its possible, your not entitled to get a car in that example.
but I get what you are saying, i am fighting a bit of symantics but I get the spirit of what you are trying to suggest
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is nothing more than the ESRB defending the gaming industry from their own customers. The ESRB, after all, is not an independent regulatory board, but rather a board composed of the very industry heads responsible for these microtransactions in the first place. The gaming industry literally rates itself in order to keep the government from stepping in and doing it for them.
and you say 'yes sir I want that pile of shit, here is my money please give me my shit'
then its kinda hard to argue. I am not saying the game overall is shit I am just trying to get people to think that a 'scam' and 'horrid game design' is not the same thing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me