Dev/Blizz/Act silencing Overwatch Players after Summer Games Cont.

[Endus]

I was not saying the model was bad because it made you want to spend money. Again, nuance. It's bad because it encourages players to spend money without necessarily rewarding them. Heck, I do want to spend money on a ton of the skins in Overwatch. They're awesome, and the game is good enough that I'd feel comfortable rewarding the devs with a few extra dollars for some cool skins. What I will not do, however, is keep feeding coins into a slot machine until it eventually spits out a reward at some indeterminable point in the future.

Okay?

Nobody was telling you that you HAD to spend money.

I'm curious as to your reasoning for why none of these things are objectionable, though. The rationale of "it's just cosmetic/it can be earned in game/Blizzard are a business" is not a catch-all for them to do whatever they want within those boundaries and have it all be hunky-dory. They could still be making enormous amounts of money from cosmetic microtransactions without using every trick in the book to coax players into gambling for them. They could still offer cool, rare, time-limited rewards without attaching a huge question mark price tag on the end. At the very least they could have avoided giving such a disingenuous, corporate response to the player feedback that arose from this issue.

Because you are the one making the claim that these things are objectionable or "bad". I don't have to prove that they aren't, you're the one who's facing the burden of proof, to show that they are.

And "I personally don't like it as much as some other way they could have gone" isn't an argument to that effect.

[Wondercrab]

Because you are the one making the claim that these things are objectionable or "bad". I don't have to prove that they aren't, you're the one who's facing the burden of proof, to show that they are.

And "I personally don't like it as much as some other way they could have gone" isn't an argument to that effect.

Do the arguments of gambling for items as opposed to buying them for a fixed sum not hold merit? Spending significant amounts of money with the potential for no reward? There were plenty of posts on the official forums from people who were very upset because of this. It's hard to imagine those existing if the game had gone with a more traditional microtransaction model.

I'm genuinely a little confused. Do you really think this way of doing things is better for the consumer than the alternatives? Does the associated gambling psychology and the questionable nature of including this in a game rated for teens and marketed to all ages not raise an eyebrow? Has the mobile industry taught us nothing about how anti-consumer these kinds of business practices can be?

I mean I totally get not have any personal investment in how the game is monetised, but surely it's clear that there are much, much better ways Blizzard could be handling this.

[Kaleredar]

Again, this is precisely the reductionist viewpoint I was talking about that treats all "cosmetic, earnable in game" systems as equal, without addressing the nuance of how such a system can be done badly. When there is no way of mitigating RNG, forcing said microtransactions to be a pure gamble, when the speed of earning them in game is enormously slow, and when a sense of artificial exclusivity is added to them via time-limited availability, then you are left with a system that applies all the right psychological pressures to encourage people to spend more money than they might've wanted to. I mean, it ultimately comes down to the fact that getting a specific skin in the Overwatch summer games might cost an individual $5, or $500, with all the associated gambling psychology of sunk costs etc. coming into play to push them toward that higher figure. Heck, you don't even have to take my word for it, there were plenty of people on the forums posting about how they felt bad after sinking a bunch of money into Summer Games boxes and not getting the thing they were really after.

If your game is creating situations in which people spend (sometimes a lot of) money and get nothing they consider valuable in return, and then feel really bad about it afterwards, then it is clear that there's something about your business model that puts profit first and the experience of the consumer second.

You aren't being forced to spend money. If you can't grasp the concept of RNG, that, frankly, is on you.

I've bought zero summer loot boxes, and so far I've gotten, purely through leveling up:

Genji's Summer skin
One of tracer's Summer skins
One of Lucio's summer skins
D.va's summer skin
Mercy's summer skin
Widowmaker's summer skin
McCree's summer skin

And a good number of voice lines, sprays, and a couple icons.

And that's leveling up through the level 145-165 range, so it's not like I swung back in through the quick levels.

Am I lucky? Maybe. Or maybe I just didn't waste time complaining about this nonsense and actually played the game. The only other thing I'd legitimately want from the summer games is the reaper BMX spray/icon, but if I don't get that... Oh well. There are plenty of other reaper sprays and player icons to use.

This is seriously the kind of monetisation that I expect various laws to catch up with in the near future, much like how European law mandated that deceptively "free" mobile games had to disclaim their in-app purchases up front. Currently, business models like the summer loot box system are creating virtual slot machines that are innocuously marketed to players of all ages and backgrounds without any kind of legislation. I believe there are currently far worse examples of this happening within the industry, but Overwatch is contributing to the problem now, and sooner or later something's going to give.

Except you can earn them in-game for free. So that's an idiotic premise. Absolutely nothing in Overwatch is gated behind real-life money purchases, save for the game itself and the origins skins.

I cannot impress how much your argument reeks of getting butthurt over nothing, simply because you can't instantly get everything you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Do the arguments of gambling for items as opposed to buying them for a fixed sum not hold merit?

No, not in the least.

Spending significant amounts of money with the potential for no reward?

Well if you did that then I'd say that was pretty foolish, seeing as you know the rules going in.

There were plenty of posts on the official forums from people who were very upset because of this. It's hard to imagine those existing if the game had gone with a more traditional microtransaction model.

Upset = I didn't get the make believe pixels I wanted.

I'm genuinely a little confused. Do you really think this way of doing things is better for the consumer than the alternatives?

I assume more people will be happy they could show off unique items that everyone couldn't just spot-buy than will be outraged they couldn't have instant gratification.

I know I will be.

Does the associated gambling psychology and the questionable nature of including this in a game rated for teens and marketed to all ages not raise an eyebrow? Has the mobile industry taught us nothing about how anti-consumer these kinds of business practices can be?

And how is overwatch an example of this?

Parents can set controls to restrict in-game purchases. I'm sure Blizzard would refund them if they told them their kid accidentally went and bought 800 loot boxes without their permission. And I'm pretty sure the parents would be pissed that the kid did that whether they got Nihon Genji or not.

I mean I totally get not have any personal investment in how the game is monetised, but surely it's clear that there are much, much better ways Blizzard could be handling this.

Seeing as the whole thing amounts to basically nothing, I see no real reason.

[Deleted]

Nobody was telling you that you HAD to spend money. I don't have to prove that they aren't

you must be one of those sleazebag salesman who tries to justify their sleeeaziness by using these kinds of bullshit arguments. It's a scumbag move from blizz and i dont have to prove you jackshit. nor does wondercrab. this is exactly the kind of shortsighted, self-righteous argumentation which doesn't clarify nor contribute to the core of the discussion. "Burden of proof" just wtf..

[Kaleredar]

you must be one of those sleazebag salesman who tries to justify their sleeeaziness by using these kinds of bullshit arguments. It's a scumbag move from blizz and i dont have to prove you jackshit. nor does wondercrab. this is exactly the kind of shortsighted, self-righteous argumentation which doesn't clarify nor contribute to the core of the discussion. "Burden of proof" just wtf..

So to conclude you DON'T have any reason that it's a scumbag move, you're just angry you can't buy track and field tracer.

Gotcha.

Better luck next summer.

[Endus]

Do the arguments of gambling for items as opposed to buying them for a fixed sum not hold merit?

I don't see how that's an argument at all, unless you think randomized distribution of anything is "bad". Do you have an issue with gumball machines because you can't be sure you get a red gumball for your quarter?

Spending significant amounts of money with the potential for no reward?

You mean "not the specific reward you might have preferred".

This is like complaining that it's "unfair" to buy a pack of baseball cards and not get the highest-value card in every pack.

I'm genuinely a little confused. Do you really think this way of doing things is better for the consumer than the alternatives? Does the associated gambling psychology and the questionable nature of including this in a game rated for teens and marketed to all ages not raise an eyebrow? Has the mobile industry taught us nothing about how anti-consumer these kinds of business practices can be?

In the same way that I don't think raffles or Bingo are immoral travesties, no, I don't see anything of the sort.

- - - Updated - - -

you must be one of those sleazebag salesman who tries to justify their sleeeaziness by using these kinds of bullshit arguments. It's a scumbag move from blizz and i dont have to prove you jackshit. nor does wondercrab. this is exactly the kind of shortsighted, self-righteous argumentation which doesn't clarify nor contribute to the core of the discussion. "Burden of proof" just wtf..

It's very simple.

If you want me to believe you that it's a "scumbag move", I'm going to expect you to have actual, rational reasons for claiming that, which you can explain to me, to make me understand that exceptional claim.

If you can't, then I have no reason to believe that claim, in the same way that I'd probably be doubtful if you said that Bigfoot was totally chillin' over at your house right now.

[Wondercrab]

So to conclude you DON'T have any reason that it's a scumbag move, you're just angry you can't buy track and field tracer.

Just as an aside, it would be nice if we could not go around in circles with this nonconstructive line of reasoning. I haven't read through all of this thread, but a lot of the issues people have with this system have been extensively covered on the official forums and elsewhere. This kind of business does not sit well with many people because it makes gambling the past of least resistance (and in many cases the only realistically viable way) to obtain certain in-game rewards. I'm sure some people are just mad that they can't easily get their hands on The Thing, but that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. This kind of monetisation runs into many of the same problems as the gambling industry when it comes to psychological manipulation and appealing to individuals with compulsive personalities. Doubly so when minors are brought into the potential customer base.

This is why I imagine legislation will catch up with these kinds of games sooner or later and force them to put some kind of prominent "Gambling Included" disclaimer on the box. And honestly, if they did that, I wouldn't have anywhere near as much of an issue with them as I do. The problem of people just wanting to play a shooter and earn cool rewards without feeling pressured to play a gambling mini-game on the side would still exist, but at least it would be very clear what they were getting into up front.

Personal upset about wanting shiny things is not the biggest issue here. I can't speak for others, but I for one am an adult with disposeable income. I could have gotten all the summer items I was after if I wanted. The reason I didn't had more to do with me feeling gross about supporting a business model I disagreed with than because I wanted to be stingy with my wallet (though given the amounts of money some people have sunk into trying to get the one summer skin they really want, I'm not sure "stingy" is really an appropriate term).

[nextormento]

It's very simple.
If you want me to believe you that it's a "scumbag move"

Do you genuinely believe people are trying to convince you, Endus? or is it the gallery, they're appealing to.
There is no objectively correct answer to the question of what is bad, beyond stating it is how it is (while ignoring that people are arguing how it should be). You're just as burdened with convincing people. You are just generally bad at it.

[Endus]

Do you genuinely believe people are trying to convince you, Endus? or is it the gallery, they're appealing to.

Replace "me" with whoever, then.

The point is; if you want to make a claim, like "this is a scumbag move", the onus is upon you to rationally support and defend that claim. Other people shouldn't be expected to just blindly accept it.

[nextormento]

Replace "me" with whoever, then.

Anyone is just as burdened: because there's no objective measure of what constitutes "bad".
Throwing the onus ball around doesn't work on these topics.
They're, however, objectively right about one thing: [yours] is exactly the kind of shortsighted, self-righteous argumentation which doesn't clarify nor contribute to the core of the discussion.

[Endus]

Anyone is just as burdened: because there's no objective measure of what constitutes "bad".
Throwing the onus ball around doesn't work on these topics.
They're, however, objectively right about one thing: [yours] is exactly the kind of shortsighted, self-righteous argumentation which doesn't clarify nor contribute to the core of the discussion.

The entire discussion is about whether or not this was a "scumbag move". All I've done is ask them why they think that, in rational terms that others can understand.

And I'm still waiting for that answer.

Until/unless that's established, the "discussion" is just "I personally don't like something." "Okay."

[Mercane]

I'd say the biggest issue with this whole lootbox debacle isn't the availability of limited edition skins/sprays/voice lines, it's the overwhelmingly large chance, especially as you start hitting around 40 unlocks on every character- to get nothing but stuff you already have. Loot boxes in general would be a whole lot better if you were guaranteed to get at least 1 item you don't have and they slightly increased the coin reward for duplicate skins.

This idea however puts an ever increasing burden on Blizzard to keep the lootboxes worthwhile, because if a large percentage of the player base completes their collection of skins, voice lines, intros, etc. the less incentive there is for a portion of those players to continue playing the game. This method would remove the hearthstone card pack problem, but re-introduce the diablo cosmetic conundrum.

I will say however, that all the petty rage over the verbiage of a release post is stupid and pointless. The game is B2P with cosmetic microtransactions, it was always marketed as such, it will continue to be as such- just like every other game in the Blizzard franchise.

[Wondercrab]

I don't see how that's an argument at all, unless you think randomized distribution of anything is "bad". Do you have an issue with gumball machines because you can't be sure you get a red gumball for your quarter?

This is like complaining that it's "unfair" to buy a pack of baseball cards and not get the highest-value card in every pack.

In the same way that I don't think raffles or Bingo are immoral travesties, no, I don't see anything of the sort.

I don't think those examples are particularly comparable, since they exist as relatively isolated activities that people tend to engage in for their own innate appeal, as opposed to being attached to a completely separate entertainment activity, the appeal of which is largely different. You can always buy a pack of the gumballs you want rather than having fun seeing which one the machine gives you. Trading cards are different in that... well, the clue is in the name. Raffles, bingo etc. are forms of gambling that people engage in largely for the fun of gambling, and I'm not making the argument that gambling is an inherently bad thing. It's fun. Tons of people love it. But it is something that's heavily controlled, very upfront about what it is, and not slotted into a completely separate activity that caters to a very different audience.

And that's where context is incredibly important, because the Overwatch summer loot boxes are a reward system that makes gambling by far the most viable (and in many cases, the only realistic) option, when it's very apparent that this option is not good for everyone. Randomised microtransaction rewards can be done in ways that are fun for everyone, completely optional, and far less financially punitive to those who aren't savvy with handling their money (minors and compulsive spenders included).

This is the point I'm really trying to drive home. There are so many examples in the industry of cosmetic microtransactions being done better, even within Overwatch itself with the default loot box system. It's not Worse than Hitler, but it is certainly on the undesirable end of the spectrum when it comes to cosmetic microtransactions in video games.

[nextormento]

All I've done is ask them why they think that, in rational terms that others can understand.
Until/unless that's established, the "discussion" is just "I personally don't like something." "Okay."

You've done a wee bit more than that.
Specifically, you've assessed that their description of the system as gambling -for children, I may add- is not objectionable.
You didn't ask first, I should point out; they, however did ask you why you see it that way. Which you're equally failing to provide convincing analogies.
You then played the onus card. In a topic that spreads the burden completely equally among posters.

Ignoring the fact that you're not entitled to be entertained or attempted to be convinced, yes: if you're incapable of producing a meaningful exchange beyond "lol onus", your answer should be "okay" and move along.
Your entire contribution to this thread is noise with a wedge of fanboy.

[Endus]

I don't think those examples are particularly comparable, since they exist as relatively isolated activities that people tend to engage in for their own innate appeal, as opposed to being attached to a completely separate entertainment activity, the appeal of which is largely different. You can always buy a pack of the gumballs you want rather than having fun seeing which one the machine gives you. Trading cards are different in that... well, the clue is in the name. Raffles, bingo etc. are forms of gambling that people engage in largely for the fun of gambling, and I'm not making the argument that gambling is an inherently bad thing. It's fun. Tons of people love it. But it is something that's heavily controlled, very upfront about what it is, and not slotted into a completely separate activity that caters to a very different audience.

I would disagree with that premise when applied to Overwatch. I would argue that the lootboxes are "fun", for the same reason opening a pack of trading cards is. With the added bonus that "dupes" aren't a waste, they give you some currency.

And that's where context is incredibly important, because the Overwatch summer loot boxes are a reward system that makes gambling by far the most viable (and in many cases, the only realistic) option, when it's very apparent that this option is not good for everyone. Randomised microtransaction rewards can be done in ways that are fun for everyone, completely optional, and far less financially punitive to those who aren't savvy with handling their money (minors and compulsive spenders included).

You say it's "very apparent", and I say it isn't, and that you have presented no arguments to back that statement. The summer lootboxes are completely optional. There is absolutely nothing about their contents that are in any way essential, nor even advantageous.

If you want me (or anyone) to accept that this model is "bad", you need to be able to explain why it's objectively bad.

Because from my perspective, the summer loot boxes are "fun", are completely optional, and aren't in any way "financially punitive". And frankly, people with spending control issues have [i]their spending control issues to blame, not Overwatch or its revenue model. If they're minors, their parents shouldn't be letting them get that out of control in the first place. That's calling "parenting".

- - - Updated - - -

You've done a wee bit more than that.
Specifically, you've assessed that their description of gambling -for children, I may add- is not objectionable.

See, this is an example of what I mean.

If you want me to agree that gambling is objectionable, you're going to have to be able to explain that. Particularly since this kind of "gamble" is the same as found in mall vending machines that dispense one of a handful of toys, or the prizes inside Kinder eggs; you don't know what you're getting beforehand for your small investment, but buying those isn't considered "gambling" by anyone, really.

[Deleted]

Do you have an issue with gumball machines because?

because those machines have only 1 purpose: cheat you out of your money, so yes i do have an issue with that.

You mean "not the specific reward you might have preferred"

diverting discussion

actual, rational reasons

there it is, "the problem"

ill make this clear to you without spaghetti sentences;

blizzard, company who's main purpose is making money with selling a product, a videogame. video game contains gambling elements with the purpose of making more money. allot of gaming companies have removed a barrier of product>price>sale, including, activision/blizz whatever the f***

now they sell a video game, you pay for that. simple. but, you can have MORE INGAME ITEMS by throwing MORE money at them (BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO, nooooo)
logically, you would give money for something you want and get it directly. BUT YOU CANNOT. you have to keep throwing money, to get what you want.

it comes down to this; every company, entity who is using this tactic, playing around with simple tricks to get the customer spend more is considered sleazy. in technical terms, GREEDY. they could just sell the skin instead of walling it behind a gambling mechanic. but they dont, thats my reasoning.

you can believe what you want, i am not here to convince anyone. the facts are all there.

[nextormento]

If you want me to agree that gambling is objectionable

This again?
Do you genuinely think I'm trying to persuade you of anything?.
You're not entitled to that.

As a note on kinder eggs, I'm getting chocolate out of the investment, with an extra toy. They're arguing the scheme of the "reward", not just the randomized aspect.

[Endus]

there it is, "the problem"

ill make this clear to you without spaghetti sentences;

blizzard, company who's main purpose is making money with selling a product, a videogame. video game contains gambling elements with the purpose of making more money. allot of gaming companies have removed a barrier of product>price>sale, including, activision/blizz whatever the f***

now they sell a video game, you pay for that. simple. but, you can have MORE INGAME ITEMS by throwing MORE money at them (BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO, nooooo)
logically, you would give money for something you want and get it directly. BUT YOU CANNOT. you have to keep throwing money, to get what you want.

The part in bold is just incorrect. You can also just keep playing the game. Or just not bother.

And I fundamentally disagree that lootboxes are essentially "gambling". They're random, but again, so are trading cards and the like, and I've never seen those covered under any country or state's gambling legislation.

it comes down to this; every company, entity who is using this tactic, playing around with simple tricks to get the customer spend more is considered sleazy. in technical terms, GREEDY. they could just sell the skin instead of walling it behind a gambling mechanic. but they dont, thats my reasoning.

A company's purpose is to make money. Maybe you think they should all operate as non-profits?

You still haven't demonstrated that this harms anyone.

This again?Do you genuinely think I'm trying to persuade you of anything?.
You're not entitled to that.

So you're just saying "I don't like a thing"?

Okay. So what? I don't like zucchini. That doesn't mean I think groceries are awful for selling it, or people who cook with it are terrible people. I just don't eat it, myself.

As a note on kinder eggs, I'm getting chocolate out of the investment, with an extra toy. They're arguing the scheme of the "reward", not just the randomized aspect.

And with Overwatch, you get some other cosmetics and if nothing else, currency for duplicates. You might not get the particular toy you want, but that's the chance you take.

[Saft]

This whole controversy is like a storm in a teacup. I can only see the fanatical collectors actually being part of this outrage. Of course regular people get a bad taste from it but some people are acting like their mom was murdered and they guy got away with it.

My reaction? I've actually got a life that's stressful enough so I don't even have the energy to give a shit about this. That's how insignificant it is.

[nextormento]

So you're just saying "I don't like a thing"?
Okay. So what?

Precisely:
so what!, move on, instead of creating noise around an unsolvable burden.

When you expose that you find it fun or w/e, you're contributing. When you demand being convinced, you're shortsightedly muddling the exchange.