-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
British Labour MP has asked the UK government to regulate loot boxes
- Thread starter Audioboxer
- Start date
and then we can all sit back and wait for games to become what they were back in the good ol days
Gamespy Arcade.
Novaworld.
Fileplanet.
I'm still baffled people are on publishers side, hand waving it away. It's at least worth looking into and it still reasonably new, people seem to think, boy this is great, gaming is great because of loot boxes, it's nuts. They have already gone too far.
Can anyone really say games before loot boxes were worse because they didn't have loot boxes and that games with loot boxes have been anything but a bad thing in recent games?
ArkhamFantasy
Member
People defend Overwatch lootcrates because the game has free dlc. I counter that by pointing out that they could just let people buy the skin they want instead of doing a blind box. (Like titanfall 2).
tenderbrew
Member
"Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport"...
The dumbest timeline.
The dumbest timeline.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Blame PEGI for not doing anything.
Stead Fast
Banned
Still waiting on the Department for Social Affairs and Woodland Folk before I truly despair.
tenderbrew
Member
Not sure anything needs to be done other than pedantic meddling.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The industry still has the chance of self regulating, but it is choosing to ignore and/or justify the actions of its members...
An additional thing I came across: almost winning gives gamblers an almost identical reaction to that of winning. It makes a near miss effectively a win and encourages the person to continue to seek out that winning feeling, which has then become the winning/near-winning feeling.
A normal person would consider a near win as a loss, however the gambler would react as if it was a win.
http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media-cent...sforgamblersfireoffawinresponseinthebrain.php
Whilst I can't specifically think of any games that capitalise on this, from reading the above article it seems gambling companies do deliberately make players feel that near win feeling.
From the Overwatch comments we know that the loot boxes are designed to be as enticing as possible and it may be the case that they also play on this behaviour.
A normal person would consider a near win as a loss, however the gambler would react as if it was a win.
http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media-cent...sforgamblersfireoffawinresponseinthebrain.php
Whilst I can't specifically think of any games that capitalise on this, from reading the above article it seems gambling companies do deliberately make players feel that near win feeling.
From the Overwatch comments we know that the loot boxes are designed to be as enticing as possible and it may be the case that they also play on this behaviour.
Plague Doctor
Member
It really wouldn't have gotten this far and perhaps farther if the industry themselves didn't dismiss concerns so quickly and with semantics. It was just too much money on the line...
Fucking publishers. Talk about personal responsibility vs. compulsion... to make more money.
Edit. What is also sad is that this overshadows the hard work of developers.
Fucking publishers. Talk about personal responsibility vs. compulsion... to make more money.
Edit. What is also sad is that this overshadows the hard work of developers.
Audioboxer
Member
Do you mean the other way around? You have to earn all the epics before you can get legendary? So it's like some sort of progression based system?
The PC gamer article talks about the visuals.
http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/
Even when you're "losing" it still looks and feels enticing. Meaning there is excitement each time a box is opening.
Yes they are adhering better to self-regulation but have you looked how long it took them to do it? How long gacha games existed without drop rates, minimum payout ratio, and other things that exist now? Puzzle and Dragons (the most popular gacha game) was released in 2012 but the mentioned regulation was implemented in Japan only last year.
LordRaptor
Member
Its not a progression system.
The rarest drops are only available to people that have already collected a full collection of rare drops. They're just as rare as the existing rarest rolls, but you literally are not even rolling for them unless you have already collected all of the existing rarest items, and the games would often not even tell you that was how it worked.
And you get dupes, not pity conversion to something you can use for dupes.
Jezbollah
Member
It wont be talked about in 3am news, let alone primetime. The subject just isnt newsworthy to the broadcast media. You may get a few opinion columns deep in print or a website or two.
Deeke[VRZ]
Member
If this happens it'll disrupt gaming and will have unknown effects--most likely more season passes.
I'm all for devs having as many ways to monetize their game as possible. It's a miracle any big budget game even gets made at all, let alone becoming a big hit for years - and the reason they last so long is because of the service game model that depends on microtransactions and loot boxes.
Hoping the gov can get involved without screwing things up, but that's not very likely. All they'd need to do is show chances of lootbox drops and leave it at that.
Don't disrupt the games industry economy. That could be very bad for all of us. Especially devs and publishers.
I'm all for devs having as many ways to monetize their game as possible. It's a miracle any big budget game even gets made at all, let alone becoming a big hit for years - and the reason they last so long is because of the service game model that depends on microtransactions and loot boxes.
Hoping the gov can get involved without screwing things up, but that's not very likely. All they'd need to do is show chances of lootbox drops and leave it at that.
Don't disrupt the games industry economy. That could be very bad for all of us. Especially devs and publishers.
hemo memo
Member
Same with this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KnMKCHqXLow
It's ridiculous how we get manipulated easily.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Same.
LordRaptor
Member
It doesn't matter how super rare your skin drop was its worth nothing on the big mac index
Linkstrikesback
Member
Basically comes down to you always get a reward, even if it is worthless junk.
Tranqueris
Banned
When you step back a bit and take a look at it, this whole situation is actually really bizarre.
"Yeah I'm a video game designer, I work on a lot of different aspects of video games, I also provide support for the slot machine racket we include in the games we sell to teenagers."
"Yeah I'm a video game designer, I work on a lot of different aspects of video games, I also provide support for the slot machine racket we include in the games we sell to teenagers."
Theyre functionally similar to TCG packs. People pay for a random assortment of items and that's what they get
tenderbrew
Member
Why does it matter if they are?
Jezbollah
Member
Because there's already a framework in the rating system to cater for gambling. Its an easy out.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
They get a reward every time and the reward always has the same value (nothing).
Then you couldn't earn the skin for free. No thanks.
+ everyone else who responded:
Thanks. I'm curious to see whether this is considered a significant enough distinction in law.
I've seen a friend drop mutliple $1000s into an phone f2p game's loot boxes (knowing the odds and not regretting it), so I'm interested in how this all shakes out.
tenderbrew
Member
So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
Yes.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Yes you can.
tenderbrew
Member
Maintenance
Member
I'm not saying there is one with him. I'm saying my exposure to that made me interested in what the outcome of this petition and questioning will be.
I also wonder if regulation will have any impact at all on the # of people engaging in it.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I'm not calling for a ban, im calling for regulation. (preferably from the ESRB/PEGI, not from a conservative government).
That being said, as a gamer yes i would like to see them go away because there is literally no benefit to me or developers. As a human being there is still a point to be made about how economically damaging this can be.
I'd like to see data from the big publishers showing that lootcrates do not create "whales", i'd like to see % rates for rare drops, and i'd like to stop any kind of rigging by the company to keep people invested by giving them an item just when they feel like the player needs one. I'd also like a cap on the amount of money you can spend in the games.
tenderbrew
Member
Ironic you're making this an ethical issue.
Birgitte2004
Member
Pretty much.
While I agree there's no real reason to allow them, I've seen no real reason to ban them either that doesn't boil down to "But the children/other addict!" or "I don't like them".
Revealing the odds/regulating them in Japan has hardly done anything to their popularity anecdotally, so I'm not even sure what the point is of that.
No one's goal is to make it impossible to spend money on video games. People argue against exploitative methods like loot boxes. People will always be able to spend a lot of money if they truly want to. That's usually not what regulations are designed to prevent.
Also, I'm sure the geniuses running these companies are hard at work coming up with their new scams to replace lootboxes should the unthinkable occur.
Audioboxer
Member
Polygon picked up on this
https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/15/16478458/loot-box-microtransactions-legality-uk
https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/15/16478458/loot-box-microtransactions-legality-uk
What I find most interesting about all of this is that since I can remember, the government has wanted to put negative label on video games but all of a sudden gambling is chill for kids
tenderbrew
Member
1. No benefit to buyer
2. No benefit to seller
3. "Economically damaging"
Everybody is losing! Who is buying these things?
No wonder GAF has a crusade on its hands with such hyperbole.
Trogdor1123
Member
Sorry, thought it was an ao ratingI think that is a bit hyperbolic
and there is more on that list
ScientificPizza
Banned
Yeah. And I personally dont like them because they are explorative and prey on peoples possible lack of impulse and addictive behaviours which is an incredibly disgusting business practice
Right, I'm just wonder how many of the people who are spending serious cash on lootboxes actually feel like they've been exploited or ripped off. That is, how much good the legislation and regulation would do by helping those people avoid it.
Audioboxer
Member
It's cool. I think AO is the ESRB, not PEGI. It seems to mostly cover games with sex, but some really violent games have made the list.
It's largely for the benefit of everyone in the industry, and to keep the content creators clean and above board. If people want to spend thousands on loot boxes that is up to them. As long as they can afford their bills and to eat, it's their lives. If they're causing their own lives self-destruction or genuinely can't stop but want to, that is when medical aid is often recommended for addiction/gambling.
Some people will curb their spending or turn away if the drop rates are really that abysmal. Those are the few the publishers are scared to lose if they have to be transparent. Plus all the reviews and comparisons that will go on in the industry would not be to the liking of publishers who are already hostile to getting bad reviews or criticised. If they hate Jim Sterling already, just wait till he has the loot box drop rate wars comparison videos between the big pubs.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Everybody is losing except Activisions executives and shareholders, yes. Absolutely.
Developers do not see a penny of lootcrate money.