Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Kiith

My only real problem with FUT is EA only care about that now. Career mode has gone to absolute **** because they don't get an additional revenue from it. The Journey thing is the only thing they've added in years.

Gunmonkey

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/government-shies-away-from-crackdown-on-loot-box-games

Good to know our wonderful elected overlords have our back!

Choice part of the article:

He said: “Where a game offers the possibility of placing a bet or the taking of risk for financial reward within the game, then, in my view it must be licensed as a gambling product. To offer gambling products in Ireland, a license is required under the Betting Acts 1931-2015 or the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. The Revenue Commissioners are the primary responsible licensing authority under both Acts, with some involvement of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

“However, it should be understood, that if a game offers in-game purchases – be they loot boxes, skins, etc. - which are promoted to gamers as increasing their chances of success, such purchases are essentially a commercial or e-commerce activity. This activity would fall within normal consumer law.”

Essentially he is saying if you get something in return (bar money), its not gambling, irrespective of how you obtain or the chances of getting it. His wording makes me think he doesn't even understand the "chance" associated with loot boxes, as he slots it alongside skins as being "just an item you can buy" or the BS rates developers will hide good stuff behind to force multiple purchases.

Clown.

Falthyron

Gunmonkey wrote: »

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/government-shies-away-from-crackdown-on-loot-box-games

Good to know our wonderful elected overlords have our back!

Choice part of the article:



Essentially he is saying if you get something in return (bar money), its not gambling, irrespective of how you obtain or the chances of getting it. His wording makes me think he doesn't even understand the "chance" associated with loot boxes, as he slots it alongside skins as being "just an item you can buy" or the BS rates developers will hide good stuff behind to force multiple purchases.

Clown.

Best not to upset the likes of EA and Acti-Blizzard who don't pay us any taxes for fear of them leaving. Besides, the legal wing of the Irish government is much too busy proving Apple doesn't owe us 13 billion in taxes that we let them away with to be dealing with this trivial issue of gambling mechanics in games purchased by children.

Benzino

Falthyron wrote: »

Best not to upset the likes of EA and Acti-Blizzard who don't pay us any taxes

Got anything to back that up? Pretty sure I've read articles about their revenues in Irish papers.

kunst nugget

Falthyron wrote: »

Best not to upset the likes of EA and Acti-Blizzard who don't pay us any taxes for fear of them leaving. Besides, the legal wing of the Irish government is much too busy proving Apple doesn't owe us 13 billion in taxes that we let them away with to be dealing with this trivial issue of gambling mechanics in games purchased by children.

The Irish Government are appealing the Apple tax case because we would end up most likely not seeing a cent of the money as it would be distributed around the EU for taxes they avoided in other countries by basing themselves Ireland. The money will be of no benefit to us as we'll effectively become a tax collector for other EU countries and will become less attractive as a proposition for companies looking for a base in Europe.

johnny_ultimate

Ireland’s actually collected the €13bn already... government’s still appealing, mind you!

While the statement from Stanton is extremely wishy-washy and non-committal, he’s probably right that most loot boxes are covered by consumer law. Would Panini stickers be covered by gambling law? Or blind box figurines, which often have a ~1% chance of getting particular figures? Low odds ‘blind’ purchases do exist outside gaming in a directly comparable way.

I should stress I’m generally anti loot box in the sense that I can see how vulnerable people, children particularly, could keep pumping funds into them (plus, y’know, the way they tend to monetise in-game progress even if it’s just cosmetics - my issue with the monetisation of game mechanics / content is primarily the way it dilutes / damages the game itself). I’m curious though whether we’ll see widespread efforts to regulate the loot boxes themselves, or will efforts largely be focused on skin betting sites and the like which are more indisputably pure gambling.

Korvanica

Guess we will just have to wait until EU brings it in as a law.

The lads over in Galway are probably having a celebratory round of soggy biscuit.

Grumpypants

Oh great, let's look at another "Youtube consumer advocate" that cons $13,500 a month from his 14-year-old fan base by whipping them up with this absolute garbage lecture others about manipulative practices.

Tell us Jim, why games don't need alternative revenue streams while pointing to all the studios who got shut down because they were losing money from making video games. Clown.

He already did, but you clearly missed the point :P

Penn

Grumpypants wrote: »

Oh great, let's look at another "Youtube consumer advocate" that cons $13,500 a month from his 14-year-old fan base by whipping them up with this absolute garbage lecture others about manipulative practices.

Tell us Jim, why games don't need alternative revenue streams while pointing to all the studios who got shut down because they were losing money from making video games. Clown.

The video is primarily about AAA studios, who don't need alternative revenue streams because they make a fortune anyway without them, but still implement them as a means of making even more money. It's literally the whole point of the video.

Kiith

And how exactly does he con people out of money? His YouTube videos are all free, and you don't have to sign up to his Patreon.

I'm not a fan of his, but people enjoy his content. I don't see how anything he does is a con.

Grumpypants

Kiith wrote: »

And how exactly does he con people out of money? His YouTube videos are all free, and you don't have to sign up to his Patreon.

I'm not a fan of his, but people enjoy his content. I don't see how anything he does is a con.

Remember his opening comment about how people keep saying "but I don't feel the need to buy microtransactions so it's not a problem"???????? And how he says that's because you are not the target audience..........................

His videos are free and you don't see the need to pay for them. But he preys on how susceptible a tiny % of gamers are to this outrage culture. He peddles a bunch of lies and claims to be on their side, they, in turn, reward him by signing up to his patreon.

It's sly and manipulative and his only goal is to stuff his own pockets.

Unfortunately, his content along with all the other garbage keeps getting shared.

It's sounds like you have a general agenda said YouTuber. You could in fact challenge the valid points being made but chose not too.
You would suspect YouTube content creators are you know trying to make a living. So what if somebody pays for his Patreon or any others for that matter.

What exactly did he lie about?

The first comment he made is also a perfectly valid point.

gizmo

Ever wonder why, when Jim is talking about ****ty behavior by publishers outside the realm of loot boxes and micro-transactions, he's able to get input from regular developers he knows within the industry and yet, when talking about these particular topics, he instead rails on the opinions of those outside the industry?

Do you think it's maybe because he gets cognisant arguments about the requirement for some of these practices in particular circumstances which may not allow him to generate content with such catchy titles as "Demolishing The Excuses Made For 'AAA' Publishers' Exploitative Greed"?

It's almost like the topic is more nuanced that that.

Just a thought.

Korvanica

I too want to know what lies Jim is spreading. Without sources or anything you sound like you just have a chip on your shoulder about him.

Pac1Man

Grumpypants wrote: »

His videos are free and you don't see the need to pay for them. But he preys on how susceptible a tiny % of gamers are to this outrage culture. He peddles a bunch of lies and claims to be on their side, they, in turn, reward him by signing up to his patreon.

That's bizarre logic. How does he 'prey' on anyone? I had a brief look at his Patreon; there are no tiers and you don't get anything for contributing. Those who like his videos can still enjoy them whether they contribute or not.

By your logic only those who disagree with him can justly back him.

Falthyron

I can't help but feel that people who defend lootbox culture and gambling mechanics do so because they won't admit they have a problem with gambling itself. You become so heavily invested (financially, personally, emotionally) in defending something because its easier than admitting there is a problem.

So, I am just going to put this here anyway, just in case.

Help with gambling in Ireland

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

I can't help but feel that people who defend lootbox culture and gambling mechanics do so because they won't admit they have a problem with gambling itself. You become so heavily invested (financially, personally, emotionally) in defending something because its easier than admitting there is a problem.

So, I am just going to put this here anyway, just in case.

Help with gambling in Ireland

You can't discount the fact that that some people are just daft. The likes of Battlefront II and Need for Speed Payback are utterly indefensible and yet you still see articles from folk saying they don't have a problem with it, it boggles the mind sometimes...

Grumpypants

Fred The Red wrote: »

It's sounds like you have a general agenda said YouTuber. You could in fact challenge the valid points being made but chose not too.
You would suspect YouTube content creators are you know trying to make a living. So what if somebody pays for his Patreon or any others for that matter.

What exactly did he lie about?

The first comment he made is also a perfectly valid point.

You would suspect video game content creators are you know trying to make a living. So what if somebody pays for additional content or any others for that matter.

Grumpypants

Grumpypants wrote: »

You would suspect video game content creators are you know trying to make a living. So what if somebody pays for additional content or any others for that matter.

Again, you clearly have not understood the issues he is addressing in relation to this.

It's nothing got to do with anybody questioning hard working developers who are trying to make a living.

I suggest you go back and watch it again.

Penn

Grumpypants wrote: »

You would suspect video game content creators are you know trying to make a living. So what if somebody pays for additional content or any others for that matter.

As he points out in the video, game devs are changing games to suit microtransactions to the point of unbalancing the games unfavourably to those who don't want to buy them. The example he uses is Shadow of War, which introduced a very grindy endgame to get to the true ending, and allowed you to buy orcs thereby largely negating the whole point of the Nemesis System (arguably the game's biggest selling point considering how well it was received in the first game).

These features (designed to produce this additional revenue) were so deeply ingrained into the game by design that when they decided to remove the marketplace and mtxs from the game, they had to rebalance the endgame as a result. This shows that the endgame (and therefore the true and full ending to the game) was purposefully tilted towards encouraging people to buy mtxs, and a purposeful grind for those who didn't want to pay.

It's why I disagree hugely with Sterling regarding cosmetic lootboxes and the like. If it doesn't affect gameplay or result in a grind otherwise, I don't have an issue with cosmetic lootboxes and the like. But when games are designed with mtxs in mind and the balance of the game tilted because of that, that's a bad thing for all gamers.

Not all loot boxes are bad

Allow me to introduce the new Diablo ladies and gentlemen. It was always a slippery slope. This is what happens when you support microtransactions IN ANY FORM.

ShadowHearth

Some positive news. Forza 7 got their loot boxes removed and redesigned system.

https://www.windowscentral.com/forza-motorsport-7-removes-loot-crates-adds-race-shop?amp

Perfect timing for me. I love Forza games, but 7 just did not took off with me and big part of it was loot boxes.
Forza Horizon 4 just got me back in love with Franchise and I already spent 60h+ and have only 2 achievements left to do. It has its issues, but it brought back the spark for me. I came back to F7 last week as I was looking for more focused racing experience and removal of loot boxes just great news.

ShadowHearth

Just to add to previous post. I came back home after work and played some F7. The update is live.
Now its clear that they could not just remove boxes, because of the whole system and achievements tied to mods and suits from loot boxes, but they managed to fix it in a really good way. Game is so much better now.
Shop refreshing every 6min is way too OP thought. Makes low end mods pretty much useless. As by the time you finished one good race and if some mod is used out, you just go to shop, buy legendary or very rare mods to replace them. Rinse and repeat. Already stacking up on mods, which give you first position in a grid for the races where I struggle.

Potential-Monke

Didn't know F7 had lootboxes. I thought people would have learned their lesson when they saw the total failure of the last NFS having lootboxes to upgrade your car. What BS. If i want to upgrade a car in a racing game, I should be able to buy them with in game currency earned from taking part in events.

ShadowHearth

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Didn't know F7 had lootboxes. I thought people would have learned their lesson when they saw the total failure of the last NFS having lootboxes to upgrade your car. What BS. If i want to upgrade a car in a racing game, I should be able to buy them with in game currency earned from taking part in events.

In fairness, F7 was launched when loot box meta did not hit a fan like a rhino turd. I dont think they ever made them available for actual money.
And the same time, those were not even close to the total joke of a system in latest need for speed. In NFS you get loot boxes and get cards as mods to your car. Completely random upgrades that go on your car. It was so horrible I never came back to the game and I actually enjoyed the intro part of the game, before whole loot boxes showed up. That game will die on EA access.
In F7 had loot boxes that give you mods. Those mods are like little challenges or small advantages in single player racing. For example: make 4 perfect turns in a race and you will get 50% extra credits or Finish top 3 to get 60% extra credits etc. Ypu can equip up to 3.
F7 ones are waaaaaaay less harmful, but still very annoying. You make credits and spend credits to make credits etc. Other loot boxes, expensive ones had suits and cars stuff. Never bought them.
Now you just have a shop, which refreshes every 6min. You just get mods and suits you want. Thats it. As I said, that system should not have been in game, but they did the best to fix it.

Number of child gamblers in the UK quadruples in two years, Gambling Commission names lootboxes and mobile games as possible causes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46286945

Jim Sterling makes video about above article

gizmo

Now this could potentially lead to some widespread change...

FTC pledges loot crate investigation

This has been reported across a number of outlets but interestingly, the ESA actually responded to Polygon's request for comment. The "loot boxes are not gambling" line is probably the most relevant here as gambling regulations come down to individual states in the US, giving them some wiggle room on the matter. This is also why it was unsurprising that Hawaii led the way here since, outside of Utah, they are the only state which have made gambling illegal outright.

marcbrophy

Yummy yummy MTX.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-11-28-whats-the-deal-with-red-dead-redemption-2s-microtransactions