• 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

P

patchday

Member
Wow it fills my heart with warmth to see gaf up in arms about this issue. I figured paid loot boxes were gonna take over w/o any complaint.

I am sad because I enjoyed Star Wars Battlefront on my PS4. My friend and I were planning to duo online in this game. But upon hearing about paid loot boxes that directly affects progression I had to abort my plans to purchase. Didnt even bother downloading the beta

I just want to fight on a balance battlefield but the Corporate executives are treating these games like a business. They are a business but you should also consider your customer's feelings and what is healthy for this series in the long run
 
L

le.phat

Member
LordRaptor said:
Again; they're not the same thing, so no matter how many times people say they're the same thing they still remain different things.

And yeah, if a 16 year old is considered old enough legally to join the army and die in combat for their country, or have sex and potentially get HIV and ruin their life, or get / get someone else pregnant and potentially ruin their life, buying a lottery ticket or being able to watch porn don't seem like things that are so much worse they have to wait 2 years. But that is entirely OT.
Click to expand...

Well, this is where we fundamentally differ. Because the law doesn't treat 16-year-olds like adults and neither should they be exposed to the same vices that can ruin a grown person.
 
D

dose

Member
Rami Ismail said:
If you have a genuine, tested, better solution for pubs & devs to decrease their financial risk without loot boxes, let me know.
Click to expand...
Reduce the scope and size of the project so you're not having to rely on microtransactions & loot boxes in order to cover your costs. Other companies can create and publish games without them and seem to get along fine so how do they do it?
 
D

dan2026

Member
KyleCross said:
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?
Click to expand...
And yet these companies don't pay their taxes.
Why should we give them any benefit of the doubt?
 
LordRaptor

LordRaptor

Member
le.phat said:
Well, this is where we fundamentally differ. Because the law doesn't treat 16-year-olds like adults and neither should they be exposed to the same vices that can ruin a grown person.
Click to expand...

I mean.... there's just as much suggestive evidence regarding violent videogames desensitising people to real violence as there is equating skinner boxes to real world gambling, so maybe you want to just declare any videogame with violence in it should not be played by anyone under, what, 18? 21?

e:
dose said:
Reduce the scope and size of the project so you're not having to rely on microtransactions & loot boxes in order to cover your costs. Other companies can create and publish games without them and seem to get along fine so how do they do it?
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that this the 'advice' you are giving to Rami Ismail
 
H

Hilarion

Member
KyleCross said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's a concern because people under 18 gambling is quite literally illegal in the US. If a 16 year old can't but a lottery ticket, why should he be allowed to buy a loot crate?
 
KarneeKarnay

KarneeKarnay

Member
KyleCross said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aren't the most played games currently games that weren't classed AAA or given the $60 price tag?

That should tell you something about how fucked the Game Publishers have made AAA gaming.
 
S

sullytao

Member
I really hope something happens soon because it's so unbelievably out of control now. To think that core gameplay of a lot of games is now designed to be a huge chore to progress without spending more money is disgusting. Problem is they have gotten away with it for things like pre order bonuses, on disc dlc, microtransactions, so I don't hold much hope for loot boxes to be the straw that breaks the camels back.
 
LordRaptor

LordRaptor

Member
Hilarion said:
It's a concern because people under 18 gambling is quite literally illegal in the US. If a 16 year old can't but a lottery ticket, why should he be allowed to buy a loot crate?
Click to expand...

(sigh)

Because they're not the same thing?
One is gambling, one is a blind purchase.

Because 'gambling' can idiomatically mean 'taking a risk', it doesn't mean it is literally gambling.
Like "Publishers are fucking the consumer" doesn't mean publishers are actually having sex with a consumer
 
V

Van Bur3n

Member
Sounds like a stretch. If parents are hardly willing to even pay attention to the ESRB rating when buying games for their children, ratings including the likes of gore and nudity, I doubt the inclusion of microtransactions will get a reaction.

I definitely agree there needs to be more awareness of the shitty business practices, but this seems rather futile.
 
T

Timeaisis

Member
I can't believe how many of ya'll think this is a good idea. Rated M for having lootboxes, are you serious?

Not only is that a asinine proposition (what constitutes "lootbox" anyway, and when does it become gambling), it completely dilutes the entire purpose behind the ESRB. Now, ostensibly we could have a Mario game with some microtransactions rated M while a more mild Uncharted spinoff with plenty of murder gets slapped with a T. Is that a reality you guys are cool with?

This isn't about the M rating, let's be real. It's just another way of trying to punish publishers so we can keep having our loot-box free $60 games. And while I don't like lootboxes either, this isn't the way. Clearly.
 
V

Vice

Member
Hilarion said:
It's a concern because people under 18 gambling is quite literally illegal in the US. If a 16 year old can't but a lottery ticket, why should he be allowed to buy a loot crate?
Click to expand...

I believe a lootbox would be more similar to something like a package of trading cards rather than gambling. But, I suppose someone could argue baseball and Magic: The Gathering cards are similar to gambling as well.
 
I

Iva Demilcol

Member
Sounds good.

In my opinion we have to make more noise so the publishers can see the backlash coming from different directions. If you guys are fans of YTs like hbomberguy, Joseph Anderson, Super Bunnyhop, etc. you can ask them to make videos about loot crates, I'm pretty sure publishers won't like the negative publicity.

You guys living in the US can try to get in contact with the people who sued Valve because of the gambling fiasco in CS GO. Pretty sure they can take legal actions if they agree with the notion that games with loot crates function similarly to gambling.
 
P

PMS341

Member
Timeaisis said:
I can't believe how many of ya'll think this is a good idea. Rated M for having lootboxes, are you serious?

Not only is that a asinine proposition (what constitutes "lootbox" anyway, and when does it become gambling), it completely dilutes the entire purpose behind the ESRB. Now, ostensibly we could have a Mario game with some microtransactions rated M while a more mild Uncharted spinoff gets slapped with a T. Is that a reality you guys are cool with?

This isn't about the M rating, let's be real. It's just another way of trying to punish publishers so we can keep having our loot-box free $60 games. And while I don't like lootboxes either, this isn't the way. Clearly.
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds like the incentive here would be for the developers NOT to forcefeed those practices into games that don't require them. ESRB ratings have been all over the place for years, and as someone who worked in a retail game store for nearly a decade, they have little power over a screaming child. Their "purpose" is to be a guideline, not a law, and it is ignored often. However, using your example, a parent would absolutely question why a Mario game they are buying for their child is rated M. Upon finding out it was due to gambling with real money involved, most parents wouldn't be huge fans of that. Anecdotal, but still. A T-rated Uncharted also isn't a bad idea, really, and if it had no gambling components, that would be even better.

"Punish publishers" is a weird term, and oddly defensive. No one is out to get publishers. However, many publishers have been anti-consumer for years and years, and with pay-to-win mechanics popping up in fully-marketed, fully-priced AAA titles, you can't say there is a pro-consumer reason for this. It comes down to money, and only money, and there is only one direction of flow here.

We can have lootbox-free $60 games. We can have $60 games without preorder bonuses, microtransactions, and eight different versions with varying values of digital currency. We can have $60 games without $60 million+ marketing budgets. CEOs of publishing companies don't need to take home $60 million+ each year. Like many markets, the game industry is vastly anti-consumer, yet needs us to survive. There is no defending them.
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Hilarion said:
It's a concern because people under 18 gambling is quite literally illegal in the US. If a 16 year old can't but a lottery ticket, why should he be allowed to buy a loot crate?
Click to expand...

Why should they be allowed to buy football cards, or collectible Lego figures or any other number of products that use blind buy mechanisms to encourage repurchase and are often aimed directly at children?

Isn’t the main difference with gambling that with blind purchases you’re guaranteed something for your money - you’re buying something. You aren’t risking your stake for the chance of getting more money back or losing it
 
N

Norwegian_Imposter

Member
KyleCross said:
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.
Click to expand...


Get out of here with your corporate apologist reasoning.
 
L

le.phat

Member
KyleCross said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would games suddenly cost 100 dollars? How do you figure?
 
T

Timeaisis

Member
PMS341 said:
Well, it sounds like the incentive here would be for the developers NOT to forcefeed those practices into games that don't require them. ESRB ratings have been all over the place for years, and as someone who worked in a retail game store for nearly a decade, they have little power over a screaming child. Their "purpose" is to be a guideline, not a law, and it is ignored often. However, using your example, a parent would absolutely question why a Mario game they are buying for their child is rated M. Upon finding out it was due to gambling with real money involved, most parents wouldn't be huge fans of that. Anecdotal, but still. A T-rated Uncharted also isn't a bad idea, really, and if it had no gambling components, that would be even better.

"Punish publishers" is a weird term, and oddly defensive. No one is out to get publishers. However, many publishers have been anti-consumer for years and years, and with pay-to-win mechanics popping up in fully-marketed, fully-priced AAA titles, you can't say there is a pro-consumer reason for this. It comes down to money, and only money, and there is only one direction of flow here.

We can have lootbox-free $60 games. We can have $60 games without preorder bonuses, microtransactions, and eight different versions with varying values of digital currency. We can have $60 games without $60 million+ marketing budgets. CEOs of publishing companies don't need to take home $60 million+ each year. Like many markets, the game industry is vastly anti-consumer, yet needs us to survive. There is no defending them.
Click to expand...

Well punish is the whole point, right? The whole idea behind making lootbox games rated M would be to dissuade publishers from doing so, and punishing publishers when they do.

And let's not forget this would not affect already rated-M games with lootboxes at all. Like, it doesn't even dissuade them all that much. But it would hurt E and T rated games sales with these components a whole lot. Hell, those games probably wouldn't even be bothered to be made anymore.

And regarding your "force feed" comment. I'm not pro lootboxes either, but I understand the bottom line of the games business. Rated M Mario with some lootbox mechanics seems like a wild proposition to me.
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
I don't generally agree with TotalBiscuit, but yeah, this needs to happen. Not for myself, but my younger nephews do not need to be exposed to these gambling mechanics, or at least their parents should be well informed if their kids are going to engage in it.
 
L

LordofPwn

Member
I'm all for disclosure of micro-transactions and I don't like that they are becoming so frequent in games, and i think the odds should be easily accessible, but loot boxes aren't gambling. You pay and you get something in return. Gambling is paying and then either getting nothing or something in return it's why most sweepstakes say no purchase necessary otherwise it would be considered gambling...

lootboxes are the same as trading cards, and those vending machines with the toys or stickers, hell even like gum ball machines. You might not get what you want but you get something and that is not nothing.
 
Q

Qwark

Member
I think that microtransactions should be disclosed as part of the rating, but I don't think that should guarantee it an M rating, that's just going to inflate the number of M rated games and make it harder to understand why it has an M rating.

Maybe bump it up to a T though, I don't think kids younger than that should be exposed to some of the more predatory microtransactions, while most at teen age will be responsible enough to handle them. Or just leave the rating alone and add a noticeable disclaimer to it, that seems the more realistic first step.
 
R

Raide

Member
mrklaw said:
I assume things like FIFA card packs would fall under the loot box label?
Click to expand...

They match the lootbox ideal. Still random chance to get something, also a random chance for other players who pay to get a better team than you etc. All without knowing your odds.
 
Gamezone

Gamezone

Gold Member
I have an idea. What if game journalists consider microtransactions in their reviews? One of Norways biggest gaming journalist sites, Gamer.no recently gave NBA2K18 a well deserved 4/10 because of that, but most well known sites gave the game high scores or good PR. Why?
 
T

Timeaisis

Member
Zombie James said:
Rate them all AO so no stores will sell them. It's the only thing that will get publishers to change.
Click to expand...

Did you think about this statement before you posted it? Because from this, a bunch of games would just disappear, and that many more would never, ever, ever get made.
 
T

TripleBee

Member
scitek said:
The idea is it would impact the amount of money loot boxes are bringing in and deter developers from including them in their games.
Click to expand...

"Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB"

Buying lootboxes is online - and is there any interaction more pure then giving somebody money.
 
Spuck-uk

Spuck-uk

Banned
As a consumer your choice is, ultimately, going to be:

1) Suck it up and accept microtransactions

2)Pay far more for the base game than you're used to

3)Say goodbye to AAA titles and accept that games will be shorter/smaller or less impressive.

Because the costs of production are only going up and up.* FWIW paying more to get a complete game is preferable to me, but probably not most of the population



*option 4, try and convince yourselves you can have everything and that game developers are greedy.
 
P

PMS341

Member
Timeaisis said:
Well punish is the whole point, right? The whole idea behind making lootbox games rated M would be to dissuade publishers from doing so, and punishing publishers when they do.

And let's not forget this would not affect already rated-M games with lootboxes at all. Like, it doesn't even dissuade them all that much. But it would hurt E and T rated games sales with these components a whole lot. Hell, those games probably wouldn't even be bothered to be made anymore.

And regarding your "force feed" comment. I'm not pro lootboxes either, but I understand the bottom line of the games business. Rated M Mario with some lootbox mechanics seems like a wild proposition to me.
Click to expand...

It is a wild proposition, but it was your example.

Again, you cannot "punish" the publishers. People who make 60 million a year are not "punished". Publishers are not your friends, are not pro-consumer, and exist solely for profits. They force developers to spend extra time and money on systems that benefit only the publishers themselves. Here's a wild thought: maybe E and T rated games don't need those components? At all? Not that any game does, really.

The bottom line is that the "games business" does not exist to please the consumers that keep it going. AAA games as we know it are not the only games in existence, and there are still mega-hits that don't rely on the mass marketing capabilities of a bunch of bald men in suits. Lootboxes, especially pay-to-win lootboxes, are avoidable, and sales will reflect that in time. Don't forget that Online Passes were OK until publishers were forced not to - it takes standing up to corporations. Don't just lie down and take it.
 
M

mrlion

Member
I agree...to an extent.

Overwatch has loot boxes but its a system that works for the game because of its online environment. You don't have to buy loot boxes, its only for cosmetics, affects no gameplay, and if you keep playing you'll get the skins you want eventually without spending a single penny.

Not so much in Shadow of War...where, yes they are optional, but without them there's consequences which affect the gameplay directly. These are the games that should be looked at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

US government denies ESRB's AI-powered face-scanning 'age estimation' proposal
News
30
2K
Spukc replied
The ESRB has started slapping blockchain games with Adults Only ratings, so Epic has changed its store policy to allow them
News Business
2
849
Zathalus replied
PlayStation 6 Is Planned to Be the Most Powerful Console of Its Generation; Sony Is Only Considering AMD
Rumor Hardware 2 3 4
157
13K
Mexen replied
343i Still Considering Adding Microtransactions to Halo: The Master Chief Collection
2
56
4K
Kagey K replied
Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
2K
amigastar replied
Top Bottom