Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

EoinHef

Benzino wrote: »

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

I do know that ye,but are you saying loot boxes are common in smaller titles?

I dont see that as being the case,they are a device mostly used by large companies.

gizmo

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.

We've been through this already in the thread, there aren't and it doesn't.

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%.

The cost of selling physical games has certainly fallen due to changes in how titles are packaged and distributed of course, but we went through your cartridge example earlier in the thread and it was pretty clear to see the net change was under 20% of the retail cost of, specifically, a physical console game. So even by those figures presented, they wouldn't be enough to make up for the development cost increases we've seen over the generations.

As an aside, if anyone really wants to argue the dev costs point then please watch this and give it some further thought.

On a related note, Polygon just published a pretty interesting piece on the topic of lootboxes in the context of Overwatch. It ties into a question I asked way back in the thread about direct purchases of content instead of loot boxes. Definitely worth a read in any case.

Want Overwatch to get rid of loot boxes? It might get more expensive

Kiith

Not sure what that video is supposed to show. That graphics have gotten better? Of course games are more challenging to make nowadays, and take way more time. But the tools used to make these games are also far better. I don't doubt that the costs of making these games has gone up, but i don't believe that loot boxes are required for companies to turn a profit.

Benzino

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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




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.

And they are businesses and they will continue trying to make money. Every company uses nasty tactics btw, most major brands use some form of questionable manufacturing processes, such as Apple.

There are tons of AAA games released at 20/30 quid?

Honestly, if you genuinely think that the cost of game development is the same or has even fallen, it would do no harm to educate yourself on game development process (not aimed at you specifically).

Benzino

Kiith wrote: »

Not sure what that video is supposed to show. That graphics have gotten better? Of course games are more challenging to make nowadays, and take way more time. But the tools used to make these games are also far better. I don't doubt that the costs of making these games has gone up, but i don't believe that loot boxes are required for companies to turn a profit.

Tools have gotten better, but they have also gotten more expensive, games take longer and require more people. The cost difference is huge.

They don't require loot boxes, they require another form of revenue. Loot boxes have been very successful for both businesses and consumers (yes, consumers obviously enjoy them otherwise they wouldn't purchase them).

marcbrophy

Benzino wrote: »

Tools have gotten better, but they have also gotten more expensive, games take longer and require more people. The cost difference is huge.

They don't require loot boxes, they require another form of revenue. Loot boxes have been very successful for both businesses and consumers (yes, consumers obviously enjoy them otherwise they wouldn't purchase them).

Come out of the fog pal!

With that reasoning, I'm un-following this thread

Mark Hamill

Benzino wrote: »

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.

You might need to support you claims with some links and numbers because the numbers I've found completely contradict everything you say.
Nothing for Far Cry specifically, but GTA V, in 2013, had a development budget of $137million (with over 1000 people working supposedly working on it), a marketing budget of $120million and a manufacture budget of $7.7million. It has sold 85-90million copies. Super Mario World had a manufacture cost alone of $550million (adjusted for inflation to 2013) and sales of ~ 20 million. It wouldn't matter if SMW was developed for free by 1 guy in his basement, the manufacture cost dwarfs GTAVs entire budget.

Benzino wrote: »

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.

It's not the gross amount we are talking about, it's the amount spent on marketing relative to the amount spent on actually making the game being sold. If you go from spending 50% of production cost on marketing to 200%, you now need to sell twice as many games to break even. But if you then try to argue that you need to add micro-transactions to justify the now increased costs, which were added by the extra marketing, then the marketing itself clearly doesn't justify it's own cost, meaning it's a bad investment.

Benzino wrote: »

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).

Because not all DLC is equal, sometimes DLC looks like base game content cut out to be sold afterwards or it's too piecemeal and finicky (lot's of micro-transaction style DLC).
However, I think kunst nugget's main point though was that at the very least with DLC you know for sure that if you spend X euros, you will get a specific thing. With loot boxes, you never know for sure how much you need to spend, because it's always a gamble.

Benzino

marcbrophy wrote: »

Come out of the fog pal!

With that reasoning, I'm un-following this thread

:waves:

I mean ignoring the amount of money they make which in itself indicates people like them, some of the most popular games have been built around random loot drops such as D&D, Diablo, WoW, Destiny, then of course there is kinder surprise, lucky dips, happy meals, football stickers and the physical loot boxes you can buy, birch boxes etc.

But yeah you are right, nobody enjoys random loot

Benzino

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You might need to support you claims with some links and numbers because the numbers I've found completely contradict everything you say.
Nothing for Far Cry specifically, but GTA V, in 2013, had a development budget of $137million (with over 1000 people working supposedly working on it), a marketing budget of $120million and a manufacture budget of $7.7million. It has sold 85-90million copies. Super Mario World had a manufacture cost alone of $550million (adjusted for inflation to 2013) and sales of ~ 20 million. It wouldn't matter if SMW was developed for free by 1 guy in his basement, the manufacture cost dwarfs GTAVs entire budget.

I've highlighted your problem, the price of games has not been adjusted for inflation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not the gross amount we are talking about, it's the amount spent on marketing relative to the amount spent on actually making the game being sold. If you go from spending 50% of production cost on marketing to 200%, you now need to sell twice as many games to break even. But if you then try to argue that you need to add micro-transactions to justify the now increased costs, which were added by the extra marketing, then the marketing itself clearly doesn't justify it's own cost, meaning it's a bad investment.

And if you don't market your game, it will never sell either.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because not all DLC is equal, sometimes DLC looks like base game content cut out to be sold afterwards or it's too piecemeal and finicky (lot's of micro-transaction style DLC).
However, I think kunst nugget's main point though was that at the very least with DLC you know for sure that if you spend X euros, you will get a specific thing. With loot boxes, you never know for sure how much you need to spend, because it's always a gamble.

Then just don't buy the DLC?? That was always an option, but people still complained.

kunst nugget

Benzino wrote: »

:waves:

I mean ignoring the amount of money they make which in itself indicates people like them, some of the most popular games have been built around random loot drops such as D&D, Diablo, WoW, Destiny, then of course there is kinder surprise, lucky dips, happy meals, football stickers and the physical loot boxes you can buy, birch boxes etc.

But yeah you are right, nobody enjoys random loot

Of course people enjoy random loot, it's triggering reward systems in people's brains and that's why they are so effective in gouging money out of them. The fact is that they've got captive audiences in video gamers when they are playing the game and the animations and the sound design for the opening of the loot boxes are designed for the biggest psychological impact. These games can get thousands out of people and its a horribly cynical way of making money.

Mark Hamill

Benzino wrote: »

I've highlighted your problem, the price of games has not been adjusted for inflation.

You haven't addressed anything, try reading what I wrote.

Benzino wrote: »

And if you don't market your game, it will never sell either.

50% of a production budget in the €100million range not enough for marketing?

Benzino wrote: »

Then just don't buy the DLC?? That was always an option, but people still complained.

Because it was bad DLC.

gizmo

Kiith wrote: »

Not sure what that video is supposed to show. That graphics have gotten better? Of course games are more challenging to make nowadays, and take way more time. But the tools used to make these games are also far better. I don't doubt that the costs of making these games has gone up, but i don't believe that loot boxes are required for companies to turn a profit.

I guess this is part of the problem, people can look at that video and just think that the graphics are better but it's way beyond that. Every facet of those games have seen a massive leap in complexity; the general graphics techniques used to render the final image, e.g. lighting systems, the character models and animation, the texture work, the gameplay mechanics, the physics and the AI. On top of that, you have to drive all of these things in a considerably larger and more densely populated game world, which is a challenge in and of itself.

Sure, engines such as Unreal Engine 4 and Unity have become more ubiquitous and their licencing costs have changed to become based on revenue generated rather than upfront per-seat and and platform costs, but they're still not suitable for all kinds of projects. In the context of Spider-Man and open world games in general, it's not a coincidence that the majority of such games are built with in-house engines and tools. That's another cost that needs to be factored into development.

As for the content generation tools, sure they've become more powerful but that hasn't made the creation of the assets used in games any easier or cheaper. Again, it's not a coincidence that the biggest games these days feature content from a variety of out-sourcing firms for this very reason.

To generalise this, go back to Spider-Man, there was a ten fold increase in the team size between Neversoft, who created the 2000 entry in the series, and Beenox, who created The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It'll be interesting to see how large the team at Insomniac was who created the latest iteration.

On that last point, it has not, nor ever will be, my point that loot boxes are required for companies, or games for that matter, in general to turn a profit.

Potential-Monke

In general, any argument for MTs being necessary can be blown wide open by The Witcher 3. No MTs, not a lot of marketing in comparison, and still turned a hefty profit. Why? Because it's a good game that was given time to be good, not rushed out to keep the stakeholders happy. If MTs were a requirement to recoup costs, every AAA game would have them, but they don't. Problem is that most AAA publishers only want money, and fast, and they throw millions into unnecessary marketing. If your game is good, it will sell. Yes, some marketing is needed, but I find the publishers that have way more marketing than others usually have a meh game that they want you to buy, and will make it out to be something it's not. Whereas if you have a good game, little marketing will be just as effective.

But the biggest problem with MTs is that people will still buy them. Unless we all come together to protest with our wallets, we have to leave it up to Government bodies to make them illegal.

Benzino

Potential-Monke wrote: »

In general, any argument for MTs being necessary can be blown wide open by The Witcher 3. No MTs, not a lot of marketing in comparison, and still turned a hefty profit. Why? Because it's a good game that was given time to be good, not rushed out to keep the stakeholders happy. If MTs were a requirement to recoup costs, every AAA game would have them, but they don't. Problem is that most AAA publishers only want money, and fast, and they throw millions into unnecessary marketing. If your game is good, it will sell. Yes, some marketing is needed, but I find the publishers that have way more marketing than others usually have a meh game that they want you to buy, and will make it out to be something it's not. Whereas if you have a good game, little marketing will be just as effective.

But the biggest problem with MTs is that people will still buy them. Unless we all come together to protest with our wallets, we have to leave it up to Government bodies to make them illegal.

Just a quick point on the Witcher, CD project red are not your typical company, they make a lot from their online games platform, most companies don't have that revenue stream to fall back on.

Robert ninja

Potential-Monke wrote: »

If MTs were a requirement to recoup costs, every AAA game would have them, but they don't.

And if you ever listen to their earnings calls, which are public AFAIK, you can hear how they explain to investors that it's absolute greed and how it makes tons and tons of money. Never about "we need this to make a profitable product." Investor briefings cut through all the PR BS.

nix

Benzino wrote: »

Just a quick point on the Witcher, CD project red are not your typical company, they make a lot from their online games platform, most companies don't have that revenue stream to fall back on.

What online games platform are you talking about?

Robert ninja

gog.com

Every big player in the games industry has their own platform at this point or is working towards one. Even bloody mobile games are trying to break away from Google's play store.

Maxpfizer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

In general, any argument for MTs being necessary can be blown wide open by The Witcher 3. No MTs, not a lot of marketing in comparison, and still turned a hefty profit. Why? Because it's a good game that was given time to be good, not rushed out to keep the stakeholders happy. If MTs were a requirement to recoup costs, every AAA game would have them, but they don't. Problem is that most AAA publishers only want money, and fast, and they throw millions into unnecessary marketing. If your game is good, it will sell. Yes, some marketing is needed, but I find the publishers that have way more marketing than others usually have a meh game that they want you to buy, and will make it out to be something it's not. Whereas if you have a good game, little marketing will be just as effective.

But the biggest problem with MTs is that people will still buy them. Unless we all come together to protest with our wallets, we have to leave it up to Government bodies to make them illegal.

And what if I want to buy MTs?

I shouldn't be allowed because some other clowns have no self control?

Like what if I enjoy a night out at the casino having a few drinks and a laugh and making a few bets? "Oh you can't do that anymore sir because some asshole maxed out his credit card here last week".

If a game developer wants to say "we will give you this specific bit of extra content for X euros" then I am free to look at that offer and make a decision for myself.

Even if they want to say "for Y euros we will give you a few random items but getting good or bad stuff is just down to luck" then I can, again, make that decision for myself.

Are there AAA games out there that are impossible to play without DLC and MTs and lootboxes etc?

I don't need the government coming in and telling companies they can't offer me the opportunity to buy stuff because other gamers don't like it or because dip****s like Jim Sterling have problems with self control and need the government to regulate their spending and consumption habits.

At least we can agree on this, people absolutely should vote with their wallets. Definitely. If a developer or a publisher does something you don't agree with then don't give them your money. If you don't like MTs then don't pay for them. If a game is unplayable without DLC or MTs then don't buy it in the first place. That's great.

Don't demand government regulation to prevent companies from offering me the opportunity to pay for MTs or lootboxes. I can make that decision for myself, thanks.

MTs are necessary if the developer/publisher decides that's how they want to make their money. Full stop. The consumer is free to say "no thanks" and move on to a different MT-less product.

I don't know why this has blown up so much in video game circles.

If someone is into watching football, let's say the Champions League, then there are lots of additional purchase options that can enhance the experience. When halftime rolls around I will get the UEFA partners advertisements for gambling or drinking or fast food or whatever.

I can say "you know what, a couple of wee 5 euro bets on the second half of this match would make it more interesting" and I should be allowed to spend that if I want.

If I go to the cinema it's the same. I can watch the movie in 2D on one of their regular screens. Or I can go for 3-D, or 3-D Imax, or add some nachos and coke to my experience. Maybe my kid will be offered some random toy as part of a popcorn and drink meal based on the movie. I can take it or leave it with all of those things.

As soon as it comes to games though people act like Warner Bros is kicking their door in and demanding they buy a set of 5 random Orcs in Shadow of War for 5 euro or they'll smash up your hands so you can't ever play another video game ever again.

The government doesn't need to make anything illegal here. All we need is clear and transparent regulation. If your game has real monetary gambling then there ought to be an age restriction. Odds of "winning" specific loot should be advertised clearly. That's it.

If you are out trying to chat someone up and another individual comes along wearing better clothes and flashing a better watch and they pull and you go home alone with only an Abrakebabra for company do you whine that life is pay to win?

Maxpfizer

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.

Is this a problem though?

Surely as consumers we have the option to do our research and not buy a game in the first place?

It just seems weird to me that so many want to say "listen EA, I'll buy your game but don't you dare make TOO much profit". Like for some reason we take it personally that a developer or publisher wants to make loads of money.

It's the same with WiiU to Switch ports right now. What if I actually want to play that WiiU game on Switch? People are up in arms because "Nintendo are just being greedy".

Where is the line between "reasonable and fair profit" and "now you are just being greedy"?

Isn't it our responsibility as consumers to simply not buy things we don't want?

Instead people seem to be acting like we have an entitlement to own and play all the games and if a game offers optional MTs then we even want to tell them what their business model ought to be.

Kiith

It is a problem when the give whales a big advantage over regular players. Battlefront 2 for example had a massive increase in damage if you spent a bunch of money on cards. Shadow of War's Nemesis system locked legendary npc's behind a paywall, and that gave a big advantage over regular players. Plenty of other examples as well.

I just think any loot box system is bull****. Keep it cosmetic, and let people just buy the skins if they need to make extra money.

K.O.Kiki

gizmo wrote: »

On a related note, Polygon just published a pretty interesting piece on the topic of lootboxes in the context of Overwatch. It ties into a question I asked way back in the thread about direct purchases of content instead of loot boxes. Definitely worth a read in any case.

Want Overwatch to get rid of loot boxes? It might get more expensive

Bollocks.
There is no inherent value to a lootbox; Blizzard-Activision can set them to whatever price they want, same way they can set the "rarity" in the back-end.
Overwatch has already brought in revenue of over $1billion.
Any increase in cosmetic prices is just greed.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

And what if I want to buy MTs?

I shouldn't be allowed because some other clowns have no self control?

Governments regulate gambling because gambling addiction is real (and also because it's a good tax revenue stream).
The other thing is they're specifically going after children; getting them used to the idea that microtransactions/lootbox gambling is "normal".

Benzino

Kiith wrote: »

It is a problem when the give whales a big advantage over regular players. Battlefront 2 for example had a massive increase in damage if you spent a bunch of money on cards. Shadow of War's Nemesis system locked legendary npc's behind a paywall, and that gave a big advantage over regular players. Plenty of other examples as well.

I just think any loot box system is bull****. Keep it cosmetic, and let people just buy the skins if they need to make extra money.

Do you complain when people who pay for priority boarding get on the plane first and don't have to queue? Or that people in first class have more comfortable seats and better food?

If you don't like it, don't support that game. You are not entitled to a Star Wars game with no pay to win mechanics.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Bollocks.
There is no inherent value to a lootbox; Blizzard-Activision can set them to whatever price they want, same way they can set the "rarity" in the back-end.
Overwatch has already brought in revenue of over $1billion.
Any increase in cosmetic prices is just greed.

Huh? The article* examines what the economy in Overwatch would look like if they replaced Lootboxes with direct purchases of content and who would benefit or lose out in such a scenario. They don't make any argument about whether prices should rise.

*Link was busted but fixed now, my bad.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If a game developer wants to say "we will give you this specific bit of extra content for X euros" then I am free to look at that offer and make a decision for myself.

The key word there is "extra" though. If the game does not ship with enough content, which is available to the player without horrendous amounts of grind, to justify its asking price tag, it should quite rightly be criticised. Similarly, if game mechanics are balanced around these kinds of systems then it also deserves a similar amount of push back from the community.

Mickeroo

Benzino wrote: »

Do you complain when people who pay for priority boarding get on the plane first and don't have to queue? Or that people in first class have more comfortable seats and better food?

If you don't like it, don't support that game. You are not entitled to a Star Wars game with no pay to win mechanics.

Not a very good analogy. It's not about entitlement it's about poor game design.

Competitive games need one of two things to work, either a level playing field or a good progression system (or both).

kunst nugget

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If someone is into watching football, let's say the Champions League, then there are lots of additional purchase options that can enhance the experience. When halftime rolls around I will get the UEFA partners advertisements for gambling or drinking or fast food or whatever.

I can say "you know what, a couple of wee 5 euro bets on the second half of this match would make it more interesting" and I should be allowed to spend that if I want.

The thing is you're an adult. If you want to get pissed and bet on the game, that's your prerogative. Overwatch's age rating is 12 and Fifa has an E (Everyone) age rating.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If I go to the cinema it's the same. I can watch the movie in 2D on one of their regular screens. Or I can go for 3-D, or 3-D Imax, or add some nachos and coke to my experience. Maybe my kid will be offered some random toy as part of a popcorn and drink meal based on the movie. I can take it or leave it with all of those things.

If you really want to make a comparison to lootboxes, it would be you handing money over to maybe get a chance at decent seats or 3-D or maybe end up sitting on the floor.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

As soon as it comes to games though people act like Warner Bros is kicking their door in and demanding they buy a set of 5 random Orcs in Shadow of War for 5 euro or they'll smash up your hands so you can't ever play another video game ever again.

I haven't seen anyone act like that at all.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

The government doesn't need to make anything illegal here. All we need is clear and transparent regulation. If your game has real monetary gambling then there ought to be an age restriction. Odds of "winning" specific loot should be advertised clearly. That's it.

I think there should be information campaigns as well. Most parents are completely clueless when it comes to something like loot boxes and their similarities to real world gambling when it comes to behemoths like Fifa.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

If you are out trying to chat someone up and another individual comes along wearing better clothes and flashing a better watch and they pull and you go home alone with only an Abrakebabra for company do you whine that life is pay to win?

:rolleyes:

marcbrophy

Benzino wrote: »

:waves:

I mean ignoring the amount of money they make which in itself indicates people like them, some of the most popular games have been built around random loot drops such as D&D, Diablo, WoW, Destiny, then of course there is kinder surprise, lucky dips, happy meals, football stickers and the physical loot boxes you can buy, birch boxes etc.

But yeah you are right, nobody enjoys random loot

I didn't really mind what you said, tbh! I was just looking for an excuse to bail from the thread
The argument has been circular now at least 4 times here!
When all is said and done, we still sit down on different sides of the fence.
That's cool, we can still act civilised to each each

But, if you put the phrase "a very small minority of" in front of the word "people" in your first sentence, then you see what I am trying to state.

Maxpfizer

Mickeroo wrote: »

Not a very good analogy. It's not about entitlement it's about poor game design.

Competitive games need one of two things to work, either a level playing field or a good progression system (or both).

Ah, this kind of isn't really true in competitive sports either though. You can have more expensive gear or access to a more expensive facility, coaching etc.

For a game I think it really depends on how much of an advantage the paid extras would provide and whether or not they are available to other players by other means.

So if I can pay 5 euros to get a certain weapon or ability right now but other players will need to grind 5 hours to get the same then that's not strictly a competitive advantage, I think.

On the other hand offering a overpowered ability only to players who pay 10 bucks and it literally gives you a major advantage then sure that is not good for any competitive game.

Maxpfizer

kunst nugget wrote: »

The thing is you're an adult. If you want to get pissed and bet on the game, that's your prerogative. Overwatch's age rating is 12 and Fifa has an E (Everyone) age rating.

I agree with this part for sure. If lootboxes are gambling (I think in the case of FIFA they definitely are?) then they should be subject to the same regulations as other online gambling outlets.

Kiith

It absolutely is a competitive advantage to get something for €5 that someone else has to grind for 5 hours. You are more powerful than they are, simply because you paid money. You'll still be more powerful than they are after 5 hours, as you'll have gotten the next skill/power/ability after that, which will take them another 5 hours to grind. So until they max out a character, you will always be more powerful than them.

Skill means nothing if people can just pay their way to the top.

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

And what if I want to buy MTs?

I shouldn't be allowed because some other clowns have no self control?

Like what if I enjoy a night out at the casino having a few drinks and a laugh and making a few bets? "Oh you can't do that anymore sir because some asshole maxed out his credit card here last week".

If a game developer wants to say "we will give you this specific bit of extra content for X euros" then I am free to look at that offer and make a decision for myself.

Even if they want to say "for Y euros we will give you a few random items but getting good or bad stuff is just down to luck" then I can, again, make that decision for myself.

Are there AAA games out there that are impossible to play without DLC and MTs and lootboxes etc?

I don't need the government coming in and telling companies they can't offer me the opportunity to buy stuff because other gamers don't like it or because dip****s like Jim Sterling have problems with self control and need the government to regulate their spending and consumption habits.

At least we can agree on this, people absolutely should vote with their wallets. Definitely. If a developer or a publisher does something you don't agree with then don't give them your money. If you don't like MTs then don't pay for them. If a game is unplayable without DLC or MTs then don't buy it in the first place. That's great.

Don't demand government regulation to prevent companies from offering me the opportunity to pay for MTs or lootboxes. I can make that decision for myself, thanks.

MTs are necessary if the developer/publisher decides that's how they want to make their money. Full stop. The consumer is free to say "no thanks" and move on to a different MT-less product.

I don't know why this has blown up so much in video game circles.

If someone is into watching football, let's say the Champions League, then there are lots of additional purchase options that can enhance the experience. When halftime rolls around I will get the UEFA partners advertisements for gambling or drinking or fast food or whatever.

I can say "you know what, a couple of wee 5 euro bets on the second half of this match would make it more interesting" and I should be allowed to spend that if I want.

If I go to the cinema it's the same. I can watch the movie in 2D on one of their regular screens. Or I can go for 3-D, or 3-D Imax, or add some nachos and coke to my experience. Maybe my kid will be offered some random toy as part of a popcorn and drink meal based on the movie. I can take it or leave it with all of those things.

As soon as it comes to games though people act like Warner Bros is kicking their door in and demanding they buy a set of 5 random Orcs in Shadow of War for 5 euro or they'll smash up your hands so you can't ever play another video game ever again.

The government doesn't need to make anything illegal here. All we need is clear and transparent regulation. If your game has real monetary gambling then there ought to be an age restriction. Odds of "winning" specific loot should be advertised clearly. That's it.

If you are out trying to chat someone up and another individual comes along wearing better clothes and flashing a better watch and they pull and you go home alone with only an Abrakebabra for company do you whine that life is pay to win?

I can try some analogies.

How about a quarter of the cinema screen is blurred, only have to pay a small fee to clear it.

One of the characters' audio is silenced, only pay a small fee to hear the full audio.

Broadcasting of the champions league ends when stoppage time starts, only pay a small fee to unlock it.

You only have to pay a euro to unlock these things. The vast majority of people would pay it, because its only a tiny amount. That doesn't make it right. Developers are creating these ridiculous scenarios.