Howdy, Stranger!

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

Webzen to Discontinue Service in The Netherlands Over Loot Box Ruling - Mu Origin- MMORPG.com

13

Comments

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,902
    DMKano said:
    Iselin said:
    DMKano said:
    Iselin said:
    The Dutch are onto something. Good way to thin out crap games and crap companies from the digital game space.

    Yeah taking away a choice from responsible adults who happen to be video gamers and live in Holland is a good thing now?

    What about those in Holland who happen to like MU Legends - certainly not good for them, oh but screw them right - because hey the government knows what's good for them right?

    Banning lootboxes is taking it too far - putting in restrictions on how they are done is the right way to go.








    I know right? What's with these countrties thinking their interests take pecedence over the free market? Don't they know its 2018?

    And all those people going to Thailand to get the things you can only get there. What's up with that? Why not just legalize whatever is legal in Thailand and profit. 

    I know right  you are ok with putting bans that in this case are resulting in gamers having less choice.

    The fact is there are Dutch players who cant play MU Legends, regardless of what you think about webzen and their games - removing choice from gamers is a bad outcome.

    But as long as its the companies you deem personally as crap - its all fine, eh?

    Screw those who feel differently, because hey the government knows best
    I'm impressed that you as a Texan have so much sympathy for dutch players and how hard done by they are by their repressive government.

    This is over and above your own self interest of wanting to sell them shit, right?
    craftseeker
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 1,128
    I don't understand the thinking from what seems to be the majority of members of this site - that loot boxes are bad. If the majority of people don't like them and didn't support the games that included them the problem would be solved. If people buy and enjoy something what right do others have of demanding governments stop them from buying things they like? If you're saying it ruins games you like, why do you like ruined games that cater to people doing things you don't like? It seems like extremely entitled and sophomoric thinking. Stop playing games with loot boxes and only support games without them. Then your problem would go away for you. And if enough people did it, it would go away for everyone. If you are too immature, or lack the willpower to not play games you claim dislike or support company's whose practices you dislike, you are way more part of the core problem than anyone who buys loot boxes - and using government force to impose your beliefs on others just exacerbates the real problem.
  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 1,128

    Aeander said:


    DMKano said:


    JeroKane said:


    DMKano said:


    Elvoc said:

    Does anyone else think its sad that the government or "Dutch Gaming Authority" actually took this measure for a game, its not like they prevented any physical harm or loss of life, there has got to be better things for their government body to spend time on..



    The government is more concerned about self-preservation and what will win them next election than anything else.

    This was low hanging fruit - aka easy pickins - this made them look good in the eyes of potential voters

    Really tough or risky issues - it might make the public angry so loss of votes, they don't want to risk that

    Sometimes the best actions that would benefit the world are the least popular ones, the problem with humanity is that we are too wrapped up in superficial issues to even notice the foundation crumbling right under our feet.



    The Netherlands isn't the US ( I am from Holland ). It has nothing to do with election (since there isn't one for a long while) nor politics.

    It's the government finally taking action against gambling targeted against kids!

    Loot boxes is the worst kind of monetization that has invaded the gaming market!

    Netherlands and Belgium will be the first to take action, but it will soon be an EU wide legislation.

    Then these crap companies will sing a different tune.

    I have absolutely nothing against F2P games with ingame cash shops for cosmetic stuff, etc.

    Loot boxes however! I absolutely hate with a passion! Since it specifically targets people with a gambling addiction! It has no place in games!

    Let gambling stay where it always was. Inside casino's!


    PS. Webzen is a terrible company with a notorious reputation anyway. So I hardly doubt people in Holland will cry over it lol.




    I don't live in Holland and I doubt that everyone in Holland shares your sentiment.

    I don't have a problem with gambling IRL nor in video games at all, so lootboxes don't bother me one bit.

    I don't believe that lootboxes are targeting kids - it's targeting everyone who plays games - it's a not kid specific mechanics - so I disagree with this notion that it's "gambling targeting kids"

    Lootboxes are not the worst kind of monetization - as not all lootboxes are implemented the same way, it's a scale - some are much worse than others. 

    You are obviously biased against lootboxes and gambling - but that's just your opinion. The entire world does not feel like this nor are the laws the same - the state that I live allows social gambling, as long as the house is not taking a cut - I can invite friends over to my place and we can gamble with real money - no problem.

    I enjoy to have this freedom as an adult - the idea that I can't gamble in my own home with my own friends and family is just insane to me.

    I don't think that gambling should be only in Casinos - I disagree with that 100%.


    There are far worse things than gambling - heck look at alcohol and tobacco - they do far more harm to billions of people globally than gambling and lootboxes and the world is just fine how they are controlled.

    But lootboxes - lol - just outright ban those?

    Why not put in restrictions just like on alcohol and tobacco? Those are not banned outright.

    As an adult I prefer to have options open to me and not have the government decide what I can and can't do - especially when it comes to something as harmless as lootboxes in games.






    Alcohol and tobacco have age restrictions. Gambling also has an age restriction. How do you propose that an age restriction be placed on lootboxes? 

    Age ratings mean nothing these days. Kids routinely play Grand Theft Auto and other mature games because most people rightly do not care about moralization in media and have become more open to mature themes.

    Disabling purchases to underage players is also impractical. It is easy to lie on an age verification for any online video game. That lie doesn't void the game developer of their legal responsibility not to commit an illegal sale. If a teenager walks into a Walmart and tells the cashier he is 21, the cashier isn't suddenly authorized to sell them alcohol; they have to id and cover their tracks legally. To achieve a similar level of legal restriction and protection in an online game would require downright draconian identification systems that potentially expose players to identity theft - such as the Chinese system of registering Chinese social security numbers to game accounts.

    In other words, restriction isn't just unsatisfactory in this case - it's actually logistically impossible.



    I agree in theory, but not in practice. My kids love watching people play games more than actually playing a game, because kids nowadays are weird and their brains don't work right. But, they hate watching me play my games. Why? Because I like games with adult mechanics that are too complex for children. FO 3 and 4 may have been rated as mature, but even the stupidest kid can pick it up, figure it out in a second, and play it successfully. There is a zero chance kids could pick up and play FO 1 and 2. Not until they are working age and could buy the game themselves.

    I would 100% support any legislation that did not allow loot boxes in games that kids can play, and consider all those games kids games. It really bothers me so many adults that consider themselves gamers play the same games as six and seven year olds. That's like playing T-Ball and considering yourself an athlete. Play baseball man, like a real person. Grow up and have some pride. And having swears, fake killings, and naked women in T-Ball doesn't make it mature - it just makes it sad.


    When I was twelve I was able to buy books on gambling, drugs, the Anarchists cook book, etc. As far as I know there is no actual word book kids of any age can buy? Why? Games are the same. What we have now is games are Dr. Sues books about gambling, sex, and illegal drug use. Its better to keep the kid books clean and realize, like we always have and still do, any kid smart enough to read Clavell or Dostoevsky can handle the content of it.
  • RaagnarzRaagnarz Member UncommonPosts: 386

    moshra said:



    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.


    And you have the choice to not purchase those games that use such methods.  Video games are a business.  They are made to make money.  If people are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money for stupid shit, then so be it.  Relying on the government to tell people how to spend their money is never a good thing.




    Righhht so government should just stay out of everything people spend money on. By your logic all drugs should be legal. Casinos should have no age limit and anyone should be able to gamble whether they're old enough to understand the consequences or not. Cigarettes should be available to buy by anyone any ages. Grenades should be able to be bought by everyone. Damn governments ruining it for everyone right? It is not always a good thing to rely on them but when it comes to public safety from products it is. If what Kano said is true and you work for an unscrupulous employer that preys on children and people with addictions, it sure explains your rather sickening opinion that everything is fair game.
    craftseeker
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,902
    edited May 2018
    DMKano said:
    Iselin said:
    DMKano said:
    Iselin said:
    DMKano said:
    Iselin said:
    The Dutch are onto something. Good way to thin out crap games and crap companies from the digital game space.

    Yeah taking away a choice from responsible adults who happen to be video gamers and live in Holland is a good thing now?

    What about those in Holland who happen to like MU Legends - certainly not good for them, oh but screw them right - because hey the government knows what's good for them right?

    Banning lootboxes is taking it too far - putting in restrictions on how they are done is the right way to go.








    I know right? What's with these countrties thinking their interests take pecedence over the free market? Don't they know its 2018?

    And all those people going to Thailand to get the things you can only get there. What's up with that? Why not just legalize whatever is legal in Thailand and profit. 

    I know right  you are ok with putting bans that in this case are resulting in gamers having less choice.

    The fact is there are Dutch players who cant play MU Legends, regardless of what you think about webzen and their games - removing choice from gamers is a bad outcome.

    But as long as its the companies you deem personally as crap - its all fine, eh?

    Screw those who feel differently, because hey the government knows best
    I'm impressed that you as a Texan have so much sympathy for dutch players and how hard done by they are by their repressive government.

    This is over and above your own self interest of wanting to sell them shit, right?

    I am not a Texan, I am Alaskan - but I don't see any relevance to that.

    It's not about sympathy for a specific nationality or country - it's about legislation that will result in less games being available for all. 

    If a legislations end result is less choice in what games anyone can play = I consider that bad, that's just me

    If all lootboxes went away and all game companies disappeared over night - personally it wouldn't have any effect on me at all. I am financially set and not dependent on what happens at my company right now including my work (which would totally survive as long as the movie industry exists)

    So it has nothing to do with self interest. 

    It has to do with a simple observation - less games to play due to legislation 


    Where you see less games to play I see companies starting to be coerced into having better business practices because they can't get their own shit together.

    Loot boxes are just a shitty way to sell things that could be sold directly but at a lower profit of course. The items in them that those that buy them want are the really rare things that take an enormous amount of of boxes on average to get and the "consolation prizes" are junk that not many would buy directly.

    At best they can be excused and rationalized on the basis of maximizing profits. There is no way that from the consumer/player perspective they could ever be considered a better business practice. Even most players who claim to not be bothered by them or support them on the principle that anyone should be able to sell anything in any fashion, won't buy them themselves.

    Webzen is just saying "Fuck you Holland. You're small potatoes and this shit is way too profitable for us to clean up our act."

    And BTW, it's Webzen pulling out not the government making them do it. They had a choice even to keep selling them but just within the guidelines the Dutch have that are pretty easy to comply with because they, unlike Belgium, use ability to resell for real world money as their criteria.

    But your take? Bad government! lol.

    Sandmanjw
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,470
    DMKano said:
    Raagnarz said:

    moshra said:



    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.


    And you have the choice to not purchase those games that use such methods.  Video games are a business.  They are made to make money.  If people are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money for stupid shit, then so be it.  Relying on the government to tell people how to spend their money is never a good thing.




    Righhht so government should just stay out of everything people spend money on. By your logic all drugs should be legal. Casinos should have no age limit and anyone should be able to gamble whether they're old enough to understand the consequences or not. Cigarettes should be available to buy by anyone any ages. Grenades should be able to be bought by everyone. Damn governments ruining it for everyone right? It is not always a good thing to rely on them but when it comes to public safety from products it is. If what Kano said is true and you work for an unscrupulous employer that preys on children and people with addictions, it sure explains your rather sickening opinion that everything is fair game.


    You are taking an extremist stance (zero regulation/anarchy) to prove a point that nobody is arguing.

    Laws are necessary for a functioning society.

    Regulations on lootboxes are completely fine.

    Banning games with lootboxes outright - that's a problem as in this case it has resulted in all players (including adults) from an entire country not being able to play a game that they were able to play yesterday.

    That right there is loss of freedom in what games you want to play.
    It feels like you are blaming the country for doing what they feel is right for their citizens.  They banned lootboxes because they felt that it was gambling, which was bad for their citizens.  I fully understand the stance of freedom of choice, ect....  With that said the country didn't remove the freedom to play the game.  The publisher removed the freedom to play the game because they didn't want to have to change their business practices which are horrible to begin with.  Loot boxes should all be banned in my personal opinion.  If you want to sell things then just put them in the shop with a price tag on them, don't put a chance at getting it in hopes to get the person without self control to spend more and more until they do.  Overall gambling is an addictive activity.  Most people have self control and can handle it with no issues whatsoever but there are those, a lot more than people want to admit, that don't have the control or have addictive personalities which are the actual target of this type of business practice.  If your business has to have loot boxes to survive maybe you need to look at your product more and figure out why that is, instead of hoping to prey on customers.  There are many better business models out there, they just don't bring that rush of money like loot crates do, which is the only reason they caught on in the first place.
    Asm0deus
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,027
    Now we just need more countries to follow suit. I think this is a great first step in the right direction. 

    I have lots of opinions on this subject but I discussed this extensively in another thread and don't really have the energy to rehash it all here.

    I will just sum up my opinions in that I feel the video game industry has proven that it needs to be regulated more when it comes to this kind of thing, using gambling in video games, as it has failed to do so itself in the same manner the fire arms, tobbacco and achcohol industry failed and so steps had to be taken there too.

    I think first step need to be taken and feel more countries need to  step up to the plate as well so the industry actually receives the message...then we can play whack a mole and fine tune things.

    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.





  • SandmanjwSandmanjw Member RarePosts: 501
    edited May 2018
    Too much boohoo over them stopping the game instead of making adjustments to the game to continue it there. That would of been far,far more intelligent of them.

    To me it is no different than any other regulation or law. The companies choice to go all drastic and stop allowing people there to play it.  Just another rule to comply with, their choice to be dicks.

    That's my take on it.  This is just the first shot fired ...this is just a small little skirmish in what will be a huge war before it is done...mark the date folks. This is just getting started.
    Asm0deus
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    DMKano said:
    Raagnarz said:

    moshra said:



    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.


    And you have the choice to not purchase those games that use such methods.  Video games are a business.  They are made to make money.  If people are willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money for stupid shit, then so be it.  Relying on the government to tell people how to spend their money is never a good thing.




    Righhht so government should just stay out of everything people spend money on. By your logic all drugs should be legal. Casinos should have no age limit and anyone should be able to gamble whether they're old enough to understand the consequences or not. Cigarettes should be available to buy by anyone any ages. Grenades should be able to be bought by everyone. Damn governments ruining it for everyone right? It is not always a good thing to rely on them but when it comes to public safety from products it is. If what Kano said is true and you work for an unscrupulous employer that preys on children and people with addictions, it sure explains your rather sickening opinion that everything is fair game.


    You are taking an extremist stance (zero regulation/anarchy) to prove a point that nobody is arguing.

    Laws are necessary for a functioning society.

    Regulations on lootboxes are completely fine.

    Banning games with lootboxes outright - that's a problem as in this case it has resulted in all players (including adults) from an entire country not being able to play a game that they were able to play yesterday.

    That right there is loss of freedom in what games you want to play.
    Now who is indulging in hyperbole? It was the company's decision to stop providing service to the Netherlands, not the Dutch government. And the number of people effected, while unknown, is undoubtedly very small. If it had been of any significant size the company would have gone down a different path. Your exaggeration of the number of people effected does you no credit. The freeDUMB argument has little traction outside of the U.S. The Dutch government has enacted sensible regulation to a predatory practice and that is a good thing.



    IselinAsm0deusShaighKyleran
  • DrWigglyDrWiggly Member UncommonPosts: 26
    Hmm you guys keep saying it needs to be tradeable. Well then why is Overwatch on the list? Pretty sure nothing is tradeable.
    SBFord
  • KoNaosukeKoNaosuke Member CommonPosts: 2
    I'm not sure what people mean by "less choice", with lootboxes you have no choice other than rely on luck, if the system is not rigged somehow to you win less stuff which you would like based on your profile, but that's another whole story. And yet, It was Webzen choice to leave, if most of people aren't aware, when you publish something in a country, you have to respect it's legislation, doesn't matter if your game is from south korea, north america or even antartica; so it had two choices : change or leave. They made the one we can see; but it doesn't just apply to lootboxes, if anything isn't in accord with a country legislation, it's illegal, period. Also, if you guys want to see some kind of legistantion in "lootboxes", go and check mobages from japan. They have to disclose every single rate to the end user, and I'm not sure about this last one but seems they have "age" verification, which to be honest is far from ideal, but if you're under 21, it limits you. If a country think it's better to it's population totally ban lootboxes, so be it; if the company wants to make bussiness in that territory, they must obey it's legislation. Also, let's be honest, that argument that "people from there now will lose access to the game", we are all bald "find" ways to play games not avaliable in our region, mainly if you are outside NA/EU, or if you want play some games from Asia.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,579
    DMKano said:
    Laws are necessary for a functioning society.

    Regulations on lootboxes are completely fine.

    Banning games with lootboxes outright - that's a problem as in this case it has resulted in all players (including adults) from an entire country not being able to play a game that they were able to play yesterday.

    That right there is loss of freedom in what games you want to play.
    Banning only children from playing games with lootboxes might result in games massively banning children just for the sake of their monetization, and in the long run much more loss of freedom than forcing all games use monetization practices that are suitable for children too.

    In USA the quest for freedom has gone to such extend that children are often prohibited from walking to school and moving around on their own.
     
  • MalviousMalvious Member UncommonPosts: 218
    If a game needs lootboxes to survive its simply not worth playing.
    MikeharojoArcueid

    Fine, we'll compromise. I'll get my way & you'll find a way to be okay with that.

  • RayneVixenRayneVixen Member CommonPosts: 2

    DMKano said:


    Elvoc said:

    Does anyone else think its sad that the government or "Dutch Gaming Authority" actually took this measure for a game, its not like they prevented any physical harm or loss of life, there has got to be better things for their government body to spend time on..



    The government is more concerned about self-preservation and what will win them next election than anything else.

    This was low hanging fruit - aka easy pickins - this made them look good in the eyes of potential voters

    Really tough or risky issues - it might make the public angry so loss of votes, they don't want to risk that

    Sometimes the best actions that would benefit the world are the least popular ones, the problem with humanity is that we are too wrapped up in superficial issues to even notice the foundation crumbling right under our feet.





    Pretty sure that's not how the voting system works here. Last time I checked it's a "institute" formed after a law suit and not bound to a specific political party. Had lil to do with politics and winning voters over.

    The only thing I find sad is that this step in the right direction will be in vain if other countries don't copy our example. If indeed this anti-consumer practices can get away again by simply blocking this one little country from accessing their products.
    craftseeker
  • zenomexzenomex Member UncommonPosts: 242

    DMKano said:


    Elvoc said:

    Does anyone else think its sad that the government or "Dutch Gaming Authority" actually took this measure for a game, its not like they prevented any physical harm or loss of life, there has got to be better things for their government body to spend time on..



    The government is more concerned about self-preservation and what will win them next election than anything else.

    This was low hanging fruit - aka easy pickins - this made them look good in the eyes of potential voters

    Really tough or risky issues - it might make the public angry so loss of votes, they don't want to risk that

    Sometimes the best actions that would benefit the world are the least popular ones, the problem with humanity is that we are too wrapped up in superficial issues to even notice the foundation crumbling right under our feet.





    Pretty sure that's not how the voting system works here. Last time I checked it's a "institute" formed after a law suit and not bound to a specific political party. Had lil to do with politics and winning voters over.

    The only thing I find sad is that this step in the right direction will be in vain if other countries don't copy our example. If indeed this anti-consumer practices can get away again by simply blocking this one little country from accessing their products.
    Well it does scare away companies, which is also important. We also need to raise some awareness so less people buy into it, as long as minors aren't allowed from buying them I'm happy. Maybe regulate how much one person can spend in X time.

    I'd like to see the best of both worlds. Webzen and PWE can suck it though :p
  • sayuusayuu Member RarePosts: 766


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    Horusra
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2018
    SBFord said:
    DMKano said:

    Parenting.

    Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?

    As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.

    This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.

    I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.

    Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable. 

    I want to parent my child, not the government.

    And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
    This is a slippery slope, because you're leaving the door wide open for parents to rebuke any attempts to keep their kids from engaging by claiming their rights as a parent to allow them to do so.  "You have no right to tell me how to raise my child." If you think "no, no one is that ridiculous," I'd remind you that there are literally parents who believe breast-feeding their kids until double-digit ages is normal.

    Adults aren't infallible experts of self-discipline, sustainability, and healthy choice-making.  That's why you have to get involved so much with your students Suzie.  Slapping an age verification on there and calling it a day is damn near the same as doing absolutely nothing.

    A person is intelligent.  People are absolutely retarded, and if recent events in my country are any indicator, once you throw politics into the mix, adults think like toddlers as a group.

    As soon as this became something political, you lost any hope parents would be able to make objective, unbiased choices about it for their kids.


    At any rate, that part of the issue is merely distraction.  The heart of the issue is folks are gambling in an always lose scenario.  These items are nothing unless devs make them something.  You don't own them, even after winning them.

    Devs can alter things to push you towards the lootboxes even after you paid full price for the full game without them.  They have done so many times in the past.  Devs can fuck with your version of the client all willy nilly because "intellectual property" currently translates roughly into "the consumer's my bitch and has no power whatsoever in these transactions."  Devs don't have to tell you the changes they make to the client; they can ninja-change drop rates to encourage loot box spending without notifying anyone.  They can create matchmaking systems that smash lootbox won items in your face repeatedly.  Those are the issues, lootbox is merely the way devs use those issues to exploit their playerbase.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    sayuucraftseeker

    image
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    The closing no matter what version or game it is ,sends us a message.
    Their game has no merit on it's own accord,they apparently needed to DECEIVE and screw over customers to make enough money.

    This is why i do NOT like anything other than a b2p or a sub fee because anything gambling entices a habit,addiction to spend way more than intended and obviously more than the game is worth.
    When common sense sets in,what have we been paying for games for years now,around 40-80 bucks?Seems fair,about right,yet developers want to try and get that and more each and every week/month out of the players and for what...a login screen?
    MOST all MMO's are predominantly full of PVE,like 90+% and what does pvp cost a developer anyhow...server costs ro relatively nothing or very little.,definitely not even 15 bucks a month yet we have come to accept that.
    craftseeker

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • sayuusayuu Member RarePosts: 766
    edited May 2018
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .



    . . .somehow?

    lootboxes work because people buy them, even the complainers still throw money at them.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .



    . . .somehow?
    No, stop to think a minute before jumping at what you think is a chance to be a smartass.

    They only need to market to a fraction of the playerbase- the whales.  They make the vast majority of their money off of lootboxes from a select group who lay down exorbitant amounts of cash.  They don't need lootboxes to be popular in the traditional sense at all.
    sayuucraftseeker

    image
  • sayuusayuu Member RarePosts: 766
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .



    . . .somehow?
    No, stop to think a minute before jumping at what you think is a chance to be a smartass.

    They only need to market to a fraction of the playerbase- the whales.  They make the vast majority of their money off of lootboxes from a select group who lay down exorbitant amounts of cash.  They don't need lootboxes to be popular in the traditional sense at all.
    so me saying if people dont buy loot boxes then companies would stop offering them is still correct.


    your entire argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 or 1,000,000 people buy these boxes the fact is ( and what you seem to not grasp ) is that if gamers stopped buying them then companies would shift to another method to entice people to spend money.



    MadFrenchie
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2018
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .



    . . .somehow?
    No, stop to think a minute before jumping at what you think is a chance to be a smartass.

    They only need to market to a fraction of the playerbase- the whales.  They make the vast majority of their money off of lootboxes from a select group who lay down exorbitant amounts of cash.  They don't need lootboxes to be popular in the traditional sense at all.
    so me saying if people dont buy loot boxes then companies would stop offering them is still correct.


    your entire argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 or 1,000,000 people buy these boxes the fact is ( and what you seem to not grasp ) is that if gamers stopped buying them then companies would shift to another method to entice people to spend money.



    So you're saying that if everyone- down to the less than ~1% of the playerbase that are the whales that make up roughly 50% of the revenue from these things- stopped purchasing them, they would go away? 

    Well shit, guy.  It's genius!  Now let's get back to reality, yes?

    image
  • someforumguysomeforumguy Member RarePosts: 4,087
    edited May 2018
    - That game has almost no playerbase in Europe, let alone The Netherlands, so of course its for that company easier to simply shut down access for that country.

    - It is not a new law. There is an already existing gaming authority (like a gambling authority or whatever the equivalent for your country is called) that determines if something is gambling according to the already existing gambling law. Because loot boxes are a relatively new thing and, thanks to EA, have now come to their attention. Just like many other European countries are looking at how lootboxes should be looked at according to their gambling law.

    - This has nothing to do with elections. There is politically nothing to gain from this because it is such a relatively small issue compared to the issues that are important to voters when chosing a political party.

    - And it is The Netherlands, not Holland. I know there are Dutch people that say it is ok to say Holland. They are wrong too. Just as saying America when you mean The United States of America. Its dumb. Check a map next time please.
    Kylerancraftseeker
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,902
    edited May 2018
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:
    sayuu said:


    @DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.

    Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.

    We can do better.
    We will do better.



    what is this we nonsense?


    don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
    That doesn't apply here.  Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money.  That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
    wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .



    . . .somehow?
    No, stop to think a minute before jumping at what you think is a chance to be a smartass.

    They only need to market to a fraction of the playerbase- the whales.  They make the vast majority of their money off of lootboxes from a select group who lay down exorbitant amounts of cash.  They don't need lootboxes to be popular in the traditional sense at all.
    so me saying if people dont buy loot boxes then companies would stop offering them is still correct.


    your entire argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 or 1,000,000 people buy these boxes the fact is ( and what you seem to not grasp ) is that if gamers stopped buying them then companies would shift to another method to entice people to spend money.



    So you're saying that if everyone- down to the less than ~1% of the playerbase that are the whales that make up roughly 50% of the revenue from these things- stopped purchasing them, they would go away? 

    Well shit, guy.  It's genius!  Now let's get back to reality, yes?
    That's not even the worst part. It's that developing lootbox and other cosmetic content is easy and very low maintenance. The return per effort investment is phenomenal compared to when you're trying to make money from players playing and subbing to your game for months. Making a good and interesting game and adding a good quantity of new game play content is very labour intensive and high maintenance.

    The trick is to provide just enough game play that players feel good about having a sufficiently large audience to watch them consume conspicuously and parade around major hubs decked in their ultra rare loot box cosmetic drops.

    Of course they have to attract a different type of player to the game in order to make money doing that vs. making it through good game play but it seems to be working since this is all the rage in MMOs not named WOW. Once you convert your player base to that other type of gamer, continued development becomes much easier and the profits soar. You need only develop enough new game play content to maintain the illusion that you're still developing a game and not just loot boxes :)


    MadFrenchie
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

Sign In or Register to comment.