ScientificPizza
Banned
It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers
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.
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.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.
And?So the real reason people want this is to de facto ban loot boxes because they personally don't like them right?
It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers
Everybody is losing except Activisions executives and shareholders, yes. Absolutely.
Developers do not see a penny of lootcrate money.
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.
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?
Wait, sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread but was there a news item about that? Devs don't get a percentage?
Ahhh, so what youre really saying is that this is content censorshipNot all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.
Developers get paid the same whether a game generates $1, or $10,000,000,000. They do not get royalties.
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.
Not all of us like to rid consenting adults of engaging in a transaction we personally don't like. It's not that hard.
Link?
Wait, sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread but was there a news item about that? Devs don't get a percentage?
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.
in your example valve is both the developer and the publisher so you completely missed the point lmaoNo, 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?
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.
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?
I think the situation might be different for in-game item purchases though. That's a very different thing from straight game sales.
This may be an unpopular opinion but that's their decision to make
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.
Ahhh, so what youre really saying is that this is content censorship
Loot boxes are protected under the first amendment everyone, please dont tread on them
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
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.
It still completely blows my mind that there are so many people on the side of the publishers
kids buy lootboxes
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 whatIt 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.
Kids with shitty parents, yeah.kids buy lootboxes
Some people are dumb and so are some parents? Not sure your point here.
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.
Yes you can.
kids buy lootboxes
Unless they have changed it recently, no you can't. Most of the cosmetic DLC available can only be bought.
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?
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.
you can only buy lootboxes with credit cards?Kids can't have credit cards so their parents failed there.
Obviously self published developers are going to see money from microtransactions. Its just not what the post you were referring to was talking about.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?
You dont need a credit card to buy loot boxes. There is a reason why prepaid store cards are so popularKids can't have credit cards so their parents failed there.
Ultimately with PEGI resisting, I'd rather the UK government takes China's approach to exposed drop rates.
You realise that the regulation could *just* be exposing the loot table, right?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.
Obviously self published developers are going to see money from microtransactions. Its just not what the post you were referring to was talking about.
Developers do not see a penny of lootcrate money.
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
The part of the post you convinently deleted where they were talking about ActivisionI don't see whats ambiguous about
that I missed some nuance in the interpretation of.
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.tYou 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