Most video game loot boxes are now considered gambling in Belgium
April 26, 2018 3:04 AM Subscribe
The Belgian Gaming Commission has determined that randomized loot boxes in at least three games count as "games of chance," [Ars] [BGC] [BGC Google Translated] and publishers could therefore be subject to fines and prison sentences under the country's gaming legislation.
BGC highlights:
BGC highlights:
However, developers are increasingly using systems to get players to real money once they have purchased a game. The Gaming Commission is talking about:
Emotional profit forecast: uncertainty loot box is linked to profit forecast;
A player may think that the purchase of a loot box gives an advantage, which is not always the case
Confusion of fiction and reality: well-known real people promote the most expensive loot boxes;
Use your own coin system: for a real amount, players can buy in-game coins;
Apparently infinite methods to deposit money on player accounts;
Hide from the random generator or at least its opacity.
To speak of a game of chance, the Gaming Commission uses four parameters. If there is a game element , a bet can lead to profit or loss and chance has a role in the game.
...
The games with paid loot boxes, as currently offered in our country, are therefore in violation of the gaming legislation and can be dealt with under criminal law. The loot boxes must therefore also be removed. If that does not happen, the operators risk a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 800,000 euros. When minors are involved, those punishments can be doubled.
Minister of Justice Koen Geens therefore wishes to enter into a dialogue soon, both with the developers, operators and the Gaming Commission. Together we can see who should take responsibility where. "Mixing games and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for mental health. We have already taken numerous measures to protect both minors and adults against the influence of, among other things, gambling advertising. That is why we must also ensure that children and adults are not confronted with games of chance when they are looking for fun in a video game. "
Peter Naessens, director of the Gaming Commission : "Paying loot boxes are not an innocent part of video games that present themselves as games of skill. Players are tempted and misled, and none of the protective measures for gambling is applied. Now that it is clear that children and vulnerable people in particular are exposed to them unprotected, game manufacturers but also parties such as FIFA, for example, are called upon to call a halt to this practice. "
As I recall from looking up the Belgian legislation, in a game of chance, anything more than the chance to play the same game again up to three times is considered as gambling.
Personally I think this makes sense. It's a game of chance, and if there's money involved, it's gambling. Gambling has well-known social costs and so it's regulated.
On the other hand, this means that even things like a charity poker night, where the winner gets a bottle or a silly hat or something, is also technically regulated. Practically of course, not so much.
posted by ianso at 3:54 AM on April 26, 2018
Personally I think this makes sense. It's a game of chance, and if there's money involved, it's gambling. Gambling has well-known social costs and so it's regulated.
On the other hand, this means that even things like a charity poker night, where the winner gets a bottle or a silly hat or something, is also technically regulated. Practically of course, not so much.
posted by ianso at 3:54 AM on April 26, 2018
On the other hand, this means that even things like a charity poker night, where the winner gets a bottle or a silly hat or something, is also technically regulated. Practically of course, not so much.
Figure in the prospects of card-counting, wagering (either through material items, like the bottle, silly hat, etc. or emotional payoffs, such as reveling in thwarting other players' bluffs), that charity poker night still involves more skill than pure randomness, with tangible (or in the case of bluffs and card-counting) socially-engineered gambling.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:02 AM on April 26, 2018
Figure in the prospects of card-counting, wagering (either through material items, like the bottle, silly hat, etc. or emotional payoffs, such as reveling in thwarting other players' bluffs), that charity poker night still involves more skill than pure randomness, with tangible (or in the case of bluffs and card-counting) socially-engineered gambling.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:02 AM on April 26, 2018
Yeah, I'm not sure the charity poker tournament being regulated is actually such a negative thing to be honest. People lose fortunes and ruin their lives in private card games too. Gambling is gambling.
posted by Dysk at 4:11 AM on April 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:11 AM on April 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
Figure in the prospects of card-counting ... that charity poker night
Counting cards is blackjack, not poker. In poker, the deck is shuffled for every hand, so you can't count cards. The skill in poker is from calculating probabilities and expected value, using game theory, and reading your opponents.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:19 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Counting cards is blackjack, not poker. In poker, the deck is shuffled for every hand, so you can't count cards. The skill in poker is from calculating probabilities and expected value, using game theory, and reading your opponents.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:19 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is a good decision. I hope it ripples.
posted by PMdixon at 5:45 AM on April 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 5:45 AM on April 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
I think this is one of the very few things, along with generically hating EA, that pretty much anyone who plays games will be united on.
Gamers despise lootboxes. Gamergate hates lootboxes, we people who hate gamergate hate lootboxes. Game developers hate lootboxes. The only people who like lootboxes are the greedheads at the C levels.
I've been cruising around and even over on the gamergate boards the response is generally pro-Belgum and anti-lootboxes. There's a few "but free markets!" type comments, followed by lots of people talking about how much they hate lootboxes and hope this ends them.
************
I realize that here on MeFi most people are likely familiar with the problem, but for those who aren't, a brief overview:
In many games, including games you purchase for $60 or more, there are parts of the game that aren't included in the original purchase price. Getting these parts of the game requires acquiring a "loot box" which **MIGHT** contain what you want, or it might not. Usually there are ways that players can get a small number of loot boxes without paying real money, but the actual goal is to get the player to spend real world money on the loot boxes.
Generally there is no way to directly purchase the thing you want, you have to buy a large number of loot boxes and hope that one of them will contain what you want. If none of them did? Buy some more!
Some games make the stuff in the loot boxes purely cosmetic (Overwatch, for example), others provide in game advantages from the stuff in loot boxes (Star Wars Battlefront, for example).
When Star Wars Battlefront was first released someone did the math and figured out that you'd need to spend over $2,000 on lootboxes to get all of the content available (or play the game for an estimated 100 years to get it via the trickle of free lootboxes).
Which is why across the political and ideological spectrum gamers are all but unanimous in their hatred of loot boxes. The general feeling is that if you've spent $60 on a game then you bloody well ought to have the whole game and that charging you hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to get all the stuff is very bad indeed.
posted by sotonohito at 5:54 AM on April 26, 2018 [20 favorites]
Gamers despise lootboxes. Gamergate hates lootboxes, we people who hate gamergate hate lootboxes. Game developers hate lootboxes. The only people who like lootboxes are the greedheads at the C levels.
I've been cruising around and even over on the gamergate boards the response is generally pro-Belgum and anti-lootboxes. There's a few "but free markets!" type comments, followed by lots of people talking about how much they hate lootboxes and hope this ends them.
************
I realize that here on MeFi most people are likely familiar with the problem, but for those who aren't, a brief overview:
In many games, including games you purchase for $60 or more, there are parts of the game that aren't included in the original purchase price. Getting these parts of the game requires acquiring a "loot box" which **MIGHT** contain what you want, or it might not. Usually there are ways that players can get a small number of loot boxes without paying real money, but the actual goal is to get the player to spend real world money on the loot boxes.
Generally there is no way to directly purchase the thing you want, you have to buy a large number of loot boxes and hope that one of them will contain what you want. If none of them did? Buy some more!
Some games make the stuff in the loot boxes purely cosmetic (Overwatch, for example), others provide in game advantages from the stuff in loot boxes (Star Wars Battlefront, for example).
When Star Wars Battlefront was first released someone did the math and figured out that you'd need to spend over $2,000 on lootboxes to get all of the content available (or play the game for an estimated 100 years to get it via the trickle of free lootboxes).
Which is why across the political and ideological spectrum gamers are all but unanimous in their hatred of loot boxes. The general feeling is that if you've spent $60 on a game then you bloody well ought to have the whole game and that charging you hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to get all the stuff is very bad indeed.
posted by sotonohito at 5:54 AM on April 26, 2018 [20 favorites]
in many games there’s a cash market for the items, too. so you can pay money for coins, use the coins to buy loot boxes, then sell the items you get for real money.
it’s essentially the same fig leaf as pachinko parlors.
posted by vogon_poet at 6:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
it’s essentially the same fig leaf as pachinko parlors.
posted by vogon_poet at 6:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
There is a little bit of pushback once people realised that this applied to games like Overwatch and Rocket League, which weren't seen as exploitative.
They weren't seen as exploitative, mind, but I'm convinced it's inherently exploitative, and has been ever since Magic: The Gathering borrowed the design of bubblegum trading cards. I have a friend who is triggered by the smell of freshly printed cards because he spent far too much money on Magic cards in his youth.
posted by Merus at 6:27 AM on April 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
They weren't seen as exploitative, mind, but I'm convinced it's inherently exploitative, and has been ever since Magic: The Gathering borrowed the design of bubblegum trading cards. I have a friend who is triggered by the smell of freshly printed cards because he spent far too much money on Magic cards in his youth.
posted by Merus at 6:27 AM on April 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
The dynamic that Sotonhito lays out is one of the big reasons why cheating is so rampant in the wildly popular game Player Unknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG). Killing other players, surviving longer into the match, and especially being the winner get you points. Those points can be spent on loot boxes and the loot boxes all have a chance of dropping a rare, albeit cosmetic, item that can be sold on Steam's marketplace for real money. It might only be a few dollars or it might be something that typically sells for a few hundred.
So, if you can use cheat programs to get your computer to do your aiming for you automatically and let you see where the all the other players are, you can grind out a ton of wins and get yourself a bunch of loot boxes so that your odds of getting a rare and valuable item go up.
On top of this, internet/gaming cafes are common in some places and the cafe often provides the Steam account so it doesn't actually cost the player anything if they're caught cheating and banned. They'll have transferred their loot to another account they control and extract their profits from there.
Some cheat programs also let the player move much much faster than normal so that they can streak around the map and eliminate all the enemy players in short order. Everyone hates cheaters.
Bluehole, the company that develops PUBG, has introduced some systems both automated and manual to help curb cheating but the biggest thing they could do would be to remove the incentive by not allowing loot box items to be sold for real money. Just set prices for the items so that players can either get them free from loot boxes or can shell out a couple bucks to buy it directly from the company.
Oh, and the latest updates have brought new loot boxes that can only be opened with a "key", the key must be purchased with real money. I have a bunch of loot boxes that I won't open because I refuse to spend any money on keys.
I get that a lot of these games are about the online multiplayer experience now and that means upkeep for servers and continued development which means the company needs continuous revenue for it to be worthwhile but I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather pay a small monthly or annual subscription fee and just get rid of loot boxes entirely.
posted by VTX at 6:39 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
So, if you can use cheat programs to get your computer to do your aiming for you automatically and let you see where the all the other players are, you can grind out a ton of wins and get yourself a bunch of loot boxes so that your odds of getting a rare and valuable item go up.
On top of this, internet/gaming cafes are common in some places and the cafe often provides the Steam account so it doesn't actually cost the player anything if they're caught cheating and banned. They'll have transferred their loot to another account they control and extract their profits from there.
Some cheat programs also let the player move much much faster than normal so that they can streak around the map and eliminate all the enemy players in short order. Everyone hates cheaters.
Bluehole, the company that develops PUBG, has introduced some systems both automated and manual to help curb cheating but the biggest thing they could do would be to remove the incentive by not allowing loot box items to be sold for real money. Just set prices for the items so that players can either get them free from loot boxes or can shell out a couple bucks to buy it directly from the company.
Oh, and the latest updates have brought new loot boxes that can only be opened with a "key", the key must be purchased with real money. I have a bunch of loot boxes that I won't open because I refuse to spend any money on keys.
I get that a lot of these games are about the online multiplayer experience now and that means upkeep for servers and continued development which means the company needs continuous revenue for it to be worthwhile but I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather pay a small monthly or annual subscription fee and just get rid of loot boxes entirely.
posted by VTX at 6:39 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
A lot of games/companies get away with this under the fig leaf that players always get "something." Open a pack of Magic cards, you'll always get 15 cards. Open a lootbox in Overwatch, you always get a few things, whether skins or voiceovers, or something else. You never get "nothing."
Lawmakers should close this loophole, and look at mean value and variance, instead.
Blind-box toys? Probably okay. You're always getting one toy, they're all relatively the same value.
I don't know if it should fully be an exception, but when one has the option to circumvent the gamble, it feels a lot more fair. Don't like gambling? Buy your Magic card singles instead of cracking packs. Buy the League of Legends skin you want.
But if the *only* way to get content is via lootbox, that's bullshit, and gambling laws should clamp down hard.
posted by explosion at 6:44 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Lawmakers should close this loophole, and look at mean value and variance, instead.
Blind-box toys? Probably okay. You're always getting one toy, they're all relatively the same value.
I don't know if it should fully be an exception, but when one has the option to circumvent the gamble, it feels a lot more fair. Don't like gambling? Buy your Magic card singles instead of cracking packs. Buy the League of Legends skin you want.
But if the *only* way to get content is via lootbox, that's bullshit, and gambling laws should clamp down hard.
posted by explosion at 6:44 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
The only people who like lootboxes are the greedheads at the C levels.
Just anecdotally, I have niblings who love them. When they come around and play overwatch on my account (thus making the game harder for me, because I'm shit and they're not) they marvel at the fact that I haven't bothered to open the lootboxes.
Also: that cloud is making me very angry.
posted by pompomtom at 6:47 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Just anecdotally, I have niblings who love them. When they come around and play overwatch on my account (thus making the game harder for me, because I'm shit and they're not) they marvel at the fact that I haven't bothered to open the lootboxes.
Also: that cloud is making me very angry.
posted by pompomtom at 6:47 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Just anecdotally, I have niblings who love them.
Naturlich. Nobody says gambling doesn't give a buzz.
posted by jaduncan at 6:48 AM on April 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Naturlich. Nobody says gambling doesn't give a buzz.
posted by jaduncan at 6:48 AM on April 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
The only game I regularly play that has loot boxes is Overwatch. And I've never spent any money on loot boxes (though I have played longer than I planned to in order to level up and get another crate). Many of their cosmetics are purchasable with in-game currency - I can see them switching to making boxes still drop as rewards and transition to selling the currency instead of selling random boxes.
But Overwatch also does a good job of making sure the loot is cosmetic and not every games does this. Micro-transactions aren't going away - EA makes close to a billion dollars a year on Ultimate Team transactions in their sports games. But if that game mode left the randomness to in-game rewards and let people just buy the top players directly, it would turn into even more of a pay-to-win system than it already is.
posted by thecjm at 6:48 AM on April 26, 2018
But Overwatch also does a good job of making sure the loot is cosmetic and not every games does this. Micro-transactions aren't going away - EA makes close to a billion dollars a year on Ultimate Team transactions in their sports games. But if that game mode left the randomness to in-game rewards and let people just buy the top players directly, it would turn into even more of a pay-to-win system than it already is.
posted by thecjm at 6:48 AM on April 26, 2018
Nobody says gambling doesn't give a buzz.
Oh quite. I don't actually know how to feel about it. IDGAF, because it's all cosmetic (to me). I don't think they buy them. It seems more like ribbons on sport day, to me, but I've not really cared enough to think it all through. I suppose if you then have sport day every day, and the developers get a kickback from Sony or MS (is that how it works?) for play-time, then maybe insidious and dodgy, but what if the game is just the new Civ IV and utterly addictive?
I'm not against this decision, is I think what I'm saying.
posted by pompomtom at 6:59 AM on April 26, 2018
Oh quite. I don't actually know how to feel about it. IDGAF, because it's all cosmetic (to me). I don't think they buy them. It seems more like ribbons on sport day, to me, but I've not really cared enough to think it all through. I suppose if you then have sport day every day, and the developers get a kickback from Sony or MS (is that how it works?) for play-time, then maybe insidious and dodgy, but what if the game is just the new Civ IV and utterly addictive?
I'm not against this decision, is I think what I'm saying.
posted by pompomtom at 6:59 AM on April 26, 2018
I think this is one of the very few things, along with generically hating EA, that pretty much anyone who plays games will be united on.
Gamers despise lootboxes.
Whoa there with the broad statements, friend. I'm a gamer. In the two games I play most often by far (Heroes of the storm and Don't Starve Together), there are lootboxes. I love them, and so do the people I play with.
I don't think they are a universal good thing but certainly neither are they universally bad.
The keys here, which don't apply to all games, are:
1) The lootboxes are earned for free through playing.You don't have to buy them, and many never do (I don't).
2) The content does not improve gameplay, so it isn't pay to win (you can get new heroes in HOTS lootboxes, but you can also earn them steadily through consistently playing or buy them directly without "gambling". I own nearly all of the heroes without paying a cent)
3) Even in bad boxes there's still something, even if it's items you don't want or some kind of "currency" to put towards new items.
For me and many others it's just a fun way to earn free cosmetic items.
I am all in favour of regulations to prevent people from unhealthy gambling behaviour, but don't try to tell me what I do or do not despise, please.
posted by randomnity at 6:59 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Gamers despise lootboxes.
Whoa there with the broad statements, friend. I'm a gamer. In the two games I play most often by far (Heroes of the storm and Don't Starve Together), there are lootboxes. I love them, and so do the people I play with.
I don't think they are a universal good thing but certainly neither are they universally bad.
The keys here, which don't apply to all games, are:
1) The lootboxes are earned for free through playing.You don't have to buy them, and many never do (I don't).
2) The content does not improve gameplay, so it isn't pay to win (you can get new heroes in HOTS lootboxes, but you can also earn them steadily through consistently playing or buy them directly without "gambling". I own nearly all of the heroes without paying a cent)
3) Even in bad boxes there's still something, even if it's items you don't want or some kind of "currency" to put towards new items.
For me and many others it's just a fun way to earn free cosmetic items.
I am all in favour of regulations to prevent people from unhealthy gambling behaviour, but don't try to tell me what I do or do not despise, please.
posted by randomnity at 6:59 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Whoah there with the broad statements, friend
Oh, hey. I think that was what I was trying to say.
posted by pompomtom at 7:01 AM on April 26, 2018
Oh, hey. I think that was what I was trying to say.
posted by pompomtom at 7:01 AM on April 26, 2018
I will add that I do despise the idea of lootboxes that contain gameplay-improving content, and almost certainly would not play such a game, but then I despise pay to win games in the first place. It's not the lootbox delivery system itself that I have a problem with.
posted by randomnity at 7:10 AM on April 26, 2018
posted by randomnity at 7:10 AM on April 26, 2018
Overwatch is absolutely exploitative with its loot boxes. When I was playing, it was the holiday loot boxes that got me. You've only got 2 weeks to get these exclusive items, and you play your heart out and the awesome frilly dress for your favorite hero doesn't drop in the free loot boxes. So you buy some, just 5, hey it's the price of a cup of coffee. No dress. So buy 10 more. Still no dress. 10 more and you get the dress! And now you're out the price of dinner without meaning to. I was a total sucker for that. The game is deliberately designed to encourage people to do that.
League of Legends is one of the earlier free-to-play-buy-extras games and mostly had a straightforward proposition. The dress costs $5; you want it, you buy it. But they added loot boxes a year or so ago ("Hextech Chests"). They haven't gone all-in on them though and mostly when I read about them it's players complaining about what a rip-off they are. But they do keep selling them and enhancing them, I imagine they're making a lot of money for Riot.
This stuff all gets 10x more gross because a primary audience is children.
posted by Nelson at 7:13 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
League of Legends is one of the earlier free-to-play-buy-extras games and mostly had a straightforward proposition. The dress costs $5; you want it, you buy it. But they added loot boxes a year or so ago ("Hextech Chests"). They haven't gone all-in on them though and mostly when I read about them it's players complaining about what a rip-off they are. But they do keep selling them and enhancing them, I imagine they're making a lot of money for Riot.
This stuff all gets 10x more gross because a primary audience is children.
posted by Nelson at 7:13 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
Coming from some games that had lootbox type things drop free but only unlockable using paid lootbox-keys, it's mildly funny to me that so much focus in various discussions I've seen is on whether the boxes themselves are freely obtainable. I don't know about nowadays, but at least back when I was playing it, TF2 keys were an entire unofficial trade currency in and of themselves.
posted by inconstant at 7:17 AM on April 26, 2018
posted by inconstant at 7:17 AM on April 26, 2018
The primary audience is children? Citation needed.
posted by thedaniel at 7:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by thedaniel at 7:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
"On the other hand, this means that even things like a charity poker night, where the winner gets a bottle or a silly hat or something, is also technically regulated. Practically of course, not so much."
In the US, this is already SUPER regulated, you generally have to get a permit to host something as simple as a charity bingo night (For example, bingo, casino games). It's not an onerous process, but if you volunteer with charities that do fundraisers, one of the first things you'll learn is all about filing for your bingo permit! If you google "[statename] charity bingo" or "[statename] charity poker" you'll probably pull up the relevant regulations for whatever state you're interested in. In my state you can do raffles and 50/50s without a license, but most everything else is licensed.
It's surprising to me that some US states with ambitious attorneys general haven't started going after lootboxes already.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:22 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
In the US, this is already SUPER regulated, you generally have to get a permit to host something as simple as a charity bingo night (For example, bingo, casino games). It's not an onerous process, but if you volunteer with charities that do fundraisers, one of the first things you'll learn is all about filing for your bingo permit! If you google "[statename] charity bingo" or "[statename] charity poker" you'll probably pull up the relevant regulations for whatever state you're interested in. In my state you can do raffles and 50/50s without a license, but most everything else is licensed.
It's surprising to me that some US states with ambitious attorneys general haven't started going after lootboxes already.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:22 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
1) The lootboxes are earned for free through playing.You don't have to buy them, and many never do (I don't).
Games are free to continue to use lootboxes in the way you do, I think: not allowing them to be purchased with real money. Like, take the Overwatch system (no trading, no keys, etc) and just remove the option of paying real money for the crates, and I don't think you're running afoul of the new laws, right?
Which shouldn't affect players like you (or me - though in my case it's Rocket League and the free decryptors, I refuse to buy keys) but it does make the the system not exploitative of people with a gambling issue.
posted by Dysk at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Games are free to continue to use lootboxes in the way you do, I think: not allowing them to be purchased with real money. Like, take the Overwatch system (no trading, no keys, etc) and just remove the option of paying real money for the crates, and I don't think you're running afoul of the new laws, right?
Which shouldn't affect players like you (or me - though in my case it's Rocket League and the free decryptors, I refuse to buy keys) but it does make the the system not exploitative of people with a gambling issue.
posted by Dysk at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Diablo player here (another Blizzard game). Interesting history of that game.
At first, it was just a dungeon crawler. But it iterated to constant gambling in the game to acquire high level gear. You gambled with your time. Then there were (reputed) Asian factory farmers that would sell items in the game. Want an uber extremely rare weapon for your character? Pay on the internet, meet a character account in the game, transfer your item.
Blizzard (Diablo) then tried to get in on these micro transactions by instituting an "Auction House." One could use in-game gold to bid on items OR buy in-game gold outright with real money (once again, from reputed "farmers").
Not sure why, but Blizzard then shut all of these transactions down. No more auction house, in-game items were then "account bound" (no more in-game trading or selling items in the game), and basically shutting down the "farmers" selling items on the internet.
There is a kind of in-game Lootbox system (called a "legendary cache" in Diablo), but it takes quite a bit of time to acquire.
There is a variety of game styles out there. Purchase outright all content, micro transactions, pay by the month to continue playing, real world rewards (some in bitcoin!), "in-app purchases," fantasy bets in-game and real world, etc. It is endless.
I think the "opening a box/cache" or "expansion pack" or "new stack of cards" or "hoping to get item X" or whatever is the "gambling" hook for a lot of these games. Paying for this in your time seems to be OK; paying in real money is where different countries draw lines.
posted by CrowGoat at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
At first, it was just a dungeon crawler. But it iterated to constant gambling in the game to acquire high level gear. You gambled with your time. Then there were (reputed) Asian factory farmers that would sell items in the game. Want an uber extremely rare weapon for your character? Pay on the internet, meet a character account in the game, transfer your item.
Blizzard (Diablo) then tried to get in on these micro transactions by instituting an "Auction House." One could use in-game gold to bid on items OR buy in-game gold outright with real money (once again, from reputed "farmers").
Not sure why, but Blizzard then shut all of these transactions down. No more auction house, in-game items were then "account bound" (no more in-game trading or selling items in the game), and basically shutting down the "farmers" selling items on the internet.
There is a kind of in-game Lootbox system (called a "legendary cache" in Diablo), but it takes quite a bit of time to acquire.
There is a variety of game styles out there. Purchase outright all content, micro transactions, pay by the month to continue playing, real world rewards (some in bitcoin!), "in-app purchases," fantasy bets in-game and real world, etc. It is endless.
I think the "opening a box/cache" or "expansion pack" or "new stack of cards" or "hoping to get item X" or whatever is the "gambling" hook for a lot of these games. Paying for this in your time seems to be OK; paying in real money is where different countries draw lines.
posted by CrowGoat at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Some of the tension here really is that there's "lootboxes done right" (fairly) and the opposite.
Don't Starve Together, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm (I think?), and Magic have mechanics where if you don't get the thing you want, there's a crafting/trading system that allows you to turn the unwanted items into something you do want. Yeah, some people will still get caught up in the gambling mania, but people who go in with the notion of "I want item Z" can get there either by winning item Z, or winning items W, X, and Y, and trading them (maybe via a crafting intermediary currency) for Z.
On the other hand, you have games where item Z isn't craftable or tradeable. You can get it only by opening boxes. It's one thing if it's random loot from a game like World of Warcraft, where it's merely frustrating that RNGesus hates you. It's insidious when the company's charging you real money for whacks at that pinata.
posted by explosion at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Don't Starve Together, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm (I think?), and Magic have mechanics where if you don't get the thing you want, there's a crafting/trading system that allows you to turn the unwanted items into something you do want. Yeah, some people will still get caught up in the gambling mania, but people who go in with the notion of "I want item Z" can get there either by winning item Z, or winning items W, X, and Y, and trading them (maybe via a crafting intermediary currency) for Z.
On the other hand, you have games where item Z isn't craftable or tradeable. You can get it only by opening boxes. It's one thing if it's random loot from a game like World of Warcraft, where it's merely frustrating that RNGesus hates you. It's insidious when the company's charging you real money for whacks at that pinata.
posted by explosion at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I despise lootboxes even for cosmetic items now, even free lootboxes.
At first I didn't mind - it was disappointing to never get the item that you wanted, but you would be getting enough other stuff that it didn't really seem to matter. You don't have the helmet you really want, but there are like five really cool helmets...so you can just wear one of those...
But then I realized how much this cosmetic system is an "in" for companies to expand the lootbox system into a moneymaking system. It softens you up to the mechanic. They make the items in the lootboxes stand out more, and reduce the items that you can get outside of the lootbox system. Then they start to introduce special lootboxes for pay - nothing that you need, but it's linked to a special event so that you have to buy it now and if you don't you'll never get the item...
...and they know that most of the money that they make on this system won't be people who buy a box or two. It will be people who have a problem. This is the business plan. Instead of putting in barriers (e.g. limits to how many you can buy) they instead work to make lootboxes as tempting as they can, all while maintaining enough plausible deniability so that they don't alienate the playerbase.
In Destiny 2, players complained about lootboxes so much that in subsequent updates, they introduced a mechanic for you to purchase certain items after so many "tries," and adjusted the drop rates on other items. The game still has a crappy lootbox systems, but players obviously hated it enough that the company was worried.
But that was a game that was already in trouble - I'm not sure that this pressure would have worked otherwise. I'm all for regulating this stuff like the gambling it is.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
At first I didn't mind - it was disappointing to never get the item that you wanted, but you would be getting enough other stuff that it didn't really seem to matter. You don't have the helmet you really want, but there are like five really cool helmets...so you can just wear one of those...
But then I realized how much this cosmetic system is an "in" for companies to expand the lootbox system into a moneymaking system. It softens you up to the mechanic. They make the items in the lootboxes stand out more, and reduce the items that you can get outside of the lootbox system. Then they start to introduce special lootboxes for pay - nothing that you need, but it's linked to a special event so that you have to buy it now and if you don't you'll never get the item...
...and they know that most of the money that they make on this system won't be people who buy a box or two. It will be people who have a problem. This is the business plan. Instead of putting in barriers (e.g. limits to how many you can buy) they instead work to make lootboxes as tempting as they can, all while maintaining enough plausible deniability so that they don't alienate the playerbase.
In Destiny 2, players complained about lootboxes so much that in subsequent updates, they introduced a mechanic for you to purchase certain items after so many "tries," and adjusted the drop rates on other items. The game still has a crappy lootbox systems, but players obviously hated it enough that the company was worried.
But that was a game that was already in trouble - I'm not sure that this pressure would have worked otherwise. I'm all for regulating this stuff like the gambling it is.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:25 AM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I blame the internet. No, really. Mechanics like loot boxes only work for gaming-as-a-service.
Fundamental game structures have changed, shifting from product to service. The old one-and-done sale of a finished game on a disc has given way to the always-online drip-feed of content service. This is true even for games in more traditional formats, with games like The Witcher and Horizon: Zero Dawn receiving periodic updates and DLCs. But old genres like MMOs and arena shooters, and newer ones like MOBAs and battle royale game really benefit from the ability to deliver the game as a service.
As game structures have changed, publisher and developer incentives change. Sure, you still have to move those units, but the core metrics driving profitability are retention and total cost of participation in the game. If your game is a service, you need people to keep using that service and you need to find a way to extract value from them over time. That's why so many games are now F2P.
In the process of figuring out how to maximize those metrics, developers have started to realize a few things. First, your gamers are not a homogeneous population when it comes to, e.g., spending habits. The mobile gaming trend (which I hate and has largely driven this pattern of value extraction) has taught developers that you can drive profitability by cultivating whales. Those players who, for whatever reason, are willing to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on your game over time. Second, even aside from whales, time-in-game is a useful proxy for retention. The more your players want to stay in the game, the more likely they are to buy the service whatever form it comes, be it a subscription, DLC, or in game currency.
These two realizations create a scenario in which developers are strongly motivated to great Skinner boxes--operant conditioning chambers that use sophisticated operant schedules of reinforcement to reward repetitive actions. Loot boxes are a pretty big example of this, but any application of randomness in rewards for repeatable content qualifies. World of Warcraft, for example, has moved from specific purchasable rewards for completing content (dailies and rep grinds) to things like paragon boxes which may or may not contain the rewards you are looking for. This injection of randomness is one of my least favorite parts of modern gaming-as-a-service, but is an unsurprising and direct result of developers trying to leverage human psychology to maximize time-in-game and thereby maximize profit.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:27 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
Fundamental game structures have changed, shifting from product to service. The old one-and-done sale of a finished game on a disc has given way to the always-online drip-feed of content service. This is true even for games in more traditional formats, with games like The Witcher and Horizon: Zero Dawn receiving periodic updates and DLCs. But old genres like MMOs and arena shooters, and newer ones like MOBAs and battle royale game really benefit from the ability to deliver the game as a service.
As game structures have changed, publisher and developer incentives change. Sure, you still have to move those units, but the core metrics driving profitability are retention and total cost of participation in the game. If your game is a service, you need people to keep using that service and you need to find a way to extract value from them over time. That's why so many games are now F2P.
In the process of figuring out how to maximize those metrics, developers have started to realize a few things. First, your gamers are not a homogeneous population when it comes to, e.g., spending habits. The mobile gaming trend (which I hate and has largely driven this pattern of value extraction) has taught developers that you can drive profitability by cultivating whales. Those players who, for whatever reason, are willing to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on your game over time. Second, even aside from whales, time-in-game is a useful proxy for retention. The more your players want to stay in the game, the more likely they are to buy the service whatever form it comes, be it a subscription, DLC, or in game currency.
These two realizations create a scenario in which developers are strongly motivated to great Skinner boxes--operant conditioning chambers that use sophisticated operant schedules of reinforcement to reward repetitive actions. Loot boxes are a pretty big example of this, but any application of randomness in rewards for repeatable content qualifies. World of Warcraft, for example, has moved from specific purchasable rewards for completing content (dailies and rep grinds) to things like paragon boxes which may or may not contain the rewards you are looking for. This injection of randomness is one of my least favorite parts of modern gaming-as-a-service, but is an unsurprising and direct result of developers trying to leverage human psychology to maximize time-in-game and thereby maximize profit.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:27 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
Heroes of the Storm (I think?)
Yep! I almost added that as another followup as I think it's another really important part of a "good" lootbox system. In HOTS you only get "credit" (shards) for duplicate items you open, you can't break down unwanted stuff, but duplicates happen often enough with frequent playing that you can easily save enough shards to craft absolutely anything you want from lootboxes, even event items - just not everything you may want, which makes some people mad, but meh, free stuff, I'm not gonna complain that there's too many skins available to reasonably buy them all. It's not like you need more than one skin for each hero anyway - or any at all for that matter.
posted by randomnity at 7:39 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yep! I almost added that as another followup as I think it's another really important part of a "good" lootbox system. In HOTS you only get "credit" (shards) for duplicate items you open, you can't break down unwanted stuff, but duplicates happen often enough with frequent playing that you can easily save enough shards to craft absolutely anything you want from lootboxes, even event items - just not everything you may want, which makes some people mad, but meh, free stuff, I'm not gonna complain that there's too many skins available to reasonably buy them all. It's not like you need more than one skin for each hero anyway - or any at all for that matter.
posted by randomnity at 7:39 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I used to love MMOs. Logging in felt like going on an adventure.
These days it feels like walking into a casino.
posted by MrVisible at 7:40 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
These days it feels like walking into a casino.
posted by MrVisible at 7:40 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
If anyone isn't paying attention to how pro-corporate this conversation has shifted, I remember when the gaming world collectively lost its shit at the idea of outright paying $2.50 for cosmetic items in a full-priced game.
Now that is seen as the good way to do DLC. Hey at least you could outright buy it instead of having to spend $25 to buy ten lootboxes before you were lucky enough to get it.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:46 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
Now that is seen as the good way to do DLC. Hey at least you could outright buy it instead of having to spend $25 to buy ten lootboxes before you were lucky enough to get it.
posted by FakeFreyja at 7:46 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
If people enjoy the loot box dynamics, they will play the game. If they don't, they won't.
This is simply untrue. Look at all the stories of people regretting pumping money into gacha, swearing off the game, and then going back to ruin themselves some more. Gambling is not neutral, and there is a reason we regulate it. This is just recognising that form of gambling for what it is.
posted by Dysk at 7:49 AM on April 26, 2018 [26 favorites]
This is simply untrue. Look at all the stories of people regretting pumping money into gacha, swearing off the game, and then going back to ruin themselves some more. Gambling is not neutral, and there is a reason we regulate it. This is just recognising that form of gambling for what it is.
posted by Dysk at 7:49 AM on April 26, 2018 [26 favorites]
These days it feels like walking into a casino.
I was mildly amused when Elder Scrolls Online unveiled their version of lootboxes... and they made the visuals look like a Khajiit with a three-card monte table. (I bet the artist had a really dragged-out fight trying to convince the monetisation psychology people that marks should get three cards per crate instead of four.)
posted by tobascodagama at 7:55 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I was mildly amused when Elder Scrolls Online unveiled their version of lootboxes... and they made the visuals look like a Khajiit with a three-card monte table. (I bet the artist had a really dragged-out fight trying to convince the monetisation psychology people that marks should get three cards per crate instead of four.)
posted by tobascodagama at 7:55 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
"The general feeling is that if you've spent $60 on a game then you bloody well ought to have the whole game and that charging you hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to get all the stuff is very bad indeed"
As a game developer, I mostly disagree with this attitude. I don't like loot boxes, and think that the gambling element should be removed or regulated, but the "I have paid X, I should get aallll the things" often rubs me the wrong way. Games generally offer a pretty insane amount of entertainment hours per dollar, and just because some content was made for the same game and is available for purchase doesn't mean you should automatically get it for the 60$ purchase price point. It would cost thousands of dollars to buy all of the candy in the movie theatre, too, but you don't expect to get it because you bought a ticket to the show.
Again, I'm not excusing shitty publisher practices or cynical compulsion loop style loot boxes.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:56 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
As a game developer, I mostly disagree with this attitude. I don't like loot boxes, and think that the gambling element should be removed or regulated, but the "I have paid X, I should get aallll the things" often rubs me the wrong way. Games generally offer a pretty insane amount of entertainment hours per dollar, and just because some content was made for the same game and is available for purchase doesn't mean you should automatically get it for the 60$ purchase price point. It would cost thousands of dollars to buy all of the candy in the movie theatre, too, but you don't expect to get it because you bought a ticket to the show.
Again, I'm not excusing shitty publisher practices or cynical compulsion loop style loot boxes.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:56 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Jon, I get where that attitude is coming from, but keep in mind that the vast majority of games using these systems lately come from fantastically-rich major publishers. Fucking Star Wars Battlefront would have made millions in profit at a $60 price point without selling lootboxes, so I'm just not here for that "well, games can't just sell everything for one price any more" bullshit.
The indie games with tight margins that actually "need" to sell DLC to stay afloat generally don't, or if they do it's standard DLC and not gambling.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:01 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
The indie games with tight margins that actually "need" to sell DLC to stay afloat generally don't, or if they do it's standard DLC and not gambling.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:01 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
(And keep in mind here that mobile gacha games generally come from one of a handful of big mobile publishers, so none of them count as "indie".)
posted by tobascodagama at 8:02 AM on April 26, 2018
posted by tobascodagama at 8:02 AM on April 26, 2018
DLC isn't inherently evil. It's been around forever (without the initial D) as expansion packs. These were uncontroversial back in the day.
When DLC became somewhat controversial was when devs and publishers (we can pretty safely blame publishers, I feel) started taking the piss. Suddenly things that should have been simple patches were gated behind DLC. Online multiplayer games had DLC that gave you a competitive advantage. Companies charging a quarter of the game's sticker price for less than 10% extra content (sometimes on launch day) or even for two or three cosmetic items. It became (or became seen as, because it was, often enough) a stupid cash grab, rather than a, say, an entire extra campaign of gameplay for 50-80% of the cost of the original game (which is how, say, StarCraft and old C&C Red Alert expansions worked, and were utterly uncontroversial). Now we're at a point where a lot of people reflexively mistrust the concept of DLC entirely, because of how it's been abused.
posted by Dysk at 8:05 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
When DLC became somewhat controversial was when devs and publishers (we can pretty safely blame publishers, I feel) started taking the piss. Suddenly things that should have been simple patches were gated behind DLC. Online multiplayer games had DLC that gave you a competitive advantage. Companies charging a quarter of the game's sticker price for less than 10% extra content (sometimes on launch day) or even for two or three cosmetic items. It became (or became seen as, because it was, often enough) a stupid cash grab, rather than a, say, an entire extra campaign of gameplay for 50-80% of the cost of the original game (which is how, say, StarCraft and old C&C Red Alert expansions worked, and were utterly uncontroversial). Now we're at a point where a lot of people reflexively mistrust the concept of DLC entirely, because of how it's been abused.
posted by Dysk at 8:05 AM on April 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
If anyone isn't paying attention to how pro-corporate this conversation has shifted, I remember when the gaming world collectively lost its shit at the idea of outright paying $2.50 for cosmetic items in a full-priced game.
But we're not talking about cosmetic items in full-priced games. Most of these games are free or discounted.
League of Legends is outright free. Hearthstone is free. Don't Starve Together was $20, I think.
These cosmetic items fund ongoing additional content (in-game events, expansions) that the publisher would otherwise have to charge for and package as an "expansion."
Yeah, it's still considered a travesty when a $60 disc has content *on the disc* that's locked behind another $20 payment. But when a developer puts out a full game for $20 or $30, and then supports that game for multiple years with additional content, they need a revenue stream.
One way is to charge everyone, another way is a subscription service, another is selling cosmetic items to allow whales to subsidize the rest of us. The key to doing the last method ethically is simply to ensure that people aren't tricked into becoming whales.
posted by explosion at 8:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
But we're not talking about cosmetic items in full-priced games. Most of these games are free or discounted.
League of Legends is outright free. Hearthstone is free. Don't Starve Together was $20, I think.
These cosmetic items fund ongoing additional content (in-game events, expansions) that the publisher would otherwise have to charge for and package as an "expansion."
Yeah, it's still considered a travesty when a $60 disc has content *on the disc* that's locked behind another $20 payment. But when a developer puts out a full game for $20 or $30, and then supports that game for multiple years with additional content, they need a revenue stream.
One way is to charge everyone, another way is a subscription service, another is selling cosmetic items to allow whales to subsidize the rest of us. The key to doing the last method ethically is simply to ensure that people aren't tricked into becoming whales.
posted by explosion at 8:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
rather than a, say, an entire extra campaign of gameplay for 50-80% of the cost of the original game (which is how, say, StarCraft and old C&C Red Alert expansions worked, and were utterly uncontroversial). Now we're at a point where a lot of people reflexively mistrust the concept of DLC entirely, because of how it's been abused.
Yes. Paying for Shivering Isles in Oblivion is very different from GTA V banning mods because they want to sell car models and paint finishes to players. I actually don't think it is useful to conflate large campaigns and microtransactions into 'DLC' as a concept, just as loot boxes are very different from even directly purchased in game items.
posted by jaduncan at 8:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yes. Paying for Shivering Isles in Oblivion is very different from GTA V banning mods because they want to sell car models and paint finishes to players. I actually don't think it is useful to conflate large campaigns and microtransactions into 'DLC' as a concept, just as loot boxes are very different from even directly purchased in game items.
posted by jaduncan at 8:10 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
I remember when DLC effectively meant free (it's downloadable content, not purchasable content after all) and anything you charged for was an expansion pack, or purchasable extras. Personally, I think that's far more useful terminology. But we live in the world we live in.
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
I also have no idea how the GTA V and Oblivion examples are different, having never played either game at all! Could you expand a little for those of us in the back rows?
posted by Dysk at 8:16 AM on April 26, 2018
posted by Dysk at 8:16 AM on April 26, 2018
It would cost thousands of dollars to buy all of the candy in the movie theatre, too, but you don't expect to get it because you bought a ticket to the show.
Imagine going to the theater and wanting popcorn. Nope, you have to buy the AMC Power Crate which has the chance to have popcorn in it. The actual odds of getting popcorn are a closely guarded secret, and in fact aren't truly random at all - a machine learning engine automatically changes the number of crates you will have to buy to get the desired snack based on how many times other customers were willing to rebuy. After ten crates with nothing but nasty Jujubes, you finally get popcorn. Yeah, it cost $40 all told, but all you remember was that last $5 you spent on the last crate and the little dopamine rush at "winning" a game of chance.
But we're not talking about cosmetic items in full-priced games. Most of these games are free or discounted.
Overwatch, Call of Duty, Battlefront, Battlefield, GTA5, PUBG, Need for Speed, Assassin's Creed, Shadow of War, Fifa, NBA2K, Destiny 2, Madden, Injustice, Mass Effect, etc.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
Imagine going to the theater and wanting popcorn. Nope, you have to buy the AMC Power Crate which has the chance to have popcorn in it. The actual odds of getting popcorn are a closely guarded secret, and in fact aren't truly random at all - a machine learning engine automatically changes the number of crates you will have to buy to get the desired snack based on how many times other customers were willing to rebuy. After ten crates with nothing but nasty Jujubes, you finally get popcorn. Yeah, it cost $40 all told, but all you remember was that last $5 you spent on the last crate and the little dopamine rush at "winning" a game of chance.
But we're not talking about cosmetic items in full-priced games. Most of these games are free or discounted.
Overwatch, Call of Duty, Battlefront, Battlefield, GTA5, PUBG, Need for Speed, Assassin's Creed, Shadow of War, Fifa, NBA2K, Destiny 2, Madden, Injustice, Mass Effect, etc.
posted by FakeFreyja at 8:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
I also have no idea how the GTA V and Oblivion examples are different, having never played either game at all! Could you expand a little for those of us in the back rows?
Yep. GTA has an in-game currency that lets you buy cars, various finishes to them, mods, guns etc. Shivering Isles was an expansion to Oblivion that added a seperate map with different enemies and items. I think the biggest difference is that GTA V is attempting to generate repeated micropayments vs the single payment for an expansion pack in Oblivion.
There's a big difference between buying an expansion pack and setting up mechanisms to create habitual"recurrent consumer spending", to use Take Two's lovely phrase. I would identify the difference as the intention to extract value by addiction and/or whales, as pointed out by monju_bosatsu and explosion.
(that said, Elder Scrolls Online also includes dubious elements, so it's not that Bethesda are angels)
posted by jaduncan at 8:29 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Yep. GTA has an in-game currency that lets you buy cars, various finishes to them, mods, guns etc. Shivering Isles was an expansion to Oblivion that added a seperate map with different enemies and items. I think the biggest difference is that GTA V is attempting to generate repeated micropayments vs the single payment for an expansion pack in Oblivion.
There's a big difference between buying an expansion pack and setting up mechanisms to create habitual"recurrent consumer spending", to use Take Two's lovely phrase. I would identify the difference as the intention to extract value by addiction and/or whales, as pointed out by monju_bosatsu and explosion.
(that said, Elder Scrolls Online also includes dubious elements, so it's not that Bethesda are angels)
posted by jaduncan at 8:29 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
a machine learning engine automatically changes the number of crates you will have to buy to get the desired snack based on how many times other customers were willing to rebuy.
ML engine 2.0 adjusts the drop rate to keep you specifically addicted, of course.
posted by jaduncan at 8:30 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
ML engine 2.0 adjusts the drop rate to keep you specifically addicted, of course.
posted by jaduncan at 8:30 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
GTA V's microtransaction system has been interesting to watch from the outside (I haven't played it myself; never been too interested in the series). The GTA Online mode has been incredibly popular as players enjoy messing around and doing crimes with their friends. Rockstar has supported it for years with loads of ostensibly free new content like fancy cars, purchasable properties, and missions. I say ostensibly because all that new stuff costs in-game money to access. You can earn in-game money by playing the game, but by all accounts it can be quite slow. Or you can drop real actual money to get fake money to spend in game. It starts at $3 to get $100,000 in-game, and goes all the way up to one hundred actual dang dollars for $8,000,000 fun bux. For scale, buying one single high-end car can cost over 2 million. (Yes, the game called Grand Theft Auto makes you buy cars, at least if you want the best ones.) In the first 3 years of the game's life players traded over half a billion real dollars for fake ones. Strong evidence IMO that you don't need random chance or blind boxes for a monetization scheme to be abusive.
posted by skymt at 9:06 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by skymt at 9:06 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
This is a classic case of where we should let the market decide. If people enjoy the loot box dynamics, they will play the game. If they don't, they won't.
I think this is pretty clearly wrong. I've never paid a penny for a loot box in games I play, but loot boxes don't deter me from playing the game. There's no particular downside to including cosmetic loot boxes, for a publisher. Meanwhile, as always with gambling, it's the whales, the addicts, who are driving the profits. So the profit incentive will only encourage the increasing inclusion of loot boxes, which don't harm the majority of us (indeed you can turn a profit just selling the free ones on Steam) and don't harm the developer's income stream, but which are brutally exploitative of a minority of people spending money they often cannot afford.
There are good reasons why gambling is regulated.
posted by howfar at 9:57 AM on April 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
I think this is pretty clearly wrong. I've never paid a penny for a loot box in games I play, but loot boxes don't deter me from playing the game. There's no particular downside to including cosmetic loot boxes, for a publisher. Meanwhile, as always with gambling, it's the whales, the addicts, who are driving the profits. So the profit incentive will only encourage the increasing inclusion of loot boxes, which don't harm the majority of us (indeed you can turn a profit just selling the free ones on Steam) and don't harm the developer's income stream, but which are brutally exploitative of a minority of people spending money they often cannot afford.
There are good reasons why gambling is regulated.
posted by howfar at 9:57 AM on April 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
Funny this came up now. I'm playing SimCity on iphone just to see how far it got from the original. The big question is: how much money do they want to squeeze out, and is the game playable even in the ostensibly free mode?
It might meet the definition of not only gambling, but and intentionally addictive device engineered to extract money from the unfortunates.
The good times when a game you bought had all you needed to play it.
posted by Laotic at 10:15 AM on April 26, 2018
It might meet the definition of not only gambling, but and intentionally addictive device engineered to extract money from the unfortunates.
The good times when a game you bought had all you needed to play it.
posted by Laotic at 10:15 AM on April 26, 2018
Animal Crossing Pocket Camp just went all in on the gacha model, which is not surprising but sad. It's not a big deal for me, as I'm not big on being a completist and had already decided I wasn't spending leaf tickets for things I didn't want just to have everything, but I'm already seeing posts from people who have spent $100+ plus on the loot boxes and it's just very unhappy-making. This stuff really does prey on the people who have addictive tendencies.
It's possible to use a variation of the model in a way that doesn't feel that exploitative. I played Pokemon Go for a couple of years, and they have eggs that can be hatched with incubators and walking time. You have one free incubator, and then pay gold for temporary ones if you want to hatch more than one at a time . However, the pokemon in the eggs can generally be found far easier by hunting them. I think there's like 4 hatchling variants that could only be found in eggs, but they were pretty common and could be obtained with just the free incubator and a little time. But every once in a while I would get bored waiting and drop $5 on some gold to hatch a bunch, and that was fine because I felt I was getting enough enjoyment out of the game that they should get some money. And there was no instant endorphin rush, since even after purchasing an incubator you had to walk 2 to 10 miles for it to hatch, so I don't think it would hit gambling-vulnerable people as hard.
posted by tavella at 10:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's possible to use a variation of the model in a way that doesn't feel that exploitative. I played Pokemon Go for a couple of years, and they have eggs that can be hatched with incubators and walking time. You have one free incubator, and then pay gold for temporary ones if you want to hatch more than one at a time . However, the pokemon in the eggs can generally be found far easier by hunting them. I think there's like 4 hatchling variants that could only be found in eggs, but they were pretty common and could be obtained with just the free incubator and a little time. But every once in a while I would get bored waiting and drop $5 on some gold to hatch a bunch, and that was fine because I felt I was getting enough enjoyment out of the game that they should get some money. And there was no instant endorphin rush, since even after purchasing an incubator you had to walk 2 to 10 miles for it to hatch, so I don't think it would hit gambling-vulnerable people as hard.
posted by tavella at 10:17 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Imagine going to the theater and wanting popcorn. Nope, you have to buy the AMC Power Crate which has the chance to have popcorn in it
I would not go to this theater. I agree that publisher nickel and dimery is getting out of hand, and putting gambling in games is awful and should be regulated at the very least and ideally banned outright, but due to humble bundle and steam sales I've already got more games than I can sensibly play, none of which do any of these things. I don't really like the "well, companies are going to do shitty things, don't give them your money" argument, but people who don't want publishers to do these things should at the very least vote with their wallets as well as being annoyed by it. There are so many good games made by excellent people who actually deserve people's money.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:25 AM on April 26, 2018
I would not go to this theater. I agree that publisher nickel and dimery is getting out of hand, and putting gambling in games is awful and should be regulated at the very least and ideally banned outright, but due to humble bundle and steam sales I've already got more games than I can sensibly play, none of which do any of these things. I don't really like the "well, companies are going to do shitty things, don't give them your money" argument, but people who don't want publishers to do these things should at the very least vote with their wallets as well as being annoyed by it. There are so many good games made by excellent people who actually deserve people's money.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 10:25 AM on April 26, 2018
Maybe this was discussed, but is it technically a game of chance if the results are calculated by an integrated random number generator? Don't RNG systems actively correct for biased results? I guess slot machines and lotteries have already fought that battle, but it's definitely not the same as rolling dice.
posted by Brocktoon at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2018
posted by Brocktoon at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2018
I would not go to this theater. [...] I don't really like the "well, companies are going to do shitty things, don't give them your money" argument, but people who don't want publishers to do these things should at the very least vote with their wallets as well as being annoyed by it.
So what about games that launched without a lootbox system, but added it at a later date? I think every single game I play or have played that features lootboxes introduced them well after launch, and well after I'd picked them up at a discount. It isn't as simple as that. Regulation here is a good thing, as it is with all other forms of gambling (especially as kids are involved - we can argue all day about who the target market for something like Overwatch is, but it includes kids and Blizzard do nothing to discourage their playing, unlike casinos and other forms of gambling, who are strict about their age limits because of regulatory pressure).
posted by Dysk at 10:44 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
So what about games that launched without a lootbox system, but added it at a later date? I think every single game I play or have played that features lootboxes introduced them well after launch, and well after I'd picked them up at a discount. It isn't as simple as that. Regulation here is a good thing, as it is with all other forms of gambling (especially as kids are involved - we can argue all day about who the target market for something like Overwatch is, but it includes kids and Blizzard do nothing to discourage their playing, unlike casinos and other forms of gambling, who are strict about their age limits because of regulatory pressure).
posted by Dysk at 10:44 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Maybe this was discussed, but is it technically a game of chance if the results are calculated by an integrated random number generator?
They're almost never purely random in practice anyway, what with the odds or even outcomes directly being massaged on a per-user basis to maximise addictiveness. So it's like rolling loaded dice.
posted by Dysk at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
They're almost never purely random in practice anyway, what with the odds or even outcomes directly being massaged on a per-user basis to maximise addictiveness. So it's like rolling loaded dice.
posted by Dysk at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
The only game that does lootboxes right is I Can't Believe It's Not Gambling.
posted by suetanvil at 11:04 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by suetanvil at 11:04 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
As a game developer, you are complicit in the problem and should sit down, shut up, and listen to people discuss the effects of your industry's output.
posted by PMdixon at 11:40 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by PMdixon at 11:40 AM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
So it's like rolling loaded dice.
... Where the loading can be invisibly adjusted between rolls.
posted by PMdixon at 11:41 AM on April 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
... Where the loading can be invisibly adjusted between rolls.
posted by PMdixon at 11:41 AM on April 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
My face when I discovered my mildly developmentally delayed brother has been spending about €250 per season on Overwatch lootboxes. And that’s how much he’s willing to admit to his judgey middle-aged big sister; I’d say he though he’d picked a defensible amount. He says he only spends a hundred per season now, but I think that’s mainly to shut me up. I haven’t asked if he’s spending on Fortnite.
posted by Iteki at 1:08 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Iteki at 1:08 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
tavella: […]Pokemon Go[…] so I don't think it would hit gambling-vulnerable people as hard.
You might think so, but I've met people playing Pokémon Go who are clearly being exploited. Spending so much time playing that they're failing their classes and struggling at their job, talking about dropping several hundred dollars each month to keep 9 incubators running at all times and premium raid passes to raid all day (and calling that restrained from their previous behavior), etc.
I think some of that is that there's two levels of RNGs to gamble with—the Pokémon which come from the eggs or raids, and their random stats—with the hardcore players trying not only to "catch them all", but to catch a rare 100% IV version of each pokemon (of each gender, and the shiny pokemon, etc). The two levels let more casual players "win", while giving the more obsessed players a goal that's hard to achieve without becoming a whale. The legendary Pokemon raids provide a time limited reward, where a fairly casual player can easily get a couple in the month they're available using free raid passes (if the player has an active group to raid with), but getting a perfect one will probably take a hardcore player hundreds of raids in that time period, requiring the purchase of plenty of premium passes, each of which may or may not yield the perfect or shiny Pokémon they're looking for.
posted by JiBB at 1:26 PM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
You might think so, but I've met people playing Pokémon Go who are clearly being exploited. Spending so much time playing that they're failing their classes and struggling at their job, talking about dropping several hundred dollars each month to keep 9 incubators running at all times and premium raid passes to raid all day (and calling that restrained from their previous behavior), etc.
I think some of that is that there's two levels of RNGs to gamble with—the Pokémon which come from the eggs or raids, and their random stats—with the hardcore players trying not only to "catch them all", but to catch a rare 100% IV version of each pokemon (of each gender, and the shiny pokemon, etc). The two levels let more casual players "win", while giving the more obsessed players a goal that's hard to achieve without becoming a whale. The legendary Pokemon raids provide a time limited reward, where a fairly casual player can easily get a couple in the month they're available using free raid passes (if the player has an active group to raid with), but getting a perfect one will probably take a hardcore player hundreds of raids in that time period, requiring the purchase of plenty of premium passes, each of which may or may not yield the perfect or shiny Pokémon they're looking for.
posted by JiBB at 1:26 PM on April 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Hmm, hadn't thought of that aspect! I got tired of the raid/community day thing pretty quick, because the niche I look for in that kind of game is something that I can play in bursts when I feel like without falling too far behind, and as soon as the game starts to be something I have to schedule the charm wears off fast.
posted by tavella at 1:42 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by tavella at 1:42 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
As a game developer, you are complicit in the problem and should sit down, shut up, and listen to people discuss the effects of your industry's output.
This is akin to saying that all gamers (whether or not they have purchased loot boxes or played games with loot boxes available for purchase) are complicit in the problem and should sit down and shut up.
I find the perspective of a game developer useful and would welcome more of it.
posted by verschollen at 2:33 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
This is akin to saying that all gamers (whether or not they have purchased loot boxes or played games with loot boxes available for purchase) are complicit in the problem and should sit down and shut up.
I find the perspective of a game developer useful and would welcome more of it.
posted by verschollen at 2:33 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Yeah, it's kind of reductive to say that triple-A game publishers are "your industry" for every game developer. It's a vast field with, nowadays, so many people going it at the indie level. It's not useful or correct to hold barely-scraping-by indie studios -- who, as mentioned above, rarely engage in these kinds of deceptive practices, let alone the masses of solo devs who eke it out on Patreon and itch.io with their VNs, IFs, TTRPGs, or weird experimental things -- responsible for the exploitative machinations of corporations.
posted by inconstant at 2:48 PM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by inconstant at 2:48 PM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Like, it's not just a matter of scale! They are producing completely different kinds of games that are interested in completely different kinds of things. What the hell do Porpentine or Hempuli do with a lootbox? You must buy chances to.... customize the background color of the hypertext game?
posted by inconstant at 2:57 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by inconstant at 2:57 PM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
This is akin to saying that all gamers (whether or not they have purchased loot boxes or played games with loot boxes available for purchase) are complicit in the problem and should sit down and shut up.
Why? Why are the manufacturers and the consumers of addictive products placed on some kind of equal footing?
And given that the comment I was responding to was essentially defending loot boxes by making a ludicrous comparison to not being entitled to the entire store just because you entered the door, I feel pretty OK saying that the problematic attitude - that objecting to the 'gaming as a service' model represents some kind of unreasonably entitled position - is endemic to the sector and present in different ways and different proportions at all scales.
posted by PMdixon at 4:33 PM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Why? Why are the manufacturers and the consumers of addictive products placed on some kind of equal footing?
And given that the comment I was responding to was essentially defending loot boxes by making a ludicrous comparison to not being entitled to the entire store just because you entered the door, I feel pretty OK saying that the problematic attitude - that objecting to the 'gaming as a service' model represents some kind of unreasonably entitled position - is endemic to the sector and present in different ways and different proportions at all scales.
posted by PMdixon at 4:33 PM on April 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
That comment was pretty ludicrous, but there are many, many games that do not have loot boxes (or anything equivalent), and the developers of those games are not complicit in the problem. Also, telling someone to "sit down, shut up, and listen" in a comment thread with virtually unlimited space is not very productive, to be honest.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:51 PM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:51 PM on April 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
so it's not that Bethesda are angels
horsefeathers armor
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:38 PM on April 26, 2018
horse
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:38 PM on April 26, 2018
It would cost thousands of dollars to buy all of the candy in the movie theatre, too, but you don't expect to get it because you bought a ticket to the show.
The thing is though, that for most of gaming's history, you buy a ticket to the show. That $60 bought you the theater and everything in it. Not a theater as a business where you can turn around and use the assets to generate revenue but a theater full of movies and candy and whatever else that you now own and all the popcorn you care to eat.
Now the companies that used to sell us the whole theater are starting to only sell tickets to the theater and if you want to see more than one movie, you need another ticket. Then they start charging us for the candy and popcorn, and then charging for the opportunity to win some candy and popcorn. And so on.
And yeah, we can stop buying tickets to the theaters that do that, but then that's the only type of theater showing Avengers: Infinity War and it's the only way to see that movie and it's what all your friends are doing tonight so it's either stay home and be lonely or go hang out with your friends and bitch about how you each used to be able to buy a whole theater and everything in it but now you have to deal with all the other things people have used this theater metaphor to illustrate.
posted by VTX at 3:31 PM on April 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
The thing is though, that for most of gaming's history, you buy a ticket to the show. That $60 bought you the theater and everything in it. Not a theater as a business where you can turn around and use the assets to generate revenue but a theater full of movies and candy and whatever else that you now own and all the popcorn you care to eat.
Now the companies that used to sell us the whole theater are starting to only sell tickets to the theater and if you want to see more than one movie, you need another ticket. Then they start charging us for the candy and popcorn, and then charging for the opportunity to win some candy and popcorn. And so on.
And yeah, we can stop buying tickets to the theaters that do that, but then that's the only type of theater showing Avengers: Infinity War and it's the only way to see that movie and it's what all your friends are doing tonight so it's either stay home and be lonely or go hang out with your friends and bitch about how you each used to be able to buy a whole theater and everything in it but now you have to deal with all the other things people have used this theater metaphor to illustrate.
posted by VTX at 3:31 PM on April 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
A better metaphor would be an amusement park, with park admission no longer entitling a guest to enjoy every attraction as it once did, or putting guests on equal footing regardless of their spending (and so a need to pay to keep up with friends), and the escapist atmosphere once past the front gate corrupted by pressure for additional transactions — as well as the presence of outside marketing. Which indeed has all actually happened.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
Like if the entry ticket only got you access to Main Street USA and you needed to buy add-ons for each additional Kingdom and also the only way to get on Space Mountain would be to buy tickets to get entered into a lottery where you have a chance of maybe winning a Space Mountain Pass but probably you just get a coupon for a drink at that weird diner with the singing alien robot.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
« Older View from the surface of a comet | Done right, casting is an invisible act Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fairmettle at 3:45 AM on April 26, 2018 [2 favorites]