Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Belgium wants to ban loot boxes...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by zombiegorilla, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    I actually meant the fact that while they do bring in tourism, they were given such a sweet deal that they actually cost the state (roads, other infrastructure, traffic issues, etc.). Florida seems so exotic to most but it really is a state that has a very large population on fixed incomes and a lot of poverty. Tourist areas are fake. lol
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  2. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Sounds like most "exotic" places to me. Fancy and luxurious at the beach front, a few streets back and it's low income flats or huts made from whatever was available.
     
  3. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Go inland, and you have people living in shacks, entire neighborhoods full of struggling families, poor school systems, etc. It is the south, just like the rest of the south.
     
  4. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    Loot boxes received through achievements or putting hours into a game don't bother me, and I think are actually a pretty good mechanic, even for game improvement types of items.

    Paying for random loot boxes isn't something I'm that interested in, and I can see the gambling argument, but I don't think it is really that strong. Some people with addiction issues will fall into a trap though.

    Where I see huge problems is they set up a system where you pay for random loot boxes, and at the same time set up a separate system where you can sell items from those loot boxes for real money. I believe CS:GO does this. So you pay for the chance at a good drop, so you can sell it hopefully for more money than you paid for the box in the first place. Obvious gambling system is obvious.

    I much prefer paying directly for high value items, and getting high value items in loot boxes where those boxes come from playing the game. This is something hopefully the market will decide. I want to get Battlefront 2, but I've purposely not purchased it until I see how this loot box fiasco settles, as I don't want to support the system as originally designed. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    I'm a lot more forgiving for a free to play game (devs got to eat somehow!), but for a $60 game? Come on....

    As for a game I'm making, I'm planning on some ships/items in the game to only be available for direct purchase instead of being able to be crafted or found in the game like most other items. These pay for items won't actually be better than the alternatives, just different. For example, the most powerful Ship of the Line in the game will be a craftable ship the player can get without paying me anything other than putting in time into the free game. The second most powerful Ship of the Line will be a purchase only ship, and the only Ship of the Line with an auxiliary steam engine, so it opens up the possibility of an attack approach directly into the wind that none of the other more than a dozen Ships of the Line can do. There will be some other freely available steam powered ships, such as frigates and sloops, and ore powered galleys, that can attack directly into the wind, but no freely available steam powered Ship of the Line. I won't be using any pay for $$$ random loot boxes though. Nope, would never do that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  5. derf

    derf

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Posts:
    356
    I guess I will weigh in on this.

    I tend too agree with the general opinion that this is not gambling in the traditional sense.

    However I do have a problem where you spend real money for a random item or random items from a loot crate. I feel if your paying real money you should get exactly what you want and not what they give you.

    Some games out there allow you to buy a loot crate where you get X amount of Common/Uncommon/Rare loot items, but it is all random. You open it and you randomly get 1 or more items which can be basically anything like a weapon, armor, a power up, an NPC shard/schematic/etc., piece of cosmetic clothing or access to a new map without putting in the time, anything. You may need it; may not need it; or already have it or do not want it.

    That part too me does feel a lot like playing the slot machines at Vegas.

    There are some games that do give you want you want and to make the offer more juicy for you they may tack on X amount of random loot items. So you get the new-improved-premium-super-deluxe-weapon plus 3 uncommon random loot drops for $16.99.

    However I cannot do that either as a developer because it feels so dirty, cheap and unethical and as a gamer because to me it will always feel like a waste of money in the end.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  6. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    its literally gambling
    its literally aimed at kids
    its literally exploitative
    its literally a scumbag move
    its dishonest
    its perverse
    its unrighteous

    like i already said, the lootbox thing wasnt designed for adults that can think correctly,
    if it was, it wouldnt exist, adults that can think correctly know that the system is dumb as S***

    its designed specifically to exploit the weak and people with mental problems
    you guys much not watch GDC videos, there was one literally titled something like
    "how to exploit people's psychological weaknesses"

    the way i was raised, or the way i gleaned as trying to be a good man, is, if i was to do that stuff (be a total scumbag), i would HAVE TO kill myself....
    ...i would expect the same from others...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2017
    Player7 likes this.
  7. TooManySugar

    TooManySugar

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Posts:
    864
    devs and companies that convert home pcs into slot machines are scum
     
  8. LeftyRighty

    LeftyRighty

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Posts:
    5,148
    be careful with this line of thinking, you're missing the vast majority of people who fall into "uninformed" or "not paying enough attention". If you concentrate of the extremes (those with addictive natures) that larger group of people are going to ignore you because "well I'm not weak or an addict so it's all fine".

    Psychological manipulation works best on those who don't know its happening, for whatever reason. A greater and wider understanding of the "tricks of the trade" and the level of deliberate understanding and effort that goes into designing such systems to explicitly "con" people out of money is one of the better approaches to stopping this trend.

    Explaining that "Yes X game is designed from the ground up to walk the line between so annoying that you give up on it, and paying a bit to progress, until you fall afoul of the "sunk cost fallacy" and they've got you, for more and more and more money. Yes, there are even well documented terms and phrases to describe the exact "tools" in use, oh by the way there are conferences on these subjects... " etc. is going to have a much bigger impact on those people ... :(
     
  9. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Those are literally your opinions.
    Define "correct" thinking, oh my authoritarian overlord.
    People don't gamble to score big. They gamble to be entertained. And for as long as such need exist in people, systems that profit from such need will also exist. Supply and demand.
    It's designed to exploit people without money? If so then the system will go under on it's own.
    I do watch them, in fact. And yes, immersion is important.
    No, you're expecting everyone to think and act according to your standards. That's not called being "good", it's called being a fanatic ideologue.

    I don't even like gambling, but you're an extremist.

    If your machine is spitting money at you, call me. I could use some.
     
    Antony-Blackett likes this.
  10. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    the people that use lootboxes in their games are extremists

    stop defending loot boxes, they are undefendable
     
  11. Peter77

    Peter77

    QA Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,589
    The Entertainment Software Association should regulate this, through the Entertaining Software Rating Board.

    As per definition of the ESRB Ratings Guide:
    This is where Lootbox's (should) fall into. You buy some with real cash and then have a chance to get something random out of it.
    However, many big publisher are members of ESA, such as Activision (see here). They're probably not going to put themselves "into trouble" by making sure less consumer can reach their products.

    If this self-regulation through the ESA/ESRB doesn't work anymore, government should step in, which we've seen a few times already by now.
     
  12. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Translation:
    They're making a sensible ecenomic decision because people are willing to pay for everything. Hell, some console users pay $60 a year for multiplayer.

    Pathetic.
    You're free to hold any opinions you want, but the moment you present them, they become subject to public scrutiny and I will call you out on them if I disagree. "You're not allowed counter my opinion" is not an argument, but admittance that you are incapable of defending your opinion.

    Every legal definition of gambling I have seen concludes with "obtaining something material or of monetary value". You cannot sell in game items in majority of games. And where it's possible, you're not selling them for real currency, which you can take out of the system. That's only possible on proxy transaction sites (see CSGO). But that has nothing to do with the developer as he can't control it.
    If kids decide to start selling their kinder egg loot, that doesn't mean kinder loot is gambling and it has nothing do with Ferrero.

    See the example of ERSB rating in action above. If games themselves do not provide gambling under it's legal definition, they are not required to carry "Adult Only" rating
    When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
    Yeah, I'm gonna need you to substantiate that with an example. Also let's hear how it improved the situation.
     
  13. Peter77

    Peter77

    QA Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,589
  14. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    I'm looking through the proposal now. (http://textuploader.com/dqn4s)

    Citation needed. Where are sources?

    We are talking about 17 year olds. Are we going to raise the child age again to fit the underdevelopment of teenagers?
    Citation needed.
    Are these people capable of linking anything?
    https://www.google.si/url?sa=t&rct=...Disorder.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0fNsd3xP7u8jbMlnCVB-fj

    And they are correct. Change definition of gambling and this "problem" will be solved as lootbox games will be moved to Adult Only rating.

    Ambiguity:
    • big video game developers
    • Many families
    • largest video game developers
    • There are typically no meaningful warnings <- What is "meaningful"?
    • Most significantly, there is no barrier to accessing these games <- which games
    This warrants examples.

    The proposed steps:

    Reasonable enough. Considering it's supported by angry masses it's actually pretty tame.
     
    angrypenguin and zombiegorilla like this.
  15. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    My issue there is "similar variable reward mechanisms". It's not nearly specific enough. Nor is the description of loot boxes given, because while it says they are "purchased" it makes no explanation as to how, which makes this dangerously broad. Is buying an unidentified artifact in a shop in an RPG with gold collected in-game a "similar variable reward mechanism"?

    A few days ago I wrote up, but then didn't submit, a rather large post pointing out that all of the components of "loot boxes" are things that are 100% fine in and of themselves. One of the key components is what they're calling a "variable reward mechanism": they've been around forever, there is nothing even slightly wrong with them on their own, and they're in fact core to many gaming experiences.
    • Ever played an RPG where enemy loot drops from a loot table? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • What about treasure chests in MMOs? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • Random end-of-level rewards before we called them "loot boxes"? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • Anything with a procedurally generated component that contributes to lootable items? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • Board games where you roll a dice to identify a pickup? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • Finding or purchasing "unidentified" items? "Variable reward mechanism."
    • Not a game per-se, but what about Kinder Surprise? "Variable reward mechanism", and certainly not alone in products aimed squarely at children!
    The list goes on.

    A loot box, as far as I understand, is a combination of two or three things:
    1. Randomised loot. A "variable reward mechanism."
    2. In-game purchases. Specifically, the ability to buy more attempts at 1.
    3. Game progression systems, which the above can optionally tie into. (A-la unlocking Battlefront characters.)
    The problem there is not item 1. It never has been. That stuff has been all over games of all sorts for longer than I've been alive. How long has Monopoly had it's "Community Chest" deck? Since the 1920s or so!

    The issue is #2, specifically when combined with #1. Legal definitions aside, it's gambling in many ways - you're paying money for a chance at getting something of value. The fact that you can't (easily) exchange that thing for real world currency is an implementation detail that conveniently skirts that legal definition.

    The issue is then exacerbated greatly when combined with #3. Other players have better stuff than you, and you're constantly reminded that you might be able to have it, too, if only you put some money in this here slot...

    Note that in isolation, the concepts behind 2 and 3 are both fine. In-game purchases are rooted in what we used to call "expansion packs", now made more convenient to consumers and more scaleable for developers thanks to digital distribution. Progression systems are the backbones of many games, and while it's never been my thing there have been optional purchases to boost progression speed, get more in-game money, access exclusive items and other things for many years.


    All of that said, I agree with the spirit and intent of what's written in that letter. I also acknowledge that this is a letter, not a bill, which will probably be a lot more specific. But when the time comes that specificity needs to be there, and it needs to be targeting something a heck of a lot more specific than "similar variable reward mechanisms".
     
  16. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    I didn't think it was that much of an issue since it was specifically
    But then again, I don't into english legal-speak.
     
  17. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    The potential issue there is that "purchased" could be interpreted to include when players buy stuff with purely in-game currency.
     
    FMark92 likes this.
  18. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    That this is true is (or should be) common knowledge
    Steam community market for CS:GO:

    https://steamcommunity.com/market/search?appid=730#p1_price_desc

    This is one of many games that has a gambling system essentially built into the games ecosystem, with an ability to change digital items for currency. Personally I would love for Valve to take some flak in this whole exchange because they are just as guilty as EA and essentially are the people that made this practice commonplace.

    Also, instead of asking for sources you should do a bit of research yourself, it's only fair.
     
  19. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    I was commenting on the lack of examples given by the person who wrote the proposal.
    If you want to send a letter to legislators that goes something like "Yeah, well, educate yourselves", be my guest.

    I already considered it an example. Also it doesn't fall under current legal definiton of gambling because money (to my knowledge) can't be taken out of steam wallet.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  20. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    You can under certain circumstances, and also steam funds can be exchanged for physical goods, so for all intents and purposes, is a real currency, even if it is locked to a particular store. I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't be able to say whether it fits the definition or not, but to my mind, it shouldn't even really matter.

    In addition, I'm fairly certain it's legal to exchange money with a person (outside of the steam ecosystem), to facilitate a trade of virtual items. This would mean that the loot box items have inherent, real value.

    The citation thing is a misunderstanding perhaps, it wasn't clear you were making a point, my fault.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  21. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    This is the only case where it can be considered a real currency (money outside steam wallet).
    But you can only do it if it was your money to begin with and you haven't used it.
    Putting cash into slot machine and withdrawing it without pulling the handle isn't gambling.

    If it's outside the "ecosystem" (I don't know how to interpret that, maybe "system in which developer and publisher alow players to interact with the game"?) then it's not developer or publisher's business - unless someone sees it and reports it, it must be treated with presumtion of innocence - it may just be friends giving each other items for free. All Valve sees is item being thransfered to other player's inventory.

    Yeah don't let it bother you. I was going through the whole thing quickly as well and making mistakes is a part of the human condition.
     
    frosted likes this.
  22. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    The interpretation is accurate.

    Yes, from the developers perspective, this is people trading items for free. However the reality is that this does happen with real money transactions. That is what should be focused on imo. The fact that it is possible for these digital items to be traded for real currency (not only wallet funds) is what makes the entire thing leave a bad taste in my mouth.

    Just because a developer can be viewed as innocent to the problem does not mean the problem does not exist, and I think it should be regulated by some body to prevent situations like these arising.

    Microtransations on their own are already predatory in the majority of cases, and having random results from them only exacerbates the situation from my perspective, I would welcome a change in the industry in this area. Whether it is gambling or not, to me, is a secondary point. I would rather the focus is consumer protection.
     
  23. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Honestly though

    What do loot boxes have to do with actual gaming? Really?

    They're like adverts, people are getting brainwashed into thinking they're just something that's part of gaming when really it's just mental abuse for money.
     
    TooManySugar likes this.
  24. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Yeah mine too, but from legal perspective it's just reselling. Like sites where people post things they want to sell and meet to transfer merchandise and funds for example.

    I don't think it should. I think we should let free marker run it's course.
    if someone wants in game items more than they want money and the person selling it wants money more than the in game item, then that's a valid free market transaction.
    CSGO skins would be worth nothing if nobody was willing to pay for them.
    Enforce and restrict ERSB but for economy's sake let people sell what they want.

    Consumers are well aware that chances of getting a valuable item are low. I can't say I want agency taken away from everyone just because some people need to be protected. Let those people (old enogh to play, not old enough to drink) be protected (through enforcing ERSB) but let everyone else keep their freedom.
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  25. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    If AAA thinks it's fine and dandy to have loot boxes and indies think it's fine and dandy they exist then you'll have to put them in your games too. Until games aren't ever sold any more directly but instead just some kind of air-based solvent that sticks to your wallet and credit cards, ending up costing twice as much to get anywhere near the full experience.
     
  26. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Why do you think gamers can't make decisions?
    These models would fail if players didn't want to buy lootboxes.

    If you're against lootboxes as an economic model (I am as well), then be the change you want to see. Boycott games that sell them (players ARE content for other players in such games). Tell people you meet, why you think they're immoral. Explain that playing such games makes them complicit in exploitation of the unaware.

    Because if you choose to bring state into this, legal definitions will keep expanding until you can get sued for breathing upwards while opening a lootcrate while of legal age (obvious exageration (or is it?) but you get the point).
     
  27. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    I suppose so, and it looks like this is the route we are already going down. The problem is it damages a lot of games for people that don't want these mechanisms in place. It's easy to name a good amount of recent big game releases that have been severely altered in order to facilitate these mechanics, it adversely affects every player of the game regardless of their interest in the microtransactions.
    This has already been a thing for the mobile market, which is now in a very strange territory where consumers are not sure what they are getting and developers can't be sure what has a good market (premium vs freemium vs free-to-play). I would hate to see mainstream games end up in the same place, as it would indicate the next 5 years are going to be a bad time for the industry in terms of innovation and creativity when so many studios will focus on how to monetise their games instead.

    I wish that were true, but it isn't always. For starters, the odds are not released anywhere (aside from some consumers making guesses based on anecdotal data). Secondly, there are many implementations of these systems that deliberately deceive and manipulate consumers into purchases that they can later regret.

    My main concern isn't freedom (and I wouldn't condone actions that take away from what a consumer is allowed to do), it is the deliberate exploitation of all consumers, or indeed specific consumers.

    As for the ESRB, their age ratings currently achieve nothing, even though it is law to not sell games to those under the rating ages in this country, it has zero impact on the problem. 'Enforcing' this any more does not seem possible, but even if it was, I wonder at the efficacy given current situations. While not an ideal solution, I do think classing games with lootboxes as gambling (despite current legal statuses), might help somewhat, if retailers were forced to follow through with regulation. For instance, if a parent has to be informed that the game they are purchasing for their child contains 'gambling' (or other turn of phrase), then I believe that is the best situation. If they still wish to purchase it, that is their prerogative, but at least all consumers are informed.

    I think percentage odds should absolutely be public too. When China are leading the way in consumer ethics issues, that should be an indicator that something is wrong.
     
  28. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    I would like to know why you think this is true?
    It is an active decision you make as a developer to implement these systems. No-one is forcing your hand here and the market certainly isn't dictating it.
    There is little evidence to suggest that lootboxes make a game sell better (obviously they increase income in other ways). And from an aspirational point of view, the best rated games of this year do not have any of these mechanics (Divinity: Original Sin 2, Super Mario Odyssey, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Horizon Zero Dawn).

    I guess it comes down to your ethics. Are you pursuing money or do you want to make money from making great games.
     
    FMark92 likes this.
  29. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    I have proposed a solution for this in the more recent post. The answer is simply to not buy and play such games. If you don't want to see something then funding it is really counterproductive, to say the least.

    But we're already on that path. So my argument is: let it happen. Industry will bring another crash upon itself eventually and recovery will result in sane monetization models. That which is unsustanable cannot be sustained.
    I would argue the current state is more easily sustained in the mobile market as games are made much faster and with less effort (lower investment -> lower risk), while a single unsucessful title can take down a PC/Console centered studio easily.

    And that is immoral and should be frowned upon but unless the randomness and fairness are not specifically mentioned in the EULAs, it is legal.

    Which is why I'm OK with it's increased strictness and enforcement because underaged individuals cannot be trusted to make informed decisions. We are not in disagreance about something needing to be done. I just don't want it to be done for everyone against their will.

    Why do you think that?

    I would consider this to be an acceptable solution. I only disagree with forcing retailers into anything. Parents should inform themselves over what they're buying for their child. Parenting should be a full time job to begin with.

    This is true and I agree with it, but what if (in example of CSGO) the odds of getting any skin is the same, but there is thousands of worthless skins (I don't know enough about the game, sorry (didn't buy it so as to not support valve's semi-moral semi-real-money trading practices. :)))
     
  30. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    Just going by the current age rating restrictions and the way they are currently enforced. They are easily bypassed by having a parent or family member (older sibling, extended family at christmas), buy the game for them (Fake ID's are also quite prevalent here and likely most parts of the world, not to mention smaller shops that simply don't check a lot of the time...). I don't see an easy way of extending this further than it already goes. At least without getting more Orwellian than I would be comfortable with...

    Parenting is already a tough job, I think someone with a child would have a different opinion to you there. Anything that can help make their lives easier is beneficial in general and worth doing. Retailers are forced to follow age rating guidance, I see this as simply an adjacent measure.

    Well, there are generally many more worthless skins than valuable ones, in addition to the tiers being weighted by odds (There are several tiers of rarity, I believe the lowest value tier makes up around 40-50% of the skins? Maybe a little less, but the largest tier of them all for sure). I do understand your point though, but I feel it's a 'better-than nothing' situation.

    Thanks to China's laws, these are CS:GO's drop rates (in China):
    • Blue - 100 items - 79.92%
    • Purple - 20 items - 15.98%
    • Pink - 4 items - 3.2%
    • Red - 0.8 items - 0.64%
    • Yellow - 0.32 items - 0.26%
    Obviously yellow are the most sought after and valuable items, there also aren't that many of them compared to Blue items (as shown by the 'items' count which is a ratio based on 100 Blue items as a base).

    Didn't post that for any reason other than it's interesting and relevant.

    Edit:
    Also worth noting that the drop rate is not directly proportional to the inherent value of the item. As they are cosmetic items, the visual aspect (and sometimes other reasons), affect the 'market values'. Though proportionality is the case for a large part, there are other factors than just rarity, which is interesting to note.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2017
  31. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    It's not that straightforward, though, because it's not isolated, it's bundled with other stuff.

    Lets say you want to support online Star Wars shooters, but you want to not support loot boxes. Then what? If the loot boxes spoil the game for you anyway then it's an easy answer. On the flip side, if you're boycotting it just because of that then keep in mind that games which don't sell well are less likely to get follow ups.

    Also keep in mind that with both Battlefront and Destiny 2 the developers/publishers have made changes as a result of customer complaints. Assuming that the game is selling well (and I somehow suspect both of those are!) I suspect that they're more likely to listen to customers than people who claim they'd have bought the game under other circumstances.

    At the very least, if you're going to boycott a game to "vote with your wallet" on things like this (which I think is fair enough, I'm not arguing against that) then at least send an email or post on their forums or whatnot explaining clearly why you're not buying their game. Otherwise you're not sending a message, you're just going unrepresented, because most people don't buy most products without any particular reason at all.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  32. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    Not really though.
    And

    I say "prize" and "something of value" are broad enough to cover loot box rewards.
     
  33. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    They wouldn't be forced to do anything they aren't already doing. The guidelines already in use for content classifications, which are already on display on products at retail, would simply also have to include the "gambling" or similar keyword if they used one of the systems in question here. The effect of this on retailers would be near zero, as the classifications are printed on the packaging before they're sent to stores.

    It's a solution that can also work with online or digital distribution, and would probably tie into the parental lock systems already on many devices.

    The only people who have to do anything differently are the people doing the classification.

    Edit: Here in Australia, stuff with an R rating has to go in its own section. A bit silly, as it's not blocked from view or anything like that... it's literally just another shelf with a sign on it. (Maybe it helps parents see if their kids are looking at adult stuff..?) So if the loot box thing keeps gaining traction and classification boards start treating it as gambling then it could be that the R-rated section grows to be most of the shop.

    Jokes aside, though, games targeting children probably don't want that adult-only sticker.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2017
  34. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Seems people forgot that a game is about picking up the controller and playing the game. Things like microtransactions, paywalls, loot boxes etc all serve this analogy:

    You're reading a book about piloting the last alien bomber toward the thumping alien heart, a wing and a prayer, when suddenly-

    *Sorry to interrupt but this is the author. I would like you to support me interrupting more great moments in future titles by paying for this shiny box. Inside you can find some cool goggles and stuff but more importantly somehow by supporting me you'll get more interruptions in the future. What's more, you're a) too greedy and too stupid to say no and b) I haven't any moral responsibility at all LOL have fun!*

    - and then...
     
    angrypenguin, Teila and Martin_H like this.
  35. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    True, but gambling should be on the label along with violence, bad language, etc. It is very easy to keep games from young children, but over 10 or so, it becomes more difficult unless the information is somewhere parents can find it. I always did research on every game my kids wanted to buy so I could make a decision on whether it was appropriate for them.

    However, as teens, they make decisions based on what their friends play or how much the game costs. That is fine. But....I still do not want my teen to spend lots of money on virtual gambling in a game. Nor do I want my teen to become so addicted that they would steal mom's credit card to continue playing the game.

    I do not think my kids would do that...but I imagine most parents who find themselves with huge cell phone bills from zillions of texts, or bills from those phone calls to sexy women (do those still exist?) never thought their kids would do that either. :)

    Parenting is a full time job, which also means that we have to pay the bills that our kids accrue due to unscrupulous advertising and sneaking gambling into a game. It is our responsibility. But not all parents are as saavy about games as we are.

    So...at the very least, put it on the label on the front of the box. Anyone who fights that is doing so because they know they will lose some money if they put that label on the box. But it is the right thing to do. Blaming parents if one does not do what they can to inform the parents is really not fair. When Battlefront came out, most of us had no idea this was a problem. Now we know.
     
  36. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    While banning is stupid, mandatory information is not.

    I would very much like all microtransactions and lootboxes etc to be clearly labelled as part of the agreement for buying a title in the same way violence or sexual content is for films.

    People deserve to know what they are buying. If you have an issue with gluten, you can look on the packaging. If you have an issue with loot boxes, you can look on the packaging.

    I do have an agenda, I want people to enjoy having the product that serves the original purpose. It got sorted out in other industries, why not games?
     
    frosted, angrypenguin and Teila like this.
  37. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    If someone eats gluten because it is not marked on the product, it harms them...myself included as I get sick from gluten. If someone has an issue with addiction they need to be able to make the choice before investing in the game and not having it on the label could harm them...and their family.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  38. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Hear here!

    Here, too!

    The food example is a great one. I'm not expected to be as food savvy as someone who works with food for a living, and so in most of the world the food industry is expected to give me a reasonable amount of clear and simple information so I can make appropriate choices for myself. This is exactly the same thing.

    Plus, we are indeed already doing it. This particular case is just slipping through the cracks because of that whole definition of gambling thing.
     
  39. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    To my knowledge retailers don't print game box covers, publishers do. Again, other than restricting age I disagree that pointing out everyting the game has is the retailer's additional duty. I'm fine with them performing their job as they were while ERSB covers microtransactions and adds to the legal definition of gambling.

    Literally the only reason I'm in this thread.

    Destiny 2: I know nothing about this.
    Battlefront: So the mysterious call from Disney had absolutely nothing to do with it? ;)
     
  40. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Could you send me a link to information saying the retailer is the one who puts on the cover of the game thinks like "cartoon violence, drug references, blood and gore, etc"? When I look at the labels of my game it is with the ERSB. Not saying you are wrong, because I do not know, but I am curious. Having purchased games in the past in a variety of stores they all seem to have the same thing on the label.

    Also, I know that while working on a game in the past, we had to fill out forms for ratings and questions about violence, sex, etc, were on the form. So it seemed as if it was this ratings form that determined what needed to be on that label.
     
  41. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Actually....it is the ERSB that provides the content descriptions, with input from the publishers. Not the retailers. The retailers can use these to determine how they wish to market the products. Learn something new every day. :)

    Copied from: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/

    The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings provide guidance about video games and apps so that consumers, especially parents, can make informed choices about the ones they deem suitable for their family.

    ESRB ratings have three parts:

    • Rating Categories suggest age appropriateness
    • Content Descriptors indicate content that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern
    • Interactive Elements inform about interactive aspects of a product, including the users' ability to interact, the sharing of users' location with others, if in-app purchases of digital goods are completed, and/or if unrestricted internet access is provided.
    RATING CATEGORIES

    CONTENT DESCRIPTORS


    RETAIL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
    The ESRB continues to work with retailers to provide consumers with information about the ratings and to support their store policy regarding the sale and/or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) rated games. In order to accomplish this, ESRB works with retailers in the United States and Canada in the following ways:
     
  42. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Weren't they saying that it isn't an additional duty for the retailers?

    In any case, as well as what you've said there, here it's usually printed on the box, which the publisher would have to arrange at or before manufacturing time, and if you're going to sell something at retail you must have it classified. Could well be different elsewhere, though.

    Assuming there was such a call, why do you think that call was made? It wasn't because all of the customers were quietly happy, that's for sure...
     
  43. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    I read that wrong...but then even going back to read it, it is confusing, especially as I never said that it was the retailers' job and he seemed to assume I did....since he quoted me. lol So in my mind, he was disagreeing with me but I never said that.

    Oh well, glad we are all on the same page. ;)
     
  44. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    I read news articles that Disney stopped the loot boxes because they did not want to harm their IP/reputation/etc. Would not surprise me.
     
  45. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Yes and no.

    Gambling/loot boxes weren't part of the core controversy, the gambling "issue" came into after some low level politicians wanted to boost their careers by "saving the children". The problem was that the progression system was terrible, just terrible. It pay to win in the extreme. Many games have these mechanics, but the BF ones were so bad they were actually discouraging players. It got worse as players brought up these concerns, EA tried to defend it, which they did very poorly, and then tried remove comments that were negative. (they were literally doing everything wrong). All of this happened in early release, and most the mechanics were not adequately explained.

    Because it got so ugly and negative (and on the heels of TLJ), Disney pulled ALL microtransactions from the game before world wide release. (loot crates are still there, you just can't purchase them via real money). Microtransactions will return at some point, how and when is TBD. Given how badly the screwed up during early release, it will be interesting to see how they bring it back, as it will be highly scrutinized.
     
  46. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    During this I believe they managed to get the most disliked post ever on Reddit by a massive margin. That became newsworthy in and of itself, and it was attached to a Star Wars product...
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  47. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    I haven't played Battlefront, but I do wonder how fair some of the complaints were. I mean, I play Battlefield, a pretty similar game. I believe I've racked up around 80 hours in the latest one, and there's still loads of stuff I haven't unlocked, and I don't see a problem with that. Irrational as it may be, games are more interesting if there's some goals dangled ahead of us, even if it's just "get X points to unlock this thing".*

    That said, I don't know enough about Battlefront to fully understand the complaints leveled at it, so they could well have been entirely valid and reasonable.

    * There might even the option to pay for them rather than completing all of the objectives. I don't know because it's not something I'd do and I'm good at tuning that stuff out.
     
  48. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Indeed. And it was just stupid, honestly. Everyone who has worked on any game with a following or large player base knows that you just don't argue with players online. (that's why community managers are so valuable). Right or wrong, (and they were pretty clearly wrong here) you always lose arguing with players. If players are upset about something, you can't just convince them that their feelings are wrong.
     
    frosted, Teila and angrypenguin like this.
  49. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    I do not blame them. A game with Star Wars as the theme should be doing very well. I only seem to hear negative from the people I talk to and my teen/young adult kids say the same. Xmas season and a game that has a bad reputation...Disney made the right choice in my opinion. While Disney has branched out, many still see that Disney label and assume quality, and child friendliness. I watched at our local big box hardware store as the Disney projectors that make your house light up like a Disney theme park were going fast. LOL We opted for a non-Disney one as I am not sure I could handle Mickey Mouse all season...and we were too lazy to put up many lights. lol

    Hopefully they can turn things around and the game can be improved. After reading lots of articles on the subject of monetization, I think it is a very complicated issue. With prices being pulled down, companies who want to continue making games must find a way to survive. Maybe some testing with focus groups of all ages and parents would have helped them to find a better way.
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  50. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    https://kotaku.com/players-are-trying-to-calculate-how-long-it-takes-to-un-1820373111

    40 hours to unlock Darth Vader, by one person's estimation.
     
    Martin_H likes this.