Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

EoinHef

EoinHef wrote:

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.

They won't because they aren't aimed at them. There been many multiple statements by executives in which the world whale is used to describe the target audience of these types of in game purchases. Do you really think game publishers aim loot crates at kids, you know the people with amongst the least disposable income around. They are aimed at those with money, those gamers who can afford to spend €500 a week in game and think nothing of it.

The fact that kids games don't have loot crates would point toward them not being aimed at kids unless BF2, CoD:WWII and Destiny 2 are now kids games.

EoinHef wrote:

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

Based on his game, other game developers and various industry heads I've spoken to. They've all said they want whales buying the content.

Varik

Games with micro transactions aimed at kids then to go mobile route with small cheap purchases that guarantee something (you've ran out of stamina buy a 1 stamina stone to continue playing today or wait a few hours).

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

They are aimed at those with money, those gamers who can afford to spend €500 a week in game and think nothing of it.

K.O.Kiki has made the point that just because you see people spending lots of money on these games doesn't necessarily mean that they can really afford to spend it. These games, and lootboxes, are aimed at people prone to the dopamine rush that games of chance give - they don't care whether your bank balance can sustain it.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

K.O.Kiki has made the point that just because you see people spending lots of money on these games doesn't necessarily mean that they can really afford to spend it. These games, and lootboxes, are aimed at people prone to the dopamine rush that games of chance give - they don't care whether your bank balance can sustain it.

You'd think that those addicted to gambling would be doing actual gambling, not sitting at home opening loot crates in games. Are loot crates really a game of chance considering that no matter what you open you are guaranteed something in return. With gambling there is an element of risk, there is a chance that you can bet and get nothing in return. Surely those addicted to gambling would get little from taking a chance on something that guarantees them something in return.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd think that those addicted to gambling would be doing actual gambling, not sitting at home opening loot crates in games. Are loot crates really a game of chance considering that no matter what you open you are guaranteed something in return. With gambling there is an element of risk, there is a chance that you can bet and get nothing in return. Surely those addicted to gambling would get little from taking a chance on something that guarantees them something in return.

Check out the articles about lootboxes and the psychological effects they have. They are designed to replicate the feeling one gets from gambling in terms of creating a dopamine rush. Gambling and its addiction are not just purely down to reward - if it was, people would give up after their first big loss - its effects are a bit more pernicious than that - gambling addicts are more addicted to the state of uncertainty and possibility fueled by dopamine that comes before the result than the financial gain element of it. Dopamine is a funny chemical and does lots of crazy stuff in our heads. It is essential for healthy brains but too much of it swirling around in there can create all different types of crazy behaviours. Gaming companies are taking advantage of the effects dopamine has on our systems with lootboxes and their randomness. It really is something that should be properly regulated imo. People might not think they have addictive personalities because they stay away from traditional gambling but could end up pumping hundreds into lootboxes for no other reason than the thrill it gives. If you can afford it, fair enough but if you can't it's going to start creating problems for you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/what_is_dopamine_love_lust_sex_addiction_gambling_motivation_reward.html

marcbrophy

R* priced a lot of people out of GTA online a long time ago!
I love playing the races, can't stand free roam, cos the general public are muppets!
Same reason the gun-running, motorcycle and CEO stuff is out of bounds for me, you have to brave the public servers, full of spiteful pricks :mad:

I find if I play a playlist of a few races for 2-3 hours, I can make about 50-100k.
There's new vehicles popping up costing 8million plus.
The math doesn't add up!
Pay up or do without!

Don't get me started on how full of modders the thing is

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Check out the articles about lootboxes and the psychological effects they have. They are designed to replicate the feeling one gets from gambling in terms of creating a dopamine rush. Gambling and its addiction are not just purely down to reward - if it was, people would give up after their first big loss - its effects are a bit more pernicious than that - gambling addicts are more addicted to the state of uncertainty and possibility fueled by dopamine that comes before the result than the financial gain element of it. Dopamine is a funny chemical and does lots of crazy stuff in our heads. It is essential for healthy brains but too much of it swirling around in there can create all different types of crazy behaviours. Gaming companies are taking advantage of the effects dopamine has on our systems with lootboxes and their randomness. It really is something that should be properly regulated imo. People might not think they have addictive personalities because they stay away from traditional gambling but could end up pumping hundreds into lootboxes for no other reason than the thrill it gives. If you can afford it, fair enough but if you can't it's going to start creating problems for you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/what_is_dopamine_love_lust_sex_addiction_gambling_motivation_reward.html

What regulation do people want to see in say a game like Overwatch? A maximum spend set ingame? What will that max spend level be a couple of hundred euro a day, a week, over the lifetime of the game? And what if you aren't an addict and just have lots of disposable income you want to spend? Is it right that some people should not be allowed spend their money because a tiny percentage may be vulnerable addicts?

People talk about regulation but when has regulation worked? Our bookies and gambling sites are regulated and yet we still have gambling addicts. Alcohol as an industry is regulated and yet people are dying as a result of alcohol addiction every day. I've seen first hand what addictions does to people and it's not pretty but I also believe that the only way to help an addict is when they ask for help. Forcing regulation will not change how an addict operates. Like the whole minimum pricing for alcohol that is proposed in this country, just because a certain minority are addicted to something now mean that everyone else will suffer when prices rise. But does anyone think that minimum pricing of alcohol will stop addicts drinking?

There is this idea that we as a society need to help addicts and we do, there are numerous avenues of support for people to make use of but they have to want to be helped.

I think that Loot Crates should go away but not to protect anyone, simply because they are an underhanded and cheap way to make money. As others have said, good luck to anyone wanting to play GTAV and not having huge amounts of disposable income to spend as its became a true pay to win game.

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd think that those addicted to gambling would be doing actual gambling, not sitting at home opening loot crates in games. Are loot crates really a game of chance considering that no matter what you open you are guaranteed something in return. With gambling there is an element of risk, there is a chance that you can bet and get nothing in return. Surely those addicted to gambling would get little from taking a chance on something that guarantees them something in return.

One of my best friends from work is an actual gambling addict - he plays slots, poker, blackjack.
He is now into Hearthstone, and "only" buys €50 of cards every paycheck.

Which is better than previous, when he got addicted to trying to pay-to-win for the top ranks in Final Fantasy XV: A New Empire.
I had to physically force him to delete the app, as he was spending UPWARDS of €500 a month on micro-transactions, and he's only on a 24k salary!

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

One of my best friends from work is an actual gambling addict - he plays slots, poker, blackjack.
He is now into Hearthstone, and "only" buys €50 of cards every paycheck.

Which is better than previous, when he got addicted to trying to pay-to-win for the top ranks in Final Fantasy XV: A New Empire.
I had to physically force him to delete the app, as he was spending UPWARDS of €500 a month on micro-transactions, and he's only on a 24k salary!

And until such a time as he wants help he will continue to gamble, do you think that his buying Hearthstone packs is the same as him going out and playing slots, poker and blackjack? Does he play Hearthstone or just open packs and never actually play the main part of the game? Do you think that Hearthstone packs need to be regulated? And then the question is, do we regulated Pokemon cards or does the fact they are not digital make it different?

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

And until such a time as he wants help he will continue to gamble, do you think that his buying Hearthstone packs is the same as him going out and playing slots, poker and blackjack? Does he play Hearthstone or just open packs and never actually play the main part of the game? Do you think that Hearthstone packs need to be regulated? And then the question is, do we regulated Pokemon cards or does the fact they are not digital make it different?

I have to bloody stop him from playing Hearthstone WHILE WE'RE HAVING A PINT.
And stop trying to equate physical to digital. It's not the same.
With physical goods/gambling, at least there's an element of "getting up off your arse" which puts most people off doing it.
Digital, you just tap-tap-tap and you've spent the money.

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I have to bloody stop him from playing Hearthstone WHILE WE'RE HAVING A PINT.
And stop trying to equate physical to digital. It's not the same.
With physical goods/gambling, at least there's an element of "getting up off your arse" which puts most people off doing it.
Digital, you just tap-tap-tap and you've spent the money.

I would assume that most people who gamble these days do so online so they generally aren't getting off their arses. I don't see how your friend spending 50 a month on Hearthstone is an issue when seems to enjoy the game and play it a lot. Long as he can afford it then let him enjoy his game.

I also like how we are now making distinctions between gambling in the real world and online, and almost implying that digital online gambling is worse. I also like that you think that a someone such as a gambling addict is less likely to gamble offline as it would mean that he has to get off his arse. That has to be one of the weakest arguments against Loot Crates I have yet heard.

I notice that you never bothered to answer the questions as to what you think should happen and what regulation you think we need. After all, regulation has a proven track record of working, why you'd have to search high and low to find a gambling or alcohol addict in this country thanks to how regulating both industries has been a huge success in that manner.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I notice that you never bothered to answer the questions as to what you think should happen and what regulation you think we need. After all, regulation has a proven track record of working, why you'd have to search high and low to find a gambling or alcohol addict in this country thanks to how regulating both industries has been a huge success in that manner.

Because regulation can't be so onerous as to hamper those who don't have issues with those products/services. Regulation can only go so far. However, some regulation and how it may protect some people is better than no regulation which protects no-one, or too much regulation which ends up protecting people from something they don't need or want protecting from.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Because regulation can't be so onerous as to hamper those who don't have issues with those products/services. Regulation can only go so far. However, some regulation and how it may protect some people is better than no regulation which protects no-one, or too much regulation which ends up protecting people from something they don't need or want protecting from.

We already have regulations in regards Loot Crates, indirect as it may be but the titles which contain Loot Crates are aimed at adults and in Ireland you have to be over the age of 16 in order to access the online aspects of any game. What more regulation do people want? Do we set a minimum daily spend in games for every user? Or do we do what the government did with Solpadol in this country and have GameStop staff quiz people on their gambling habits before buying a game?

I've said multiple times that I would be happy to see Loot Crates go away but not because I think we need to protect anyone. The argument that they are gambling is undermined by the fact that some of those making it loudest in threads like this seem to think that if cosmetic Loot Crates are grand.

Grumpypants

I've banned asking Santa for a surprise as it is a form of gambling.

Shapey Fiend

Saying the under 16's shouldn't be playing online gaming and that solves the issue is a bit of a cop out solution though isn't it? What child over 8 wouldn't want to online game at this point? It's the primary leisure activity of every kid in 2017. Not every game is GTA either what about all the sports games which are ostensibly perfectly suitable for a child other than the lootbox component.

The fact is I'm sure the vast majority of people playing these games online ARE under 16. If they had to make the game lootbox free for those people then you'd soon find the game had to be less grindy and dependent on lootboxes.

Like I'm obviously going to steer my child away from any game with microtransactions because I'm just diametrically opposed to spending my money on that stuff. He can play a game without them. But those are starting to get very rare when it comes to the big hitters. I can understand the desire to not have games regulated, like say, alcohol, but if quasi gambling in games is regulated it'll probably only improve the situation for everybody not disimprove it.

It's very hard to find genuinely good mobile games at this point that aren't completely marred by microtransactions. It's going to be the case with AAA console games very shortly. They'll all be free games with grinding and microtransactions where 1% of the audience pay for the other 99%, who have a pretty unsatisfying experience. Games companies are going to get completely blinkered by their publicly traded necessity to deliver profits this quarter and ruin the whole industry in the long run.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

I've said multiple times that I would be happy to see Loot Crates go away but not because I think we need to protect anyone. The argument that they are gambling is undermined by the fact that some of those making it loudest in threads like this seem to think that if cosmetic Loot Crates are grand.

I've been consistently saying that all lootboxes should be gotten rid of.

Shapey Fiend

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

Saying the under 16's shouldn't be playing online gaming and that solves the issue is a bit of a cop out solution though isn't it? What child over 8 wouldn't want to online game at this point? It's the primary leisure activity of every kid in 2017. Not every game is GTA either what about all the sports games which are ostensibly perfectly suitable for a child other than the lootbox component.

Just because a kid wants to do something does not mean that it isn't against the rules or should be allowed.

Sure kids can play the sports titles but the expectation would be that the parent ensures that their kids are not buying packs without permission. I think that there is something of a distinction between packs in sports games and Loot Crates. The thing about a game like FIFA is that you can easily earn 4-8k an hour by playing the game which means that you never have to spend any real money. I've played a bit of FIFA 18 on the Switch and never felt like I needed packs as I've made loads of in-game coins through playing the game and trading. If you have a kid and it is buying packs in FIFA then the question that needs to be asked is why as a parent are you letting them?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

We already have regulations in regards Loot Crates, indirect as it may be but the titles which contain Loot Crates are aimed at adults and in Ireland you have to be over the age of 16 in order to access the online aspects of any game. What more regulation do people want? Do we set a minimum daily spend in games for every user? Or do we do what the government did with Solpadol in this country and have GameStop staff quiz people on their gambling habits before buying a game?

I've said multiple times that I would be happy to see Loot Crates go away but not because I think we need to protect anyone. The argument that they are gambling is undermined by the fact that some of those making it loudest in threads like this seem to think that if cosmetic Loot Crates are grand.

My post was more so in response to comparisons to the gambling/alcohol industries, and how regulation can and should only go so far, but that some regulation tends to be better than no regulation.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

I notice that you never bothered to answer the questions as to what you think should happen and what regulation you think we need. After all, regulation has a proven track record of working, why you'd have to search high and low to find a gambling or alcohol addict in this country thanks to how regulating both industries has been a huge success in that manner.

What are you talking about? Are you just assuming this is how it is? I worked in the gambling industry for 15 years up until the start of last year and i can tell you that you are talking out your arse.

Regulation does **** all, it just covers the bookies from a legal standpoint. ive had to deal with thousands of what you call "whales", who spend insanes amounts of money daily, majority of them are average Joe's. And you can tell they have serious gambling issues, especially when they are constantly on hounding you for a bonus, some even claiming they are waiting on their pay check. And the bookies does nothing until the customer comes out and says "I have a problem", one might feel the need to probe with questions but that usually just results in them freezing up, saying its all good and fecking off and trying again with someone else later or the next day.

Most people who gamble know how "responsible gambling" works and know exactly how to get around it, they dont want the rush to end so its just another hurdle in place along with their lack of money hurdle to go for that win rush.

The only way a bookies would ever actively stop someone from gambling (sports betting) is if they are winning consistently, they will either shut them down, or restrict the amount they can put on the bet, like someone coming on to put a grand on a horse being told he can put 10.00 on it. In which case they get mad and go elsewhere..

And then they have their customers whos account they would have flagged to accept any bet as they know they never win and its easy money..

So I can tell you now, with lootboxes and the lack of regulation, they are pulling all sorts of shady tactics to squeeze as much money as possible. Even targeting kids, or parents anyway of kids who play the game. You can blame it on bad parenting, but most parents wouldnt have a problem letting kids play a star wars game, regardless of the rating slapped on it.

And anyway, the age rating on most games is in line with what graphical content the game has, not that its exposing your children to gambling crates.

And Overwatch is pegi 12, and BF2 is pegi 16, The age of kids. If they really gave a ****, they would be Rated R and you would have to send in your passport to play the fooking game

Penn

Penn wrote: »

My post was more so in response to comparisons to the gambling/alcohol industries, and how regulation can and should only go so far, but that some regulation tends to be better than no regulation.

My point is that we already have some regulation, it may be indirect but it is there.

nix

nix wrote: »

What are you talking about? Are you just assuming this is how it is? I worked in the gambling industry for 15 years up until the start of last year and i can tell you that you are talking out your arse.

Regulation does **** all, it just covers the bookies from a legal standpoint. ive had to deal with thousands of what you call "whales", who spend insanes amounts of money daily, majority of them are average Joe's. And you can tell they have serious gambling issues, especially when they are constantly on hounding you for a bonus, some even claiming they are waiting on their pay check. And the bookies does nothing until the customer comes out and says "I have a problem", one might feel the need to probe with questions but that usually just results in them freezing up, saying its all good and fecking off and trying again with someone else later or the next day.

Most people who gamble know how "responsible gambling" works and know exactly how to get around it, they dont want the rush to end so its just another hurdle in place along with their lack of money hurdle to go for that win rush.

The only way a bookies would ever actively stop someone from gambling (sports betting) is if they are winning consistently, they will either shut them down, or restrict the amount they can put on the bet, like someone coming on to put a grand on a horse being told he can put 10.00 on it. In which case they get mad and go elsewhere..

And then they have their customers whos account they would have flagged to accept any bet as they know they never win and its easy money..

So I can tell you now, with lootboxes and the lack of regulation, they are pulling all sorts of shady tactics to squeeze as much money as possible. Even targeting kids, or parents anyway of kids who play the game. You can blame it on bad parenting, but most parents wouldnt have a problem letting kids play a star wars game, regardless of the rating slapped on it.

And anyway, the age rating on most games is in line with what graphical content the game has, not that its exposing your children to gambling crates.

And Overwatch is pegi 12, and BF2 is pegi 16, The age of kids. If they really gave a ****, they would be Rated R and you would have to send in your passport to play the fooking game

Overwatch may be a 12 game but to play online games in this country the age is 16, sure it's easy to get around and Xbox and the like are lax in enforcing it but that is hardly the fault of game developers. Try playing BF2 on an EA account in which the age is set below 16 and watch what happens, you won't be allowed to go online and play. In fact, a friend of mine had an underage account on EA when Titanfall 2 came out and he had to send in a copy of his passport to prove that he was in fact 29 and not 11 as he had accidentally set on his EA account. He complained about it and tried to kick up a stink about how it should be something he could change himself but the argument made to him was that it was there to stop kids making accounts and then trying to lie after the fact to have an adult account.

If a parent is happy to lie when creating the account or ignore the ratings on a game then that is their failing. It's like the argument for censorship of films years back when people argued certain things could be banned because parents may ignore the rating.

So if regulation doesn't work then what? I'm happy to see Loot Crates go away but not because I think we need to protect gamblers from themselves. What about the fact that numerous governments have said that Loot Crates are not gambling? Are they all misinformed and mistaken?

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

to play online games in this country the age is 16

Please show me this law, I'm interested.

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Please show me this law, I'm interested.

Currently, I'm not sure if it is in law but most gaming companies as they are based in America follow the Coppa law and then base their age on data protection guidelines in each country. In Ireland, it is 16 based on a number of factors in relation to data protection and was something taken very seriously in two companies I previously worked for. I know someone who was fired from one of the major Game Developers for stating in a public interview that if you wanted to play their games and were a kid all you had to do was lie when entering your date of birth.

The age differs from country to country with some setting it at 13, some 15 and then others at 18. It will be European law in 2018 as a result of The General Data Protection Regulation, due to become law across the EU in May 2018, which will 16 as the minimum age at which a person can join an online service without the consent of their parents. I've been told by a number of game developers that the second it goes live their system will immediately restrict all user accounts of under 16s even if the game in question is something like NBA 2K.

Mickeroo

So there isn't a law is what you're saying?

kunst nugget

You seem to be able to play Overwatch online at 12 as far as I can tell. It seems to be based on whatever the age rating is on the cover.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

You seem to be able to play Overwatch online at 12 as far as I can tell. It seems to be based on whatever the age rating is on the cover.

Was talking with a friend who does legal work for one of the major gaming companies and he said that in most countries the Data Protection Act will set the age but in Ireland, as the Data Protection Act does not specify an age then it is left up to the entity collecting data to make a decision on whether or not the person can understand the implications. They set the age at 16 based on some court case in the 90s in which a 16 year old argued and won a case in which he wanted to have final say in his medical treatment. It will be a European law from next year that under 16s will not be allowed to consent to data collection without parental consent. He said that they will not be seeking parental consent but instead not allowing anyone under 16 to play any online aspect of the titles they produce.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Was talking with a friend who does legal work for one of the major gaming companies and he said that in most countries the Data Protection Act will set the age but in Ireland, as the Data Protection Act does not specify an age then it is left up to the entity collecting data to make a decision on whether or not the person can understand the implications. They set the age at 16 based on some court case in the 90s in which a 16 year old argued and won a case in which he wanted to have final say in his medical treatment. It will be a European law from next year that under 16s will not be allowed to consent to data collection without parental consent. He said that they will not be seeking parental consent but instead not allowing anyone under 16 to play any online aspect of the titles they produce.

So it's not law at the moment?

Does anyone on here have a 12 year old playing Overwatch? There seems to be no issue with it at the moment as far as I can tell.

K.O.Kiki

Y'know for as bad as Overwatch Lootboxes are being painted here - I didn't even realise you could buy them for the first 9-10 months of playing.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Deleted User wrote: »

Was talking with a friend who does legal work for one of the major gaming companies and he said that in most countries the Data Protection Act will set the age but in Ireland, as the Data Protection Act does not specify an age then it is left up to the entity collecting data to make a decision on whether or not the person can understand the implications. They set the age at 16 based on some court case in the 90s in which a 16 year old argued and won a case in which he wanted to have final say in his medical treatment. It will be a European law from next year that under 16s will not be allowed to consent to data collection without parental consent. He said that they will not be seeking parental consent but instead not allowing anyone under 16 to play any online aspect of the titles they produce.

Id say your friend is nearly as big a bluffer as yourself. do you honestly mean to tell me that everyone playing minecraft worldwide is over 12?
I suppose your answer to that will be that its the same bad parents who are getting cleaned out by their kids buying lootboxes.