Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Stone Deaf 4evr

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

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.

No idea what age they are but come May of next year all those under 16 who play Minecraft may find their accounts blocked due to the GDPR. To have a PS4 account you have to be 18 and 17 to have an Xbox account.Those under that age playing the game should be playing on sub/child accounts which will have restrictions placed on them. On a PS4 sub account you can set spend levels and a whole host of other things. Even with a sub account, a child under 16 in Ireland can't play Battelfront 2 as the age is set at 16.

Potential-Monke

And the vast majority of gamers are not under 16. Here's a poll for American audiences, which shows the following:

Under 18: 29%
18-35: 27%
36-49: 19%
Over 49: 26%

ShadowHearth

[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.

I am sorry, but this whole "you still get something", so its not gambling is such a bull**** argument.
You get jack****. Keep in mind, stuff you get is does not have monetary value, you cant open 20 loot boxes and then sell the content. Valve would be different, but even then its shady to cash out your steam wallet after selling skins.

You buy lootboxes and gamble on a chance to get good stuff, not **** filler that is called "you still get something".
Gamblers do not need to be in casino to feel that they gamble, any concept where they feel that they can win will feed their gambling monster.
Have you had actual gamblers, I mean proper gamblers in your family or friend circle? They are worse then drug addicts. At least drug addict will eventually kill himself on overdose and wont do any more harm to their family, where gamblers destroy their own life and life's of everyone around then.
You have a right to your opinion, but jaysus Crist, you go to some length to defend it and specially BF2.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote:

I am sorry, but this whole "you still get something", so its not gambling is such a bull**** argument. You get jack****. Keep in mind, stuff you get is does not have monetary value, you cant open 20 loot boxes and then sell the content. Valve would be different, but even then its shady to cash out your steam wallet after selling skins.

ShadowHearth wrote:

You buy lootboxes and gamble on a chance to get good stuff, not **** filler that is called "you still get something". Gamblers do not need to be in casino to feel that they gamble, any concept where they feel that they can win will feed their gambling monster. Have you had actual gamblers, I mean proper gamblers in your family or friend circle? They are worse then drug addicts. At least drug addict will eventually kill himself on overdose and wont do any more harm to their family, where gamblers destroy their own life and life's of everyone around then. You have a right to your opinion, but jaysus Crist, you go to some length to defend it and specially BF2.[/quote

If it's gambling then why has every government so far that has commented said that it is not gambling?

Also, you have a dim view of addicts if you think that someone drinking themselves to death is a positive. What a strange way to look at the world.

I'm not defending BF2 at all, far as I'm concerned Loot Crates need to go, not just from that game but every game. Not because it's gambling but because its a crappy business model. I take it that you refuse to play Overwatch given how it allows people to gamble, hell at least BF2 doesn't let kids under 16 play and gamble but from what people are saying here, Overwatch does.

Grumpypants

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Keep in mind, stuff you get is does not have monetary value, you cant open 20 loot boxes and then sell the content. Valve would be different, but even then its shady to cash out your steam wallet after selling skins.

.

No one buys games or in-game content because it is a store of value. You buy it to use, if you enjoy playing the game, that is the value.

I enjoy loads of things that I spend money on and can't resell. I go to the cinema, I have a Netflix account, I have tons of Steam games.

If someone spends $5 a month on in-game content and they get 20 hours of enjoyment out of using that content then I consider that a bargain.

ShadowHearth

Grumpypants wrote: »

No one buys games or in-game content because it is a store of value. You buy it to use, if you enjoy playing the game, that is the value.

I enjoy loads of things that I spend money on and can't resell. I go to the cinema, I have a Netflix account, I have tons of Steam games.

If someone spends $5 a month on in-game content and they get 20 hours of enjoyment out of using that content then I consider that a bargain.

Netflix charges you 10eu a month and you get movies to watch.
Netflix does not charge 10eu a month and then has half of movies locked behind "movie boxes", where you pay 3eu per box and you have a random chance of watching new good movie, but 90% its teletubies filler **** movies.

I said before, I dont mind and agree, on microtransactions in free to play games as long as I can buy an item I want, and not buying a random roll at getting an item I want.

Spending 5eu on item in free to play game and getting fun out of it is perfectly fine. But spending 5eu on a roll of dice is not guarantee that you will get item that you will enjoy.

I bought tanks for 50eu a pop in world of tanks and had a blast. T34 is my most played tank. If I needed to use loot boxes to get it, I doubt buying 50eu of lootboxes would have been enough to "win" it.

So Loot Crates are not a problem in free to play games and as such gambling is fine as long as it's a free to play game.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So Loot Crates are not a problem in free to play games and as such gambling is fine as long as it's a free to play game.

Thats not what he said

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

So Loot Crates are not a problem in free to play games and as such gambling is fine as long as it's a free to play game.

Your reading comprehension seems particularly poor because that is not what he said at all.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not what he said

kunst nugget wrote: »

Your reading comprehension seems particularly poor because that is not what he said at all.

I can read quite well, just finding it hard to keep track of peoples opinions when they seem to change from day to day. ShadowHearth wrote quite a starting thing yesterday on how Loot Crates were gambling and earlier in this thread stated that he has no problem with Loot Crates if a game is F2P. And now today he has an issue with Loot Crates in F2P games.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I hate lootboxes, but they are here. EA decided to double dip in cookie jar. Sell you a game for full price and shove lootboxes free to play concept on top of it. Do one or another.
BF2 is F2P game? Cool, do whatever you want with those loot boxes.

In the shape that BF2 is now, the only way I would see it fair, is to put it on EA access right of the bat now. You pay sub for a year with all those games and if you want something extra in BF2, you can throw a few quid. I wouldnt be shocked to find out that when EA made this game, EA access was part of design concept.

ShadowHearth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can read quite well, just finding it hard to keep track of peoples opinions when they seem to change from day to day. ShadowHearth wrote quite a starting thing yesterday on how Loot Crates were gambling and earlier in this thread stated that he has no problem with Loot Crates if a game is F2P. And now today he has an issue with Loot Crates in F2P games.

Its fine how you take **** out of context. Even my replay was about: what could they do now, as its broken game from a core, which is built on loot box system. In perfect world, they would need to scrap the whole thing and redo it, but thats not going to happen. I talked about bf2 only.
And yes, the best what they can do to it now, is put it for free or on ea access. At least this way, I would give it a chance, as unfortunately there is a good game burried in all that ****.

In general I dont want to see loot boxes at all, its **** business model. Again, we come back to real world where industry grabbed dragon by its tail. So between evils, you at least try to stick to lesser evil.

Lesser evil is cosmetics in loot boxes, but that does not mean I need to like it or defend it. Its just something I could live with.

And yes, loot crates ar gambling.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote:

Its fine how you take **** out of context. Even my replay was about: what could they do now, as its broken game from a core, which is built on loot box system. In perfect world, they would need to scrap the whole thing and redo it, but thats not going to happen. I talked about bf2 only. And yes, the best what they can do to it now, is put it for free or on ea access. At least this way, I would give it a chance, as unfortunately there is a good game burried in all that ****.

They did scrap and rework it, you can't even buy crates with real money now. In regards the gambling, your post yesterday seemed to imply that you are totally against them and they are evil as gambling addiction destroys families, but if its F2P you think it's okay as it's a lesser of two evils.

I want all Loot Crates gone, from every game not just ones that people think are P2W. My biggest problem with the "it's gambling" argument is that all these passionate and brave people speaking out have been very quiet over the past year when games like Overwatch have allowed vulnerable people and children to gamble. Where was the outrage then? At least BF2 blocks under 16 year olds from playing online, I created a new PS4 account to test it and couldn't get EA games to work as the account age is set to 14 which makes it underage.

ShadowHearth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They did scrap and rework it, you can't even buy crates with real money now. In regards the gambling, your post yesterday seemed to imply that you are totally against them and they are evil as gambling addiction destroys families, but if its F2P you think it's okay as it's a lesser of two evils.

I want all Loot Crates gone, from every game not just ones that people think are P2W. My biggest problem with the "it's gambling" argument is that all these passionate and brave people speaking out have been very quiet over the past year when games like Overwatch have allowed vulnerable people and children to gamble. Where was the outrage then? At least BF2 blocks under 16 year olds from playing online, I created a new PS4 account to test it and couldn't get EA games to work as the account age is set to 14 which makes it underage.

Jaysus feck m8. Its like taking to the wall.

Canis Lupus

I work in fraud so I get to see peoples spending all the time. Just adding up a fellas account here since August. 192 transactions of mostly $159.99 with iTunes. Doesn't say specifically what but $159.99 is the largest amount you can normally spend on gems etc for the likes of Clash of Clans. Anyway his total is $29,412 and I can't see past August so there's likely a lot more.

'Micro' transactions ftw.

Benzino

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I work in fraud so I get to see peoples spending all the time. Just adding up a fellas account here since August. 192 transactions of mostly $159.99 with iTunes. Doesn't say specifically what but $159.99 is the largest amount you can normally spend on gems etc for the likes of Clash of Clans. Anyway his total is $29,412 and I can't see past August so there's likely a lot more.

'Micro' transactions ftw.

But how much does that person make? Maybe that's a tiny fraction of what he earns. Some people like to spend money on drink, drugs, cars etc. Others want to spend it on games. So what.

Benzino

Benzino wrote:

But how much does that person make? Maybe that's a tiny fraction of what he earns. Some people like to spend money on drink, drugs, cars etc. Others want to spend it on games. So what.

I worked in fraud for a company releasing mobile games a few years back, one lad from UAE had a spend level of 600k and another over a million on a single game. I looked both up and both were multimillionaires many times over. One was a prince whose wealth was jaw dropping. Those are just two examples of many, those are the whales people refer to. There is one game I have heard of that continues to exist because a single Russian oil billionaire loves the game and spends hundreds of thousands on it yearly. It is one of those things where you have to look at where the line is, of they can afford it and are happy to spend then who are we to stop them. Is it fair to put a cap on in game spending because a tiny percentage of the community may be addicts?

Canis Lupus

Benzino wrote: »

But how much does that person make? Maybe that's a tiny fraction of what he earns. Some people like to spend money on drink, drugs, cars etc. Others want to spend it on games. So what.

I'd be equally sad to see a person spend that sort of money on drink or drugs over the same period.

Cars perhaps not so much as you hopefully get something tangible from the money spent and arguably if you buy smart you can make money selling the asset on.

He doesn't get paid into that account so I can't see his earnings but he's a young enough lad, mid 20s so I doubt he's earning mega bucks.

I'm a gamer through and through but anyone spending that sort of money on something like Clash of Clans needs an intervention, I don't care what they earn.

Canis Lupus

Whenever I think of mobile gaming I'm always reminded of the Enterprise crew trippin balls on endorphins.

Benzino

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'd be equally sad to see a person spend that sort of money on drink or drugs over the same period.

Cars perhaps not so much as you hopefully get something tangible from the money spent and arguably if you buy smart you can make money selling the asset on.

He doesn't get paid into that account so I can't see his earnings but he's a young enough lad, mid 20s so I doubt he's earning mega bucks.

I'm a gamer through and through but anyone spending that sort of money on something like Clash of Clans needs an intervention, I don't care what they earn.

But some people like cars and it's a passion of theirs, I'm just saying it's easy too look at the spending of somebody and judge them, but if they are Leo Messi then it's a fraction of what they earn, so it's not actually an issue.

Sure there are people your spend beyond their means on in app purchases, but the same can be said for anything. Just look at the recession, people spent money on houses/cars beyond their means. At the end of the day, people have to take responsibility for their own spending, as only they know what they can or cannot afford.

kunst nugget

I'd rather have an anal abscess than play Fifa 18 so I haven't the foggiest how the Fifa Points system works but how easy is it for this scenario to happen:

A Cork mother has said her family is facing a bleak Christmas this year after her 14-year-old son accidentally spent her entire month's wages playing a FIFA video game.

The Cork woman said she purchased PlayStation's FIFA 18 game for her 14-year-old son on her debit card.

However, this led to her son unknowingly purchasing points while playing the football video game.

Now, I know that it was up to the mother not to leave her debit card details on the xbox account or at the very least make sure that any purchases were password protected but it does make for a prétty ****ty Christmas for them and the son seems to be pretty distraught. Tbh, there are a hell of a lot of parents that are totally clueless about this and only find out about it if they have some knowledge of gaming or end up getting badly burnt by their kids running up a debt buying points.

“I contacted PlayStation and they told me that it was an adults' game. I explained he was 14 and he didn’t understand he was playing with money.

"He didn’t have to do anything or click anything to activate my card."

Would PS support say this? Now, I know there's zero chance of her getting any money back from Sony but I was trying to find the age restriction for online play and as far as I can tell it's 13 which wouldn't make it an adult's game imo.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-family-facing-cashstrapped-christmas-as-son-14-accidentally-spends-mothers-months-wages-playing-fifa-video-game-36414122.html

marcbrophy

Playstation have banned users for refusing to pay for digital downloads, after their credit cards were hacked.
They are a shower of pricks.
We have boardsies on the forum that have experienced this wankbagism directly!

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote:

I'd rather have an anal abscess than play Fifa 18 so I haven't the foggiest how the Fifa Points system works but how easy is it for this scenario to happen:

The kid is lying, its not just a case that you hit get points. It shows you how many points there are and the cost and you then have to confirm that you want to spend real money on them. This is a case of a stupid kid thinking he could get away with something and when caught his defence is that he's an idiot. All she has to do to get the money back is call Sony and say " fraudulent use of payment" method and they'll give her the money back. Now her little Angela account will be banned but its easier to ho on Live Line and see how much money people will donate.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

The kid is lying, its not just a case that you hit get points. It shows you how many points there are and the cost and you then have to confirm that you want to spend real money on them. This is a case of a stupid kid thinking he could get away with something and when caught his defence is that he's an idiot. All she has to do to get the money back is call Sony and say " fraudulent use of payment" method and they'll give her the money back. Now her little Angela account will be banned but its easier to ho on Live Line and see how much money people will donate.

Sound, I've never played Fifa and I never will so I've no knowledge of how the Fifa Points system works.

marcbrophy

marcbrophy wrote:

Playstation have banned users for refusing to pay for digital downloads, after their credit cards were hacked. They are a shower of pricks. We have boardsies on the forum that have experienced this wankbagism directly!

Once you tell Sony that it's fraudulent use of a card they will refund money. That said, unless you can prove you were hacked and someone else made the purchases they will ban your account.

fogartyl

I think it's outrageous that you have to fork out upwards of E30 for the DLC maps or season paired with a lootcrate system in a full-price retail game. Lootcrate systems that are designed to get children to spend as much money as possible as the best high tier weapons are also hidden behind these lootcrates. Let's do the maths.

E70...The game itself. (E100 if it was the legacy edition of infinite warfare with MW remastered)
E30...Season pass
(Additional funds to get the DLC guns)

Activision didn't stop there. They patched in a lootcrate system in MW remastered and made it a pre-order reward for the more loyal consumers. A lootcrate system in a 10 year old classic which was pre-order incentive. They also hid the best weapons behind this system. As children make up a high % of the user base (at least people under 18) they were likely spending their parent's money in order to get all the guns, why are we letting Activision and EA cut away at a full game and letting them sell back the pieces to the consumer? I don't care about the cosmetics but when you rid the game of guns and make the game worse for lacking content unless you pay up you punish consumers. Do not buy call of duty again. Reward the Indie developers that actually don't engage with this culture of shaking down consumers with free-mium nonsense. EA's battlefront scandal and the fallout surrounding it should have been levelled at Activision for how they handled infinite warfare and MW remastered alone.

Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was made by a studio independently of a publisher's input (it shows) and it was not even full price. If you have money to spare I would recommend it over attempting to play call of duty. I know my post isn't recent news but we should be able to keep Activision and EA accountable for their sleazy practices. One day it's just camos in a loot system, the next it's the other half of a game you paid full price for.

Rossi IRL

As somebody who used to be addicted to buying packs on Fifa I have to say her son is telling her porkies.

From what I remember you don't just hit a button and get points. It takes you out of the game, tells you the price in euro and says where it is coming from (card/PayPal)

I know from other games on PS4 that it still takes you out of the game when buying anything. Not sure if that is still the case with Fifa 18 as I haven't played it on PS4.

Canis Lupus

Stupid kid.... Poor clueless mother..... Another reason in a long list of why not to have children.

ps3lover

I've never used a PS4 but on Xbox it's VERY clear you're about to spend real money on anything, you usually get taken to the store then have to click about twice if you're sure about charging whatever € to your card. I'd say PS 4 is the same

marcbrophy

ps3lover wrote: »

I've never used a PS4 but on Xbox it's VERY clear you're about to spend real money on anything, you usually get taken to the store then have to click about twice if you're sure about charging whatever € to your card. I'd say PS 4 is the same

Yes, it's very obvious you are spending real money on a transaction.
Unless a 14 year old doesn't understand the € symbol
We all know that he's lying, so that he doesn't get his arse reddened!
The point is that he was able to do this without any protection in place.

Is it the mother's fault for not blocking PS Store transactions on a child's account? Yes
Is it Sony's fault for allowing a minor spend spend spend, without challenging the transactions? Yes
Is it EA's fault for building a system designed to milk money out of people, regardless of age? Yes

There's enough blame to go around, the problem is that without government regulation, neither store owners (Sony, MS or Valve) or game publishers will be willing to change their methods.

I personally don't believe in getting the government to regulate the games industry, but they are so unwilling to do it themselves, what's the alternative to be?

marcbrophy

marcbrophy wrote: »

Is it Sony's fault for allowing a minor spend spend spend, without challenging the transactions? Yes

In relation to your point there, how are Sony supposed to know if it was a minor's account? For all we know that the 14-year-old in question may have lied and created an adult account. What should have happened is that the parents should have created a sub-account and if they wanted to let their little angel spend money on the account set up a monthly spend level. But that would be taking responsibility for their own child which is a lot harder than letting them do what they want. This is 100% the kid and the parents fault, the blame lies nowhere else.