UK, Yes we love loot boxes and gambling for everyone :)

[Quackers101]

Summary

UK that tried to ban it once, now they have given up on it. Finding that they don't care about regulating or make things safer, that it would "cost too much".

As more and more european countries are starting to adjust their laws and around this type of content.

Same in an UK study that found, loot boxes to be very much exploitative and should go under gambling laws.

 

Quotes

Quote

Last month, the UK government stopped short of taking action on loot boxes, despite finding that players who buy loot boxes are "more likely to experience gambling, mental health, financial and problem gaming-related harms".

 

Instead, the government said it does not consider loot boxes to be the same as gambling, and as a result will not make changes to the Gambling Act.

Pointing to the potential high cost of regulation, the government said: "Changing the Gambling Act with regards to loot boxes would have significant implementation challenges and risks of unintended consequences."

 

You have clips like this, when EA was going against the UK, 3 years ago.

 

My thoughts

Loot boxes which isn't the only topic but bigger offender in some titles. Should be classified as gambling and it's scary how the gaming industry can get away with so much. Also how we see google and others offer these passes and quick buy options without much safety when purchasing digital content, which they dont offer refunds for and holding a monopoly on their platforms and others like them.

 

Sources

(current) https://www.eurogamer.net/ea-sticks-with-controversial-loot-boxes-for-fifa-23-ultimate-team

 

(older) https://www.eurogamer.net/uk-government-demands-changes-to-better-protect-young-people-from-loot-boxes

(older) https://www.eurogamer.net/link-between-loot-boxes-and-problem-gambling-robustly-verified

 

Jim sterling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xibM79iIfUw

[Shimejii]

Its why people have to stop buying the games these companies make, but people wont  

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Shimejii said:

Its why people have to stop buying the games these companies make, but people wont  

"voting with your wallet" only ever seems to be suggested when it's something the person saying it wasn't going to buy anyway.

[sub68]

You could now argue gacha games but at the same time you know what your getting into at that point.

This also why I love oldish games.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, sub68 said:

You could now argue gacha games but at the same time you know what your getting into at that point.

same with TCGs.

 

I often wonder how loot boxes are always in the crosshairs of legislation like this, but TCGs like Magic, Yu-gi-oh, pokemon etc aren't with their booster packs and booster boxes.

[sub68]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

but TCGs like Magic, Yu-gi-oh, pokemon etc aren't with their booster packs and booster boxes.

Because they are physical and there is alot you want when collecting IDK I wasnt to heavily into pokemon

[tim0901]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

same with TCGs.

 

I often wonder how loot boxes are always in the crosshairs of legislation like this, but TCGs like Magic, Yu-gi-oh, pokemon etc aren't with their booster packs and booster boxes.

Because when we performed studies to test this theory (example) no link was found between TCG booster pack purchases and gambling addictions, unlike in studies surrounding loot boxes. While they may seem similar on the surface, the effect they have on people is very different. As such, if there is little risk of developing a gambling addiction from TCGs, why should we put them under the same regulations as lootboxes?

[Quackers101]

4 hours ago, tim0901 said:

 While they may seem similar on the surface, the effect they have on people is very different. As such, if there is little risk of developing a gambling addiction from TCGs, why should we put them under the same regulations as lootboxes?

Currency over cards, but cards as currency? I guess people care about them more (collecting) and it being less fun to be used as "currency"? Also that you might not need a lot to feel fulfilled? Else they seem similar, its digital nature vs physically owned?

[Imbadatnames]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

"voting with your wallet" only ever seems to be suggested when it's something the person saying it wasn't going to buy anyway.

Tbh I buy fifa every other year, I don’t buy anything else other than the game 

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, Arika S said:

"voting with your wallet" only ever seems to be suggested when it's something the person saying it wasn't going to buy anyway.

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Tbh I buy fifa every other year, I don’t buy anything else other than the game 

Consider that it doesn't matter if you buy the loot boxes or not. If anyone buys it it's going to be worth the investment by EA, which is roughly 0 compared to other development costs, into making the game worse to push extra monetization. To really hurt their bottom line people would have to not buy the game in the first place... but  a lot of people want to play fifa, even if it's not as good as it could be, so that doesn't really happen.

[Imbadatnames]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Consider that it doesn't matter if you buy the loot boxes or not. If anyone buys it it's going to be worth the investment by EA, which is roughly 0 compared to other development costs, into making the game worse to push extra monetization. To really hurt their bottom line people would have to not buy the game in the first place... but  a lot of people want to play fifa, even if it's not as good as it could be, so that doesn't really happen.

You only really have to not buy the IGC, that’s where they make the money. The actual game doesn’t make them a lot 

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You only really have to not buy the IGC, that’s where they make the money. The actual game doesn’t make them a lot 

The game does make them a lot, and anything they make on top of that through microtransactions is basically free money so they have no reason to stop inserting them. The upfront price of the game covers the cost of development; the only way to make them lose money is to take away that guaranteed baseline income.

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

"voting with your wallet" only ever seems to be suggested when it's something the person saying it wasn't going to buy anyway.

I find the vote with your wallet argument so stupid as it makes basically 0 difference. I mean with loot boxes it's 100% to make money so even if you don't buy it others will and the loot boxes are going to make more money at the end of the day. 

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I find the vote with your wallet argument so stupid as it makes basically 0 difference. I mean with loot boxes it's 100% to make money so even if you don't buy it others will and the loot boxes are going to make more money at the end of the day. 

Agree,  arguing people should vote with their wallet is like asking them to consider the environment when buying a phone or car, or to consider ethical products when buying food grown in 3rd world countries.  It's something that those who are capable of doing it are already doing it while the rest are just sheep like morons bumbling through life complaining about things because either someone told them to or they have been suckered into the corporate marketing. 

 

 

[tim0901]

3 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

Currency over cards, but cards as currency? I guess people care about them more (collecting) and it being less fun to be used as "currency"? Also that you might not need a lot to feel fulfilled? Else they seem similar, its digital nature vs physically owned?

Access was believed to be one of the big reasons — the same way how online casinos are worse for gambling addictions than real ones. You can open thousands of dollars of loot boxes in just a few minutes, but it'll take you hours to open that many booster packs on top of the time it took for you to obtain them.

 

Also game companies can "dress up" the lootbox opening experience to make it more "exciting" with flashy graphics and the likes. You might not think this matters, but subconsciously your brain loves it.

[Imbadatnames]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

The game does make them a lot, and anything they make on top of that through microtransactions is basically free money so they have no reason to stop inserting them. The upfront price of the game covers the cost of development; the only way to make them lose money is to take away that guaranteed baseline income.

So if I buy through steam on sale at £30 steam takes a 20-30% cut which knocked it down to £21-24. Bear in mind just the FIFA licence alone never mind development costs has been 150 million a year. Even at full price (60) they would have to sell over 2.5 million copies just to cover that one licence, at a sale price of £24 that’s around 7 million copies. Games sales in general would net them a small profit at the current sales rate over the games lifespan as it is constantly developed for and that 150 million figure isn’t for all the league, cup and team licences just the FIFA branding and doesn’t include dev cost. 

[Quackers101]

50 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Access was believed to be one of the big reasons — the same way how online casinos are worse for gambling addictions than real ones. You can open thousands of dollars of loot boxes in just a few minutes, but it'll take you hours to open that many booster packs on top of the time it took for you to obtain them.

feel more addicted to real slot machines than virtual ones, unless a silly game or card game.

but like you say, virtual currency to using credit card (just like when it was used more) that people pay more and easier to click "one more".

if this is something

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83488-3

50 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Also game companies can "dress up" the lootbox opening experience to make it more "exciting" with flashy graphics and the likes. You might not think this matters, but subconsciously your brain loves it.

that and "rewards", which may be no reward at all. Like just an positive feedback through animation and tiered content like an "epic!!!1" loot or so. Even if many games today has destroyed that sense of rarity and good reward systems to feedback. Like you mention a bit, lootboxes as "entertainment" to lure people into doing it again.

[tim0901]

36 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Even at full price (60) they would have to sell over 2.5 million copies just to cover that one licence, at a sale price of £24 that’s around 7 million copies.

According to sales figures FIFA sells 15-20 million copies each year - even at an average price of £30 apiece, that works out to be around £500 million from game sales alone. Not exactly small change. And of course, EA has announced that they are dropping the FIFA license from next year, so these costs will be even lower.

 

Ultimate team etc. are the money printers, but don't think EA aren't profiting from the base games as well. Especially when they are pumping out games like the Switch's "Legacy Edition" which by EA's own admission has had zero development beyond squad and kit updates since 2019.

[Kisai]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

"voting with your wallet" only ever seems to be suggested when it's something the person saying it wasn't going to buy anyway.

People seem to be all too willing to claim personal responsibility when the activity is precisely engineered for maximum addictiveness.

 

Mark my words, eventually, some country, somewhere will grow a pair and expressly require all P2W transactions to be treated exactly the same as lottery scratch tickets. Because there is effectively no distinction between a $2 scratcher and a $2 lootbox measured in some premium currency disguised to hide the true dollar value. Regulate all "lootbox" and gachapon, and similar things the same way you regulate slot machines and scratch tickets.

 

It does not matter if you can't directly cash out, people can still sell the account off privately once they're done with it, because belive me, there is no shortage of people trying to sell their F2P game accounts with BS "rare" seasonal items/skins on it.

[Imbadatnames]

11 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

According to sales figures FIFA sells 15-20 million copies each year - even at an average price of £30 apiece, that works out to be around £500 million from game sales alone. Not exactly small change. And of course, EA has announced that they are dropping the FIFA license from next year, so these costs will be even lower.

Which fifa did you use? 22 hasn’t sold that much. 21 was inflated due to next gen upgrades giving you the new console version for free. Plus watch out for “player” figures, they offer the game free on trial plus trade ins. Also £30 after store costs and tax works out to £19.20. 

11 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

 

Ultimate team etc. are the money printers, but don't think EA aren't profiting from the base games as well. Especially when they are pumping out games like the Switch's "Legacy Edition" which by EA's own admission has had zero development beyond squad and kit updates since 2019.

I did say they’re coming out with a small profit from the base game but it’s nothing gigantic. 

[Sauron]

45 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

2.5 million copies

The last couple of fifa games have reached that in under 3 months. At full release price, not with a steam discount. FIFA 21 has sold over 30 million copies as of a year ago.

[Arika]

5 minutes ago, Kisai said:

eventually, some country, somewhere will grow a pair and expressly require all P2W transactions to be treated exactly the same as lottery scratch tickets.

Which is a fantastic sentiment, until you realise that someone has to define in law what a P2W transaction is...and lawmakers famously don't understand shit about online interactions.

 

and then developers will find a loopholes and we're right back to where we started.

 

unfortunately i don't see anything changing in the near, or even far future.

[Imbadatnames]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The last couple of fifa games have reached that in under 3 months. At full release price, not with a steam discount. FIFA 21 has sold over 30 million copies as of a year ago.

No that’s a player figure not a sales figure. Bear in mind you get FIFA on a free trial with game pass when it launches and it goes on game pass about half way through its life cycle anyway, people don’t pay for the game that way, fifa 21 was upgradable to PS5 and XSX too along with trade in figures which bump it up. 

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

No that’s a player figure not a sales figure. Bear in mind you get FIFA on a free trial with game pass when it launches and it goes on game pass about half way through its life cycle anyway, people don’t pay for the game that way, fifa 21 was upgradable to PS5 and XSX too along with trade in figures which bump it up. 

You're grasping at straws, the sales figures are still over a million per month near launch. All released sales figures from EA place sold units over 20 million for the last few games, even at half price that's enough to make back double what they spent in licensing and development.