Lootbox Lawsuit against EA

[GhostRoadieBL]

Summary

A new lawsuit against EA was filed in the US District Court of North Carolina stating EA has been using it's "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment" in recent Madden NFL, FIFA and NHL games to push lootbox purchases. 

The AI difficulty is adjusted within matches to keep players engaged and playing longer or pushing players to improve their teams by increasing the difficulty.

Due to the on the fly adjustments players' teams can be made to be less competitive in matches pushing players to purchase "Player Packs" which can temporarily lower the AI difficulty repeating the cycle and generating habitual behavior. 

 

EA has released a statement saying "the claims are baseless and misrepresent our games"

 

Quotes

Quote

 The lawsuit claims that EA is using this system to push players into purchasing more loot boxes/player packs to remain competitive: “This is a self-perpetuating cycle that benefits EA to the detriment of EA Sports gamers,"

 

My thoughts

Given EA's history of predatory practices towards gamers involving microtransactions it's plausible for this to be the newest method of pushing more lootboxes. 

That being said EA is not alone in this type of practice and I hope this turns into a larger movement away from these cash grabs. 

 

Sources

https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/lawsuit-claims-ea-uses-dynamic-difficulty-to-push-loot-box-purchases/

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-11-11-ea-faces-yet-another-class-action-lawsuit-over-alleged-use-of-dynamic-difficulty-adjustment

Edited November 16, 2020 by GhostRoadieBL
second source

[krakkpott]

As usual, fuck EA.

[eeeee1]

Literally every free mobile game:

Nervous sweat 

 

Spoiler

(yeah yeah i know that the courts ain't goin after a small time nickle and dimer mobile asset ripping programmer i mean script kiddie)

 

[Jet_ski]

[Dissitesuxba11s]

[poochyena]

What law are they breaking exactly?

[Orangeator]

31 minutes ago, poochyena said:

What law are they breaking exactly?

Gambling? Not sure, I would have to read the lawsuit.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

 

Spoiler

EA: "Mission accomplished"

 

 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Sorry, the meme you wanted is in a different pack. Buy another pack for $1.99? [Yes] [Remind me later]
Limited time offer: Buy 10 meme packs get 1 meme pack free!

 

Why is anyone still buying card packs from EA? Stop buying them and they'll stop selling them. Stop buying FIFA games.

[GhostRoadieBL]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

What law are they breaking exactly?

there is the "The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" which may or may not have passed yet (I haven't been following) which was introduced in 2019 to officially classify lootboxes and "pay to win" transactions as gambling. This would cause major crack downs on taxing game companies and outright banning some forms of games without age verification and 18+ or 21+ ratings. 

the bill was similar to the ad-pocalypse on youtube where "child marketed" content has restrictions to advertising, language etc etc etc. There is also a ton of laws preventing children from accessing potentially addictive substances/games/habits which gaming as an industry was under fire from back in the early days of arcades. Gaming as we know it today would have never made it out of that one back in the 80's and 90's. 

[Justaphysicsnerd]

EA : Ahh Shit, Here we go again !

[Random_Person1234]

7 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

there is the "The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" which may or may not have passed yet (I haven't been following) which was introduced in 2019 to officially classify lootboxes and "pay to win" transactions as gambling.. 

I think that bill is dead.

 

As for the lawsuit this topic is about, who's the plaintiff? 

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

there is the "The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act" which may or may not have passed yet (I haven't been following) which was introduced in 2019 to officially classify lootboxes and "pay to win" transactions as gambling. This would cause major crack downs on taxing game companies and outright banning some forms of games without age verification and 18+ or 21+ ratings. 

the bill was similar to the ad-pocalypse on youtube where "child marketed" content has restrictions to advertising, language etc etc etc. There is also a ton of laws preventing children from accessing potentially addictive substances/games/habits which gaming as an industry was under fire from back in the early days of arcades. Gaming as we know it today would have never made it out of that one back in the 80's and 90's. 

 

The difference was that the games, each time they were under attack, were not designed to be addictive, that is a recent phenomenon that came out with asian MMO games and "app" type games that Zynga and everyone else started to use, including EA. The Gacha and the Lootbox are not that different, and really it's just a terminology difference but the way they work is the same.

 

Arcade games of the 80's and early 90's also gave you more than 5 minutes of entertainment for one coin. You can easily spend $1000's in 10 seconds with Lootbox/gachapon type games and wind up with garbage. Not unlike playing pulltabs in a pub. You can not buy them outside of a drinking establishment, and the drinking establishment is the "are you 18+" check.  They bring in additional money for drinking establishments.

 

So the more or less way to solve it is either:

a) By regulation, which means either a hard cap or removal of the mechanics from games that do not confirm the player is an adult, and fines for those who do not confirm. The mechanic is entirely missing from the game unless unlocked by a mental fitness check.

b) By banning games with deceptive mechanics (which would be the preferable outcome) designed require additional purchases. Which means that if your game ends up on the list, payments will be prohibited (like how online gambling was shuttered in the US.)

 

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

4 minutes ago, Random_Person1234 said:

I think that bill is dead.

 

As for the lawsuit this topic is about, who's the plaintiff? 

plaintiffs Jason Zajonc, Danyael Williams, and Pranko Lozano

 

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

Quote

"EA's undisclosed use of Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms deprives gamers who purchase Player Packs of the benefit of their bargains because EA's Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms, rather than only the stated ranking of the gamers' Ultimate Team players and the gamers' relative skill, dictates, or at least highly influences the outcome of the match," the lawsuit reads.

 

[poochyena]

27 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

the bill was similar to the ad-pocalypse on youtube where "child marketed" content has restrictions to advertising, language etc etc etc.

Yea, and you see how great that has been.

 

The only people harmed by these games are people who willingly play them. Banning them will cause more harm than good.

[GhostRoadieBL]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

The only people harmed by these games are people who willingly play them. Banning them will cause more harm than good.

That is under the assumption that the players are informed and understand the game's addiction mechanics

 

What negative outcome comes from banning pay to win and slot machine style lootboxes? 

 

The game costs more? Less than what players have to pay into a rigged system who just want to play/win the game they paid for. 

 

[Delicieuxz]

5 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Summary

A new lawsuit against EA was filed in the US District Court of North Carolina stating EA has been using it's "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment" in recent Madden NFL, FIFA and NHL games to push lootbox purchases. 

The AI difficulty is adjusted within matches to keep players engaged and playing longer or pushing players to improve their teams by increasing the difficulty.

Due to the on the fly adjustments players' teams can be made to be less competitive in matches pushing players to purchase "Player Packs" which can temporarily lower the AI difficulty repeating the cycle and generating habitual behavior. 

 

EA has released a statement saying "the claims are baseless and misrepresent our games"

 

My thoughts

Given EA's history of predatory practices towards gamers involving microtransactions it's plausible for this to be the newest method of pushing more lootboxes. 

That being said EA is not alone in this type of practice and I hope this turns into a larger movement away from these cash grabs. 

 

It's not entirely a new method (though the report suggests the tactic is now being extended to single-player gaming), but I'm glad EA are being sued for it. They aren't the only company that should be sued over it.

 

Activision’s patented method to drive microtransactions with matchmaking

 

Eagle-eyed YouTuber discovers ongoing EA online-matchmaking shenanigans

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

9 hours ago, Random_Person1234 said:

I think that bill is dead.

Just curious, why is that? From the name it sounds like something that's urgently needed, how could it just "die"? 

 

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Wouldn't mind BP also getting some attention how lame it is. 

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Just curious, why is that? From the name it sounds like something that's urgently needed, how could it just "die"? 

 

 

 

 

Politics.

[poochyena]

10 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

That is under the assumption that the players are informed and understand the game's addiction mechanics

But they do, they know exactly what they are buying. Unless they are being lied to, then its not the game company's fault.

10 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

What negative outcome comes from banning pay to win and slot machine style lootboxes? 

the ability to use pay to win and slot machine style lootboxes

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

But they do

You honestly think the average player knows about how the psychology of addiction is used in games? The 10y/o playing candy crush knows anything about how that game effects their brain chemistry? 

[Blademaster91]

20 minutes ago, poochyena said:

the ability to use pay to win and slot machine style lootboxes

Pay to win is a bad enough thing to have in a $60 game, pay to make a game easier is even worse which is what is going here,

and EA could just sell items in an in-game store, but I guess that would be too easy for EA with their "surprise mechanics" lootboxes.

[Kisai]

11 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

That is under the assumption that the players are informed and understand the game's addiction mechanics

Does anyone really know? https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-skinner-box-2795875

Quote

When the lever is pressed, food, water, or some other type of reinforcement might be dispensed. Other stimuli can also be presented, including lights, sounds, and images. In some instances, the floor of the chamber may be electrified.

 

 

11 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

What negative outcome comes from banning pay to win and slot machine style lootboxes? 

People susceptible to gambling addition will easily burn through every last dollar they have. 

https://mashable.com/article/fifa-player-spending/

Quote

Over the course of two years, one man from the UK spent $10,000 on FIFA 17 and FIFA 18, only to realize that it was not worth it. At all.

 

A 32-year-old FIFA player named Michael told Eurogamer that, thanks to the new General Data Protection Regulation in the UK, he was able to go back and take a look at a whole bunch of data EA collected about his play sessions — including the amount of money he spent in the game. He was shocked to find he spent more than $10,000 on the popular soccer game.

 

And the game developers just make it worse

Quote

How did he spend that much on FIFA? It's actually pretty easy to do. FIFA 17 and 18 both allow players to purchase FIFA Ultimate Team Packs, which are kind of like loot boxes that give players random player cards in order to build up their teams.

 

With these packs, there's a chance you can get a really good player to add to your team, which means recent FIFA games have a pay-to-win problem that rewards the people who spend the most money. This is not unique to this one EA game (though Battlefront 2 has dropped pay-to-win features in the time since its release), and it encourages people to spend more and more money in order to have a better chance at winning.

 

This, of course, is a toxic way to construct a competitive multiplayer game that should be based on players' skills, not the size of their wallets.

 

So if you are playing FIFA, you're not even playing using skill, you are playing using your wallet.

 

11 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

The game costs more? Less than what players have to pay into a rigged system who just want to play/win the game they paid for. 

 

There are different outcomes for different games:

a) For competitive games, lootboxes should not exist if they change the game. This includes things like FIFA above, F2P PvP and games, and any game that gives you different characters with different skills by lootbox/gacha

b) For non-competative games (eg single player), the loot boxes shouldn't even exist. Period. It's been known for years that people who want to stick it to EA and such to just download the Android or PC version of a game, and hack the offline data to say you have a billion dollars of game credit, because the games are not even integrated into the store, the only part that is in the store is the transaction itself, so if you buy 10$ of credit, you can edit the download ticket to say it was whatever you want.

 

That also shows you exactly how much those games are worth your time. If you have infinite store credit, you can usually complete everything these games have in about 30 minutes. They're glorified cheat codes.