(Loot Box's) Number of child gamblers quadruples in just two years....

[stellvia]

collectible card games are not focus tested out the ass to have opening animations that do things like show a single frame of a legendary/max rarity item to force a false positive dopamine crash to indoctrinate habit forming users to get a "i was so close, just one more" mentality. Loot box animations are literally designed to brainwash and form an addiction in susceptible people. Thats a fact.

Both EA and Activision filed patents shortly before the Battlefront2 fiasco for more systems just like that. These were basically "scientific studies" done by PhD behavioral scientists etc. on Maximizing Engagement™ in order to increase Recurrent Spending™
Stuff like logging what items your mouse cursor hovered over, intentionally matchmaking you with people that had the items they determined you wanted to make you more jealous, intentionally spawning the counter to your equipment to entice you into buying a new weapon, etc. were all examples they gave in the patent filing.

They're not messing around. They have an entire book they slap down on the table in front of devs at the start of a product on monetization these days and devs have to build their games around those demands.

Also in the case of CCGs: The physical cards are also an investment and can be bought, sold, or traded. Very very few video games actually let you trade or sell items, usually you're just stuck with them.

[Krastyn]

Stuff like logging what items your mouse cursor hovered over, intentionally matchmaking you with people that had the items they determined you wanted to make you more jealous, intentionally spawning the counter to your equipment to entice you into buying a new weapon, etc. were all examples they gave in the patent filing.

So video game companies are starting to do what ad and marketing companies have been doing for over a century. Welcome to business.

Also in the case of CCGs: The physical cards are also an investment and can be bought, sold, or traded. Very very few video games actually let you trade or sell items, usually you're just stuck with them.

I've never understood this line of argument. It actually strengthens the argument that you should be regulating CCG's, not loot boxes.

If you're just stuck with what you get from loot boxes, then the comparison becomes:

Loot boxes: You spend $X and get nothing. You have now lost $X.You can never "win".

CCG's: You spend $X, and depending on your odds you will end up with a value between slightly above $0, and potentially way above $x. How is that different from a slot machine?

Should we ban Cracker Jack boxes? Kinder Surprise Eggs? Eggshell machines from malls?

What about promotions like https://news.mcdonalds.com/node/7966 or https://dewanddoritos.ca/

If your answer is "Oh well you're getting the product you paid for, the prize is just a bonus", then welcome to how Blizzard got around loot boxes in China and how easy it will be for gaming companies just do the exact same thing elsewhere.

[Zantos]

Actually...


If you buy the meal in hopes of getting a specific toy...you are gambling.

So, you're comparing someone who already has a gambling addiction to a childs toy at mcdonalds. No, its not gambling. It doesn't matter how you spin it. Someone who has an addiction already may find some small pleasure in it, but when you can literally ask for the specific reward, its not gambling. If it was, you'd see people go bankrupt over it or get in trouble. Don't see governments even batting an eye at them.

[kail]

Crazier concept: You unlock things like skins by playing the game. Shocking idea i know. But of course the stretches addicts go to validate their addiction as somehow not 'paying money for random chances at on disc content' is nothing new, they are just having their rush/fix threatened and for some reason think championing for AAA lockboxes is the heroic stance to protect 'the little guy'.

I am very much in favor of that system, yet even games like OW that have the rewards available in game is getting flak for loot boxes. Hell it's the most represented example I've been seeing when other complain on the concept.

[Guardian Bob]

I'd also consider micro-transactions to be limited to those over 18 years old since a lot of games today are using them as a predatory practice to extract money from kids. We've all heard the stories of a child who charged thousands on a parents credit card and had to call Apple or Google to get their money back. 18 or older cause hopefully you're not dumb enough to be tricked into spending real money on digital in game items.

[Aori]

This is a parent problem or lack there of.

[RobertoCarlos]

This is a parent problem or lack there of.

We also have seat belts and crash helmets to stop idiots killing themselves.

Government is there to protect people from themselves when working correctly and not corrupted by big business.

[Aori]

We also have seat belts and crash helmets to stop idiots killing themselves.

Government is there to protect people from themselves when working correctly and not corrupted by big business.

What a terrible analogy. Idiots don't use seat belts or helmets.

If your kid develops a gambling problem from loot boxes, you the parent are the one at fault for not monitoring their actions. The kid has to get the money from someone. These are generally the same parents who buy their child a 17+ game even though they're 10 and then complain later about video games because of their selfimposed ignorance.

[RobertoCarlos]

What a terrible analogy. Idiots don't use seat belts or helmets.

If your kid develops a gambling problem from loot boxes, you the parent are the one at fault for not monitoring their actions. The kid has to get the money from someone. These are generally the same parents who buy their child a 17+ game even though they're 10 and then complain later about video games because of their selfimposed ignorance.

Yeah because every parent should know that a football game has lootboxes in it. Im not excusing shitty parenting.

I just dont think you should be able to prey on kids either. Business has already destroyed everything else, let kids be kids without the university funded researched sketchy slow reveal RNG lootbox shitfest.

[D3athsting]

https://kotaku.com/the-ftc-says-it-w...xes-1830714932

[Tech614]

Yeah because every parent should know that a football game has lootboxes in it.

This is a really good point I think most don't realize.

Most parents aren't gaming enthusiasts, they might play a game here or there but they don't check news and have no idea what is going on in the industry.

You could say a parent is an idiot if they buy their kid RDR2 and then later realize it's a mature game with lots of gore and violence sure, it explicitly says so on the box of the game. Games like Madden, FIFA, Overwatch don't say they have in game gambling with low odds of receiving items players want. Most parents aren't going to know this. The "bad parenting" excuse doesn't really fly here. Sure it's probably not ideal parenting going on but I reckon this term is being thrown out by mostly people that don't even have kids or even know shit about raising them in a digital world.

We should probably just get rid of laws and government entirely because kids want to protect "muh skins" in overwatch. I mean if something bad or exploitative happens in real life it's probably just due to poor parenting right? Why legislate any laws using that blanket excuse?

[Raging Fungus]

I think gambling should be fully legal and I should be able to do whatever I want with my money. I think it's on parent's/society etc. to teach kids/people to be more responsible with money instead of stopping gambling itself. We live in a society where people constantly buy shit they don't need and then complain that their wage is barely enough to get by.

To me this is like stopping apple from selling the latest gadget because people who can't afford it buy it anyway.

[dope_danny]

This is a really good point I think most don't realize.

Most parents aren't gaming enthusiasts, they might play a game here or there but they don't check news and have no idea what is going on in the industry.

You could say a parent is an idiot if they buy their kid RDR2 and then later realize it's a mature game with lots of gore and violence sure, it explicitly says so on the box of the game. Games like Madden, FIFA, Overwatch don't say they have in game gambling with low odds of receiving items players want. Most parents aren't going to know this. The "bad parenting" excuse doesn't really fly here. Sure it's probably not ideal parenting going on but I reckon this term is being thrown out by mostly people that don't even have kids or even know shit about raising them in a digital world.

We should probably just get rid of laws and government entirely because kids want to protect "muh skins" in overwatch. I mean if something bad or exploitative happens in real life it's probably just due to poor parenting right? Why legislate any laws using that blanket excuse?

I always remember back in college i was standing in the queue at gamestation to pick up some cheap PS2 games and in front of me was a mother being quite clearly worked by her son telling her "grand theft auto v was a none violent game like mario". They got up to the counter and the girl behind the till -who was someone from the graphics pathway of the degree i took the film/video pathway in- asked the woman if she was buying it for herself or the child, as she could get in trouble due to the age rating, and when the woman said no and said it was a 'mario like game its fun' the girl behind the counter told the woman what it was and she was mortified. The kid turned on a time with a face like thunder, screeched at the clerk, his mom and left throwing a can of red bull at a solid snake statue in the window.

Speaking to the girl the next day in the morning period where all 3 pathway groups were all together i asked if that was common and she said 'it should be but my boss yelled at me for losing a sale'.

I'm always a cynical, untrusting guy but it was a very memorable sight that not only do parent not know but games stores would much rather keep it that way for sales. I would bet good money publishers and stores are far more worried of this raising awareness in parents than effecting the lootboxes in game.

[Tech614]

then I'd say you need some fucking perspective

So again how many kids are you currently raising?

How good was your parenting growing up if you support predatory practices?

I'm wondering what your perspective actually is. Please enlighten us. If a kid is asking their parent to buy them PSN currency they have no idea if it gets spent on loot boxes or not. You understand this right? It doesn't clarify what they are on games, and it doesn't clarify on PSN cards that they can be used to buy such things. Replace PSN with platform of choice statement is still true.

Come back with a better excuse next time and maybe people will take your "but the baaaaaaaaad parenting!" excuse serious.

[Tech614]

Yawn, so you actually don't have any experience in parenting.

I guess we should have allowed tobacco companies to keep targeting kids with advertisements to "look cool" you know, cause where did the kid actually get the money from?!

If a kid is spending his $20 allowance every week on the low chance to get a skin he wants, and all his friends say he wants it's the exact same exploitation mechanic of a millionaire buying packs non stop until he gets his. I'm not sure why you keep trying to act like amount of money spent matters.

It's a system that is rigged in favor of the publisher, just like with casinos. Sure some people will get lucky. Most won't, most will end up spending far more money trying to get that one skin they want then they would have the skin been purchasable out right. That's what makes the system predatory. I didn't bother to quote you because I had already put you on ignore, you have no counter argument. Don't @ me it will just be a waste of your time.

[segara82]

They designed the loot-boxes to work just like slot machines, with similar optical and acustical signals to trigger the endorphin rush like in a casino patron. And they unleash it at kids. It reminds me of Joe Pesci in Moonwalker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRV8_z7qUO0
Skip 20 seconds in and listen to him.

That is predatory behaviour that should never be allowed near kids or teenagers. So fucking finally treat that shit the way it should be: Like slotmachines, for adults only.

[Coombs]

Jesus fucking Christ you people go on and on about the kids. You don't make billions of dollars by targeting a demographic that once noticed will have legislation and regulation rolling in. You especially don't target a demographic that doesn't make money. Vegas doesn't, has never, nor will ever, target children. They target adults, because adults have income. The problem with Vegas is that it's in Vegas, and you have to actively go to a casino. These days everyone has a cell phone and gambling is in the palm of every hand across the globe. This isn't a child problem, this is a 20-60 y/o problem.

Watch your kids all you want, they aren't the one's gambling and throwing money away, you are.

- - - Updated - - -

https://kotaku.com/the-ftc-says-it-w...xes-1830714932

And here we go. This is why everyone should pull their shares out of gaming companies until you see what is coming on the Horizon. The gaming industry will crumble with the new focus of mobile gaming when they don't have a way to monetize it. Because no game on mobile is worth even $15. Blizzard, you fucking fools should have weathered the storm, stuck to PC, and not had your eyes set on the very short MTX gold rush.

[Coombs]

I still don't get why people think that Blizzard is "abandoning" PCs. You guys really should stop making things up and then yelling at Blizzard about those things.

They used to be a PC only company, and then they started making obvious design limiting decisions based on porting games to console (DIII, Overwatch). Now they are making a move into the mobile market because 55% of all gaming revenue comes from that market. Why would I spend $200,000,000 producing a game for 20% of the pie when I could outsource a game for $10,000,000 and eat half that cash cow?

[Onikaroshi]

Well, lets start off with the first claim: They were never a "PC Only" company, unless you want to really, really, really split hairs and say that they made their console games (Including Lost Vikings) before their name change.

But anyway, that's kind of irrelevant, I know.

Branching out into other markets is what companies have to do. It's not strange and being in one market isn't mutually exclusive with being in another. PC, Console, Mobile, etc aren't warring tribes or enemy nations, they're just platforms. Used by people who play games. If you don't like the games on one platform, don't play them.

It's not like Blizzard is going to shut down WoW, SC2, Overwatch PC, D3 PC, and so on tomorrow because they announced one mobile-only game.

Actually, SC released under Blizzard Entertainment as a N64 game :P so they can't even argue that!

(and Blizzard basically ignores their console players, OW was supposed to get separate balancing for Console vs. PC, but console OW is a clusterfuck)

[PosPosPos]

Yep, there it is again. "Buh, buh, buh...do you even parent, bro?!"

Compared to "you need perspective"? Someone needs a lesson on not being a hypocrite.

So basically you just want parents to be immune to any blame or responsibility and will just keep trying to compare parenting-dick-size with anyone that disagrees.

Sure. Great talk. Just like every other shitty parent I've ever talked to that wanted to evade any kind of responsibility.

I see you just dodged the cigarettes analogy completely because you knew it clearly disproves your point.

So I guess underage sex, physical abuse, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, these should all be legal because "parental upbringing".

Because the magnitude of something matters. A kid spending $10 on packs of baseball cards is not "a gambling problem" no matter how you want to twist it.

It's still gambling. It's still a problem.

Oh gosh, ya got me.

Pretty sure he did, he put you on ignore after all. It's like ranting to someone in chat when there's a system message telling you explicitly that your messages aren't received by them.

P.S. I am and have always been a strong proponent of customers being the biggest problem in microtransactions rather than unscrupulous developers, and even then I find you ridiculous. Let's not regulate petty change white collar crime because hey, it's just a small amount of money, magnitude matters.