Belgium wants to ban loot boxes...

Yeah, I saw the original before it got axed. It was a little out there.

 

Ooh didn't realize he replied to my post

I ranted a bit too much which is why I deleted it. Was a bit off topic and political

 

Yes, I have quoted the original post that was deleted and edited that into my post to make my response make sense. I haven't undeleted or named the original post above mine because I assume the author wanted it deleted

(it was a bit political but no real aim to be so I don't see the harm).

 

What are your thoughts on banning guns?

From what I understand, countries with some of the highest gun violence actually has some of the toughest gun laws.

 

Guns are offtopic. I had assumed your post was mentioning politics in passing, which is acceptable for context. It is not acceptable or relevant to suddenly discuss guns.

 

Well one thing I will point out about this--there is indeed an insidious side to this. By randomizing your drops to non-main characters, they're creating a situation where you "need" to play more, pay more, whatever, to upgrade the character you want to main.

On the other hand, however, this can also be seen as a way to encourage the player to play more than one playstyle, to engage with your game in ways they may not necessarily want to the most but can provide a more enjoyable experience to them. I saw a video recently, think it was either Writing on Games or Game Maker's Toolkit, that talked about "protecting players from themselves." They quoted this: "Given the choice, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

So while there may be a scummy aspect to it, there also may be a genuine design aspect to it to help the player engage more actively with the game.

 

There is one area in gaming that absolutely needs government intervention. And that is the part where accounts are permanently banned and you lose all the money you have invested in cosmetics.

Things like Trolling, Hate Speech, Feeding etc are all subjective and many have lost upwards of $4000 USD in cosmetics in games when their accounts are banned for these reasons, many times moderators and game masters abuse their power. And in almost every single case there are no real requirements to be a Moderator or Game Master, no educational requirement no age requirement no nothing. This is effectively child labor since many of these kids become game masters to get free ingame currency in return etc. Or become moderators just for the rank or what have you. This does fall under the child labor act but because the internet is not regulated, companies online are not expected to follow the law unless its something very extreme

Steam is a prime example of where moderators abuse their powers and favor certain individuals on their friends list. This area is where government needs to step in more so than loot boxes. If you are going to permanently ban accounts or delete accounts then you should be forced to refund the customer it is as simple as that. (Except the case of cheating if you cheated you do NOT deserve any refund) Since that is a clear cut Ban and not tolerated in anyway shape or form and is not subjective in anyway.

The gaming industry is the only industry where companies are allowed to do almost anything they want without having to face the law. It is thanks to the EU that Valve was forced to issue refunds, we all know about the Early Access Scams that take place on Steam

 

One more thing I want to point out, there was this game Marvel Heroes Omega on Steam it was made by David Brevik the man who created Diablo.

Last year Marvel Heroes was shut down just like that because Marvel decided to well shut down the game. Now people who bought supporter packs and invested heavily in this game which was partly Pay to Win BTW. But people who invested heavily in this game were NOT told that Marvel can shut down the game at any time they want.

There should be a very big warning with MMO games like these, telling the customers that they are going to purchase a game that can be shut down in a blink of an eye and you will lose everything including your money.
I don't think this warning should be issued to single player games since marvel can't actually shut down a single player game you own.

But the LAW should have forced Marvel / Disney to refund consumers who lost money in Marvel Heroes Omega.

I was one of the people who lost money in that game BTW and I absolutely regret investing in that game and buying costumes etc. I wish I could get some kind of compensation simply because I was cheated out of my money, I even bought costumes on sale even though I didn't play the game for a whole year because I was just waiting to finish playing other games so I could return to Marvel Heroes and I would have my costumes ready when that day reached, little did I know I would lose everything in a blink of an eye because Marvel decides to cancel a license.

Whatever the heck the reason was, I want back my money, not all of it since I did play the game a lot but I want back what I paid for but didn't use like the costumes I was collecting.

 

I'm pretty sure the EULA states explicitly that online games like that can be shut down at any time. Just because people don't read the EULA doesn't mean it's not there.-

 

I remember spending $40 USD for a costume pack in Marvel heroes, the following day I asked them for a refund because they released a patch that basically screwed the gameplay of what makes a game an ARPG. They basically dumbed it down for console release

Even though it had not been even 24 hours and even though I had not used the costumes I was DENIED my request for a refund. And no legitimate reason was given by support, when I posted my issue on the forum my thread was locked because it's their forum and their "rules" so they can shut down anything they think might give them bad publicity.

This is why I am in support for government intervention into this industry that is unregulated and allows companies to get away with absolutely ANYTHING. In no other industry is this allowed to happen unless its a black market industry

 

Just because you have one bad experience, doesn't make it necessary to call for new laws. For every 1 vocal person there's probably thousands that are happy.

 

Think about this for a second. You're in favor of government intervention because you had a bad experience. Not because you observed something from the sidelines and then formed an opinion, but because you feel like you got burned and you're basically lashing out.

Also think about the fact that you've posted quite a number of hot takes in the last 24 hours since you signed up here, including one you felt you needed to delete.

 

Are you sure it doesn't?

I don't know about elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure that here in Australia we've got "statutory warranty" and related consumer laws that basically ensure a minimum level of quality/service that consumers can expect based on reasonable expectations and what they've paid for something. The common example of what this is meant to solve is dodgy stores with a "no refunds" policy - by law there are circumstances under which consumers must be offered refunds - but I'm told that it can also apply to things like warranty periods and expected length of service.

Vendors here don't have to tell you about those minimum requirements, but if you know to ask for them they can't refuse. Could the same be true elsewhere?

 

Agreed, although I would also add that it needs to raise the ESRB (PEGI/whatever) rating a bit.

 

I agree however the same could have been said about steam refunds, but we sure are happy about refunds now aren't we?

Good question, with regards to valve I think that it was a good thing the EU forced them to give refunds and I also think that it is a good thing Valve issues refunds to every country and not just the EU.

With regards to loot boxes since it is Gambling and requires you to use a credit card, I believe it should be subjected to the same Gambling laws.

Infact I think what might be better and work for everyone is that games with loot boxes be classified as Adult Only and Real world Gambling and credit card Involved this should be the new rating. Let the Game Developers now choose if to go the route of loot boxes or not on their own accord. And if they insist on loot boxes then they should pay whatever taxes and be subjected to the same gambling laws.

I think this will make everybody happy since this way the government cannot ban loot boxes

 

Because many people were affected.

 

I have come to change my stance on banning loot boxes, I believe since this is a form of gambling it should be subjected to the same laws as the gambling industry and it should have an Adult Only Rating.

I think this would be most fair for everyone

 

While I agree that would be a nice neat way to tie it up, I'm pretty sure it'd require a change in the legal definition of "gambling" in many parts of the world. In many places something is not "gambling" in a legal sense if you aren't able to get real-world currency/goods out of it.

Agreed, but I think we've got to be careful of language. I do of course realise you're not saying to slap those exact words on things.

We here know what "loot boxes" refers to, but when used with broader audiences things can easily be misunderstood.

A couple of years ago here the local government put up some posters about kids and "gaming". Those posters were attempting to educate people about this exact issue, before "loot boxes" were even a thing. They were trying to say "parents, be familiar with the games your kids play, some of them contain stuff that's like gambling". The issue is that if you don't play video games then to you the word "gaming" is more likely to mean slot machines and the like! So, many people seeing the posters thought they made no sense, because of course gambling has gambling-like aspects... and who lets their kids do that in the first place? All because whomever wrote the posters assumed that "gaming" meant the same thing to everyone else as it did to them.

"Loot box" is a very broad and generic term which we've attached to a fairly specific thing. Most "loot" that comes in "boxes" is fine.

 

I purchase "Loot Bags" at the supermarket and unbag them at home.
I've ended up with gallons of hot sauce I never use.

 

There is a bit of an update again...

 

The ESRB presented plans to address the recent feedback on "In-Game Purchases"...

 

More news on this topic...

 

I'm glad that these particular bills are failed, the basis of the bills was vague.
At the same time I hope, the industry will review its practices and will find a more reasonable system.

I'm with Extra Credits on this one:

 

I went to a IGDA roundtable at GDC around ethics and wrote an article that has lots to do with this subject. Would love your thoughts about it!

Ethics and Game Design: Are They Like Oil And Water?

 

Great article! Thank you. It prompted a discussion with my kids about balance and moderation. Always a good thing. As a parent, I agree that parental control is the solution. The problem is that many parents are just too busy, work long hours, or are single parents. I can tell you....when I ask my daughter how long she has played Paladins today, she shoots daggers from her eyes at me. I am tough, but not all parents are.

I have found that a router with the ability to block the internet at times works great for online games. I also put passwords on all the computers so that they need me to login to play games. School accounts have games blocked.

I see them taking more and more responsibility for their own computer and phone time and I am glad I was strict, in spite of the daggers.

 

“as to whether or not game designers need a professional code of ethics much like the Hippocratic oath for doctors.”
No, as playing a game is voluntary.
“With gaming disorder a mental health concern, do game designers have an obligation to refrain what would be considered ‘exploitative design,’ that is, game design that takes advantage of player addictions and/or mental defects?”
"I expected to leave that event with some sort of consensus."
I'm not surprised. Echo chambers are hard to get out of.
"What I really wanted was to see a core of game designers starting a movement that could culminate with a positive change in the industry."
'Society of Starving Developers'
"After all, we’ve seen similar movements on adjacent industries such as Social Media, where industry luminaries and even former Facebook executives complained about the addictive nature of social media (even implicating themselves)."
Which changed nothing AFAIK.
"Prisoner’s Dilemma"
"Alternatively, game designers could cooperate and do what’s in the best interest of everyone involved."
Except for, you know, their employees, their businesses, their shareholders, etc.
But at least you mention the opposition's stance... ...in a paragraph which you compare them to a movie villain and a mobster.
"Aaron Marshall, a video game designer from LA summarizes how Skeptics think: “Video games are akin to most legal products and pastimes today. They can be responsibly consumed, or they can be abused. We do not condemn books because an avid reader is spending an irresponsible amount of time reading fiction novels. Why should video games be singled out when a player is playing too much?” His point is valid, but I would argue that his conclusion is false. If someone reads so much that her life is affected, that person should seek “rehab,” just like any other addiction. In fact, there are rehabilitation facilities for digital addiction. But the reality is that children don’t spend that much time reading – less than 30 minutes a day."
So is your arguments that "writers can't compete to game developers on terms of reader engagement"? How is that the developers problem?
"Teenagers (13-18 years old) spend an astonishing 9 hours per day interacting with screens."
Vidya confirmed better than sex. We did it!
"But again, we see the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Do game designers betray each other in a never ending cycle, continuing to make video games more and more addictive in an effort to stay ahead of the curve? Or will we eventually see an era where the industry cooperates to create better, safer games?"
Boy I just can't wait to open a chest at the bottom of a dungeon and only find a not that says "There was supposed be rare loot in here, but we are afraid of over straining your dopamine receptors and making you addicted to this game. Play responsibly!"
"Saferize offers a way for designers to eliminate this trade-off between profit and ethics. By implementing our SDK, apps have an area specific to parents, so they can set up controls such as screen time. To have access to those controls, parents pay Saferize a monthly subscription that is shared with the app publisher. While parents get the tools to effectively curb digital addiction for their children, game designers are incentivized to implement our software, since they receive extra revenue from Saferize. It’s truly a win for everyone involved."
Good luck with your business model. I'm sure publishers will be clamoring to get a fraction of revenue from you instead of absolutely massive gains directly from players.

 

So is heart surgery!

Or, perhaps more relevant, so is watching TV, and advertising is still regulated.

That Saferize thing is, ah, interesting... The concept of shared, integrated parental controls is solid. But I'm still mulling over the idea of parents paying to get access to the parental controls. Does that mean that parents could be paying for their kids to get access to something, and then paying again to control that access? Also, protecting families by giving their data to yet someone else, who specifically collects data about families? I'd be far more comfortable with the service if Google or Apple provided it themselves as a value-add for their ecosystems.

 

Sort of. I pay to control the access on our computers. And I pay for the games that my kids play, or at least I did until recently. I am okay with them playing their games. I just do not want them to play the games for 8 hours or while they are doing schoolwork, or while they are working for us, or why they are supposed to be sleeping. It is worth it. It is less time I have to use dealing with the issues.

Saferize looks fine for what it does but I would not recommend it as the final solution. There are better cheaper ways to give your kids content on demand, such as a password on the laptop/computer. How hard is that? I am guessing that Saferize is something developers put in their games? I do not know..and too lazy to dig any deeper. Might not be bad for young children but then why..oh why, would a parent let their young child play adult games?

I would recommend that parents give kids blocks of times on their computers and only install the games they would want them to play. If the parents share the computer, then maybe it is a good idea to get your own laptop for games that you deem inappropriate for kids. If that does not work then try some solutions out there that can block games on specific accounts, like Qustodio or others. Give the kid their own account. Much easier.

The solutions are out there. Some parents just do not want to deal with it. TV was the babysitter of my generation, tablets, phones, and laptops are the new babysitters. The difference is the TV just spewed out crap. The internet can be dangerous for kids and teens. And it can be so much more addicting....plus parents have no idea what is going on.

 

Your conflict of interest on the issue is every bit as grevous as that of these "Skeptic" developers (more so, because your entire model revolves around people being convinced that there are dangers to their children here, rather than a dev relying on all users, not just exploited ones), and you wear that on your sleeve throughout the entire article (comparing unconvinced devs to the mob? Really?), so I'm not sure how much there is to discuss that was presented directly in the article.

I will say, however, that your statement that game devs are "only in it for profit" is incredibly, incredibly offensive (as an artist), and pretty stupid too. Game dev is not a lucrative field for most practitioners.

I imagine that the criteria for regulation would largely depend on the effect of the "substance." Alcohol is regulated because it causes people to drive poorly and puts others at increased risk (yes money too, but that's only one part). Heroin is regulated because people who take the stuff become so physiologically and psychologically dependent on it that they will occasionally kill people to get another fix, and it's extremely dangerous to their health as well. Caffeine isn't regulated because it wakes you up a bit, maybe gives you the jitters, and makes you hafta pee. Can you tell me where, in the aggregate (lone anecdotal incidents do not national regulations make), gaming lies on that continuum?

For what it's worth I'm not convinced that there shouldn't be regulation on these Skinner Box elements, but this article isn't adding anything to the discussion.

 

And since I'm here:

https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-5-will-not-have-loot-boxes-but-will-have-paid-cosmetics/

I feel like there was another announcement like this one a couple weeks back, but I don't remember where it was.

 

I did not catch that! Yes, that is true. Loot boxes and the like have already been examined by a number of governments. This is a fact, not an anecdotal story. People do have some power and lobbying to affect decisions by politicians to crack down on this stuff, add labels to games, and call it gambling are happening. In my country at least, politicians could make great gains and influence voters by going after games, especially those who deal with addiction on a day to day basis in their families or with employees.

Yes, anecdotal does not make regulations. However, lobbying does. When parents and religious groups lobby politicians to make something stop, they sometimes do win. Things are happening in Europe already...and I imagine it will happen here too eventually.

As the OP said in his article, some just want to bury their head and not think about it. That is fine. It will become more of a problem in the future and by then, it will be too late for the industry to take the lead on this.

So easy to sit and rake in the dough and ignore the impact on human beings. So much easier than the game industry actually tackling this problem.

The OP does have an agenda, selling his tool and he should probably have said that clearly in the post here. But this is not just about children. It is about adults as well. It will affect all of us who play and create games. So ignore at your own peril.

 

Yeah, as I edited in my first post I'm not completely comfortable with where loot boxes are right now, so I could understand some regulation coming there (or continuing to do so, given that Belgium's already taken a stance). But regulation for "gaming" itself is a far less certain issue.

Something we haven't really discussed, at least I haven't seen it discussed, is how this will change the way we make games. "This" being paid lootboxes and not gaming in general, because I haven't seen any hubbub about general gaming legislation. Anyway, it only seems significant if you're seeding lootboxes into fundamental places like character progression (like Battlefront 2 did), or expecting it to be a significant source of revenue (again like BF2). If you're not, they can be removed with minimal or no damage to the design of the game.

I've never even contemplated adding paid lootboxes to a game, so I can't imagine any outcome from this affecting me at all.

 

It does come up from time to time. Every so often here in Australia the whole R18+ / Refused Classification thing pops up. Usually that's in response to something getting RC'd, but ~5 years ago it was a bit of a reform to add an R18+ rating and change how stuff was presented in stores.

 

Apologies, I wasn't talking about stuff like explicit content restriction, but the general "gaming is addictive" sentiment (divorced from any exploitative techniques like loot boxes).

Though you do have a point, and such content restrictions would be salient to my own ideas.

 

Having dealt with what was nothing less than a full blown addiction with one of my kids, it is something that will be addressed in the future. I found entire websites and forums devoted to parents dealing with addiction in their children, many of them adult children who never left home. Remember, many things, including playing games, release chemicals that feel good. Most addictive substances do the same thing. When removed, the person becomes anxious. They beg and cry and make all sorts of excuses about "needing to play games". I have one kid who suffers from depression and I allow time for games as it seems to help make things better for the rest of the day, school and work do not suffer as long as game time is allowed for a couple of hours. There is a reason for this...those chemicals. Of course, this is not solely a game issues, since many things do the same thing, drugs, sunshine, sex, exercise, etc.

Recognizing that games maybe should be added to the list could help a lot of people learn to moderate their game time. Will this cut into game sales? I doubt it. The vast majority of people who play games do so at 2 or less hours per day. I should try to find that article to show you the results of the study. Many people also can self-limit to 2 glasses of wine a day. But some cannot. Now that game addiction is being listed on websites for therapists and psychologists, maybe things will change for the better.

In the meantime, removing addictive elements will make better games. Those same elements, such as the grinding and ultra gamefication turn me off. So you lose people either way.

 

Aren't loot boxes just lazy game design, shouldn't they have an in game currency, shop and basic economy (e.g. supply demand)?

 

https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2018/

Says online, but seems to include other types of gaming as well.

 

I don’t think there are many (or any) that only have loot boxes only. They all have a shop, soft currency and economy, loot boxes are just a part of that.

 

I'm glad to say I don't know what a loot box is. Thanks. I'm glad I added to this discussion.