Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation

[ombus]

i hope to find out if card booster have a gambling licence or whatever...they are gambling too..

[Elim Garak]

This is dumb.

What should be done? Ban microtransactions in premium games. You buy it - you have it all in one package. Paid Expansions are allowed.
What you people are doing now: It's gambling, it's gambling.

Well it's not gambling, and gambling itself is not an issue to begin with. If politicians are doing something you should be concerned. They are not there for your sake. Gaming industry is not there for your sake. They will have a deal and you will be screwed, even though you will praise their solution as a win for yourself. it's been done many times.

[Wildpantz]

Power rewards sure thats fucked up. But cosmetics who cares

[Krastyn]

As someone who has been playing video games since the 80's it's sad to see what video games have become. Kids today are growing up thinking this is normal and okay, these new digital kids don;t know what it was like back then.

Remember when you got a full game in a cartridge... the introduction to digital media really has provided big companies with dollar sign contact lenses.

Paying £50 for a game was the norm at one point, now we are paying over £100, or to some who are paying for loot boxes, £1000's. Its a rip off.

As someone who has been playing video games since the 80's, it's sad to see how bad at economics people are.

NES games used to run $40-$60 for new games. You can even look at old flyers. In 1990, Final Fantasy was still $45. In 2017 terms, that's ~$86.16. Compare that with Final Fantasy XV, which you could buy for $60, and cost way more to make in today's terms.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/1...rchasing-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#6d9226826eb9
https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-c...ake-1818508211

I could go on with more links, but you should be able to get the idea. Go back and finish an NES game and count how many people are on the credits. Now go finish a recent game.

People need to drop the rose-coloured glasses. Games are cheaper today than they were in the 80's.

[Jtbrig7390]

As someone who has been playing video games since the 80's, it's sad to see how bad at economics people are.

NES games used to run $40-$60 for new games. You can even look at old flyers. In 1990, Final Fantasy was still $45. In 2017 terms, that's ~$86.16. Compare that with Final Fantasy XV, which you could buy for $60, and cost way more to make in today's terms.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/1...rchasing-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#6d9226826eb9
https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-c...ake-1818508211

I could go on with more links, but you should be able to get the idea. Go back and finish an NES game and count how many people are on the credits. Now go finish a recent game.

People need to drop the rose-coloured glasses. Games are cheaper today than they were in the 80's.

To add to your post there was SNES and even N64 games that cost above $60.

[VyersReaver]

Yes, they are gambling. It's a manipulative system that was deliberately designed to have people spending more money by introducing RNG chance to get stuff you might want in particular.

[Elim Garak]

Yes, they are gambling. It's a manipulative system that was deliberately designed to have people spending more money by introducing RNG chance to get stuff you might want in particular.

Is rolling on the boss loot - gambling? You paid money, you spent your time and got nothing.

[VyersReaver]

As someone who has been playing video games since the 80's, it's sad to see how bad at economics people are.

NES games used to run $40-$60 for new games. You can even look at old flyers. In 1990, Final Fantasy was still $45. In 2017 terms, that's ~$86.16. Compare that with Final Fantasy XV, which you could buy for $60, and cost way more to make in today's terms.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/1...rchasing-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#6d9226826eb9
https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-c...ake-1818508211

I could go on with more links, but you should be able to get the idea. Go back and finish an NES game and count how many people are on the credits. Now go finish a recent game.

People need to drop the rose-coloured glasses. Games are cheaper today than they were in the 80's.

Except games are not 60$. "Standard Editions" of those games are 60$, and that's nowhere near the full experience. If you are telling me that the DLCs in Season Passes development costs 5/6th of what the development of the full game costs, you are delusional. If you are telling me that whatever they put in "Deluxe" bundle has 1/6th of the full games content, than you are not worth talking to. So 120$ for a regular ass AAA title nowadays. More than 86$? I think it is.

[Elim Garak]

Except games are not 60$. "Standard Editions" of those games are 60$, and that's nowhere near the full experience. If you are telling me that the DLCs in Season Passes development costs 5/6th of what the development of the full game costs, you are delusional. If you are telling me that whatever they put in "Deluxe" bundle has 1/6th of the full games content, than you are not worth talking to. So 120$ for a regular ass AAA title nowadays. More than 86$? I think it is.

Standard Edition is the full experience. You just fell a victim to a marketing ploy.

[VyersReaver]

Is rolling on the boss loot - gambling? You paid money, you spent your time and got nothing.

Yup, now I remeber why I ignored you. Not even going to open the second post.

[ComputerNerd]

there is no risky action involved though

You risk repair bills, the costs of consumables, etc.

If the problem is spending real money for an uncertain result, then look at practically any bag of mixed sweets.

Rowntree's even have one openly called "Randoms", making it abundantly clear from the name something already common in many others.
The expectations around a loot box that are not being met are not defined in any way by the developer, but by the one spending the money.

Yup, now I remeber why I ignored you. Not even going to open the second post.

If you are going to ignore questions like that, then that just proves the point.
That repeatedly quoted definition has huge problems.
And DOES apply to many other mechanics in games, as well as many real purchases not being picked on.

It needs defined far better than "risky action".
And what is the expectation - if it is entirely down to the buyer to form that expectation, then yes it rarely will be met and therefore not the fault of the developer.
If there is a stated result not being met, then there is discussion to have.
But someone simply being upset that random does not go the way they want it to, that is something entirely different.

[Krastyn]

Except games are not 60$. "Standard Editions" of those games are 60$, and that's nowhere near the full experience. If you are telling me that the DLCs in Season Passes development costs 5/6th of what the development of the full game costs, you are delusional. If you are telling me that whatever they put in "Deluxe" bundle has 1/6th of the full games content, than you are not worth talking to. So 120$ for a regular ass AAA title nowadays. More than 86$? I think it is.

Super Mario Oddessy is $80. NeR: Automata was $80. Assassin's Creed: Origins was $80.

You don't need the Uber Delux Collector's Edition with Gold Star Lifetime Fanboy Pass for something to be considered a complete game.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 were both complete games without any DLC. Buying the DLC simply added to it. Some games do it well, some games do it poorly.

And you're still ignoring the fact that the time and money to make and market a AAA game today is way, way higher than making anything for the NES.

[Coldkil]

/sigh
you'll notice I didn't say how I feel about loot boxes one way or the other. just how Activision might be able to make a case to not have to change it's policies, kay?

Oh, ok, sorry i missed your point then In that case i can agree.

[thilicen]

I personally consider them gambling yes, even if they are optional there's a lot of people who can't keep their hands off them because of the incentive/addiction games of chance can build. For that they should at least only be available in games with the same age-restrictions as gambling in the countries they are sold.

That said it's also a piss easy and extraordinarily lazy way for devs to add the most piss poor and generic progression system imagineable. Just look at the new Need for Speed, gone are the tuning parts, the engines, turbos, etc. You now progress through fucking stat cards given at random in boxes. There's no excitement whatsoever in that crap.

[Jtbrig7390]

Except games are not 60$. "Standard Editions" of those games are 60$, and that's nowhere near the full experience.

Horizon Zero Dawn,Witcher 3,Bloodborn and many other $60 titles felt like a full experience to me.

Are you really saying Super Mario Oddessy doesn't provide a full experience?

[Deleted]

As someone who has been playing video games since the 80's, it's sad to see how bad at economics people are.

NES games used to run $40-$60 for new games. You can even look at old flyers. In 1990, Final Fantasy was still $45. In 2017 terms, that's ~$86.16. Compare that with Final Fantasy XV, which you could buy for $60, and cost way more to make in today's terms.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/1...rchasing-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai.../#6d9226826eb9
https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-c...ake-1818508211

I could go on with more links, but you should be able to get the idea. Go back and finish an NES game and count how many people are on the credits. Now go finish a recent game.

People need to drop the rose-coloured glasses. Games are cheaper today than they were in the 80's.

I don't have any issues with companies that offer DLC or microtransactions that have no impact on the gameplay to earn money (such as the LoL system). However, I have an issue with loot boxes, as there is no way to target a specific item without paying much more than the intended cost of the item (through currencies) and so you end up spending much more money than what you initially anticipated.

Therefore I m pleased because this affair will make companies think twice before implementing loot boxes in their game in the future.

[ingsve]

So apparently the swedish lottery inspection which is the government organisation that regulates gambling has ruled that loot boxes are not gambling since according to swedish law the reward would need to have real world monetary value to be classified as gambling. So as long as the items gained are only useful inside the game then it does not fall under swedish gambling laws.

[Coldkil]

So apparently the swedish lottery inspection which is the government organisation that regulates gambling has ruled that loot boxes are not gambling since according to swedish law the reward would need to have real world monetary value to be classified as gambling. So as long as the items gained are only useful inside the game then it does not fall under swedish gambling laws.

That's bad - not because of the decision per se (every state has its rules and they're different) but this chaos and different position for every single country will make the issue either a mess or make it fall into nothing because there won't be a common line over it.

An this way the only people having a bad experience will be players.

[Krastyn]

Horizon Zero Dawn,Witcher 3,Bloodborn and many other $60 titles felt like a full experience to me.

Are you really saying Super Mario Oddessy doesn't provide a full experience?

And to further hammer home the point, he should have a look at:

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=3480 - Final Fantasy

Main Story 17h 54m
Main + Extras 24h 47m
Completionists 34h 47m
All PlayStyles 22h 25m

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=3537 - Final Fantasy XV

Main Story 28h 28m
Main + Extras 54h 55m
Completionists 93h 04m
All PlayStyles 53h 03m

Not only cheaper, but also more playtime to the game. Man, they sure are screwing their customers!

[PosPosPos]

When one sees swathes of people defending paying an obscene amount of money to play "games" of far lower quality than their predecessors, one can't help but think they are so far off the deep end from being brainwashed by despicable publishers/developers.

No wonder 99% of "games" nowadays involve players paying upwards of hundreds or thousands of dollars just to "unlock" an infinitesimal part of said games' content. At least gambling in real life still involve tangible rewards if you are lucky. In "games", you unlock a few pretty pixels, what a sense of achievement right there.