US lawmaker set to end lootbox predators

General Discussion
12/06/2017 07:16 AMPosted by FoolishStew5
12/06/2017 07:04 AMPosted by iSuckBigTime
People who support the cancer microtransactions and anything unlockable through coins/credit cards are born from the 2000s.

Fact.
1990, thanks. I see the appeal of the current cosmetic-only system from both sides of the alley. I prefer the current system over any of the other methods they could choose for making long term money.

I want to still play this game in 2 years, thanks.


Counter-Strike did not need lootboxes to survive before Global Offensive. I could give you plenty of other examples. It's about time you realize lootboxes were invented to make MORE money. In other words, way more than they need just to keep things alive. But ofc, corporates want you to believe it's a necessity.
The same can be said of any marketing campaign, since the dawn of time practically.

If it's merchants on the street trying to sell you wares, they'll prey upon your emotions and try and convince you that you need their item. This is nothing that video games do particularly more of, or even that they do more aggressively.

Just look at all of the manipulative marketing that's done between McDonalds, Walmart, Ford. All very different sectors of business but they all have one thing in common: they want to oversell you.

How do they achieve this? Well they do many different things. There are whole careers dedicated to this, marketing and the like. To name a few, research has apparently shown that children aquire color recognition in red and yellow tones first.

Who's sign is big, red and yellow? McDonalds is! Who tries to appeal to children with a kids menu , characters, playplace etc? McDonalds!

Walmart: apparently it's been shown that the color blue makes a person feel more relaxed about being a cautious spender. Whose goods are cheaper than anyone else's? Walmart! Who squashes all local competition each and every time by selling for a short period (until competition goes out of business) at a deficit? Walmart!

Ford constantly tries to play up on peoples empathy by pushing the buying domestic lie, plus their ads are always superficial, relying on spitting out lots of numbers that the average person really won't need to care about and lauding on about all the "awards" they've "won".

Corporate greed and manipulation will never stop, and I feel that we shouldn't put some weird special emphasis on the gaming industry, claiming to be "the good guys".

Optional cosmetics have made a lot of the game I play sustainable, maintainable and even some of them free.

And while I agree that gambling addictions are very sad and serious, this is a social awareness issue. There are support groups. And taking out the gambling in video games won't just magically make those people with real addictions suddenly stop.

Starwars Battlefront 2 is a massive paywall. That's going to show when nobody likes the game. When it comes down to how legal that is, I have a very hard time saying that we should illegalize something that is elective, and for fun. People should be able to address their own personal weakness and understand their limits.

I know that's mostly just jargon, and I'm sure it's easier said than done, but if you struggle with addiction please seek out support groups.

There are people who feel that way and have felt that way and want to help one another!

Edit: added "for fun", I don't support the battlefront 2 paywall, thats an example of not fun to me.
12/06/2017 07:04 AMPosted by iSuckBigTime
People who support the cancer microtransactions and anything unlockable through coins/credit cards are born from the 2000s.

Fact.


born in 1994 and I can make distinctions between what I need to live and what I don't need. Cosmetics in a video game is one of the latter. the bottom line comes to: if you are of age, you can or should be able to manage what you spend money on without a law/company holding your hand. I think the only way microtransactions need to be truly governed in the event of minors, otherwise-- you're an adult. If you don't like it, don't support it. You are not forced to spend that money.

also, you know what's cancer? actual cancer.

edit:
also, HUGE shoutout to linkdude240 above me. very articulated post nailing the points I can't make myself, LOL. please read that ^^^
[quote]
Whether you like lootboxes or not, I don't think overwatch is specifically at fault for this reason. After you get all whites and blues, each lootbox essentially becomes a currency box instead anyway, with a chance for rare and legendary drops.


Overwatch has one issue. This requires you to sink in a lot of time playing the game. The game is bare bones. Say what you want about that. But their is no single player campaign, co-op mode, PVE modes are gated in events, new content takes a very long time. The game gets boring quick. So people get bored and quit. When new stuff comes out.

Since they haven't grinded and played stuff all that much. They have very little coins. So now the whole buying lootboxes comes into play. Even than, people want the new stuff NOW. Time to plop down $40 for 50 crates. Instead of going $2.99 for new Zen items pack. This is another area people will argue predatory gaming.
12/06/2017 07:26 AMPosted by Pisces

also, you know what's cancer? actual cancer.

edit:
also, HUGE shoutout to linkdude240 about me. very articulated post nailing the points I can't make myself, LOL. please read that ^^^


Aw, dude nice. Thanks a lot.

Also agree 100% on your "cancer" thing. I don't agree with just labeling things as "cancer" and hoping everyone catches your meaning.

We have a lot of words in our language and we can create syntactically and semantically structured posts which reflect our thoughts and feelings much more eloquently than simply: "it's cancer"

Just my opinion though.
since this law would change the playing field for all games,
are we getting paid dlc, or a sub model?
I hope every game developer/publisher will say.

"Thank you EA" for them bringing all this attention, heck, governments around the world have started to look into this, just because they got extra greedy.

and I LOVE it! <3
Blizzard is one of the nicest companies in the world handling the lootboxes,
they are purely costmetics, can be gained via normal gaming, and the drop-rate is reasonable.

If people are ever complaining about this, they surely haven't play some greedy gash grab mobile games.

P,S please read linkdude240's post above just in case you missed it.
There's an article talking about a guy who got hooked on microtransactions at the age of 13 and he needed to see a therapist to be treated for gambling addiction. Guy spent 13 grand on microtransactions and loot boxes. It's a pretty damning story for all the companies who would like to claim they are harmless. The guys a carbon copy of the type of person the gaming companies say don't exist.
12/06/2017 07:34 AMPosted by linkdude240
12/06/2017 07:26 AMPosted by Pisces

also, you know what's cancer? actual cancer.

edit:
also, HUGE shoutout to linkdude240 about me. very articulated post nailing the points I can't make myself, LOL. please read that ^^^


Aw, dude nice. Thanks a lot.

Also agree 100% on your "cancer" thing. I don't agree with just labeling things as "cancer" and hoping everyone catches your meaning.

We have a lot of words in our language and we can create syntactically and semantically structured posts which reflect our thoughts and feelings much more eloquently than simply: "it's cancer"

Just my opinion though.


not a problem. a lot of people don't put time into their responses here (myself included) so in-depth, mature posts like those kind absolutely warrant appreciation.

I usually don't say anything but cancer in general has been on my thoughts due to a family friend. Comparing a mechanic in gaming marketing designated to make more money to a disease that ruins and kills to get off the buzzword just doesn't sit well with me.

Life-stealing, money-grubbing, materialistic, predatory, gold-digging.. there's plenty of choices right there. In fact, predatory would have done a lot better job for the point they were pushing.
Its nice, but I doubt they can do anything. EA,ACTI , too big and powerful to be touched.
12/06/2017 07:30 AMPosted by Hulkie
[quote]
Whether you like lootboxes or not, I don't think overwatch is specifically at fault for this reason. After you get all whites and blues, each lootbox essentially becomes a currency box instead anyway, with a chance for rare and legendary drops.


Overwatch has one issue. This requires you to sink in a lot of time playing the game. The game is bare bones. Say what you want about that. But their is no single player campaign, co-op mode, PVE modes are gated in events, new content takes a very long time. The game gets boring quick. So people get bored and quit. When new stuff comes out.

Since they haven't grinded and played stuff all that much. They have very little coins. So now the whole buying lootboxes comes into play. Even than, people want the new stuff NOW. Time to plop down $40 for 50 crates. Instead of going $2.99 for new Zen items pack. This is another area people will argue predatory gaming.
if you can't play a lot anyway, then how much more progress are they expected to make in another game?

How much playing is enough to justify not having to buy lootboxes?

12/06/2017 07:23 AMPosted by Searaphim
12/06/2017 07:16 AMPosted by FoolishStew5
...1990, thanks. I see the appeal of the current cosmetic-only system from both sides of the alley. I prefer the current system over any of the other methods they could choose for making long term money.

I want to still play this game in 2 years, thanks.


Counter-Strike did not need lootboxes to survive before Global Offensive. I could give you plenty of other examples. It's about time you realize lootboxes were invented to make MORE money. In other words, way more than they need just to keep things alive. But ofc, corporates want you to believe it's a necessity.
counter strike had player run servers. PLAYERS were paying and running their own hardware for a long time.

Blizzard uses their own servers. You think they'll just keep those running without guaranteed future profit, especially when Overwatch sales have already peaked?

100 developers probably runs close to 5 million dollars a year to employ, if not more, and that's not counting license fees for software, or monthly costs for equipment upkeep. The sales figure for 35 million units probably doesn't even matter - it's been several quarters since the sales peak, and it's about to be a new fiscal year. Overwatch needs to prove it can remain profitable into the next year if we want to continue receiving quality content.
I personally doubt anything is gonna change and I prefer it this way than having to buy every skin and item because I'm sure that will be much more expensive than it currently is
12/06/2017 05:45 AMPosted by Sizukun
, or we'll get some mandatory disclosure like China got

Can't wait to buy my 5 credits and receive a complimentary 50 lootboxes
If it's not lootboxes, it'll be something else. The catalyst doesn't matter. You cannot change the nature of capitalism, not while we live in a society built around it.
12/06/2017 07:30 AMPosted by Hulkie
...

Overwatch has one issue. This requires you to sink in a lot of time playing the game. The game is bare bones. Say what you want about that. But their is no single player campaign, co-op mode, PVE modes are gated in events, new content takes a very long time. The game gets boring quick. So people get bored and quit. When new stuff comes out.

Since they haven't grinded and played stuff all that much. They have very little coins. So now the whole buying lootboxes comes into play. Even than, people want the new stuff NOW. Time to plop down $40 for 50 crates. Instead of going $2.99 for new Zen items pack. This is another area people will argue predatory gaming.
if you can't play a lot anyway, then how much more progress are they expected to make in another game?

How much playing is enough to justify not having to buy lootboxes?

12/06/2017 07:23 AMPosted by Searaphim
...

Counter-Strike did not need lootboxes to survive before Global Offensive. I could give you plenty of other examples. It's about time you realize lootboxes were invented to make MORE money. In other words, way more than they need just to keep things alive. But ofc, corporates want you to believe it's a necessity.
counter strike had player run servers. PLAYERS were paying and running their own hardware for a long time.

Blizzard uses their own servers. You think they'll just keep those running without guaranteed future profit, especially when Overwatch sales have already peaked?

100 developers probably runs close to 5 million dollars a year to employ, if not more, and that's not counting license fees for software, or monthly costs for equipment upkeep. The sales figure for 35 million units probably doesn't even matter - it's been several quarters since the sales peak, and it's about to be a new fiscal year. Overwatch needs to prove it can remain profitable into the next year if we want to continue receiving quality content.


Are you seriously saying Overwatch is running full time on a 100 developers? Where is all that "Quality Content?" if there's all these people working on it? How did all the older games that lasted years survive without extremely profitable lootboxes? Tons of games with multiplayer functionalities manage to keep their infrastructures running even if they dont charge the players anything additional. Demon Souls finally closed their servers now after 8 years. A game for which you only had to pay what was written on the pricetag to get the full experience. In the past when they wanted to add content all they had to do was sell a huge expansion pack and make it look worth your money. Now you're basically just paying in the hope it helps them create content equal to the value you spent.
I say this time and again, but I'd really prefer to buy coin packs outright for $ and get boxes purely as a reward for gameplay/leveling. So you CAN get stuff for free still, nothing about that changes, but if you don't have time/patience you can just buy things straight up.
12/06/2017 07:04 AMPosted by iSuckBigTime
People who support the cancer microtransactions and anything unlockable through coins/credit cards are born from the 2000s.

Fact.


I was born in 1979. I hate the pay-to-win model micro-transactions that many games have. But the lootbox system in Overwatch doesn't bother me at all. The items are purely cosmetic and you can get loot boxes through leveling without ever spending a dime beyond the initial purchase of the game.

I remember when I would buy a game in a box off a store shelf and I got what was in that box and nothing more. No patches for bug fixes, no new content, no free servers to play on. Nothing. And if/when I wanted more content for the game and bug fixes, I paid another $25-40 for an expansion.

With Overwatch, I made a one-time purchase and I get unlimited use of their bandwidth and servers, bug fixes, new maps, new heroes, new skins, holiday events, and all sorts of other goodies without spending another penny. Why are people complaining about this?
12/06/2017 07:30 AMPosted by Hulkie
...

Overwatch has one issue. This requires you to sink in a lot of time playing the game. The game is bare bones. Say what you want about that. But their is no single player campaign, co-op mode, PVE modes are gated in events, new content takes a very long time. The game gets boring quick. So people get bored and quit. When new stuff comes out.

Since they haven't grinded and played stuff all that much. They have very little coins. So now the whole buying lootboxes comes into play. Even than, people want the new stuff NOW. Time to plop down $40 for 50 crates. Instead of going $2.99 for new Zen items pack. This is another area people will argue predatory gaming.
if you can't play a lot anyway, then how much more progress are they expected to make in another game?

How much playing is enough to justify not having to buy lootboxes?

12/06/2017 07:23 AMPosted by Searaphim
...

Counter-Strike did not need lootboxes to survive before Global Offensive. I could give you plenty of other examples. It's about time you realize lootboxes were invented to make MORE money. In other words, way more than they need just to keep things alive. But ofc, corporates want you to believe it's a necessity.
counter strike had player run servers. PLAYERS were paying and running their own hardware for a long time.

Blizzard uses their own servers. You think they'll just keep those running without guaranteed future profit, especially when Overwatch sales have already peaked?

100 developers probably runs close to 5 million dollars a year to employ, if not more, and that's not counting license fees for software, or monthly costs for equipment upkeep. The sales figure for 35 million units probably doesn't even matter - it's been several quarters since the sales peak, and it's about to be a new fiscal year. Overwatch needs to prove it can remain profitable into the next year if we want to continue receiving quality content.


That's why I believe they need PvE mode like StarCraft II, where you can buy heroes and announcers.
12/06/2017 08:07 AMPosted by Kraylessa


With Overwatch, I made a one-time purchase and I get unlimited use of their bandwidth and servers, bug fixes, new maps, new heroes, new skins, holiday events, and all sorts of other goodies without spending another penny. Why are people complaining about this?


I don't think people blame overwatch. The way they do it is a perfect example of how to do it right but the concept of lootboxes itself is problematic. They blame the industry as a whole. You give them an inch and they take a mile. We're at a point where every single big release is copy pasting this concept and somehow make it worse and worse.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum