Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

SolvableKnave

Benzino wrote: »

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:

They do give out free drink though...

Internet Friend

Deleted User wrote: »

But what if you don't get the toy you want? What if you wanted the car and got a jigsaw.

That's exactly the point! Feedback loop for anyone (not just kids) who wants a specific item. To use your kinder egg analogy again, for me anyway, it comes down to expectation. I buy a kinder egg expecting to get a random toy and a mediocre chocolate egg thing in it, which is exactly what I get. I buy games expecting to have the intended launch content contained therein and achievable through reasonable in game mechanics and not locked behind a paywall, where I might not even get it.

Are we all forgetting how things used to be done in games? Weapons / mods / characters unlocked by completing specific tasks / gaining enough XP to achieve them. It was guaranteed. That's not exactly the case anymore and you're now "encouraged" to play a game of risk with your own money in the hope you might get them. This is all on top of the initial cost of the game. That's just ridiculous and a shameless cash grab be developers.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I agree, but it does happen and unfortunately kids do play these games.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

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.

Gaming companies hire teams of psychologists to exploit vulnerabilities in people to extract as much money as possible out of them and you've really got no problem with that?

Varik

Benzino wrote: »

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.

Don't know who's argument that was, but it makes no sense in that order. It's not gambling if you can make money off of It?

Has any county actually given a answer other than no it's not gambling, Belgium is still looking at it despite miss translated reports.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Gaming companies hire teams of psychologists to exploit vulnerabilities in people to extract as much money as possible out of them and you've really got no problem with that?

And supermarkets put the bakery by the door and sweet by the cheque out. Ban those too.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

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.

I actually think you've got it totally mixed up, even though to all intents and purposes it is gambling, it can't technically be classed as such because the goods you receive have no monetary value. Which means the gaming companies are even cannier than the bookies because they don't have to worry about having to pay out any money.

kunst nugget

Varik wrote: »

And supermarkets put the bakery by the door and sweet by the cheque out. Ban those too.

Actually, Tesco no longer put sweets at the check-out due to consumer pressure. Hopefully, it's the sort of thing that can happen with lootboxes in games.

Internet Friend

Internet Friend wrote: »

That's exactly the point! Feedback loop for anyone (not just kids) who wants a specific item. To use your kinder egg analogy again, for me anyway, it comes down to expectation. I buy a kinder egg expecting to get a random toy and a mediocre chocolate egg thing in it, which is exactly what I get. I buy games expecting to have the intended launch content contained therein and achievable through reasonable in game mechanics and not locked behind a paywall, where I might not even get it.

Are we all forgetting how things used to be done in games? Weapons / mods / characters unlocked by completing specific tasks / gaining enough XP to achieve them. It was guaranteed. That's not exactly the case anymore and you're now "encouraged" to play a game of risk with your own money in the hope you might get them. This is all on top of the initial cost of the game. That's just ridiculous and a shameless cash grab be developers.

I agree, but it does happen and unfortunately kids do play these games.

All the contents for Battlefront 2 can be got by playing the game. The only difference between playing the game to unlock Loot Crates and buying them with real money if the option was still there, was that you could get them quicker.

I do love the argument that it's gambling if you can get an in-game advantage but not gambling if they just contain cosmetic items.

Varik wrote: »

Don't know who's argument that was, but it makes no sense in that order. It's not gambling if you can make money off of It?

Has any county actually given a answer other than no it's not gambling, the Dutch are still looking at it despite miss translated reports.

New Zealand said today that they don't see Loot Crates as gambling. In an email, to Gamasutra the New Zealand Gambling Compliance office stated that “the Department is of the view that loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling.”

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Actually, Tesco no longer put sweets at the check-out due to consumer pressure. Hopefully, it's the sort of thing that can happen with lootboxes in games.

Why stop there, after all Ireland now has a sugar tax and possible minimum pricing for alcohol. Maybe we can have alcohol, sweets, soft drinks and anything that may be harmful in any way to a minority of the population removed from sale everywhere.

dudeeile

Unfollow

Varik

Deleted User wrote: »

New Zealand said today that they don't see Loot Crates as gambling. In an email, to Gamasutra the New Zealand Gambling Compliance office stated that “the Department is of the view that loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling.”

That's why I mentioned it, another country saying it isn't gambling. I can't see any so far that have said it is, other than Belgium who're still contemplating it.

It can't be banned, the worse that can be done is the same as mobile games now being listed with in game purchases rather than free.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Why stop there, after all Ireland now has a sugar tax and possible minimum pricing for alcohol. Maybe we can have alcohol, sweets, soft drinks and anything that may be harmful in any way to a minority of the population removed from sale everywhere.

Yeah, yeah, we're getting into Nanny State Bingo time here.

We're dealing with an unregulated market that is seemingly free to do what it can to exploit its customers for as much money as possible once it skirts around inadequate legislation and pretends that it's not really gambling. But hey, it's really just stupid people's fault…

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, we're getting into Nanny State Bingo time here.

We're dealing with an unregulated market that is seemingly free to do what it can to exploit its customers for as much money as possible once it skirts around inadequate legislation and pretends that it's not really gambling. But hey, it's really just stupid people's fault…

Multiple governments regulatory bodies have said it is not gambling, just because you think it is gambling not mean that it is. I would be happy to see all Loot Crates disappear, not just ones that people think are pay to win but cosmetic Crates too. Not because I think they are gambling but rather because I dislike the idea of them.

Benzino

Varik wrote: »

Don't know who's argument that was, but it makes no sense in that order. It's not gambling if you can make money off of It?

That was the argument given to me alright:

Benzino wrote: »

Premier League stickers, Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh card packs should all be banned too in that case. And Kinder Surprises probably.

Happy meals too, McDonalds getting kids into gambling early, the feckers!

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You can sell them

Not directly related but still, backtracking from Activision after attempting some more ****ty practices
More so supports the notion that speaking out does make a difference as we have seen multiple times this year

Shapey Fiend

Aiming these sorts of things at children does suck. I think there are repercussions to telling a child no a lot as well. It's a bit like all sorts of places like clothes shops, barbers, hardware shops nowadays have sweets and toys displayed at low level at tills where you'd be queueing.

All child related transactions now come with a lollypop.

Take your eye off a toddler they're going to have the packet open or have unwrapped something. You end up saying "put that back" 20 times more often than my folks would have had to. You'd rather distract them or take their mind off it rather than reject the thing out of hand constantly.

My kids not too bad with this kind of stuff but god help you if they've a more intense makeup you're going to be in constant battle. For that reason I think there should be some sort of controls that don't outright ban it but limit the degree of pester power. I'm not a fan of extremes the sugar tax is a prime example. They're ruining all the soft and dilutable drinks I used enjoy and replacing them with artificial sweeteners I don't think are particularly great for you.

Shapey Fiend

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

Aiming these sorts of things at children does suck. I think there are repercussions to telling a child no a lot as well. It's a bit like all sorts of places like clothes shops, barbers, hardware shops nowadays have sweets and toys displayed at low level at tills where you'd be queueing.

All child related transactions now come with a lollypop.

Take your eye off a toddler they're going to have the packet open or have unwrapped something. You end up saying "put that back" 20 times more often than my folks would have had to. You'd rather distract them or take their mind off it rather than reject the thing out of hand constantly.

My kids not too bad with this kind of stuff but god help you if they've a more intense makeup you're going to be in constant battle. For that reason I think there should be some sort of controls that don't outright ban it but limit the degree of pester power. I'm not a fan of extremes the sugar tax is a prime example. They're ruining all the soft and dilutable drinks I used enjoy and replacing them with artificial sweeteners I don't think are particularly great for you.

There is a control, it's called not letting kids unfettered access to an adults credit card. Also known as doing your job as a parent. Also, these Loot Crates aren't aimed at kids, they are aimed at adults who have more money than sense, they are aimed at those adults who have enough disposable income that dropping hundreds of euro on ingame items means nothing.

Shapey Fiend

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a control, it's called not letting kids unfettered access to an adults credit card. Also known as doing your job as a parent. Also, these Loot Crates aren't aimed at kids, they are aimed at adults who have more money than sense, they are aimed at those adults who have enough disposable income that dropping hundreds of euro on ingame items means nothing.

Half the people playing CoD, Battlefield and FIFA are 8 years old so you can hardly say they're not aimed at children. I'd have no problem with the 8 year old playing a bit of CoD if he wanted to shoot some of his schoolmates in the face so long as it's in the living room and I can hear the voice chat.

Not many kids have unfettered access. They're given xbox live credit once a month or something.

I'm talking sensible controls here about how often a game pushes a transaction at someone. Similar the the amount of advertising allowed in a kids program.

Hell, determine the age of the player from their profile and then set the degree of controls that way.

I'm not arguing that parents shouldn't have to tell their child no. That's a healthy and normal thing. But if there's a finely tuned mechanism between you and the child to manipulate pester power then that kind of sucks.

Now I think we're in a world that's constantly pushing quasi gambling surprise nonsense at every kid from the word go and it does suck. Same reason arcades largely suck now everything is geared towards Redemption that gives you tickets in exchange from trash that costs 50 cents. The end result with most kids is they lose interest because it's ultimately unsatisfying. They get smarter and learn about what is and what isn't good value. However not every child or even teenager is properly equipped to deal with this stuff well so they'll be at war with their parent regardless of how often the parent says no.

Shapey Fiend

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

Half the people playing CoD, Battlefield and FIFA are 8 years old so you can hardly say they're not aimed at children.

Not many kids have unfettered access. They're given xbox live credit once a month or something.

I'm talking sensible controls here about how often a game pushes a transaction at someone. Similar the the amount of advertising allowed in a kids program.

Hell, determine the age of the player from their profile and then set the degree of controls that way.

I'm not arguing that parents shouldn't have to tell their child no. That's a healthy and normal thing. But if there's a finely tuned mechanism between you and the child to manipulate pester power then that kind of sucks.

Now I think we're in a world that's constantly pushing quasi gambling surprise nonsense at every kid from the word go and it does suck. Same reason arcades largely suck now everything is geared towards Redemption that gives you tickets in exchange from trash that costs 50 cents. The end result with most kids is they lose interest because it's ultimately unsatisfying. They get smarter and learn about what is and what isn't good value. However not every child has the same reasoning. God help you if they've some sort of compulsive disorder.

Loads of kids play GTAV, does that mean that it's aimed at kids too? Just because parents ignore the ratings on games or are too lazy to check if something is fit for their kids does not mean that games are aimed at kids. Plenty of kids will see the film It, does that mean that the film is aimed at them?

If you have a child and can't say no to it and stand by the no then that is your failing as a parent.

Shapey Fiend

Why must you simplify it to just say no like I'm saying you shouldn't say no. Of course you say no the issue is how often that has to be the case.

GTAV is of course unsuitable for an 8 year old. What's unsuitable about FIFA bar the lootboxes?

I saw the original IT with my older brother when I was about 8 years old. Scared the ****e out of me to be fair.

I was watching all sorts of violent 80's movies at the time.

How hard would it be to set lootboxes to off if the game profile was >16 years old? Problem solved.

In my view the trick with disciplining a child is picking your battles. You have to concentrate on the important ones and let some of the others go or else there's no release valve. The things you choose to be hard on you have to follow through consistently and to the letter so having to do more of that because of dick corporations is extra hassle that really shouldn't be as much of a problem for parents as it has become. Note: my child hasn't been exposed to microtransactions but I've seen plenty of people with teenagers struggling with this. With parents separated, grandparents and extended family in the picture you have to start telling other people "Don't give them money for this or that" as well it's a minefield.

Shapey Fiend

Shapey Fiend wrote:

How hard would it be to set lootboxes to off if the game profile was >16 years old? Problem solved.

To play an a game online in Ireland you have to be 16. If for example you have a child under 16 and you created them their own gamertag using their real date of birth then they cannot access any of the online content of Battlefront 2. It's your duty as a parent to set up a child account and keep an eye on them and what they do.

Potential-Monke

Yeah, I haven't been reading the majority of the loot box 'discussion; but I wholeheartedly agree that the onus for children playing games above their age group lies with the parents and no one else. If you let you kids play games under their age group, you have no recourse with the content they access. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. Sony, MS, Nintendo, Apple, they all have systems in place to control content for kids. If you don't or won't use them, again, you have no recourse.

So the loot box issue in CoD, as Darko says above, you have to be 16 to play so it's not aimed at kids.

Penn

I agree also (finally Darko, we agree on something ). Kids playing games with lootboxes or having the ability to spend money on lootboxes or the likes is the responsibility of the parents.

Even if there are kids mobile/tablet games with lootbox mechanics, the parents should have it so they can't spend money on them.

Varik

Penn wrote: »

I agree also (finally Darko, we agree on something ). Kids playing games with lootboxes or having the ability to spend money on lootboxes or the likes is the responsibility of the parents.

Even if there are kids mobile/tablet games with lootbox mechanics, the parents should have it so they can't spend money on them.

Just on the Mobile games, when they changed it so instead of saying a game was free it said in-app purchases it was a good thing.

That's all that should be done, this game has in-game purchases, subs, requires Plus/Live.

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a control, it's called not letting kids unfettered access to an adults credit card. Also known as doing your job as a parent. Also, these Loot Crates aren't aimed at kids, they are aimed at adults who have more money than sense, they are aimed at those adults who have enough disposable income that dropping hundreds of euro on ingame items means nothing.

They're not aimed at people with "more money than sense", they're aimed at people who like to/are prone to gamble - just because someone drops €500+ into a game doesn't mean they can actually "afford" it!

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote:

They're not aimed at people with "more money than sense", they're aimed at people who like to/are prone to gamble - just because someone drops €500+ into a game doesn't mean they can actually "afford" it!

They aren't aimed at vulnerable gamblers, no matter how much people like to say they are. publishers have no interest in people who drop a couple of hundred, its the players who spend tens of thousands that Loot Crates and the like are aimed at.

A friend has a mobile game, he's done very well from it and a player who spends €500-2000 is nothing, he'd happily not have them in the game as it's the whales, the guys dropping hundreds in game every week that his in game purchases are is aimed at. I know of one game published by a pretty big company that has 10 players whose in game spend combined is just under 12 million dollars. Do you really think that the publishers of game like that care about someone spending hundreds of euro in game.

Shapey Fiend

I never comprehended people doing that. You'd often hear with rich people years ago that they'd money because they didn't spend it but now the 1% can spend indiscriminately. Perhaps the young wealthy are less concerned with status symbols like cars now and are dropping equivalent sums on ****ing mobile games.

To be fair a podcast I listen to a podcast (No Agenda) for the last 10 years runs on donations and there are plenty of people who've dropped a few grand over a period of months. I wouldn't know what the breakdown is but the emphasis is very much on the large donators.

EoinHef

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They aren't aimed at vulnerable gamblers, no matter how much people like to say they are. publishers have no interest in people who drop a couple of hundred, its the players who spend tens of thousands that Loot Crates and the like are aimed at.

A friend has a mobile game, he's done very well from it and a player who spends €500-2000 is nothing, he'd happily not have them in the game as it's the whales, the guys dropping hundreds in game every week that his in game purchases are is aimed at. I know of one game published by a pretty big company that has 10 players whose in game spend combined is just under 12 million dollars. Do you really think that the publishers of game like that care about someone spending hundreds of euro in game.

You have absolutely no idea who the crates are aimed at if were honest,only the devs could tell us that and there hardly gonna say "We aim them at kids/vulnerable people" are they.

You mates game isnt eveidence to the contrary,its one sample with numbers that are not public so doesnt prove anything either way.

Gregk961

Slightly sidestepping the Issue of gambling for a moment...Is it not just me that finds Rockstar's shark cards the most offensive of all these AAA microtransactions?

I logged into Gta for the first time in a while to try out the new heist(the previous heist update years back was brilliant). I should have known better but I was actually suprised to find it locked behind whats basically a paywall(or hours upon hours of mind numbing grinding) Gta online dosnt seem to get nearly the same criticism as various other games.

EoinHef

I agree,GTA V for me is one of the worst examples of gameplay designed to drive players towards microtransactions.

People will say the updates have been free,which they have,but the "content" is often locked behind grind/pay walls. And not an insubstantial grind wall either. Put me right off the game after initially really liking it. The racing updates get a pass as they dont really have any special requirements but everything else seems to.

Gregk961

EoinHef wrote: »

I agree,GTA V for me is one of the worst examples of gameplay designed to drive players towards microtransactions.

People will say the updates have been free,which they have,but the "content" is often locked behind grind/pay walls. And not an insubstantial grind wall either. Put me right off the game after initially really liking it. The racing updates get a pass as they dont really have any special requirements but everything else seems to.

I kind of disregard the "free" excuse when I see some of the figures that GTA Online turns over.

Ya its 100% designed in a way that guides you towards buying shark cards. Even small things like getting constant phone calls until you buy that new Office/bunker/hanger-each of which costs about €20 or 10 hours of really inane grinding(rough numbers but you get the idea). Read online that all the new content in the latest GTA:Online patch would cost $1000 of real cash thats a mental figure for 1 update.

Funnily enough the second most blatant game I have encountered for shoving people towards spending real cash is NBA2k which is ultimately owned by the same lizard overlords as GTA.