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
    Wow!
    From the article:
    At the time of its release, one player calculated that it would take $732 to unlock all of the game’s hero’s customizations (skins, items, emotes, etc.)* for someone who was willing to actually spend the money. The alternative was earning the 1,098,000 of in-game currency by completing matches and daily challenges, or the equivalent of getting a second job that paid less than minimum wage.
     
  2. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
  3. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Interestingly, for mobile IAP, that isn't an uncommon amount. (above average, for sure, but not rare). For one feature release, we had several players that spent ~$1200 to instantly unlock/upgrade a unit that was intended to take around a month to fully upgrade. We sent them t-shirts as a thank you. ;) . Even before mobile, on flash/facebook social casual games, we had a great many players that spent over 1k (over a year or two).
     
    angrypenguin and Teila like this.
  4. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    frosted, Martin_H and Teila like this.
  5. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  6. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    I see so many issues with this!

    If you consider a game to be "the equivalent of... a second job" then why play it? Jobs are a necessity, games are for fun. If your game feels like a job then why keep playing it?

    Then if we agree that games are meant for enjoyment, who cares how many hours an unlock takes? If the game is fun then you're having fun for those hours and, at least theoretically, not toiling in the hope of some reward.

    Next, do you really have to unlock all of the things? As I keep saying, in Battlefield 1 I have played for 80+ hours, have not unlocked all of the things, and am still enjoying the heck out of it. In fact, having stuff that isn't unlocked yet is a good thing because it means I'm still getting new things to try being drip-fed to me over time, adding a bit of modulation and freshness to the game experience that wouldn't be there if I just had everything from the start. When I was playing Bad Company 2 the game got a little less interesting when I had nothing left to unlock.

    As for the 40 hour figure for Darth Vader, I can completely understand the desire to keep characters like that fairly exclusive and rare. If every game has all of the hero characters running around then they stop being special. Plus, they seem like a decent thing for long term / enthusiast players to aim for as long term goals.
     
  7. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Had to head off there. I trust that the game in question has legitimate issues. I really wonder at the specifics that make things bad in that game where similar stuff works well elsewhere.
     
  8. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,553
    Probably, and I lean towards "yes". The whole "pay to have a chance to get an item" smells like gambling to me.

    So reclassifying it as gambling or banning it outright sounds like a reasonable move. To me, at least.

    In Physical products you do not have an endless supply of items, though. Loot boxes are endless, and do not exist in the real world.

    To me it feels like physical random product like kinder surprise is acceptable, while its virtual counterpart is not. In case of kinder surprise you still get the chocolate egg and can trade the toy with someone else. In case of a loot box you get no chocolate and chances are the item may be locked to your account.

    Also, my experience with the steam cards tell me that this stuff is HIGHLY addictive, way beyond level of real world material collectibles. So, a legislation is in order.
     
  9. Tom_Veg

    Tom_Veg

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    619
    In free market, everything that suck (like situation with this game you quoted) can be solved by another developer who make games without such sucky elements in it. Competition is the best way to solve such problems. People decide with their wallets on what will they spend their money on... Violent arm of the state always falls the hardest on the small fish. Big fish like EA can handle it. In this case small fish would be indie developers.
     
  10. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Maybe because so many games have focused on achievement, not necessarily on fun. Essentially, gamers have been trained to expect to "level up" fairly often. My son tells me he plays games because he is motivated by the ability to move upward constantly.

    Me? I once played a game for 3 years and never got past level 8. I had a great time though. :) I am not motivated by achievement.

    When we continue to see achieving as the main reason to play games, then others, like me, drop out of the market for such games.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  11. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    You're already niche. When big devs do certain things you can be assured it's because the majority are asking for it or take well to it. Loot boxes are clearly the big thing at the moment.

    I don't like loot boxes because they subtract from the actual game experience and instead manipulate people into enjoying it. Is it bad? purely subjective I guess.
     
  12. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Yes, indeed. I was responding to AngryPenguin's comment regarding his ability to play for 80 hours and enjoy the game while so many cannot do so. They seem to require the constant achievement. The game as a concept of something fun does not not appeal to as many people now as it did in the days of Pong and Pacman. :)
     
  13. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Yes, this thing that was created by the free market will definitely be fixed by the free market.
     
    Martin_H and zombiegorilla like this.
  14. Tom_Veg

    Tom_Veg

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    619
    Of course it will. This is perfect opportunity for game developers to use. It can even be good advertising point. "We don't have loot boxes, no dlc, you pay and you get full game, no bullshit". It is perfect! Only EA and such can benefit from regulations, cause they can handle them and afford them, while you and i can't. Regulations are good way for big corporations to remove competition. Free market was what build western civilization. United States of America. Place where people from all over the world from places without free market flock to. Cause all alternatives not just suck, but they create misery, starvation and death... I know i went a little bit to far from regulating game to concentration camps, but the power of the state is necessary evil which is useful when you need police, fireman, courts, military, here in Europe also education and healthcare (all tough those services suck when the state controls them). But the state exist via taxes. And taxes are taken from people who create value, who work. If you don't give part of the money you earned with your honest hard work to the state, you can face legal consequences which ultimately can include locking you up in cage for several years! The state is evil, necessary, but evil. And this evil should not be used on trivial matters such as a GAME every individual can simply decide to buy or not to buy. EA cant force you to do anything. No corporation can, no matter how unethical and greedy they are. The state on the other hand can.
     
  15. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Except it won't. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but as far as the free market is concerned, you don't matter. You've never mattered. All that's ever mattered in regards to you is the upwards flow of capital. The rich get richer, as they say, and they get richer because they know exactly how to exploit you without you knowing it, and even with you craving it. They tell you the lie of upward mobility existing for anyone who's willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but the flow of capital rarely ever takes people along the way like that. This is why we have things the increasing automation of workforces while still expecting people to do the same amount of work. It's why we have psychologists hired on to better find ways to exploit base instincts so that exploitative monetisation processes fall nicely into the acceptable ranges. All you need to do is look at the mobile markets and the last 5 years of paid games to see just how we've accepted that it's okay to exploit people like this.

    And if you think education and healthcare controlled by the state is bad, I F***ing CHALLENGE YOU to take an objective look into places where these things are market controlled and how many people can't get healthcare or education at all because of the market serving to exploit whoever will generate the most upward flowing capital. In this case, it's rich parents who have more money than sense, or people who can afford to break their ankle. I've experienced both forms of healthcare, state controlled and market controlled, and I would never go back to market controlled in my life.
     
    Teila and Martin_H like this.
  16. Tom_Veg

    Tom_Veg

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    619
    I will respond to this, but wont go further to not hijack the thread.

    Free market doesn't care. It is not some entity who thinks, care or not care. I was born in socialist Yugoslavia, and Croatia continued to have socialist politicians and socialist press on power to this day. Bout our main parties are socialist to their core. All my life i was thought to believe exactly same things you are saying. About me being exploited, about how poor and helpless i am. No one told me "hey bro, you can learn some skills and start doing something, we are in free market now, despite this politicians, we have internet, it's a big world and people need people with skills". No one told me that, until i tried. I was a warehouse worker and delivery driver. I worked on those types of low class jobs (low class in terms of how much you get payed for your work, im not diminishing them). I have no art degree and i didn't go to any school to learn how to use computers. It is only thanks to freedom free market gives you that i was able to use internet, people who saw opportunity in giving their knowledge on the internet via tutorials, increasing number of free software like Blender, Gimp, and our Unity i am now able to live totally different and better life. State education gave'd me nothing useful.
    I am very angry now at all those people who told me i was helpless. All those socialists. That i can only depend on the state to survive. Most of all i'm angry at myself for believing that for to long in my life.
    What puzzles me, why you still believe in such things? You are clearly longer at this forum then me, you must have achieved some success with either your game or assets? Publishing games and publishing assets on asset store, freelancing. This is all possible thanks to low regulations of the states. Beautiful things which improved lives of how many users of Unity??? People with families who can now offer better life for them. I don't care if rich are getting richer. They should in fact! Or are you saying creators of Unity don't deserve their money? Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk? We should take their money and give it to...? Poor? You know, this was all attempted before. You have entire 20. century full of attempts like that. Full state control, marksist ideology, and what you ended up with EVERY time? Misery, starvation and deaths! Millions and millions of people died cause of that idea. Google "dekulakization" You see, when you take the money from the rich, they stop producing. And why is that important? Why cant "the people" just take the means of production? Cause in free market, rich are rich cause they are the most competent ones! It is pure meritocracy. Money is good incentive to work, to improve, and by doing so getting rich. Those who are smartest, most hard working will thrive. And not only thrive, they will have competition of equally smart and capable people. This drives all of them to improve, which leads to better and better products and services for me and you. When you get rich, you give something back to others. I mean, you can earn up to 100 000$ a year with using Unity, without giving a single penny to creators of Unity. How much is 100 000$ in your country? I'm sure it is more then enough to have good life and even support your family, no matter where you live.
    I already said how useless was government education for me, now i will say for healthcare. My father had problems with his back. He was in extreme pain, was unable to work even. With our "free" healthcare (for which by the way, the state just takes 15%+ of your gross salary every month you like it or not (the more you earn, the more they take by the way)) he waited two months to get in line to see a specialist. And he needed to go to MRI of the back. His term will be somewhere in March 2018! It was beginning of 2017. when he went to get appointment for MRI. In the end he went in private clinique and payed for MRI from his pocket. This is state healthcare.

    All of this is long story, but that was important to emphasize the bottom line which is that the state should not get involved in trivial matters which simple decision of any individual can solve. Buy the game, or not buy the game! No need of comrade Stalin to control it! :D
     
    Billy4184 and EternalAmbiguity like this.
  17. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Relevant: https://kotaku.com/i-just-got-a-bunch-of-overwatch-gift-cards-and-im-terr-1821589776

    Something I wasn't aware of: seasonal "skins" or rewards which become unavailable after a certain amount of time. Makes the whole thing a bit more sleazy. Of course they're merely cosmetic, so it's not as big of a deal. Still more manipulative though.

    Makes me think of Steam and their "Holiday Sale 2017 Badge" or whatever. It's basically the same thing: you can get trading cards by voting on some stuff, and by looking through your discovery queue. You can then turn those cards into badges, which adds "XP" to your account. You can of course buy the cards too. Of course this is utterly inconsequential in importance, but I'd wager there are people right now buying cards in the Steam marketplace for this inconsequential thing.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  18. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
  19. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Who's to say that "achievement" isn't directly "fun" for some people?

    As an example, I was playing Steep for a bunch of yesterday despite knowing that it's valueless as a simulation and having no interest in that kind of sport anyway. However, I had loads of fun figuring out the best route to beat a particular challenge and then getting good enough at the game's controls to achieve it. That was fun for me. Loads of it.

    On the flip side, I get turned off immediately by "fake achievement", by which I'm referring to when some games repeatedly treat you as if you achieved something but it took trivial or no skill or effort, or it's something that you were going to "achieve" by accident anyway.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  20. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    I think she was referring to the kind of achievement that pops up in the bottom right corner of the steam overlay (the last of your two examples) and not those fiero moments of beating a challenge. I have indeed seen people say they won't play a game if it has no steam achievements. Did those achievements come from mobile or consoles first? I wanna know who we can blame for this.

    The only moment that I can think of where they were genuinely funny is "Gunpoint", where it was a meta dialog between player and developer.
     
  21. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Achievements hit it really big with the launch of the Xbox 360 and Microsoft's mandatory achievement policy. I STILL think that from a design perspective that making them mandatory was one of the worst moves in gaming history.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  22. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Latest zelda has no loot boxes and is GOTY
     
  23. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    In what way? Not challenging you here, just curious.
     
  24. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Isn't mandatory anything (except helpful information) kind of heading toward the worst move category?
     
  25. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    I feel that the inclusion of achievements in general, unless used expertly (Like, say, The Walking Dead's achievement names being humorous to diffuse tense moments in the narrative), achievements drag player focus away from the gameplay experience as designed to the more metatextual realm of explicit goal hunting. For some games, like ones where goal hunting of this nature is encouraged by the design of the game itself where achievements like this are ideal, this works fine, but that limits your design choices by a significant amount. There's also the part where achievements tend to breed competition where there doesn't need to be any.

    I'm rambling, but basically I think that achievements distract from design unless explicitly encouraged by it, and that's not a good fit for all games.
     
  26. zombiegorilla

    zombiegorilla

    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Posts:
    9,042
    Totally agree. If they are part of they game design that’s one thing, but the bolt on little pop ups break the game fiction/ immersion for me. Every time I see them it like an console ad.
     
    Teila, frosted and Martin_H like this.
  27. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Achievement can be fun when it is based on strategy, figuring out new things, etc. But when it is solely based on doing the same thing over and over to get XP to get to the next level, then it is achievement solely for the purpose of achievement and no longer fun for many people. There will always be those who love repetitive, predictable game play. Those people have their games to play.

    My point it is that there are many more who want to play a game that makes achieving fun and interesting, and throws in some exploring (as you did above) and experimenting, and in the case of a multiplayer experience, socializing.
     
    angrypenguin and Martin_H like this.
  28. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,932
    Nope, I was talking about achievement based on hours of repetitive grinding.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  29. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    I don't like sounding like a political quote, but honestly the best description I can think of for that is "fake achievement".

    It's the brain candy of validation without being backed by activities that require skill, produce meaningful outcomes, or encouraging positive behaviour. (I'm sure there's other things we could usefully label as "achievements", they're just the ones springing to my not-yet-coffee'd mind.)
     
    Martin_H and Teila like this.
  30. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Huh. In my language we just call this "video game".
     
  31. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,628
    I guess you have a really low opinion of video games.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  32. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Is it an opinion? Don't get me wrong, I think video games are fun, but I don't mistake them for being productive or building skills.
     
  33. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,628
    That’s not what angrypenguin said though. And I’d rather not start arguing semantics.

    If you find nothing wrong with achievements, and don’t see any difference between doing something cool in a game and doing something arbitrary in game just because you want a panel with the word achievement to pop up, then I guess we don’t have much to discuss.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  34. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    You're damn right. It's what I said.

    This would sound a lot more convincing if you didn't try to start an argument.

    I'm not talking about achievements. You disagree with me on what video games are (or what you feel they are), now tell me where I'm wrong, and what they actually are.
     
  35. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,628
    No.
     
  36. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    Nice argument defusal, mate. 10/10.
     
  37. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    First up, they're not the only things I mentioned. The other was encouraging positive behaviour, which any form of media can do in its own way.

    Secondly, video games can most definitely build skills and/or knowledge in players. See the simulation industry (which measures demonstrated ROI) as one example of this. Yes it's a different market, but the difference between a "game" and a "simulation" can often be intent. In any case, at my last job the majority of games or game-like media I was involved in was about knowledge building, skill building, or both. Many games don't bother to do either of those, but that doesn't reflect games as media on the whole.

    Thirdly, we're talking in the context of achievement within video games here. I'm not making games out to be anything that they're not. I agree that doing things within a video game is far less useful than doing them in the real world. I'd much rather hear about someone visiting every mountain peak in the USA than every mountain peak in Guild Wars, because one of those is going to get you some real life experience and the other is just some light entertainment. But entertainment is what we play games for, and in that context I still think we can reflect entertainment-oriented achievements meaningfully.

    As examples, I don't think that "Play GTA for 10 hours" is something we should consider an "achievement", because it doesn't encourage anything specific other than spending time in front of a screen. You can do it by accident, and then get told you're special for it. On the other hand, "Survive The Long Dark for 10 hours" could be considered an achievement, because it's genuinely difficult and requires demonstration of relevant knowledge, which in turn demonstrates that you've been paying attention and learning what the game teaches*.

    * I don't know how accurate some of its stuff is and I suspect that it's over simplified (why do I not need to worry about bottles for water?), but it at least seems to have the basics of a wilderness survival simulator there.

    They weren't diffusing anything, they were declining your request. ;)
     
    EternalAmbiguity, FMark92 and Teila like this.
  38. Tzan

    Tzan

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Posts:
    733
    Steam Achievements have several types, the good kind, the bad kind and what I'll call a CheckPoint achievement.

    Like Kill boss "A", clear dungeon "B", finish the game on normal difficulty.
    These are not really achievements and I have certainly made fun of them, "Turn on your Computer".

    But when I look at the overview page of everyone's achievements you can see what percentage of the player base has made it past the checkpoint.

    I'm playing Divinity 2 since September when it launched.
    46% have defeated the boss of the first island. Possibly only 30-60 hours of play, I play slower than most.
    Only 6% of players have finished the game. I'm maybe 70% into it, not finished yet.

    I think its interesting to see in many games how few people even get half way through.

    If anyone here plays you should know that I have achieved "Technical Eggstacy" 0.3% of players. :)
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  39. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Yeah, those are like public analytics, which I find interesting. According to those in Dark Souls II SOTFS 27.7% of players have seen the ending and 12.5% of Dark Souls 1 players have reached the "To Link the Fire" ending. Both were way higher than I estimated, given how notoriously difficult the games are, to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if it's an above average value for games in general. Does anyone have statistics on that?
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  40. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,243
    I wasn't quoting you in that post and wasn't trying reiterate your points.

    Overwhelming majority don't. Of course it reflects. And yes, as you said simulation is a different market and a different intent, so why are you using it to defend video games as a whole?

    I wasn't. I quite clearly branched that discussion into video game context as evident by post #180 in this thread.

    Yes I know there are 1 in 100 good games out there but don't use them to defend the terrible majority. Same with your second point.

    *defusing. Know the difference. It can save your life. (literally)
     
  41. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    Sure, but it was still a tangent directly from something I said.

    I'm not defending games that do this stuff poorly. To the contrary, I'm saying that I don't like it when you get the pat on the back of "achievement" when you've done nothing to warrant it.

    This sub-tangent started when I complained about games that treat you like you've achieved something when you haven't, even within the context of video games (or at least that bit was intended, if perhaps not made clear enough), and you said...
    All I'm saying is that it's not all video games, in which we seem to be in agreement.
     
    FMark92 likes this.
  42. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    People going in to Dark Souls do it looking for a particular experience. It's a niche, so the people who play it are already uncommon. Not saying it's weird, just that it attracts fewer "casual" gamers (casual in the sense that they pick up and drop games freely like you'd see in other action games).

    I encourage you to try out Oxygen Not Included. And American Truck Simulator. And Sim City 4. And Rollercoaster Tycoon 2. And...

    (the following is no longer a reply to the above)

    This isn't exactly about achievements, but it is about collectables: if the game is good, I enjoy collectables.

    I've been playing the Assassin's Creed series since 2 (went back and played 1 as well). For a long time Brotherhood was my favorite. I made a habit of playing through several of them a year. And yet, I never once felt compelled to get the collectables. I couldn't say exactly why. Perhaps the character movement wasn't enjoyable enough, perhaps the gameplay loop outside of a story context wasn't strong enough.

    But that genuinely changed for AC4 Black Flag. That's one of the very few games where I've spent many hours outside of story content, just roaming around, finding markers on the map and going to them and getting the collectables. Now, I didn't really do it at all for the cities (which is telling), but I did do it for all the islands and such in the open world.

    So in that sense, if the base gameplay is good enough, I think collectables work. Again, this isn't exactly achievements, but it is a similar component of games.
     
    Martin_H and angrypenguin like this.
  43. Peter77

    Peter77

    QA Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,589
    There has been a lot of things going on on that matter, here is a nice update on what happened recently.

     
  44. CodeSlug

    CodeSlug

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Posts:
    132
    I think it's about time the government stepped in and did something about this. Loot boxes have ruined video games

    Also to those who are against government interfering just remember it is thanks to the EU that there are refunds on steam. This typically ensures that game devs make better quality games and ensures that consumers are not robbed by buying something that does not function on their PC
     
  45. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    I'm glad you used the word "ruined".

    The reasons things get "ruined" is because most people are in fact highly stupid. They make constant mistakes all day and have poor judgement skills. This isn't insulting or even bad - it is simple fact. People who are stupid make up most of the world. They vote by majority on things they don't fully understand.

    So it's a constant push back battle. When you see someone talking about bitcoin being bad or lootboxes being bad, it's time to ask why instead of just accepting it or rejecting it. In fact asking why is there lootboxes might be a really, really good start. The answer is "to manipulate people into paying far more money for objects that cost the dev next to nothing".

    In short, nobody ever needs lootboxes. The same thrill can be obtained a hundred other ways from in game rewards to DLC. Don't need micro. Don't need loot boxes.

    Yet everyone is happy to say things like "we don't need curation" and "ads are fine on websites" and "ads are fine everywhere!" and "loot boxes are fine and optional!"

    Not realising every fine and optional pretty much ruins the original product or medium in varying degrees because it is artificially added and in order to gain better acceptance, made part of the core product.

    The problem we face as developers is that advertising, loot boxes, micro transactions are all things you're doing instead of developing a F***ing game.
     
    AcidArrow, Tom_Veg and Martin_H like this.
  46. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Well said! But what is the alternative? It looks like a situation a la "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
     
  47. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Same as you'd fight ignorance anywhere - throw the book at it (assuming the target can read). It is a constant battle but if people can be taught to question what is said in a calm way, that would be a good start.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  48. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Your job has no bearing on your intelligence to make informed decisions really. A lot of the time the job is a circumstantial thing. Perhaps someone isn't able to get the desired job. Some people enjoy menial jobs and are still smart (it's a bit like meditation). Others lacked the gift of education (but aren't stupid). On the other side of the coin, you have top professionals being really stupid.

    So the job doesn't indicate the intelligence in my view. It can, but it would be silly to assume.

    --

    Personally I don't agree with banning loot boxes. I believe it should instead become law to show it on the packaging or promo materials along with age etc. This way, people can choose, and even discuss it. People can be encouraged to talk about it. This is the true path - to educate over 7 billion people how to think clearly.

    Because if you ban loot boxes, something else will take it's place. This is why dictators aren't killed outright any more. It's better to win hearts and minds / educate people.

    Legislation to include loot boxes as a pre-purchase warning is far as it needs to go - something like "Contains micro transactions and loot boxes".

    As DLC is typically purchased outside the app or game, it does not need to be mentioned. It is truly optional and outside of the core game. This means that it will be reviewed fairly (as well as putting indies on a level playing field with AAA in this respect).
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  49. Tzan

    Tzan

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Posts:
    733
    I like YongYea's videos.
    Everyone has opinions, but very few can really research, explore and present them.
     
    Peter77 likes this.
  50. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Is this a reply to a deleted post?