-
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.
TotalBiscuit asks ESRB to consider microtransactions in its criteria
- Thread starter Tonyx
- Start date
No that is not the reality, that is the reality that you have made up in your head.
the bad precedent is the gaming industry thinking it can skirt established local laws
Yeah I'm real friend of the lootbox culture with all my making fun of Shadow of War. This is why you don't make stupid assumptions on what people are about because they can have pragmatic, sometimes differing opinions on linked subjects.
I'm allowed to decry bad monetization structures and ALSO think that TB and Sterling and all their ilk are carnival barkers.
Weltall Zero
Member
It's not quite the same thing for a game to portray gambling (even if that means gambling with fictional money you get in-game), than for it to actually feature real gambling (with real money or a currency that can be purchased with it).
StrategyFan
Member
not sure many people would make card games if they couldn't sell booster packs
Hey I love me some video games, but someone needs to regulate lootboxes/microtransaction gambling. I really don't think the ESRB are the right people for it though. Parents mostly ignore esrb labels and the biggest offenders aren't even in a space where people would look. As bad as something like mordor seems, there's tons of phone games that rely on using psychological tricks on children to bait them in to spending money or playing obsessively.
I'm totally down with gambling, I just think there needs to be a clear message around it.
it's worth noting that MTG cards are an actual commodity(like it or not) that can be sold, bought, and traded on the after market and are not marketed in the same hyper agressive manner as a lot of the in-game microtransactions.
You can have a fully functional magic deck without ever buying anything from an official WotC distributor, and will never have something pop up that says "having fun playing? you're too tired, buy 3 more packs from your comic shop or watch advertisements to get more energy" Also, Magic drop rates are fairly well established (with some exceptions) so you know what to expect.
I'm totally down with gambling, I just think there needs to be a clear message around it.
it's worth noting that MTG cards are an actual commodity(like it or not) that can be sold, bought, and traded on the after market and are not marketed in the same hyper agressive manner as a lot of the in-game microtransactions.
You can have a fully functional magic deck without ever buying anything from an official WotC distributor, and will never have something pop up that says "having fun playing? you're too tired, buy 3 more packs from your comic shop or watch advertisements to get more energy" Also, Magic drop rates are fairly well established (with some exceptions) so you know what to expect.
It's more or less the same, but the digital format allows a lot more control over the user experience and a lot more possibilities for shady tactics, like giving the user a high drop rate for the first crate and then nerf it into oblivion for the next one. You can't do that with physical items.
test_account
XP-39C²
Thats the case with most seasons passes. The additional content is usually released months after the release of the game.
At the very least games should be required to list somewhere on the box if they sell microtransactions. I'm not sure if bumping the rating of a game to M if they sell loot boxes is the best course, but the presence of any microtransactions is absolutely valuable to the consumer in the same way that informing them of the violent, sexual, or graphic content is.
RazielCuts
Member
What about games that don't have loot boxes or microtransactions? Should they be lower than $60 across the board? What's the ratio of base game to lootboxes scale?
I'm not seeing this logic unfold but I'm sure publishers love you for it.
E_Darkness
Member
That would actually be a good thing. Slap a mature rating on the thing. But it wouldn't change much probably. I mean it might for stuff like FIFA? I can imagine games like that would really suffer with a sudden jump to mature. But the games that have created the current humdrum (Mordor, Battlefront etc.) wouldn't really be affected.
It's also excruciating to hear that "well without that they would cost more" when we bloody hell know that the money they make doesn't even go mostly to the workers. And a huge part of these AAA publishers put their money into tax evasion schemes anyway, that doesn't get refunneled of course into paying the worker. Then a massive amount (usually half the budget) is spent in massive marketing efforts. I don't really feel sympathy for the costs for these massive publishers since they both set it like this for themselves, and don't even use a huge chunk of that money to actively make the industry better
You dont see articles about kids accidentally buying trading cards at the newsagents because they dont understand the concept.
If you're shocked about the power players rewarding themselves instead of improving the structure that allows them to profit you shouldn't look into any modern labor-based industry then, lol.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
It's 2017, not 2007. The only people talking about the pre-owned market now are GameStop execs trying to save their business model.
I'm not shocked, i'm stating it, mostly to counter the corporate defenders trying to defend the practices of said AAA: Believe me, I know. I follow the socialist movement in my own party so defense of fair labour is high on my list
Militaratus
Member
ESRB has 2 ratings dealing with gambling:
The main difference between the two is whether real cash or a currency exchanged/bought with real cash is involved. The concept of Loot Boxes is considered gambling as you wager/place a bet using currency for a random outcome, like a slot machine.
Loot Box only fall into Simulated Gambling on the strict requirement that all forms of wagers/bets using currency can only be obtained through any other means besides any involvement of real money.
As soon as Loot Boxes can be bought either directly using real money, or indirectly by having real money exchanged with a currency that can be manipulated by real money (as in paying real cash to increase the amount you have), it becomes Real Gambling. This condition also applies for purchases where Loot Box (tokens) "happen" to be included.
So, as soon as ESRB actually starts enforcing this rule, a massive wave of fines will be sent to Publishers/Developers that allow players to buy Loot Boxes using real money. Possibly going as far back as Mass Effect 3, since you can buy Loot Boxes in that as well.
The main difference between the two is whether real cash or a currency exchanged/bought with real cash is involved. The concept of Loot Boxes is considered gambling as you wager/place a bet using currency for a random outcome, like a slot machine.
Loot Box only fall into Simulated Gambling on the strict requirement that all forms of wagers/bets using currency can only be obtained through any other means besides any involvement of real money.
As soon as Loot Boxes can be bought either directly using real money, or indirectly by having real money exchanged with a currency that can be manipulated by real money (as in paying real cash to increase the amount you have), it becomes Real Gambling. This condition also applies for purchases where Loot Box (tokens) "happen" to be included.
So, as soon as ESRB actually starts enforcing this rule, a massive wave of fines will be sent to Publishers/Developers that allow players to buy Loot Boxes using real money. Possibly going as far back as Mass Effect 3, since you can buy Loot Boxes in that as well.
Lanrutcon
Member
Let's not group TB and Sterling together, if you'll at least humor me on that. Their stances on certain social issues have been divergent enough that a distinction needs to be made (another topic of conversation).
We need people like Jim. Sure, his style pisses some people off and he is making a living off what he does (a safe assumption), but I feel someone needs to highlight the topics he covers. He raises awareness instead of just fanning the flames. I see a clear difference between what he does and just throwing coal into the flames while laughing maniacally.
If you consider the stuff he talks about to be fluff and blind panic, then sure. He must look like a clown to you, cashing in on people's net rage. I don't see him that way.
(but sometimes he fucks up when reviewing things)
Fair labor in the digital content industry will likely never happen because the psychological exploitation of workers through crunch and other means will continue to be a standard management tool. Nothing will change unless a vast amount of those employees unionize.
They already are in many cases. Season passes/dlc for example where arguably 60 dollars does not give you something that feels like a complete game (Battlefront 1) with content that's already been made unlocked in the 99$ gold edition or by preordering or some other bullshit.
The worst part is not that these games give hardcore fans with deep pockets an avenue to buy cosmetic stuff, which many will anyway, no, not just that, that's not good enough.
You have to have this shit impact the whole games design, slow it down into a shitty grind until you beat down the player who is enthusiastic about doing well in the admittedly fun gameplay to buy your lootboxes because they can't progress in a halfway reasonable amount of time otherwise (apparently Battlefront 2).
It hurts game design, it hurts the stature of gaming, it preys on people's addictive tendencies and honestly the argument disgusts me, especially when indie devs roll out fantastic games for under 50 bucks like Divinity 2 or Hellblade.
Loot boxes aren't gambling. You can't win money buying loot boxes. As someone above me said they are like booster packs of Magic cards.
TB is so self-righteous and yet also so opportunistic. He's just jumping into this crusade because people are talking about it but he's taking it to an absurd conclusion.
It's like his ridiculous tantrums over games not having fov sliders. Yes, TB, I guess you're on to something here, but being a histrionic entitled baby about it doesn't advance the conversation at all.
Dude should go back to crying about ethics in video game journalism, that's the level that his videos operate on
TB is so self-righteous and yet also so opportunistic. He's just jumping into this crusade because people are talking about it but he's taking it to an absurd conclusion.
It's like his ridiculous tantrums over games not having fov sliders. Yes, TB, I guess you're on to something here, but being a histrionic entitled baby about it doesn't advance the conversation at all.
Dude should go back to crying about ethics in video game journalism, that's the level that his videos operate on
Glass Shark
Banned
.
basically the esrb has been dropping the ball by their own definitions
franklyshankly
Member
Because the thing you get is a virtual item tied to a digital account and has no real world value. It is a massive distinction.
Hey man Pachinko isn't gambling either you win a prize that has no actual value you take and sell for thousands of yen at another store because this store has a deal with the panchinko parlor to get around gambling laws.See? Totally not gambling.
Me opening DOTA 2 loot boxes and selling rare items for thousands of dollars is also not gambling right.
Agreed, they started blocking content, making it only available in new copies, like a character in Mass Effect, then first day dlc, cut content, paying for promises (season passes) and now loot boxes in paid games so they can keep milking.
I love gaming, but it is probably one of the worst entertainment industries for the consumer.
Stone Ocean
Member
No, they don't. In fact, now that I think about it, has any publisher actually outright claim they need lootboxes for that or is this excuse for an argument 100% pulled out of corporate apologist arses?
DevilSnake
Member
A separate label on the box emphasising virtual gambling might be a better option. Millions of parents already buy their children games regardless of age rating so they won't take notice.
If something like Fifa, a well known brand suitable for everyone, suddenly gets an 18 rating on the shelf alongside DOOM & GTA with no other context, it could potentially lessen the meaning of the rating system for those who do abide by it. Also, despite how annoying loot boxes are, they're more inline with collector card packs kids have been buying for decades than more mature forms of gambling.
If something like Fifa, a well known brand suitable for everyone, suddenly gets an 18 rating on the shelf alongside DOOM & GTA with no other context, it could potentially lessen the meaning of the rating system for those who do abide by it. Also, despite how annoying loot boxes are, they're more inline with collector card packs kids have been buying for decades than more mature forms of gambling.
A distinction that fails to recognize that it's not the incentive to be able to win a real world item or prize or money that enables the paychological pressure to spend more, but the fact that the person receiving the digital item undergoes the same exact process as for them this virtual thing is something that has real life value to them.
If a government feels it has to protect people from real money gambling because of peoples addictive personalities, it has to do the same within the virtual world, because for the victim there is no distinction.
And yes, I think victim is the appropriate word.
aussiedude08
Member
Its scary to think about whats next for these games with lootboxes. They have already gone too far, and now they are turning full priced games into pay 2 win.
The sad thing is how many people are playing so the games are not losing sales by it being too uneven for the player base.
The sad thing is how many people are playing so the games are not losing sales by it being too uneven for the player base.
Sabercrusader
Member
I don't see any reason why this shouldn't happen. If nothing else it at least helps let people know about the loot box systems in a game they're interested in.
Serenitynow
Member
Well itd be a sure way to keep loot boxes very far away from Nintendos games. The moment they put that shit in their games I may very well be done with gaming. I think its a good idea anyhow.
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
The ESRB though isn't a government body.
Well, they can sell $100 games in a market that they've conditioned to take $60 games, or they can sell games with gambling for $60 with an M rating, or they can dial back budgets for AAA games in a market that they've conditioned to want the shiniest, prettiest graphics.
Publishers made this problem, they can have fun fixing it.
I actually had a discussion on this topic about two weeks ago with some folks with whom I play Planetside after their latest "implant revamp" that turned the game a bit towards "pay to win" (because unlocking the rare ones and upgrading the common ones is prohibitively expensive from an in-game standpoint).
Gambling with real currency would class a game as AO per the ESRB's current rating system:
jim2point0
Banned
He does go into that in the beginning of the video.
Magic the Gathering cards are physical items with real-world value that can be traded or sold freely. You are getting something of guaranteed value. And if there is a specific card you want, you can pay more money to get it.
Loot boxes are more like gambling because you can put in money and get absolutely nothing of value in return.
Daffy Duck
Member
IMHO lootboxes are similar to gateway drugs for hard drugs.
In years to come there may well be a gambling epidemic with the young children of today not knowing any better bcause it's entrenched in their psychology and they can't stop themselves.
Shit should be outright banned and long term unbiased studies carried out.
This post probably contains 99% shit, just like most loot boxes, but I do think they need some regulation.
In years to come there may well be a gambling epidemic with the young children of today not knowing any better bcause it's entrenched in their psychology and they can't stop themselves.
Shit should be outright banned and long term unbiased studies carried out.
This post probably contains 99% shit, just like most loot boxes, but I do think they need some regulation.
Gambling is heavily regulated, and probability data is provided to know what you are getting yourself into.
My dislike of TB aside, he has a good point here. If the industry wants to adopt casino like business models to dole out digital goods randomly for coins, it should be regulated like slot/pachinko machines.
My dislike of TB aside, he has a good point here. If the industry wants to adopt casino like business models to dole out digital goods randomly for coins, it should be regulated like slot/pachinko machines.
Just to take on the "without additional monetisation, the games would cost more", this does highlight something quite important even though it probably isn't correct. I don't think that games would actually become more expensive if other monetisation options weren't available, I just think we would see a reduction in how many games are made and the scope of those games.
A lot of gamers seem to want their cake and to eat it too. We want bigger and better games, and we want them to have expansive online systems that have running costs, and we want them to support the community and we want them to update and improve the game over its lifetime. We simultaneously expect the cost of the game itself to remain the same or, in real terms, decrease. The idea that this could occur without some kind of additional revenue stream is patently absurd. If we want the benefits of Games as a Service we are going to have to pay for it. It's one thing to argue for regulation, one thing to argue for monetisation to be done in ways that, say, aren't Pay To Win, but to argue that it should go away entirely is totally pointless.
I think that's probably a little excessive. Pokemon card packs and football sticker packs didn't cause a gambling epidemic, after all.
A lot of gamers seem to want their cake and to eat it too. We want bigger and better games, and we want them to have expansive online systems that have running costs, and we want them to support the community and we want them to update and improve the game over its lifetime. We simultaneously expect the cost of the game itself to remain the same or, in real terms, decrease. The idea that this could occur without some kind of additional revenue stream is patently absurd. If we want the benefits of Games as a Service we are going to have to pay for it. It's one thing to argue for regulation, one thing to argue for monetisation to be done in ways that, say, aren't Pay To Win, but to argue that it should go away entirely is totally pointless.
I think that's probably a little excessive. Pokemon card packs and football sticker packs didn't cause a gambling epidemic, after all.