Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Kiith

To be fair to Darko, if the argument against loot boxes is they are gambling, then surely it doesn't matter what is inside the loot boxes. Gambling for skins is the same as gambling for 10% extra firepower from a design point of view (design of the loot box, not of the game). If that's the case, Blizzard are as bad as Activision/EA.

If the argument is loot boxes should only contain cosmetic items (and not P2W options), then talk of gambling shouldn't come into it at all.

I don't like loot boxes in any shape of form, and i refuse to accept that developers need them to turn a profit.

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

To be fair to Darko, if the argument against loot boxes is they are gambling, then surely it doesn't matter what is inside the loot boxes. Gambling for skins is the same as gambling for 10% extra firepower from a design point of view. If that's the case, Blizzard are as bad as Activision/EA.

If the argument is loot boxes should only contain cosmetic items (and not P2W options), then talk of gambling shouldn't come into it at all.

I don't like loot boxes in any shape of form, and i refuse to accept that developers need them to turn a profit.

My biggest problem with all this is how people are using the gambling argument to repeatedly beat EA with while ignoring all others. If it's really about gambling then all Loot Crates in every game have to discussed in the same sentence, it's that simple. You can't use the argument that you are concerned about the vulnerable and children and then give Blizzard, Activision, and others a free pass while calling out EA.

I would happily see all Loot Crates go away but if a developer is giving DLC and Season Passes away for free thanks to the inclusion of Loot Crates then at least gamers are getting something back. Far as I am concerned the worst Loot Crate offended is Activision who have Loot Crates, a season pass and I believe additional DLC too. That's having your cake, eating it and then wanting more. At least with Overwatch and Battlefront 2 additional season pass content is all free though I will still avoid games with Loot Crates.

kunst nugget

Kiith wrote: »

If the argument is loot boxes should only contain cosmetic items (and not P2W options), then talk of gambling shouldn't come into it at all.

My opinion would be that paid for loot boxes are gambling, regardless of their content. I think justifying one set of loot boxes over another is ridiculous.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

My biggest problem with all this is how people are using the gambling argument to repeatedly beat EA with while ignoring all others. If it's really about gambling then all Loot Crates in every game have to discussed in the same sentence, it's that simple. You can't use the argument that you are concerned about the vulnerable and children and then give Blizzard, Activision, and others a free pass while calling out EA.

I would happily see all Loot Crates go away but if a developer is giving DLC and Season Passes away for free thanks to the inclusion of Loot Crates then at least gamers are getting something back. Far as I am concerned the worst Loot Crate offended is Activision who have Loot Crates, a season pass and I believe additional DLC too. That's having your cake, eating it and then wanting more. At least with Overwatch and Battlefront 2 additional season pass content is all free though I will still avoid games with Loot Crates.

And as has been pointed out several times, there is a substantial difference in lootboxes which contain optional items such as cosmetics/emotes etc, and those which contain items which affect gameplay. The items from one are nice-to-haves, the items from the other are actually-need-to-progress-further, which means there's more of a drive to obtain the second type.

I absolutely agree Activision should be taken to task for Destiny 2 having lootboxes, microtransactions and a season pass, and have said so numerous times on the thread. This isn't a case where people are only focused on EA, however it makes absolute sense that more attention is placed on them due to how much attention the lootbox systems implemented in their games (and particularly with a huge franchise such as Star Wars) has garnered and the effects of same not just on EA but the industry as a whole.

No one is giving other companies a free pass. But EA and their implementation of lootboxes in Battlefront 2, one of the more egregious examples of such a system, is going to get more attention than others.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

And as has been pointed out several times, there is a substantial difference in lootboxes which contain optional items such as cosmetics/emotes etc, and those which contain items which affect gameplay. The items from one are nice-to-haves, the items from the other are actually-need-to-progress-further, which means there's more of a drive to obtain the second type.

I absolutely agree Activision should be taken to task for Destiny 2 having lootboxes, microtransactions and a season pass, and have said so numerous times on the thread. This isn't a case where people are only focused on EA, however it makes absolute sense that more attention is placed on them due to how much attention the lootbox systems implemented in their games (and particularly with a huge franchise such as Star Wars) has garnered and the effects of same not just on EA but the industry as a whole.

No one is giving other companies a free pass. But EA and their implementation of lootboxes in Battlefront 2, one of the more egregious examples of such a system, is going to get more attention than others.

Plenty of people on here arguing that Loot Crates are bad due to the gambling aspect and then only attacking EA. If even a small part of your argument against Loot Crates is based on how they are gambling then the contents of the Loot Crate does not matter.

Also, if you that the anger is based on the fact that it gives an in-game advantage then why have we not had years of people complaining about the shortcuts in Battlefield?

I played a little bit of Battlefront 2 and while you can get some add-ons the in-game advantage isn't all that much. As I said, I know someone who spent real-world money to get Darth Vader and has only managed to get enough in-game credits to spawn as him twice. He spent the best part of 100 euro on the Loot Crates and is still awful at the game generally finishing in the bottom 3 of each game he plays. If the game was pay to win then he was ripped off as we were playing together and while I spent 0 euro was finishing way above him in the end game rankings.

I will clarify once again that I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to hit gaming in years but think that if you want to argue about protecting the vulnerable and children as some in this thread and others have done then it should not matter if the contents of the Crate are an in-game shield that never depletes making you invincible or if it's a thumb up emote.

nix

I don't think anybody is defending lootcrates of any kind here Darko, we're just really against the implementation of game/stat altering lootcrates because that effects the game more than just visually/cosmetically. You appear to be taking the lack of attack on the other companies as a form of defense, which its not.

EA are being highlighted and attacked above all others because they are the only ones who dish out crates which are more than just cosmetic. PAYTOWIN is much more of an issue vs virtual barbie, which is why were attacking EA over the others.

However the reality is lootcrates will never go away, they may take the RNG out of them, but they will then just give you the option to choose which content you want to buy as a work around alternative. The important end game here is to make sure they don't touch the game mechanics with this ****, but i share in everybody's opinion that they would like to see them all gone entirely.

nix

nix wrote: »

I don't think anybody is defending lootcrates of any kind here Darko, we're just really against the implementation of game/stat altering lootcrates because that effects the game more than just visually/cosmetically. You appear to be taking the lack of attack on the other companies as a form of defense, which its not.

EA are being highlighted and attacked above all others because they are the only ones who dish out crates which are more than just cosmetic. PAYTOWIN is much more of an issue vs virtual barbie, which is why were attacking EA over the others.

However the reality is lootcrates will never go away, they may take the RNG out of them, but they will then just give you the option to choose which content you want to buy as a work around alternative. The important end game here is to make sure they don't touch the game mechanics with this ****, but i share in everybody's opinion that they would like to see them all gone entirely.

Again, my issue with the current attacks is that many people are using the "it's gambling and we need to protect children and the vulnerable" as their main argument but are only using it to attack EA. If it is gambling then the contents of the crate do not matter. If you use the gambling argument to defend your position on Loot Crates then you can't say that one company is worse than another.

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, my issue with the current attacks is that many people are using the "it's gambling and we need to protect children and the vulnerable" as their main argument but are only using it to attack EA. If it is gambling then the contents of the crate do not matter. If you use the gambling argument to defend your position on Loot Crates then you can't say that one company is worse than another.

While I generally disagree with the gambling argument, again the loot boxes which contain items which can affect gameplay and make your character stronger is more likely to encourage people to want to buy them, because they will feel they need them to progress. That is an integral difference between the two.

Cosmetics are always completely optional. Enhancers aren't.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

While I generally disagree with the gambling argument, again the loot boxes which contain items which can affect gameplay and make your character stronger is more likely to encourage people to want to buy them, because they will feel they need them to progress. That is an integral difference between the two.

Cosmetics are always completely optional. Enhancers aren't.

If you are using the argument that it is gambling then there is no difference. It either is gambling or it isn't. It's like saying that someone sells two different scratchcards, one gives out prizes such as hats and glasses and the other offers cash prizes. Are both a form of gambling or just the latter?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are using the argument that it is gambling then there is no difference. It either is gambling or it isn't. It's like saying that someone sells two different scratchcards, one gives out prizes such as hats and glasses and the other offers cash prizes. Are both a form of gambling or just the latter?

Both. One is worse than the other, but both are gambling. There is a difference between them.

Again, cosmetic items are purely optional. Items/skills/powerups to make your characters stronger or give you an advantage aren't optional, because it's the objective of such systems to make your character stronger. It's required to make your character stronger.

The lootbox system, regardless of what's in them, are inherently gambling. I don't deny that. I think it's an aspect of the discussion which is being overblown and doesn't have the effect some claim it will. I also think the onus isn't on the devs or publishers to protect gamers who may be predisposed to gambling or addiction.

However, one type of lootbox is worse than the other, because one is tied to progression in the game. Which means people are more likely to buy those than cosmetics in order to compete against others, because the cosmetics don't affect anything. You said it yourself, your mate spent €100 on lootboxes for Battlefront 2 and he was still sh*t at the game. Sounds to me like maybe he spent that money on lootboxes because he felt it'd help him improve. Or kept spending money because he wasn't getting the good items which would help him due to the RNG of the lootboxes.

gimli2112

I don't think the gambling piece is a problem for most people but for a certain segment of the population it certainly is. Neither the gambling aspect or the progression lootboxes as they are at present affect me. What worries me is that left unchecked it develops into stuff you must have to progress your character or compete online.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Both. One is worse than the other, but both are gambling. There is a difference between them.

Again, cosmetic items are purely optional. Items/skills/powerups to make your characters stronger or give you an advantage aren't optional, because it's the objective of such systems to make your character stronger. It's required to make your character stronger.

The lootbox system, regardless of what's in them, are inherently gambling. I don't deny that. I think it's an aspect of the discussion which is being overblown and doesn't have the effect some claim it will. I also think the onus isn't on the devs or publishers to protect gamers who may be predisposed to gambling or addiction.

However, one type of lootbox is worse than the other, because one is tied to progression in the game. Which means people are more likely to buy those than cosmetics in order to compete against others, because the cosmetics don't affect anything. You said it yourself, your mate spent €100 on lootboxes for Battlefront 2 and he was still sh*t at the game. Sounds to me like maybe he spent that money on lootboxes because he felt it'd help him improve. Or kept spending money because he wasn't getting the good items which would help him due to the RNG of the lootboxes.

The thing is that if you want to use the argument that Loot Boxes are gambling then you cannot defend one over the other, if you try to then your entire argument is void. The argument you seem to be making now is that gambling isn't too bad if the prize is worthless or gives you no advantage. If it has gotten to the point where the Loot Crates is gambling argument is now being used to beat EA because some gambling is worse than others then it's time to drop it entirely as it just seems comical. E

The guy I know who bought the Loot Crates did so because he has money to spare and wanted to pay to win, he realised that Battlefront 2 isn't pay to win and that you actually have to be good at the game in order to win in it. He spent the money because he can well afford to and the thing is that, people keep saying the game was pay to win but he paid and ended up doing as poorly as if he hadn't bought anything. Sure he had Darth Vader unlocked but he never gets enough ingame credits to spawn as Vader which goes to show what happens when click bait journalists and forums take something and run with it before actually looking into it. In fact, from talking to him he only thought that the game was pay to win because of Reddit, videos from the likes of Jim Sterling and websites writing about how the game was pay to iwn.

kunst nugget

Penn wrote: »

The lootbox system, regardless of what's in them, are inherently gambling. I don't deny that. I think it's an aspect of the discussion which is being overblown and doesn't have the effect some claim it will. I also think the onus isn't on the devs or publishers to protect gamers who may be predisposed to gambling or addiction.

If they don't have the effect some claim, how is Overwatch able to continue to fund itself with purely cosmetic lootboxes? They're obviously proving very attractive to a certain subset of players. I don't think the argument is really being overblown when you see the amounts people are spending on the likes of Fifa's Ultimate Team.

It's true, the onus isn't on the developers or publishers to protect gamers just like it isn't the onus of Paddy Power to not allow children to gamble but shouldn't we, as a society, not be trying to help protect people that are vulnerable to this psychological manipulation?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is that if you want to use the argument that Loot Boxes are gambling then you cannot defend one over the other, if you try to then your entire argument is void.

Only if you consider gambling on getting the toy you want in a Kinder Egg and betting on the horses to be gambling on an equal footing.

Degree matters. Again, I generally disagree with the gambling aspect and feel it's overblown. However, the cosmetic items have no inherent value (aside from what the people themselves ascribe to them) whereas gameplay items do. As such there is an incentive built in to the game to encourage people to spend money on them. The prize on offer has a substantial impact on risk vs reward.

ps3lover

I used to work in a game stop and you'd have the same kids coming in every week buying €20 PSN points to buy things for Fifa. I know it's a business and everything but I'd always feel bad for em. I don't play FIFA so I don't understand what you could be buying that would cost you €20 weekly. Feels like taking advantage of kids.

kunst nugget

ps3lover wrote: »

Feels like taking advantage of kids.

That's because it is taking advantage of kids.

Penn

kunst nugget wrote: »

If they don't have the effect some claim, how is Overwatch able to continue to fund itself with purely cosmetic lootboxes? They're obviously proving very attractive to a certain subset of players. I don't think the argument is really being overblown when you see the amounts people are spending on the likes of Fifa's Ultimate Team.

Overwatch is one of the best selling games of recent years, and still sells well. The lootboxes aren't the only thing funding the game and the additional content. But yes, lots of people do buy the lootboxes. As I said in my most recent post, the cosmetic items hold no value except that to which the individual ascribes to it. Someone might really want a certain D-Va skin, and so buys lootboxes hoping to either get it, or get enough credits to buy it.

Fifa Ultimate Team is more akin to the Battlefront side of things as you get players who can improve your team, and as such it affects gameplay.

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's true, the onus isn't on the developers or publishers to protect gamers just like it isn't the onus of Paddy Power to not allow children to gamble but shouldn't we, as a society, not be trying to help protect people that are vulnerable to this psychological manipulation?

To an extent, yes, and maybe a warning label on game cases or similar would suffice. However children can't spend money on buying lootboxes unless their parents have set it up on their account to be able to do so, so the onus is on the parents. Likewise, those who suffer from addiction (gambling tendencies in particular) should educate themselves if a game has lootboxes or similar and avoid such games.

Though this comes back to my point which is that if lootboxes are cosmetic only, there's less of an incentive to buy them (both for children and adults) because the items are nice-to-haves rather than something which affects gameplay.

kunst nugget

Penn wrote: »

Only if you consider gambling on getting the toy you want in a Kinder Egg and betting on the horses to be gambling on an equal footing.

Degree matters. Again, I generally disagree with the gambling aspect and feel it's overblown. However, the cosmetic items have no inherent value (aside from what the people themselves ascribe to them) whereas gameplay items do. As such there is an incentive built in to the game to encourage people to spend money on them. The prize on offer has a substantial impact on risk vs reward.

The argument really seems to boil down to 'those lootboxes are okay because some other loser will buy them but these lootboxes are bad because I'd end up having to buy them.'

To me, reading up about lootboxes has been an eye-opener. I honestly think they are the most insidious practice in modern gaming and to defend them in any form is crazy.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Only if you consider gambling on getting the toy you want in a Kinder Egg and betting on the horses to be gambling on an equal footing.

Degree matters. Again, I generally disagree with the gambling aspect and feel it's overblown. However, the cosmetic items have no inherent value (aside from what the people themselves ascribe to them) whereas gameplay items do. As such there is an incentive built in to the game to encourage people to spend money on them. The prize on offer has a substantial impact on risk vs reward.

So the argument now is that Overwatch Loot Crates aren't gambling because they are more like Kinder eggs comparted to Battlefront 2 Loot Crates which are more like betting on horse races?

To be honest, once you try to argue that one type of gambling is better than the other you just need to give up. Either Loot Crates are gambling or they are not. If they are gambling then an Overwatch Loot Crate is the same as a Battlefront 2 Loot Crate. Yes Degrees matter but I do think that in order to consider something gambling then there has to be a level of risk to it, with Loot Crates in all games you are guaranteed a reward, the only thing you have to ask is if the reward is one you value. If you can point me in the direction of a casino or betting office where I can place a bet and always be guaranteed something in return that would be great.

ps3lover wrote: »

I used to work in a game stop and you'd have the same kids coming in every week buying €20 PSN points to buy things for Fifa. I know it's a business and everything but I'd always feel bad for em. I don't play FIFA so I don't understand what you could be buying that would cost you €20 weekly. Feels like taking advantage of kids.

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's because it is taking advantage of kids.

Maybe the parents should do their job and not be giving their kids almost 1000 euro a year to spend on packs then.

Internet Friend

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe the parents should do their job and not be giving their kids almost 1000 euro a year to spend on packs then.

Maybe the game developers should stop enabling this sort of behaviour in the first place...

kunst nugget

Penn wrote: »

To an extent, yes, and maybe a warning label on game cases or similar would suffice. However children can't spend money on buying lootboxes unless their parents have set it up on their account to be able to do so, so the onus is on the parents. Likewise, those who suffer from addiction (gambling tendencies in particular) should educate themselves if a game has lootboxes or similar and avoid such games.

ps3lover gave the example of kids going in and buying €20 cards of Fifa Points which is a way around putting the money on their parent's account. And seriously, people might not be aware enough to know that they have addictive tendencies before they go to play a game with loot boxes.

I really don't think a warning label is sufficient.

Mickeroo

Do people really think most of the money made from loot boxes comes from kids?

Internet Friend

Internet Friend wrote: »

Maybe the game developers should stop enabling this sort of behaviour in the first place...

What sort of behavior, this is getting farcical. We've reached the "won't somebody think of the children" levels now. Maybe we should stop the sale of Kinder eggs as some poor child may spend money trying to get the toy he really wants.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

So the argument now is that Overwatch Loot Crates aren't gambling because they are more like Kinder eggs comparted to Battlefront 2 Loot Crates which are more like betting on horse races?

To be honest, once you try to argue that one type of gambling is better than the other you just need to give up. Either Loot Crates are gambling or they are not. If they are gambling then an Overwatch Loot Crate is the same as a Battlefront 2 Loot Crate. Yes Degrees matter but I do think that in order to consider something gambling then there has to be a level of risk to it, with Loot Crates in all games you are guaranteed a reward, the only thing you have to ask is if the reward is one you value. If you can point me in the direction of a casino or betting office where I can place a bet and always be guaranteed something in return that would be great.

Again though, with cosmetic items the value for same is largely determined by the consumer, and how much they want it. With gameplay-affecting items however, it's not a want, but a need. That changes it on the scale of risk vs reward, and as such is very similar to, but ultimately different than, knowing you will get cosmetic items only.

Internet Friend

Deleted User wrote: »

What sort of behavior, this is getting farcical.

Uhm...

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe the parents should do their job and not be giving their kids almost 1000 euro a year to spend on packs then.

This sort of behaviour. If it wasn't there in the first place little Jimmy can't go crying to mammy / daddy looking for money so that he "might" get an OP weapon (etc) he wants. Doesn't get what he wants + cycle starts again = feedback loop. This is enabling.

The problem with your analogy of the Kinder Egg is that you get the full toy in the egg. You don't have to go buying more Kinder Eggs in the hope that you find the exact same toy and it happens to have the part you're missing.

Penn

kunst nugget wrote: »

ps3lover gave the example of kids going in and buying €20 cards of Fifa Points which is a way around putting the money on their parent's account. And seriously, people might not be aware enough to know that they have addictive tendencies before they go to play a game with loot boxes.

I really don't think a warning label is sufficient.

And I don't think completely banning them outright is necessary to protect a minority from themselves. I'm all for a middle ground, but I think the argument that somehow children or people with addictive tendencies are being drawn into and corrupted by gambling due to lootboxes is overhyped.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Again though, with cosmetic items the value for same is largely determined by the consumer, and how much they want it. With gameplay-affecting items however, it's not a want, but a need. That changes it on the scale of risk vs reward, and as such is very similar to, but ultimately different than, knowing you will get cosmetic items only.

The same argument can be made for noncosmetic items. In fact, if I am not mistaken do most games that have cosmetic Loot Crates not have rarer items and items which are character specific resulting in players spending money trying to obtain the items they want/need.

Your argument is that it is a need but as there are other ways to get the rewards then is it really a need? No matter how you cut it, either all Loot Crates are gambling are the aren't. It's that simple, you can't start saying "well this is less gambling than that".

I do want to find a casino where I am guaranteed something when I place a bet. I spent some time in Vegas recently and must have missed the casinos where you were always guaranteed some return on your bet.

Benzino

Internet Friend wrote: »

Maybe the game developers should stop enabling this sort of behaviour in the first place...

Maybe Coca Cola should stop enabling people getting too much sugar in their diet. Maybe Guinness should stop enabling alcoholism.

Or maybe people should have some self control and discipline.

Internet Friend

Internet Friend wrote: »

Uhm...



This sort of behaviour. If it wasn't there in the first place little Jimmy can't go crying to mammy / daddy looking for money so that he "might" get an OP weapon (etc) he wants. Doesn't get what he wants + cycle starts again = feedback loop. This is enabling.

The problem with your analogy of the Kinder Egg is that you get the full toy in the egg. You don't have to go buying more Kinder Eggs in the hope that you find the exact same toy and it happens to have the part you're missing.

But what if you don't get the toy you want? What if you wanted the car and got a jigsaw. Also, if you are unable to say no to your child when it comes to things like Loot Crates then maybe you aren't a very good parent. Also, Loot Crates are generally in games aimed at adults and not children, if a child is playing Battlefront 2 or Overwatch then that is another parent failing. It kind of reminds me of those outraged parents who complain about their kids playing GTAV and then it turns out that the parent got the game for their little angel.

Benzino

Penn wrote: »

And I don't think completely banning them outright is necessary to protect a minority from themselves. I'm all for a middle ground, but I think the argument that somehow children or people with addictive tendencies are being drawn into and corrupted by gambling due to lootboxes is overhyped.

It's totally overhyped, and doesn't make much sense. The argument here was that because you cannot sell the contents of the loot box, it's gambling as opposed to a kinder egg where you have something you can sell.

Sure if that was the case then casino's would just give you a packet of tayto every time you "lost", which is something that has monetary value and thus is not gambling. :pac: