[UPDATED V2] Several countries respond to Loot Box outrage in SWBF2

[Frankenburger]

43 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Hence my thoughts that loot boxes should affect cosmetics of the game only

I disagree with this mentality that "Lootboxes are OK if they're only cosmetic".

 

Cosmetic lootboxes still perpetuate the gambling mentality that people succumb to. I agree that microtransactions has its place in the market, but not lootboxes. Using Overwatch as an example, Overwatch's lootbox system is extremely egregious IMHO. There is no reason to lock ALL cosmetics behind lootboxes. That's the kind of practice I expect to see in a bad F2P game, and negatively affects my enjoyment of Overwatch. I refuse to pay money to gamble on low drop rate skins, which means the goals I have of unlocking various skins is completely at the mercy of RNG. It's very clear that Blizzard designed Overwatch's lootboxes in a way where they want their players to forego the grind and skip straight to buying crates, and that's the kind of shit that needs to go away.

[Egg-Roll]

My personal opinion is if done right this is a great thing, but if done wrong it's not. I dont buy AAA titles esp on Origin. But i would expect the AAA games to come out as a full package that can be played by anyone and everyone once bought. EA didn't do this with SWII, they gave everyone a skeleton and started charging for a more complete game w/o spending hours just trying to get it for free...

 

I'm perfectly fine with loot boxes if it is for ingame items that give no benefit towards the overall gameplay, but the second they are required to gain more than a 1-5% boost in total, that crosses the line.

 

If loot boxes have ingame benefits then it should be purchasable with ingame currencies, with no external cash funding. No matter, if it passes EA will likely try to jack up the prices but they are already too pricey for me to buy, so all they will be doing is hurting their bottom line even more.

 

15 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Oh good, loot boxes are going to be banned now. Since we no longer have a way to let the stupid few subsidize the game for the rest of us, I hope everyone enjoys paying $80 for the non-DLC base copy of games going forwards.

Ummm, DLC's are completely different. DLC's are known products available for sale, look boxes are random items every time you open them. Also might i remind you people already paid $80 for this game...

 

12 hours ago, JAKEBAB said:

Im not understanding the difference between loot boxes and a pack of pokemon cards. Someone explain?

 

Also people bitching over loot boxes but are fine paying as much for a season pass as a full game what?  

 

Loot boxes are optional, DLC literally fragment the player base and can make a game unplayable.

 

What am i missing here?!?!

Pokemon cards are random but you are guaranteed to get 1 foil plus a bunch of other cards. If you dont get what you want you can sell them and buy what you want.

 

Season passes (to my understanding) is free DLC's during said time frame with promised content. Look boxes give 0 promises and potentially crappy content.

 

Loot boxes are optional like DLC's however EA has made it in a way that loot boxes are required to make any headway with reasonable time. I have games with DLC's and i dont see this, in SCS games with the multiplayer mod they dont miss out, the core mechanics are sold with the game, map expansions drivers simply drive thru barriers but doesn't stop said player from playing.

[jaggysnake57]

17 hours ago, Beowulff83 said:

#1 EA deserves every bit of this.

 

#2 Anyone who contacted a government official about EA's actions are complete Idiots.

Once you start down the Governmental control path, for ever will it dominate your gaming future.   We just gave the governments of the world reason to get their fingers in the gamming industry.  Everything Government controls usually fails hard.  In a few years we will probably be begging for Loot Boxes back.  

 

13 hours ago, Drak3 said:

This is not the time for the government to step in. They're over stepping their boundaries.

ok 1  

 

then

 

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

You mean the ones that are banned in the US because kids choke to death on the toys inside?

They're not banned here yep. And that's not the only negative side effect which can also include murderous tantrum rage whenever they get the same stupid toy for the 6th time.

[aisle9]

4 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

I disagree with this mentality that "Lootboxes are OK if they're only cosmetic".

 

Cosmetic lootboxes still perpetuate the gambling mentality that people succumb to. I agree that microtransactions has its place in the market, but not lootboxes. Using Overwatch as an example, Overwatch's lootbox system is extremely egregious IMHO. There is no reason to lock ALL cosmetics behind lootboxes. That's the kind of practice I expect to see in a bad F2P game, and negatively affects my enjoyment of Overwatch. I refuse to pay money to gamble on low drop rate skins, which means the goals I have of unlocking various skins is completely at the mercy of RNG. It's very clear that Blizzard designed Overwatch's lootboxes in a way where they want their players to forego the grind and skip straight to buying crates, and that's the kind of shit that needs to go away.

I disagree. I think Overwatch is the perfect example of loot boxes done right. You can earn them through play, but it takes for-damn-ever to get a good drop. Functionally, the game is the same whether you've spent $1, $100 or $0 on loot boxes. It makes your character look and sound different, but has no effect on their play abilities and doesn't skew the playing field in your favor at all. If you want all those added looks, that's on you. I just want to play the game.

 

Think of it this way: a restaurant charges $5 for a cheeseburger. Included with that burger are the patty itself, a slice of cheese, lettuce, a tomato, an onion slice and a pickle slice. I go in and order the burger. You go in and order the same burger, but you add bacon, crumbled Bleu and an artisanal bun to it.

 

Side note: bacon and Bleu is a godlike combination, and you should all try it.

 

Your burger costs you $8. Why? Because you took the restaurant up on their offer of the same burger everyone else gets, but you wanted to make changes to it above and beyond what everyone else paid for. Your paying $8 for your customized burger means that the restaurant makes up any lost cost on the upcharge items while still being able to give me the same slab of dead cow without the add-ons for $5. That's how microtransactions should work: publishers use those to artificially drive up the price for those who want more than the basic appearance from the base game, while those who just want to pick up a laser and frag some goddamn aliens are able to do so for the listed price.

[Frankenburger]

10 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

but has no effect on their play abilities and doesn't skew the playing field in your favor at all.

That's exactly the mentality that got us where we're currently at. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. Blizzard is still deploying predatory practices in an attempt to bait people who care about vanity. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's OK. There are a lot of people it affects. There is NO reason to hide cosmetics behind lootboxes in a game that mandates an up front fee, or any game for that matter. Blizzard could EASILY do what Riot does and offer cosmetics as one time transactions. Why do you think they aren't opening skins, icons, sprays, and emotes as one time transactions? Because they know they can swindle more money out of whales by forcing them to gamble.

[NumLock21]

So where is the update? I don't see it.

[aisle9]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

That's exactly the mentality that got us where we're currently at. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. Blizzard is still deploying predatory practices in an attempt to bait people who care about vanity. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's OK. There are a lot of people it affects. There is NO reason to hide cosmetics behind lootboxes in a game that mandates an up front fee. Blizzard could EASILY do what Riot does and offer cosmetics as one time transactions. Why do you think they aren't opening skins, icons, sprays, and emotes as one time transactions? Because they know they can swindle more money out of whales by forcing them to gamble.

What you see as exploitation, I see as capitalism. If I pay $50 for a game and have to spend another $20 on DLC to unlock the last level, yes, I'm going to be pissed, and I'm going to call that out as an unfair and deceptive business practice. If you and I both pay $50 for the same game, but you decide to spend $50 more on loot boxes to hurry along acquisition of a skin you want whereas I just play the game until it drops by chance (however long that takes), that extra $50 is on you. You don't need that skin to advance in or complete the game, so spending that money is completely at your discretion.

 

Again, I have no interest in paying more for games so that someone else gets a skin they want at launch. I don't want that skin, I don't need that skin, I don't care about that skin, and I sure as hell don't want my $50 game to suddenly cost $60 because someone else wanted that skin and didn't want to grind or pay for it.

[ItsMitch]

15 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

So where is the update? I don't see it.

Added 2 new quotes, updated some spelling issues and added some more sources including the initial source which broke the story. 

[Frankenburger]

5 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

If you and I both pay $50 for the same game, but you decide to spend $50 more on loot boxes to hurry along acquisition of a skin you want whereas I just play the game until it drops by chance (however long that takes), that extra $50 is on you.

Why does it have to be loot boxes? Why can't I pay up front for a skin and call it a day? Because Blizzard wants to hook players into wagering their hard earned dough against the odds so Blizzard can make more money. If you don't see that as exploitative and predatory, then that's on you. You're the kind of person a publisher hopes will defend their bad practices so they can keep inventing increasingly anti-consumer practices so they can fill their pockets faster.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

3 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

I don't want that skin, I don't need that skin, I don't care about that skin

Plenty of kids DO care about that skin, and those are the ones that get addicted to gambling because of these tactics. 

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, Captain Chaos said:

Plenty of kids DO care about that skin, and those are the ones that get addicted to gambling because of these tactics. 

Not just kids, but adults too.

[aisle9]

9 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Why does it have to be loot boxes? Why can't I pay up front for a skin and call it a day? Because Blizzard wants to hook players into wagering their hard earned dough against the odds so Blizzard can make more money. If you don't see that as exploitative and predatory, then that's on you. You're the kind of person a publisher hopes will defend their bad practices so they can keep inventing increasingly anti-consumer practices so they can fill their pockets faster.

Tell me, what do you think about casinos?

 

If Blizzard (or anyone else) were to make individual DLC pieces available by themselves at inflated prices, I'd be totally cool with that. If you could spend $20 on that carbon fiber knife skin instead of gambling on the drop rate and potentially paying $50 (or potentially paying $1), that'd be awesome, but I'm not going to tell a publisher how to price their game. As long as it's not added cost required for the basic game experience (i.e., loot boxes to unlock entire levels or characters), it's solely at the publisher's discretion imo. Games are not a public utility, and access to carbon fiber knife skins is not a right. If you decide that the base game's appearance isn't good enough for you and want to buy your way up, that's on you. I'll get that carbon fiber knife skin by play sooner or later.

 

8 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

Plenty of kids DO care about that skin, and those are the ones that get addicted to gambling because of these tactics. 

And how is that a publisher's problem? We're all adults here with free will and the ability to walk away, and if some of us are not, those kids should be asking Mom and Dad for permission and a credit card number before blowing tons of money on loot boxes.

 

Edit: Yes, I'm one of those people who believes that if a child spends $9,000 on in-app purchases, Mommy and Daddy should be held accountable for that amount.

[Frankenburger]

7 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Tell me, what do you think about casinos?

I think they are predatory and exploitative.

 

7 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

If Blizzard (or anyone else) were to make individual DLC pieces available by themselves at inflated prices, I'd be totally cool with that. If you could spend $20 on that carbon fiber knife skin

That's just it. There's no need for microtransactions to be that expensive either. Plenty of games survive off of $5-$10 cosmetics. If Overwatch were to switch their model and allow skins to be purchased for say $7.50 a skin, I can guarantee you it'll still be profitable enough for Blizzard to put out regular updates.

 

10 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

As long as it's not added cost required for the basic game experience (i.e., loot boxes to unlock entire levels or characters), it's solely at the publisher's discretion imo.

You're right, it IS at the publisher's discretion. At the same time, it's up to the consumer's responsibility to vote with their wallet. The only reason why we're here today with loot boxes being focused by the media and world governments is because the consumer allowed loot boxes to be profitable. The consumer gave an inch, and the publishers kept taking more and more until the publishers tried to take too much.

[Bensemus]

19 hours ago, aisle9 said:

The Overwatch style loot box is fine.

I dislike Overwatch because you can't just buy the skin you want directly. I'd rather they keep the current system but also just add a store that lets you buy what you want like lol or WoWs. In both of those pretty much everything can be earned in game, purchased directly, or won in loot boxes which are decently easy to earn in lol and practically handed out in WoWs. lol dose has a few loot box exclusive stuff and WoWs does have premium ships which can't be earned except through loot boxes or bought but both are free so its a non-issue imo.

[aisle9]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I think they are predatory and exploitative.

And I agree, to a point. They are absolutely designed to keep you there as long as possible, spending as much as possible. Modern slot machines are designed to read your actions, everything right on down to how much pressure you put on the button when setting up the next spin, and they send those bio signals back to a dispatch system so that as soon as you're getting tired, hey, here comes a hostess with a complimentary tray of those fried cheese sticks you ordered at the restaurant last night, and how about we pop ten free credits on your screen too? Manipulating the outcome of each spin is the only thing that modern slot machines are prohibited from doing, which means they are hard wired to do some shady shit to keep you there. That, I have a serious problem with.

 

Electronic casino games are designed to be addictive and actively work to keep your butt in that seat as long as possible. Because the overwhelming majority of a casino's income comes from those electronic games (which now include monetized arcade games, BTW), they do whatever they have to to keep your from leaving. Most even go out of their way to keep you from walking to a table game, which have much lower margins for the casino. You want predatory business practices designed to target whales? Go into a Vegas casino and watch how much attention the guy that's been swiping credits into the slot for two hours is getting. Watch which employees they send over. Watch what the employees bring as comped items. By the way, swiping credits has a less concrete feel than inserting coins, and you don't think as much about how much you're spending. I genuinely despise casino business practices.

 

Now, the table games...they generally do more chasing people away from those than inviting them to stay.

 

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

That's just it. There's no need for microtransactions to be that expensive either. Plenty of games survive off of $5-$10 cosmetics. If Overwatch were to switch their model and allow skins to be purchased for say $7.50 a skin, I can guarantee you it'll still be profitable enough for Blizzard to put out regular updates.

Supply and demand. The demand is there for loot boxes, so Blizzard is happy to capitalize on the supply. Now, if...

 

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

At the same time, it's up to the consumer's responsibility to vote with their wallet.

So vote with it. Don't get the government involved, because trust me, nothing ever improves from government meddling. Just don't buy loot boxes if you think the practice is unfair. If enough people were to stop buying loot boxes and post all over Blizzard's forums that they'll start spending on microtransactions once individual skins, lines and sprays can be purchased independently of the loot box system, you'll see those microtransactions developed. Blizzard has zero incentive right now to go that route. Know why? Because for as much as people are complaining about loot boxes, they sure are spending a lot of money on them.

[Bensemus]

10 hours ago, RikvE said:

The thing is. Belgium is trying to ban every in game purchase where one does not know exactly what he/she will get. This will be a big problem for games like MTG and Hearthstone as well.

nvm I miss read what you sad.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Bensemus

[Frankenburger]

25 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Supply and demand. The demand is there for loot boxes

BS. Virtual items are not finite. And the only reason why people buy loot boxes is because they are given no alternative. If you seriously think people wanted publishers to do away with microtransactions and substitute it with a way to wager their money for a chance to get none of the things they wanted, then please point me towards patient zero.

 

25 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

So vote with it. Don't get the government involved

I did vote with my wallet, as did many others. The problem is that the people who have a logical head on their shoulders and are actually responsible with their finances are in the minority. The number of people who are either conditioned by the publishers or are too short sighted to see what damage loot boxes can cause far out weigh the people who are in protest of loot boxes. Do you want to know where voting with our wallets got us? It got us government intervention, because too many people have more money than sense on the matter.

[Mooshi]

Quote

Belgium calls for Europe to ban loot boxes

This is why I'm glad the US isn't part of a dumb union governing things on their behalf. Be like Canada or Mexico calling shots for US states on what is allowed.

 

I'll be over here earning lootboxes~

[MrTiC]

It doesnt matter if its pay 2 win or cosmetics. It doesnt matter if you bought them or got them for free

Lootboxes are in every way gambling ... and gambling is illigal for -18 and heavy regulated here

So belgium has every right.

[ItsMitch]

23 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

This is why I'm glad the US isn't part of a dumb union governing things on their behalf. Be like Canada or Mexico calling shots for US states on what is allowed.

 

Wouldn't be so sure on that https://charlieintel.com/2017/11/22/state-hawaii-says-investigating-ea-star-wars-battlefront-ii-loot-boxes-says-star-wars-themed-online-casino/

[apm]

its so funny to see americans complaining about regulations, while getting fucked over by ISPs and other utility companies.

[aisle9]

4 hours ago, apm said:

its so funny to see americans complaining about regulations, while getting fucked over by ISPs and other utility companies.

Want to talk about net neutrality? Try this on for size: the internet is a public utility. Functional life in modern American society is impossible without it. Therefore, it should be regulated like a public utility and treated like one for the end consumer. Of course, the ISPs would rather the internet be treated like a commodity so they can milk that cow for all it's worth and not leave consumers any room to argue and, because internet providers are treated more or less like a monopoly here, not have any accountability to anyone for it.

 

Also, Ajit Pai looks like a talking penis, and we should all be wary of talking penises.

[ARikozuM]

32 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Also, Ajit Pai looks like a talking penis, and we should all be wary of talking penises.

For clarity, I'm funnying because of the quote. Fully agree with internet as a utility.

[Bananasplit_00]

well what about games like Paladins then? that game is almsot entirely based of the lootboxes, seeing as they are a major income for new cards, essence and skins. you can earn them from just playing but you can also play. takeing away lootboxes would more or less destroy the game. if this is just an age restriction this will have no impact what so ever though