Gaming Industry now claims that legislation against Lootboxes amounts to censorship

[Master Disaster]

Yeah, I wish I was joking but I'm really not.

 

GDC 2018 kicks off March 19th and contained in the schedule for the event is a very interesting round table event called "Censorship Strikes Back Roundtable (Presented by IGDA)". The point of the round table? For game developers to discuss the growing trend on censorship against the industry including the WHO classification of Gaming Disorder and "government officials wielding outsized power against Lootboxes".

Quote

Global gains against game censorship are suddenly at risk from a combination of actions against our industry. With the World Health Organization classifying "gaming disorder" a mental health condition and burgeoning legislation around the world against Loot Boxes, a handful of government officials again wield outsized power over our creative and business decisions. Additionally, Augmented Reality (AR) faces bans in parks, military bases, churches around the world, and a total ban in China. What are developers to do? Join us for a discussion on how we can protect our rights.

The discussion is advertising that it will help developers with understanding what recent changes mean for the industry and will inform them on how to protect themselves.

Quote

Game developers and allies will get updates on the latest assaults on their self-expression and business rights, learn about potential implications of recent government changes, find out what has worked in the past, and learn how to protect themselves and support their peers. They will learn about what works in their country and what they can do to be an advocate for change no matter where in the world they live and work.

http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/censorship-strikes-back-roundtable-presented-by-igda/856303

 

You legitimately couldn't make this shit up if you tried. Your target audience pushing back against your unhealthy and manipulative business practices isn't censorship.

 

This shows the mentality of these people, they genuinely believe they're doing nothing wrong and we're the ones with the problem.

[Guest Generallee]

Now isn't that fucking convenient

[ItsTheDuckAgain]

hrhr. good one... oh wait.... its the first of march and not of april. They f*** up the timing I guess?

[Xander Cousins]

Ummm, either i ain't awake yet or too dumb to understand what this is about.. @Master Disaster could you dumb this down for me? 

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, Alex Colson said:

Ummm, either i ain't awake yet or too dumb to understand what this is about.. @Master Disaster could you dumb this down for me? 

Watch the included video source, they do a good job of summering it.

[Hip]

In germany gov even stated that loot boxes are in some way gambling.

[ItsTheDuckAgain]

3 minutes ago, Hip said:

In germany gov even stated that loot boxes are in some way gambling.

...and failed to do anything about it other than that statement. (Little detail but yet interesting to know :-) )

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

creative and business decisions

Creative, no. Business decision, yes. Personally got no issue if it's not hurting the creative process, games should be games not investment portfolios. 

[asus killer]

this involves kids, really young kids, pre teens. It's hard to imagine any moral high ground in this complaints, no business i know expects to sell to kids and don't be regulated.

[grimreeper132]

the way I see it is lootboxes for cosmetic items like in overwatch, that's fine as you have a choice of looking cool or not, but lootboxes for items that actually affect your play-style and your chances of winning (e.g. and EA game pretty much) I am against as that doesn't really give you the choice you either pay money or you lose

 

The first one cosmetics I agree it shouldn't be banned (I don't buy them but it does not hurt the game) the second one items yea that should be as that does hurt the game

[Hip]

12 minutes ago, ItsTheDuckAgain said:

...and failed to do anything about it other than that statement. (Little detail but yet interesting to know :-) )

Just wanted to throw in something

[porina]

Let's see which publishers or developers participate in this.

 

Personally I would really love to see anything that is or could be cash funded unknown outcome transaction to be regulated the same way as gambling. I think the only way they get away with it for now is that there is no way to convert the "winnings" back to cash which seems to be a requirement to get it classed as gambling. Create a new category if needed.

 

BTW I'm fine with micro or even macro transactions if there is a fixed, known benefit before the start of the transaction. In other words, optional game content for offered for sale.

[Misanthrope]

As I see it, game developers are free to implement a loot box system on their games if they feel it ads to the experience or it suits the game's artistic vision but you don't have to charge real money for them to be an effective part of the game.

 

So my reply would be: Yes, you can add lootboxes to your games, you just can't tie them to real world currency because that's gambling.

 

You're not suppressed from your vision of the game, just your shitty predatory microtransaction tactics.

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, porina said:

Let's see which publishers or developers participate in this.

 

Personally I would really love to see anything that is or could be cash funded unknown outcome transaction to be regulated the same way as gambling. I think the only way they get away with it for now is that there is no way to convert the "winnings" back to cash which seems to be a requirement to get it classed as gambling. Create a new category if needed.

 

BTW I'm fine with micro or even macro transactions if there is a fixed, known benefit before the start of the transaction. In other words, optional game content for offered for sale.

Exactly, if they want to sell you a skin then sell a god damn skin, don't sell a box that uses a fake currency and gives you a small chance of getting the skin you want. At that point it becomes manipulative.

[Master Disaster]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Creative, no. Business decision, yes. Personally got no issue if it's not hurting the creative process, games should be games not investment portfolios. 

Yeah, I think the industry is starting to blur the lines between the two. 

 

It's like they don't really care about the creative process of making games anymore, it's entirely about the money they can make per product for them now. That's why we're seeing this copy pasta open world online service model being employed by so many studios, it's tried and tested, easy to implement, takes minimal creative effort and offers them maximum opportunity to maximize profit.

 

And with paragraphs like that I'm starting to believe I could do a middle management job at EA Kappa

[Carclis]

So disclosure of whether or not games contain loot boxes ie gambling somehow amounts to censorship now?

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Hip said:

In germany gov even stated that loot boxes are in some way gambling.

Because what they do is somehow a golden standard.

[Blackie Sheen]

They call that censorship when the governements are simply responding to the outrage from the population  of game consumers who are outraged by the blatent use of gambling systems in their games. 

 

Also, what does the fact that gaming disorder have anything to do with censorship. Its simply stating a problem that can issue from people playing too much games and having a bad effect on their socials lives and their health. Iy has nothing to do with the games themselves. That is the most conceited thing i ever heard. 

[yian88]

So the industry has finally found their angle of attack on this issue, and obviously they practice misdirection instead of being objective.

[Trixanity]

Since when is restrictions or disclaimers censorship? I mean yes in certain contexts it can be but this is like if movie theaters wanted to require people to buy popcorn to enter a screening because it gives you the 'intended experience' and consumer protection put their foot down and said this shit doesn't fly. 

 

Microtransactions, lootboxes and similar money making schemes do nothing to improve the experience. They don't make things more enjoyable and they have no bearing on the creative process. No game designer in it for the creative side think of ways to add lootboxes. That's a business decision.  Corporate tells the designer to come up with a plan to integrate those things so they can exploit people. That's the height of the creativity involved. 

 

Claiming it's important for creators' freedom and that they can't possibly make the game they want unless little Timmy is allowed to swipe mommy's credit card is asinine. It does nothing for story telling and nothing for gameplay. Well, unless you're supposed to play a hyper realistic simulator where you're supposed to feel the economic hardships of the character by them taking all your money to slowly advance your downtrodden character. 

[Doobeedoo]

Screw loot boxes really, they have no worth to gameplay anyway. People need to show companies that it's not priority in games and that focus should be elsewhere. 

[Tcrumpen]

I wanna punch some sense into what ever lawyer drafted this up; they are completely missing the point we the audience aren't against lootboxes for the most part if they ONLY CONTAIN COSMETIC ITEMS

 

However when you block content behind a paywall in addition to the retail price of the game that's the problem we have, and it's creating lazy dev's and companies willing to play jump rope with deadlines because they can release the "currently unfinished" content as DLC later on cos publishers are pushing them for an impossible deadline

 

Also if you don't advertise or disclaim that your content is hidden behind a paywall that's like a middle finger to the consumer. Think of it this way

 

Say you get the train to work; you pay a price for a train ticket, now imagine that when you get on the train you have to pay a further charge in order to actually be able to stay on the train when it moves

[Silentprototipe]

Everyday I keep losing hope in humanity for reasons like this   

[GoodBytes]

I don't understand why they complain. Loot boxes will still be allowed in games after the proposed regulations. To purchase the game would simply require you to show a photo ID that shows that you are over the legal age of gambling in your region. This is like going to the casino, where you may be asked for ID (usually asked when you come and pick up your winning, if any).

 

As for the rest, like not allowing AR games in military, I think it is more security reasons more than anything else. As for game addiction, it is like anything. Anything that reward us, humans, can build up addiction,  its just teh reward system in the brain that can screw up. Heck, even food is actually an addiction for some (like a serious medical disorder, I am talking about.)

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't understand why they complain. Loot boxes will still be allowed in games after the proposed regulations. To purchase the game would simply require you to show a photo ID that shows that you are over the legal age of gambling in your region. This is like going to the casino, where you may be asked for ID (usually asked when you come and pick up your winning, if any).

 

As for the rest, like not allowing AR games in military, I think it is more security reasons more than anything else. As for game addiction, it is like anything. Anything that reward us, humans, can build up addiction,  its just teh reward system in the brain that can screw up. Heck, even food is actually an addiction for some (like a serious medical disorder, I am talking about.)

At this point I'd argue that a lot of these publishers are addicted to money and profit, I mean their behaviour shows all the classic addiction signs...

 

Unwillingness to accept the problem

Unwillingness to change

Blaming everyone else

Lying about the problem