Of course he did, hes got a patreon to fill, and hes not gonna do it by NOT catering to gamer entitlement.
-
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
Of course he did, hes got a patreon to fill, and hes not gonna do it by NOT catering to gamer entitlement.
GoldenCrow
Member
I don't like TB at all but I 100% agree.
Games with blind boxes should be illegal to play / sell to people not of age to gamble in that territory and should be regulated by the appropriate state / national government body. You should be able to know the odds of all the boxes like other forms of gambling already do. Also the publisher should need a gaming license in each state / country that requires one.
Aw ye here we go, the canned "gamers entitlement" excuse and "w-well jim only does this for gamer pandering"
The aim would be to remove gambling elements
Not to get games pulled. In short it's a way to pressure publishers and devs to not include those in their games.
Make people buy Ronaldo if you really need transactions but remove the gambling aspect of it
I mean, Jim can be right, but he also stands to benefit from stirring more outrage. It's his business model.
Peroroncino
Member
You're not wrong, however publishers have this weird obsession of making as many games as they possibly can not mature, similarly with movies, so it's possible that this might help a little.
As long as he's actively exposing industry bullshit I honestly don't care how much money he makes in the process.
And yet there are tonnes of games companies out there that bring out $60 or less games and get on fine. If you need to charge more then they're doing it wrong and should scale back their games.
Caayn
Member
Good. I've said this in past as well. If they want to add gambling with real world money into their games then their games should be rated for it as well. That includes loopholes such as purchasable lootboxes with ingame currency coupled with a crooked ingame economy to incentivise the purchase of said currency with real currency.
*DISCLAIMER* This obviously doesn't go for every publisher out there. But we don't need to act like publishers have no choice but to force gambling into their games in order to survive.
Game development has indeed gotten expensive. However it's not like publishers really need microtransactions: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1418238
*DISCLAIMER* This obviously doesn't go for every publisher out there. But we don't need to act like publishers have no choice but to force gambling into their games in order to survive.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
I fully support this, making Micro transactions a 18-21+ age rating automatically.
But I feel as though there needs to be legal precedent and backing to enforce this.
basically have warning labels on the outside of the packaging not unlike cigarettes in the states.
aimed at the parents to make them question if they should be buying GTAV for there 12 yearold when it has warnings about
But I feel as though there needs to be legal precedent and backing to enforce this.
basically have warning labels on the outside of the packaging not unlike cigarettes in the states.
aimed at the parents to make them question if they should be buying GTAV for there 12 yearold when it has warnings about
PuppetSlave
Member
Informing the parents about this via ESRB is an good idea.
NHarmonic.
Member
Then we are all doomed.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It will definitely affect sales.
This. Jim has been a gamer outrage profiteer for years now. Dude straight up lurks, pulls discourse from GAF and repurposes it for his video topics.
Rellik
Member
Doesn't with GTA.
Zepp Twofist
Member
Isn't ESRB a industry run organization? In that case the only way they'd do this is if they feel threatened by legislators to regulate them.
test_account
XP-39C²
Sure, thats exactly why the base game cost $60. This isnt some myth that Jim Sterling claimed (unless i misunderstood what he ment), the reason why games still are priced at $60 is because of the additional revenue streams being offered as a "compenastion" to not increase the base price. If people want to get rid of all the extra stuff thats being offered, the base price of the game would have to be increased to cover lost revenue. How would the marked responds to base games costing maybe $80 - $100 instead of $60?
I think people are more custom to buy things in packages instead. Would a GOTY/complete edition of a game that includes all DLC sell well if it was priced at $100? Personally, i dont think so. Someone might spend maybe $1000 on a mobile game over the course of some years, but i cant imagine that the same people would have bought a mobile game for $1000 up front.
This sounds pretty simple on paper, but its not really that easy when it comes to the execution. Why do you think no one has dared to increase the base price of their games to maybe $80 - $100? Doing that is a pretty big risk.
Its the same with scaling back, that will affect the quality of the games. Would the market responds well to pay e.g $60 for a game like Senua's Sacrifice? Personally, i dont think so. And a recent example is Marvel VS Capcom: Infinite, some people blame the lower budget of the game to be the reason why it sold so poorly (at least so far). Its the same with arguements that they should lower the price of the games to sell more, but there is no guarantee that lowering the price will attrack enough additional consumers to cover the "loss" of the price drop.
I'm also for the free market, but on the flip side of that, the free market also allows for extra stuff (DLC, loot crates) to be sold. The free market has accepted this business practice, a lot of people pay for it.
Lanrutcon
Member
Oh please.
He puts a spotlight on bullshit most gaming publications wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
The amount of whining his work elicits from people like you is almost thread worthy in itself. Is this Zelda related or do you just dislike it when people make videos about actual issues in the industry?
I mentioned this in a thread a few days ago. The ESRB already have these ratings in place on their site, they just haven't put them into place, as far as I've seen.
I used Yakuza 0 as an example, which clearly has gambling in many varieties, but there is no mention of it in the rating or the blurb on ESRB.org. The most recent rating that includes gambling as a descriptor is the re-releases of Pokemon Gold & Silver. The next closest being Winning Putt, a game released for PC on October 25th, 2016.
If you go through the list of the games that have gambling tags, there is nothing of any real consequence included.
I used Yakuza 0 as an example, which clearly has gambling in many varieties, but there is no mention of it in the rating or the blurb on ESRB.org. The most recent rating that includes gambling as a descriptor is the re-releases of Pokemon Gold & Silver. The next closest being Winning Putt, a game released for PC on October 25th, 2016.
If you go through the list of the games that have gambling tags, there is nothing of any real consequence included.
Shil Pencer
Member
Becarefull what you wish for
Morgan Blackhand
Member
A good idea.
If you're going to try to use Nintendo fanboy as a sloppy dismissal about me without knowing jack shit about my post history then you should probably sit down because it seems like to me you're just a Jim Sterling fanboy. Pretty easy to use form dismissals while ignoring an argument, huh?
The industry is trying to normalize loot boxes as fast as it possible can and you could make the argument that it already has.
Yes, there are also a lot of games that don't have them.
Yes, many games that DO have them present them in a mostly harmless way.
But this is a growing process.
We've been normalized to DLC, Season Passes, Pre-Orders and Pre-Order bonuses and now Loot Boxes are joining the party. The problem isn't that Loot Boxes are ruining games NOW, it's that it's another spoke in the wheel, potentially driving us off the cliff. It's taken us, what. Two to three years at best to make this almost common day practice in many big AAA games. But people seem to just not give a shit or draw lines in the sand, so the pubs will just keep going.
Are people honestly OK with big games like Mordor and Battlefront adopting a soft F2P-Mobile-game like transaction model? I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that that is where we're slowly going towards. You know how much money big mobile games make? A LOT, you know how much money it costs to develop and produce games like Mordor, Overwatch and Battlefront? A LOT, we're most definitely going there.
Yes, there are also a lot of games that don't have them.
Yes, many games that DO have them present them in a mostly harmless way.
But this is a growing process.
We've been normalized to DLC, Season Passes, Pre-Orders and Pre-Order bonuses and now Loot Boxes are joining the party. The problem isn't that Loot Boxes are ruining games NOW, it's that it's another spoke in the wheel, potentially driving us off the cliff. It's taken us, what. Two to three years at best to make this almost common day practice in many big AAA games. But people seem to just not give a shit or draw lines in the sand, so the pubs will just keep going.
Are people honestly OK with big games like Mordor and Battlefront adopting a soft F2P-Mobile-game like transaction model? I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that that is where we're slowly going towards. You know how much money big mobile games make? A LOT, you know how much money it costs to develop and produce games like Mordor, Overwatch and Battlefront? A LOT, we're most definitely going there.
shanafan
Member
And then those full priced games will become $80 instead of $60. Lootboxes and microtransactions keep games at $60.
Loot boxes are gambling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_gacha
?????
If I currently want a certain skin in Overwatch and don't have enough gold to buy it without getting loot boxes, my only way to get that certain skin is by getting more loot boxes (buying them or leveling for them which takes at least 1 hour for a level up box)
I am really surprised that this is the consens. So many other publishers survive too. So many of these lootbox and mt companies get away with not paying tax etc.
Weltall Zero
Member
I don't usually agree with TotalBiscuit, but this is absolutely necessary.
And of course, it wouldn't be a thread on regulation without the obligatory government fear-mongering and slippery slope argument.
Unless this is some kind of meta-humour on wrongness, it's the opposite: a broken clock always gives the wrong time, while a broken one does twice a day.
And of course, it wouldn't be a thread on regulation without the obligatory government fear-mongering and slippery slope argument.
Unless this is some kind of meta-humour on wrongness, it's the opposite: a broken clock always gives the wrong time, while a broken one does twice a day.
//DEVIL//
Member
I hope it sticks for rated 17 and above . So these developers don't sell shit of their original game even. What a low class act to gain money.
Same goes for fucking announcing a season pass to be released within the game . Selling an unfinished game for 60$.
The only game that ever deserves a season pass money was drive club.. .because that content was released months and months the game has been out. Not selling a season pass 1 month or 2 weeks from the game release.
Same goes for fucking announcing a season pass to be released within the game . Selling an unfinished game for 60$.
The only game that ever deserves a season pass money was drive club.. .because that content was released months and months the game has been out. Not selling a season pass 1 month or 2 weeks from the game release.
Lanrutcon
Member
It's not mutually exclusive, like I said. He can be right and shine a light on bad practices, but stirring up outrage also directly profits him. It's a parasitic relationship. People who talk about these issues in a less rage driven matter get a lot less attention.
Weltall Zero
Member
*Ding! Corporate brainwashing complete. Please insert the next consumer.*
Games that use destructive, manipulative, and addictive gambling techniques should have an Adult Only rating.
I mean, stores are afraid to carry games that contain heavy nudity and sex but are perfectly okay with selling games that can actually be extremely dangerous to play for people that have easily manipulated personalities. That's pretty fucked up.
I mean, stores are afraid to carry games that contain heavy nudity and sex but are perfectly okay with selling games that can actually be extremely dangerous to play for people that have easily manipulated personalities. That's pretty fucked up.
It wouldn't be the only thing the Government tried to do if they started regulating stuff. They'd definitely go after the working conditions, the crunch so to speak, among other things as well.
I'll wait until you realize that an endless cycle of outrage discourse is a situation that he monetarily benefits from contributing to.
Weltall Zero
Member
Wouldn't that be awesome! You're giving the government far too much credit.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
excellent idea.
Weltall Zero
Member
So you draw the line at profiting when it's from raising awareness about shitty, possibly illegal manipulative practices that affects minors. Not at, you know, actually implementing those practices.
Seems reasonable.
Lanrutcon
Member
And there we get to the crux of it. You consider his work as "outrage discourse", instead of coverage of legitimate issues in the industry.
Good work. Go buy some lootboxes or whatever you lot do to celebrate.
Governments love control more than they love money. That's the reality.
I have done so today.
Weltall Zero
Member
Wait, you actually meant regulation of crunch and work conditions as a bad thing?
Also you may want to grow up and lay off the cryptoanarchist paranoia.