Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

J. Marston

Belgium declared some illegal yesterday and outlined sanctions...

The Belgian Gaming Commission looked at Star Wars Battlefront 2, FIFA 18, Overwatch and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and found only Star Wars was not in violation of the country's gambling legislation - and that's only because EA stripped out the game's loot boxes after its launch debacle.

It determined FIFA 18, Overwatch and CS:GO's loot boxes are a game of chance and so are subject to Belgian gambling law. Battlefront 2, at the time the investigation was conducted, did not have loot boxes, so escapes unscathed.

A statement from Minister of Justice Koen Geens said FIFA 18, Overwatch and CS:GO were therefore illegal and demanded their loot boxes removed. If they're not, the publishers "risk a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 800,000 euros". When minors are involved, those punishments can be doubled, Greens added.

Belgium expressed a particular concern about the impact loot boxes have on young people. "It is often children who come into contact with such systems and we cannot allow that," Geens warned.

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2018-04-25-now-belgium-declares-loot-boxes-gambling-and-therefore-illegal

wes

If some of these laws go EU wide, then I think we will see huge changes to these games, at least for Europe. We may get lucky and it may scare of some companies altogether from lootboxes.

I would love nothing more than all forms of loot boxes to vanish. On the flip side, if the FTP model that engorged the mobile gaming sphere was to take over, that would be very very bad.

Nody

Mickeroo wrote: »

Are Valve the only ones that allow trading for "real" money? (I can't think of any others) Strange they've been left out of this conversation funnily enough as steam is probably the worst enabler of all for this sort of thing.

It's not only about trading as Belgium noted but also the fact there's no limits on how much money you can spend, the fact they are encouraging gambling and that there is no drop rate on items (i.e. going further than China's requirement).

TheBoyFromAus

WIll be interesting how this plays out as it completely undermines how FUT operates.

Varik

Valve just blocking Dutch users ability to trade, as if you can't cash out then it's not gambling according to what they were given by the government there.

2 things of note is that they didn't give anyone notice so if you've €1000 worth of skins or whatnot you're stuck with them, and I'm not sure if they've applied this to all trades or just CS:GO/DOTA as I'd think it applied to a lot more than just those games (the Steam trading cards).

2K asks fans to tell Belgium they want loot boxes

TheValeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2K asks fans to tell Belgium they want loot boxes

Bahahahahahaha.lol.

Dear 2k,

Fcuk off with your lootboxes.

Sincerly
Gamers.

Gamer Bhoy 89

Deleted User wrote: »

2K asks fans to tell Belgium they want loot boxes

That is so scummy I'm lost for words...... How many Belgian gamers (buying this) will do that?

ShadowHearth

Problem is, that some gamers will see it as a negative for not having loot boxes and will blame government.
Wheres in reality it will show that games core is designed on loot boxes and if you completely remove them, it falls apart. It needs a balance redesign, not just removing them for that country.

Unfortunately not enough countries did this ban so publishers will just shaft those markets and continue as usual everywhere else, just with a sticker on its arse, that no one pays attention to.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/microtransactions-unfortunate-reality-modern-gaming-says-nba-2k19-producer-3550636#SEltwaCmB6Xj20kW.99

Well there it is. I can't buy a game from 2K ever again. Its a shame because I did like xcom.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/microtransactions-unfortunate-reality-modern-gaming-says-nba-2k19-producer-3550636#SEltwaCmB6Xj20kW.99

Well there it is. I can't buy a game from 2K ever again. Its a shame because I did like xcom.

I'm kind of fortunate in that those games hold zero appeal but that really is a really crappy way to gouge money out of players.

Benzino

The whole blanket wide hatred on loot boxes completely misses the point that they are almost a necessity these days for AAA games. The price of games have not adjusted to inflation, so the additional money has to come from somewhere. First it was DLC, now it is loot boxes.

Now if a game is charging 80/90 euro and is still pay to win, by all means take out your pitchforks (likewise for any poor implementation such as Star Wars). But if a game costs 50 and the loot boxes are purely cosmetic, then what's the problem, as you are getting a game for cheaper than it should be without needing to spend a cent extra.

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

The whole blanket wide hatred on loot boxes completely misses the point that they are almost a necessity these days for AAA games. The price of games have not adjusted to inflation, so the additional money has to come from somewhere. First it was DLC, now it is loot boxes.

Now if a game is charging 80/90 euro and is still pay to win, by all means take out your pitchforks (likewise for any poor implementation such as Star Wars). But if a game costs 50 and the loot boxes are purely cosmetic, then what's the problem, as you are getting a game for cheaper than it should be without needing to spend a cent extra.

Look at the state of mobile games. Its a slippery slope. It's up to the developers to decide where to draw the line, if its cosmetics or pay-to-win. I don't care what reasons you can come up with. I choose not to support it in any form.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

The whole blanket wide hatred on loot boxes completely misses the point that they are almost a necessity these days for AAA games. The price of games have not adjusted to inflation, so the additional money has to come feom somewhere. First it was DLC, now it is loot boxes.

Now if a game is charging 80/90 euro and is still pay to win, by all means take out your pitchforks (likewise for any poor implementation such as Star Wars). But if a game costs 50 and the loot boxes are purely cosmetic, then put down the pitch forks, as you are getting a game for cheaper than it should be without needing to spend a cent extra.

You know, I'd be much happier to have a game getting it's funding from DLC where you know what you're getting over the pretty scummy practice of Loot boxes. They are completely exploitative on every level, cynically designed for maximum effectiveness in targeting the dopamine reward/addiction centres in our brain and are an absolute stain on gaming.

Kiith

Benzino wrote: »

The whole blanket wide hatred on loot boxes completely misses the point that they are almost a necessity these days for AAA games. The price of games have not adjusted to inflation, so the additional money has to come from somewhere. First it was DLC, now it is loot boxes.

But there are far more people buying games now then ever before, so any additional cost is making the game is easily made up for by sales figures. So there is no excuse for adding loot boxes, other than they see it as an easy way to make more money.

Benzino

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Look at the state of mobile games. Its a slippery slope. It's up to the developers to decide where to draw the line, if its cosmetics or pay-to-win. I don't care what reasons you can come up with. I choose not to support it in any form.

It's really up to the customer. You mention mobile gaming which is a great example of it, but customers pushed it that way with their wallet. People on 500+ euro phones wouldn't pay 1.99 for a mobile game (also see initial reaction to Mario Run game), hence freemiun was born.

You can choose to do what you want of course, I'm just highlighting the realities. It will never go back to the way it was in the 90's, unless the base price of games increase, but I doubt anybody wants to pay 80/90/100 euro for a game (heck people do what they can to avoid paying 50 as it is, as they should do).

Benzino

kunst nugget wrote: »

You know, I'd be much happier to have a game getting it's funding from DLC where you know what you're getting over the pretty scummy practice of Loot boxes. They are completely exploitative on every level, cynically designed for maximum effectiveness in targeting the dopamine reward/addiction centres in our brain and are an absolute stain on gaming.

And yet games were criticised for having DLC, see Evolve for example.

Benzino

Kiith wrote: »

But there are far more people buying games now then ever before, so any additional cost is making the game is easily made up for by sales figures. So there is no excuse for adding loot boxes, other than they see it as an easy way to make more money.

And there are far more people trading in and selling games second hand, or switching to another cheaper marketplace. Or game sharing on Xbox.

Game prices have remained the same while inflation and development costs have gone up. It's basic math at the end of the day.

EoinHef

Also basic maths looking at profit levels at large game devs,there up year on year.

Kiith

Benzino wrote: »

And there are far more people trading in and selling games second hand, or switching to another cheaper marketplace. Or game sharing on Xbox.

Game prices have remained the same while inflation and development costs have gone up. It's basic math at the end of the day.

Far Cry 5 hit $310 million in it's first week. That has nothing to do with 2nd hand sales. Easily enough to cover any additional costs.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

And yet games were criticised for having DLC, see Evolve for example.

Some games capture the imagination of the gaming public, some don't. Evolve obviously didn't.

Benzino

EoinHef wrote: »

Also basic maths looking at profit levels at large game devs,there up year on year.

There are more companies than just the big ones you know.

J. Marston

Just read that Fifa 18 sold 24 million copies across all platforms and have over 100 million users in their Asian online versions.

Given that ultimate team is the be all and end all now in that game, they must be taking in well over a billion in Fifa microtransactions alone. Crazy.

Mark Hamill

Benzino wrote: »

The whole blanket wide hatred on loot boxes completely misses the point that they are almost a necessity these days for AAA games. The price of games have not adjusted to inflation, so the additional money has to come from somewhere. First it was DLC, now it is loot boxes.

This has been debunked before. The cost of selling games has fallen dramatically (those old NES and Megardive cartridges where very expensive to make and ship), however marketing budgets have increase from the 50% or less of the production budget to in some cases 400%.

Potential-Monke

I don't agree with the cost of marketing being a cause for MTs. Lots of companies don't have the same marketing budget as the big ones, but they still manage to sell their games (CDPR, etc). And even the companies with the massive marketing budgets are usually saturating the market in the hope you will buy their shoddily made games, ie: Mass Effect: Andromeda, Destiny 1 & 2. Massive marketing to convince you to buy games that were not finished. Whereas if they used that budget to give the devs the time and resources to make it better, it would have been better spent.

I also don't agree that MTs are required to make up the loss in revenue. As pointed out above, digital sales cost nothing to the dev, physical media is a simple box, disc and 1 or 2 sheets advertising something. Back in the day, you got the box, a game cartridge or disc, and a full booklet explaining everything. The cost of the cartridges/discs are only a miniscule fraction of what they were and you don't get a booklet. Production costs are well down on what they were, sales are up on what they were, but they're still trying to get even more money out of us with MTs.

I have no issue with cosmetic MTs, they can stay, if people want to waste their money on a skin, let them. It's the P2W or locking content behind a paywall is the problem and should be eradicated. I've no comment on mobile gaming, as I don't really consider the popular mobile games as games, ie: Candy Crush and its ilk. Actually, i've probably put more hours into Hill Climb Racing 2 than any other mobile game, and it hasn't cost me a cent. But the option to P2W is there.

Mark Hamill

Benzino wrote: »

And yet games were criticised for having DLC, see Evolve for example.

Because of the content of the DLC. If it was released now, Evolves "DLC" would have been called microstransactions, because that was what they were - €70-odd of separately purchasable skins (separate from the ~€20 Season pass which gave you the extra playable characters).
And that's not to mention how confusing it was to actually get it all, because of the pre-order bonuses and different special editions.

When people talk positively of DLC, they generally mean DLC which adds new areas, characters, and/or challenges.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Problem is, that some gamers will see it as a negative for not having loot boxes and will blame government.
Wheres in reality it will show that games core is designed on loot boxes and if you completely remove them, it falls apart. It needs a balance redesign, not just removing them for that country.

Unfortunately not enough countries did this ban so publishers will just shaft those markets and continue as usual everywhere else, just with a sticker on its arse, that no one pays attention to.

This +1

Would love to see those laws introduced in UK/Ireland

Benzino

Kiith wrote: »

Far Cry 5 hit $310 million in it's first week. That has nothing to do with 2nd hand sales. Easily enough to cover any additional costs.

Not all games are a huge success like Far Cry, nor can the developers assume their game will sell a lot while developing it.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Some games capture the imagination of the gaming public, some don't. Evolve obviously didn't.

It was heavily slated due to all it's DLC options.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This has been debunked before. The cost of selling games has fallen dramatically (those old NES and Megardive cartridges where very expensive to make and ship), however marketing budgets have increase from the 50% or less of the production budget to in some cases 400%.

Production of the disc? Sure. Production of the actual game (i.e. the software), not a chance. Go look at the credits for the original Doom, and then look at the credits for the latest Far Cry. Notice the huge difference in people involved. Then take into account staff would be paid more today than they have back during 80's. Combine that with the much longer dev times and there is no way the production of a game costs less today than it did in the 80's etc.

As for marketing, I'm sure marketing costs for every single product has increased. I assume Coca Cola spend more today than they did in the 80's. That would be down to inflation, more mediums to advertise and greater competition.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't agree with the cost of marketing being a cause for MTs. Lots of companies don't have the same marketing budget as the big ones, but they still manage to sell their games (CDPR, etc). And even the companies with the massive marketing budgets are usually saturating the market in the hope you will buy their shoddily made games, ie: Mass Effect: Andromeda, Destiny 1 & 2. Massive marketing to convince you to buy games that were not finished. Whereas if they used that budget to give the devs the time and resources to make it better, it would have been better spent.

I also don't agree that MTs are required to make up the loss in revenue. As pointed out above, digital sales cost nothing to the dev, physical media is a simple box, disc and 1 or 2 sheets advertising something. Back in the day, you got the box, a game cartridge or disc, and a full booklet explaining everything. The cost of the cartridges/discs are only a miniscule fraction of what they were and you don't get a booklet. Production costs are well down on what they were, sales are up on what they were, but they're still trying to get even more money out of us with MTs.

I have no issue with cosmetic MTs, they can stay, if people want to waste their money on a skin, let them. It's the P2W or locking content behind a paywall is the problem and should be eradicated. I've no comment on mobile gaming, as I don't really consider the popular mobile games as games, ie: Candy Crush and its ilk. Actually, i've probably put more hours into Hill Climb Racing 2 than any other mobile game, and it hasn't cost me a cent. But the option to P2W is there.

As I mentioned above, the cost of development has increased hugely. Digital sales cut out costs for physical production, but people forget that Sony/Microsoft/Ninty take a pretty hefty chunk of all digital sales (sometimes up to 30% i think).

Cosmetic MT's are the way to go, P2W MT's in a paid game should be avoided.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because of the content of the DLC. If it was released now, Evolves "DLC" would have been called microstransactions, because that was what they were - €70-odd of separately purchasable skins (separate from the ~€20 Season pass which gave you the extra playable characters).
And that's not to mention how confusing it was to actually get it all, because of the pre-order bonuses and different special editions.

When people talk positively of DLC, they generally mean DLC which adds new areas, characters, and/or challenges.

I agree Evolve was a mess, but people regularly complained about DLC been announced before the game was out. But the DLC is all part of their plan to recoup the initial dev costs (not all cases of course, some is just pure greed).

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

It's really up to the customer. You mention mobile gaming which is a great example of it, but customers pushed it that way with their wallet. People on 500+ euro phones wouldn't pay 1.99 for a mobile game (also see initial reaction to Mario Run game), hence freemiun was born.

I'm a customer and I will continue to vote with my wallet. I refuse to support games that have gouging as part of their development process

You can choose to do what you want of course, I'm just highlighting the realities. It will never go back to the way it was in the 90's, unless the base price of games increase, but I doubt anybody wants to pay 80/90/100 euro for a game (heck people do what they can to avoid paying 50 as it is, as they should do).

This is nonsense. There are tons of game coming out on steam for 20 or 30 quid all the time that don't gouge their customers. Cost of distribution has fallen dramatically.