US lawmaker lays out plans for anti-loot box law

[Matu20]

As companies get greedier and greedier, the law must come into action to tell the fuckers no.

[Egg-Roll]

32 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Just dont charge real money for loot boxes or the currency to buy them and this would be all fixed. Or how about just rid of micro transactions and increase cost of game. 

SWII was already $60-80... With the loss of transactions EA would raise it to $250+

 

IMO a better approach would be buying ingame currencies then which could be used to buy stuff, equally said currency should be able to be earned via ingame. Much like how GTA V Online works (i think i dont play online)

 

I really think the biggest reason why this game has gotten so much publicity is because it's being charged like a full game (GTA 5) but requires purchases like a mobile game to make it a "full game".

What would be interesting to see is all the digital copies with under aged users getting refunded and removed by local laws, now that would burn EA like salt in a wound 

[Max_Settings]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Which then begs the question of "if the majority of people are okay with it, why ban or regulate it?".

 

Note, I'm not defending it, just saying that society seems to do a lot of protecting dumb people from themselves, and I have to wonder if that's part of why society is getting dumber and dumber.

Great logic. If the majority of people are ok with murder? Why should we ban it?

[bimmerman]

8 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

SWII was already $60-80... With the loss of transactions EA would raise it to $250+

 

IMO a better approach would be buying ingame currencies then which could be used to buy stuff, equally said currency should be able to be earned via ingame. Much like how GTA V Online works (i think i dont play online)

 

I really think the biggest reason why this game has gotten so much publicity is because it's being charged like a full game (GTA 5) but requires purchases like a mobile game.

What would be interesting to see is all the digital copies with under aged users getting refunded and removed by local laws, now that would burn EA like salt in a wound 

 

 

I do not see why games are the same $60 now as they were 20 years ago when I first got into gaming, as that means their effective revenue has gone way down due to inflation.

 

I'd say if developers can't make ends meet with $60 pricing, then they should raise the price. Unfortunately that prices out kids (who have time but no money) in favor of adults (have money, no time), so that's a nonstarter. Hence, microtransactions and subscription costs to increase revenue over time.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

SWII was already $60-80... With the loss of transactions EA would raise it to $250+

 

IMO a better approach would be buying ingame currencies then which could be used to buy stuff, equally said currency should be able to be earned via ingame. Much like how GTA V Online works (i think i dont play online)

 

I really think the biggest reason why this game has gotten so much publicity is because it's being charged like a full game (GTA 5) but requires purchases like a mobile game to make it a "full game".

What would be interesting to see is all the digital copies with under aged users getting refunded and removed by local laws, now that would burn EA like salt in a wound 

Yeah but games are one of the few things that have not been affected by inflation yet cost have been skyrocketing and that is the cause for micro transactions. Im not saying games should be $250 but at least if it was, you would know what you are receiving. Instead of throwing real money at boxes that you are guaranteed nothing of what you want. Might as well flush your cash down the toilet. 

[Mooshi]

Whatever happened to responsible parenting in not letting your kids have easy access to bank accounts ect?

 

Or you know, actually being invested in what your kid is doing on the devices YOU provided them with? Not to defend these corporations, but you can't point the blame 100% at them.

 

When the government has to step in for video games of all things, we failed as a society.

 

I think Overwatch has a good approach for loot boxes, but it could be better. If you're impatient, you can buy boxes. If you'd rather not, you level up/play arcade. What I don't like is you have to win credits from loot boxes to buy the skins you want directly. That's the sort of thing that should be addressed, not this overbearing big brother approach.

[Egg-Roll]

54 minutes ago, bimmerman said:

 

 

I do not see why games are the same $60 now as they were 20 years ago when I first got into gaming, as that means their effective revenue has gone way down due to inflation.

 

I'd say if developers can't make ends meet with $60 pricing, then they should raise the price. Unfortunately that prices out kids (who have time but no money) in favor of adults (have money, no time), so that's a nonstarter. Hence, microtransactions and subscription costs to increase revenue over time.

I didn't really start gaming till 15 years ago (well buying), but back then i never saw $60 for games, the most as $30-$40 for the deluxe editions. If bread or milk was to inflate the same way games have you'd be paying $10 for you milk. Where i live I used to pay $3 now I'm paying $4, just to put comparisons.

 

Before one argues there are more gamers now than $20 years ago.

 

For microtransactions i dont have a issue with as long as they are deemed as extras like for Pokemon Go more space or more balls, the said items are not required to play the game and can be gotten for free with little work. What EA did was if you wanted a Complete game you would need to buy buy buy. If GTA V Single Player worked like that i could see a gun in GTA V costing $5, would you play GTA V if they did that?

 

46 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah but games are one of the few things that have not been affected by inflation yet cost have been skyrocketing and that is the cause for micro transactions. Im not saying games should be $250 but at least if it was, you would know what you are receiving. Instead of throwing real money at boxes that you are guaranteed nothing of what you want. Might as well flush your cash down the toilet. 

As stated above the majority of games i saw where no more than 40 They only made the $60+ jump when the PS4/XBO/Late 360 came out, most 360 games where $40 new. Sure there was a few over that number but not the amount one would think.

 

IMO for $XX.XX you should get a complete game, a game you can play with everyone in anyway you want, let there be achievement roadblocks but nothing financial. Later bring out "enhancements" in forms of DLC's Much like this game game cost is low but look at the DLC content, each dlc adds more to an already complete game. Microtransactions dont really belong on PC for games like GTA V or even Overwatch it's fine because it doesn't destroy the main game. What EA did was charge $60-80 for a incomplete game, last place to do that was No Mans Sky, which i did buy BUT they gradually fixed their mistake for free and not deliberately break it for money.

 

In the last 5 years I have bought 4 games over $40 3 full price, one or 2 games worth over $40 for under $30. To me the game has to be a "I must(as in a wanting way) play this" for it to be more than $30. With EA it's more like "I HAVE TO PLAY THIS".

The 4 games are: Planet Coaster, NMS, GTA 5, Naval Action. Each game promised something, only one really that failed at it's promise was NMS. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Whatever happened to responsible parenting in not letting your kids have easy access to bank accounts ect?

 

Or you know, actually being invested in what your kid is doing on the devices YOU provided them with? Not to defend these corporations, but you can't point the blame 100% at them.

 

When the government has to step in for video games of all things, we failed as a society.

It's not just parents, a parent who doesn't know or care to read the packaging might buy the game for the kid and star wars is far from a gruesome game and one does not expect transactions in it.

 

Plus proper parenting left when the gov got into the homes, example one cant "spank" a kid w/o getting into legal issues. Then the tech came in and that made things 10x worst.

 

The Gov caused it really they knew about the issues in the mobile industries and failed to regulate it or crack down on it. Remember people are sheep if they aren't told not to do something they will try, and even when told they will try. People keep blaming the gov for getting involved but if they dont people whine about them not getting involved, see the issue they have with those they serve?

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

As stated above the majority of games i saw where no more than 40 They only made the $60+ jump when the PS4/XBO/Late 360 came out, most 360 games where $40 new. Sure there was a few over that number but not the amount one would think.

Actually PS2 pushed the $50 price tag and PS3 pushed the $60. So prices have been $60 for over a decade which people demanding better graphics and more gameplay which requires more time and devs which increase development cost. 

 

$60 is honestly too cheap for modern games even though typing that made me cringe at spending more than that. 

[Egg-Roll]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Actually PS2 pushed the $50 price tag and PS3 pushed the $60. So prices have been $60 for over a decade which people demanding better graphics and more gameplay which requires more time and devs which increase development cost. 

 

$60 is honestly too cheap for modern games even though typing that made me cringe at spending more than that. 

The only game i can think of that might of been $50 for the PS2 was Final Fantasy series and DBZ or alike Japan/combat games. I do own a PS2 but i only bought 1 or 2 new games for it, the system itself was used if i remember correctly, i bought a psp (several) and those games never past $40 for me, most were around $35.

 

If it makes you cringe then it's too much, it's your bodies way of saying smarten up, your mind has been brainwashed to pay the prices  If i followed the pay $60-80 for games flow i would be by your side, luckily once i hit college i realized several things partially due to what i did in college for education . A game company can sell those $80 games for $40 and make enough profit to keep making games, even today.

[Ryujin2003]

24 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Whatever happened to responsible parenting in not letting your kids have easy access to bank accounts ect?

 

Gambling is gambling. I don't gamble, and refuse to participate in gambling activities in games. It's stupid. It's wrong. And it's important to target and exploit children or adults.

 

One of the concepts with gambling is the user of trusted brands. People trust Star Wars to be family friendly, just as online casinos showing gambling customer protection organizations as supporting their site. Makes you feel more "ok" about gambling. 

 

I think this is why BF2 has had do much publicity. It's not about just one game, it's about a construct today had become socially tolerable until it's reached a tipping point. Same thing with smoking in public places. It was ok until it wasn't ok. The "Don't take your child to Denny's, and make them s home cooked meal" ignored the smoking is a public health concern. Something can be said about Lootboxes and gambling in ALL non-casino registered games. Zynga is one of the worst, and needs to be regulated AF...

 

I don't even want to gamble for player skins. You cannot pick and choose, that's how corporations take advantage of the system. Blanket statement works perfectly fine in this case: "stop raping society".

[mikat]

2 hours ago, Tedny said:

In Europe there are places where gambling non-taxed, so that areas have differents gambling laws( Monako) 

monaco is just a tax paradise, not a real country imho

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

A game company can sell those $80 games for $40 and make enough profit to keep making games, even today.

No shit, because those games are not made with 500 person dev team and cost $200m to make. 

 

$80 games are still primarily AAA titles which cost millions to make. $40 games are mostly indies which is a handful of people. 

 

And you dont have to believe that the PS2/xbox were $50 even though its fact. Hell even N64 games were $50. And dont give me the, most I paid was $35-40, because that no different to the $80 vs $40 games today. 

[JoseGuya]

8 minutes ago, mikat said:

monaco is just a tax paradise, not a real country imho

I'll take a tax paradise over a tax hell anytime. 

 

On topic now: What a bullshit regulation. Companies will just adapt, and change strategies. This could be even worse in the future. 

[mikat]

1 minute ago, JoseGuya said:

I'll take a tax paradise over a tax hell anytime. 

 

On topic now: What a bullshit regulation. Companies will just adapt, and change strategies. This could be even worse in the future. 

and tax hell is?

[JoseGuya]

17 minutes ago, mikat said:

and tax hell is?

Anything beyond 10% on tax pressure, if you consider a state is necessary at all.

[Egg-Roll]

8 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

No shit, because those games are not made with 500 person dev team and cost $200m to make. 

 

$80 games are still primarily AAA titles which cost millions to make. $40 games are mostly indies which is a handful of people. 

 

And you dont have to believe that the PS2/xbox were $50 even though its fact. Hell even N64 games were $50. And dont give me the, most I paid was $35-40, because that no different to the $80 vs $40 games today. 

I was referring to AAA games... Because they are AAA games it is to be expected that they will have high volumes of sales. GTA 5 cost nearly 300 million but surpassed 1 billion in sales within a few days, so where is this BS you are getting to? If you cant sell your game for 40-50 and still make enough money to produce the next one, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. I'm more willing to hand my hard earned money to a Indie dev over AAA Devs, because they have realistic profit requirements with equally good games. Sure not all, but a few.

 

To make things worse is that EA owns Origin, so if 50% of the sales come from Origin it's basically pure profit. For GTA they have Steam which munches off 30% approx. but they still made 700 million in that sense 500 if you take into consideration of PS4 xbox additional sale costs (selling on their store) Fees to be on their system are in the costs of production.

 

EA I read they are planning on selling 15 million units within 5 months, but the problem with EA is they dont actually publicly announce costs. So all we know the game could of cost $5 to make or 500 million(not likely, disney is probably getting a 5%+- cut like Nintendo is with POGO, licensing fees are once again in the costs of production).

Even at $20 per copy from $40 is still a 300 million income which is still a breakeven point plus some profit for a cost similar to the GTA V cost. So no there is no excuse for AAA games to be at $80, let alone the garbage EA is throwing out.

 

I looked at most games in the day and not AAA titles, only the AAA titles or aforementioned titles where expensive most new games i saw never really past $40 if they did they quickly dropped down to a reasonable price within a month of their release.

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, LordTaco42 said:

Ok look I hate EA and even hate the loot box system even more but do we really need the government coming in and intervening.  We could just you know not buy their shit...

good luck bringing the 99% of gamers who brought us here to your side, i'd rather see the gaming industry crash and burn because of a gov intervention than wait for the mythical day where these people actually grow an ounce of brain matter that gives them the ability to think before throwing money at shit 

[Frankenburger]

52 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

$80 games are still primarily AAA titles which cost millions to make.

That's kind of a misnomer. Most publishers spend almost half of a game's final budget on marketing alone.

[TimeOmnivore]

Really curious to see how something like this would affect a game like Hearthstone. Depending on how this type of law would be written, it may be possible for a company like Blizzard to do what they did in China - that being you pay for 1 Arcane Dust (worth 1/40 of a common card) and get a "free" card pack with it. I can easily see other companies coming up with similar ridiculous loopholes that could subvert the purpose of this law if it isn't properly written/put in place. Loot boxes are idiotic, as far as I'm concerned; you should just be able to buy the thing(s) you want. I'd love to see this type of regulation happen so publishers take them away so they can legally advertise to more people - though I'm under no delusion they won't just come up with other idiotic bullshit to make up for the loss, we'd just have to deal with that next. It'll be interesting to see, one way or another, what will happen whether or not this passes and what other similar stuff crops up in the future.

[Frankenburger]

4 minutes ago, TimeOmnivore said:

Really curious to see how something like this would affect a game like Hearthstone.

If it does end up affecting Hearthstone, I'd be even more interested in seeing how it affects Pokemon TCG Online, since the booster packs you buy IRL contain codes for TCG:O booster packs.

[sof006]

4 hours ago, MrTiC said:

Rating means shit

True, because parents are stupid and will buy kids anything.

[ArcticSalad]

I'm hoping for more than just a rating on games, but regardless it makes the targeted audience considerably smaller (less purchases -> less revenue) and thus may persuade companies like EA from pulling crap like they did with Battlefront II. Depending on how companies react, it may have a larger impact then you would expect - hopefully that is the case.

[Frankenburger]

18 minutes ago, sof006 said:

True, because parents are stupid and will buy kids anything.

Though most major retailers won't sell games with an AO rating. Even though digital distribution is a thing, at the very least an AO rating will seriously cut into the physical sales of the game.

[Dabombinable]

Its all I want for loot boxes-for games with them to be rated adults only (R18+ in Australia if it ever happens here)

[catzambia]

5 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely flimsy and holds no water. If it did hold water, we wouldn't be here right now. The problem is the vast majority of people are OK with micro transactions. People like me and you who boycott egregious practices are in the minority.

Why does the government need to step in?