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

[NumLock21]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

Im not inderstanding 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?!?!

EA's loot crates are mystery boxes.

[JAKEBAB]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

EA's loot crates are mystery boxes.

So are pokemon, yu gi oh etc cards....

[Serin]

6 minutes 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?!?!

Maybe its the scale?
Dunno, haven't a clue how well trading cards like that sell these days.

[ravenshrike]

6 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

So are pokemon, yu gi oh etc cards....

Because you can resell the items of value included an infinite* number of times. You cannot do so with gambling results or your EA/Xbox account. This is also why TF2 boxes are not technically gambling in and of themselves.

 

*Well, until they physically fall apart.

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

So are pokemon, yu gi oh etc cards....

At least those Pokemon cards gives you the character's ability. With EA on the other hand, it's like getting a Pokemon with 0 abilities, and you will have to spend more money on those ability cards from the random card packs, where none of them you bought, is the one for your Pokemon.

[ARikozuM]

9 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

So are pokemon, yu gi oh etc cards....

You know what you're getting with those packs. They can also be resold for their value later as well. The loot packs [in EA games] change the game in a way that gives an unfair advantage to those who pay for them as in Battlefield's shortcut packs. 

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, aisle9 said:

I actually prefer that loot boxes be allowed so long as the purchase of loot boxes is not a prerequisite to unlocking key features of the game. The Overwatch style loot box is fine. Let those idiots keep purchase prices low by buying hundreds of loot boxes so they can get a sexy Mercy costume or a seductive D. Va line. I'm completely good with that, because it allows me to get the full game experience at a reasonable price courtesy of someone else spending money on dumb shit.

 

In fact, I would rather see a model where your $20-60 purchase (depending on the game/platform/publisher) lands you the basic version of the full game as it exists at the time of release. All missions, maps and/or levels are unlocked, all characters are playable. Microtransactions that affect the appearance of the game, its characters, its items and all that fun stuff are fine by me. Those who want a rare carbon fiber knife that will be used up after seven days anyway can have it while I go chugging along with the basic game textures, having as much fun as they do but not looking as 1337 in the process.

 

My real issue with how EA implemented this is that they made microtransactions a necessity to access the character that literally everyone who has ever watched Star Wars wants to play as. To me, restricting access to main characters via a loot box system of any kind is ridiculous and unfair. Charge me a base price for the base game. If you want to release day one DLC that adds a second storyline to the game independent of the main one, cool. If you want microtransactions that place a "pretty tax" on those who want certain items and skins, cool, by all means, let them pay you $80 for the same game that I just gave you $50 for. The thick red line is when you start requiring day one DLC to finish the main storyline (not unheard of) or put key characters behind a loot box wall.

I agree to a point. The Loot Box system in OW is fine as it isn't manipulative, or doesn't try to be. CS:GO's or Rocket League system's of lootboxes and other games are seductive and pull you in and want you to purchase keys to open them. OW, you get a loot box, you open it. CS:GO? RL? You get a loot box, you go to open it? Oh, you are prompted by either a screen to purchase keys or says you can't open it. From there you think what's 1 or 2 keys? You open it, you see you get so close to some item worth a few dollars or a few hundred so you do it again and again and again. It is horrible and is a big issue.

[Okjoek]

On one hand I don't share the paranoia for government that actually does something.

 

Though I have enough faith in consumers such as myself just ignoring EA. As it is they don't have a monopoly and I have many other titles to turn to. If they did have an actual monopoly then I'd be requesting government action.

[handymanshandle]

Looks like it's time for Europe to ban Belgium tfw the EU is based in Belgium 

Well for actual f2p games like tf2 it makes a bit of sense. For paid games that have a p2w model or a f2p model but cost money to play the actual game I get it kinda.

[abazigal]

5 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.

The reality is that people were getting a neutered game if they didn’t want to invest in loot boxes anyways. Based on the design of the game, they would soon quickly hit a wall and be unable to progress any further. How is that fun?

[Master Disaster]

5 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.

EA already charge that for the majority of their games on top of DLC, seasons passes and loot boxes.

[apm]

im so mixed on this. 

on one hand i hate lootboxes in games i already paid for, on the other im just fine with cosmetics.

what will happen to games like dota?

in the end i want AAA games go back to the good old base game + addon business model.

that way people know what they payed for.

[TheOriginalHero]

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Why does the spelling of labor look weird? Damn it, Britain, you didn't invent English, but you're okay making a mockoury of it. 

 

On topic: I'm totally fine with this, but I know that EA will just make the loot boxes in-game achievable with Darth Vader being an exceptionally likely occurrence at 0.0001%. 

Labour, colour. All spelled that way everywhere but in america. Why did the US have to remove a letter is the question

[suicidalfranco]

Hawaii joins the party

https://www.google.it/amp/s/www.pcinvasion.com/star-wars-battlefront-2-prompts-state-of-hawaii-to-address-ea-predatory-practices/amp

[Fetzie]

41 minutes ago, TheOriginalHero said:

Labour, colour. All spelled that way everywhere but in america. Why did the US have to remove a letter is the question

Because Noah Webster wanted to be a special snowflake.

[mr moose]

7 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.  

That is the whole point of having a government.  A central authority to run the country for the people.  If they don't step in, then there is no point in having a government. 

[LAwLz]

While I am worried that this will have a negative impact on games that does loot-boxes "properly", like Hearthstone and Overwatch, I think it is good that something is being done.

It really isn't hard to design around this though, while still having a beneficial effect.

Don't want kids gambling? Instead of having the buy option inside the game, move it to the website behind age verification.

No changes needs to be made to the game (other than remove a menu), and it will prevent children from buying stuff.

 

7 hours ago, Beowulff83 said:

#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.  

You do realize that the government has always had strict regulations on gambling, right? All that has happened is that people think loot boxes has become gambling and now governments are looking into it. If it is gambling then it just needs to follow the same laws that already exists.

 

That statement of "everything government controls usually fails hard" doesn't really hold up either. Maybe in the US, but not in less corrupt countries.

 

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Not really. Outside of EA, games with loot boxes don't really contribute to P2W, as its either just cosmetic or balanced out that the new weapon/skill/etc. is different, but not better. Keeps prices lower for those that can't afford $80-120 for a game, and those that want to throw money at the developers and publishers still can.

I have not seen any indicator that micro-transactions has kept the prices of games lower. Considering how much higher EA's net profit has been in the last couple of years it seems like they are just putting all that micro-transaction money straight into their pockets.

 

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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

I think children engaging in gambling (or gambling-like) activities and showing signs of addition is one of the times government should step in. 

This isn't really about them regulating video games. It is just them enforcing the already existing gambling laws. If you want an analogy, think of it like if COD added a "buy in real life" button in the weapon selection screen. Click that button and you will order a real life machine gun. The government going in and saying "this is not acceptable in a game" is not really them regulating video games. It's them regulating the sales of weapons which they are already doing.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Don't want kids gambling? Instead of having the buy option inside the game, move it to the website behind age verification.

No changes needs to be made to the game (other than remove a menu), and it will prevent children from buying stuff.

 

Don't give them ideas

 

It's hard enough as it is finding a decent game to play without have to pay for it twice as well.

 

 

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That statement of "everything government controls usually fails hard" doesn't really hold up either. Maybe in the US, but not in less corrupt countries.

 

Absolutely agree, I am old enough to remember when all works were government run.  That is road construction, water, power, sewer and buildings/bridges etc.  They were a little more expensive than the current privatized system, but they all worked exactly as designed from the day of finish, lasted forever and no subcontractor ever went bankrupt to meet a deadline or quota.

[Castdeath97]

8 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.  

Nice slippery slope!

[Delicieuxz]

8 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.

Sarcasm? Loot-box and micro-DLC based games suck from head to toe.

 

Loot-boxes weren't subsidizing game-prices for people, they were just making publishers filthy rich while doing minimal work. And they were having a very detrimental effect on game design efforts, making publishers feel that they didn't have to put effort into making a great game, and could instead just loot-box the crap out of their games. Loot-box and micro-DLC based games represent a large decline in gameplay quality over traditional full-package games.

 

So, yeah: Of course lots of people will rejoice if loot-boxes become banned in games - because that means that overall gameplay design quality should improve.

[AlTech]

I feel like we need a montage of all the just Europe things with a cheesy name like "Why we love Europe" or something.

 

No but seriously, this is actually a good thing for once .

 

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

If EA didn't went this route, the government would never have to stepped in.

You not buying that game means nothing to EA, when there are those who are actually spending money on those loot crates. The way EA sees it is, if one person can has the money to spend on loot crates, then everyone must have money to spend on loot crates too.

Business 101.

 

Not everybody has the same amount of disposable income they are willing to spend on a product. E.g. Person X might be fine spending $40 and Person Y might be fine spending $80. In that case, Person Y might buy the Digital Deluxe Edition which contains the season pass + base game whereas Person X might just buy the game when it's on a discount.

[Smoofie]

They will probably do the same as in BF4 now, paying for certain upgrade packs and unlocks to get a "head start"

[Matu20]

The Total Halibut is correct, we don't need government invading gaming, and EA seems to be crossed the lines. The future may be darker than ever before.

[LeChef]

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.

[Mihle]

From my understanding, they don't want to totally ban it, they want to ban it if it isn't super clear that the game include it before you buy it. Also possibly set age limit on mature if they include lootboxes.

 

Anyway I think j something should be done.

 

Btw, lootboxes =\= microtransaction's