His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.
Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.
$10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds.
and why not!
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game 2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When politicians see companies making big money they start thinking regulations and/or increased taxes.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long.
That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.
If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
This is faulty logic.
Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people.
Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost.
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
As I mentioned earlier, considering that folks like EA generally spend as much/more on marketing as they do on actually developing the games, I don't give them much sympathy.
You're conflating the cost of developing a game with the cost of buying TV spots.
Are they? So I believe I had seen previously that Activision spends double what EA does on marketing. I believe that Ubisoft spends half of what EA does. Does that mean that success is dependent on advertising? Probably partially. If EA spent nothing on advertising, do you think that they would suffer from a sales perspective? Yes. How much? Well, if your marketing is generating X+$1, X being your marketing costs, then I think you're probably doing well.
Remember, we are talking about companies who are said to be greedy, so giving away money isn't really their thing. So for someone like Activision to be spending $330 million on marketing per quarter? I can't entirely wrap my head around that, but I also have to believe that they aren't throwing money down a hole for shits and giggles.
His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.
Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.
$10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds.
How about the game purchase itself?
$20 for a game box. In that box you might get Battlefront 2... you might get Battlefront 1 (sucks if you have it).. maybe toss in some 3 year old games at random.
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
His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.
Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.
$10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds.
and why not!
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game 2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
Actually Sean
Some of us do care about the societies and the places we live in, no agenda required.
Living in a place where no one gives a fuck isn't a place worth living in.
Some of us do care about the societies and the places we live in, no agenda required.
Living in a place where no one gives a fuck isn't a place worth living in.
IMHO
your missing the point!
you have to explain WHY that is bad for society.
I care about societies to, but unless I understand SPECIFICALLY WHY something is SPECIFICALLY bad for society I dont assume that it is.
please explain why gambling is bad for society.
when I was young someone told me that there are people in this world who follow rules and are absolutly completely and totally unable to explain for themselves why a rule is good or bad. they follow it without question and do not have a moral compas of their own.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
They already do, it is called parents.
like when buying a video game
guys I think its great that you all feel buying things should have parents approval and its something I agree with. so we got that out of the way, no child should ever buy a video game without parent oversight.
good..done...got it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long.
That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.
If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
This is faulty logic.
Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people.
Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost.
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
As I mentioned earlier, considering that folks like EA generally spend as much/more on marketing as they do on actually developing the games, I don't give them much sympathy.
You're conflating the cost of developing a game with the cost of buying TV spots.
Are they? So I believe I had seen previously that Activision spends double what EA does on marketing. I believe that Ubisoft spends half of what EA does. Does that mean that success is dependent on advertising? Probably partially. If EA spent nothing on advertising, do you think that they would suffer from a sales perspective? Yes. How much? Well, if your marketing is generating X+$1, X being your marketing costs, then I think you're probably doing well.
Remember, we are talking about companies who are said to be greedy, so giving away money isn't really their thing. So for someone like Activision to be spending $330 million on marketing per quarter? I can't entirely wrap my head around that, but I also have to believe that they aren't throwing money down a hole for shits and giggles.
Truly, they probably spend those dollars in the manner research to be most effective. It's also why they largely get away with predatory monetization practices to the point that consumers take an apathetically cynical view of gamer pushback against such practices.
It plays to the larger, overarching inequality in resources spent on brokering the purchase between producer and consumer. They have tons more resources to devote to monetizing and marketing in psychologically effective ways that lead consumers to believe they're getting a better deal than they really are.
The bare facts are likely that the growth of the industry is not keeping pace with the growth of these large publishers in terms of total budgets. The implication is that the fault lies with consumers for this, not the publisher's bloated budgeting and revenue goals. An implication dangerously made.
In the real world, it is the regulations in the frontline who are responsible to stop kids from going into a casino, drink beer, buy cigars, etc...
Even on online casinos the tricky regulations force ID and visual verification, no, they do not call your parents.
Yes when I was little I got a note from my father to buy cigarettes from the local store for him. Plus some parents may come from a culture where kids are allowed to drink wine with the adults at dinner.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
I would argue two things.
1. the answer is 'it depends' (aka handing a loaded gun and a lootbox are two radically different things) 2. I dont believe you guys really honestly 'care about the children' and are not aware that lootboxes will still exist in your gaming experience regardless
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
I think like many on here that gambling should not be in gaming. This is not just about the kids, but yes parents should do more. I think the average age a kid gets a mobile in the UK is 10, that is appalling and down to the parents.
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long.
That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.
If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
This is faulty logic.
Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people.
Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost.
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
As I mentioned earlier, considering that folks like EA generally spend as much/more on marketing as they do on actually developing the games, I don't give them much sympathy.
You're conflating the cost of developing a game with the cost of buying TV spots.
Are they? So I believe I had seen previously that Activision spends double what EA does on marketing. I believe that Ubisoft spends half of what EA does. Does that mean that success is dependent on advertising? Probably partially. If EA spent nothing on advertising, do you think that they would suffer from a sales perspective? Yes. How much? Well, if your marketing is generating X+$1, X being your marketing costs, then I think you're probably doing well.
Remember, we are talking about companies who are said to be greedy, so giving away money isn't really their thing. So for someone like Activision to be spending $330 million on marketing per quarter? I can't entirely wrap my head around that, but I also have to believe that they aren't throwing money down a hole for shits and giggles.
Truly, they probably spend those dollars in the manner research to be most effective. It's also why they largely get away with predatory monetization practices to the point that consumers take an apathetically cynical view of gamer pushback against such practices.
It plays to the larger, overarching inequality in resources spent on brokering the purchase between producer and consumer. They have tons more resources to devote to monetizing and marketing in psychologically effective ways that lead consumers to believe they're getting a better deal than they really are.
The bare facts are likely that the growth of the industry is not keeping pace with the growth of these large publishers in terms of total budgets. The implication is that the fault lies with consumers for this, not the publisher's bloated budgeting and revenue goals. An implication dangerously made.
I'm not going to say that consumers are to blame for bloated budgets, but they do contribute to them due to ever-increasing expectations for higher fidelity experiences. We can argue back and forth about the industry, but as much as you'd like to sell that you've got "bare facts", the reality is that neither of us have anything more that speculation with some amount of supporting cases. If there were actually facts here, then there would be a wall of links.
The nice thing in it all is that most of these larger companies have financials available from their site, so it's there for you to interpret it any way that you want.
The point is consumer protection from exploitative business methods that prey on human psychology and biochemistry (dopamine).
The game is not called Star Wars Casino, nor it is described anywhere in the PR that all progression is tied to a slot machine.
A person watching a trailer has no idea what the game is actually about until the buy more! button pops up unless they are reading social media.
Thus the argument 'don't like it, don't buy it' doesn't hold due to deception. This is especially true for naive kids who don't understand the long history behind gambling and regulation.
The point is consumer protection from exploitative business methods that prey on human psychology and biochemistry (dopamine).
The game is not called Star Wars Casino, nor it is described anywhere in the PR that all progression is tied to a slot machine.
A person watching a trailer has no idea what the game is actually about until the buy more! button pops up unless they are reading social media.
Thus the argument 'don't like it, don't buy it' doesn't hold due to deception. This is especially true for naive kids who don't understand the long history behind gambling and regulation.
we all need dopamine to live. we need healthy amounts of it to stay happy.
There are two tiers in which consumer protection comes in
first one is out right explict lie the other is manipulation. The problem is manipulation is allowed but not allowed in some cases and the area is very gray. which is why if people want to be against something like gambling they have to have a rock solid, bullet proof, science based, evidence base, rock solid...reason
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game
2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Are they? So I believe I had seen previously that Activision spends double what EA does on marketing. I believe that Ubisoft spends half of what EA does. Does that mean that success is dependent on advertising? Probably partially. If EA spent nothing on advertising, do you think that they would suffer from a sales perspective? Yes. How much? Well, if your marketing is generating X+$1, X being your marketing costs, then I think you're probably doing well.
Remember, we are talking about companies who are said to be greedy, so giving away money isn't really their thing. So for someone like Activision to be spending $330 million on marketing per quarter? I can't entirely wrap my head around that, but I also have to believe that they aren't throwing money down a hole for shits and giggles.
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
----------------
$20 for a game box. In that box you might get Battlefront 2... you might get Battlefront 1 (sucks if you have it).. maybe toss in some 3 year old games at random.
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
Some of us do care about the societies and the places we live in, no agenda required.
Living in a place where no one gives a fuck isn't a place worth living in.
IMHO
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
you have to explain WHY that is bad for society.
I care about societies to, but unless I understand SPECIFICALLY WHY something is SPECIFICALLY bad for society I dont assume that it is.
please explain why gambling is bad for society.
when I was young someone told me that there are people in this world who follow rules and are absolutly completely and totally unable to explain for themselves why a rule is good or bad. they follow it without question and do not have a moral compas of their own.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
guys I think its great that you all feel buying things should have parents approval and its something I agree with.
so we got that out of the way, no child should ever buy a video game without parent oversight.
good..done...got it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In the real world, it is the regulations in the frontline who are responsible to stop kids from going into a casino, drink beer, buy cigars, etc...
Even on online casinos the tricky regulations force ID and visual verification, no, they do not call your parents.
It plays to the larger, overarching inequality in resources spent on brokering the purchase between producer and consumer. They have tons more resources to devote to monetizing and marketing in psychologically effective ways that lead consumers to believe they're getting a better deal than they really are.
The bare facts are likely that the growth of the industry is not keeping pace with the growth of these large publishers in terms of total budgets. The implication is that the fault lies with consumers for this, not the publisher's bloated budgeting and revenue goals. An implication dangerously made.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Will you be happy if games still included loot-boxes but adhered to gambling laws (Age restrictions).
Or are you hoping that if they get classed as gambling they will be removed completely?
1. the answer is 'it depends' (aka handing a loaded gun and a lootbox are two radically different things)
2. I dont believe you guys really honestly 'care about the children' and are not aware that lootboxes will still exist in your gaming experience regardless
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos.
What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Sorry to burst your bubble but unless your living in a place like Nigeria it just doesn't work that way.
The short sighted, stupid ones, advocate for that kind of thing.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The business is responsible for honesty
the consumer is reponsible for choice based on that honesty.
Honesty does NOT mean full disclosure, it just means dont explicitly lie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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
----------------
The game is not called Star Wars Casino, nor it is described anywhere in the PR that all progression is tied to a slot machine.
A person watching a trailer has no idea what the game is actually about until the buy more! button pops up unless they are reading social media.
Thus the argument 'don't like it, don't buy it' doesn't hold due to deception. This is especially true for naive kids who don't understand the long history behind gambling and regulation.
There are two tiers in which consumer protection comes in
first one is out right explict lie
the other is manipulation. The problem is manipulation is allowed but not allowed in some cases and the area is very gray. which is why if people want to be against something like gambling they have to have a rock solid, bullet proof, science based, evidence base, rock solid...reason
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me