1) I think they are lame as hell, just a pathetic way to monetize a game.
2) It may be a pathetic way to monetize a game but it is sure as hell profitable
3) Predatory and upsell practices and all this marketing crap is why my primary career is not in business. (my on-the-side career is business related)
4) I think banning lootboxes is a bit harsh, I'd rather make rules that the chances have to be published and made easily seen like, put the exact % chance of getting any item and show how it equals 100%.
5) I despise lying, trickery, swindeling, "pulling wool over eyes", and prefer everyone to be transparent.
6) If you want to gamble, at least let people know what the chances are, so they are about as well informed as possible.
7) I prefer publishing the chances and letting people vote with their minds instead of just banning it.
8) If you don't like lootboxes, don't play games with them or live with it and don't purchase them. There is so much predatory BS that goes on in the world that lootboxes are barely an important issue in my mind. You should see how badly Healthcare Insurance screws people over in the US.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
@DMKano With every one of your posts I get the impression your response is more about supporting your employer (which I understand is a game developer) than it is about gambling or what is good for people's entertainment.
Loot boxes are not a good way to monetize entertainment, no matter how well they work. They are clearly gambling and do not add to the 'fun' of the game.
We can do better. We will do better.
what is this we nonsense?
don't blame for profit companies using the best way possible to make the most money possible under the confines of current law. . .rather blame yourself, the gamer, for continuing to give them your money.
That doesn't apply here. Lootboxes intentionally avoid needing popularity to make devs money. That's why they work so well despite the pushback from gamers.
wait, so if people stopped buying lootboxes and game with loot boxes in them companies would still make money. . .
. . .somehow?
No, stop to think a minute before jumping at what you think is a chance to be a smartass.
They only need to market to a fraction of the playerbase- the whales. They make the vast majority of their money off of lootboxes from a select group who lay down exorbitant amounts of cash. They don't need lootboxes to be popular in the traditional sense at all.
so me saying if people dont buy loot boxes then companies would stop offering them is still correct.
your entire argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 or 1,000,000 people buy these boxes the fact is ( and what you seem to not grasp ) is that if gamers stopped buying them then companies would shift to another method to entice people to spend money.
So you're saying that if everyone- down to the less than ~1% of the playerbase that are the whales that make up roughly 50% of the revenue from these things- stopped purchasing them, they would go away?
Well shit, guy. It's genius! Now let's get back to reality, yes?
That's not even the worst part. It's that developing lootbox and other cosmetic content is easy and very low maintenance. The return per effort investment is phenomenal compared to when you're trying to make money from players playing and subbing to your game for months. Making a good and interesting game and adding a good quantity of new game play content is very labour intensive and high maintenance.
The trick is to provide just enough game play that players feel good about having a sufficiently large audience to watch them consume conspicuously and parade around major hubs decked in their ultra rare loot box cosmetic drops.
Of course they have to attract a different type of player to the game in order to make money doing that vs. making it through good game play but it seems to be working since this is all the rage in MMOs not named WOW. Once you convert your player base to that other type of gamer, continued development becomes much easier and the profits soar. You need only develop enough new game play content to maintain the illusion that you're still developing a game and not just loot boxes
That was going to be my next rebuttal if the debate continued. Great minds think alike, eh?
Even if we cut revenue of MTX and lootboxes in half, they're so cheap to maintain and update that it won't matter. It costs exponentially more to bring an expansion to release than it does to update to the cash shop. Consequently, devs would need to make exponentially more from the expansion to justify spending money there as opposed to the shop, and we see where most of the devs have decided the most efficient use of their time has been.
Even more, as you say, they're not just spending time on the store itself- they're spending time rigging the games to try and get you to the store. Devs are intentionally creating shit gameplay systems for no other reason than to better monetize said systems. So, even when they focus on things other than the store, they're still focusing on the store (the jewelry crafting line in ESO is an example you've noticed most recently, but it's only one of many in the market today).
Market forces can and are manipulated artificially by schemes like these. That's why the idea of an absolutely free market is a pipe dream that shouldn't be considered seriously by anyone in the least bit of know about how markets work and businesses operate within those markets.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
This. The last thing we should want as a consumer is the message being sent to devs that we're too apathetic to do anything about the little scheme. That translates into "carte blanche" for the monetization stacking.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I'm curious where you get the idea that government has been looking for a reason to regulate them. Beyond the outcries from folks about violence in the 90s, I've not seen a single politician even approach the subject of the video game industry prior to this lootbox fiasco.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I'm curious where you get the idea that government has been looking for a reason to regulate them. Beyond the outcries from folks about violence in the 90s, I've not seen a single politician even approach the subject of the video game industry prior to this lootbox fiasco.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
Well now that President Trump asked the question we can be sure the Democrats will now totally be against it so maybe that's a start lol.
As for requiring the video game developers to be the parents because 31% of parents are not good parents and don't know what their child's are spending their time on is ridiculous. It's not the developers fault 31% of parents are too lazy looking at their phone to care what their kid is doing.
Self regulating or no regulating will be better for video game games than governments getting involved.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I'm curious where you get the idea that government has been looking for a reason to regulate them. Beyond the outcries from folks about violence in the 90s, I've not seen a single politician even approach the subject of the video game industry prior to this lootbox fiasco.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
Well now that President Trump asked the question we can be sure the Democrats will now totally be against it so maybe that's a start lol.
As for requiring the video game developers to be the parents because 31% of parents are not good parents and don't know what their child's are spending their time on is ridiculous. It's not the developers fault 31% of parents are too lazy looking at their phone to care what their kid is doing.
Self regulating or no regulating will be better for video game games than governments getting involved.
Interesting, as I hadn't seen mention of the items from those years. It still seems to center around violence alone prior to the lootbox fiasco.
Fault doesn't really matter at this point, only reality does. Those parents likely don't fully understand the digital agreements they themselves sign off on in their every day lives, much less the ones their children are signing off on in their free time. It would be a full-time job to do so today. Remember, even a significant portion of the parents who claimed to know what a lootbox was actually knew. They thought they knew, but they didn't.
We've gone way beyond the mere "make sure little Johnny's not playing in the road" days. It's not quite as obvious today as it was in the "good ole days," and it won't get better from here as we continue to saturate ourselves and our children with technology, apps, and connectivity.
Well something I was wondering about, because the main market tends to be the US, as long loot boxes stand there because due to the legal setup, we might see more titles doing this because it might not see suitability to overhaul the game monetization either by the effort or the fact it sees not enough profitability, especially for older titles that are pretty much on maintenance.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I'm curious where you get the idea that government has been looking for a reason to regulate them. Beyond the outcries from folks about violence in the 90s, I've not seen a single politician even approach the subject of the video game industry prior to this lootbox fiasco.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
Well now that President Trump asked the question we can be sure the Democrats will now totally be against it so maybe that's a start lol.
As for requiring the video game developers to be the parents because 31% of parents are not good parents and don't know what their child's are spending their time on is ridiculous. It's not the developers fault 31% of parents are too lazy looking at their phone to care what their kid is doing.
Self regulating or no regulating will be better for video game games than governments getting involved.
Interesting, as I hadn't seen mention of the items from those years. It still seems to center around violence alone prior to the lootbox fiasco.
Fault doesn't really matter at this point, only reality does. Those parents likely don't fully understand the digital agreements they themselves sign off on in their every day lives, much less the ones their children are signing off on in their free time. It would be a full-time job to do so today. Remember, even a significant portion of the parents who claimed to know what a lootbox was actually knew. They thought they knew, but they didn't.
We've gone way beyond the mere "make sure little Johnny's not playing in the road" days. It's not quite as obvious today as it was in the "good ole days," and it won't get better from here as we continue to saturate ourselves and our children with technology, apps, and connectivity.
Well another topic we can agree to disagree on. Game one of the Stanley cup is too good to sit here and have a discission on my phone so have a good night.
My only comment would be shockingly I disagree that it's harder today for parents. A simple Google search on their phone will tell them exactly what little Johnny is playing. In the 90 Our parents didn't have google.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
I'm curious where you get the idea that government has been looking for a reason to regulate them. Beyond the outcries from folks about violence in the 90s, I've not seen a single politician even approach the subject of the video game industry prior to this lootbox fiasco.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
Well now that President Trump asked the question we can be sure the Democrats will now totally be against it so maybe that's a start lol.
As for requiring the video game developers to be the parents because 31% of parents are not good parents and don't know what their child's are spending their time on is ridiculous. It's not the developers fault 31% of parents are too lazy looking at their phone to care what their kid is doing.
Self regulating or no regulating will be better for video game games than governments getting involved.
Interesting, as I hadn't seen mention of the items from those years. It still seems to center around violence alone prior to the lootbox fiasco.
Fault doesn't really matter at this point, only reality does. Those parents likely don't fully understand the digital agreements they themselves sign off on in their every day lives, much less the ones their children are signing off on in their free time. It would be a full-time job to do so today. Remember, even a significant portion of the parents who claimed to know what a lootbox was actually knew. They thought they knew, but they didn't.
We've gone way beyond the mere "make sure little Johnny's not playing in the road" days. It's not quite as obvious today as it was in the "good ole days," and it won't get better from here as we continue to saturate ourselves and our children with technology, apps, and connectivity.
Well another topic we can agree to disagree on. Game one on the Stanley cup is too good to argue tonight so have a good night.
My only comment would be shockingly I disagree that it's harder today for parents. A simple Google search on their phone will tell them exactly what little Johnny is playing. In the 90 Our parents didn't have google.
Cool, thanks for the input even if we disagree!
It will tell them what they're playing, but it won't give them any details on the ToS or EULA, much less anything in the way of how the gameplay systems operate to push consumers into the shop.
I don't pay for loot boxes. Getting the same governments that blame video games for sex and violent crimes involved in regulating loot boxes is opening a Pandora box that will have a negative impact on gaming for years to come.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
I don't want the government nor Anita Bryant regulating games. If you have a better suggestion about some other way to get the sleaze out of online game monetization when the companies so far have shown an inclination to do it more and do it worse, I'm all ears.
Well most countries that have ruled on loot boxes have stated they are not gambling. I don't feel they are "gambling" just as I don't think the quarter machine at the local mall that has multiple different toys you can potentially get is gambling or buying a box of cereal for my kid is gambling .
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
The ESRB has started adding a token "In Game Purchases" to their ratings labels but if they really wanted to be informative they would add "Randomized In Game Purchases" to games that have loot boxes at minimum.
The fact is that they don't want people to know much about it just like how gaming companies don't want to make the odds known unless someone forces them to do it. That should set off some alarms right there.
Whether they are gambling is a legal interpretation issue just like any other and it's specific to a jurisdiction and how a particular law or regulation is written there. But the fact that they feel like gambling is pretty plain to see. They are designed to feel that way.
They're engineered to make you spend more money to get what you want out of the boxes than what would be a reasonable price if they sold the item directly to you. That's how and why they are so profitable.
PS. And yest it was an awesome Stanley Cup finals game 1 even though the wrong team won
Post edited by Iselin on
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?
As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.
This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.
I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.
Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable.
I want to parent my child, not the government.
And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
You act as if the government created a new law to make loot boxes
illegal. All what was done was to check if technically loot boxes should
be seen as gambling. Gambling, you know the activity that is illegal for kids to partake in in most countries around the world. If it is determined that loot boxes is seen as gambling, it becomes illegal for those companies to sell them to kids. It has nothing to do with parenting from this point on. For the same reason that the law forbidding selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids has nothing to do with parenting.
It is also independent of the question whether those games are age appropriate. Because loot boxes can be added way after a game is released.
You are barking up the wrong country for this too. If there is a country where the government is very lenient with what kids are allowed according to the law, it is The Netherlands. Because politically seen, government trying to parent, is a big NO there.
But then, you call it Holland. That country does not exist anymore
I think all has been said in this thread already so I will just tell a personal story that is only slightly related to this but represents my feelings.
When my grandparents grew old we found out that were buying big amounts of meat and other things from a delivery service. It turned out that the service just made big lists of items that my grandparents would supposely need and the old people who were getting more senile by the day would just listen to the pushy sale guy and then sign the order. It only stopped when we had them checked and they were declared senile so their signature would no longer be enough to create a legally binding contract.
TL;DR Companies will aim at people with mental weaknesses who can't make reasonable decisions anymore so those people need protection from the outside.
Hopefully the U.S adopts some of the Loot-Box laws it really needs them with all the greed, and gaming industry thinking they can always just step on peoples feet without giving Refunds, and stuff, even all these new (EU) companies putting the right (waive your right of withdraw) before you even play the game so as soon as you launch the game if it doesn't work properly you can't even refund easily.
This new move to ban lootboxes probably will spread across the whole europe soon enough, i personally don't like governments interfering in the gaming industry however i can understand why is happening and is both publishers/developers and consumers fault.
But if goverments manage to ban lootboxes, companies like EA and Activision Blizzard will just find a new way to exploit their consumers and goverments will have to interfere again and again, i don't see this problem having a good end...
The recent ruling in from the Netherlands is a NEW interpretation of the law, and one that has not yet been tested in court. Mu is not big in this country, and it is perfectly reasonable for Webzen to simply block the country to avoid these legal issues until it is sorted.
The issue with 'fixing' lootboxes is that the legal interpretation from the Netherlands is not fully understood yet, and as such, any changes might still run afoul of the law at a later date. You should expect the larger companies (and their supporting lobby agencies) to push back on this until there is a very clear understanding.
Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?
As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.
This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.
I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.
Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable.
I want to parent my child, not the government.
And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
You act as if the government created a new law to make loot boxes
illegal. All what was done was to check if technically loot boxes should
be seen as gambling. Gambling, you know the activity that is illegal for kids to partake in in most countries around the world. If it is determined that loot boxes is seen as gambling, it becomes illegal for those companies to sell them to kids. It has nothing to do with parenting from this point on. For the same reason that the law forbidding selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids has nothing to do with parenting.
It is also independent of the question whether those games are age appropriate. Because loot boxes can be added way after a game is released.
You are barking up the wrong country for this too. If there is a country where the government is very lenient with what kids are allowed according to the law, it is The Netherlands. Because politically seen, government trying to parent, is a big NO there.
But then, you call it Holland. That country does not exist anymore
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?
As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.
This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.
I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.
Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable.
I want to parent my child, not the government.
And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
You act as if the government created a new law to make loot boxes
illegal. All what was done was to check if technically loot boxes should
be seen as gambling. Gambling, you know the activity that is illegal for kids to partake in in most countries around the world. If it is determined that loot boxes is seen as gambling, it becomes illegal for those companies to sell them to kids. It has nothing to do with parenting from this point on. For the same reason that the law forbidding selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids has nothing to do with parenting.
It is also independent of the question whether those games are age appropriate. Because loot boxes can be added way after a game is released.
You are barking up the wrong country for this too. If there is a country where the government is very lenient with what kids are allowed according to the law, it is The Netherlands. Because politically seen, government trying to parent, is a big NO there.
But then, you call it Holland. That country does not exist anymore
Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?
As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.
This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.
I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.
Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable.
I want to parent my child, not the government.
And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
You act as if the government created a new law to make loot boxes
illegal. All what was done was to check if technically loot boxes should
be seen as gambling. Gambling, you know the activity that is illegal for kids to partake in in most countries around the world. If it is determined that loot boxes is seen as gambling, it becomes illegal for those companies to sell them to kids. It has nothing to do with parenting from this point on. For the same reason that the law forbidding selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids has nothing to do with parenting.
It is also independent of the question whether those games are age appropriate. Because loot boxes can be added way after a game is released.
You are barking up the wrong country for this too. If there is a country where the government is very lenient with what kids are allowed according to the law, it is The Netherlands. Because politically seen, government trying to parent, is a big NO there.
But then, you call it Holland. That country does not exist anymore
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Parents have no responsibility what their kids do and how they spend money?
As a parent - when my kids come and ask me for a purchase in a video game - we talk about it, there's a discussion that happens so that everyone understands what is going on.
This 100%. As a longtime teacher, I can't tell you how many parents want to abdicate their duties raising children to "the state" until Little Bobby or Tiny Tina get in trouble and then suddenly many of them suddenly give a darn.
I'm not a huge fan of loot boxes and think that some measures should be taken, but I also believe that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids are playing age-appropriate games. If they're found to be underage, then it should be turned back on the parents. A few cases like that would stop a lot of this nonsense without restricting adults from engaging in loot box gambling if that's their choice.
Children don't automatically know right from wrong, good choices from bad. They need to be taught, hopefully by involved, caring parents who want to see them succeed in life. Those who choose to let their underage kids engage in games with loot boxes that are properly regulated (odds revealed, etc.) and who are caught should be held accountable.
I want to parent my child, not the government.
And, no. I don't buy them, but I enjoy earning them in games that offer them through gameplay.
You act as if the government created a new law to make loot boxes
illegal. All what was done was to check if technically loot boxes should
be seen as gambling. Gambling, you know the activity that is illegal for kids to partake in in most countries around the world. If it is determined that loot boxes is seen as gambling, it becomes illegal for those companies to sell them to kids. It has nothing to do with parenting from this point on. For the same reason that the law forbidding selling cigarettes and alcohol to kids has nothing to do with parenting.
It is also independent of the question whether those games are age appropriate. Because loot boxes can be added way after a game is released.
You are barking up the wrong country for this too. If there is a country where the government is very lenient with what kids are allowed according to the law, it is The Netherlands. Because politically seen, government trying to parent, is a big NO there.
But then, you call it Holland. That country does not exist anymore
Hmm, apparently children in the EU require more parental control than elsewhere, heres a clause from SBS new GDPR compliant TOS.
"Children under the age of 16, and located within the European Union, shall be required to have their parent or legal guardian consent to the collection of information. Within all other regions, If you are over 13 years of age, but under the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you live, you certify you have reviewed these Terms of Use with a parent or guardian and your parent or guardian also agrees to the Terms of Use on your behalf and takes full responsibility for your compliance with the same. You, or your parent or guardian, represent that you, or your parent or guardian, understand and agree to comply with the terms, conditions, and representations set forth in these Terms of Use.
We will not knowingly ask children under the age applicable to their region to provide more data than is necessary to provide the product. Once parental consent is granted, a child's account is treated like any other account. The child may have access to communications through the game, forums, website, or email and may be able to communicate freely with other users of all ages.
Parents may change or revoke the consent choices previously made, and review, edit, or request the deletion of their children's personal data."
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
1) I think they are lame as hell, just a pathetic way to monetize a game.
2) It may be a pathetic way to monetize a game but it is sure as hell profitable
3) Predatory and upsell practices and all this marketing crap is why my primary career is not in business. (my on-the-side career is business related)
4) I think banning lootboxes is a bit harsh, I'd rather make rules that the chances have to be published and made easily seen like, put the exact % chance of getting any item and show how it equals 100%.
5) I despise lying, trickery, swindeling, "pulling wool over eyes", and prefer everyone to be transparent.
6) If you want to gamble, at least let people know what the chances are, so they are about as well informed as possible.
7) I prefer publishing the chances and letting people vote with their minds instead of just banning it.
8) If you don't like lootboxes, don't play games with them or live with it and don't purchase them. There is so much predatory BS that goes on in the world that lootboxes are barely an important issue in my mind. You should see how badly Healthcare Insurance screws people over in the US.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Even if we cut revenue of MTX and lootboxes in half, they're so cheap to maintain and update that it won't matter. It costs exponentially more to bring an expansion to release than it does to update to the cash shop. Consequently, devs would need to make exponentially more from the expansion to justify spending money there as opposed to the shop, and we see where most of the devs have decided the most efficient use of their time has been.
Even more, as you say, they're not just spending time on the store itself- they're spending time rigging the games to try and get you to the store. Devs are intentionally creating shit gameplay systems for no other reason than to better monetize said systems. So, even when they focus on things other than the store, they're still focusing on the store (the jewelry crafting line in ESO is an example you've noticed most recently, but it's only one of many in the market today).
Market forces can and are manipulated artificially by schemes like these. That's why the idea of an absolutely free market is a pipe dream that shouldn't be considered seriously by anyone in the least bit of know about how markets work and businesses operate within those markets.
I kind of hope more companies bail on them to be honest.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I would rather ERSB or whatever other rating agencies require any game that has loot boxes to rate games as such. If you can trade or sell items you get with real money rate Mature if not then teen.
Nothing good can happen if we as gamers ask the very government agency that have been looking for a reason to regulate our games to come in and regulate them.
ESRB themselves have already admitted that the majority of parents have no idea what a lootbox is. Another article I read today cited a survey that held that only something like 31% of parents even claim to know what a lootbox is and, when quizzed on it, less than that actually did know what a lootbox is. Despite this, the ESRB has done as little as possible to remedy that or address the issue of these predatory monetization schemes.
I don't have a lot of faith that the industry can self-regulate. However, there's obviously a need to do so, because we've got companies filing patents to match-make you with whales behind the scenes to get you to purchase MTXs. We've got others ninja-nerfing XP rates or creating hugely bloated crafting systems to do the same. When monetization has begun taking such a gross precedence over design philosophy, it's time for action.
If industries won't self-regulate, and a need to regulate is identified, that's precisely when government intervention is necessary.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3016703
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/technology/277781-dem-bill-would-ban-sale-of-violent-games-to-minors?amp
2005
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/hillary-clinton-promotes-law-to-ban-violent-video-games-1.550126
2018
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/media/video-game-industry-white-house/index.html
Well now that President Trump asked the question we can be sure the Democrats will now totally be against it so maybe that's a start lol.
As for requiring the video game developers to be the parents because 31% of parents are not good parents and don't know what their child's are spending their time on is ridiculous. It's not the developers fault 31% of parents are too lazy looking at their phone to care what their kid is doing.
Self regulating or no regulating will be better for video game games than governments getting involved.
Fault doesn't really matter at this point, only reality does. Those parents likely don't fully understand the digital agreements they themselves sign off on in their every day lives, much less the ones their children are signing off on in their free time. It would be a full-time job to do so today. Remember, even a significant portion of the parents who claimed to know what a lootbox was actually knew. They thought they knew, but they didn't.
We've gone way beyond the mere "make sure little Johnny's not playing in the road" days. It's not quite as obvious today as it was in the "good ole days," and it won't get better from here as we continue to saturate ourselves and our children with technology, apps, and connectivity.
My only comment would be shockingly I disagree that it's harder today for parents. A simple Google search on their phone will tell them exactly what little Johnny is playing. In the 90 Our parents didn't have google.
It will tell them what they're playing, but it won't give them any details on the ToS or EULA, much less anything in the way of how the gameplay systems operate to push consumers into the shop.
The fact is that they don't want people to know much about it just like how gaming companies don't want to make the odds known unless someone forces them to do it. That should set off some alarms right there.
Whether they are gambling is a legal interpretation issue just like any other and it's specific to a jurisdiction and how a particular law or regulation is written there. But the fact that they feel like gambling is pretty plain to see. They are designed to feel that way.
They're engineered to make you spend more money to get what you want out of the boxes than what would be a reasonable price if they sold the item directly to you. That's how and why they are so profitable.
PS. And yest it was an awesome Stanley Cup finals game 1 even though the wrong team won
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
When my grandparents grew old we found out that were buying big amounts of meat and other things from a delivery service. It turned out that the service just made big lists of items that my grandparents would supposely need and the old people who were getting more senile by the day would just listen to the pushy sale guy and then sign the order.
It only stopped when we had them checked and they were declared senile so their signature would no longer be enough to create a legally binding contract.
TL;DR
Companies will aim at people with mental weaknesses who can't make reasonable decisions anymore so those people need protection from the outside.
But if goverments manage to ban lootboxes, companies like EA and Activision Blizzard will just find a new way to exploit their consumers and goverments will have to interfere again and again, i don't see this problem having a good end...
The issue with 'fixing' lootboxes is that the legal interpretation from the Netherlands is not fully understood yet, and as such, any changes might still run afoul of the law at a later date. You should expect the larger companies (and their supporting lobby agencies) to push back on this until there is a very clear understanding.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hey, I didn't create a website called Holland.com.
Besides, Holland is so much more charming, the Netherlands sounds like a suburb of "the Phantom Zone" or something.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Children under the age of 16, and located within the European Union, shall be required to have their parent or legal guardian consent to the collection of information. Within all other regions, If you are over 13 years of age, but under the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you live, you certify you have reviewed these Terms of Use with a parent or guardian and your parent or guardian also agrees to the Terms of Use on your behalf and takes full responsibility for your compliance with the same. You, or your parent or guardian, represent that you, or your parent or guardian, understand and agree to comply with the terms, conditions, and representations set forth in these Terms of Use.
We will not knowingly ask children under the age applicable to their region to provide more data than is necessary to provide the product. Once parental consent is granted, a child's account is treated like any other account. The child may have access to communications through the game, forums, website, or email and may be able to communicate freely with other users of all ages.
Parents may change or revoke the consent choices previously made, and review, edit, or request the deletion of their children's personal data."
https://chroniclesofelyria.com/privacy
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Whenever we watch Thijs the Dutch Hearthstone streamer we give him a friendly German poke with this cliché loaded song.
Note before anyone clicks:
The song is in German and just represents a friendly lighthearted bullying as it often occurs among neighboring nations.