Part of the Problem

Hime wrote: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.

My arguments have been that I think lootboxes are gambling, that I don’t like it in full priced game releases and that’s about it, I am not sure where you got that I think it is a big problem from? . I mentioned that I hadn’t played Battlefront 2 but that I had heard the grinding was time consuming unless you paid up, if that is true then I would say it was a problem (not a big one to me though as I wouldn’t buy it), if you are right then it is less of a problem.

I am an old school gamer. I don’t mind DLC (that’s basically the same as the old expansion packs) and I have no issue with charging microtransactions for cosmetic items (I wouldn’t buy them but couldn’t give a gooseberry fool if others want to). Lootboxes are shitty though, they are just taking the worst aspects of F2P gaming and adding them into £40+ releases. If you don’t mind that, then fair enough, but I am uninterested in the future of gaming if the future involves such practices.

I think there are two problems here that sometimes get confused, which makes it tough to talk about:
1. Are loot boxes essentially a kind of gambling?
I think they are and that there needs to be regulations in place to stop people (esp. kids) getting too addicted, because gambling is a psychologically manipulative action. It doesn't mean I think no kids should be able to access it -- kids can handle some light betting under parental supervision.
2. Is it OK to put pay-to-win mechanics in full-price games?
I don't think it's necessarily 'immoral' but I do think it represents incredibly poor value for money. I think consumers ought to reject that kind of model, but I'm not calling for that aspect to be banned or regulated.

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:kids can handle some light beating under parental supervision.

Ban this filth

Kids who buy pay-to-win loot boxes deserve to get a good beating. Half a dozen flogs of the belt should do it. They did it in Victorian times and there wasn't a loot box problem back then!

I don't think they should be there at all. It's a move made entirely out of greed on the part of EA and their ilk. The more they are able to worm this kind of practice into their games, the more those games become less about providing you with an entertaining experience and more about pushing you towards dipping into this fetid cesspit.

The "choice" excuse is bollocks as well. It's a system designed to take the £1 (for example) you may have spent to get that outfit/gun/whatever you liked, and turn it into £10, while "rewarding" you with extraneous bollocks you don't necessarily want or need in the meantime.

I've got no issue with DLC, or even microtransactions when implemented responsibly, but lootboxes?

They're predatory, they're disgusting and they've got no place in a £40+ game.

How is the choice excuse bollocks? You have the choice to not buy the game surely? If the game involves microtransactions and lootboxes and you don't like those things then don't buy it. And if you have bought the game then you have the choice to not continue to pour more money into it. If people aren't capable to making the decision to stop pouring money in to these games then they clearly have a problem that is wider than this.

There are plenty of games and hobbies that involve repeat purchases to obtain additional or continued enjoyment, I wouldn't say that makes them predatory or disgusting.

When a CCG ends or a sticker album goes out of print someone from the publisher doesn't come round your house and take them all away leaving you strawberry float all to show for your expenditure. Somewhere down the line they might even be a collectable item you can re-sell.

When a game like Overwatch shuts down, or any mobile game with gacha mechanics, then all the digital items you had from lootboxes are literally gone in the blink of an eye and you have nothing to show for whatever money you pumped in.

Jenuall wrote:If people aren't capable to making the decision to stop pouring money in to these games then they clearly have a problem that is wider than this.

Sure. But typically we accept children are less able to make decisions like this without parental supervision, which is why it's important that it's labelled as a form of gambling that could lead to the same psychological feedback loops.

Even beyond that, did you know that in a typical loot box mobile game, over 50% of that game's revenue will come from less than 0.2% - that's one fifth of one percent - of players? Those are the 'whales' who spend hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds in-game over an extended period. There's something, I feel, a little off about basing your model around a tiny fraction of players who can be pressured into dropping three or four digit sums on your virtual hats. Maybe they're all healthy, well-adjusted people who happen to be super rich! But I'm sure it's not difficult to head to the communities for these games and find examples of people who are essentially gambling addicts. That's anecdotal, for sure, and I'm sure games developers aren't actually, explicitly thinking "Hoo boy, I hope some of our players get psychologically addicted to our game!" At the same time, I expect there's a little part of them that is thinking "But it would be nice to sell another £1000 of hats to that one guy who always buys 500 loot boxes every event." I can totally see why people find that a bit gross.

Lastpostamorph wrote:When a CCG ends or a sticker album goes out of print someone from the publisher doesn't come round your house and take them all away leaving you strawberry float all to show for your expenditure. Somewhere down the line they might even be a collectable item you can re-sell.

This is reaching so, so far. Do you seriously believe that when children buy booster packs they are thinking "I am looking forward to my great grandkids having a small chance of making £50 off these in 100 years when they may or may not be an antique"?

"Virtual hats might be a digitalised version of an identical concept to booster packs, but you couldn't take them down to the Antiques Roadshow when you're 90 could you? Could you strawberry float." I've been checkmated, I guess.

Jenuall wrote:How is the choice excuse bollocks? You have the choice to not buy the game surely? If the game involves microtransactions and lootboxes and you don't like those things then don't buy it. And if you have bought the game then you have the choice to not continue to pour more money into it. If people aren't capable to making the decision to stop pouring money in to these games then they clearly have a problem that is wider than this.

Of course customers have the choice to ignore them. Of course customers have the choice to not buy the games that include them.

I was referring to the excuse trotted out by developers when they try and pass their lootbox shite off as anything other than trying to crowbar every penny out of their customers. If they want to provide "choice" then they should let you "choose" to buy the item you want, not spin the "wheel of chance".

Jenuall wrote:There are plenty of games and hobbies that involve repeat purchases to obtain additional or continued enjoyment, I wouldn't say that makes them predatory or disgusting

Yeah and until now that's not really been the case with games. Yes you may need to purchase Xbox Live/PSN or an additional map pack, but that was about it. Now publishers are trying to bolt this mechanic into places it's never been before, because they caught a whiff of the money being spent by rich morons on F2P games and it's infecting everything it touches. It's taking games that were legitimately good and dragging them down into the muck.

What gets me as well is that customers have already paid for the game. I'm not talking new additional DLC things, but items that are already in there, and they want to pressure you to pay extra money for the CHANCE to unlock them. strawberry float off EA/WB/Ubi etc.

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:

Jenuall wrote:If people aren't capable to making the decision to stop pouring money in to these games then they clearly have a problem that is wider than this.

Sure. But typically we accept children are less able to make decisions like this without parental supervision, which is why it's important that it's labelled as a form of gambling that could lead to the same psychological feedback loops.

I don't think it needs to be labelled as gambling to protect children, in the same way that I don't think trading cards, blind bags, or football stickers do. As I've said before the problem is one of education for both parents and children in terms of understanding both the sales model of these games and the controls available to restrict spending.

In the same way that as a parent I would monitor what my kids might be spending their money on in physical shops (although they are currently too young to have regular pocket money) I would do the same thing online. If anything it's easier online as there are clear records and mechanism to limit access. Don't want your kids buying loot boxes? Then don't add a payment method to their account, or use a card which you control the balance of - or even one of the modern cards which let you set daily/weekly spending limits etc.

Tell Karl his brother is dead wrote:

Lastpostamorph wrote:When a CCG ends or a sticker album goes out of print someone from the publisher doesn't come round your house and take them all away leaving you strawberry float all to show for your expenditure. Somewhere down the line they might even be a collectable item you can re-sell.

This is reaching so, so far. Do you seriously believe that when children buy booster packs they are thinking "I am looking forward to my great grandkids having a small chance of making £50 off these in 100 years when they may or may not be an antique"?

"Virtual hats might be a digitalised version of an identical concept to booster packs, but you couldn't take them down to the Antiques Roadshow when you're 90 could you? Could you strawberry float." I've been checkmated, I guess.

What? It's not reaching at all to point out that a physical product like a CCG is hugely different from virtual lootboxes . When the servers for a game like Overwatch go down the game will be unplayable and all of your lootbox purchases are just gone up in virtual smoke, along with every penny you invested into the game. When the servers behind the lootbox transactions of games like Fifa/Battlefront 2/Shadow of War/Need for Speed go down the singleplayer will still be accessible, but was completely balanced around promoting the purchase of lootboxes and they will suddenly become very different, and much more grindy, games.

If Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh ever goes out of print and just stops having new cards published, you'll still have all your old cards. You can still partake in the collectible element of the game, you can still play the game exactly as you could before. You still have something to show for the money you invested. The fact that some rare cards can become financially valuable is a nice little bonus in the odd occasion, but I never said that it was the driving force behind children buying booster packs as you seem to be trying to imply.

Dick Thornburg wrote:

Jenuall wrote:How is the choice excuse bollocks? You have the choice to not buy the game surely? If the game involves microtransactions and lootboxes and you don't like those things then don't buy it. And if you have bought the game then you have the choice to not continue to pour more money into it. If people aren't capable to making the decision to stop pouring money in to these games then they clearly have a problem that is wider than this.

Of course customers have the choice to ignore them. Of course customers have the choice to not buy the games that include them.

I was referring to the excuse trotted out by developers when they try and pass their lootbox shite off as anything other than trying to crowbar every penny out of their customers. If they want to provide "choice" then they should let you "choose" to buy the item you want, not spin the "wheel of chance".

I get what you're saying and trust me I hate this bullshit as much as anyone, I've not paid for any of this gooseberry fool. But the alternative you are suggesting here is replacing the random factor of loot boxes, which doesn't allow you to directly purchase benefits, with the pay to win model which I think most would agree is just as bad if not worse in terms of destroying the idea that games are competition based on skill and ability.

Dick Thornburg wrote:

Jenuall wrote:There are plenty of games and hobbies that involve repeat purchases to obtain additional or continued enjoyment, I wouldn't say that makes them predatory or disgusting

Yeah and until now that's not really been the case with games. Yes you may need to purchase Xbox Live/PSN or an additional map pack, but that was about it. Now publishers are trying to bolt this mechanic into places it's never been before, because they caught a whiff of the money being spent by rich morons on F2P games and it's infecting everything it touches. It's taking games that were legitimately good and dragging them down into the muck.

Businesses have always tried to exploit rich morons, the question is how much is the chase for the whales destroying the experience for the "normal" punter. Take watching live sport for example, does the fact that Johnny Bug Bucks can afford a private box at Wembley stop me from enjoying watching a match from the cheap seats? Not excessively, but he clearly has benefits in his experience that I don't. Some would still argue that this has damaged the game and the chase for the money has actually prevented many from being able to go to games at all as the cheapest prices are so high, but then there are other ways to experience the sport through TV etc. Ultimately the market should find a balance that works and hopefully games will be the same.

Dick Thornburg wrote:What gets me as well is that customers have already paid for the game. I'm not talking new additional DLC things, but items that are already in there, and they want to pressure you to pay extra money for the CHANCE to unlock them. strawberry float off EA/WB/Ubi etc.

This is one argument I struggle with - the whole "it's already in the disk" thing. It's their product, they choose how to produce, distribute and charge for it. If you don't like what you get for the base investment then don't pay it. Would it really make any difference if the content weren't on the disk but you downloaded it?

Lastpostamorph wrote:What? It's not reaching at all to point out that a physical product like a CCG is hugely different from virtual lootboxes .

They are both forms of gambling in which children pay to have a chance at winning something they would like. They are both linked to games children like to play and help children play those games better. They both invoke the same little psychological pathways when you succeed or fail as, I dunno, blackjack. The only functional difference in their age-appropriateness is that TCGs typically involve a higher level of parental supervision and feature fewer on-demand dopamine hits, making them in practicality better even though the general idea is exactly the same.

Lastpostamorph wrote:When the servers for a game like Overwatch go down the game will be unplayable and all of your lootbox purchases are just gone up in virtual smoke, along with every penny you invested into the game.

Agreed. So what? This is irrelevant to whether TCG boosters are a form of gambling, which they are.

Lastpostamorph wrote:When the servers behind the lootbox transactions of games like Fifa/Battlefront 2/Shadow of War/Need for Speed go down the singleplayer will still be accessible, but was completely balanced around promoting the purchase of lootboxes and they will suddenly become very different, and much more grindy, games.

Agreed. So what? This is irrelevant to whether TCG boosters are a form of gambling, which they are.

Lastpostamorph wrote:If Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh ever goes out of print and just stops having new cards published, you'll still have all your old cards. You can still partake in the collectible element of the game, you can still play the game exactly as you could before. You still have something to show for the money you invested.

Agreed. So what? This is irrelevant to whether TCG boosters are a form of gambling, which they are.

Lastpostamorph wrote:The fact that some rare cards can become financially valuable is a nice little bonus in the odd occasion, but I never said that it was the driving force behind children buying booster packs as you seem to be trying to imply.

It was the only argument you posted, so I won't apologise for treating it as the primary thrust of your post, because it was.

Whilst we're still on the loot boxes vs footy stickers debate; it's worth noting (don't think it's been mentioned but apologies if it has) that, for an extra premium, you could directly buy the ones you were missing/needed rather than buy boosters ad inifinitum. So a 'loot box' approach was the predominant way to approach collecting the items you wanted, but to mop up the last bits you needed you could still go the classic dlc route.

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're still on the loot boxes vs footy stickers debate; it's worth noting (don't think it's been mentioned but apologies if it has) that, for an extra premium, you could directly buy the ones you were missing/needed rather than buy boosters ad inifinitum. So a 'loot box' approach was the predominant way to approach collecting the items you wanted, but to mop up the last bits you needed you could still go the classic dlc route.

I'm sure there is the equivalent of the dodgy kid who could get anything online.

Hime wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're still on the loot boxes vs footy stickers debate; it's worth noting (don't think it's been mentioned but apologies if it has) that, for an extra premium, you could directly buy the ones you were missing/needed rather than buy boosters ad inifinitum. So a 'loot box' approach was the predominant way to approach collecting the items you wanted, but to mop up the last bits you needed you could still go the classic dlc route.

I'm sure there is the equivalent of the dodgy kid who could get anything online.

Nah man this is back in the pre-AOL days.

99% certain I got my dad to send off a special slip to complete my power rangers stickers album.

Skarjo wrote:

Hime wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Whilst we're still on the loot boxes vs footy stickers debate; it's worth noting (don't think it's been mentioned but apologies if it has) that, for an extra premium, you could directly buy the ones you were missing/needed rather than buy boosters ad inifinitum. So a 'loot box' approach was the predominant way to approach collecting the items you wanted, but to mop up the last bits you needed you could still go the classic dlc route.

I'm sure there is the equivalent of the dodgy kid who could get anything online.

Nah man this is back in the pre-AOL days.

99% certain I got my dad to send off a special slip to complete my power rangers stickers album.

I was talking pre-AOL, I missed a vital comma

Was it a special one? Sounds like your old man might have hunted Free Ads or the supermarket message boards.

It's really common Hime, Panini still do it in fact.

Well strawberry float me.