Support NeoGAF

[Stone Ocean]

So by this rationale aren't Kinder surprises like gambling? Or collecting football/baseball cards?

Kinder surprises are food with a toy in it, thats like saying McDonalds happy meals are gambling.
Collectible cards have physical value as they can be - and are encouraged to be - traded. You also don't have to pay $60 upfront in order to collect them.

 

[Salty Rice]

This would be great.

 

[Bluth54]

At least with TCG there's the trading aspect of it, which gives you a degree of control of getting what you want, I guess this is why Fifa Ultimate Team was able to, for the most part stay under the radar because it is possible for you to get that Ronaldo card for a price if you want one.

Valve also allows you to sell and trade cosmetic items from their big 3 games and well as many others games on Steam.

 

[Yoshi]

As someone who loves Magic and the Pokemon TCG, I am hesitant about this angle from a personal investment perspective (as in, I don't want these things to go away, because I like them) -- but this problem is bigger and more important than my personal taste.

It would be a harsh blow to physical booster packs if this treatment extended to them, no doubt. However, regulations aren't made that way; if video game gambling was cracked down on by the ESRB or similar parties, paper card companies would have time to react before they were cornered by legislation or other regulations. It would be tough for them, but I believe they could survive a shift to alternate distribution models. Pre-built decks are already a major focus for casual players, for one; they could also look to the model used by "living card games" as a way to distribute whole new expansions. Limited formats, which rely heavily on booster packs, would be the most difficult to maintain; I honestly can't think of a better model right now than simply moving boosters out of Wal-Mart and keeping them in local game stores, allowing limited to continue to exist for those most interested in it while unfortunately taking it away from younger players. That would suck, a lot, but it might be necessary... You can't give legal exceptions just because Magic is an awesome, way-less-predatory game, unfortunately.

I'm sure Wizards and the Pokemon Company are thinking about things like this already. I have faith that they could survive, even if it would pain my heart to see them take a hit.

These card games could still exist even if blind packages were completely banned though. You would just have the ability to buy individual cards or fixed decks instead of blind packs. It would change the experience of trading, but not the game itself (much).

Valve also allows you to sell and trade cosmetic items from their big 3 games and well as many others games on Steam.

Which actually puts it closer to gambling, that's very similar to what happens in Japanese casinos. The only thing missing is a fixed-price buyback option.

 

[ResourcefulStar]

Slap an AO on games with blind purchases.

 

[PsionBolt]

That being said, even though I don't particularly hate microtransactions as a whole, classifying them in consumer ratings seems reasonable. The only question is how granular do we want to be about it? Do we distinguish between types of microtransactions? Like is a one time direct purchase of a known item the same thing as a blind pay2win loot box? How about blind loot boxes for irrelevant cosmetics? Direct purchases but the site is only available for a certain time? Consumables/boosters? Mini-DLC?

I think two descriptors would suffice - one for in-app purchases with a fixed outcome, and one for in-app purchases with a randomized outcome (pity timers or not, no difference). If you have too many shades of grey, you leave room for publishers to skirt the lines in their favour.

 

[Zafir]

On their face, loot boxes don't seem terribly different from TCG card packs, which have been generally acceptable for children to purchase for two decades. Are we ready to retroactively decide that Pokémon TCG booster packs should always have been 18+? If not, where should the line be drawn? That said, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with requiring developers to advertise that such a system exists as well as the drop rates.

I feel like with video games, them being digital makes compulsive purchasing a hell of a lot easier. Buying something is basically a click away if you have your card stored.

I think that's especially true with kids. A parent is less likely to hand you their credit card to buy something in the shop. Plus there's going to be a cashier in play, who may step in and question a small kid buying loads of trading cards.

Compare that to a digital device. It's not impossible that a parent might have got their card saved on their account, haven't set it up to ask for a password when buying things, and then they've let their kid play a game solo for a bit while they've got to go do some chores, or work or something. Is it the parents fault? Of course it is, they should have put a password on that they wouldn't know. That said, I think increasing awareness and also changing defaults so that it does ask for a password when buying by default or other such things is a good thing.

I'd also argue with trading cards you do have something physical which you can sell back for money, or trade on for something you did want. Which isn't the case with every loot box implementation, I'd say most non-steammarket implementations you can't.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Slap an AO on games with blind purchases.

Seriously, this needs to happen.

 

[Zephyx]

Hard to imagine this would work without a clear definition of what gambling is. I think most people would only consider it gambling if they can cash out the money they spent after playing the game of luck/chance. For most games with loot boxes, there is no system in place that would allow the player to "cash out" after opening their loot box.

 

[InterMusketeer]

So by this rationale aren't Kinder surprises like gambling? Or collecting football/baseball cards?

This is what I immediately thought of as well. What about blind bag toys or gachapon machines?

The big difference is that you have to actually go to the store or place an order somewhere to get these items. Especially for parents it's much easier to keep an eye on what your money is being spent on. With games, it is possible to spend loads of cash without really realizing how much you've spent. There's tons of anecdotes and articles of this happening already.

Looking at it from that angle though, platformholders could just remove the ability to save creditcard information, so parents have to dial those in everytime they make a purchase, and this argument wouldn't work anymore.

 

[CJY]

You know what they say: a broken clock is forever bad, but a delayed one is right twice a day.

TotalBiscuit, I would sign this petition.

This isn't the saying...

It's "even a broken clock is correct twice a day". Doesn't apply here. In my experience, Totalbiscuit is right more than he is wrong. Michael Pachter on the other hand...

 

[Lucumo]

NeoGAF, reddit and 4chan uttered in the same breath, ouch.

Anyway, I really hope governments start to clamp down on this. I don't think either companies or players will deal with this matter sufficiently.

 

[clarknova156]

Awful man, interesting idea.

Every. Single. Time.

Really is it possible for Gaf to see the logic of this without the hate boner for TB being a factor?

 

[Biscotti]

Not to shit up the thread, but I think giving people like him clicks is much more dangereous than microtransactions.

As for the idea itself, I think if a game has microtransactions, putting that information in the box/game page should be mandatory.

You failed.

And I agree it should be mandatory.

 

[Card Boy]

Not to shit up the thread, but I think giving people like him clicks is much more dangereous than microtransactions.

Please explain? How does giving TB clicks affect any game you play in a negative way?

 

[RamaTheVoice]

In Europe at least, it turns out PEGI has a "gambling" content descriptor, whose information reads "May contain elements that encourage or teach gambling."

I don't actually know if it's used for games with lootboxes (yet?) but it seems like the framework for it is already there.

 

[CJY]

Just a warning, you're using that saying wrong. A watch that's delayed is always off-time while one that's broken (handles don't move) points the correct time twice per day.

Never heard of this "delayed clock" part of the phrase and wouldn't a delayed clock be right at least twice a day also?

 

[Ahasverus]

All for this

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

Never heard of this "delayed clock" part of the phrase and wouldn't a delayed clock be right at least twice a day also?

Let's say a clock is delayed by precisely 3 minutes without further slowing down or so. It would never show the correct time, as it's always 3 minutes behind.

 

[Aureon]

Ah this train is never late. Poor publishers just trying to break even.

Acting like ancillary revenue streams do not reduce the main price of a good is a strange position you're taking, though.

 

[CJY]

Let's say a clock is delayed by precisely 3 minutes without further slowing down or so. It would never show the correct time, as it's always 3 minutes behind.

Ah thank you, that makes sense

 

[KimonoNoNo]

I am down with this, I doubt ESRB will be though.

My understanding is the ESRB was created by and is funded by publishers and major developers to protect themselves and thier interests...

It was not ever intended to protect consumers.

I think he is barking up the wrong tree. He needs to target consumer rights groups.

Yep the ESRB won't do anything that's against their paymaster's wishes; They are not people's knight in shinning armor in this.

 

[Staf]

Love TB.

 

[Wink]

So I actually got a very lengthy answer from the german ESRB called USK and the gist of it is: since you can't actually win any money it is not considered gambling by german law and neither these folks nor the actual government body regulating gambling can do shit about it. It is considered the equivalent of buying Magic The Gathering card packs for example and considered "not harmful for children". Instead they pointed out other preventative measures like having published a parents guide book to appropriate media usage for kids.
So this will be a hard battle to win even in Germany and we loooove regulating and censoring shit in the name of the children ^^"

 

[stan423321]

In Europe at least, it turns out PEGI has a "gambling" content descriptor, whose information reads "May contain elements that encourage or teach gambling."

I don't actually know if it's used for games with lootboxes (yet?) but it seems like the framework for it is already there.

I'm pretty sure it isn't. It is, instead, used on in-game mechanics like Pokemon Game Corners. This is ridiculous, really, but what's there to do.

 

[Family Fry]

One of my friends 12 year old is obsessed and I mean absolutely obsessed by ultimate team on FIFA, he watches youtubers scream as the open a packs and of course buy points with youtuber wages.

All I keep thinking is back in my days if someone bought a sticker album and stickers would they have been filming their reaction to opening a pack and screaming when they got a shiny? More than likely yes and they would be millionaires by now.

Thing is he said to me all he’s asked his grandparents for xmas gifts this year and ALL he wants is...FIFA points.

I fear we may have already lost some children to gambling via games but it’s certainly not to late for this to start getting regulated, why should videogames publisher avoid regulation like they avoid taxes?

 

[test_account]

You really think Nintendo is going to put out a $100 Zelda game. How about Naughty Dog?

After season passes, pre order tiers, collectors editions, retail exclusive dlc, micro transactions, marketing deals, overseas tax deductibles, and loot boxes? Do you really think, when releasing a Star Wars game, that will sell like gangbusters just by the name alone. That EA is hurting in money? Or is it just pure fucking greed.

The reason why games arent $100 is because of the additional revenue streams that games have these days. Theres no denying that gaming developement costs have gone up. If they're going to stick with the old "$60 and nothing more" model, that increases the financial risk. Look at how many studios that closed in the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

Also, all businesses, especially those of the size of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA etc., are there trying to find streams of revenue. Even the place where you work probably does this. You can blame it on greed, but this is how most businesses works.

 

[Barrel Cannon]

Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.

Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.

I'm ok with a 100$ price tag for a game with enough worthwhile content.

 

[Coxy100]

The reason why games arent $100 is because of the additional revenue streams that games have these days. Theres no denying that gaming developement costs have gone up. If they're going to stick with the old "$60 and nothing more" model, that increases the financial risk. Look at how many studios that closed in the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

Also, all businesses, especially those of the size of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA etc., are there trying to find streams of revenue. Even the place where you work probably does this. You can blame it on greed, but this is how most businesses works.

there's way of doing it though mate. Transactions for consumables is one thing. When it actively affects the gameplay though it has crossed the boundary.

 

[Skulldead]

I'm surprise that it's not already done.... a lot of publisher will hit their head with this M rating later...

 

[curi0usBystander]

As an idea is good but I still think most parents would ignore it.

 

[Savitar]

There should be one that is fully visible with no way to hide what it's about.

 

[Fularu]

In a world where parents happily buy GTA and other 17+ games to their kids, I honestly don't see what would be the point of that... not to mention many of the games with such microtransactions are already rated Mature.

Minors can't gamble

So those games should be AO actually, not M

 

[Seik]

It totally is a form of gambling and should be rated as such.

 

[Ervik]

As many others have said already. Gambling should put an AO rating on games, and is the only way to actually stop this trend. People say vote with your wallet, but let's be honest here. That's not gonna happen in the real world.

 

[MrHoot]

I'm behind this motion as well. Iit is gambling and should be treated as such

 

[Skux]

The ESRB already covers in-game purchases.

Interactive Elements inform about interactive aspects of a product, including the users' ability to interact, the sharing of users' location with others, if in-app purchases of digital goods are completed, and/or if unrestricted internet access is provided.

 

[plagiarize]

I'm all for upfront labeling, but rolling it into the rating is imho not the best idea. I get the logic, but a game like Fifa carrying an 18 rating isn't going to make parents realize there are gambling elements to the game I don't think. Nor would it indicate to parents that they need to be informed about the dangers of loot boxes.

A seperately labeling requirement would be the way to go. Leave the age rating to inform about the things it already does.

Many parents use the rating so as to not get informed about a game. So I think it would need to be a new warning.

 

[test_account]

there's way of doing it though mate. Transactions for consumables is one thing. When it actively affects the gameplay though it has crossed the boundary.

Yeah, i agree to that. Maybe i misunderstood what he/she was saying, but i read it more as a general statement on finding extra revenue streams. Maybe it was just referring to loot boxes.

Personally, i think loot boxes can be fine. Its one of the reasons why i've kept playing Uncharted 4 online for so long. They do it in a way that there is no duplicates, so every time you open something, you're guaranteed to get something that you didnt have before.

 

[Durante]

Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?

I've been playing dozens of hours of Divinity: Original Sin 2 for the past weeks. It's an extremely high-quality game sold for €45, without any microtransactions or lootboxes.
It's also successful for its developers.

Honestly, if your business model depends on this shit, get a better business model.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

The reason why games arent $100 is because of the additional revenue streams that games have these days. Theres no denying that gaming developement costs have gone up. If they're going to stick with the old "$60 and nothing more" model, that increases the financial risk. Look at how many studios that closed in the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

Also, all businesses, especially those of the size of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA etc., are there trying to find streams of revenue. Even the place where you work probably does this. You can blame it on greed, but this is how most businesses works.

Jim Sterling has covered this is his latest video.

Games already cost more than $60, if you want to play the “full game” with all the content you’re buying $90+ collectors editions, season passes, DLCs etc. and people are already okay with that.

This is micro transactions on top of all that other bullshits

 

[Handy Fake]

Would also impact the kind of advertising publishers are allowed to put out. If nothing else it would make them rethink their decisions.

It's only recently that movies have made a return to 18 certificate (UK, I forget the US rating). It's all about target demographics. Advertising a kids (or non-adult orientated) game as such would be a big no-no if it contained "gambling" loot boxes.

As it stands, you can't promote gambling companies in the UK with advertising that could appeal to children. Including video games in this legislation would throw a rather large spanner in the works.

 

[shimon]

Great idea although I'm not so sure it will work.

 

[Fularu]

I'm all for upfront labeling, but rolling it into the rating is imho not the best idea. I get the logic, but a game like Fifa carrying an 18 rating isn't going to make parents realize there are gambling elements to the game I don't think. Nor would it indicate to parents that they need to be informed about the dangers of loot boxes.

A seperately labeling requirement would be the way to go. Leave the age rating to inform about the things it already does.

Many parents use the rating so as to not get informed about a game. So I think it would need to be a new warning.

Actually the AO rating isn't to warn parents, it's to prevent those items from beeing sold in big retail chains.

Walmart won't carry AO titles for instance and I don't believe Sony, MS or Nintendo allow them on their systems

 

[Verilligo]

The reason why games arent $100 is because of the additional revenue streams that games have these days. Theres no denying that gaming developement costs have gone up. If they're going to stick with the old "$60 and nothing more" model, that increases the financial risk. Look at how many studios that closed in the PS3/Xbox 360 era.

Also, all businesses, especially those of the size of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA etc., are there trying to find streams of revenue. Even the place where you work probably does this. You can blame it on greed, but this is how most businesses works.

I'd personally argue that if a business cannot stay in business without resorting to exploitative tactics, then they deserve to be run out of business. If the $60 model is broken, then change the price of the game. Surely that, too, is the free market in action. And if games with higher base prices don't sell, then I suppose those developers will have to learn to scale back. And if the free market doesn't accept that, then the free market deserves what's coming to it.

 

[Sanke__]

This is 100% the answer to loot boxes

 

[InsaneTiger]

Contains Real Money Transactions

 

[WHM-6R]

Can't picture what purpose this would serve. Its not like ESRB labeling has prevented every 8 year old on the planet from buying GTAV 4 times.

 

[c1d]

Fully support this

 

[plagiarize]

Actually the AO rating isn't to warn parents, it's to prevent those items from beeing sold in big retail chains.

Walmart won't carry AO titles for instance and I don't believe Sony, MS or Nintendo allow them on their systems

Then that's dumb. I thought this was about informing people, not trying to get games pulled from shelves.

Fifa Ultimate team is not something I want a kid exposed to without parents knowing about it. I see no reason why the adults who love it shouldn't be allowed to play it on consoles (even though I don't remotely get the appeal myself).

Seperately labeling makes even more sense then.