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

[UnluckyAmateur]

Personally speaking, the only games that should have that monetization system are ones that are completely free to play (Smite, Fortnite, League, etc). Games, where you have to pay full price, have no business with them.

[Coldkil]

because there is no official way to monetise what is inside them.

A prize has to be either money or have monetary value in order for it to fall under gambling legislation.

@Dhrizzle if it just ends like that, then it's crap. Since you cannot turn skins into money directly it's not gambling - but stuff like the steam store for CS skins are a no-go?

Makes no sense imho but i don't think there's much room to wiggle until they change the definitions.

[Dhrizzle]

The *ONLY* reason they don't consider it gambling is because their laws are out of date. They're working with old laws with very strict definitions. Belgium has updated their laws and found lootboxes to be gambling, the UK might follow suit.

Belgium didn't update their laws, they have stricter definitions of what constitutes gambling. What happened recently was them clarifying that loot-boxes fall under existing legislation.

[Temp name]

Belgium didn't update their laws, they have stricter definitions of what constitutes gambling. What happened recently was them clarifying that loot-boxes fall under existing legislation.

So they updated the laws to reflect the intention, otherwise they would've been banned before. Its not a huge update, but it is still an update to include new technology and forms of gambling.

[Dhrizzle]

@Dhrizzle if it just ends like that, then it's crap. Since you cannot turn skins into money directly it's not gambling - but stuff like the steam store for CS skins are a no-go?

Makes no sense imho but i don't think there's much room to wiggle until they change the definitions.

It's basically the same rules that allowed Pokemon cards to be sold without being classed as a lottery, though that only just squeaked through as there is quite a robust market for selling cards. If the craze happened again with the internet facilitating trades there's a good chance the ruling could go another way.

- - - Updated - - -

So they updated the laws to reflect the intention, otherwise they would've been banned before. Its not a huge update, but it is still an update to include new technology and forms of gambling.

A clarification is not the same as updating laws. The law remains the same, loot-boxes were covered prior to the clarification the same as they were afterwards. The clarification made sure everyone knows where the law stands with regard to loot-boxes, it did not change the law.

It's the same as the UK gambling commission clarifying that loot-boxes are not covered by UK laws, it doesn't mean they changed the law to make sure that was the case, it means they wanted to let people know where the law stands.

[Coldkil]

It's basically the same rules that allowed Pokemon cards to be sold without being classed as a lottery, though that only just squeaked through as there is quite a robust market for selling cards. If the craze happened again with the internet facilitating trades there's a good chance the ruling could go another way.

Eh, i know - all TCG have the same issues; it's baffling for me how them being a material object makes all the difference for parents. It's very likely to find a kid crying to his parents for more packs and they saying "no, we bought X already, time to go home. Maybe if you're good next week" or similar things.
The mechanism behind them is very similar to lootboxes (not a guaranteed rewards with rarity tiers) but the fact that cards are literally something physical is more a deterrent than the price itself (or better, the fact that's it just easier for tech illiterate parents to give a value to them and see that there's a limit in purchasing).
Plus, they have a definite money value depending on the card, though it's not "official".

Instead lootboxes are totally out of control with kids spending money all the way without parent supervision, like giving a kind 1000$ and send him into a toy shop.

[Trbn]

Eh, i know - all TCG have the same issues; it's baffling for me how them being a material object makes all the difference for parents. It's very likely to find a kid crying to his parents for more packs and they saying "no, we bought X already, time to go home. Maybe if you're good next week" or similar things.
The mechanism behind them is very similar to lootboxes (not a guaranteed rewards with rarity tiers) but the fact that cards are literally something physical is more a deterrent than the price itself (or better, the fact that's it just easier for tech illiterate parents to give a value to them and see that there's a limit in purchasing).
Plus, they have a definite money value depending on the card, though it's not "official".

Instead lootboxes are totally out of control with kids spending money all the way without parent supervision, like giving a kind 1000$ and send him into a toy shop.

lootboxes are endless

[Kumorii]

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who likes MTX or thinks they are good for the gaming industry. The reason people are arguing is because they are tired of shitty parents getting a pass and people thinking the government should solve the problems.

I wouldn't say good in an objective matter since they can be handled poorly. I however don't mind them as much as others and in some games I absolutely love them.

Overwatch is a good example. Loot boxes and mtx there are only for cosmetics. What that do is that it gives me new maps and heroes for free while they earn money on mtx.if mtx weren't in that game you would have to buy new heroes or maps in expansions or DLC since new content costs money. So far I've gotten so much value from just 40 bucks without having to spend one dime on new content.

It's ofc a selfish view, but I can't deny it works out for me.
I have nothing against mtx if only for cosmetics and depending what benefits it gives to all players by having them introduced.

[The Butt Witch]

As long as they can be totally ignored, I don't mind them. But I've never said I love, or even like them. I'm not a fan, but I'm also not going to get my knickers in a twist if a game has them but can still be enjoyed without them.

Ideally, the game developer is going to balance the game AROUND THE FUCKING LOOTBOXES, in order to motivate you to actually buy them. They don't like the fact that you don't need them and don't buy them, so they will make the game harder in order to MAKE YOU BUY THEM.

[Edge-]

Ideally, the game developer is going to balance the game AROUND THE FUCKING LOOTBOXES, in order to motivate you to actually buy them. They don't like the fact that you don't need them and don't buy them, so they will make the game harder in order to MAKE YOU BUY THEM.

And if they do that in a game, I won't buy it. Again, as long as they can be totally ignored (like in AC:Od) I have no major problems with them. Not a fan, but they're also not obtrusive and don't impact gameplay in a meaningful way.

[The Butt Witch]

And if they do that in a game, I won't buy it. Again, as long as they can be totally ignored (like in AC:Od) I have no major problems with them. Not a fan, but they're also not obtrusive and don't impact gameplay in a meaningful way.

Dude, they don't care you and a handful of people don't buy them. They will push it anyway because there will be plenty of idiots who will buy them anyway, and this ruins the industry for everyone else.

[Edge-]

Dude, they don't care you and a handful of people don't buy them. They will push it anyway because there will be plenty of idiots who will buy them anyway, and this ruins the industry for everyone else.

And once they start pushing games like that, I'll stop buying them. I can't control the spending of others, only my own.

[Rennadrel]

Now actually look into why that is.

Ill give you a hint its because of MTX's in a game that is exclusively on PC.



Tell that to God of War, Spiderman,Red Dead, Anything Nintendo and each Call of Duty that releases each year.

You do realize that the majority of Nintendo's top end titles literally prints money for them without microtransactions, right? It doesn't take much when you actually put effort into making a game fun and enjoyable for countless hours. When you make games as shallow as Call of Duty (which relies on DLC and microtransactions extensively) or Battlefield 5, of course you are going to bleed players quickly and lose out on potential MTX sales.

[Jtbrig7390]

You do realize that the majority of Nintendo's top end titles literally prints money for them without microtransactions, right?

Not sure why your asking me this..

I fully know and agree about Nintendo's top end titles and that was kinda my point to the person I replied to.

[Vash The Stampede]

It's not a substantial decline for a product entering the end of its life cycle. Look at any product curve nearing the end of its life. The PS4 also took a hit in hardware sales, for the same reason. At this point in time almost everyone who wants a PS or Xbox already has one, or is going to wait for the next gen. If my Xbox died tomorrow, I wouldn't buy a new one. I'd either buy a used one, or wait until next summer for the Scarlet.

I doubt the PS4 took a 50% dip in sales. No doubt that the PS4 and Xbox One are nearing hardware saturation, but at the same time the Xbox One doesn't have any worth while exclusives. So if something broke on the Xbox One, I'd imagine those people would switch to PC, PS4, or even Switch.

So then you didn't actually read the release, which stated "Our first-quarternet bookings came in well above target, thanks to the very robust performance of our games ‒ notably Rainbow Six Siege and Assassin’s Creed Odyssey ‒ and a very strong increase in player recurring investment for PCs and consoles, led by record-high engagement levels per player."

There definitely was a rise in PC revenue.

PC revenue, but what about sales? Revenue doesn't equal growth. You could have less players who just so happen to spend more in micro-transactions. You know, like whales.

Citation needed, please.

Again, if you actually look at numbers and try to use actual facts to back up what you're saying, you'll see you are wrong. Activision yty actually increased sales. While Blizzard's sales are down yty from 2018, if you actually read the statements, it's because 2018 was higher due to pre-sales of BFA and revenue from Overwatch League.
They hit the numbers they expected to with no new releases.

Do I need to citation something that's been all over the news since Blizzard fired 800 employee's and oddly enough is now looking to rehire for those positions? Though lately I hear there's been a recent increase in subscribers for WoW since the release of 8.2 and Classic is around the corner.

Yeah, they have only been around for 7 years, and mobile gaming is the largest growing market for gaming.

Seven years compared to nearly four decades of gamers? You don't see tablet users harking back to when Super Mario bros didn't have loot boxes. It's a very new market relatively. Especially when you consider that for the past several years the price of tablets and smart phones have gotten cheap enough that children can have their own. Most PC and console gamers are adults and have enough experience to know a time period when games didn't have micro-transactions and loot boxes, while tablet users can't remember when they paid for a game but aren't upset about buying micro-transactions.

The in game shop actually has worked out quite well for them from a revenue perspective.

Revenue but a nearly dead player base. WoW is full of whales. Did these whales make as much money as when there was 12 million subscribers? Like Assassin's Creed Odyssey with low sales but the micro-transactions might have made up for it and then some, but is that the same thing as Red Dead Redemption 2's 24 million sales? Probably not.

So someone makes a Youtube video of their top 10 reasons why company X is bad, and that becomes the absolute truth that the company is bad. I wasn't even going to bother watching this, but I did just to see how bad it would be.

Guy posts on forum and therefore debunks video. What makes you more correct?

So that's 11 minutes of my life wasted. You complain they can't do anything right lately, then link a list whose top 3 items are from four, three, and twelve years ago, respectively. I guess we have different views on what lately means.

Shadow of War is one example. Enough to have them remove the game and re-balance it without the micro-transactions. There's the whole Star Wars Battlefront II fiasco. Pretty sure everyone forgot about Anthem by now.

The mobile market and MTX in the AAA market are almost identical in age. Please also cite a source showing that sales of games with MTX are declining compared to those without.

Not talking about the age of the market here, but the consumers. People on mobile devices are not experienced gamers and aren't going to fight back micro-transactions because they're used to mobile games having them. But at some point they won't be. Same thing happened to console and PC gamers, but we noticed how these micro-transactions and loot boxes effect game mechanics.

And lost of newer and probably better games have been released recently, specifically with micro-transactions and loot boxes compared to many older games.

That's financially impossible. You can't make a good game with loot boxes and micro-transactions. That's like cats and dogs living together. If the game is good then nobody will buy from the in game store. But if the game is just barely enjoyable, then people will go after the in game store.

[CerecTopKek]

Sadly somehow I am not suprised...

[eldriyn]

Ban loot boxes and most rng from video games already.

[The Butt Witch]

*Buys Super Mario Bros game for son. ESRB says E for everyone.*
Daddy, I need $1000 to try and get Princess Peach as a playable character. The website says your credit card is out of funds.

[segara82]

I am suprised no one has mentioned GTA Online's latest addition with the Casino. It has been banned in dozens of countries since it is seen there as online-gambling. That could set a precedent for things to come.

[BeepBoo]

Pretty sure everyone forgot about Anthem by now.

I actually had 100% forgotten the game even existed. Now to forget that trash all over again!