Utopia Talk / Politics / Belgium declares loot boxes gambling

Aeros Member	Tue Nov 21 21:57:09 National Gambling Board in Belgium has declared micro-transactions for undetermined random items (loot boxes) to be gambling, and effectively outlaws the sale and distribution of all games that use the mechanic. This includes games like Shadow of War, Battlefront 2, and Overwatch. They now say they intend to take their determination to the EU for a continent wide ban. In the US, the State of Hawaii is also moving to outlaw the sale of the games on the Island. http://www...g-wants-them-banned-in-europe/ Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe The Minister of Justice says the mix of gaming and gambling is "dangerous." Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes. The Google translation is a little sloppy, as usual, but the message is clear enough. "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling," the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium's Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child." Geens, according to the report, wants to ban in-game purchases outright (correction: if you don't know exactly what you're purchasing), and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it." And now, things will start to get interesting. I've reached out to the Gaming Commission for more information, and will update if I receive a reply.
hood Member	Tue Nov 21 21:59:47 Good.
McKobb Member	Tue Nov 21 22:12:40 Take them out of war robots!
Limousine Liberal Member	Tue Nov 21 22:15:08 So many anti-capitalists.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 21 22:40:09 I started a new game recent;y and as soon as it asked for money to play I shut it down. Not sure if that is the same thing. The above terminology is new to me.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 21 22:42:20 *-recently
jergul large member	Tue Nov 21 23:49:37 Its different. A valid argument.
smart dude Member	Tue Nov 21 23:56:06 It's not the same thing. Are you too lazy or too stupid to figure it out yourself? It's entirely clear from the article.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 22 01:45:20 This is lottery. We all know it, but so is a lot of life or even most of life. All of life?
jergul large member	Wed Nov 22 01:51:22 Lotteries are 18+ nimi.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 22 03:37:47 Depending on the definition that might even make sense.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Nov 22 04:25:31 It is not so clear as you might think. super dud, you seem to know what a loot box is but I have no idea and it does not explain what it is in the article. So I looked it up. I would not play a game like that but apparently, you have. How much did you lose?
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 05:26:07 Ugh, I hate that I have to write extensively to clear some things up for some posters that really do not have a clue of what they are talking about, especially governments. 1) Lootboxes or the concept thereof has been around in game for a large portion of its existence. 'Gambling' concepts and features such have these have been utilized to enhance the playing experience, or to extend the life of the game; 1a: Extending the life of the game, one feature is setting achievements for those who rush through the game because either they have the time or are skillful to do so and become bored. Once that is complete the lifespan of the game is pretty much over for them. So developers started to put an array of achievements in games to assist the extension of the game to keep gamers occupied until the next sequel comes out or until the gamer feels satisfied in regards to accomplishments which leads to 1b: Lootboxes as an extension of the game; Lootboxes are designed for achievements and then down the road developers, mainly publishers, saw how not only they can extend the life of a game but continuously make money from it. As typically, a person buys the game, beats it, players it every so often, then ultimately stops playing it, either they can trade it in, sale it, or let it collect dust and in which most cases, collects dust. Style of gameplay and monthly fees; there are many different genres of games and there are specific games that needs continuous support and maintenance to ensure the game quality continues to be satisfactory or enticing for the gamers; some have monthly subscription fees, in which helps a lot, but there were a lot of grievances because some felt they shouldn't have to initially buy the game if they are going to pay to play. Then you have the game that is buy to play, but has micro transactions to either cosmetically satisfy the player base and enhance the experience, or as a way to get an edge on certain features of the game especially in regards to PVP types. But it was a way to mitigate the costs or help the lifespan of the game to continuously get updates. The grievance in this model is the pay to win. So where do lootboxes fit in? They fit in as a combination of effects for the game; 1: An achievement process -- gamers play the game and reach the goal in the point of the game of receiving a lootbox that allows the player to receive items for their character or game to enhance the experiences, cosmetic items, or other misc. feature. You have to play the game to have the CHANCE of getting the items. So players will have a way to have goals and continue to play the game. It works in some models, not so well in others. (i.e. see resident evil 4). 2. There are some players that want an edge over the game, or edge over other players in regards to PvP type games; and typically you have a serious of players who rather go play a monthly fee or subscription to utilize cheats in order to do this, then you have in your MMO gold farmers that will 'datamine' the game and collect gold and players would buy into those features in order to get an edge or get an item that they really want or can't invest the time to get. This typically and mostly 100% of the time violates TOS or terms of service. And now it leads or may lead to pay to win. 3. All if not most games have a way for you to receive lootboxes by playing the game and release the content and chance for this to either help the gameplay, your character, or whatnot. But a way to make more money, and a way to help mitigate the gold farmers, and to mitigate cheaters on various games. The method of circumventing the gameplay as the answer was the lootboxes where people can buy them in game; take a chance on getting the item they are hoping, and if they do not, then they can do it again. But of course for a fee. This model isn't that much of an issue because everyone has free will in regards of 'either do I want to take a chance on getting the item I want NOW or should I just play the game and work to achieve it' Developers and mainly publishers see this as a way to increase their coffers and support the game and increasing the lifespan of the game. So this is utilized and it has a lot of success. In fact, I have utilize micro transactions and paid for lootboxes because I understand there isn't a montly fee, I like the game, and I support the ones who make the games. My limitations stop depending on how big the company is, for instance EA and Blizzard can live without me getting my money in such a fashion and I rather just play the game and get those achievements. As for smaller companies, or independent, I am more prone to partake. 2. So how does all of this play out in the world of addiction? Let's be honest, gambling or lottery system has been part of the gaming industry in many, many forms. But now there is real currency value attached, if you see points before, then you can see how it evolved to here. The argument now is to place this as a public health issue (again) in regards to addiction and gambling. The counter argument is that addiction goes with many different subjects and gaming is no different. You have people that are addicted to game that have lost their jobs, homes, end their marriages, ignore their children, and went into financial ruin all because they were addicted to games that most did not have the "gambling" system. So some governments past laws or attempt or outright banned the games from the country. Now here we are on the topic of lootboxes and how it is a public health danger because it may trigger those with gambling addictions or cause such addictions. I am not supporting this notion. I think it is too far fetched and I think it is an overreach and also an overreaction. The gaming community can make a company or break a company without any assistance from the government. I am not saying this would break a company if features such as this was removed. But I err on the side of caution because typically the general public and the government do not understand fully how lootboxes work. And they only get a skewed perspective of it and not see the wholly picture of its implementation and why it was or how it evolved to the stature in it's current form. Any questions feel free to ask. Sorry for typos, grammatical errors, I wrote this while on the shitter. This has been Gamer UPer (who actually works for a gaming magazine) out.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 07:28:27 ^ mostly industry shill bullshit.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 07:37:08 Hey! Great question!.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 07:37:52 But in all seriousness, would you care to elaborate?
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 07:54:00 What question? You went around typing out an ad for game publishers and then admitted being in bed with them at the end of your ad. Belgium didn't find all micro transactions and supplemental purchases in gaming to be gambling, they found the "spin the wheel to see what your prize is!!!! (for a fee)" to be gambling. By any non-legal definition, it is precisely gambling. For whatever reason, many gambling laws I'm familiar with (Belgium's is not one of them) require a chance of losing to be a requirement for regulation. Games have been able to skirt around this mechanism by simply giving you absolute junk when you don't get anything good. A loot box is gambling. And it isn't the only way to give players options to pay more. And the asinine suggestion that they "extend the life" of games is horse shit. Feel free to look up EA profits by year, EA revenue by year, EA micro payments revenue by year. You'll end up finding that "extending the life of the game" payments (dlc, loot boxes, micro transactions in general) comes out to be roughly 25% of their total revenue, or about 33% of their total profit in 2017. It has nothing to do with keeping games profitable, nudging the dial from "lost money" to "earned money." It is entirely about grabbing more. And in the form of loot boxes, it is about risking your money for a randomized prize (with no stated odds). Or, you know, gambling. But please, feel free to explain how game companies want you to keep playing Madden 2015 to extend the life of the game, instead of buying Madden 2017. Explain how they want you to keep playing Call of Duty: give us your money - buttfuckyou edition, and not buy the newest CoD WWII.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 08:27:01 "What question? You went around typing out an ad for game publishers and then admitted being in bed with them at the end of your ad." Firstly, it was an attempt at humor and sarcasm to your one-liner response of disdain. But referencing your ad allegation; how and in any way did I present that as an ad other than giving the complex history, in a short format, to explain how lootboxes are applied and the misconceptions of it that some my have? "Belgium didn't find all micro transactions and supplemental purchases in gaming to be gambling, they found the "spin the wheel to see what your prize is!!!! (for a fee)" to be gambling. By any non-legal definition, it is precisely gambling. For whatever reason, many gambling laws I'm familiar with (Belgium's is not one of them) require a chance of losing to be a requirement for regulation. Games have been able to skirt around this mechanism by simply giving you absolute junk when you don't get anything good. A loot box is gambling. And it isn't the only way to give players options to pay more. And the asinine suggestion that they "extend the life" of games is horse shit." Just because you care not and expressed your opinion regarding a way of extension of life for a game, does not dismiss the intention why a feature of sorts was implemented. And you are right, Belgium did not, or the state of Hawaii has not, but it does open the door to define or redefine what gambling is in regards to lootboxes. In my "ad" as you put it, I explained the differences of how it is applied. One for education, two what the intent was actually designed for, and my opinion. But it seems your bias interfered and your initial comment was filled with complete conjecture and misperceive the intention of what I am relaying. "Feel free to look up EA profits by year, EA revenue by year, EA micro payments revenue by year. You'll end up finding that "extending the life of the game" payments (dlc, loot boxes, micro transactions in general) comes out to be roughly 25% of their total revenue, or about 33% of their total profit in 2017. It has nothing to do with keeping games profitable, nudging the dial from "lost money" to "earned money." It is entirely about grabbing more. And in the form of loot boxes, it is about risking your money for a randomized prize (with no stated odds). Or, you know, gambling." And you would see that I was critical of EA and Blizzard in my "ad." But what you said in this paragraph appeared to be contradicting; You bring up profit margins saying that it isn't about that, then conclude it with "grabbing more." More what? Money? Yes, it is a way of grabbing more money. Of course there isn't a denial of that. However, it also does extend the life of the game, people keep playing, they want more, either they can fast track or take the slow track. Either you can work hard for items and enhancements to the game, or you can just buy them. Or the randomizaton implemented that for the player is chance, a they didn't it, so they chance again by paying again. Yes, call it gambling. But this isn't something so new. Just a new way of making more money and companies are utilizing it. You can either like it or not. But do not misconstrue the concept behind its design. And yes, the ultimate goal is to make more money, but there are subdiaries attached with it as well to mitigate other aspects. "But please, feel free to explain how game companies want you to keep playing Madden 2015 to extend the life of the game, instead of buying Madden 2017. Explain how they want you to keep playing Call of Duty: give us your money - buttfuckyou edition, and not buy the newest CoD WWII." To answer that question; at certain points you were able to buy new rosters of played to update the player base. But, as I pointed out in my "ad" I said these model are more catered to certain genres of games than others. Thanks for your feedback, any more questions feel free to ask.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 09:09:24 "Firstly, it was an attempt at humor and sarcasm to your one-liner response of disdain." I got that. I was dismissing your humor as not funny. "how and in any way did I present that as an ad other than giving the complex history, in a short format, to explain how lootboxes are applied and the misconceptions of it that some my have?" Except you really didn't give any sort of history. A short history might include mentioning how loot boxes began in "free" games as a monetization technique. It wasn't about getting more, it was simply an alternate payment method wherein you were asked to pay in increments (or not) instead of dumping it all up front like any number of full-priced games. But this wasn't so much loot boxes specifically, but micro transactions generally. Any history would mention how these microtransactions exploded in the mobile industry and cite a few examples of how they became more mainstream. Something you never did. What loot boxes never did was provide "achievements." They were always about monetization. By making your prize random, it prevented you from getting what you wanted immediately, thus either forcing you to trade with others (if allowed) or keep buying loot boxes. "Just because you care not and expressed your opinion regarding a way of extension of life for a game, does not dismiss the intention why a feature of sorts was implemented." Can you provide an example of how loot boxes extended the life of a game? I see how dlc would. But any implementation of loot boxes is simply putting an artificial barrier between you and what you want for money purposes. It doesn't keep people playing longer. But it might make them pay more. "In my "ad" as you put it, I explained the differences of how it is applied. One for education, two what the intent was actually designed for, and my opinion." Loot boxes were designed to extract more money from a customer than simply offering up for sale the item they want directly. Tell me: given the chance, would you spend $5 on 5 loot boxes to get the skin you want in overwatch, with no guarantee that you get it in 5 boxes, or would you just spend the $5 on that skin? Most people would prefer to just buy the skin outright, especially if they don't want any of the other crap inside. But if you need to buy $50 worth of loot boxes to get your skin compared to $5 (or hell, $15), loot boxes all the way. Exploit that customer! "But what you said in this paragraph appeared to be contradicting; You bring up profit margins saying that it isn't about that, then conclude it with "grabbing more." More what? Money? Yes, it is a way of grabbing more money. Of course there isn't a denial of that." I don't think you understood my meaning there. I see a difference in "we need to keep the lights on" profit and "we can squeeze more blood from them" profit. Loot boxes haven't been about keeping the lights on, especially in full priced games. They've been about squeezing blood. Most full priced games, like the one in question (stbf2), earn plenty of money just on initial sales. They keep the lights on perfectly well without implementing extra monetization schemes. Thus, adding monetization of any kind isn't about pushing the game from losing money to being financially successful - it's about squeezing blood. While this is slightly different in free games, wherein they do need monetization to keep the lights on because they don't ask for upfront money, I will direct you again to the loot box implementation of this as being overly aggressive. Games do just fine only asking for direct purchases of monetization items. "However, it also does extend the life of the game, people keep playing, they want more, either they can fast track or take the slow track. Either you can work hard for items and enhancements to the game, or you can just buy them." Ah, I see, you're just working from a fallacy. No, a progression system where your character changes and improves over time does not equate to loot boxes being a life extender. The progression system is what extends the life of the game (see: every rpg ever made). The loot boxes tacked on to it are a parasitic monetization scheme. And such schemes encourage design of poorly implmented progression schemes to convince people to spend more money instead of do their stupid bullshit. "Or the randomizaton implemented that for the player is chance, a they didn't it, so they chance again by paying again. Yes, call it gambling. But this isn't something so new. Just a new way of making more money and companies are utilizing it. You can either like it or not. But do not misconstrue the concept behind its design." I'm not. The design of loot boxes is based on pretty well established cognitive theory. We call them Skinner boxes, and they've been very well designed to lure you in. And no, this gambling technique is not new in games. In fact, the first time I saw them, my initial reaction was "oh hell no, I'm not gambling with that box for a chance at something awful." Instead, I waited until the items I want, opened by other people, appeared in the game market and purchased them from there. No, loot boxes aren't new. They just finally reached the tipping point where even most defenders couldn't find it within themselves to excuse the abusive nature of the system. Infecting the second most profitable IP on the planet didn't help. "To answer that question; at certain points you were able to buy new rosters of played to update the player base." That didn't answer my question. Would EA prefer that you keep playing Madden 2015, or would they like you to stop playing Madden 2015 and instead buy Madden 2017 and play that? Would Ubisoft prefer that you keep playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, or for you to buy Assassin's Creed: Origins? After answering that, do you think that these monetization techniques (in the frame of these specific games) are about extending the life of the game?
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 10:28:43 "Except you really didn't give any sort of history. A short history might include mentioning how loot boxes began in "free" games as a monetization technique. It wasn't about getting more, it was simply an alternate payment method wherein you were asked to pay in increments (or not) instead of dumping it all up front like any number of full-priced games. But this wasn't so much loot boxes specifically, but micro transactions generally. Any history would mention how these microtransactions exploded in the mobile industry and cite a few examples of how they became more mainstream. Something you never did. " Something I never did, or didn't feel it warrant enough to mention. And yes, no matter how you view it is was a short history. Sure, I could spend time invested on the evolution of games an the attachment of monetary gains implemented to gain a buck. But a) No one will take the time to read it b) most of us don't want to spend the time recover a span which would really entail a month long coverage of it. So I elected to emphasize certain points. Apologies that it did not fit your criteria. None any less it was factual. "What loot boxes never did was provide "achievements." They were always about monetization. By making your prize random, it prevented you from getting what you wanted immediately, thus either forcing you to trade with others (if allowed) or keep buying loot boxes." Yes. Never discounted or argued against. But it also doesn't negate the fact that loot boxes did in fact provide certain level of achievements. In my "ad", I mentioned about achievements and then I went on to infer that look boxes was another form. So your claim about "never" is false. And there has been alot of randomized rewards in various games does that mean you get what you wanted. Then isn't thst new of a concept. But regardless of trading items, or purchasing or chance. Yes, it's gambling, or lottery. Something I haven't argued against. What I am being critical of is the government defining this as a public health issue. But it appears you are hung on on the concept that I am not saying this is gambling? "Can you provide an example of how loot boxes extended the life of a game? I see how dlc would. But any implementation of loot boxes is simply putting an artificial barrier between you and what you want for money purposes. It doesn't keep people playing longer. But it might make them pay more." Dlcs are part of the extension. But, let us start with this, a game is created, and it has a totally of 40 hours of gameplay. Then you have your various style of gamers. The hardcore straight forward gamer: they focus on the story progression and just beating the game. Takes them literally 3 days to beat it. They fulfilled their goal. But ignoring most of the achievements that could be gain. Accessibility to loot boxes to unlocking more achievements, getting an item or items to enhance the gameplay experience,or collectables. What this may do is give another experience for the player to play the game again to get those. Thus the extension of the game life is granted. The replay value is there and may discover or enhance the gamplay for them. Then let's say he rather just fast track it, and not replay the game to get those and he rather just buy the items and then play he the game. Well there is the extension granted again. Two things, the game extension was granted, as the company made more money off it because the choice that person made because he wanted it all now. Now, it's a hardcore linear type player, who focuses on not only the storyline progression, but the items, achievements, collectibles, that is available in the game. He methodically takes his time, explores all aspect of the game. Loot box avaiabilty is there because of the in game currency to use to keep opens he boxes. Sometimes he is luck sometimes he isn't. But he keeps playing because that is what he wants to do. Seldomly to they opt for outright purchases for the loot box to gain something or acheive. The game life is extended and supported. Until, new patch or dlc, which is another extension, and it comes with new lootboxes and/or achievement system. Now pur casual gamer, he doesn't commit the time as much as others, but sees cool things he wants to enhance the game. So he opts to buy lootboxes nd he gets some items, but it may not be what he wanted or does, but wants more, and he opts for another purchase. Thst is their prerogative and nothing wrong with it. But, he plays it moderately makes achievements and continues to play. He enjoys that style and purchases more lootboxes. The game itself is extended. As there are things to obtain. The point is the variants of gamers styles is considered and if its a way to extend the game such features are implemented as well as making a profit. So, in essence what is wrong with that? There is a rolling stone article that explains it nicely how the extension of game life. Called "How Loot Boxes Led to Never-Ending Games." Check it out. "Loot boxes were designed to extract more money from a customer than simply offering up for sale the item they want directly. Tell me: given the chance, would you spend $5 on 5 loot boxes to get the skin you want in overwatch, with no guarantee that you get it in 5 boxes, or would you just spend the $5 on that skin? Most people would prefer to just buy the skin outright, especially if they don't want any of the other crap inside. But if you need to buy $50 worth of loot boxes to get your skin compared to $5 (or hell, $15), loot boxes all the way. Exploit that customer!" Yes, companies make money off of that model. Not seeing the issue other than the responsibility of the customer. I mentioned that I have partake in that model, but I was selective about it. It seems that you are discounting that customer cannot be accountable or responsible and that the company is forcing them. If that was the case, then I would be as equally critical. But very few companies operate that way and the few that do, do not last, or the gaming community collectively pans them. And rightfully so. "I Don't think you understood my meaning there. I see a difference in "we need to keep the lights on" profit and "we can squeeze more blood from them" profit. Loot boxes haven't been about keeping the lights on, especially in full priced games. They've been about squeezing blood. Most full priced games, like the one in question (stbf2), earn plenty of money just on initial sales. They keep the lights on perfectly well without implementing extra monetization schemes. Thus, adding monetization of any kind isn't about pushing the game from losing money to being financially successful - it's about squeezing blood." Yes, but you keep harping in the large companies to which I said in my "ad" that I do not partake primarily only because of the 'machine.' The point was that even with larger or small companies, the allocation of funds come into play. A new game that comes out is not going to be the primary focus as they, the team, may be reassign for another project, and that those left behind will have to selectively focus on the duration of that game, and to help the duration, such features such as lootboxes are there. Does a few things: game life extension, still makes money for thst gsme even after initial sales that portions of it will still be allocated to help the extension of it, being new development, patches and sex. "While this is slightly different in free games, wherein they do need monetization to keep the lights on because they don't ask for upfront money, I will direct you again to the loot box implementation of this as being overly aggressive. Games do just fine only asking for direct purchases of monetization items. " So forgive me for being a bit cynical, not all gaming companies are on the same playing field, and there are companies outwardly directed to make a gsme that I poorly made take what profit they get from it and run. But then you have dedicated companies that want to make an excellent game and have support for it. It appears your critique is more corrective to large gaming companies and you view they are the predators because of their establishment within the industry and feel they should not implement such practices.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 10:48:04 "Ah, I see, you're just working from a fallacy. No, a progression system where your character changes and improves over time does not equate to loot boxes being a life extender. The progression system is what extends the life of the game (see: every rpg ever made). The loot boxes tacked on to it are a parasitic monetization scheme. And such schemes encourage design of poorly implmented progression schemes to convince people to spend more money instead of do their stupid bullshit." Um that was my point in regards to extension of life in the game. You pointed that out in your critique. This is "gameplay experience." And there are those who would elect to utilize this implementation and some who would not. But again it does not dismiss the ulterior design and attaching and model for profits. "I'm not. The design of loot boxes is based on pretty well established cognitive theory. We call them Skinner boxes, and they've been very well designed to lure you in. And no, this gambling technique is not new in games. In fact, the first time I saw them, my initial reaction was "oh hell no, I'm not gambling with that box for a chance at something awful." Instead, I waited until the items I want, opened by other people, appeared in the game market and purchased them from there. No, loot boxes aren't new. They just finally reached the tipping point where even most defenders couldn't find it within themselves to excuse the abusive nature of the system. Infecting the second most profitable IP on the planet didn't help." I don't disgree. "That didn't answer my question. Would EA prefer that you keep playing Madden 2015, or would they like you to stop playing Madden 2015 and instead buy Madden 2017 and play that? Would Ubisoft prefer that you keep playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, or for you to buy Assassin's Creed: Origins? After answering that, do you think that these monetization techniques (in the frame of these specific games) are about extending the life of the game?" Oh you were serious about that question. Apologies. It really depends on the goal and model of the game and is it a franchise. Of course they want you to get the new game its running off thesuccess of the name ad franchises. But, there are elective options. For instance, take the console. Ps3 came out, but of course Sony, wants you to buy the new console, but they understood thst ps2 was still popular, but had a limited lifespan, but they elected to still make games for it knowing its endlife. And the extension of the game life is there with the implementation of lootboxes. No matter how you look at it. But games do end. Do you not think that for a person that does not always have the means to get everything new when it comes out? And do you not think that companies consider this occurs and finds ways to one, now make more money from the game as wel extending its gameplay or life because of a new feature or implementation of lootboxes. As I said, the game will ultimately end or discontinue, over time.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 11:05:22 "patches and sex." Auto typing is stupid on phone. "Patches and dlc"
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 11:26:18 "But it also doesn't negate the fact that loot boxes did in fact provide certain level of achievements. In my "ad", I mentioned about achievements and then I went on to infer that look boxes was another form." 1. Simply saying something doesn't make it true. 2. You stating something doesn't make it a persuasive argument. Your attempt to call loot boxes a form of achievements has no evidence supporting the statement and is not remotely persuasive. So I am entirely justified in saying it is false. If it isn't false, either provide actual evidence or a persuasive argument. Are you sure you actually do anything useful for this gaming magazine? "And there has been alot of randomized rewards in various games does that mean you get what you wanted. Then isn't thst new of a concept." Are you comparing randomized loot drops like in Diablo or Borderlands to loot box prizes? That is a serious question. If you are, no need to respond, just kill yourself in shame. If you aren't, elaborate. "Yes, it's gambling, or lottery. Something I haven't argued against." You specifically put gambling in quotes multiple times in your first post. Either you have no idea how to communicate or you were implying illegitimacy with the quotes. The latter would absolutely be you arguing against it. If it's the former, my mistake. Try to be more clear next time. "Accessibility to loot boxes to unlocking more achievements" What fucking loot box system comes with achievements attached? I have literally never seen an "opened your 10th crate!" achievement for any game. "getting an item or items to enhance the gameplay experience,or collectables. What this may do is give another experience for the player to play the game again to get those." Examples. What example do you have of loot boxes, specifically, driving players to play more game content after having beaten the game? And then, how are the loot boxes driving this continued play, and not just parasitic add-ons to the actual system that promotes continued play (like the progression system in swbf2)? "The replay value is there and may discover or enhance the gamplay for them. Then let's say he rather just fast track it, and not replay the game to get those and he rather just buy the items and then play he the game. Well there is the extension granted again." What the actual shit? Loot boxes extend gameplay because people might want to skip over content during a replay? I'm going to need a lot more hands to properly facepalm at this absurd logic. Also, any system of loot boxes or micro transactions that are character based and not player based is beyond exploitative. "Now pur casual gamer, he doesn't commit the time as much as others, but sees cool things he wants to enhance the game. So he opts to buy lootboxes nd he gets some items," This, by definition, reduces game play time, as this player has decided they would rather play less time and simply have the better gear without the time dedication. "There is a rolling stone article" Just wow. Can I borrow Picard to help me with the facepalms here? "I mentioned that I have partake in that model, but I was selective about it. It seems that you are discounting that customer cannot be accountable or responsible and that the company is forcing them" I will freely admit that I am against non-dlc (and some dlc too) monetization in games that already carry a sticker price. If I am buying the game, I expect to have the whole game, not for you to intentionally cripple it in some way to promote extra transactions. However, I recognize that some people do appreciate this. Assassin's Creed: Origins is a perfect example. I won't be buying that game due to its cash shop, but I'm not railing against it as parasitic to the game industry. My objections are specifically against loot boxes, where in you do not have any control over what you are actually purchasing. If a game is going to have extended monetization, it should absolutely be a store where you buy precisely what you want (see: path of exile). Your fixation on non-random monetization is telling. "Yes, but you keep harping in the large companies to which I said in my "ad" that I do not partake primarily only because of the 'machine.' The point was that even with larger or small companies, the allocation of funds come into play." I am focusing on big companies because this thread was about star wars battlefront 2, made by EA. But I assure you, I oppose loot boxes in any game. "But then you have dedicated companies that want to make an excellent game and have support for it." See: path of exile. I spent money on some microtransactions for this game. It is a great game and worthy of some support. It asks for nothing upfront and keeps its pay shop out of your way for the most part. Most of all, you can purchase everything you want directly instead of having to gamble to get it. This is fine with me. I have no objections to such design.
Pillz Member	Wed Nov 22 11:46:46 Video games died 10 years ago when faggots started to accept the appearance of micro transactions. Gamer UPer is cancer whose helped destroy th and industry.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 12:00:06 Imagine being such a cuck that you not only eat the horseshit peddled by industry execs who are jetsetting on microtransactions while you don't see a dime, you actually help peddle it. Fuck outta here.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 12:01:30 "We need to improve the lifespan of our games by charging people periodically" Excuse me, I'm gonna go pop in some twenty-year old games in the SNES and have a blast.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 12:17:39 Loot boxes don't require a redefinition of the term of gambling. They just require existing definitions to be applied. The whole "You always win" argument is a complete fallacy. If we accept the industries arguments, then all a real slot machine has to do to avoid regulation is charge 50 cents a pull, and guarantee you will "win" 25 cents at the bottom end. Its a completely weasel argument. This why many states and countries don't have a requirement for losing in their gambling definition. Their requirement is money, or a stand in purchasable for money (like Battlefronts crystals or fucking Casino Chips) being used in a random game of chance for random prizes. As for why is this a problem NOW rather then not a problem years ago, its always been a problem, but most of us did not care if a few whales wanted to blow their money for the chance to win some useless pixels to swag in a multiplayer shooter. However, the creep of these systems away from the periphery and into the core mechanics of the game now means not participating in the scheme has a direct and immediate impact on gameplay and enjoyment. To then argue "well, just don't buy the game then" is stupid as every game is jumping on the bandwagon. These systems are Increadibly profitable. Take 2 for example removing loot box micro transactions had a corporate profit of around 350 million dollars. With Microtransaction's they made around 1 billion dollars. The in app sales exceeded the profits from the actual sale of the game. Which means they don't need people to buy or not buy the game anymore. They just need the whales and children with mommies credit card and they will make more money even with many people not purchasing their game. And to then say, well that's the free market for you is beyond shit. Because for a market to be free, all participants in it need to have equal footing in the transaction. But when EA is using psychological manipulation targeted at the mentally vulnerable, which is exactly how Casino's operate by the by, then we got a serious problem. I'll even go so far as to pearl clutch and say "think of the children"! Because the last thing our economy needs is a generation of consumers raised on star wars themed casino's getting set loose on the economy. Children need to be taught the value of money, not taught to piss it all away into a big corporations bank account for no tangible result.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 12:18:57 "1. Simply saying something doesn't make it true. 2. You stating something doesn't make it a persuasive argument. Your attempt to call loot boxes a form of achievements has no evidence supporting the statement and is not remotely persuasive. So I am entirely justified in saying it is false. If it isn't false, either provide actual evidence or a persuasive argument. " Kinda like how you opened your argument by stating something which isn't true and inferring it's absolute? I am not here to persuade one way or the other than state what are facts an the implentstion. And I have provided examples and demonstrations of its utilization. Though your bias really clouds what is being said, so you discount it. Which is all wel and good, but spare me the contemplation. "Are you comparing randomized loot drops like in Diablo or Borderlands to loot box prizes? That is a serious question. If you are, no need to respond, just kill yourself in shame. If you aren't, elaborate." It would be fair to compare it to such a system. And why not? Both are lottery systems. The difference one has the option to purchase. Again, your disdain for loot boxes, which is fine. But once again quit being obtuse about how it does increase the span of the game for the player and the game itself. Do you know think their research departments pay attention to the characteristic of the people who play games and present ways to continue profits and the game? "What fucking loot box system comes with achievements attached? I have literally never seen an "opened your 10th crate!" achievement for any game." Define achievements? Now I cannot tell of you are being purposely obtuse. But guild wars 2 would be an example. "You specifically put gambling in quotes multiple times in your first post. Either you have no idea how to communicate or you were implying illegitimacy with the quotes. The latter would absolutely be you arguing against it. If it's the former, my mistake. Try to be more clear next time." Contextually the inferrence that it is a public health concern because of peoples' addiction. "What the actual shit? Loot boxes extend gameplay because people might want to skip over content during a replay? I'm going to need a lot more hands to properly facepalm at this absurd logic. Also, any system of loot boxes or micro transactions that are character based and not player based is beyond exploitative. " I didn't say that. I pointed out different variants of a gamer. And what companies are doing in regards to research and how they can make games last and still make money. Despite your personal feelings that this is exploitive. Once again it does not dismiss the design and its intention. "This, by definition, reduces game play time, as this player has decided they would rather play less time and simply have the better gear without the time dedication." Casual player by definition reduces gameplay if you want to play that oversimplification card. Reality is that casual gamers will be loyal to a product especially if there is an incentive for them to jump back into the action. A solution, loot boxes. This presents them to still be relevant to the game and that it doesn't make them feel that they are so far behind. "Just wow. Can I borrow Picard to help me with the facepalms here?" Stop being a dick for once and see that I provided you a source to have a better understanding. Or just continuously bitch about loot boxes and exploitation. Because frankly I am not care as much for to your vitriol regarding this conversation, debate, argument, or what have you. "I will freely admit that I am against non-dlc (and some dlc too) monetization in games that already carry a sticker price. If I am buying the game, I expect to have the whole game, not for you to intentionally cripple it in some way to promote extra transactions. However, I recognize that some people do appreciate this. Assassin's Creed: Origins is a perfect example. I won't be buying that game due to its cash shop, but I'm not railing against it as parasitic to the game industry. My objections are specifically against loot boxes, where in you do not have any control over what you are actually purchasing. If a game is going to have extended monetization, it should absolutely be a store where you buy precisely what you want (see: path of exile)." Or you can opt not to buy the loot boxes. But that isn't the intent of government intervention is it? What is their main argument? Now attach your bias to it so you can piggy back from it because hate it that much. Anyways, But any loot box that gives you and edge in the multiplayer arena I have more of an issue. Just because it exists does not mean I am forced to purchase to enjoy the game. "am focusing on big companies because this thread was about star wars battlefront 2, made by EA. But I assure you, I oppose loot boxes in any game." No, the thread was about loot boxes and the more popular games being cited. This does not mean they are the only exclusive but a way that any game that has such and system may be banned. And your bias is telling. Because of this, you fervently piggy back from it. I'm not holding it against you but it is what is. "See: path of exile. I spent money on some microtransactions for this game. It is a great game and worthy of some support. It asks for nothing upfront and keeps its pay shop out of your way for the most part. Most of all, you can purchase everything you want directly instead of having to gamble to get it. This is fine with me. I have no objections to such design." Yes, a free downloadable game supported by microtransactions and lootboxes including a "mysterybox". Thanks, play it and bought the t-shirt.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 12:24:54 "It would be fair to compare it to such a system. And why not? Both are lottery systems." Diablo 3 does not require you to pay $1.99 every time you kill an enemy to spin that enemies RNG. That is the difference. "Or you can opt not to buy the loot boxes." Read my statement above. This is no longer an option anymore.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 12:25:54 "Gamer UPer is cancer whose helped destroy th and industry" Industry is just fine, physical plant retails are on the decline. And your contempt for me merely pointing out its utilization is hilarious with the sensationalistic "destroyed the industry." Seriously get a grip. "Imagine being such a cuck that you not only eat the horseshit peddled by industry execs who are jetsetting on microtransactions while you don't see a dime, you actually help peddle it. Fuck outta here." So you don't think companies should support themselves by other profitable measures?
kargen Member	Wed Nov 22 12:26:53 Elder Scrolls online has crowns and crown crates. Crown you purchase with real money and they let you buy a variety of things to use in game. None of them give you an advantage over other players but some can help you complete a task sooner than without spending real money. For example you can level your horses speed over a sixty day period costing 250 gold (game currency) a day. Or you can spend real money on crowns then use the crowns to level your horses speed all in one day. The crowns is not gambling because you know exactly what you are going to get. You can also get a lot of cosmetic features with crown such as armor styles or costumes. Again doesn't affect game play but some people like them and are willing to pay real money for them. Crown crates are crates you purchase with crowns and they contain three or in rare cases four random items. Usually one of the items is a new mount you can ride. One was a very large wolf you could ride that a lot of people really wanted. The wolf mount though is considered a rare drop so you have less than a 2% chance of getting it. A few people in the forums admitted to spending several hundred dollars trying to get that mount and failing. That is gambling. The way ESO tries to get around it is you can turn in unwanted or duplicate crown crate items for gems. If you get enough gems you can then purchase the item you want. THe wolf mount in question though you would need to spend over $800 to get enough gems if you were able to turn all items in for gems. The wolf mount doesn't do anything in the game other than look like a wolf instead of a horse when you are riding it. Also wolf is not available outside using crown crates. ESO has argued that because every crown crate has at least three items inside and eventually you will get what you want this is not gambling. Belgium and other countries disagree. Four times a year they have an event where everybody in the game that completes some simple task gets three free crown crates. There are some people in the forums that are afraid to open their free crown crates because they do have a gambling problem and opening the free crates may cause them to purchase more. I'm with Belgium and others that this is gambling. I don't agree that it should be banned though. ESO is a game for adults and adults need to be held accountable for their own actions.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 12:30:25 "Diablo 3 does not require you to pay $1.99 every time you kill an enemy to spin that enemies RNG. That is the difference." And there thousands of games that don't require that. Nor does the games cited on the article does not require you to either in order to progress. "Read my statement above. This is no longer an option anymore." What do you mean, are you saying you are forced to purchase loot boxes because content is gated?
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 12:33:12 "So you don't think companies should support themselves by other profitable measures?" I don't think companies should compromise the values of the industry for a quick buck. Are you suggesting the gaming industry is not profitable without microtransactions?
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 12:36:10 "Are you suggesting the gaming industry is not profitable without microtransactions?" Depends on the model you run. Look at Path of exile for example. To keep content generated and servers up for being a free game without a subscription free, how do you expect them to operate with microtransactions and similar companies that run on that model?
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 12:37:13 And Kargen is correct. Responsibility is on the user.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 13:02:09 Casino's also have personal customer responsibility. That does not mean however that Anyone can walk into a Casino, or that I can open up a Casino in my garage. For one thing, money from Casino's is taxed at a much higher rate. This is done to pay for the societal and economic costs inherent to the business model that boils down essentially to people just handing their money over to the Casino. Casino's also don't allow any under the age of 21 to play. In the video game realm, this means games with Gambling mechanics must be rated AO (the level above M) and only be sold from licensed vendors. They must also conform to the many State Laws around gambling.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 13:03:15 "And I have provided examples and demonstrations of its utilization." No, you've made shit up. You've theorized. You have not given examples or demonstrations. An example would be the many times I referenced battlefront 2 or path of exile. "It would be fair to compare it to such a system. And why not? Both are lottery systems. The difference one has the option to purchase. Again, your disdain for loot boxes, which is fine. But once again quit being obtuse about how it does increase the span of the game for the player and the game itself." It is not a fair comparison. Consider 2 games: Halo 1, Diablo 2 (because I didn't play Diablo 1) In Halo, the entire world is hand crafted. Every tree, every box, every detail of the ships you're in, every placement of a grenade for you to find or a weapon to pick up, every spawn point of an enemy, is fixed. The entire method of implementation of that game is that you have a defined set if terms that you must navigate. In Diablo 2, the only fixed points are the town's and specific points of interest. Where those points of interest are located is completely random, where you find your enemies is completely random, even your starting items and character vary. Randomness is the method of implementation in Diablo 2: the entire point of the game is randomness. That is its attraction. Loot boxes are not a method of implementation of a game. They are a method of implementation of monetization. They are never critical to the execution of the code of the game you are playing. They are completely separate from actual gameplay. As such, the method of acquiring items through natural gameplay is not comparable to something that is not gameplay. But, being that you even made this argument in the first place, you will be far too stupid to actually understand this fairly simple concept. "Contextually the inferrence that it is a public health concern because of peoples' addiction." You did this well before ever addressing a public health concern. In fact, the first time you mentioned the word public was about 2/3 the way down in your first post. Idk why you're trying to retcon on a board where you can't edit previous posts. "Define achievements? Now I cannot tell of you are being purposely obtuse. But guild wars 2 would be an example." Those little things that pop up and sit on your gamer profile? In googling guild wars 2, it seems they use the word very differently than what other games have standardized. If you're working off of the guild wars 2 example, I'm not sure how many hands I need for this facepalm. "Casual player by definition reduces gameplay if you want to play that oversimplification card." What? You cited the option of skipping game content as extending gameplay. That is a contradiction of terms. There's no oversimplification involved here. "Stop being a dick for once and see that I provided you a source to have a better understanding." By citing rolling stone. That's about as helpful as the economist who made wild fucking assumptions to justify the cost of gaming compared to other media (a complete fallacy anyway). Feel free to link if you want me to read the pointless musings of some dumbass from rolling stone. I'll even cede a good point if they manage to make them. As for not being a dick, well that isn't going to happen. Not when you've been trampling over logic and attempting to retcon your argument this entire time. "Or you can opt not to buy the loot boxes. But that isn't the intent of government intervention is it?" As I've said, I don't. But my personal choices aren't the issue here. As you have mentioned, government intervention is. Because loot boxes are gambling and until now, they were completely unrestricted gambling, specifically marketed to the most susceptible minds. "Yes, a free downloadable game supported by microtransactions and lootboxes including a "mysterybox"." And the mystery box should be killed with fire. That doesn't take away from the shop they have that is done correctly. "And your bias is telling." Facts are not bias. You've already agreed that a loot box is gambling. I think the larger point here is that you have no business being in the "gaming magazine" business, especially not as a writer. There's no amount of speaking in your native tongue that would correct your laughably awful logic. You are just fundamentally stupid.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 13:08:08 "Depends on the model you run. Look at Path of exile for example. To keep content generated and servers up for being a free game without a subscription free, how do you expect them to operate with microtransactions and similar companies that run on that model?" Holy fuck. Clearly if forwyn suggests a gaming industry sans micro transactions, path of exile would have to adapt to a different monetization model, likely similar to Diablo 2. Buy base game, buy expansions. And by the way, the data is already in. Micro transactions are not necessary for the game industry to be profitable. This isn't opinion, it is fact. It's even been cited here twice, once with EA and once with Take Two.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 13:51:28 "Depends on the model you run. Look at Path of exile for example. To keep content generated and servers up for being a free game without a subscription free, how do you expect them to operate with microtransactions and similar companies that run on that model?" Cop-out. Very few take issue with F2P money-making models. The issue is with AAA games adopting F2P monetization strategies.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 13:53:04 And yes, subscriptions are superior to microtransactions. Even Runescape got this right.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 14:19:28 F2P Gambling mechanics destroyed the mobile game industry. For one brief moment years ago, when people were porting over KOtOR to the Android platform, there was a possibility for our phones to become the hand held gaming consoles of this generation. Instead we got Clash of Clans, Clash of Kings, Clash of Lords, Clash of Clashing, etc. All variations of the same time gated, microtransaction bullshit invented by Canadian Satan. Mobile gaming as an industry was completely ruined. And yet it still makes a metric shit ton of money because gambling is the best way for a company to make money. They don't need a wide consumer market. Just a small pool of idiots. Bringing that shit into maintream console and PC Games is noxious, and the gaming consumers were prepared to start drawing lines. Such as "Keep it cosmetic only" and so on. But the industry blew right past those lines because they have seen the promised land of the mobile gaming market, and they know what will turn an easy buck. That is why large portions of "gamers" are now pushing for government intervention. They have no market share to stop this. Gambling is intensely profitable.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:42:21 "No, you've made shit up. You've theorized. You have not given examples or demonstrations. An example would be the many times I referenced battlefront 2 or path of exile." What "shit" have I made up? Please point this out, point out anything that I said is not supported in references of how the industry is ran, and what strategies companies have taken to increase longevity of games including profits? You have the internet at your fingertips, feel free to do all the research you want. I am in the industry, I do know what is taken into account when a new model is introduced or an existing model modified. "It is not a fair comparison. Consider 2 games: Halo 1, Diablo 2 (because I didn't play Diablo 1) " "In Halo, the entire world is hand crafted. Every tree, every box, every detail of the ships you're in, every placement of a grenade for you to find or a weapon to pick up, every spawn point of an enemy, is fixed. The entire method of implementation of that game is that you have a defined set if terms that you must navigate. " Yes, because it was /designed/ as a standalone game only to feature multiplayer in terms of 'red vs. blue' and not in a measure that was server based in order to continue any type of progression. The game would have a lifespan of until a sequel would come out. Limitations was that it didn't have Xbox live so the replay value, while high was limited in regards to any progression. There was no leveling, there wasn't anything particular in regards to making it to another level, and there wasn't any concept enhancing it during it's time until a remake was later developed. And this game is fundamentally different in regards what it can be compared to now. "In Diablo 2, the only fixed points are the town's and specific points of interest. Where those points of interest are located is completely random, where you find your enemies is completely random, even your starting items and character vary. Randomness is the method of implementation in Diablo 2: the entire point of the game is randomness. That is its attraction." Yes, it's an RPG dungeon crawler for a player to keep playing the game to find more loot, the attraction is to continue to do that. Though with the limitations of the technology and game, the modifications of the character was limited and was not as complex. Such a system for it's time would be limited and the model for 'loot boxes' was not entertained during that time. Which leads to this point you've made; "Loot boxes are not a method of implementation of a game. They are a method of implementation of monetization. They are never critical to the execution of the code of the game you are playing. They are completely separate from actual gameplay. " This is a false because it is used for both. The intent, as I've mentioned was they look as it from a two-prong perspective. How can we make more money and how can we increase the longevity of a game that will would not put 100 percent focus on as we allocate other funding to other projects. It is /your/ conjecture that somehow I am stating that it is imperative as part of coding. Not once during this entire time of speaking with you in regards to this topic have I argued the opposite. Only merely pointing out the introduction of it and the method it's applied and why it is used as a model. "As such, the method of acquiring items through natural gameplay is not comparable to something that is not gameplay. But, being that you even made this argument in the first place, you will be far too stupid to actually understand this fairly simple concept. " Apparently you are too stupid, hung on your bias, to even understand the principles behind such an implementation because you only look at it as "exploitative and monetary". Which you may have that opinion, but it doesn't negate that fact that this exists; Players have the option to ignore purchasing loot boxes and gain them through gameplay. or Players have the option to purchase the loot boxes or participate in microtransactions to enjoy their gameplay. Apparently this is something that is too difficult for you to understand. I am going to blame on your complete clouded objectivity because "I hate loot boxes." "You did this well before ever addressing a public health concern. In fact, the first time you mentioned the word public was about 2/3 the way down in your first post. Idk why you're trying to retcon on a board where you can't edit previous posts. " There is not recon, you got confused over 'gambling' because my point was to that in regards to the OP. The argument by the government that his is a public health issue regarding people and their addictions. One would have presumed that deductive reasoning would have played a role to decipher that. However, one was mistaken when they asked "could you clarify". Clarification is given, and the answer is unsatisfactory for them. That is your problem not mine. "What? You cited the option of skipping game content as extending gameplay. That is a contradiction of terms. There's no oversimplification involved here. " Again, I was describing an aspect of style of gamer. Yes, you oversimplified it and I had to clarify for you what that point was. "Those little things that pop up and sit on your gamer profile? In googling guild wars 2, it seems they use the word very differently than what other games have standardized. If you're working off of the guild wars 2 example, I'm not sure how many hands I need for this facepalm. " They do not use the words so differently than what is standardize. What the hell is this a popularity in terms used? Seriously, your objectivity regarding this subject is all lost. Lost at the very beginning when I pointed out why loot boxes models and microtransaction exist or were implemented. And the only thing you saw "EXPLOITATION!!!!!!!! MONEY!!!!! ADDICTION!!!" You asked for an example, that was one given, so you're not satisfied with it. Again, not my problem, I stated what was off the top of my head at the moment. But that isn't he only game, as there are many others that have achievement based settings that you /may/ obtain. It isn't like what you pointed out in your oversimplified example that you get X amount of lootboxes you get achievements, in which some games do have that. But, other achievements that involve the content of the loot boxes. Again, the option, play the game to get them, or play the game to purchase them. But once again, this is too difficult for you. In fact your are getting emotionally invested considering the passionate responses you've given. Maybe you should take a break. "As I've said, I don't. But my personal choices aren't the issue here. As you have mentioned, government intervention is. Because loot boxes are gambling and until now, they were completely unrestricted gambling, specifically marketed to the most susceptible minds. " So, you made a personal responsible choice to not buy loot boxes because of principles. So you accept that is an option for other players to do the same, right? Unless you are of a special breed and not 'susceptible' as other level of gamers? League of your own, maybe? "And the mystery box should be killed with fire. That doesn't take away from the shop they have that is done correctly. " No, but you killed your own argument by introducing that game as an example. POE's shop is no different that GW2, ESO, or now the new shop that WoW has. So, I am failing to see how you introduced that game as an example, when it does the same thing as other companies with their implementation of 'shops' in the game that has loot box options? Seriously, good job. "Facts are not bias. You've already agreed that a loot box is gambling. " What facts did you present? That the model is for monetary purposes. I did not disagree, in fact I said that. But I pointed out the other aspect of why it was or is being utilized in games. Apparently something you can't get over as a concept. "By citing rolling stone. That's about as helpful as the economist who made wild fucking assumptions to justify the cost of gaming compared to other media (a complete fallacy anyway). Feel free to link if you want me to read the pointless musings of some dumbass from rolling stone. I'll even cede a good point if they manage to make them. " I cited it because it was a good article, and I gave you the title to it. You're a big boy, I think you are capable of using the 'internets' to find it as it is 'on the line'. "I think the larger point here is that you have no business being in the "gaming magazine" business, especially not as a writer. There's no amount of speaking in your native tongue that would correct your laughably awful logic. You are just fundamentally stupid" This is coming from you who is incessantly crying over a model that people have a choice to either participate or not participate in and is happy that the government is taking a position on it because of a public health concern over addiction as you piggy back off that momentum because you have a personal grievance with a 'loot box' and 'micro-transaction' models that have been in effect and effective for years. I think it is safe to say that you have no fucking idea how the industry works because your limited understanding about the most fundamental of things, especially in regards to game development.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 14:43:02 It's not even turning to government. Gamers were boycotting on their own. Government stepped in on its own.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:48:35 "Holy fuck. Clearly if forwyn suggests a gaming industry sans micro transactions, path of exile would have to adapt to a different monetization model, likely similar to Diablo 2. Buy base game, buy expansions. " Yes, but you forget one key element. Diablo 2 was ran by Blizzard, now Blizzard-Activision. By no means would that company be in dire straits or jeopardy with the money it makes versus POE which was by an independent company that relied upon crowd funding and micro-transactions to get the game to its current operations. Please, know your shit before you spew it. "And by the way, the data is already in. Micro transactions are not necessary for the game industry to be profitable. This isn't opinion, it is fact. It's even been cited here twice, once with EA and once with Take Two." I never indicated the industry would be in jeopardy. I indicated that smaller companies, independent companies would need to rely on such a model if they were to operate without micro-transactions. I've said this a plethora of times in the duration of this conversation. But, I will forgive you because you are too busy hung on "EXPLOITATION!! MONEY!! ADDICTION!! GOVERNMENT HELP ME!!"
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:49:21 "It's not even turning to government. Gamers were boycotting on their own. Government stepped in on its own." Yes, if you look back, I said the same thing that it would be up to the gamers to push back. Never said differently. What now?
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 14:53:54 "I am in the industry" It's pretty apparent that you're a piece of shit, employed by pieces of shit, putting out shit products. No need to confirm. And it's not like anyone here was fooled. The reason I called your first post an advertisement, which apparently stung pretty deep based on how many times you referenced it, is because your mouth is just moving in rhythm to the exec who has his hand shoved up your ass. (Yes, I'm suggesting a puppet metaphor) Go home, you're dumb. Parrot your bullshit elsewhere.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:56:33 "And yes, subscriptions are superior to microtransactions. Even Runescape got this right." In what regards? Stability or profits? Stability, more probable. Profits, not much now, that changed in 2015 when micro-transactions showed more profitability.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:59:09 "It's pretty apparent that you're a piece of shit, employed by pieces of shit, putting out shit products. No need to confirm. " It is apparent that you hate loot boxes, thank you broken record, thank you. "And it's not like anyone here was fooled. The reason I called your first post an advertisement, which apparently stung pretty deep based on how many times you referenced it, is because your mouth is just moving in rhythm to the exec who has his hand shoved up your ass. (Yes, I'm suggesting a puppet metaphor) " No, because you hate the fact that I pointed out why it existed and you still ignored the fact that I wasn't favorable to it. Something you ignored. Then you started to put words in my mouth. But it's okay, its a comment tactic by those who want to cry about not getting their way while not wanting to shed their own hypocrisies. "Go home, you're dumb. Parrot your bullshit elsewhere." 'U mad bro?'
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 14:59:50 *a common tactic.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 15:00:34 What is your native language? Because you clearly don't understand English very well.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 15:03:19 Perhaps you should apply that same question to yourself?
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 15:04:38 When all else fails, make up shit, flame, and be dismissive. Is that right, Broken Record?
Pillz Member	Wed Nov 22 15:06:20 You're cancer.
Gamer UPer Member	Wed Nov 22 15:06:51 Thanks Mr. "You're killing the industry."
Limousine Liberal Member	Wed Nov 22 15:12:53 I see nothing but anti-capitalists in here.
Renzo Marquez Member	Wed Nov 22 16:55:25 Gamer UPer Member Wed Nov 22 15:04:38 "When all else fails, make up shit, flame, and be dismissive. Is that right, Broken Record?" (((Corporate Shill)))
Senor Marquez Member	Wed Nov 22 17:07:40 I'm still a trendy bitch! #whatinternettrendwillifollownextweek?
Milton Bradley Games Member	Wed Nov 22 17:16:37 Looooooot boxes are the devil!
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 18:27:03 no they are the spawn of the devil. Invented by canadian satan to drain america of wealth.
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 22 20:44:38 Can someone ELI5 why someone who casually plays cod should care about this? I know the new star wars game is getting attacked for offering otherwise earned content for money. You can earn it from ingame grinding or just buy it, after buying the game. I understand the opposition to it, so why not just boycott buying the game? Thatd be more effective to incite change than online petitions, no?
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 20:58:43 "Thatd be more effective to incite change than online petitions, no?" What online petition? People did boycott the game. So many people canceled their preorders that the devs had to remove the refund button and force customers to call support to initiate a refund.
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 22 21:01:35 Then, why argue about it online? You are winning the battle.
hood Member	Wed Nov 22 21:06:15 It's something to do?
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 22 21:49:24 Not only the refund fiasco. In an unprecedented last-minute reversal, EA has drastically altered Star Wars Battlefront II's controversial loot box system by temporarily removing the ability to purchase “crystals.” The game was previously designed so that players could spend real money on crystals to buy randomized bundles of in-game items, the acquisition of which was tied to earning credits — another virtual currency that could be used to unlock characters. http://www...l-microtransactions-removed-ea Naturally, they'll pop it back in when the heat dies down.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 22 23:58:54 EA is in panic mode for a variety of reasons, but the biggest atm is the comparison of Star Wars to Joe Camel. Disney is notoriously protective of its IP's, and the comparison of Star Wars (As a way to convince to kids to Gamble) with Joe Camel (to convince kids to smoke) is seriously bad for the brand. Apparently what caused EA to suddenly retreat was not the bad Press, but Disney calling EA and reading them the riot act. EA is in major danger of losing their Star Wars exclusivity, and possibly in the mold of a Greek Tragedy, being targeted by Disney for a hostile take over if they don't kow tow to the throne of Mickey suitably. EA holds a ton of intellectual property (Like Dragon Age and Mass Effect) that Disney could exploit for movies and so on. I think over the weekend EA's board suddenly regretted its deal with the Empire of Mouse, and its ruthless acquisitions of IP's that would interest the media Imperium.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 23 00:59:40 EA would love a hostile takeover. The company is heavily management owned. Equals profit!
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 01:36:28 It might happen just out of spite. Video games have skirted government regulation for years. The formation of ESRB and PEGI being used by the industry to avoid government notice in the way other industries, lime say the automative or the telephone industries have government notice. EA has fucked this up royally though. The ESRB and PEGI have ruled in the ladt few months that these predatory economic practices are perfectly fine. But apparently they did not bother to read the gaming laws of small states and countries. Like say, Belgium, the Australian district of Victoria and the US State of Hawaii. And now the hammer is dropping in these areas as they implement their laws which contrary to the opinion of the ESRB do in fact make these monetezation practices illegal. This is the true essence of the gaming industries fuck up. They were so focused on all the positive energy sent their way by national regulators, they completely ignored the fact that in major markets like the EU and the USA gambling is a State issue and regulated by independent sovereigns. This is only going to get worse for EA and the rest now that the political dog pile has commenced. The industry had a chance to keep government out of video games when the issues were submitted to the ESRB and PEGI. They both ignored the danger their sins presented to the industry. And now the ghrlne of heaven has taken note. For better or worse this issue has brought the Government down on the gaming industry and there will be consequences for it. FFS in my own state, the EA loot box system falls under misdemeanor conspiracy. Not just the execs mind you but EVERYONE involved in the production of the game. Everyone involved in Battlefront 2, from the game designers, to the people selling it, are technically guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor under the letter of Virginia state law. A penalty that could escalate to felony status should they ignore bill of loser complaints or intervention by the state gaming comission. Gamer UPer needs to realize the industry has gone past all the sage guards and has placed its own developers in criminal jeapordy
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 01:41:01 Also fuck phone posting.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 23 01:48:55 Aeros Belgium would need to go to the EU to get union wide changes. So not regulated by independent sovereigns. "and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it." Marketing and selling the game in states may violate state law, but most games are marketed and sold digitally, so that would not generally apply.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 02:09:46 Yeah, that idea will go about as far as you can throw it Jergul. In Europe States like Belgium work through consensus as they know that individually they dont have the leverage. In the USA individual states have huge leverage. Especially when it comes to gaming. Gaming under US constitutional law, both explicit (Article X) and common law (US Court rulings) is a State power. The national governent has no legal authority over gaming and the States are empowered to make their own laws. Which is what makes the hawaii move massively dangerous for any Game developers who sell games in the USA. They no longer have to concern themselves with the gaming laws of the federal goverment. Tbey are non existent as gaming is not a federal issue. State laws on the other hand are verh explicit on what gaming is, and what constitutea illegal gaming. The video gaming industry has crashed head first into the hornets nest and their only escape is to argue a constitutional crisis. Which will jot work. US States are increadibly jealous of what national powers they hold and they will not relinquish state control over gaming to appease thw avariciois fuck tards at EA.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 02:15:03 In fact the only role the federal governmemt has its 14th amendment power. All laws being equal. If Virginia issues arrest warrants for the EA devs in California to prosecute the clear violations of Virginia Code, Section 14, the only role the Feds can play would be to compel California under the US constitution to surrender its residents to the Commonwealth of Virginia (or the State of Hawaii) for trial.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 23 02:20:28 Aeros I can obviously throw things quite far. Its a legislative item for the EU legislation to codify. I don't see it as a criminal issue, but rather one of regulation demanding compliance in the European Union and all its colonies (Norway, the UK, Iceland, Switzerland).
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 02:24:49 And that is the crux of the nightmare EA, Activision and the rest are waking up too. There were no national laws in the USA against what they were doing But there are state laws against it. State Laws that explicitly define illegal gaming in a way that includes these loot boxes. That Hawaii State Senator saying he was in touch with other State reps and Attorneys General was not making idle threats. Gamer Uper should get a lawyer. Fast. This is no longer a gaming issue. This is an issue of power between State Governments amd the Feds, and the States are going to assert their power.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 02:31:27 Jergul, in the US, gaming is a major source of revenue for the State governments. Many of the state gaming laws are designed to protect State control over gambling games. In US States this is a massively criminal issue. EA has managed to weasel its way into the gambling monopoly many US State Governments have enjoyed. This will not be tolerated. By failing to register with the State Governments, and failing to accedit their gaming income with them, the Video Game industry has inadvertantly attacked a core power of a sovereign American State. An assault that will not be ignored. It is criminal. US states have made gambling games outside their control illegal. And the video game industry has flagrantly ignored these laws. Ghere will be consequences
jergul large member	Thu Nov 23 02:41:53 Anything that works towards 12.5 by 2020 is fine by me, but I was speaking in regards to jurisdictions relevant to me.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 02:58:03 An ironic state of affairs that your norwegian ass is as informed as EA and Gamer UPer about the economic and legal realities of the United States. Gaming is an explicit State power in US law and by ignoring this fact the gaming industry has opened the pit of hell. Have I mentioned Gamer UPer should get a lawyer? If he is to be believed he is intimately involved in these shenanigans, which means depending on the State he is facing the potential of misdeamnor or felony criminal liability.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 23 03:28:03 I don't care about the legal realities in your crackpot oligarchy?
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 04:15:50 Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Aeros, not to burst your bubble -- but there is an update and Belgium has yet to label this as gambling as they are still investigating the matter. It's in your own link. "Update: According to Belgian news site RTBF (Google translated), Belgium's Gaming Commission has not actually finalized its decision on whether loot boxes are gambling. The site says the statement that appeared in the original report, stating that the "mixture of money and addiction is a game of chance," is descriptive of the investigation's intent rather than its conclusion. " Also, GamerUP does not have to worry about legislation getting passed or being labeled as gambling by a government, because you cannot retro-actively charge someone for the violation when it gets an established label or new legislation as they would give a grace period, typically 6 months.
hood Member	Thu Nov 23 09:01:42 States could certainly rule that games with these gambling functions have always been gambling and have always been in violation of current laws (without passing anything new) and hold them accountable. Laws passed would certainly cut off revenue and require swift action to make games compliant, but it's not unreasonable to plan for action without new laws.
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 09:24:22 "States could certainly rule that games with these gambling functions have always been gambling and have always been in violation of current laws (without passing anything new) and hold them accountable. " They would not hold them accountable because the issue is being brought up. Therefore, a grace period would be granted.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 10:35:06 John Adams Member Thu Nov 23 09:24:22 "They would not hold them accountable because the issue is being brought up. Therefore, a grace period would be granted." Not necessarily if these schemes are found to be illegal under existing law.
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 11:04:21 But they will not, because what will most likely happened is be given a fine and told to correct the issue with a given time frame.
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 11:08:26 Also to add --you are also negating the many different categories for gambling that some states have. I know, because how my state is ran and what I am involved with.
hood Member	Thu Nov 23 11:11:23 More important than retroactive fines would be blocking sales of any game with loot boxes to under-21 year olds.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 11:13:44 John Adams Member Thu Nov 23 11:04:21 "But they will not, because what will most likely happened is be given a fine..." A fine isn't holding them accountable?
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 11:14:30 Yes, and updated rating system would have to be enforced, this time not by the gaming industry.
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 11:17:23 "A fine isn't holding them accountable?" Not exactly what I meant, under the presumption of what I was responding to hood with my thought process. But, yes a fine, is accountable. I was speaking more on extreme circumstances.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Nov 23 11:18:26 John Adams Member Thu Nov 23 11:08:26 "Also to add --you are also negating the many different categories for gambling that some states have. I know, because how my state is ran and what I am involved with." This also seems like something that will depend on the specific state... particularly how influential the casino lobby is. In southern Ohio, there were a ton of entities called "sweepstakes cafes" (where people played minimal/no skill games for prizes) that were largely unregulated until a statewide ballot initiative legalized a small number of casinos. After that, the state threw the hammer down on these entities.
John Adams Member	Thu Nov 23 11:27:05 Definitely, because in my state, I know what they would attempt to classify it as even thought there is not specific statute to it i.e. online gambling. But, what is and is not legal is clearly defined. Casino Gambling: Not Legal Poker: Not Legal Horse Racing Betting: Legal Dog Racing Betting: Not Legal Lottery: Legal Daily Fantasy Sports: Legal Charitable Gaming: Legal with lots of restrictions Social Gambling: Not Legal Online Gambling: Not Specified
hood Member	Thu Nov 23 13:59:51 All it would take is a state like New York, Illinois, California, Texas (i.e. high populations, not political affiliation) to ban a game that has loot boxes for play by anyone under 21 and every single publisher would be pretty much obligated to not include the gambling aspect of micro transactions or miss out on a large fraction of potential revenue.
pillz Member	Thu Nov 23 15:07:23 Ahaha. Yeah. 4 of the most politically partisan states in the country, with records of going full retard at every chance, should definitely lead the charge now.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 22:03:19 Some state laws also include non-compliant gambling organizations under their criminal conspiracy laws. Like my own state. The way my states laws are written, there is an escalation of force against people involved in illicit gaming. At the bottom rung, there is the requirement that any monetary gains be returned. At the top rung, there is felony conspiracy that targets every person involved in the gaming organization.
Aeros Member	Thu Nov 23 22:06:02 California won't do shit btw, its scared of pissing off its tech sector. New York will likewise not want to rock the boat too much because its full of industry analysts that will explain to state officials why this is not gambling. The gaming industry instead needs to be scared of States that don't give a shit about it. Like Hawaii, Virginia, Arkansas and Florida.
Dukhat Member	Fri Nov 24 21:10:25 There's something wrong with a certain segment of the population that got really hurt by the great recession. http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/video-games-users-men/ "A research team including faculty from Princeton and the University of Chicago now argues that “innovations in gaming/recreational computing”— and not, say, lower demand for less-skilled workers—explain as much as 79% of the difference in working rates between younger and older men. "From the outside, the lives of the young men in question may seem grim. The researchers found that 67% of non-working young men now live with a parent or close relative, compared to 46% of the same group in 2000, suggesting that many are relying on family to support them long-term. They average 520 hours a year on their computers, and 60% of that is spent on gaming. "But the paper further cites survey data showing that these men reported increased happiness overall despite their reduced circumstances, suggesting that advances in gaming are making imaginary worlds more enjoyable than the real one. That sense of satisfaction with giving up on work might be the paper’s scariest finding for those concerned about the health of the U.S. economy." Games are great when you can pay 60 bucks once and get a tightly focused experience akin to playing a long movie. Now it's all about dragging things out and milking each player dry to make more money. The companies make more money but players are incentivized by loot boxes to play several times as much which isn't good for individuals or the economy.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: