Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

marcbrophy

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I covered parental responsibility in the first point though

I do believe that Sony or all Store owners are complicit too, simply by doing nothing to challenge these transactions.
And why would they? They are not looking out for the consumer at all. They are a business and they make 30% off of each one of those juicy MTX
I sure as shít couldn't care less if some kid spent €1000 or his mother's hard earned pay cheque if €300 of that was coming my way. I don't expect CEO's to see it any differently :pac:

marcbrophy

marcbrophy wrote: »

Yeah, I covered parental responsibility in the first point though

I do believe that Sony or all Store owners are complicit too, simply by doing nothing to challenge these transactions.
And why would they? They are not looking out for the consumer at all. They are a business and they make 30% off of each one of those juicy MTX
I sure as shcouldn't care less if some kid spent €1000 or his mother's hard earned pay cheque if €300 of that was coming my way. I don't expect CEO's to see it any differently :pac:

Why would they challenge it? If the account is not set up as a sub-account for a child then why would they be policing it. If the account is set as an adult account with no restrictions then the blame lies 100% with the parent. If the kid had used his mother's credit card to buy items on Amazon would people be laying any blame on Amazon?

marcbrophy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would they challenge it? If the account is not set up as a sub-account for a child then why would they be policing it. If the account is set as an adult account with no restrictions then the blame lies 100% with the parent. If the kid had used his mother's credit card to buy items on Amazon would people be laying any blame on Amazon?

No, but at least with Amazon, I can bring the package to any post office or courier and send it back.
Amazon would then refund me the cost.

Sony are not going to refund me the money that I explicitly told them they could take from my CC, with each MTX, even if it was my son that actually made the transaction.
There has to be some protection for the cardholder in these instances.

marcbrophy

marcbrophy wrote: »

No, but at least with Amazon, I can bring the package to any post office or courier and send it back.
Amazon would then refund me the cost.

Sony are not going to refund me the money that I explicitly told them they could take from my CC, with each MTX, even if it was my son that actually made the transaction.
There has to be some protection for the cardholder in these instances.

You do know that amazon ban people for excessive returns?

If you tell Sony that it was a fraudulent use of your credit card they will refund you the money. I used to work in Fraud and as soon as Sony hear those words they will process a refund for you. Now they will also ban that account but if you want your money back that is the price you apy.

Varik

If you've not downloaded or used the purchase Sony do refund, for most micro transactions you've already done so. Amazon aren't going to help a month later when the bill arrives in the post.

You can have a pass-code on your account for login, you can have it so that each purchase asks for your full password, and you can have 2 step authentication on top of that. That's your protections, on top of the controls you can add to a sub account.

And it goes out the window if you just had someone your credit card, and walk away.

marcbrophy

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that amazon ban people for excessive returns?

If you tell Sony that it was a fraudulent use of your credit card they will refund you the money. I used to work in Fraud and as soon as Sony hear those words they will process a refund for you. Now they will also ban that account but if you want your money back that is the price you apy.

Define excessive? It would more than likely be a once off whilst you change your Amazon password, praying they never get it again

Then, as someone with a wider view on how fraudulent activity is viewed by companies, you can perhaps try and resolve a couple of catch 22's between how people in the know view things and how ordinary parents will view things?

• Is this really fraud? I don't want my child to get in trouble with the law, they made a mistake is all!
  
• Why am I being banned? I want the money back on my card, and I want to be able to use the account as normal! I have €500 worth of digital games on the account, that I'm expected to abandon because I want to get back €50 used against my will!

Also, I fully accept that's it's every parents fault that they left their kid access their unrestricted adult PSN account. The thing is, every parent is going to challenge that conception, when a CS agent tells them this on a phone call / email.

marcbrophy

marcbrophy wrote: »

Define excessive? It would more than likely be a once off whilst you change your Amazon password, praying they never get it again

Then, as someone with a wider view on how fraudulent activity is viewed by companies, you can perhaps try and resolve a couple of catch 22's between how people in the know view things and how ordinary parents will view things?

• Is this really fraud? I don't want my child to get in trouble with the law, they made a mistake is all!
  
• Why am I being banned? I want the money back on my card, and I want to be able to use the account as normal! I have €500 worth of digital games on the account, that I'm expected to abandon because I want to get back €50 used against my will!

Also, I fully accept that's it's every parents fault that they left their kid access their unrestricted adult PSN account. The thing is, every parent is going to challenge that conception, when a CS agent tells them this on a phone call / email.

Is it fraud? Well as it is unauthorized purchases without permission of cardholder then it is 100% considered fraud. Now, Sony or the like aren't going to look into pressing charges in most case but it is a possibility, though not something they will pursue when it is a child using a parents card. At least we never did though I have heard of cases where companies have threatened it in relation to repeat offenders.

It's the account the purchases are made on that is banned, if you have an account and your child has a separate account then only the child account will be banned. Unfortunately, if the child does it on a parental account then that account can be banned, it's not ideal for the victim but from the companies point of view it is an account which has committed fraud. If it is a case that you were hacked and someone used your card on your account then they will generally not ban you though there are reports from some that they may.

I can understand why in most cases they do put a ban on the account, it's very easy to buy hundreds of euro worth of ingame content, spend it and then say "it wasn't me". The current case in the media about the little angel who didn't know what he was doing, his account will 100% get banned if they get the money back as he got the content, spent it and as such there is nothing Sony can take back.

Funny how all those people posting Jim Sterling's attacks on Battlefront and Loot Crates haven't shared his latest video, but then again as it's an attack on Overwatch and the argument that Cosmetic crates are as predatory and exploitative as any other crate, it's not surprising. I still don't agree with Sterling's points but those posting his attacks on BF2 and defending Overwatch really need to learn that there is no difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5CDrq4dGg

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny how all those people posting Jim Sterling's attacks on Battlefront and Loot Crates haven't shared his latest video, but then again as it's an attack on Overwatch and the argument that Cosmetic crates are as predatory and exploitative as any other crate, it's not surprising. I still don't agree with Sterling's points but those posting his attacks on BF2 and defending Overwatch really need to learn that there is no difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5CDrq4dGg

I'll bite. I have 100+ lootboxes in overwatch that I haven't opened. I hate the concept of lootboxes and cosmetics that much. I kinda started it as a joke at first to annoy a friend of mine who paid money for lootboxes. I've always seen paying for them as a slippery slope. Now I couldn't be arsed opening them as the sheer amount of time it takes.

Benzino

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll bite. I have 100+ lootboxes in overwatch that I haven't opened. I hate the concept of lootboxes and cosmetics that much. I kinda started it as a joke at first to annoy a friend of mine who paid money for lootboxes. I've always seen paying for them as a slippery slope. Now I couldn't be arsed opening them as the sheer amount of time it takes.

But you recognise that due to those loot boxes (and your mate buying them), you haven't had to pay a penny for all the content they have added and as a result the entire community is not divided between people who have purchase map pack A, and pack B etc, which can be a real killer for MP games.

Oh dear

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

But you recognise that due to those loot boxes (and your mate buying them), you haven't had to pay a penny for all the content they have added and as a result the entire community is not divided between people who have purchase map pack A, and pack B etc, which can be a real killer for MP games.

Forgive me for my ignorance on this but can you just buy the skins you want or do you have to do it through the lootbox system if you're paying money?

Mickeroo

kunst nugget wrote: »

Forgive me for my ignorance on this but can you just buy the skins you want or do you have to do it through the lootbox system if you're paying money?

You can buy them directly with in game currency which itself is earned from lootboxes. It takes quite a while to earn enough for a limited time legendary skin. You get free lootboxes pretty often from playing the game though.

kunst nugget

Mickeroo wrote: »

You can buy them directly with in game currency which itself is earned from lootboxes. It takes quite a while to earn enough for a limited time legendary skin. You get free lootboxes pretty often from playing the game though.

So, if you spend actual money in the game, there's no possible way of avoiding the lootbox system? That's pure bullshít imo.

Benzino

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, if you spend actual money in the game, there's no possible way of avoiding the lootbox system? That's pure bullshít imo.

Then don't spend money on it

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny how all those people posting Jim Sterling's attacks on Battlefront and Loot Crates haven't shared his latest video, but then again as it's an attack on Overwatch and the argument that Cosmetic crates are as predatory and exploitative as any other crate, it's not surprising. I still don't agree with Sterling's points but those posting his attacks on BF2 and defending Overwatch really need to learn that there is no difference.

Funnier how some people agree with Jim Sterling on some points and disagree with him on others. As I and others have repeatedly said.

I watched the video yesterday and disagree with the majority of what he said in it. For instance he completely misinterprets the point about how they're only cosmetic items by talking about how if cosmetic items don't matter, then what about the visual artists and designers etc who work on the game, and don't their contributions matter?

The point people make when they say it's only cosmetic is that it doesn't affect gameplay. Someone with a Witch Mercy skin in Overwatch plays the exact same way as the standard Mercy skin. There is no advantage to be had by equipping a cosmetic item, therefore the only value to the items are really what the player themselves ascribes to it, based on which one they want.

Therein lies the difference. And again it should be pointed out that Sterling's main gripe with Overwatch is that it helped popularise lootboxes, whereas some people like myself think that a game shouldn't be condemned for doing something that other companies then try to copy, but do wrong.

Wait. The cosmetic lootboxes in Overwatch are paid...?

... why?

If it doesn't alter the game in any way or help your gameplay then why splash money on it??

If you want a silly hat for your character, buy one for yourself instead. It'll probably cost about the same.

I can't say much as I have paid for weapons and the like in a free-to-play game, but then realized I was being stupid.

Penn

Penn wrote:

I watched the video yesterday and disagree with the majority of what he said in it. For instance he completely misinterprets the point about how they're only cosmetic items by talking about how if cosmetic items don't matter, then what about the visual artists and designers etc who work on the game, and don't their contributions matter?

My point exactly, Sterling is nothing more than a loud mouth click bait twat. When he was spouting I'll formed misinformation about Loot Crates and EA people were sharing his videos but as soon as he goes goes off on something else related people aren't sharing. I think Sterling is to games journalism what Katie Hopkins is to news journalism, a loud mouth who'll say anything to get you to raise viewer numbers.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

Then don't spend money on it

Tbf, I won't be and I won't buy any games that implement paid for loot box systems from now on. Should help with backlog issues.

Benzino

Penn wrote: »

Funnier how some people agree with Jim Sterling on some points and disagree with him on others. As I and others have repeatedly said.

I watched the video yesterday and disagree with the majority of what he said in it. For instance he completely misinterprets the point about how they're only cosmetic items by talking about how if cosmetic items don't matter, then what about the visual artists and designers etc who work on the game, and don't their contributions matter?

The point people make when they say it's only cosmetic is that it doesn't affect gameplay. Someone with a Witch Mercy skin in Overwatch plays the exact same way as the standard Mercy skin. There is no advantage to be had by equipping a cosmetic item, therefore the only value to the items are really what the player themselves ascribes to it, based on which one they want.

Therein lies the difference. And again it should be pointed out that Sterling's main gripe with Overwatch is that it helped popularise lootboxes, whereas some people like myself think that a game shouldn't be condemned for doing something that other companies then try to copy, but do wrong.

His argument against Overwatch is silly imo, and makes no sense. But he does this for living, so these sort of videos and rants make more money than sensible debate. You just have to look at the amount of videos he has on loot boxes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait. The cosmetic lootboxes in Overwatch are paid...?

... why?

If it doesn't alter the game in any way or help your gameplay then why splash money on it??

If you want a silly hat for your character, buy one for yourself instead. It'll probably cost about the same.

I can't say much as I have paid for weapons and the like in a free-to-play game, but then realized I was being stupid.

You can earn the loot boxes organically by playing the game. Every time you level up, you get one. You can also earn 3 every week by winning 9 arcade matches.

There is no reason to spend money on them unless you really like the skins and don't want to wait to get them organically.

Benzino

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbf, I won't be and I won't buy any games that implement loot box systems from now on. Should help with backlog issues.

Good for you.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

My point exactly, Sterling is nothing more than a loud mouth click bait twat. When he was spouting I'll formed misinformation about Loot Crates and EA people were sharing his videos but as soon as he goes goes off on something else related people aren't sharing. I think Sterling is to games journalism what Katie Hopkins is to news journalism, a loud mouth who'll say anything to get you to raise viewer numbers.

People were sharing their earlier videos which they agreed with him on (with some pointing out the sections of those videos that they didn't agree with him on), and didn't share this latest video because they don't agree with it.

Again, people may agree with him on some things, and not agree with him on others.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait. The cosmetic lootboxes in Overwatch are paid...?

... why?

If it doesn't alter the game in any way or help your gameplay then why splash money on it??

If you want a silly hat for your character, buy one for yourself instead. It'll probably cost about the same.

I can't say much as I have paid for weapons and the like in a free-to-play game, but then realized I was being stupid.

You can buy the lootboxes, but you also earn them in-game regardless. You earn on every time you level up (maybe every 8 games or so (in Arcade anyway)), in Arcade you can also earn 3 per week for winning games (3 games won = 1 lootboxes up to a max of 3 for the week), and some game modes straight up offer a lootbox for a win (again, within certain limits depending on the game modes).

I earned about 3 lootboxes last night just through gameplay, two for the weekly rewards and one for levelling up. I'll probably easily get another 2 tonight.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

My point exactly, Sterling is nothing more than a loud mouth click bait twat. When he was spouting I'll formed misinformation about Loot Crates and EA people were sharing his videos but as soon as he goes goes off on something else related people aren't sharing. I think Sterling is to games journalism what Katie Hopkins is to news journalism, a loud mouth who'll say anything to get you to raise viewer numbers.

Nah, you are spouting nonsense
again

Korvanica

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny how all those people posting Jim Sterling's attacks on Battlefront and Loot Crates haven't shared his latest video, but then again as it's an attack on Overwatch and the argument that Cosmetic crates are as predatory and exploitative as any other crate, it's not surprising. I still don't agree with Sterling's points but those posting his attacks on BF2 and defending Overwatch really need to learn that there is no difference.

Take it EAsy lad. You annoyed because people have stopped badmouthing them so you've nothing to defend? :pac:

Korvanica

Korvanica wrote:

Take it EAsy lad. You annoyed because people have stopped badmouthing them so you've nothing to defend?

Was never defending anyone, just arguing that cosmetic Loot Crates are as bad as any other. My biggest problem with this whole thing is the manner in which people are arguing that Loot Crates are gambling and then letting Overwatch away with it because they're only cosmetic. I want all Loot Crates gone, I don't care if its pay to win or only cosmetic, there is no difference. Both types are wrong and unnecessary and it's why I've never bothered with Overwatch or the new Shadows or Mordor or BF2. I'll play them for free but won't pay for any game with a Loot Crate system.

nix

Well thats the thing Darko, most people dont just hand up money, and they need incentive to do so, the reason i dont have as much an issue with Overwatch doing it, is because they keep handing out new content to us for free and the funds go towards tournaments also, so its helping the community itself better overall. The likes of DOTA and smite and many other games do it and i dont mind because it doesnt just go into some fat cats pocket, and its just cosmetic changes or other cosmetic tools to make your experience a lil more unique.

The reason I hate the likes of EA doing it in that respect, is, they dont give added content for free, they charge through the nose for it in fact, and there games dont have a long standing community, never mind tournaments, they might have a few shortly after release, but thats just for promotion really. It's entirely greed.

nix

nix wrote:

The reason I hate the likes of EA doing it in that respect, is, they dont give added content for free, they charge through the nose for it in fact, and there games dont have a long standing community, never mind tournaments, they might have a few shortly after release, but thats just for promotion really. It's entirely greed.

All season pass content and all additional content for BF2 is free.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

All season pass content and all additional content for BF2 is free.

No its not, you're paying at least twice the price for the game. and the content is all dried up after a year. The others i mentioned are consistently banging out new content, new maps, new characters, new incentives to make playing during the seasonal/promotional event more exciting and unique, they breath life into their games.

They dont let them die so they can just sell us the same game again with a new number after the name (usually in numerical sequence but sometimes they reset it :P ) at an extortionate price. :rolleyes:

ShadowHearth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Funny how all those people posting Jim Sterling's attacks on Battlefront and Loot Crates haven't shared his latest video, but then again as it's an attack on Overwatch and the argument that Cosmetic crates are as predatory and exploitative as any other crate, it's not surprising. I still don't agree with Sterling's points but those posting his attacks on BF2 and defending Overwatch really need to learn that there is no difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5CDrq4dGg

I did not had time lately to post here, as I have very busy life with work and family, but I did sow that video and wanted to link it here.

The beauty of modern society is that we dont need to fallow individual and agree on everything they say. Its not Stalin and Hitler times. I agree with a lot of Sterlings point of view on industry, does not mean I need to agree with every single word he says.

After watching his video, he did opened up a bit of a can of worms in my mind. I have to say, he is right about labeling it just as "only cosmetics".
I remembered myself from back of the day of Diablo 1. It only had 3 presets of gear change on your character, but when I sow my character visually change, because of highier tier plate armour, I almost shat a brick out of excitement. When diablo 2 came out, it blew my mind. I would even get fashion sets, just because they looked cool.
Cosmetics and artist design is very important, and you really undermind all that hard work artist do when you say "its just cosmetics".

As I said before, lootboxes are evil, but putting cosmetics in to lootboxes is the lesser evil, then putting game balance items. And I still want them to disapear, all of them.
At this point I will just repeat myself for 100th time, but I am pretty sure you will find another way to repeat your agenda.