If loot boxes are gambling, what about

General Discussion
11/21/2017 05:57 PMPosted by Kesh
11/21/2017 05:51 PMPosted by Desperad0z
Activision Blizzard earned over three billion dollars in in-game sales alone last year. The gaming industry is bigger than Hollywood. EA Yesterday told it's investors that the removal of loot boxes from Star Wars: Battlefront II won't hurt it's revenue. With over three billion dollars you should be asking why there isn't more new heroes and maps.


So your argument is that because the parent company made a bunch of money they owe us free stuff? That is ridiculous. You could use that argument to shoplift from successful corporations, because in your mind, they've "made enough money." There really is no difference.

Most of the people complaining have played Overwatch for dozens of hours. The value proposition has been fulfilled. Asking for more is pure entitlement.


My argument is that systems that let you gamble away your real money have no place in video games under an AO rating. I've shown you that removing these systems wouldn't hurt the industry or development times. I've also shown the amount of content we received vs Blizzard's net gain on in-game purchases is ridiculously one-sided and doen't justify the existence of these systems in video games in general. You have brought nothing to this conversation but misinterpretation, fallacies, and other drivel.
I'm convinced that if Blizzard moved to the Titanfall 2 model, they'd make even more money, and players would be happier. All non-cosmetic DLC is free; for cosmetic stuff, pay a reasonable price for the exact items you want. No more praying to RNGesus.
11/21/2017 06:20 PMPosted by Desperad0z
My argument is that systems that let you gamble away your real money have no place in video games under an AO rating. I've shown you that removing these systems wouldn't hurt the industry or development times. I've also shown the amount of content we received vs Blizzard's net gain on in-game purchases is ridiculously one-sided and doen't justify the existence of these systems in video games in general. You have brought nothing to this conversation but misinterpretation, fallacies, and other drivel.


No, that was not your argument. I suggest you read your reply to me again.

But, to humor your new point, trying to tie what you are owed in a game that has already been developed and purchased to how much the company is making from the game is absurd. To put it another way, do you expect grocery stores to lower prices as their profits go up, or send you free !@#$ in the mail? Should Activision only charge $30 per game because they, as a company, make billions? Of course not.

They design games we want so we will buy them, therefore making them billions. If there is no profit for them, we don't get games. And how much money can a company make before you feel they owe you something? 1 million? 100? A billion? Should they not make a profit at all and dump everything into content for you?

Your argument is nonsensical and entitled.
11/21/2017 06:38 PMPosted by Kesh
11/21/2017 06:20 PMPosted by Desperad0z
My argument is that systems that let you gamble away your real money have no place in video games under an AO rating. I've shown you that removing these systems wouldn't hurt the industry or development times. I've also shown the amount of content we received vs Blizzard's net gain on in-game purchases is ridiculously one-sided and doen't justify the existence of these systems in video games in general. You have brought nothing to this conversation but misinterpretation, fallacies, and other drivel.


No, that was not your argument. I suggest you read your reply to me again.

But, to humor your new point, trying to tie what you are owed in a game that has already been developed and purchased to how much the company is making from the game is absurd. To put it another way, do you expect grocery stores to lower prices as their profits go up, or send you free !@#$ in the mail? Should Activision only charge $30 per game because they, as a company, make billions? Of course not.

They design games we want so we will buy them, therefore making them billions. If there is no profit for them, we don't get games. And how much money can a company make before you feel they owe you something? 1 million? 100? A billion? Should they not make a profit at all and dump everything into content for you?

Your argument is nonsensical and entitled.


Kesh, I can tell that English is not your native tongue because you keep ignoring the argument that gambling has no place in video games. It is unregulated and it targets children. Your argument is in favor of microtransactions in general but loot boxes aren't your every day microtransaction. It is gambling, and it's unregulated gambling and nothing has justified it's existence in video games. I have shown proof of this, and you chose to ignore it. I don't how to say this in words you can easily understand, but please re-read this post a few times slowly because you're missing the entire point.
11/21/2017 05:46 PMPosted by Kesh
Why stop there. It goes all the way back to baseball cards that were around for decades. The problem isn't truly the loot boxes. It's tying them to power progression, a la Battlefront 2.

The people complaining about Overwatch loot boxes do not understand game development or financing. You want more heroes for free? You want more maps without paying for them? Then Blizzard has to make the money to develop them. They owe us nothing after the initial purchase of the game.

Either we get loot boxes or we pay for new heroes and maps. If you want there to be no loot boxes and you want free heroes and maps, the problem is you, not Blizzard.

The entitlement is real.
People like you should really stop using ''entitlement" because it just shows people how ignorant you are.

It's fine if you have a certain view point but please stop thinking that just because it's your view point that it is correct.
If they are going to sell the game at full price, why make us pay for a 7% chance or lower in getting our favorite cosmetics? Blizzard pulled an EA
11/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by TheReinhardt
The stupidity is defending the boxes and pretending they aren’t gambling
I just don't care. If they're free, it's fine. If functional components (non cosmetic) items are in them, it becomes unfine.

that's basically how I classify them.
It's absolutely the same thing. But that doesn't make it okay. It just means TCGs are horribly exploitative as well.

If I had the means, I would force them to change to a more consumer-friendly model too, and I suspect most rational people would. You just don't see as much outrage because the audience for TCGs is much smaller than the audience for video games. There's fewer people upset because there's fewer people to be upset.

And even with video games, it took basically the most hated publishing company in the world making a massive screwup with one of the most iconic franchises of all time to get the ball rolling, so it hasn't exactly been an easy fight for us either.
11/21/2017 07:08 PMPosted by Terranguard
11/21/2017 05:20 PMPosted by TheReinhardt
The stupidity is defending the boxes and pretending they aren’t gambling
I just don't care. If they're free, it's fine. If functional components (non cosmetic) items are in them, it becomes unfine.

that's basically how I classify them.
The whole point is that it doesn't matter what's in the lootbox because there is still the chance that you won't get it and since there is no way to get coins without opening boxes it gets even worse.
Buyable lootboxes are actually morally worse than traditional gambling.
11/21/2017 05:11 PMPosted by Sammo4
Pokemon cards
Lego-minifigure packs
Other types of trading cards

Any Other ideas? How stupid is this!


Lootbox's in the strictest sense are NOT gambling and neither are the other types you mention. However, they do promote gambling to a certain extent. Just like those cigarrete shaped candies promoted smoking.

In truth though trading card games are far less gambling then that of a the lootbox system.

1. You can BUY the cards you want individually from those who have them up for sale.
2. In trading card games you can TARGET a specific pack type for what cards you want which means you can raise your chances tremendously.
3. Trading card games have always had a gambling element to them where as lootbox's are a newly tacked on feature to video games. Locking away things that use to be INCLUDED with the game itself.

Those are my qualms here.
11/21/2017 05:11 PMPosted by Sammo4
Pokemon cards
Lego-minifigure packs
Other types of trading cards

Any Other ideas? How stupid is this!


As someone who worked in a table top store my answer to the pokemon cards one is: depends if they have a scale or not.
What I mean by that is that rarer cards tend to be embossed in some way or another, so they weigh ever so slightly more than normal cards.
So I've had players ask me for packs, pull out tiny weight scales, weigh the pack, see it was average weight, and not buy it.
The face you're pulling right noe is probably the same face I pulled when it happened.

Oh and as for Lego, just feel up the bags a little bit. Each figure has distinct pieces to it. It's heaps easy to figure most of them out. The most distinct the pieces, the easier it is. You could give me a box of those and I could figure them out with 99% accuracy.
Physical is different from digital.
Yep. Those are gambling.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum