LordRaptor
Member
Its.... somehow a less ludicrous and uninformed generalisation to pretend that Blizzard as ongoing developers of Overwatch don't make a single penny money from Overwatch lootcrates?
-
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
Its.... somehow a less ludicrous and uninformed generalisation to pretend that Blizzard as ongoing developers of Overwatch don't make a single penny money from Overwatch lootcrates?
I mean one of the reasons other countries have put regulations on microtransactions and loot boxes is BECAUSE it got out of hand and the industry was doing nothing at all to self regulate. Stuff was making some news and it forced the government to get involved.
Those saying they don't want regulation seem to trust the industry would never go that far ignoring it already has done so in many cases already.
Those saying they don't want regulation seem to trust the industry would never go that far ignoring it already has done so in many cases already.
UK doesn't have an AO rating
We have an 18 rating which is our highest and like 90% (exaggerating big time but see here for an example) of games already have that.
If "regulating" consists of giving the remaining games with lootboxes an 18 then I'm all for it, it's not like it will make much difference anyway. The best selling games are all 18s anyway except FIFA, and an 18 slapped on FIFA won't change a damn thing.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
There is no reason for EA, Activision, Ubisoft, or Take Two to charge more than $60 for a game, they're bigger and richer then they've ever been. There are games like Titanfall 2 that give free DLC by using Micro Transactions instead of hiding their cosmetics behind RNG.
I would argue that a games economy and progression being tailored towards lootboxes purchases compromises the game more than a map pack splitting the user base does.
ScientificPizza
Banned
There is already precedent in China where the regulation is specifically about exposing the odds on loot boxes
Assuming regulation will just lead to harsher classification is ignoring all of the other loot box regulation that has taken place around the world
No, its not even my argument. Im just saying that you clearly steered the conversation toward self publishing to be dismissive of their argument when thats not what they were talking about
I dont know anything about how profits from sales and microtransactions work. I would guess its wildly different from publisher to publisher and game to game. All I can do is speculate and, unless you have some insider knowledge about it, thats all you can do too
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Hang on, you've explicitly told me the opposite in another thread, and that entirely changes my argument. To reiterate it, if I can't get the content for free in your preferred system, then it's worse for me.
tenderbrew
Member
So either put in toothless moral gestures that don't do anything meaningful or put in onerous and unnecessary regs that de facto outlaw the practice for all.
Progress.
ScientificPizza
Banned
There are........ more than those two options?
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Yeah i was wrong about being able to unlock skins in game. 100% my fault.
I still prefer Titanfall 2s business model though, there's no RNG involved, you can just buy what you want instead of buying $99 packs for "best value" like these lootcrate driven games do.
LordRaptor
Member
We do have an equivalent, actually.
I'm not 'steering' the convrsation.
The claim made was the claim made.
It is insanely disingenuous to pretend that the discussion of lootboxes is solely about "fat cat publishers" and "Big Gaming lining their pockets", just because they just started doing it in games you care about so its now Officially A Big Deal.
All it does is reinforce my suspicions that most of the objections are coming from NIMBYism and not a position of informed industry discussion.
Disagree. More money means more risky games which may not sell well. Activision could make Crash Remaster, Ubisoft -- Child of Light, Valiant Hearts and South Park (the first one wasn't a huge hit), Take-Two is probably funding new BioShock and spent money on failed Battleborn. EA has Unravel 2 and that game from Brothers' dev.
You and I don't know how much money these publishers have and what they spend it on. But I don't think they do all this just to fill their already filled pockets.
That's not for video games, PEGI only goes up to 18
Sorcerer Supreme
Member
now how can we make multiplayer player on console free again
AntraxSuicide
Banned
That's fine, you're allowed to like what you want. But now I'm back in the camp that has their games made better for me by having loot boxes since there's no better option that's been executed.
ScientificPizza
Banned
Its only becoming a bigger deal because it is much more prominent now and is reaching a much larger audience. This isnt people protecting their games, its watching this business practice that has *always* been controversial grow from a niche issue to a much larger mainstream problem
tenderbrew
Member
The real disconnect is that those who buy loot boxes and those who think it's a huge problem are different groups.
ScientificPizza
Banned
Well, obviously? Why would someone engage in a practice they think is a huge problem?
tenderbrew
Member
😉
Reminds me when Anita Sarkeesian's early videos were making the rounds and threads of critique against certain games were raised, felt like some were pushing back... obviously due to the sexism but the *worry* of their boobie and certain games being somehow taken away from them. People cling hard to their games and anything that *could* effect them is met with pushback, some are happy accepting exploitative practices as long as a franchise they like keeps happening.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
If they think Activision-Blizzard is going away without lootboxes then i have fiscal reports that i can show them to alleviate their concerns.
tenderbrew
Member
I'll be honest I see zero equivalence between those two scenarios and really am not grasping your point unless your point was "I need to find a way to make Venn diagram of people I despise overlap more so it's easier to generalize."
Basically. People make the most the most disingenuous arguments on these topics. It's embarrassing.
tenderbrew
Member
I assure you my point was sincere and I am going off of what people have proposed which they admit "probably wouldn't change anything anyway" or would "hopefully" kill loot boxes.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Ok, those are two options, we've proposed more than that, and id be happy to throw out more ideas if you want.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I doubt they're going away, but I also doubt I get free DLC forever with Overwatch without the loot boxes. Do you think companies would do years of free DLC?
ScientificPizza
Banned
In this thread (and across multiple others) people have given numerous ideas about regulation (myself included) that doesnt fit into either of your weird categories.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Overwatch has a massive playerbase, theres no doubt in my mind that they could make years worth of DLC funded by allowing players to buy specific skins for a reasonable price.
I will admit they would make less money this way.
LordRaptor
Member
Its actually the exact opposite; in terms of gaming community 'sizes' mobile, web and PC - where lootboxes are long established and commonplace - vastly outnumber the self-proclaimed "core" on consoles.
Even on consoles its been a staple of one of the biggest 'mainstream' gaming franchises on the planet since FIFA '09.
So what we're actually talking about is something that has been mainstream for a very long time suddenly becoming a huge problem for the niche but very vocal minority.
Hence my suspicions about the grounds on which people are now complaining.
ScientificPizza
Banned
EAs Ultimate Team stuff is something that has been constantly derided and criticised since it was introduced. I dont think thats a good example of something that has been accepted
And the difference between the mobile and console markets are expectations. These kind of boxes have existed in F2P games (on all platforms) forever, the difference is that now these practices are becoming more commonplace in traditional $60 video games and thats what is causing the tipping point
Yeah also everyone should do this. Shadow of War was one of my most anticipated games since the moment I finished Mordor and I am more than fine completely missing that shit for the inclusion of this shit
Megatron
Member
The U.K. Is a pretty small market overall. I wonder if companies would choose to just not release their games there rather than remove the predatory practices.
If they are forced to release a loot box-free version, I could see people buying that version regardless of the region in which they live.
If they are forced to release a loot box-free version, I could see people buying that version regardless of the region in which they live.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
But apparently this never happens without making some content locked behind a payment.
I recommend everyone I know to play Shadow of War, because it's a great game.
You should've boycott it since 2010 when TF2 introduced boxes which you couldn't open without paying. But when you actually can open them, it suddenly became a bad gameplay mechanic.
CosmicQueso
Member
US $800 million was spent on ultimate team last year. If thats not acceptance I dont know what is.
ScientificPizza
Banned
I meant critically
tenderbrew
Member
So EA runs the figures and says they are fine with that revenue stream size and people are fine with Ultimate Team and like it. Who the hell cares what people who don't play UT think about the system? I mean I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point but I just don't get how that seems ok to anyone?
You say that like it's easy to do when things of this type earn companies literal billions that if all of GAF boycotted this practice it likely wouldn't even make a dent in how much they earn.
People have willingly accepted these practices as a normal thing in the industry the world over and it's easy for companies to just push these predatory practices further and further as games become more of a service. If these companies are not going to regulate how they do things, the government will eventually step in when it gets out of control like other countries have already done.
ESRB and PEGI were one of the ways meant to help self regulate the game industry to prevent government involvement. But if they're not having any problems with this stuff, they've only kept the door wide open for government involvement.
ScientificPizza
Banned
Because this extends beyond UT? This isnt an issue that pertains to *one* game
tenderbrew
Member
That's what you took out of that? That I only was alluding to one game?
Oh well. I'm out of gas. Have a good night.
Must say that drafting a petition for the EU parliament is a little hard to do. I'm still not sure how the EU petitions work but it is worth a try.
Multiple video games in recent years have introduced so-called "loot boxes". Mechanics which target adults and children alike and are essentially a form of gambling. These mechanics are even hidden in fully priced console games such as (but not limited to): FIFA series, Shadow Of War, [state other big name games here].
These games have been forcing players (some subtly) to obtain "loot boxes" in order to progress in the game by making it near impossible to do so without them. Lootboxes are a set of random virtual goods (often no odds are given with no guarantee that the items received will help with the game's progression). In order to obtain a "Lootbox" one has to pay with real-life currency, which may lead to significant loss of money over time due to its highly addictive nature.
Video game developers have spent a significant amount of time to ensure "loot boxes" (and other similar mechanics) are as addictive as possible and essential to the progress of the game. Children are easily drawn into these mechanics due to there highly addictive nature and ease of purchase; racking up charges for the family.
These in-game practices should be regulated across all the EU and perhaps be classified and treated as what they are: "gambling".
Multiple video games in recent years have introduced so-called "loot boxes". Mechanics which target adults and children alike and are essentially a form of gambling. These mechanics are even hidden in fully priced console games such as (but not limited to): FIFA series, Shadow Of War, [state other big name games here].
These games have been forcing players (some subtly) to obtain "loot boxes" in order to progress in the game by making it near impossible to do so without them. Lootboxes are a set of random virtual goods (often no odds are given with no guarantee that the items received will help with the game's progression). In order to obtain a "Lootbox" one has to pay with real-life currency, which may lead to significant loss of money over time due to its highly addictive nature.
Video game developers have spent a significant amount of time to ensure "loot boxes" (and other similar mechanics) are as addictive as possible and essential to the progress of the game. Children are easily drawn into these mechanics due to there highly addictive nature and ease of purchase; racking up charges for the family.
These in-game practices should be regulated across all the EU and perhaps be classified and treated as what they are: "gambling".
EU doesn't need to ban it, but by having it classified as "gambling" it could lead to the eventual ban of these games in multiple individual countries. For example Greece, where digital gambling is illegal (that would be the individual countries laws at work and not the EU).
Having an Adult only rating applied to them would still be a victory (preferably with a big fat warning label stuck on the box).
AntraxSuicide
Banned
See, posts like these just aren't reasonable. You're not arguing for common sense regulation like the disclosure of odds, you're just trying to find a way to get them banned.
Let me ask a general question: if loot boxes got a game rated 18/M for Mature (not AO), would you be okay with that? That seems reasonable. But since it won't effectively ban these games, I suspect it's not enough for some folks.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I don't support it myself, but I do think it's reasonable goal to argue. If you look at the two major forms of regulation on loot boxes by other large gaming markets, China may have just regulated the odds but Japan in practice banned it (their version at least, gacha 'loot'). I'm not really a fan of that approach but I think there's enough precedent now to make it reasonable for folks to at least argue for it.
One interesting thing to note though is technically in both those cases, neither went as far to call it gambling -- just 'similar to gambling.' If the UK went as far to call it outright gambling, that'd be even a stronger symbolic action in some ways than the regulation itself.
Spaced Harrier
Member
For the people defending lootboxes, the psychological trickery, the absolute lack of transparency, I've one question for you: Why.
What do you stand to gain from the status quo?
What is the threat, that regulation brings to you?
Why should business be exempt from regulation by the government?
And why personally do you feel this way?
And be honest about it like I was.
What do you stand to gain from the status quo?
What is the threat, that regulation brings to you?
Why should business be exempt from regulation by the government?
And why personally do you feel this way?
And be honest about it like I was.
WaterAstro
Member
I might look like I'm defending loot boxes by saying it's not gambling. I'm just defending how real gambling is a different and fundamentally more destructive, so everyone should consider loot boxes as a new kind of addiction.
Also, it depends on the implementation. I consider Overwatch and Hearthstone to be pretty bad, and Shadows of Mordor certainly doesn't make sense. FIFA FUT is very unrewarding a lot of the time as well.
Some games, like Puzzles and Dragons, I never felt the urge to even spend once, and I got a shitton just by playing free. League of Legends implementation is excellent by the fact that they had direct skin purchase already, and the loot boxes actually gave players who don't pay the ability to earn skins. I earned so many skins for free, now, that I don't even need to spend money on League.
What are you talking about? Gacha is the main element of Japan f2p games.
Did you know that Shadow Of War is rated 18+ in Europe and its illegal (at least in UK) to sell/give it to children.
Valkerionseven
Member
I think revealing % drop rates would be the minimum but interesting none the less.
That would be fine, and prefably with its own warning label on the box. It should clearly state on the box that theres gambling like features on it and that the game tries to force its use of it.
jellies_two
Member
but there is plenty of precedent. Gambling is an addictive drug and kids are vulnerable.
the reason game companies have got away with it so far is because they operate in a opaque bubble: players reviewers and game companies want the world to think games are still something you buy, install, and play with an age rating.
but increasingly they are turning to gambling techniques to extract more revenue while list prices remain static or drop.
If an adult wants to get addicted to something then that is their prerogative but having the techniques used by slot machines installed into under 18 rated games is asking for regulation as self-regulation isn't working.