Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

I can try some analogies.

How about a quarter of the cinema screen is blurred, only have to pay a small fee to clear it.

I wouldn't bother with the cinema but if other folks want to pay the extra and go watch a movie then fine.

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the characters' audio is silenced, only pay a small fee to hear the full audio.

I wouldn't bother with the cinema but if other folks want to pay the extra and go watch a movie then fine.

Deleted User wrote: »

Broadcasting of the champions league ends when stoppage time starts, only pay a small fee to unlock it.

I wouldn't bother with the football then. Why would anyone?

Deleted User wrote: »

You only have to pay a euro to unlock these things. The vast majority of people would pay it, because its only a tiny amount. That doesn't make it right. Developers are creating these ridiculous scenarios.

Actually if it's only an extra euro then I might go for it. Depends on how I feel. Generally I will look at what is being offered and decide if I want to pay and partake or not.

How are developers doing the same? What game has 1/4 of the game locked out? Or audio silenced? Or the last part of the game locked out?

Most DLC and MT is additional content, no?

The base game is usually playable and the player can complete the game right?

Your analogies are for what are essentially "experience breaking" restrictions but MTs tend to be extra stuff.

Do you have specific games in mind here that would line up somewhat with these analogies?

Maxpfizer

Kiith wrote: »

It absolutely is a competitive advantage to get something for €5 that someone else has to grind for 5 hours. You are more powerful than they are, simply because you paid money. You'll still be more powerful than they are after 5 hours, as you'll have gotten the next skill/power/ability after that, which will take them another 5 hours to grind. So until they max out a character, you will always be more powerful than them.

Skill means nothing if people can just pay their way to the top.

In a lot of competitive games or sports or other activities this is normal.

People pay more for better gear, equipment, and other advantages and that's seen as being fine.

So why the meltdown when the concept is applied to video games?

Nobody is saying to Liverpool "hey come on now you can't be spending more money on players than Cardiff that's not an equal playing field" or arguing that Bayern Munich can't sell X amount of Champions League merchandise because AEK Athens can only sell Y.

Kiith

By that logic, i'd be just fine if people who bought the boosts/items/abilities were in their own league (sponsored by EA :P), with other people who bought them.

Keep the non-buying players separate, and most people would be just fine with that...except the people who paid to be better i expect.

Robert ninja

Maxpfizer wrote: »

In a lot of competitive games or sports or other activities this is normal.

People pay more for better gear, equipment, and other advantages and that's seen as being fine.

So why the meltdown when the concept is applied to video games?

Nobody is saying to Liverpool "hey come on now you can't be spending more money on players than Cardiff that's not an equal playing field" or arguing that Bayern Munich can't sell X amount of Champions League merchandise because AEK Athens can only sell Y.

You can't pay to give people better stamina, more muscle or quicker reaction time in real life. Oh wait you can, with drugs, which are universally banned and shunned.

As for the whole missing out on the joys of gambling because others with no self control ruined it all. I get it, but it's not exactly the same thing. When you gamble all you're working with is money and the thrill of it. In video games there's content matched to the money. A lot of that content that, historically, would be available on purchase of the game. Every upgrade, every costume. There are in fact things exclusive to purchase or drop rate changed to be very rare unless you purchase. This is a regression in quality content to the consumer and it comes in the form of gambling... I can definitely understand why consumers have a problem with this. Younger players might not because they're less familiar with how games used to be or the kind of content you'd get with an actual expansion pack.

If there's ways to pay past the grind I think it really helps to have a strong community market. Something like Warframe where yes, you can grind for the gear or pay for it... but you can also grind and sell it to someone whose willing to pay for it. This way you allow the consumers to profit from grind with an in-game currency that they can cycle back into things they want. I'm always grinding and making platinum on Warframe from players so I can gift things to newer players or allies in my clan.

Which kind of touches on these games' life cycles. Free to play or subscription games usually last for years and years, sometimes decades. The investment seems a lot more understandable. But these flavour of the month games with lootboxes are past their prime within a few months of release and drop support within about 2 years or have barely anyone playing them by then.

johnny_ultimate

My primary concern with lootboxes would be most akin to issues I have with blatant product placement in TV or film. At their worst, they’re corporate compromises to a game - financial motives overwhelming what’s actually best for the game mechanically or artistically. Grinding is bad game design, almost universally - if a game wastes players’ time simply to benefit those who pay extra, then it’s a problem. Even with purely ‘cosmetic ones’, they can often be an uncomfortable reminder that ‘hey, y’know you can actually pay for more of this?’ and in the process make the game feel that bit less charming. PUBG’s implementation of loot boxes in their recent iteration (with the bull**** paid keys) is so grimly, miserably obnoxious that I’m disinclined to even play the game anymore.

Obviously, most commercially sold products are heavily influenced by varying degrees of corporate interests, and it’s clear the main priorities for most major companies is to maximise profit above all else. More sympathetically, games are super expensive to make and it’s a hostile market out there. These are realities that aren’t going away. But to me, when playing a game is interrupted by reminders that I can pay extra, that’s off-putting and damaging to the experience. While I have no problem with substantial paid DLC (and I mean major, interesting gameplay expansions) even constant menu reminders that there’s more to buy are infuriating - my brief time with Sleeping Dogs stands out as a game that got that balance wrong, with constant prods to buy DLC.

Lootboxes and other such examples of blatant in-game commercialisation can also feed the perception that games are ‘consumer goods’ above works of art or entertainment. I think that’s always a perception worth rejecting to help the medium along its ever maturing path.

I would stress it’s far from doom-and-gloom. Personally I actually rarely encounter lootboxes, as they don’t tend to infect games I’m particularly interested in. With indie games so dominant and many of the biggest companies still largely focusing on complete single player experiences, I can’t say it’s an issue that’s gotten in the way of too many games I’ve played... only a handful, and I’ve happily ignored some of the more glaring offenders like Shadow of War.

Benzino

marcbrophy wrote: »

I didn't really mind what you said, tbh! I was just looking for an excuse to bail from the thread
The argument has been circular now at least 4 times here!
When all is said and done, we still sit down on different sides of the fence.
That's cool, we can still act civilised to each each

But, if you put the phrase "a very small minority of" in front of the word "people" in your first sentence, then you see what I am trying to state.

But it's not a very small minority, the amount of money these are generating testify to that. Don't be fooled by the online crusade, unhappy people always moan whereas people happy/content tend not to bother.

People need to accept that these games may not be aimed at them anymore. I always see console/pc gamers look down on the mobile industry (one person here referred to the state of it), but those games are not aimed at that market, they are aimed at mobile gamers who voted for freemiun games with their wallet. Perhaps these games with loot boxes and MT's are just not aimed at you anymore, and that's ok.

J. Marston

EA are refusing to remove lootboxes from Fifa in Belgium. They're taking the Belgian government to court to challenge their ruling.

ERG89

J. Marston wrote:

EA are refusing to remove lootboxes from Fifa in Belgium. They're taking the Belgian government to court to challenge their ruling.

I REALLY wish people would stop buying the annual crap they dump out every year.

TerrorFirmer

Overwatch is a great model, base game is about 30, lootboxes can be earned or purchased and contain cosmetic-only items, and the game regularly gets updates including new maps, game modes and characters. I'm sure other games have this model as well, but it's what springs to mind.

I wouldn't mind MT's in this form in any game - I just hate the pure greed model which increasingly seems to be to bend the gamer over the table and pillage them for every last cent, regardless of whether it's detrimental to the game or not (EA's Battlefront 2).

Mickeroo

How doe these laws affect games like Hearthstone, Gwent or Magic the Gathering? Can Belgian people just not buy card packs now?

gizmo

Nice to see 2K learn from their lessons from last years 2K18...

NBA 2K19 Is A Nightmarish Vision Of Our Microtransaction-Stuffed Future

*sigh*

J. Marston

EA and 2K in a desperate race to the bottom.

Edit: With that said, there are more than enough suckers at that bottom for this type of business model to work for them. I was one of them for years with Fifa.

Kiith

They also reduced the amount of XP gained for release copies, so reviewers would think the grind wasn't that bad.

Not surprising, as 2k Games are absolutely awful for this kind of thing.

gizmo

Kiith wrote: »

They also reduced the amount of XP gained for release copies, so reviewers would think the grind wasn't that bad.

Not surprising, as 2k Games are absolutely awful for this kind of thing.

Ugh, ****ing gross.

The fact that the review copies are the Anniversary Edition which also comes with 100K worth of VC from the start should definitely be called out by any reviewer worth their salt too. From the article above, it looks like it gives a completely different introduction to the game than buyers of the regular version will potentially have.

Zero-Cool

gizmo wrote: »

Nice to see 2K learn from their lessons from last years 2K18...

NBA 2K19 Is A Nightmarish Vision Of Our Microtransaction-Stuffed Future

*sigh*

I made the move from NBA 2K to EA NBA Live last year and it was such a breath of fresh air. Microtransactions were kept to the Ultimate Team which I never spent a penny and still built a great team with very little grinding, more just enjoying the game.


NBA 2K18 was horrendous with its VC (Virtual Currency) where you could buy VC to upgrade your single player career character. Problem was, it was always online and had you compete with everyone else in the Online Park so a hug amount of people bought the game and then 60 dollars worth of VC to upgrade them as high as possible on launch. That left your crappy character unable to compete. 2K got an awful backlash so thought 2k19 would wind it in a bit but still looks like its rampant. You then have youtubers giving out about the VC every year but admit they buy it because they have to look good for their channel and you can imagine the amount of money 2K get from the player base through VC alone, no way that will ever stop.


Long story short, try NBA Live if you're looking to get away from 2K. NBA Live 19 is the most fun I've had with a basketball game in years.

raze_them_all_

Overwatch kind of has the right idea kind of not. I'd get rid of skins in lootboxes totally, do it like the pink mercy skin but a bit cheaper. So release skins for characters, charge 1-2-5-10 dollars based on the rarity, people get what they pay for and blizzard would still make a killing. Removes the bad feeling of spending 20-50 quid and miss the skin. Keep non skins in lootboxes. Everyone wins

Potential-Monke

Zero-Cool wrote: »

...you can imagine the amount of money 2K get from the player base through VC alone, no way that will ever stop.

Then throw in the fact that they end the server support less than 2 years later, and you can no longer continue your career player that you may have spent extra money on. Smart money model but it's going to hurt them in the long run I believe.

ShadowHearth

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Overwatch kind of has the right idea kind of not. I'd get rid of skins in lootboxes totally, do it like the pink mercy skin but a bit cheaper. So release skins for characters, charge 1-2-5-10 dollars based on the rarity, people get what they pay for and blizzard would still make a killing. Removes the bad feeling of spending 20-50 quid and miss the skin. Keep non skins in lootboxes. Everyone wins

As much as it is fashionable to hate Fortnite, I personally think they made the best business model in years when it comes to free to play games.
Season pass for 10eu, which is good for 2 months. Gives you at least 6 skins and a chunk of gliders/pickaxes/gliders. Best thing is you earn 15eu worth of currency for your next season pass. If you want a skin you see? You wait for it to go on sale and buy it, instead of RNG gambling.

And Fortnite right now swimming in money. As I said before: If you make fair business model, people will throw money at you and praise you, who knew?!?!

Loot boxes can feck off as a concept. There are better ways for monetization.

Potential-Monke

Yeah, as much as I hate Fortnite, they've done MTs right. Buy what you want and no RNG if you don't want it. But they have a place. Cosmetic items need colourful games to sell, so the Fortnite system wouldn't work in Battlefield, for example, because BF players are quite adamant about their game being 'realistic'. I bet Activision are disgusted that the futuristic CoDs have dropped in popularity, as it was perfect for cosmetic items. Can't really bring out mad crazy stuff in a WWII era game. Guarantee BlOps 4 will have a serious amount of cosmetic content again. Don't know if WWII had, but I can't imagine it was anywhere near the amount for AW or IW or BlOps 3.

TitianGerm

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Overwatch kind of has the right idea kind of not. I'd get rid of skins in lootboxes totally, do it like the pink mercy skin but a bit cheaper. So release skins for characters, charge 1-2-5-10 dollars based on the rarity, people get what they pay for and blizzard would still make a killing. Removes the bad feeling of spending 20-50 quid and miss the skin. Keep non skins in lootboxes. Everyone wins

Just leave the skins in the loot boxes and offer an option to buy the one you want for €2 or whatever if you don't want to wait to get it in a box.

How exactly does Ultimate Team work in Fifa? like, would you have Messi and Ronaldo playing for Scunthorpe if thats the team you wanted?

Kiith

It works by taking any money that might have been used to improve the career mode, and putting it into FUT.

Sorry, i don't know much about it, but am still mad at the lack of career mode updates :mad:

J. Marston

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

How exactly does Ultimate Team work in Fifa? like, would you have Messi and Ronaldo playing for Scunthorpe if thats the team you wanted?

When you start, you're given a bunch of hopeless bronze tier players (rated from 45 to 65 overall) for your first team. Then you start playing matches to earn coins to buy packs to hopefully get better players to improve your team. Or some people trade, meaning they try to buy cards for low prices and sell for high. You can also earn prizes of packs with better drop rates on rare players by playing in the Weekend League. You play 40 games over Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It's horrible.

Think I read that a player has a 0.009% chance of getting Messi or Ronaldo in a premium gold pack.

So you can grind, grind and grind or you can buy Fifa points with real money and try to shortcut your way to good players but it's still random chance what is gonna be in those card packs. But they make opening those packs very enticing.

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

It works by taking any money that might have been used to improve the career mode, and putting it into FUT.

Sorry, i don't know much about it, but am still mad at the lack of career mode updates :mad:

Yeah, I gave up after 17, little to no innovation to be seen for the more casual among us

J. Marston wrote: »

When you start, you're given a bunch of hopeless bronze tier players (rated from 45 to 65 overall) for your first team. Then you start playing matches to earn coins to buy packs to hopefully get better players to improve your team. Or some people trade, meaning they try to buy cards for low prices and sell for high. You can also earn prizes of packs with better drop rates on rare players by playing in the Weekend League. You play 40 games over Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It's horrible.

Think I read that a player has a 0.009% chance of getting Messi or Ronaldo in a premium gold pack.

So you can grind, grind and grind or you can buy Fifa points with real money and try to shortcut your way to good players but it's still random chance what is gonna be in those card packs. But they make opening those packs very enticing.

Jesus, didnt realise it was that intense. Sounds like an awful chore.

TerrorFirmer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I bet Activision are disgusted that the futuristic CoDs have dropped in popularity, as it was perfect for cosmetic items. Can't really bring out mad crazy stuff in a WWII era game. Guarantee BlOps 4 will have a serious amount of cosmetic content again. Don't know if WWII had, but I can't imagine it was anywhere near the amount for AW or IW or BlOps 3.

COD WW2 is a cartoon-game in MP. It has crazy, whacky, colorful skins of all kinds (including, literally, Leprechaun skins), which personally I hate and I dropped the game like a hot potato.

For similar reasons I'm not buying BF:V, though EA are starting to panic about this one and they're trying to packpeddle hard on the whacky custom stuff now to get people back around.

It's pure, utter greed. Fortnite is a free game at least with a functional and fair MT system. EA and Activision want both worlds - consumers paying full price for the game, and then exploiting them for every cent possible on MTs.

Battlefront 2 really tipped the scales though. I know the game still sold well but it's had huge blowback on EA and future titles.

Just read about NBA 2K19 there - why would people continue to support a model like that? That basically sounds like an even worse sports edition of Battlefront 2.

Korvanica

Finland are now investigating lootboxes.

Great news, I hope more countries follow suit.

Korvanica

Korvanica wrote: »

Finland are now investigating lootboxes.

Great news, I hope more countries follow suit.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-17-15-european-gambling-regulators-unite-to-tackle-loot-box-threat

Korvanica

Fred The Red wrote: »

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-17-15-european-gambling-regulators-unite-to-tackle-loot-box-threat

Very surprised Ireland is on this TBH. I'd have expected we'd be backwards enough to not bother try to stop it.

kunst nugget

Korvanica wrote: »

Very surprised Ireland is on this TBH. I'd have expected we'd be backwards enough to not bother try to stop it.

I wouldn't consider us backwards at all.

J. Marston

Korvanica wrote: »

Very surprised Ireland is on this TBH. I'd have expected we'd be backwards enough to not bother try to stop it.

I emailed David Stanton about all this stuff near the beginning of the year since I thought he was responsible for everything to do with gambling. He (or his secretary) told me to contact Heather Humphries who is responsible for e-commerce which is what all this would fall under apparently. I did and got this back in March...

Dear Mr. X

The Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ms. Heather Humphreys T.D., has asked me to reply further to your e-mail about unregulated gambling mechanics in videogames which was referred to her by the Minister of State for Justice, Mr. David Stanton T.D.

The Minister has asked me to say that she shares your concern about the issue of ‘loot boxes’ or in-app purchases in video games widely played by children.

Part of the problem in addressing the issue has been the lack of clarity as to whether such video game mechanics constitute a form of gambling that should be regulated under gambling law. The Minister understands that you have been advised by Minister of State for Justice that in-app purchases in video games are an e-commerce activity rather than a gambling activity and, as such, are not regulated under current Irish gambling or betting law, nor is it currently intended to bring them within the scope of this law in the future.

In-app purchases in video games come however within the scope of a number of pieces of current and prospective consumer protection legislation, some of which apply to gambling and some of which do not. The principal such enactments are as follows:

Part 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 which gives effect to Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair business-to-consumer practices regulates the practices engaged in by traders to get consumers to buy, or continue to buy, goods and services. Its aim is to protect consumers against unfair, misleading or aggressive commercial practices which harm consumers’ economic interests. It applies to virtually all consumer transactions, including digital games and gambling transactions.

The European Union (Consumer Information, Cancellation and Other Rights) Regulations 2013 which implement Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights provide, among other things, for detailed information requirements for online contracts. Subject to certain exceptions, the Directive also gives consumers the right to cancel online and certain other contracts within 14 days of the delivery of goods or the conclusion of a contract. These exceptions include digital content whose performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent and his or her acknowledgement that they have thereby lost the right to cancel the contract. Gambling contracts, defined as contracts which ‘involve waging a stake with pecuniary obligations in games of chance, including lotteries, casino games and betting transactions’ are excluded from the scope of the Regulations and the Directive. The application of the Regulations to in-app purchases will depend therefore on whether these are held to come within the scope of the definition of gambling contracts.

A proposed Directive on Digital Content is currently the subject of discussions between the European Council, Commission and Parliament and is expected to be adopted this year; EU Member States will then have to transpose the Directive within two years of its adoption. The Directive will apply, among other things, to contracts for digital content defined as ‘data produced and supplied in digital form such as video and audio files, apps, digital games and other software’. It lays down requirements for digital content in respect of its supply and its conformity with the contract (including compliance with description, fitness for normal purposes, possession of qualities of functionality, compatibility, accessibility and security which the consumer can reasonably expect etc.) and the remedies available to consumers if these requirements are not met. The proposed Directive does not apply to gambling services defined as ‘services which involve wagering a stake with pecuniary value in games of chance, including those with an element of skill, such as lotteries, casino games, poker games and betting transactions, by electronic means or any other technology for facilitating communication and at the individual request of a recipient of a service.’ The Directive’s application to in-app purchases will depend therefore on whether these are held to come within the scope of its definition of ‘gambling services’.

The purpose of these consumer protection enactments is essentially to protect the economic interests of consumers in transactions or contracts with traders. As such, they do not address the wider concerns expressed in your e-mail about the effect of loot boxes in exposing and habituating children to gambling and which are a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality. The legislative provisions outlined above are relevant nevertheless to other potential harms to children and others that may result from in-app purchases in video games.

The Minister has asked me to say that your e-mail has been forwarded for consideration to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission which has responsibility for the enforcement of these and other consumer protection enactments.

Yours sincerely,
X
Private Secretary

I really pushed the "Won't someone think of the children!" angle in my original email.

Anyway TL;DR is "We're concerned too and we might look at it in the future."