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

[Blamblam41]

https://blizzardwatch.com/2017/06/06...t-boxes-china/

"Reddit user wolf0619 provided a translation for the original announcement which states, essentially, players will not be purchasing loot boxes directly. Instead, players will be purchasing the currency used to craft cosmetic items and loot boxes will be given as a “gift” for making such a purchase. In other words, you technically aren’t paying for random loot boxes, so it isn’t necessarily gambling."

You know, I had a friend arrested in Texas for selling 20$ handshakes and giving out free bottles of mead as gifts for meeting 'the viking'.

In a court of law, those stated practices are gambling son. It's still a monetary transaction, regardless of whether or not it is a 'gift'. Not to mention highly unethical for a corporation to be abusing its consumers by making incentives for 'gifts', despite the monetary purchase being for another item and purpose entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

Oooohhh, so Blizzard is smarttttt

I like to think that Blizzard is that friend that you have - you know that one, the one that is fun to hang around, but he wants you to pay for everything. You love going out with him, you always have a good time, but you pay for his food, his drinks, his movie tickets and more. Ugh.

And eventually, his bail when he gets arrested for illegally gambling over the internet.

[Deleted]

You know, I had a friend arrested in Texas for selling 20$ handshakes and giving out free bottles of mead.

In a court of law, that is gambling son.

Yep. But it was a start, even before EA completely fucked up everything for everyone.

[Lotus Victoria]

I just can't believe that there are people that defend this kind of shit in this day and age. When these people became fans of video-games? Or are they secretly EA employers?

[Rekz]

I just can't believe that there are people that defend this kind of shit in this day and age. When these people became fans of video-games? Or are they secretly EA employers?

A normal, rational person would agree with you but we know companies like Blizzard have been using paid shills on forums to sway opinions for quite some time now.

[Yunru]

I just can't believe that there are people that defend this kind of shit in this day and age. When these people became fans of video-games? Or are they secretly EA employers?

No just sheeps.

There is a chance that Ea may copy blizzard mehanic from china to dodge the law.

It still doesnt make a difference, since those gifted items still need you to purchase something. You just buy a fake currency, and currency is also a skin. (pretty much anything can be a currency)

[Deleted]

Not a fan at all. Keep your loot-boxes; there are other games out-there.

I just can't believe that there are people that defend this kind of shit in this day and age. When these people became fans of video-games? Or are they secretly EA employers?

Arenanet seems to have taken a lesson from EA; with how mount skins are obtained.

[Lotus Victoria]

I hate using the "remember when" argument just as much as I hate hearing the "it's just cosmetics so it doesn't matter", because there were bad things in the old days of gaming as well (mainly lack of quality control - Wii and DS had a billion shitty games, for example), but man, we've come a long way since the PS1-2 era of gaming.

Just imagine if Resident Evil 4 was made nowadays. Do you really think that we would get the Leon Skins/Ashley armor, Mercenary Mode, the Ada campaign and more from doing in-game challenges? I think not.

Ah, and ofc, in the "GOOD OLD DAYS" (ugh, here we go again -.-) we didn't have a market saturated with hero shooters and open world crafting "play the way you like(stealth or assault) first/third person shooters/rpgs with a ton of content(mediocre and repetitive side-missions with no context or purpose whatsoever)". Ah, and no lootboxes and bullshit DLC as well.

Now I'm just sounding like an old Asura.

- - - Updated - - -

Not a fan at all. Keep your loot-boxes; there are other games out-there.




Arenanet seems to have taken a lesson from EA; with how mount skins are obtained.

I was going to discuss that here later, but yeah. I love GW2 (90% of the threads on the GW2 subforum are mine), but fuck Path of Fire. Absolutely ZERO replay value with ZERO incentive to play them - weak metas, weak events and boring rewards - but hey, here's 30 skins from randomized lootboxes. Pay 5 bucks and get the one you don't want for the mount you don't use!

[ati87]

Problem people are having now is that they are using a very lose definition of gambling, RNG isn't gambling and not getting the items you want isn't gambling either.

What makes lootboxes or card packs different is that it isn't a zero sum game, in the end you are buying a digital product which we as a society have determined has some value. Just because you don't like the skin of card doesn't make it gambling and as long as get something back that has some value it isn't gambling.

Problem is if you compare a game like Overwatch where it's just a skin with no added value and the new SW which did give a advantage.

it's not the governments job or right to punish crappy consumer behavior unless that business has a clear monopoly or the difference in power is so great (like with banks) that we as a consumer are forced to use them anyway. EA is neither.

With EA the power of the consumer clearly showed.

[Elim Garak]

Absolutely false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box

Gambling is over values, not just money.

"the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes."

other stakes have quite physical monetary value. Property == money, dude.
You are so clueless you should have no right to say "Absolutely false" because you wouldn't know when to use it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling

"to play a game for money or property"

Yes, property has a physical monetary value

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

"Betting (wagering) that must result either in a gain or a loss. Gambling is neither risk taking in the sense of speculation (assumption of substantial short-term risk) nor investing (acquiring property or assets for securing long-term capital gains). It also differs from insurance which may reduce or eliminate the risk of loss but offers no legitimate chance of gain."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de.../gambling.html

I don't even know what this is supposed to argue about. Are you jsut now educating yourself on betting, wagering and gambling?

[Tydrane]

Yes, I misread that part.

But my argument still stands, I can easily post more definitions and country laws where "gambling" have clear definitions.

- - - Updated - - -



Blizzard was forced to ditch the lootbox system in China back in June.

Battlefront 2 was what forced other legislators around the world to wake up, but the process was already slowly taking force.

Lootboxes are still in game in China I think, now you just buy currency directly. Either way, I don't think a statist economy that is only just beginning to embrace free market ideas is the best place to take inspiration for industry regulation.

[draykorinee]

Because it's not extending the life of games at all, it's lowering the bar for the amount of effort and quality developers are allowed to spend on a project. It is absolutely unreasonable for a game to launch half complete and only with the addition of paid DLC is the game 'complete'.

Turns out, it's actually way more profitable and consumer friendly for the effort put into the DLC just be put into the game launch and adjust the base pricetag if you must.
Honestly gaming is one of those things that, investment wise, will never not be profitable. It's the sort of endless entertainment on a mass scale that only comes once in an entire epoch.

The witcher 3 and horizon are both excellent. When it's done right it does extend the life in a way that doesn't compromise the main game.

[Deleted]

other stakes have quite physical monetary value. Property == money, dude.
You are so clueless you should have no right to say "Absolutely false" because you wouldn't know when to use it.

Yes, property has a physical monetary value

Except it's not how the consumer protection associations, the lawmakers and lawyers interpret definitions and clarify the laws and regulamentations. "Property" is a value, not money.

[Ehrenpanzer]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ba...GSS-05-10aaa0b





Enjoy the lootbox shit while you can because more and more country's are going to crackdown on it and rule it for what it is... Gambling.

Edit: Changed title from "And so it begins Battlefront 2, Overwatch Being Investigated By Gambling Authority" to "Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation" - Nov. 22, 2017. Lucetia

I dont think this really qualifies as "gambling" because you are definitely going to get something. By that standard, Kinder Eggs are gambling... If it was a "pay 5 bucks and you might get something or you might get nothing" then it would be gambling.

[Elim Garak]

Except it's not how the consumer protection associations, the lawmakers and lawyers interpret definitions and clarify the laws and regulamentations. "Property" is a value, not money.

Money is a value. Lol. You are neck deep in semantics now - right there with your lawmakers who know everything the best.

[paralleluniverse]

Cosmetic loot boxes that aren't pay-for-advantage are fine. Pay-for-advantage loot boxes need to be killed.

[Krastyn]

I meant production budget, I'll take the L on that, and it was 32 million dollars. They made a massive profit by having a modest budget, you wanted proof that companies don't have to bloat their games with massive budgets to produce AAA games and now you've had it. Twice.

Hey look at how cheap it was to make this game when I ignore all other costs other than development! you can't just ignore production and marketing budgets and say it was a cheaply made game. Witcher 3 was an $81 million dollar game. That is nowhere close to a small "indie" game. Even just the $32 million production budget is way over what an indie game would be. So no, you haven't proved anything. As well, comparing a game made in Poland where the average salary is less than most countries where AAA games are made will allow you to stretch a budget much farther.

As to no one in this thread, I didn't say anyone did, I said keyboard warriors did. Like this guy.

You can throw the whole different model thing around all you like, I'm not comparing apples to apples granted, but the fact that the video game market is the only market people actually want to increase the cost of the media instead of what everyone else has done which is decrease, just stinks of a lack of understanding of how media works and how gaming has already pushed new models for nickle and diming customers.

So after admitting that no one was making that argument, and that you're not comparing apples to apples you fall back to making that argument and saying that hippopotamus should quit being an asshole and be an apple.

You made the statement games today are cheaper, when a physical part of the game is <$1 to produce compared to the $15-30 dollar cost of a cartridge (Not a small fraction as you claimed) it seems unlikely its noticeable to the developer. Throw in the fact that games now sell millions of copies more they both offset the inflation rate to some degree, the fact is games are probably cheaper, but lets not pretend its a massive difference and that they don't already have extra models in place.

10% is a fraction of the cost. 3% is a small fraction of the cost. Some games sell million of copies. Some are a flop. Like any other product. That doesn't change the fact that the cost to produce it has risen. The "extra models in place" are things like DLC and loot boxes, which is what people are whining about. The biggest cost savings to game developers is actually the fact that they can now sell direct, instead of through a middleman. That isn't the case for all their sales though.

You used Final Fantasy at $45 as a reason games are cheaper today than they were back then, the original release sold 400k copies, lets say they made $10 a game (They probably didnt) Thats $4 million ($10milion odd in todays money?). Final Fantasy 15 had 5 Million day one sales, lets say they made just $5, they've already made $25 million. So even IF they are cheaper, economics will say there's a reason why $60 is still the go to price and why these people who keep throwing 'but production costs more' are just...stupid. Economies of scale heavily favour modern day games companies.

Final Fantasy XV didn't make any money on it's first day. At best, they broke even. And this is after ten years of investment and development. Simply making a profit isn't enough. It needs to also have an overall good ROI. Final Fantasy XV will likely turn a decent profit. They've also kept 70% of the dev team working on it post-launch.

And what about the misses? Some games need to make a big profit to make up for those that just break even, or lose money.

Personally it comes down to the game itself. There have been several big releases that I've passed on at launch, and waited the month or two for them to be discounted on steam or other sources. Some DLC I buy, some I don't. I don't play many games that incorporate loot boxes, ME3/MEA would likely have been the last. Had 0 problem with them, though I never actually used real currency to buy them, just in-game. I guess I resisted the evil scourge.

[Yunru]

Cosmetic loot boxes that aren't pay-for-advantage are fine. Pay-for-advantage loot boxes need to be killed.

They all need to die. Nothing is worse than getting nothing or duplicate when you spend money.
You just end up spending 10 times more.

[draykorinee]

Hey look at how cheap it was to make this game when I ignore all other costs other than development! you can't just ignore production and marketing budgets and say it was a cheaply made game. Witcher 3 was an $81 million dollar game. That is nowhere close to a small "indie" game. Even just the $32 million production budget is way over what an indie game would be. So no, you haven't proved anything. As well, comparing a game made in Poland where the average salary is less than most countries where AAA games are made will allow you to stretch a budget much farther.



So after admitting that no one was making that argument, and that you're not comparing apples to apples you fall back to making that argument and saying that hippopotamus should quit being an asshole and be an apple.



10% is a fraction of the cost. 3% is a small fraction of the cost. Some games sell million of copies. Some are a flop. Like any other product. That doesn't change the fact that the cost to produce it has risen. The "extra models in place" are things like DLC and loot boxes, which is what people are whining about. The biggest cost savings to game developers is actually the fact that they can now sell direct, instead of through a middleman. That isn't the case for all their sales though.



Final Fantasy XV didn't make any money on it's first day. At best, they broke even. And this is after ten years of investment and development. Simply making a profit isn't enough. It needs to also have an overall good ROI. Final Fantasy XV will likely turn a decent profit. They've also kept 70% of the dev team working on it post-launch.

And what about the misses? Some games need to make a big profit to make up for those that just break even, or lose money.

Personally it comes down to the game itself. There have been several big releases that I've passed on at launch, and waited the month or two for them to be discounted on steam or other sources. Some DLC I buy, some I don't. I don't play many games that incorporate loot boxes, ME3/MEA would likely have been the last. Had 0 problem with them, though I never actually used real currency to buy them, just in-game. I guess I resisted the evil scourge.

Where are you getting 10%? If a snes cartridge was $15 and the have cost $60 that's 25%...

We can go back and forth all day, I'm not sure why you think a game should break even in 24 hours, final fantasy 15 did, proving economy of scale more than makes up for inflation.

You're welcome to have the last word, this discussion is going nowhere.

[Rekz]

[Krastyn]

Where are you getting 10%? If a snes cartridge was $15 and the have cost $60 that's 25%...

We can go back and forth all day, I'm not sure why you think a game should break even in 24 hours, final fantasy 15 did, proving economy of scale more than makes up for inflation.

You're welcome to have the last word, this discussion is going nowhere.

The same place you got $15 for an SNES cartridge. A cartridge is not $15 when you're making hundreds of thousands of them.

Where did I say they need to break even after 24 hours? Once again, you're strawmanning.

The argument isn't going anywhere because you haven't shown anything to prove why games are too expensive. You keep using comparisons to different industries with different business models. Or you quote "small" development budgets of $32 million. That's not small. I'd probably peg a lot of games in the $30-$60 development budget.

If you think games are too expensive, the simple solution is to stop buying them.