Part of the Problem

Virtual currency is also how Blizzard got around the ruling in China that purchasable lootboxes have to show the odds of getting every item. Blizzard went out of their way to make it so that you had to purchase currency, and so technically weren't directly purchasing lootboxes since the lootboxes were just a 'free gift', just so they didn't have to show the odds of getting things.

That's also why calls that the industry can self regulate are utter bullshit. The industry are proving they cannot be trusted to self regulate when they're desperately going for legal loopholes just to get out of having to show you the tiny odds of the most popular items contained in their gambling mechanics.

jawafour wrote:

Hime wrote:...it isn't nearly as big a problem as the internet would have you believe, the base level stuff is perfectly competitive.

If I have read your thoughts on loot boxes correctly, Hime, I believe that you are pretty comfortable with loot boxes in games on the basis that you don't have to buy them. I think part of the issue that many folk are having with them is that they don't want them in the game; they don't want the option for randomised additional purchases to be a significant feature of gaming.

For me, I chose not to purchase Battlefront II because of the alleged loot box focus and impacts. I don't want to see that kind of approach in gaming; I don't object to buying additional content (levels, characters and outfits) but the "gambling" approach is just not something I want to see become a standard (even though it perhaps already is).

I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with your view that "you can just ignore it" but I prefer to show publishers that I don't like their approach by not buying the product.

Of course, apologies in advance if my interpretation of your stance is incorrect .

As you can see in this thread, the problem with loot boxes varies from problems with the game to the impacts of gambling.

Having now played Battlefront 2 I don't think it's the egregious example of having a gambling system to progress that it's been made out to be. The starting load outs are perfectly competitive, if you're really bad at the game the load out will make no difference. Although there is no direct path to the load out you might want initially, after 4 hours I have far more options than I would in CoD or Battlefield at this point. Also, it's actually a pretty satisfying shooter and Edge's 4/10 Is the worst example I've seen of the media being gooseberry fool scared of the reaction from the internet so they just played up to it.

The point of that is to show that I'm yet to play a game that is massively impacted by loot boxes. Hopefully everything that has happened will give developers a reminder not too overstep the mark. It can be done right though, the biggest game on the planet at the moment is PUBG in which each house is essentially a loot box with random weapons and equipment giving the player the buzz when they hit the jackpot. It's very satisfying.

I pre-order special editions of games I have extremely high confidence in and spend hundreds of pounds on merch.

Say what you will, but this Dark Souls III statue, the artbook that came with it and these statues of Odin and Shiva from FFXIV that come with unique in-game emotes look fantastic. Got the artbook, OST and a miniature Agnes figure for Bravely Second, too.

I'd have the bag and artbook etc for Persona 5 as well if my order didn't get strawberry floated up and cancelled.

I also don't have a blanket hatred of DLC like most here seem to. If I enjoyed a game I'll usually gladly pay for more of it.

I pay for micro transactions fairly regularly, but not lootboxes (not any more). Time is money, and publishers know it.

Johnny Ryall wrote:I mentioned it earlier but I find the GTA style fake currency you can buy with real money just as bad. Here's a bunch of cool gooseberry fool you can spend literally hundreds of real pounds on because our in game currency is hyper inflated.

Yeah you can grind but it makes grinding a bore to try and manipulate you into getting shark cards. I'd rather buy a season pass at least it's clear what you get for your money versus fake currency that makes it hard to discern worth.

I think fake currency is bad but I don’t think it is as bad as the lootbox gamble.

When buying in-game currency (or any DLC really) you know what you are getting. If I spend £3 on horse armour, I am getting horse armour. If I buy a GTA Shark card, then I am getting that to get a certain amount of in-game currency that I will use to buy in-game items with. It’s shitty and poor value for money, but nobody is being conned by it.

A lootbox is different, you spend real money on something for a chance of getting something you want. That’s why it is gambling and why I think it is worse than other examples of DLC, you spend money and might not get anything useful or that you want.

I can agree with that.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:I mentioned it earlier but I find the GTA style fake currency you can buy with real money just as bad. Here's a bunch of cool gooseberry fool you can spend literally hundreds of real pounds on because our in game currency is hyper inflated.

Yeah you can grind but it makes grinding a bore to try and manipulate you into getting shark cards. I'd rather buy a season pass at least it's clear what you get for your money versus fake currency that makes it hard to discern worth.

I think fake currency is bad but I don’t think it is as bad as the lootbox gamble.

When buying in-game currency (or any DLC really) you know what you are getting. If I spend £3 on horse armour, I am getting horse armour. If I buy a GTA Shark card, then I am getting that to get a certain amount of in-game currency that I will use to buy in-game items with. It’s shitty and poor value for money, but nobody is being conned by it.

A lootbox is different, you spend real money on something for a chance of getting something you want. That’s why it is gambling and why I think it is worse than other examples of DLC, you spend money and might not get anything useful or that you want.

But that description just brings us back to blind bags, football stickers, trading cards etc. All of those are purchased based on the chance that you will get what you want but I imagine most people would agree that these shouldn't come under the umbrella of gambling - why should loot boxes be different?

Because with those physical products you actually do know what you are getting. A pack of football stickers still contains football stickers, that is what is being advertised. Loot creates on the other hands are digital and lack any physical existence, you're putting money into the existence of something abstract that doesn't exist yet (or at all). Same with gambling, you pay money on the abstract premise of possibly receiving money. When you buy the football stickers they already exist even before the transition. With gambling and loot crates you are paying for abstraction.

Also as has been said, football stickers, trading cards etc. are tradable so you can swap for what you need/want loot gooseberry fool you can't always do so and so you are stuck with it unless you pay to roll again.

@Dig Dug: That's total nonsense. You don't buy a Pokemon booster because you want 10 small sheets of card and some dried ink, you buy them because you want particular cards with certain abstract properties (name, stats, art design, rarity...). The physical nature of those cards is irrelevant.

@Errkal: In TF2 (and presumably other games) you can trade the loot box nonsense you get. In a casino you can do better and trade the chips you win for actual money! Still gambling.

TCG boosters are literally the same as loot boxes on a conceptual level. They are both gambling. The difference is that TCGs are rendered child-friendly by requiring a transaction at a shop with real money, which on some level typically requires parental approval, as well as limits the potential for abuse or addiction.

I've bought Skyrim 4 times.

EDIT; No wait 5 times.

I agree that the basic idea of loot boxes is similar to trading cards. I feel that the videogame publishers are trying to push it further, though; as an example, in Elder Scrolls Online you can pay to get randomised items from loot boxes and (for the few that I opened without paying for) the items were a load of old pony and there is not a facility to swap twhem with other players. Some items can be traded for a certain type of coin that enables you to buy other items, but the amount of coins you get is pitiful compared to the cost of these other items.

It felt like a rip-off and certainly didn't make me think that I'd like to spend cash to buy loot boxes. Yet a significant focus of the game is now on these boxes and that has put me off.

Each to their own, but personally I'd prefer to pay for a game and, if it is attractive, buy additional content of my own choosing rather than go free-to-start and then get caught up in buying currency or loot boxes. Or, with major console titles, pay for a game and still get caught up in buying currency and loot boxes.

Jenuall wrote:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:I mentioned it earlier but I find the GTA style fake currency you can buy with real money just as bad. Here's a bunch of cool gooseberry fool you can spend literally hundreds of real pounds on because our in game currency is hyper inflated.

Yeah you can grind but it makes grinding a bore to try and manipulate you into getting shark cards. I'd rather buy a season pass at least it's clear what you get for your money versus fake currency that makes it hard to discern worth.

I think fake currency is bad but I don’t think it is as bad as the lootbox gamble.

When buying in-game currency (or any DLC really) you know what you are getting. If I spend £3 on horse armour, I am getting horse armour. If I buy a GTA Shark card, then I am getting that to get a certain amount of in-game currency that I will use to buy in-game items with. It’s shitty and poor value for money, but nobody is being conned by it.

A lootbox is different, you spend real money on something for a chance of getting something you want. That’s why it is gambling and why I think it is worse than other examples of DLC, you spend money and might not get anything useful or that you want.

But that description just brings us back to blind bags, football stickers, trading cards etc. All of those are purchased based on the chance that you will get what you want but I imagine most people would agree that these shouldn't come under the umbrella of gambling - why should loot boxes be different?

Your post makes the assumption that I don’t think those things are gambling. I actually think that they are.

It also sounds like you are assuming that I think all such gambling is a bad thing. I don’t.

Gambling comes in many forms and there are lots of ways that it can be regulated. I don’t think there needs to be a catch all “18+” rating on all forms of gambling.

The main difference (for me) between a lootbox and a football sticker album is that the lootbox is inserted INTO a game, whereas the football stickers ARE the game. You can also trade/swap football stickers, with a lootbox you are stuck with whatever crap it gives you. Football stickers go back generations and everyone (e.g. parents) understand them, lootboxes are a new thing and it is not widely understood that buying a game will mean you need to gamble real money in order to possibly get hold of an item that will help you play the game that you have already bought.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Johnny Ryall wrote:I mentioned it earlier but I find the GTA style fake currency you can buy with real money just as bad. Here's a bunch of cool gooseberry fool you can spend literally hundreds of real pounds on because our in game currency is hyper inflated.

Yeah you can grind but it makes grinding a bore to try and manipulate you into getting shark cards. I'd rather buy a season pass at least it's clear what you get for your money versus fake currency that makes it hard to discern worth.

I think fake currency is bad but I don’t think it is as bad as the lootbox gamble.

When buying in-game currency (or any DLC really) you know what you are getting. If I spend £3 on horse armour, I am getting horse armour. If I buy a GTA Shark card, then I am getting that to get a certain amount of in-game currency that I will use to buy in-game items with. It’s shitty and poor value for money, but nobody is being conned by it.

A lootbox is different, you spend real money on something for a chance of getting something you want. That’s why it is gambling and why I think it is worse than other examples of DLC, you spend money and might not get anything useful or that you want.

But that description just brings us back to blind bags, football stickers, trading cards etc. All of those are purchased based on the chance that you will get what you want but I imagine most people would agree that these shouldn't come under the umbrella of gambling - why should loot boxes be different?

Your post makes the assumption that I don’t think those things are gambling. I actually think that they are.

It also sounds like you are assuming that I think all such gambling is a bad thing. I don’t.

Gambling comes in many forms and there are lots of ways that it can be regulated. I don’t think there needs to be a catch all “18+” rating on all forms of gambling.

The main difference (for me) between a lootbox and a football sticker album is that the lootbox is inserted INTO a game, whereas the football stickers ARE the game. You can also trade/swap football stickers, with a lootbox you are stuck with whatever crap it gives you. Football stickers go back generations and everyone (e.g. parents) understand them, lootboxes are a new thing and it is not widely understood that buying a game will mean you need to gamble real money in order to possibly get hold of an item that will help you play the game that you have already bought.

I'm not assuming that you think all forms of gambling are bad, not quite sure where you would get that inference from.

I agree with the particular distinction between football stickers and loot boxes - i.e. the football stickers being the game vs. loot boxes being something which is merely part of a game. That does something to level of understanding of the nature of the activity you are indulging in - this is an activity which I know requires follow on purchases, however it does nothing to change the specifics of the transaction itself which in both cases still amounts to handing over cash for content over which you have no control.

EDIT (Forgot to add): additionally things like trading card games etc. are a much closer situation to games with loot box mechanics. When you buy the game you have everything you need to play it, however if you want to get better cards/gear than others you'll need to lay down more cash for follow up purchases. I would argue that we are not looking at a new business model here, just one that is new to video games.

Surely if the only practical distinction is that one activity is understood and another is not because it is new then what is required is education not legislation?

@Errkal/Dig Dug: Regarding the physical vs. virtual nature of these items - how much difference do we expect in terms of regulation and legislation around matters such as this when it comes to the virtual world? All the games I have bought on Steam or other online stores are not physical objects, I can't trade them or sell them to anyone else - do I expect extra protection of legislation around these purchases because of their virtual, digital nature? I don't think that should be the case, ultimately as the person buying these games (and similarly for someone buying loot boxes within a game) providing I am adequately aware of the nature of what I am putting my money down on and any limitations that entails then it should be treated no differently to any other purchase.

As before it comes back to education more than anything. Our PC's, games consoles, phones etc. are as much a point of sale as any counter in a shop and we should treat them as such - if people are worried about kids racking up sales on lootboxes etc. then they need to ensure they understand the nature of the games they are allowing their kids to play and the controls which are available to restrict their ability to spend money within them.

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:@Dig Dug: That's total nonsense. You don't buy a Pokemon booster because you want 10 small sheets of card and some dried ink, you buy them because you want particular cards with certain abstract properties (name, stats, art design, rarity...). The physical nature of those cards is irrelevant..

Desired pulls is irrelevant to the issue. The consumer might want a certain card, but the action of buying a booster pack does not make them entitled to that card and it does not mean they have been ripped-off if they do not get that card either. What cards you might get is a schrodinger's cat situation, however you're are putting an abstraction on top of something that isn't abstract. There will always be 10 cards in that Pokemon booster pack, therefore what you are buying is the cards themselves, the abstraction is a secondary desire of the consumer.
Card games and other table based games exist entirely as a system of rules we impose upon ourselves, you don't need the physical cards to even play the pokemon TCG, you could just as easily proxy cards and play the game with those and nothing would actually change. We use the model of buying, trading, and using authentic physical cards because we all mutually agreed to do so.

If I gamble I am buying the abstraction. If I make a bet on a football match I am buying an the abstract idea that this result will happen and I will be rewarded for the prediction. In this case the abstraction is primary, it is first and foremost what you are buying. When you buy a loot crate you are buying an abstraction, the code of the game does not psychically exist, it is an abstract concept. This is the line that divides physical items with random elements and entirely abstract systems.

Regardless of what card you pull the pokemon booster will always have the base value of £3.50, that is the physical value of 9 commons and a rare card in the average booster pack, it is set in stone that these physical objects are what is in the pack. If a card is worth more than that then it is seen as such due to what the players value it at in the secondary market, there it will have a higher perceived value, but the real value is still the cost of the goods themselves. Finally as physical items pokemon cards are finite, they exist physically as a product that we can run out of, this is why they have actual market value as a product.

In abstract systems the items do not have a base value, my £5 bet on a football match is not worth £5, it has no real value, only a perceived value based on the abstract idea that my bet could win me something. Loot crates and the items inside them are very similar in that respect, once opened, the content of the crate exists entirely in perceived value, even more so if said items can't be traded with other players. Both of these things are also unlimited in supply, meaning the only value they could ever have is perceived value.

To me these are the fine differences between the two and why I think pairing physical products such as trading cards, stickers, and random toy bags with abstract products such as loot crates are a false-equivalence.

Jenuall wrote:I agree with the particular distinction between football stickers and loot boxes - i.e. the football stickers being the game vs. loot boxes being something which is merely part of a game. That does something to level of understanding of the nature of the activity you are indulging in - this is an activity which I know requires follow on purchases, however it does nothing to change the specifics of the transaction itself which in both cases still amounts to handing over cash for content over which you have no control.

The transactions themselves are different though.

Football (or other types of) cards – A kid/parent/responsible adult buys a card pack and receives a set number of cards. It is a gamble because you don’t know what cards they actually are, but the transaction is for x number of cards and that is exactly what you receive.

Lootboxes – A kid/parent/responsible adult buys a game for a console under the impression that they can then play that game without having to buy optional extras in order to be competitive at that game. Except that is no longer true, the £40 (or whatever) spent on the game is only for the basic version. To level up/get the best guns/best characters you either have to spend literal days of your life grinding, or you can skip all of that hassle by spending money on lootboxes. Except the lootbox might not give you the gun that you wanted, it might just be a shitty skin and so you buy another lootbox. And that one gives you double XP, nice but still not the level 54 sniper rifle you really wanted. So you buy another lootbox and get a nifty level 43 rocket launcher, but you still really want a level 54 sniper rifle and so you buy another lootbox and this one gives you a new outfit to wear even though you already like what your character is wearing and so you buy another lootbox…..

Dig Dug wrote:Desired pulls is irrelevant to the issue. The consumer might want a certain card, but the action of buying a booster pack does not make them entitled to that card and it does not mean they have been ripped-off if they do not get that card either. What cards you might get is a schrodinger's cat situation, however you're are putting an abstraction on top of something that isn't abstract. There will always be 10 cards in that Pokemon booster pack, therefore what you are buying is the cards themselves, the abstraction is a secondary desire of the consumer.

"Desired pulls is irrelevant to the issue. The consumer might want a certain virtual hat, but the action of buying a loot box does not make them entitled to that hat and it does not mean they have been ripped off if they do not get that hat either. Which hats you might get is a Schrodinger's Cat situation, however you are putting an abstraction on top of something that isn't abstract. There will always be 5 virtual hats in that Hat Simulator 2018 loot box, therefore what you are buying is the virtual hats themselves, the abstraction is a secondary desire of the consumer."

Dig Dug wrote:Card games and other table based games exist entirely as a system of rules we impose upon ourselves, you don't need the physical cards to even play the pokemon TCG, you could just as easily proxy cards and play the game with those and nothing would actually change. We use the model of buying, trading, and using authentic physical cards because we all mutually agreed to do so.

"You don't have to buy virtual hats to enjoy Hat Simulator 2018. The base hats are perfectly competitive all the way up to Diamond League in Competitive Hat Catwalk. Those who buy virtual hat loot boxes do so because they want to."

Dig Dug wrote:If I gamble I am buying the abstraction. If I make a bet on a football match I am buying an the abstract idea that this result will happen and I will be rewarded for the prediction. In this case the abstraction is primary, it is first and foremost what you are buying. When you buy a loot crate you are buying an abstraction, the code of the game does not psychically exist, it is an abstract concept. This is the line that divides physical items with random elements and entirely abstract systems.

Of course virtual items 'exist' in a meaningful way ("Code doesn't exist"? What?). Put it this way! Assume you can buy 1. Pokemon cards and 2. virtual hats, both directly (forget about boosters for a sec). What are you buying? In both cases you're buying (a) the labour of someone designing that object's statistics within the context of the rules of the game, (b) the art design of that object, (c) the ability to use that object to help you win in a game, and (d) the status of owning something rare and/or the nice feeling of completing a collection. The difference comes in the way that item is delivered to you. In the Pokemon card case you have to cover the very small cost of them using a small amount of paper and ink and then shipping it; in the virtual hat case you have to cover the very very small cost (I admit it's smaller!) of them expending bandwidth to transmit the item to you.

Now instead of buying them directly, imagine buying 1. a closed physical box full of cheap cards (that have value to you because of their meaning in some abstract trading card game rules framework), or 2. a closed virtual box full of very cheap virtual hats (that have value to you because of their meaning in some abstract video game rules framework).

It's the same. Literally exactly the same.

I am not saying Pokemon boosters are bad. I think there are very reasonable arguments as to why Pokemon cards are more appropriate for kids. But this isn't it.

Dig Dug wrote:Regardless of what card you pull the pokemon booster will always have the base value of £3.50, that is the physical value of 9 commons and a rare card in the average booster pack, it is set in stone that these physical objects are what is in the pack.

"Regardless of what virtual hat you pull the loot box will always have the base value of £1, that is the physical value of 4 common virtual hats and a rare virtual hat in the average loot box, it is set in stone that these virtual objects are what is in the pack."

Dig Dug wrote:If a card is worth more than that then it is seen as such due to what the players value it at in the secondary market, there it will have a higher perceived value, but the real value is still the cost of the goods themselves. Finally as physical items pokemon cards are finite, they exist physically as a product that we can run out of, this is why they have actual market value as a product.

Some TF2 hats were limited run and have a real market value too. I have virtual earbuds in TF2 that would be worth £50+ if I were OK with selling virtual earbuds to a mentally ill person for £50 (I'm not).

Dig Dug wrote:In abstract systems the items do not have a base value, my £5 bet on a football match is not worth £5, it has no real value, only a perceived value based on the abstract idea that my bet could win me something.

[Citation needed.] It's clear that a bet is worth £5 to you if you buy one. There is even a measurable physical value to the bet (the labour of the person who writes it down and checks it).

Dig Dug wrote:Loot crates and the items inside them are very similar in that respect, once opened, the content of the crate exists entirely in perceived value, even more so if said items can't be traded with other players. Both of these things are also unlimited in supply, meaning the only value they could ever have is perceived value.

The important value is the perceived value; plenty of lootboxes (and casino based gambling) involve a secondary economy and that doesn't matter; limited run items are a thing but more importantly perceived scarcity is far more relevant to the actions typical consumer than whether virtual items are theoretically infinite.

Dig Dug wrote:To me these are the fine differences between the two and why I think pairing physical products such as trading cards, stickers, and random toy bags with abstract products such as loot crates are a false-equivalence.

Sure, but you're making an arbitrary distinction based on properties of the two which are not different in function.

Yes, a physical card is different from a virtual hat in that one is made of paper and the other is made of virtual triangles. It just doesn't matter.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Jenuall wrote:I agree with the particular distinction between football stickers and loot boxes - i.e. the football stickers being the game vs. loot boxes being something which is merely part of a game. That does something to level of understanding of the nature of the activity you are indulging in - this is an activity which I know requires follow on purchases, however it does nothing to change the specifics of the transaction itself which in both cases still amounts to handing over cash for content over which you have no control.

The transactions themselves are different though.

Football (or other types of) cards – A kid/parent/responsible adult buys a card pack and receives a set number of cards. It is a gamble because you don’t know what cards they actually are, but the transaction is for x number of cards and that is exactly what you receive.

Lootboxes – A kid/parent/responsible adult buys a game for a console under the impression that they can then play that game without having to buy optional extras in order to be competitive at that game. Except that is no longer true, the £40 (or whatever) spent on the game is only for the basic version. To level up/get the best guns/best characters you either have to spend literal days of your life grinding, or you can skip all of that hassle by spending money on lootboxes. Except the lootbox might not give you the gun that you wanted, it might just be a shitty skin and so you buy another lootbox. And that one gives you double XP, nice but still not the level 54 sniper rifle you really wanted. So you buy another lootbox and get a nifty level 43 rocket launcher, but you still really want a level 54 sniper rifle and so you buy another lootbox and this one gives you a new outfit to wear even though you already like what your character is wearing and so you buy another lootbox…..

That might be the case eventually but at the moment there aren't games that require loot boxes to be competitive. Everything you need to play the game is in the £40 purchase including the means to buy the loot boxes. I'm pretty sure in Fifa and Battlefront you need to play around 3-4 games to get enough to buy a loot crate.

Hime wrote:That might be the case eventually but at the moment there aren't games that require loot boxes to be competitive. Everything you need to play the game is in the £40 purchase including the means to buy the loot boxes. I'm pretty sure in Fifa and Battlefront you need to play around 3-4 games to get enough to buy a loot crate.

In FIFA everything is there for most of the modes. The Ultimate Team thing is different but I ignore that so have no idea.

I haven’t bought Battlefront (it’s an EA game, I’ll wait for it to be “free” in the vault) but from what I remember reading there was a huge amount of grinding needed to get up to the higher levels, unless you were willing to pay additional cash. Something like literal days of grinding to be able to unlock all of the heroes?

I just fundamentally disagree with the idea of lootboxes in paid for gaming (F2P is a different story). I have no problem with DLC and microtransactions, I just prefer things to be open and honest rather than a pure gamble.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Hime wrote:That might be the case eventually but at the moment there aren't games that require loot boxes to be competitive. Everything you need to play the game is in the £40 purchase including the means to buy the loot boxes. I'm pretty sure in Fifa and Battlefront you need to play around 3-4 games to get enough to buy a loot crate.

In FIFA everything is there for most of the modes. The Ultimate Team thing is different but I ignore that so have no idea.

I haven’t bought Battlefront (it’s an EA game, I’ll wait for it to be “free” in the vault) but from what I remember reading there was a huge amount of grinding needed to get up to the higher levels, unless you were willing to pay additional cash. Something like literal days of grinding to be able to unlock all of the heroes?

I just fundamentally disagree with the idea of lootboxes in paid for gaming (F2P is a different story). I have no problem with DLC and microtransactions, I just prefer things to be open and honest rather than a pure gamble.

The Battlefront stuff is nonsense. I read that stuff too and both the time scales and importance of this stuff is completely overblown, it's a very simplistic game. As I said earlier in the thread it's been a much quicker progression path than in CoD and Battlefield.

If you don't like it that's fair enough but I really don't think this stuff is as much of a problem as you think, from a gameplay perspective anyway.