Gaming Industry now claims that legislation against Lootboxes amounts to censorship

[RAM555789]

Lootboxes work, when its completely cosmetic items. Just look at the CS:GO thriving (and toxic) community around CS:GO skins. I think it would have been cool to see something like different variants of clone armor like you see in the movies depending on the division the clone was in (there's a ton of lore, and armor you can check out). This system keeps everything fair to the player and keeps the spending totally optional.

 

 I like how @ARikozuM put it, my idea is stupid, but then again its probably because I don't spend money on skins, and never seemed like a problem to me.

 

"Here's a thought: 

 

Pink skin for Vader: $1.99

Loot box for Pink skin for Vader: $0.99

 

Give me the guaranteed skin for $1.99.

 

People who want it will buy it. Loot boxes should be like in R6S where your chance of winning goes up with each match and is nearly guaranteed after 20 wins.  You can certainly buy more, but you can also just purchase the items directly from the selections.

 

Why the need for obfuscating rewards? Why are you adding a credit reward for boxes that use those credits in the first place? Are the credit rewards higher than what I paid for the box? Usually not. You're diluting the chances of the other prizes by adding dumb little rewards or rewards that stack, but are useless once the first is obtained, all for a false sense of winning. Reminds of a shooter where the loot boxes contained guns that had a countdown timer that would run after first use. 

 

I don't care to understand how this takes away any creativity from the developer. Unless EA was going to pull another BF3 with sh#t campaign and you have to pay for the flashback levels. Or better yet, add music to their otherwise boring sound design for $4.99. Do they need to make more money off of the games than they already are? How about they stop buying game studios and wresting their IP for the "dead" bin?"

[GoodBytes]

12 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

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

 

 

I agree, but when it bring you half of your revenue. When you make 7 billion dollars and more than 4 billion is from those microtransactions (Activision numbers only), who would not fight it until the last drop (beside a charity). All I am saying, is that it is kinda understandable, but the problem is that we let it grow so big. If it was a few millions, then trust me, they would be going "Oh well...sucks, but oh well, let's think about something else"

[GoodBytes]

9 minutes ago, RAM555789 said:

Lootboxes work, when its completely cosmetic items. Just look at the CS:GO thriving (and toxic) community around CS:GO skins. I think it would have been cool to see something like different variants of clone armor like you see in the movies depending on the division the clone was in (there's a ton of lore, and armor you can check out). This system keeps everything fair to the player and keeps the spending totally optional.

No.It is one thing buying something pre-made that you may want or not, and it is another gambling money for MAYBE an item that you want. It is a lottery game hidden in a game, plain and simple.

[mynameisjuan]

11 minutes ago, RAM555789 said:

Lootboxes work, when its completely cosmetic items. Just look at the CS:GO thriving (and toxic) community around CS:GO skins. I think it would have been cool to see something like different variants of clone armor like you see in the movies depending on the division the clone was in (there's a ton of lore, and armor you can check out). This system keeps everything fair to the player and keeps the spending totally optional.

Paying money to possibly get what you want is still gambling and stupid. 

[ARikozuM]

Here's a thought: 

 

Pink skin for Vader: $1.99

Loot box for Pink skin for Vader: $0.99

 

Give me the guaranteed skin for $1.99.

 

People who want it will buy it. Loot boxes should be like in R6S where your chance of winning goes up with each match and is nearly guaranteed after 20 wins.  You can certainly buy more, but you can also just purchase the items directly from the selections.

 

Why the need for obfuscating rewards? Why are you adding a credit reward for boxes that use those credits in the first place? Are the credit rewards higher than what I paid for the box? Usually not. You're diluting the chances of the other prizes by adding dumb little rewards or rewards that stack, but are useless once the first is obtained, all for a false sense of winning. Reminds of a shooter where the loot boxes contained guns that had a countdown timer that would run after first use. 

 

I don't care to understand how this takes away any creativity from the developer. Unless EA was going to pull another BF3 with sh#t campaign and you have to pay for the flashback levels. Or better yet, add music to their otherwise boring sound design for $4.99. Do they need to make more money off of the games than they already are? How about they stop buying game studios and wresting their IP for the "dead" bin?

 

Also, Battlefield 2: Las Vegas will have you go into the Grand Casino to use credits for your loot boxes. 

[ARikozuM]

16 minutes ago, RAM555789 said:

Lootboxes work, when its completely cosmetic items. 

Depends on the game and cosmetic in question. R6S has quite a few skins and they actually do add to your odds of winning a firefight. One of Doc's (or Tachanka) skins is practically all-black meaning you can hide in a dark area and gain those vital milliseconds to kill without retaliation. Games like Blizzard's Overwatch don't rely on camouflage as much thanks to the art style of the characters relative to the map (aside from Genji, seems like he has a perfect camo for every map). 

 

Games like CS:GO promote gambling as they allow users to unlock for rare loot that can then be sold for actual cash. Valve won't do anything about it as it's their largest revenue source (last I checked). Just give me a random-a$$ gun when I level up. Don't give me a locked box that I have to pay $1.99 for the key when I can go to G2A, Kinguin, or Steam Community for the skin that I want. 

Spoiler

I don't play CS:GO much (at all). Most of the time in CS:GO was from trying to get it working with triple monitors (it's glorious). I do play R6S and there's the option to buy loot boxes for real money, but there's no probability difference between purchased cases and the free "wins" case plus the items that you want can be purchased directly from selection (like an IQ keychain!). 

 

[RAM555789]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Depends on the game and cosmetic in question. R6S has quite a few skins and they actually do add to your odds of winning a firefight. One of Doc's (or Tachanka) skins is practically all-black meaning you can hide in a dark area and gain those vital milliseconds to kill without retaliation. Games like Blizzard's Overwatch don't rely on camouflage as much thanks to the art style of the characters relative to the map (aside from Genji, seems like he has a perfect camo for every map). 

 

Games like CS:GO promote gambling as they allow users to unlock for rare loot that can then be sold for actual cash. Valve won't do anything about it as it's their largest revenue source (last I checked). Just give me a random-a$$ gun when I level up. Don't give me a locked box that I have to pay $1.99 for the key when I can go to G2A, Kinguin, or Steam Community for the skin that I want. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I don't play CS:GO much (at all). Most of the time in CS:GO was from trying to get it working with triple monitors (it's glorious). I do play R6S and there's the option to buy loot boxes for real money, but there's no probability difference between purchased cases and the free "wins" case plus the items that you want can be purchased directly from selection (like an IQ keychain!). 

 

3

There a reason people put lines through what they said. I literally said my idea "my idea is stupid" there's a reason I put lines through it. I said I agreed with you too, did you actually read what I have there or just ignore it and read what's crossed out?

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, RAM555789 said:

There a reason people put lines through what they said. I literally said my idea "my idea is stupid" there's a reason I put lines through it. I said I agreed with you too, did you actually read what I have there or just ignore it and read what's crossed out?

I've been on the page writing since I posted my initial response. Any formatting changes would have gone unnoticed until I refreshed the page. 

[straight_stewie]

Their logic only works if you consider LootBoxes as art. If you consider them as a product (which is what they are), then it's totally within most governments power to regulate not only the sale of them, but the manufacture and contents of them as well.

[apm]

38 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I agree, but when it bring you half of your revenue. When you make 7 billion dollars and more than 4 billion is from those microtransactions (Activision numbers only), who would not fight it until the last drop (beside a charity). All I am saying, is that it is kinda understandable, but the problem is that we let it grow so big. If it was a few millions, then trust me, they would be going "Oh well...sucks, but oh well, let's think about something else"

EA is about the same and they dont even make that many games anymore. last year it was just their yearly releases, im counting battlefield/battlefront too and a new need for speed with the same progression system as battlefront 2.

[Energycore]

I hope devs and publishers understand that participating in this roundtable is going to put them at the very top of the blacklist for the big media people that have been against lootboxes

[apm]

13 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I hope devs and publishers understand that participating in this roundtable is going to put them at the very top of the blacklist for the big media people that have been against lootboxes

i dont think such a blacklist exists. they are already dying, making fools of themselves and dont want to cover the latest AAA games?

[maartendc]

4 hours ago, ItsTheDuckAgain said:

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

No, governments are looking at legislating this kind of thing under gambling commissions etc., which would include levying taxes, protecting minors from it, etc. etc.

 

Making this kind of legislative changes takes time, but lawmakers have expressed concern in Belgium, Germany, several US States, etc. I think the current state of affairs is: the industry has been warned, if they don't mitigate this themselves in the coming months, the governments will definitely start passing new rules on it.

 

On topic: Saying this is censorship is so lame. That is the same as saying regulating gambling is censorship. There is nothing being censored per se. You can still get your darth vader skins in the games. The only difference is they would regulate the fact that you have to GAMBLE with loot boxes to get said skin.

 

If anything, the LOOTBOXES ARE CENSORING my right to see all the skins! Cracking down on lootboxes will mean freedom of the content in the game for the consumer.

[dtaflorida]

I went to a well known chain that serves pizzas and hosts childrens parties and boasts games for kids. 

They have a wide range of games that by common sense are gambling games (games of chance and not skill), and these are legal because there is no monetary reward. In fact you don't even use real money to play, you buy tokens that have no monetary value, and you win tickets that can be redeemed for prizes. Many of these games are classic coin pusher games, but in place of real hard US money, it's tokens that go in and tickets that come out. Why bother with real arcade games that a single token could take up 5-10 mins of play when you can turn over a token every 3-5 seconds?

 

And this is all deemed legal... for children... of all ages. 

 

So if that's legal, then what EA and company do in electronic games is too. You shell out real money for some valueless tokens and redeem them for your prizes which are not real cash so totally legal. 

 

I'd love to see this changed, especially if it overlaps with these faux gambling for kids establishments that are trying to take quart*cough* tokens quickly and efficiently from my kid and hence my wallet. 

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, Trixanity said:

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. 

Well that's just great, I think you just gave EA the idea for their next Sims game!

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

Exactly, it's a fucking game, it's a virtual reality that is totally fictional.  They are essentially arguing if you don't play monopoly for keeps with legal tender then the game is not effective.  

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Exactly, it's a fucking game, it's a virtual reality that is totally fictional.  They are essentially arguing if you don't play monopoly for keeps with legal tender then the game is not effective.  

If only, I always win at Monopoly. Had a 12 year ish wining streak lol. Family won't play it with me anymore .

[Trik'Stari]

Yeah.

 

No.

 

Just no. That is all that needs to be said. Go fuck yourselves corporate mouthpieces.

 

I'm all for free trade, but I'm seriously tired of hyper-capitalism. Free trade and capitalism are the best ways to have a society, but there HAS to be ethics. We, as a species, need to redefine the existential purpose of a business.

 

The purpose of a business is not to make money. It's to bring a product or service to market at a competitive price. Saying that the purpose of a business is purely to make profit, you could basically construe that to any human activity.

 

By that logic, mugging people constitutes a business.

[MoonSpot]

On 3/1/2018 at 3:06 PM, dtaflorida said:

I went to a well known chain that serves pizzas and hosts childrens parties and boasts games for kids. 

They have a wide range of games that by common sense are gambling games (games of chance and not skill), and these are legal because there is no monetary reward. In fact you don't even use real money to play, you buy tokens that have no monetary value, and you win tickets that can be redeemed for prizes. Many of these games are classic coin pusher games, but in place of real hard US money, it's tokens that go in and tickets that come out. Why bother with real arcade games that a single token could take up 5-10 mins of play when you can turn over a token every 3-5 seconds?

 

And this is all deemed legal... for children... of all ages. 

 

So if that's legal, then what EA and company do in electronic games is too. You shell out real money for some valueless tokens and redeem them for your prizes which are not real cash so totally legal. 

 

I'd love to see this changed, especially if it overlaps with these faux gambling for kids establishments that are trying to take quart*cough* tokens quickly and efficiently from my kid and hence my wallet. 

Yea, except that the arcade isn't located in the families living room or child's bedroom, and the children have no means to access the physical arcade without a parent driving them to it.  Here in Ontario unattended children are not allowed to go to arcades, and there are municipal laws dictating that any arcade has to be X distance away from schools/parks.  Also those establishments have to get licensed.

 

Looks like a very apples vs oranges picture you've painted to me just on the grounds of ease of access alone.  It's one thing when a kid plays a couple rounds of [insert whatever] during a birthday party at chuck e cheese, it quite another when its behind the lines in your own home.  Plus in a public arcade, there's no 'hook' for character progression; No desire to get everything, No association with that experience being "My save/game".

 

We can also talk about why is having sex with a spouse legal but soliciting prostitution isn't.  Its just sex and you pay for both either directly or indirectly(rings, bills, mortgages, flowers, ducking renovations, etc ), so it can be argued that its the same thing.  But it is different, isn't it.

[Jito463]

15 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The purpose of a business is not to make money. It's to bring a product or service to market at a competitive price. Saying that the purpose of a business is purely to make profit, you could basically construe that to any human activity.

True, it would be more accurate to say that the ultimate goal of a business is to make a profit.

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

By that logic, mugging people constitutes a business.

 

Yes, it would be,  business is just a term for a persons usual trade or profession.  It can be extended to corporations e.g AMD is in the business of making computer hardware, and it can be extended the otherway e.g,  Slimy Joe Dodgypants is in the business of Fraud.   

 

Human nature is survival, survival in today's environment means making as much money as you can.

[Thaldor]

Looking at the timetable I really hope that's just "clickbate" to get at least some audience. From 2:00pm to 3:00pm there's a ton of very interesting lectures and roundtables so, getting people to talk about the lootbox problem and other not so fun stuff might be kind of hard. For example: Intel giving a lecture about how to get VR work with Intels integrated GPUs, Epic talking about how they optimized the Fortnite, Nvidia presenting their R&D work on real-time rendering, Ubisoft talking about the design of Rainbow Six Siege, YOKO TARO talking about how they made Nier: Automata, Nintendos manager talking about how different genres of games can influence others. That's a lot of more interesting stuff than spending an hour talking about lootboxes and how common sense is acctually very good thing to use when developing AR stuff and how China is being asshole as always except this time they might be acctually pre-wise (just think about using AR glasses in Peking where there could be hundred thousand others with them throwing millions of 3D models around the city and making using any AR glasses with joined experiences unusable).

 

But still it's just as much possible that they are not bluffing and IGDA is acctually taking that kind of stance on the matter. Which is going to suck since IGDA is kind of huge influencer on the grass root level of game developers. Knowing IGDA they wouldn't take that kind of stance unless it was about something worse (like sexual harrashment in gaming industry or similar) and would more likely just try to get some honest conversation going. Just need to wait for the reports from the GDC to know what that really is about.