Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

ps3lover

Is it true that EA had some thing set up that if you didn't buy any online stuff they'd make sure you'd be matched up with other people who did have it in order to try force you to buy it?

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want to compare sports versus online gaming then when it comes to sport Loot Crates are already a thing given that the more money you have the better player or athlete you can buy. Soccer is a great example of this, the top teams can spend billions on great players giving them a huge advantage over other teams with less money.

Its nothing like it at all, the game remains the same, the players are bringing their skill to the game, they aint buying their skill

J. Marston

ps3lover wrote: »

Is it true that EA had some thing set up that if you didn't buy any online stuff they'd make sure you'd be matched up with other people who did have it in order to try force you to buy it?

That's Activision, and it's patented so I'm pretty sure no-one else can use it.

Although they said they haven't implemented it in their games....yet.

https://kotaku.com/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-10-000-on-microtra-1820854953

As I said before this stuff preys on people with addictions.

I remember reading the term 'whale' was used by EA to describe gamers who spend hundreds/thousands of dollars in games as easy pickings. Disgusting.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote:

I remember reading the term 'whale' was used by EA to describe gamers who spend hundreds/thousands of dollars in games as easy pickings. Disgusting.

Once you ban loot crates you can get the offensive word whale banned. Everyone refers to the big spenders as whales, every company and person and while I have some sympathy for those unable to help themselves but most whales are just wealthy individuals. I know a friend with a mobile game and he's made hundreds of thousands from one UAE player who is also a multi millionaire. There's plenty more like him and those are the whales, not some lad spending a grand in a game.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Once you ban loot crates you can get the offensive word whale banned. Everyone refers to the big spenders as whales, every company and person and while I have some sympathy for those unable to help themselves but most whales are just wealthy individuals. I know a friend with a mobile game and he's made hundreds of thousands from one UAE player who is also a multi millionaire. There's plenty more like him and those are the whales, not some lad spending a grand in a game.

I simply think you don't understand the consequence of addiction.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote:

I simply think you don't understand the consequence of addiction.

I do, I've seen how it affects people and how it can destroy lives. I don't think that it is up to game companies to be responsible for peoples habits, plus is it gambling when you are guaranteed something in return. Show me a casino where you are guaranteed something when you place a bet. Do you not think that if gambling is so bad we should close casinos and betting offices? Or do you think that because it's regulated it's grand?

How come you have not been attacking Overwatch for the past year and a bit given that it has loot crates? Surprising that you and so many others are so up in arms to protect the vulnerable now but weren't petitioning governments to stop loot crates 6 months ago.

kunst nugget

I know you're enjoying playing the contrarian in this argument, Darko but you seriously can't believe what you've written there.

wheresmahbombs

Does anyone remember the controversy surrounding the 2013 mobile game Dungeon Keeper?

UFC riddled by guess who?
EA need to just **** off

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

UFC riddled by guess who?
EA need to just **** off

Yawn, another rant based on misreported information, past UFC games had packs you could buy and they only apply to one mode and the matchmaking ensures that you never come up against someone who way outmatches you. IGN and others started this by way overstating the impact of Loot Crates in UFC 3 even though I don't think the beta even has them as an option.

I'm all for people putting their money where their mouth is but it has to extend to all companies that use Loot Crates. After all M!CK you're against Loot Crates because they are gambling, not because they can be used as pay to win in some games.

Am I? I hate them for both reasons actually.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

I know you're enjoying playing the contrarian in this argument, Darko but you seriously can't believe what you've written there.

I don't consider them gambling any more than I would consider buying a kinder egg or blind box toy gambling. I think that people are using the gambling angle to appear like they are doing this not for themselves but the world and shining a light on this grave injustice.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't consider them gambling any more than I would consider buying a kinder egg or blind box toy gambling. I think that people are using the gambling angle to appear like they are doing this not for themselves but the world and shining a light on this grave injustice.

I also to a large extent don't consider them gambling and think that aspect of the debate is being overplayed. Anyone underage should have the ability to be able to spend actual money on lootboxes (and it's the parents responsibility to ensure that), and in terms of people with addictive personalities, it's not the publisher's responsibility to protect people from themselves. There's also the issue of the items being received having no monetary value (with the exception of stuff like CS:GO skins or similar games which can be traded and sold etc.).

My issue with lootboxes solely center around the poor implementation of same to create grinding elements in order to try and unlock items to progress your gameplay or give you an advantage, even though it's almost completely RNG-based.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Am I? I hate them for both reasons actually.

Just curious as to why you seem to have no issue with Loot Crates in Overwatch and the like. All your rage seems to be aimed at EA.

Penn wrote: »

I also to a large extent don't consider them gambling and think that aspect of the debate is being overplayed. Anyone underage should have the ability to be able to spend actual money on lootboxes (and it's the parents responsibility to ensure that), and in terms of people with addictive personalities, it's not the publisher's responsibility to protect people from themselves. There's also the issue of the items being received having no monetary value (with the exception of stuff like CS:GO skins or similar games which can be traded and sold etc.).

My issue with lootboxes solely center around the poor implementation of same to create grinding elements in order to try and unlock items to progress your gameplay or give you an advantage, even though it's almost completely RNG-based.

I think that all the talk about regulation is going to do is make governments realise how much more they can make by regulating games more. I think that gamers saying Hawaii wanting to ban them is a win is something that will come back in years to come to harm gaming. There are plenty of US senators who will happily destroy gaming as we know it to appeal to the rabid masses of misinformed concerned groups who want to blame gaming for things like high school shootings.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that all the talk about regulation is going to do is make governments realise how much more they can make by regulating games more. I think that gamers saying Hawaii wanting to ban them is a win is something that will come back in years to come to harm gaming. There are plenty of US senators who will happily destroy gaming as we know it to appeal to the rabid masses of misinformed concerned groups who want to blame gaming for things like high school shootings.

Regulating games won't make them more money because games are one product that can very easily and quickly change their business model. Governments regulate lootboxes, developers stop using lootboxes.

It's a huge leap to suggest somehow people complaining about lootboxes will result in governments "destroy(ing) gaming as we know it"... *scene missing*... "high school shootings"

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Regulating games won't make them more money because games are one product that can very easily and quickly change their business model. Governments regulate lootboxes, developers stop using lootboxes.

It's a huge leap to suggest somehow people complaining about lootboxes will result in governments "destroy(ing) gaming as we know it"... *scene missing*... "high school shootings"

I can see taxes being levied on Loot Crates and while game devs would react the only real thing they can do is list every item with a price which would ruin something like FIFA.

Gaming has often been blamed for things like mass shootings, Fox love to lay the blame on the likes of games and music and a lot of American law makers would love an easy in to shake up how gaming is regulated. Also I was not implying that gaming being changed would result in school shootings, rather that when you already have games being blamed for them already are a lot of people who would love to be able to change how games are rathed and what content they contain in order to secure easy wins.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I can see taxes being levied on Loot Crates and while game devs would react the only real thing they can do is list every item with a price which would ruin something like FIFA.

Gaming has often been blamed for things like mass shootings, Fox love to lay the blame on the likes of games and music and a lot of American law makers would love an easy in to shake up how gaming is regulated. Also I was not implying that gaming being changed would result in school shootings, rather that when you already have games being blamed for them already are a lot of people who would love to be able to change how games are rathed and what content they contain in order to secure easy wins.

Apologies, I wasn't insinuating you felt it would lead to school shootings, just that it's a leap to even bring it into the conversation. Fox, conservatives et al love to play the blame game. However, it's a game they've already been playing for decades, and it's led to nothing. Every time there is a mass shooting where it's a white teen, his collection of games is brandished everywhere.

And nothing changes, because a) the majority of people know it's bullsh*t, b) it doesn't actually score any political points because it's so low down on the priorities of most people/politicians, and c) is often thrown out as nothing more than a soundbite to placate people and then ignored.

Changes to the lootbox system to prevent and possibly regulate predatory behaviours will not change any of that. Not one iota. Games devs will introduce a different mechanic to get around it.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

Just curious as to why you seem to have no issue with Loot Crates in Overwatch and the like. All your rage seems to be aimed at EA.

Overwatch is all cosmetic, EA are now bringing in game/ability changing loot, hence the hate. Do you not think EA would just keep adding other **** into their crates that would effect the game? They have already crossed the line, now they go hog wild.

Unless they learn a lesson from this, many hope they do, Frankly I hope they go bust some day

nix

nix wrote: »

Overwatch is all cosmetic, EA are now bringing in game/ability changing loot, hence the hate. Do you not think EA would just keep adding other **** into their crates that would effect the game? They have already crossed the line, now they go hog wild.

Unless they learn a lesson from this, many hope they do, Frankly I hope they go bust some day

My point was in relation to M!CK repeatedly stating that he has a problem with loot crates because they prey on vulnerable gambling addicts and children.

gizmo

nix wrote: »

Overwatch is all cosmetic, EA are now bringing in game/ability changing loot, hence the hate. Do you not think EA would just keep adding other **** into their crates that would effect the game? They have already crossed the line, now they go hog wild.

Unless they learn a lesson from this, many hope they do, Frankly I hope they go bust some day

The point Darko and others are trying to make is that if the problem with lootboxes is that they are fundamentally gambling and hence wrong to be in games then it doesn't matter what they contain or how they're implemented, they're just wrong full stop and should be removed.

On the other hand, if the problem is simply with how they're implemented, e.g cosmetics vs. pay-to-win, then the question of whether they're gambling or not is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

This is what makes Overwatch such an important example in the topic. It may be what some deem to be a reasonable implementation of the concept but what does that matter if the concept itself is still gambling.

As for EA, would it not instead be better to press for them to use the massive resources at their disposal to just make better games rather than wishing ~8,800 lose their jobs?

Benzino

gizmo wrote: »

As for EA, would it not instead be better to press for them to use the massive resources at their disposal to just make better games rather than wishing ~8,800 lose their jobs?

Most definitely, the only people losing out if EA goes burst is their employees who have little to no say on loot boxes, not the execs who will just move on to another company.

nix

gizmo wrote: »

As for EA, would it not instead be better to press for them to use the massive resources at their disposal to just make better games

Yeah like that will ever happen :P

I'll take the 8,800 jobs :mad:

Muwhahahaha :pac:

gimli2112

Deleted User wrote: »

My point was in relation to M!CK repeatedly stating that he has a problem with loot crates because they prey on vulnerable gambling addicts and children.

I've seen reports of people spending thousands of US$ a month on microtransactions. That's either a vulnerable person or someone with too much money. While I have no sympathy for the latter some people are at real risk from things like this.

gizmo

nix wrote: »

Yeah like that will ever happen :P

I'll take the 8,800 jobs :mad:

Muwhahahaha :pac:

Well if I didn't think it already... :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Just curious as to why you seem to have no issue with Loot Crates in Overwatch and the like. All your rage seems to be aimed at EA.

Do you work for EA?

They are commonplace using the worst form of Loot-crates so yes, easier to focus on them as being the worst of the worst.

They destroy game mechanics, destroy game developers and they don't give a toss about people with addictive tendencies.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Do you work for EA?

They are commonplace using the worst form of Loot-crates so yes, easier to focus on them as being the worst of the worst.

They destroy game mechanics, destroy game developers and they don't give a toss about people with addictive tendencies.

Again, are you against loot crates only when used in the way Battlefront 2 uses them or are you against all uses of loot crates. I have no horse in this race, just find the manner in which gamers get up in arms over something one company does but then lets another away with the same thing baffling.

Also, why should companies "give a toss about people with addictive tendencies"? It's not the job of companies to look after people, what happened to personal responsibility? Do you think that ladbrooks and the like "give a toss about people with addictive tendencies"?

Stone Deaf 4evr

@ Mick and Darko.

I would love to see every loot crate removed from every single game but not because I think that we need to protect people but rather because I dislike Look Crates in general. I think their inclusion in Overwatch was a bad idea and did more damage to the gaming industry than people think. I would have no problem paying up to 100 euro for a game if it meant that there were no loot crates, additional dlc or season passes.