Looty & "Keep"? - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Djornson wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Djornson wrote:

I was addicted to World of Warcraft at one point. It made my life pretty shit. It's not the worst addiction but not a happy state of mind. Why are we equating addiction to homelessness?

Because the argument has been made in this thread that loot boxes = gambling and that loot boxes in games are basically introducing children to gambling.

And then how do we get to homelessness? I think i was trying to say there are varying degrees of addiction all of which is bad. But now you are talking about gambling. Gambling isn't necessarily addictive. Not all gambling is bad. (Poker with your mates is pretty fun.) Don't children gamble with like.. marbles? conkers? I don't even know if i'm agreeing or disagreeing with you anymore

Let's flip for it.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

What are you disputing Yoss? That exposure to gambling at a young age doesn’t affect people? Or that loot boxes aren’t gambling? If it’s the first there’s countless studies on it, do a google, take your pick. If it’s the second one have a read of this report which caused a petition and an MP asking a question in parliament about it and the government recognising the risk. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf You’re currently less enlightened on this issue than the Tory government. Congrats.

Thank you for providing something solid, but as far as loot boxes go, that only really covers whether or not they can and should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have a monetary value.

My question is about whether or not loot boxes are actually causing harm or are basically benign, if annoying.

Escape

Yossarian wrote:

should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have a ~~monetary~~ personal value.

I'm not in the habit of criticising individuals (hammering the silliest of points into the ground as I do), but you're going in too hard on this one. You're coming across as a bit Whatabout Tory, mandating our disabled back to work because of keyboard-testing One-armed Billy.

We could wait another decade for some evidence that young adults have become addicted to gambling following years as loot prospectors, or we could do the sensible thing of calling it out as a nasty practice now.

cockbeard

Are you really saying that for the statement "gambling is a high risk, potentially addictive activity that children shouldn't be exposed to" that the burden of proof should lie with the person making that statement. In which case "smoking is good for you"

Vela

It's telling that on distinction in this argument is that those who are in favour of loot boxes are happy to talk in favour of corporate entities, and those who are against them argue in favour of individuals.

This is what out of control capitalism does: it makes people argue against their own best interests.
Companies aren't entitled to money. If they sell, so be it, but if it causes harm, it must be regulated.

I'd prefer a minimum age rating of 18+ for any loot box games. They are too close to gambling for comfort. Especially in light of the gambling ring that was established around the CSGO lotto website last year. That was gambling for minors, enabled by companies shirking responsibility and enabling it.

mistercrayon

Thinking about that activision patent. It’s so gross. It literally imposes a feeling of inadequacy on a person, who has paid money to be there, simply to sell small items.

It’s the nakedness in how easily a company wishes to exploit psychology to make a person feel shitty and then seeing a profit value in protecting via a patent that is so horrid.

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

‘Scape, you’re on a pretty fixed income so that’s one thing, Jon, you buy far more games than most people. I expect I’m more typical in how I approach things, I reckon I probably spend something in the region of £200-£250 on games per year, some years a bit more, some a bit less. I could easily spend more if I wanted to, but I’d rather spend my other disposable income on other things. I think this is how most people view buying games. Were I to decide that I wanted to get into FUT, say, and I started buying card packs for that, it wouldn’t affect the small amount I spend on games each year, it would come out of my other disposable income. I’m sure some need to budget more carefully and for them it might be different, but I think that most people who buy games spend a small enough on them that they aren’t likely to be overly concerned about it and have other cash that they could put towards gaming instead of a meal or a night at the pub or whatever.

Again, your personal experience and 'I reckons' against mine (I usually spend about that much on games too BTW). And you keep asking others for hard evidence...

Anyway, this popped up when I Googled FIFA revenues: EA’s FIFA Ultimate Team Now Worth $800 Million, to Be Implemented in Other Games.

Apart from being an insane amount of money and a worrying prospect for other games, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that some people (not all, not me, not you) are spending more time and money on FIFA now and therefore not putting that time and money into other games. Even based on blind assumptions, why be so certain about the opposite position, that everyone's buying the same games they would have before and spending the additional time and money on FIFA?

Here's a scenario: kid gets FIFA and some Game vouchers/PSN credit for Xmas. A few years ago may have bought another game with that, now buys FUT packs. There you go.

mistercrayon

It’s a lame excercise Jon because it’s countering a lame position.

EA just binned a single player Star Wars game because it couldn’t be FUTted (they’re moving to a FUTtable game using the Star Wars assets). Imagine the world where EA makes nearly a billion off a mode in a game and then thinks it can’t invest in a single player Star Wars game.

(the tot with fut will also have ps plus and be able to download loads of free shit)

Yossarian

Vela wrote:

I'd prefer a minimum age rating of 18+ for any loot box games.

I don’t particularly disagree with this, however loot box sales already are (or should be) limited to minors simply by virtue of the fact that minors don’t have credit cards so are constrained in their ability to actually spend money on these, parents already have the power to stop their children buying loot boxes. Kids keep being brought into this for two reasons, first that children may be able to buy loot boxes in games because their parents haven’t set up their consoles effectively and second because the mere presence of loot boxes in games may somehow cause issues for the children. I’m not sure either of these are particularly strong arguments, myself.

Also, just out of interest, do you think that card games such as Magic should be treated the same way? Sticker albums? Everything else that can currently be sold to children which may involve an element of chance as to the contents?

M0stly harm13ss

Damn it, lost a long reply due to my incompetence.

I'll type it up again, but for now we aren't talking about Magic, sticker books, etc. Don't introduce a series of logical fallacies into the discussion (burden of proof earlier on, black or white/false equivalence now) to try and strengthen your position.

I'll set out my position to make it clear.

Kow

They're putting the money into developing new games? No, they're putting the money into new loot box systems and new ways of sucking more money out of you. Fuck em.

Unlikely

Kow wrote:

They're putting the money into developing new games? No, they're putting the money into new loot box systems and new ways of sucking more money out of you. Fuck em.

This is the key point for me. You (yes, you) may believe the systems are benign or you (yes, you) may believe they're satanic, but that's irrelevant. The publishers believe they can use them to increase revenue by exploiting the same psychological tricks that apply to gambling more generally.

Yossarian

M0stly harm13ss wrote:

Damn it, lost a long reply due to my incompetence.

I'll type it up again, but for now we aren't talking about Magic, sticker books, etc. Don't introduce a series of logical fallacies into the discussion (burden of proof earlier on, black or white/false equivalence now) to try and strengthen your position.

I'll set out my position to make it clear.

FWIW, this isn’t particularly an attempt to strengthen my argument, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I am willing to shift on this, but the arguments on the other side can pretty much be summed up as “I don’t like it and it is harmful”. The first argument is fine, it’s personal opinion, the second strikes me as being a massive, collective reckon.

Diluted Dante

It's astonishing that, despite the personal experiance of one of our forumites in this very thread, you still persist with that argument.

Yossarian

His personal experience includes walking away from it.

Diluted Dante

Because he recognised the signs of a problem he had previous experience with. What about people who don't have that expaeriance?

For the record, that same situation could happen with fruit machines, FOBT and sportsbook betting, but you seem to accept those can be a problem.

Yossarian

I do accept that those can be a problem yes, there’s plenty of evidence that those can be a problem, they also all crucially allow the winning of actual money rather than digital items. If we take prize money out of the equation are the same risks present?

Kow

I think the yanks have the right idea about banning gambling, it's a seedy and sleazy and damaging thing. I enjoy gaming, I don't want to be part of a gambling scene, whether or not I participate in that aspect of it. So again, fuck em.

Yossarian

Kow wrote:

I think the yanks have the right idea about banning gambling, it's a seedy and sleazy and damaging thing. I enjoy gaming, I don't want to be part of a gambling scene, whether or not I participate in that aspect of it. So again, fuck em.

Fair play, I don’t have a problem with banning gambling, I also don’t have a problem with banning the psychological tricks that keep people gambling/buying loot boxes/checking social media constantly.

Vela

Yossarian wrote:

M0stly harm13ss wrote:

Damn it, lost a long reply due to my incompetence. I'll type it up again, but for now we aren't talking about Magic, sticker books, etc. Don't introduce a series of logical fallacies into the discussion (burden of proof earlier on, black or white/false equivalence now) to try and strengthen your position. I'll set out my position to make it clear.

FWIW, this isn’t particularly an attempt to strengthen my argument, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that I am willing to shift on this, but the arguments on the other side can pretty much be summed up as “I don’t like it and it is harmful”. The first argument is fine, it’s personal opinion, the second strikes me as being a massive, collective reckon.

Regarding Magic/Pokemon/football cards versus loot boxes: can you trade them with other people?

If not, it's a scam.

Yossarian

Okay, I take that distinction.

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

monkey wrote:

What are you disputing Yoss? That exposure to gambling at a young age doesn’t affect people? Or that loot boxes aren’t gambling? If it’s the first there’s countless studies on it, do a google, take your pick. If it’s the second one have a read of this report which caused a petition and an MP asking a question in parliament about it and the government recognising the risk. http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf You’re currently less enlightened on this issue than the Tory government. Congrats.

Thank you for providing something solid, but as far as loot boxes go, that only really covers whether or not they can and should be considered gambling based on whether or not the prizes have a monetary value.

My question is about whether or not loot boxes are actually causing harm or are basically benign, if annoying.

Would you need the same level of evidence if EA were putting a pack of fags and a lighter on the front of every copy of FIFA? Or would you recognise that that has a strong potential to cause harm even without having a ten year, outcome-charting, cohort study?

Gambling exposure causes problems for kids at the time and in later life. Loot box mechanics can either be legally classed as gambling (if there’s a trade scheme) or a gambling-like activity if it’s a closed system like FUT. Surely that’s enough.

Kow

It's a bit like saying kids aren't allowed to gamble but then. letting them spend their days in the bookies.

M0stly harm13ss

Publishers want to make money. It's easier to make money from someone already bought into your franchise than hook someone in. In the past therefore, to maximise revenue per customer we have seen the rise of DLC. It could be argued that this has reduced the value of games, as content that would have been available at launch is stripped out and charged for.

If you don't buy the DLC you therefore don't experience the 'full game'.

DLC is an old idea now though, so publishers have looked at the loot box income phenomenon, especially the gatcha stuff implemented in mobile games. Once again to maximise income per client, a bit of DLC and a couple of loot boxes and you've made an extra £40 to £50 off one game that you wouldn't have previously had. We are just starting to see loot boxes be implemented into triple A game releases, specifically games where they would have not been before.

I have two main issues with these implementations. Previously (Overwatch, DOTA 2 for example) these have been pretty benign and contained cosmetic upgrades, however in two well reported recent cases, game content was locked behind a loot box pay wall (Shadows of Mordor, some of the NPCs, Star Wars battlefront actual game progression and weapons).

This means that a game I would pay good money for has been hobbled in some meaningful way unless I pay more money. Furthermore, as the boxes are blind, how much I have to pay to get that gun isn't entirely clear (a pound? £20?). That's not good for me as a consumer. At the moment I can choose not to buy said games, but what if it happens to my favourite franchise?

Secondly, for the majority, these micro transactions are annoying and easy to ignore, and if set up properly, there are effective parental controls over kid's spending. However, there is a percentage of society that are vulnerable to the chase (remember it's not about the outcome it's the buzz of the chase that drives these addictions).

For these people and a protecting the vulnerable point of view, I would like to see loot boxes (those that are blind and potentially contain high value players, weapons, characters, etc) included in gambling legislation, as has already been done by the Isle of Man government.

Legislation such as this would also place some sort of framework around their implementation in games and sale and may well benefit the general gaming population.

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

I do accept that those can be a problem yes, there’s plenty of evidence that those can be a problem, they also all crucially allow the winning of actual money rather than digital items. If we take prize money out of the equation are the same risks present?

Additionally, many people find themselves unable to explain why they continue to gamble despite the problems it causes in their day-to-day lives. The most obvious answer is “for the money”, but perhaps you can challenge yourself here: When you win, do you spend your winnings on more gambling? Do you continue to gamble until you have little or no money left?

A lot of gamblers feel they are waiting for the 'big win', which never comes but always seems tantalisingly close. But often, they find having a big win would simply fuel their desire for more gambling, leaving them feeling trapped into a behaviour with no way out.

This would suggest that being 'in action' is the most important thing, rather than winning an amount of money.

http://www.gamcare.org.uk/get-advice/why-do-people-gamble

Yossarian

Good post, Most.

I fully accept that poor loot box implementation can be bad for games (although in the case of Mordor and SW, I’d want to see what the implementation was before judging, people were up in arms about the implementation in D2 and it turned out to be pretty benign, IMO). Furthermore, I’m not opposed to a change in the law around these, I just feel that the current reaction towards lootboxes is overblown.

Yossarian

Dante, you aren’t sharing anything I’m unaware of here, my point is that I’m yet to see any evidence of harm being caused by lootboxes in games.

Paul the sparky

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-19-what-the-uk-can-learn-from-the-far-easts-battle-with-loot-boxes

Eurogamer with a piece on this stuff.

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

Dante, you aren’t sharing anything I’m unaware of here, my point is that I’m yet to see any evidence of harm being caused by lootboxes in games.

Would you need the same evidence threshold if they were giving fags to kids?

Yossarian

I’d want an even higher standard of evidence.

I mean, ask a silly question.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories