Support NeoGAF

[ScientificPizza]

It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers

 

[Plague Doctor]

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.

That is actually one of the more telling questions on this issue. What is the legitimate and defensible reason that they would want to hide the odds and not be transparent with them? And why would Blizzard/Activision go so far as to fight releasing the odds in China?

 

[wrighton]

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.

I typically play about £30 of “Instant Win” games on the UK lottery a year just for fun and I can totally understand this concept and how dangerous it could be in video games.

When “playing” I’ve experienced multiple instances of being on the very edge of winning without actually winning. However this doesn’t get to me at all because I know full well the result is already decided the moment you pay to play.

 

[Uno Venova]

So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?

And?

 

[tenderbrew]

It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers

Not all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.

 

[kliklik]

Everybody is losing except Activisions executives and shareholders, yes. Absolutely.

Developers do not see a penny of lootcrate money.

Wait, sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread but was there a news item about that? Devs don't get a percentage?

 

[bitbydeath]

It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers

They probably get a cut of the profits.

 

[mugwhump]

I'm not sure I'd want extensive regulation, but I do believe that, at the very least, disclosing drop rates should be mandatory.

 

[Dougald]

Not all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.

Regulation wouldn't do this though, you can literally piss away your paycheque playing virtual slots on your phone at the bus stop in this country if you want. Just not if you're a minor, and the vendor has to play by the rules

 

[bigjig]

I hope it passes, I'm sick and tired of hearing all the "well, it's not technically gambling" defenses of this predatory system

 

[Audioboxer]

That is actually one of the more telling questions on this issue. What is the legitimate and defensible reason that they would want to hide the odd and not be transparent with them?

Largely perception, with some sprinkles of reality that some people would curb their spending or refuse to spend completely. The industry already doesn't treat this as gambling, nor have the ESRB or PEGI when asked to comment. So it doesn't have the perception of gambling and lots of gamers still seem to live in some reality where they think it's all for fun and they stand a good chance of 'winning'. This is where it is like the gambling industry. The house odds are massively against you and your wallet. You aren't getting given a 75% chance of getting what you want with a tiny bit of RNG for extra spice. We are talking 1-15% drop rates for most high end drops, roughly. Some games maybe verging nearer 20%. These are shit odds and it's why people can spend hundreds if not thousands chasing virtual goods, even if it's "just cosmetics".

The power is with the publishers not displaying their odds. It keeps some gamers psychologically treating everything as fun, and not spins of the wheel for their genuine cash. It's not monopoly money unless you're strictly using in game earned currency. It's real money. It's your money. As I said above people can do what they want with the money they earn. It's just being intellectually dishonest not to admit why the pubs are so hostile to transparency. It's a power play. It may even be a play of allowing them to change rates as and when and no one really knows. We don't know that for sure, and so far no one has spoken anonymously to any journalists about any shady inner workings. The hypothetical right now is it could happen.

Unlike trading cards that not only have the odds displayed, as seen by the pictures I posted earlier, a pack of cards on a shelf can't magically have its odds changed. They are set in stone. Games rely on server side virtual drop rates via strings of code. That is it. Gamers don't see the code, and as of right now they have no protection or transparency to know the code. Publishers will never self-regulate this of their own choosing because the house having all the power and complete veiled secrecy is the best possible outcome for them. It's what makes the most money and what preys on whales/addicts and unsuspecting gamers the best. That is all that matters here, making money no matter the cost. I still stand by not believing any of the big boys would completely ditch selling in the UK. Try and find workarounds asap though? Sure, just like Blizzard in China.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Wait, sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread but was there a news item about that? Devs don't get a percentage?

Developers get paid the same whether a game generates $1, or $10,000,000,000. They do not get royalties.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Not all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.

Ahhh, so what you’re really saying is that this is content censorship

Loot boxes are protected under the first amendment everyone, please don’t tread on them

 

[bitbydeath]

Developers get paid the same whether a game generates $1, or $10,000,000,000. They do not get royalties.

Link?

 

[Plague Doctor]

Largely perception, with some sprinkles of reality that some people would curb their spending or refuse to spend completely. The industry already doesn't treat this as gambling, nor have the ESRB or PEGI when asked to comment. So it doesn't have the perception of gambling and lots of gamers still seem to live in some reality where they think it's all for fun and they stand a good chance of 'winning'. This is where it is like the gambling industry. The house odds are massively against you and your wallet. You aren't getting given a 75% chance of getting what you want with a tiny bit of RNG for extra spice. We are talking 1-15% drop rates for most high end drops, roughly. Some games maybe verging nearer 20%.

The power is with the publishers not displaying their odds. It keeps some gamers psychologically treating everything as fun, and not spins of the wheel for their genuine cash. It's not monopoly money unless you're strictly using in game earned currency. It's real money. It's your money. As I said above people can do what they want with the money they earn. It's just being intellectually dishonest not to admit why the pubs are so hostile to transparency. It's a power play. It may even be a play of allowing them to change rates as and when and no one really knows. We don't know that for sure, and so far no one has spoken anonymously to any journalists about any shady inner workings. The hypothetical right now is it could happen.

Unlike trading cards that not only have the odds displayed, as seen by the pictures I posted earlier, a pack of cards on a shelf can't magically have its odds changed. They are set in stone. Games rely on server side virtual drop rates via strings of code. That is it. Gamers don't see the code, and as of right now they have no protection or transparency to know the code. Publishers will never self-regulated this of their own choosing because the house having all the power and complete veiled secrecy is the best possible outcome for them.

Exactly and well said. This is the only logical answer they could possibly have to hide the odds and it doesn't help their cause to play a semantical battle how this is not working with the mechanics of real world gambling.

 

[terencecah]

Not all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.

kids buy lootboxes

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Link?

I probably shouldn't have made that a blanket statement because some studios like Rockstar have a lot of negotiating power, but generally the only bonuses you see are from metacritic scores, not the devs getting a % of the profits. That was the reason why publishers wouldn't budge on royalties during the SAG Aftra strike, they didnt want to set the precedent of royalties.

 

[LordRaptor]

Wait, sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread but was there a news item about that? Devs don't get a percentage?

No, he's pulling that out of his ass. Or more likely I suspect he's pulling it out of some youtube idiots ass.
Some studios work for hire for a publisher.
Some studios self finance and self publish.

I mean, if Valve aren't making money from TF2, DOTA2 and CS:GO, who the fuck is?

 

[shoreu]

Cosmetics can be addictively exploitative too. Gonna bet more than a few have sunk more than they can afford into Overwatches boxes during the holidays.

This may be an unpopular opinion but that's their decision to make

 

[ScientificPizza]

No, he's pulling that out of his ass. Or more likely I suspect he's pulling it out of some youtube idiots ass.
Some studios work for hire for a publisher.
Some studios self finance and self publish.

I mean, if Valve aren't making money from TF2, DOTA2 and CS:GO, who the fuck is?

in your example valve is both the developer and the publisher so you completely missed the point lmao

it’s almost as if you picked the worst example intentionally

 

[kliklik]

I probably shouldn't have made that a blanket statement because some studios like Rockstar have a lot of negotiating power, but generally the only bonuses you see are from metacritic scores, not the devs getting a % of the profits. That was the reason why publishers wouldn't budge on royalties during the SAG Aftra strike, they didnt want to set the precedent of royalties.

I think the situation might be different for in-game item purchases though. That's a very different thing from straight game sales.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

No, he's pulling that out of his ass. Or more likely I suspect he's pulling it out of some youtube idiots ass.
Some studios work for hire for a publisher.
Some studios self finance and self publish.

I mean, if Valve aren't making money from TF2, DOTA2 and CS:GO, who the fuck is?

Bringing up Valve (a 300 man company) when we're obviously talking about EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take Two shows how much integrity your argument has.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think the situation might be different for in-game item purchases though. That's a very different thing from straight game sales.

If Bobby Kotick issued a statement that lootbox profits are being given to the developers then you would see me be far less aggressive about them.

 

[Audioboxer]

This may be an unpopular opinion but that's their decision to make

It most certainly is, but like in multiple industries where there is potential for human wrecklessness, we try our best for as much transparency and education as possible. Not prohibition, but as much as we can do to lay out all the facts and information so as people can make educated decisions about what they do with their lives/money/bodies/health.

Humans fail all the time, even when they know as much as they can. That's the human condition, but we still do as much as we can to have all the information and education out there. My personal belief is due to the size and money the games industry is generating from people's salaries, there is an ethical argument to be made around paid RNG attempts. The publishers can easily listen and read all these debates, but they don't act and lead by example. Path of Exile changing their ways to be transparent is a drop in the ocean to seeing EA, Valve, Blizzard, Activision, Sony or MS caring.

 

[bitbydeath]

I probably shouldn't have made that a blanket statement because some studios like Rockstar have a lot of negotiating power, but generally the only bonuses you see are from metacritic scores, not the devs getting a % of the profits. That was the reason why publishers wouldn't budge on royalties during the SAG Aftra strike, they didnt want to set the precedent of royalties.

I think that’s game sale royalties as opposed to loot boxes as devs use that money to create more ingame content.

Edit: You’re right they still get paid the same though, so I guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[tenderbrew]

Ahhh, so what you’re really saying is that this is content censorship

Loot boxes are protected under the first amendment everyone, please don’t tread on them

No. I didn't say that.

 

[LordRaptor]

in your example valve is both the developer and the publisher so you completely missed the point lmao

it's almost as if you picked the worst example intentionally

uhhhh what?
Valve are an independent self-publishing developer. They're a big one, but they're not unique.

Whos getting the lootcrate money from Dirty Bomb if its not Splash Damage?
If Splash Damage aren't seeing a penny of it, how are they expanding as a studio? All those long tail Brink sales?

If your objection to lootboxes is "selected games in the AAA console space" at least be aware that there are a lot more studios that are using this monetisation method that are not on consoles, are not AAA, and are not working as work for hire for publishers.

Bringing up Valve (a 300 man company) when we're obviously talking about EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take Two shows how much integrity your argument has.

What does it say for the integrity of your argument that it only works when using an unspoken assumption of On Console, AAA only, Final Destination?

 

[Hephaestus]

It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers

It blows my mind that people keep saying wont someone please think of the children over loot boxes, but have no problem with those same children playing games so long that they die.

 

[tenderbrew]

kids buy lootboxes

Some people are dumb and so are some parents? Not sure your point here.

 

[Azusa]

It blows my mind that people keep saying wont someone please think of the children over loot boxes, but have no problem with those same children playing games so long that they die.

Not only that but even playing games marked 18+ in Europe or even 17+ in US.

 

[ScientificPizza]

It blows my mind that people keep saying wont someone please think of the children over loot boxes, but have no problem with those same children playing games so long that they die.

lmao what

who is doing that

 

[MUnited83]

kids buy lootboxes

Kids with shitty parents, yeah.

 

[Jonnax]

Some people are dumb and so are some parents? Not sure your point here.

Some games with lootboxes are rated 3+ like FIFA.

Lootboxes uses the psychology of gambling to entice users and keep them playing.

It utilises real money to bet on a chance of getting a reward at unknown odds.

You need to be 16 to play the lottery in the UK.

Do you not see the problem here?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

It blows my mind that people keep saying wont someone please think of the children over loot boxes, but have no problem with those same children playing games so long that they die.

I've seen one person in this thread talk about kids. There are more people posting "Think of the children" sarcastically then there are people actually posting about children.

 

[MUnited83]

Yes you can.

Unless they have changed it recently, no you can't. Most of the cosmetic DLC available can only be bought.

 

[nynt9]

kids buy lootboxes

Kids can't have credit cards so their parents failed there.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Unless they have changed it recently, no you can't. Most of the cosmetic DLC available can only be bought.

I just double checked, you are correct.

 

[Clear]

If your objection to lootboxes is "selected games in the AAA console space" at least be aware that there are a lot more studios that are using this monetisation method that are not on consoles, are not AAA, and are not working as work for hire for publishers?

Yep, surely its the mobile and F2P space that'll eat the brunt of this. This thing's only blown up since a few AAA publishers have adopted this strategy, and lets be honest there's plenty of ways to be predatory without directly selling loot-crate type items as MT consumables.

The same result can be had by selling in-game currency for real-world money, the pretext that its there as a "time saver" for those who don't want to grind is bulletproof because I cannot imagine that game-content being too randomized or too grindy is something that could ever be legally regulated.

It'd be like trying to impose limits on intrinsics like game-difficulty or duration.

 

[Somnid]

Even one region will be enough to cause some serious reflection. I hope someone can pass it.

 

[Maximo]

On one hand i would love for someone to finally step up and stop this loot crate mania that seems to be infecting every game, but on the other hand i don't trust a Theresa May government to boot up a computer, let alone come up with some competent solution to this stuff.

Its a monkey paw wish...

 

[Chris1]

Kids can't have credit cards so their parents failed there.

you can only buy lootboxes with credit cards?

i guess parents should stop giving their kids pocket money so they don't spend it on prepaid cards or ultimate team points in stores too

hell it's not even solely about the money behind it so even games that allow you to buy it with in game credits which is most games can be at fault here too for encouraging gambling behaviour in kids without a penny spent

 

[ScientificPizza]

uhhhh what?
Valve are an independent self-publishing developer. They're a big one, but they're not unique.

Whos getting the lootcrate money from Dirty Bomb if its not Splash Damage?
If Splash Damage aren't seeing a penny of it, how are they expanding as a studio? All those long tail Brink sales?

If your objection to lootboxes is "selected games in the AAA console space" at least be aware that there are a lot more studios that are using this monetisation method that are not on consoles, are not AAA, and are not working as work for hire for publishers.



What does it say for the integrity of your argument that it only works when using an unspoken assumption of On Console, AAA only, Final Destination?

Obviously self published developers are going to see money from microtransactions. It’s just not what the post you were referring to was talking about.

Kids can't have credit cards so their parents failed there.

You don’t need a credit card to buy loot boxes. There is a reason why prepaid store cards are so popular

 

[Lothars]

Dissapointed, They should never be regulated, The only thing I think needs to happen is the odds need to be known what the items but loot boxes being regulated is beyond stupid especially since loot boxes are never gambling and shouldn't be classified as such.

 

[REV 09]

So they’ll just charge more upfront for games? Or bring back paid map packs that split the community?

The backlash over mostly optional loot boxes is silly imo. Games are providing more value and better experiences than I can remember. Finally mp games aren’t being fractured by add ons. Cosmetics for enthusiasts are also better and longer lasting than I can remember. Games actually continue to thrive instead of devs rushing to a put out a half-baked sequel.

If I LOVE a game I’ll buy a few loot boxes to support the team and get some decent content (Gears 4). If the game is just ok then I’ll enjoy free updates and never pay anymore (Titanfall 2).

 

[PSGames]

Ultimately with PEGI resisting, I'd rather the UK government takes China's approach to exposed drop rates.

This is all that I would propose. If a few whales are dumb enough to continue buying a loot box with infinitesimal odds to get what they want that's on them. This would also expose the pubs abusing the system before making a game purchase.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Dissapointed, They should never be regulated, The only thing I think needs to happen is the odds need to be known what the items but loot boxes being regulated is beyond stupid.

You realise that the regulation could *just* be exposing the loot table, right?

Regulation is good, especially for a practice that could easily grow out of control

 

[LordRaptor]

Obviously self published developers are going to see money from microtransactions. It’s just not what the post you were referring to was talking about.

I don't see whats ambiguous about

Developers do not see a penny of lootcrate money.

that I missed some nuance in the interpretation of.

 

[tenderbrew]

you can only buy lootboxes with credit cards?

i guess parents should stop giving their kids pocket money so they don't spend it on prepaid cards or ultimate team points in stores too

hell it's not even solely about the money behind it so even games that allow you to buy it with in game credits which is most games can be at fault here too for encouraging gambling behaviour in kids without a penny spent

Yah when I was a kid I always maxed out my IRA and put the residual in CDs before I bought my MTG cards.

 

[ScientificPizza]

I don't see whats ambiguous about


that I missed some nuance in the interpretation of.

The part of the post you convinently deleted where they were talking about Activision

 

[Lothars]

You realise that the regulation could *just* be exposing the loot table, right?

Regulation is good, especially for a practice that could easily grow out of control

That's not what I would call regulation though. Regulation as I see it is making any game that has a loot box an AO rating or something equally ridiculous. exposing the loot table isn't regulating and makes sense. If that counts as regulating than that is the part i suppor.t