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

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The way I read it (just read through it briefly), no. It seems like it is only gambling if the reward you get is or can be converted to money.

What about the gambling that goes on around the CS:GO crates? You pay to open them, which isn't considered gambling in Sweden if true, but you can sell the rarer items for ludicrous amounts of money on Steam Marketplace or through Paypal.

[LAwLz]

48 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

What about the gambling that goes on around the CS:GO crates? You pay to open them, which isn't considered gambling in Sweden if true, but you can sell the rarer items for ludicrous amounts of money on Steam Marketplace or through Paypal.

There is more to the law than just "can you use it to make or lose money". There are also different regulations depending on if the company is classified as Swedish or not (I do believe having an office in Sweden is enough for that), but I am by no means an expert on Swedish law so don't ask me about stuff please. I have barely read the article I linked. All I know is that they are looking into it and will make a judgement at a later date.

[Mooshi]

This thread is still going..?

 

Loot boxes no more gamble-y than a kid getting a random toy in a McDonald's Happy Meal or getting a toy in a blind bag.

 

As for those in Overwatch, I highly doubt someone dropped $60 on a game just to go gambling for skins. If anything, event locked skins are infinitely more annoying than dropping dosh on purchasing multiple loot boxes. 

 

Be glad the game isn't like other games with levels where it keeps getting more grindy to level up. Just playing the game earns boxes.

[ItsMitch]

3 hours ago, Mooshi said:

This thread is still going..?

 

Why shouldn't it keep going? More updates are coming in every few hours. 

[Trik'Stari]

Go Belgium go!

 

Seriously, fuck loot boxes.

[ItsMitch]

UK Gambling commission just released a statement in regards to the loot box craze, updating OP soon

[Trik'Stari]

22 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

the more I follow this the more I get the feeling the phrase "loot box" sounds stupid ._.

Because it is.

 

The more accurate term would be "unnecessarily scummy cash grab micro-transaction"

[AresKrieger]

 

Hmm I wonder if this has greatly affected sales  

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

 

Hmm I wonder if this has greatly affected sales  

First time I ever saw games locked behind a glass case.

[suicidalfranco]

 

great piece by SkillUp as always

[ravenshrike]

Sooo, football hooligans are idiots and gave us the monstrosity that is BFII?

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

football hooligans are idiots

nothing new there

[ravenshrike]

2 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

great piece by SkillUp as always

Skill Up needs to send this to every group investigating this.

[mrmonmon2]

On 21/11/2017 at 6:06 PM, 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.

 

On 21/11/2017 at 6:23 PM, Drak3 said:

Tons of people also think that $60 is borderline too much for the same games that are subsidized by idiots with fat wallets.

 

On 21/11/2017 at 8:19 PM, 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.

Canada, base games are already 70-90$ 

And  with full dlc well you get the point. 

 

Id rather pay 120 and get a game with a good story and gameplay over something shit with lootboxes which is the current direction 

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, mrmonmon2 said:

 

 

Canada, base games are already 70-90$ 

And  with full dlc well you get the point. 

 

Id rather pay 120 and get a game with a good story and gameplay over something shit with lootboxes which is the current direction 

I'd rather pay $20 and get something infinitely addictive and fun like Stardew Valley.

 

Or something Where the Dev continues to release content a few years later like Dying Light. Or just pay for new games that are different and still look to be fun as hell.

 

Seriously, the Indie game scene is where it's at right now. Fuck the "Triple A Games" Industry and all their shit. The only big name game I am looking forward to in the next two years is Metro Exodus (a game I never though would happen). Basically, I am swearing off any new game that comes out with multiplayer (the only exceptions probably being Cyberpunk 2077 or Star Citizen which I've already purchased) because it just ruins games.

 

I said it way back when it was just becoming a thing, online multiplayer just ruins games. Partly because people are horrible, and partly because horrible people run the companies that make those games and will use anything they can to profit off of people being horrible in games.

 

Stardew Valley is soon to get a multiplayer update (bringing multiplayer to the game for the first time. Not sure how it's going to work) and it will also include some single player content as well. I've already spent more time in that game than I did in SWTOR, Oblivion, Skyrim, etc.

 

All for $20 base cost.

[mrmonmon2]

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Snip jesus deleting alll that kn my phone was ass

 

All for $20 base cost.

I agree, but if the triple a games are going to rape my wallet anyway can they at least have some damn substance is what im trying to get at

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, mrmonmon2 said:

I agree, but if the triple a games are going to rape my wallet anyway can they at least have some damn substance is what im trying to get at

Simple answer: Don't buy them.

 

They're going to rape your wallet, and as you point out have almost no substance to them. So why would you pay for them, let alone pay more than they're actually worth?

 

The only way this is going to work is if people stop buying these shitty games. Don't cave in because all your friends are playing it, don't buy into the self fulfilling prophecy of "one person doesn't make a difference".

 

Just. Don't. Buy. The. Game.

Spend your money on other things that you will enjoy far more.

[mrmonmon2]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Simple answer: Don't buy them.

 

They're going to rape your wallet, and as you point out have almost no substance to them. So why would you pay for them, let alone pay more than they're actually worth?

 

The only way this is going to work is if people stop buying these shitty games. Don't cave in because all your friends are playing it, don't buy into the self fulfilling prophecy of "one person doesn't make a difference".

 

Just. Don't. Buy. The. Game.

Spend your money on other things that you will enjoy far more.

I don't, because they have no substance, and because thy rape wallets, but my point is that if they are going to charge so much then they should have substance. The most expensive games ive ever bought were dead island riptide at 40 some, Crysis 3 at 40$, pubg at 37 and gta V at 80 because my friends said we'd all play it together. Crysis 3 was where ea started disappointing me 

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, mrmonmon2 said:

I don't, because they have no substance, and because thy rape wallets, but my point is that if they are going to charge so much then they should have substance. The most expensive games ive ever bought were dead island riptide at 40 some, Crysis 3 at 40$, pubg at 37 and gta V at 80 because my friends said we'd all play it together. Crysis 3 was where ea started disappointing me 

They started disappointing me with Battlefield 3 and haven't stopped since.

 

But I keep coming back for more punishment. Don't know why I do it. I guess because as bad as Battlefront 3 and 4 were, they're still miles better than CoD. At least they've changed somewhat over time. Whereas CoD is basically still the same shit game with the same overly small match size.

[leadeater]

38 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Whereas CoD is basically still the same shit game with the same overly small match size.

I wish that were true, I mean COD4 was amazing gameplay feel wise. If they just re-skinned that and ruined it in other ways that wouldn't have been so bad, but my god the new ones just for what ever reason don't feel right. Hard to explain but they are more garbage now than ever before.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I wish that were true, I mean COD4 was amazing gameplay feel wise. If they just re-skinned that and ruined it in other ways that wouldn't have been so bad, but my god the new ones just for what ever reason don't feel right. Hard to explain but they are more garbage now than ever before.

If they release the same multiplayer as 4, they'll get attacked for releasing the same bulls#it every year. If they mix it up in a way they feel is right (it is their IP after all), they'll get attacked for trying to change what worked before. 

 

Case in point: BO2 was regarded as a bad change in the franchise, yet it held the most players online even after Infinite Warfare came out. Same thing with Black Ops. Great editions to the formula IMO, yet the majority (or vocal minority) prefer to throw storms at pebbles. Come to think of it, aside from Black Ops III, the multiplayer mechanics by Treyarch seem to be the best rounded. 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

If they release the same multiplayer as 4, they'll get attacked for releasing the same bulls#it every year. If they mix it up in a way they feel is right (it is their IP after all), they'll get attacked for trying to change what worked before. 

 

Case in point: BO2 was regarded as a bad change in the franchise, yet it held the most players online even after Infinite Warfare came out. Same thing with Black Ops. Great editions to the formula IMO, yet the majority (or vocal minority) prefer to throw storms at pebbles. Come to think of it, aside from Black Ops III, the multiplayer mechanics by Treyarch seem to be the best rounded. 

I didn't mind the addition of more perks and equipment etc, it's just that the feel while playing was just off compared to COD4. The dynamic of the hit system was changed and not really for the better for me.

 

It's much like the difference between a front wheel drive and rear wheel drive car, both are functional and can be excellent feature wise but the driver feel is different.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, leadeater said:

I didn't mind the addition of more perks and equipment etc, it's just that the feel while playing was just off compared to COD4. The dynamic of the hit system was changed and not really for the better for me.

The smoothest to me will probably be Black Ops. Everyone has their own opinion, but I think we should forget the previous edition when playing the current (or whichever is played) rather than comparing a game. It would be like Forza adding sedans into their game and everyone complaining about how they underperform during the crucial takeoff and 0-100mph. 

Also, Need For Speed: Ford Escort tuned for acceleration and handling = best girl car

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The smoothest to me will probably be Black Ops. Everyone has their own opinion, but I think we should forget the previous edition when playing the current (or whichever is played) rather than comparing a game.

True, it's just that it was enough of an enjoyment killer for me that I eventually stopped playing all COD games online then later stopped buying them. There were other factors but ultimately I didn't enjoy playing so no point bothering.

 

A big factor of this was that I played every day for hours over multiple years (over 5, I don't remember anymore) and competed in Aus/NZ tournament play. This is likely why the change was so off putting to me because the feel of the game was so ingrained it was impossible to shake that.

[ARikozuM]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

True, it's just that it was enough of an enjoyment killer for me that I eventually stopped playing all COD games online then later stopped buying them. There were other factors but ultimately I didn't enjoy playing so no point bothering.

I hear you, I stopped playing after BO2. After that, multiplayer wasn't as fun. There was nothing driving the game forward for me as the general layouts of maps stayed the same with color swaps, so to speak. There wasn't a fun way to unlock new gear like BO (pay for what you want) or BO2 (unlock what you want in the order you want). Don't know how it is since BO3 since I've only played the more recent titles for the story rather than the MP. 

 

Also, I think Infinite Warfare used loot boxes for new gear, but it was for stronger gear vs the bog-standard level-up and unlocks. IW would be the first to do P2W in Call of Duty. Let's be glad that gamers are finally coming to realize that this trend isn't worth the tradeoff in quality.