Wow, first they give us the classic "pride and accomplishment" and now "surprise mechanics"? EA, truly you are the dumpster fire that keeps on giving.
There's already people jumping on the bandwagon making tongue in cheek references to this. One of my favourites is "I'm not kidnapping anyone; I'm just giving them a SURPRISE vacation".
Do you actually have an opinion on the topic? Because you just posted a video and the bare minimum of text.
Because when you actually see what was being discussed, the woman in the clip makes more of a case than some faux outrage peddler who is still whining over stuff that hasn't been in a game whose clip he used for almost a year.
He'd have more of one if he devoted more time whining about Activision and COD/Overwatch or Ubisoft and Division than EA--and if he focused on, say, the sports games instead of Battlefront.
EA's removed blindboxes from Battlefront, period. And even before they did that? Anyone who actually played the frigging game knew that you didn't have to buy a single box.
And yet, here's an EA VP claiming that they're a positive game mechanic, with the implication that they should be more common and inherent to the kinds of games EA produces. That they (somehow) add value to the player 'experience.' And even compares them to things like Kinder Eggs (which are specifically for kids, which says a lot about who they want to prey on)
Jim is irrelevant. EA wants to double down and make loot boxes more important to their games, and is willing to say so.
Kanluwen wrote: Do you actually have an opinion on the topic? Because you just posted a video and the bare minimum of text.
I figure most people aren't so dense they can't figure out my opinion from a line that telling.
Because when you actually see what was being discussed, the woman in the clip makes more of a case
A case for what?
faux outrage peddler who is still whining over stuff that hasn't been in a game whose clip he used for almost a year.
Even you can be so fanboy that you think outrage over lootbox mechanics in video games is faux. It's probably the industries largest recurring criticism going on a few years now. A peddler the man might be, but that's basically his brand, and this thread is titled "Surprise Mechanics" not "Jim Sterling" to wit, do you actually have an opinion on the topic, or are you just waving your fanboy flag and complaining that someone on the internet has a different opinion than you?
It's a nice diversion from the ongoing Randy Pitchford and Fallout 76 sagas trainwrecks.
You know, now that you bring it up, it has been kind of a gakky season for the industry bigs, hasn't it? Epic game store fallout, Pitchford being the unentertaining brand of manchild, and did we even have a thread on 76? Cause that stuff was pretty damn funny too. Even CD Project Red, the proverbial golden child, has been getting smacked around a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: EA wants to double down and make loot boxes more important to their games, and is willing to say so.
Kanluwen wrote: Do you actually have an opinion on the topic? Because you just posted a video and the bare minimum of text.
Because when you actually see what was being discussed, the woman in the clip makes more of a case than some faux outrage peddler who is still whining over stuff that hasn't been in a game whose clip he used for almost a year.
Wow. You really like going to bat for amoral corporations.
I work with children, and they are definitely vulnerable to this sort of nonsense. I know of cases where kids got their parents credit cards and racked up huge amounts of debt really quickly before anyone noticed, the prevalence of problem gambling among teenagers (who due to their brain chemistry are very vulnerable to this sort of thing) is increasing.
Kids have been taught that it is normal to pay up front for a game and then to have to pay continuously for features that would have simply been included in games in the past as part of the base price, and this has been combined with gambling mechanics to make this entire thing a stew of psychological fethery that is pretty carefully calibrated to screw with vulnerable people.
I am not surprised that EA, one of the most disgusting companies in video games, is pushing this line when it is pressed, but I am looking forward to this practice being regulated out of existence pretty soon.
I doubt it'll be as regulated as people expect. Honestly I think little will come of these hearings even.
I freaking buy lootboxes/gatcha currency in some games. I won't bore anyone with the reasons why I do it, but needless to say I've had a fair bit of introspection over the years concerning certain habits I feel are apparent in my lineage. And you know what, I'm sort of okay with that for myself.
EA is right. Whether it's healthy or not, people do "enjoy" these mechanics, and getting into qualifying how and why people "enjoy" them goes into some really subjective territory. If companies want lootboxes, go for it. They haven't stopped F/GO, Fortnight, or Overwatch from being beloved by fans, because a good game is a good game.
They're wrong in that they sit there and lie, pretending they don't know exactly what they're doing. It's hilariously sad and cynical display. They were asked if their business was ethical, and to side step that question they invented a new weasel word. Honestly, my hope is mostly that people call them out on the flagrant inhumanity and sheer greed being put on display. And then maybe walk with their wallets. I haven't bought from EA in years and I'm currently content to keep doing that. Their games are gak anyway.
LordofHats wrote: I doubt it'll be as regulated as people expect. Honestly I think little will come of these hearings even.
I freaking buy lootboxes/gatcha currency in some games. I won't bore anyone with the reasons why I do it, but needless to say I've had a fair bit of introspection over the years concerning certain habits I feel are apparent in my lineage. And you know what, I'm sort of okay with that for myself.
EA is right. Whether it's healthy or not, people do "enjoy" these mechanics, and getting into qualifying how and why people "enjoy" them goes into some really subjective territory. If companies want lootboxes, go for it. They haven't stopped F/GO, Fortnight, or Overwatch from being beloved by fans, because a good game is a good game.
They're wrong in that they sit there and lie, pretending they don't know exactly what they're doing. It's hilariously sad and cynical display. They were asked if their business was ethical, and to side step that question they invented a new weasel word. Honestly, my hope is mostly that people call them out on the flagrant inhumanity and sheer greed being put on display. And then maybe walk with their wallets. I haven't bought from EA in years and I'm currently content to keep doing that. Their games are gak anyway.
So you actually raise a point that Jim raises a lot in his videos. This is an issue that should never have made it to government legislation. Games like Overwatch, CSGO, and gacha mobile games used the mechanic in ways that made sense to people, and were not predatory (as it were). It was EA, and Activision continually pushing the envelope and trying to find new ways to screw people over that caused this. Jim has even said that he supports microtransactions in F2P games. His crusade is specifically against their implementation in big budget $60 box games.
He tries to raise up consumer backlash against this stuff in an effort to make the industry regulate itself so that the government doesn't step in, and he has been quite open about how as much as he wants to say "I told you so", he isn't particularly happy it's happening now.
Kanluwen wrote: Because when you actually see what was being discussed, the woman in the clip makes more of a case than some faux outrage peddler who is still whining over stuff that hasn't been in a game whose clip he used for almost a year.
Do you have shares or something? It needs regulation cause it's gambling, them being disingenuous by tossing around crap like "surprise mechanics" doesn't stop that. They're not the only ones at fault, but they seem to like being the poster boy for it.
Kanluwen wrote: Because when you actually see what was being discussed, the woman in the clip makes more of a case than some faux outrage peddler who is still whining over stuff that hasn't been in a game whose clip he used for almost a year.
Do you have shares or something? It needs regulation cause it's gambling, them being disingenuous by tossing around crap like "surprise mechanics" doesn't stop that. They're not the only ones at fault, but they seem to like being the poster boy for it.
I think given Kanluwens odd devotion towards EA, across several threads like the battlefront one, even if they were to outright steal money from him in some way he would still defend them saying it was a "surprise donation".
LordofHats: When it comes to adults who are more capable of reasonable decision making, have more capability for introspection, and generally better self control, I am fine with lootboxes existing for the most part. I still think it is gakky and scummy but I avoid games with them in them and that is all I can do. An adult can find ways to gamble if they want to and I am reasonably okay with allowing that the same way I am okay with allowing stuff like alcohol.
But we don't allow kids into casinos or sell them vodka over the counter. And that is my point on regulation. These companies specifically target children with this filth, and they know they are doing that, and they know kids are not good at resisting this sort of stuff, and they do not care.
So it is the job of the law to MAKE them care. Class it as gambling, stop it from being sold to kids, tax it as gambling or whatever else needs to be done. Adults with full responsibility for themselves can still access it and manage themselves. But kids should be kept clear, I think that is a pretty reasonable and non-hysterical position.
In the States, I doubt much will happen. You guys have a pretty non-regulation view on a lot of stuff except some weird hangups about stuff like alcohol. But I expect it will be regulated in the European Union, and since that is the richest market in the world, I expect it will impact on other markets too.
balmong7 wrote: His crusade is specifically against their implementation in big budget $60 box games.
I have noticed this in his videos, though I disagree on some points.
I think lootboxes and gatcha are inherently predatory, no matter the form.
The long version:
Spoiler:
I love Fate/Grand Order. I think it's one of the first mobile games, that really doesn't deserve the derogatory sentiment attached to that label. It's a good game, story driven, with solid mechanics, and fun lovable characters who all have cool creative designs. It's not without it's flaws. The game blatantly caters female characters in very skimpy outfits for sex appeal, sometimes in extremely disturbing ways. I'm happy to say that even fans have called these things out at their extremes and developer has at times adjusted strategy to accommodate complaints, more so than is typical of major developers.
But the gatcha mechanic is predatory. DW tries to balance it, releasing over the years some truly exceptional characters for free to players, and continually updating the game's core content with new special events, story progression, and bonus items and new progression systems. It doesn't change the underlying nature however of the character system and the way that system is built to entice players to buy some 1s and 0s, using limited availability and steep "rates" for powerful characters and items that are better than most others. DW isn't completely honest about their model, but it's hard for me to judge that against them because they're more honest than most. They reward their players for playing, not paying, frequently, and put a lot of effort and time into things that make their fans happy but that don't immediately translate into dollars in their coffers. They've built a degree of trust and I think that trust is returned in kind to a large degree, such that players overlook the less savory aspect of the business model because everything else comes together so well.
The short version:
I don't think the goal should be to be non-predatory. At it's core, most of consumerism is predatory in a way. What should be strived for is honesty with costumers, honesty in the business itself, and carefully balancing the pursuit of profit. You can make money without being an absolute raging greed monger putting the human race to shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: But we don't allow kids into casinos or sell them vodka over the counter. And that is my point on regulation.
Oh, I agree. I think there should be more regulation in most industries, because corporate greed has been allowed to grow too much, and consumers should have a degree of protection from aggressive business practices because those practices inherently play to vices or ignorance in the consumer. It's sleazy, and all business will always be a little sleazy, but that doesn't mean we let it go unchecked.
These companies specifically target children with this filth, and they know they are doing that, and they know kids are not good at resisting this sort of stuff, and they do not care.
Honestly, I'd disagree on this, too a degree. I'm unconvinced game companies, explicitly, target kids with these things. I do think they merrily don't care though, which is unacceptable. They're not relying on little timmy stealing dad's credit card and racking up $5000 bills to make a profit, they're relying on LordofHats and people like him, who have an itch. They also merrily don't care if the people with an itch are overindulging, or damaging themselves and that both of these things are imo unacceptable and that just isn't in the world of gaming but across several industries.
Gambling is addictive. If companies want to profit from addiction then they should be required to take certain actions that mitigate the damage it does. Making it illegal just drives it underground and is fundamentally pointless, but we shouldn't just invoke the specter of personal choice to wash our hands of responsibility to our fellows.
So it is the job of the law to MAKE them care.
Agreed.
But I expect it will be regulated in the European Union, and since that is the richest market in the world, I expect it will impact on other markets too.
This is my hope as well. Maintaining multiple business models is shockingly pricy, and if one major market bans the practice, it'll probably (I hope) see it's dissolution in a lot of other markets. There are other ways to make money.
I think lootboxes and gatcha are inherently predatory, no matter the form.
I hate that it made its way into Wildlands some time post release, double whammy for not just offering cosmetics, but also ingame items like vehicles and rare weaponry. Ugh. Only saving grace is no duplicates, but good luck getting that skin or gun you want when there's 250+ crates to "collect", which means dropping way too much money into the game to get them. Even more annoying that they disabled most of their old item store, where you could previously buy the cosmetics and weapons without needing to gamble for them. You want that gun or skin? It's either in a bundle or you'll need to keep spending money until you get it from the supply drop gambling system.
Rainbow 6 Siege is another offender to some degree, regular Alpha packs (their version of the lootbox) can only be attained through play and ingame currency, a currency you can only earn through play and not purchase. You can get doubles, but those are refunded at some of the ingame currency.
Special events however.. they roll out special Alpha packs containing certain cosmetics only available during a limited time period. Sure, you get one or two packs for free as a sampler or through play, but the rest you need to buy with actual money and there's no guarantee, aside from not getting doubles, that you'll get the item you want, not without dropping €40,- or more on R6 Credits to get all the packs.
They've rightfully been getting a lot of flak for this, even from their sponsored content creators.
I do like to point out EA had this gak going on along time ago, The "Wilson" lootbox has been around for a long time, but frankly it causes two symptoms it causes imo: (For reference i would like to point to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTLFNlu2N_M)
A: It's an underaged, uncontrolled Casino. It is not supervised, it is not legislated, it is not even taxed propperly where i am from. It has absolute negative effects, i would like to refer to the Childgambling statistics of the UK and point to the time corelation with FIFA Ultimate team etc. Not saying that it has a direct one BUT considering HOW many people get into it at an really young age i doubt it is good for the psyche.
Also in Switzerland Casinos need a license, if they let gambling addicts in they Lose that license, also up to 80% of the earnings of gambling is taxed and bound for use torwards social security AND Additicon prevention and care in order to negate the negative impacts they have.
B: The massive earnings for virtually ZERO work for gaming companies that are traded publicly have fostered an unhealthy relationship with investors, look at Actibliz and their record earnings aswell at the same time laying off 800 people.
It forces gaming companies into pushing the envelope on monetisation through micro and lootbox tansactions.
This leads to a Monetisation first game second approach.
The quality of the games are lowering, artificial grind is incentiviced and time skippers are the solution created for an artificial implanted problem.
In the end, Some companies have pushed the envelop to far, EA beeing chief amongst them but Actibliz and others are equally as guilty maybee however not as much publicly watched due to EA beeing anyways PR wise in the gutter.
As much as I'd like lootboxes to be banned I can't see it happening. Too many politicians around the world have already handwaved it away with the "We'll continue monitoring it" bull.
Sadly, the only way I see lootboxes getting banned is if the gambling lobbyists get off their arses to defend their monopoly on gambling. If I was a gambling firm I know I'd be wondering why the feth I abide with regulation. Why can't we have kids in our pokies, afterall lootboxes have the same exact mechanical formula of random chance, the suspenseful build up and flashy graphics. And I'd also be wondering why Im bothering to look out for problem gamblers when its A-Ok for the AAA gaming companies to operate virtual casinos unmonitored in peoples lounge and bedrooms.
Hell, I'd be opening up pokie daycares. Leave your kids to spin while you go do other stuff.
Honestly, I don't know if this was directed by EA or just one person throwing up some piece of internal branded terminology because she felt put on the spot and panicked, but either way it just blows my mind.
If it gets to this point - where you are cited as the reason a practice needs to be banned or regulated or whatever - to the point where you are dragged in front of a pannel of people deciding whether to ban or regulate the practice because of what you did, to act like you can sidestep the whole thing by putting a new label on it is so profoundly stupid that it rightfully gets ridiculed.
But the thing is... it's not stupid. Other companies took baby steps to gradually push the envelope on what they could get away with, but the practice was always going to die after one 'my kid accidentally ran up thousands of dollars in credit card debt because...' story too many and the legislative process takes a roughly set amount of time, so EA can squeeze two or three times as much money out of an aggressively exploitative loot box system and only kill loot boxes themselves a year sooner than they'd have died anyway.
While I think the moral implications are certainly important, I take as much offense at the fact they're just kind of ruining gameplay itself. Even in the MMO days I found it weird how much the games focused on skipping as much content as possible to get to where you could repeat one encounter as mechanically as possible as many times as it took for the RNG to reward you properly. Now we've reached the point where companies want us to pay them to skip the boring games they've made and it just feels like they keep getting more boring and grindy every year. I go back to the RPGs I remember being so grindy as a kid and you can just fly through them by modern standards. It's just... work at this point, and I have enough of that in my life as is.
I keep thinking I'm over videogames, but then I sit down in front of something like Katana: Zero and find myself up in the middle of the night replaying a level for the third time for no reason other than its fun. There are still modern games as innovative and mechanically fun as ever, but it feels like more and more they're being designed in a way to waste as much of my time as possible and loot boxes just seem to be making it work (see: Shadow of Mordor > War)
I think that all the various AAA publisher's new subscription services will be the thing they latch onto once surprise mechanics loot boxes are finally ousted from full price games.
Kanluwen wrote: Why do you bother reposting his videos here? Why do people even like him anyways?
'Cause since TB died he's pretty much the only one left doing serious consumer advocacy (in an exaggerated style that sometimes belabours the point).
Right now with a lot of this stuff it's a case of seeing how far things can be pushed before either an official body steps in (already happening in some places, but I've been told that Europe is of no real importance ) or people in general get fed up with things and everything comes crashing down.
As always, vote with your wallet, which especially with surprise mechanics is the way to let a company know it's not the way to go.
I do. I don't buy most EA games, and seeing lootboxes on a game is a mark against the game in terms of my wanting to play it.
But there's a lot of people who honestly cannot help themselves. They are vulnerable to it. My younger nephew is a good example of this, he's really vulnerable to the antics of phone games and lootboxes, constantly wanting that shiny. We're lucky that he's so far been able to be talked down from it when it comes up, rather than seeking to bypass needing our approval.
And those are the people that Blizzard, EA, and the other major and minor devs (including phone games and a lot of MMOs) are preying upon. And let's face it, it's predatorial behavior, and we as a society really should not allow companies to prey upon the vulnerable like this.
And given shareholder culture simply doesn't give a damn who the companies prey upon to get money to the shareholders (Blood money is just as good as any other money to a faceless holding corp that only looks at if the numbers have gone up high enough), we quite simply can't rely on corporate governance to make corporations ethical. Only laws will be able to do that now.
BrookM wrote: Right now with a lot of this stuff it's a case of seeing how far things can be pushed before either an official body steps in (already happening in some places, but I've been told that Europe is of no real importance ) or people in general get fed up with things and everything comes crashing down.
As always, vote with your wallet, which especially with surprise mechanics is the way to let a company know it's not the way to go.
Voting with your wallet doesn't work for mass-market internationally distributed products, because there are always enough people who don't care about or aren't aware of the problem to keep things ticking along, and many of them are price-insensitive enough when it comes to their luxuries/hobbies they can easily be made into "whales" to cover any shortfall that might arise from a modest number of customers who are almost certainly not "whales" withholding their custom altogether.
Many brands of phone are built by borderline slaves using raw materials soaked in blood, most people are still perfectly willing to sign up to contracts that give them a new handset every year or two even after they know that, so the idea enough people to make any kind of difference will take a principled stand against a mechanic in a game that is obviously bad and harmful but orders of magnitude less harmful than the horrors behind a lot of the other things they buy regularly just doesn't track.
"The free market" is always going to be an engine of misery even if it's regulated heavily enough to remove the commonly recognised issues like power imbalances between consumers and corporations, because humans are fantastic about compartmentalising, minimising, and dismissing things that make them feel uncomfortable and it's extremely rare that you can mobilise enough people to overcome that innate instinct to protect our sense of ourselves as fundamentally good people without a mass political movement to drive it forward and give it form.
BrookM wrote: Right now with a lot of this stuff it's a case of seeing how far things can be pushed before either an official body steps in (already happening in some places, but I've been told that Europe is of no real importance ) or people in general get fed up with things and everything comes crashing down.
As always, vote with your wallet, which especially with surprise mechanics is the way to let a company know it's not the way to go.
Voting with your wallet doesn't work for mass-market internationally distributed products, because there are always enough people who don't care about or aren't aware of the problem to keep things ticking along, and many of them are price-insensitive enough when it comes to their luxuries/hobbies they can easily be made into "whales" to cover any shortfall that might arise from a modest number of customers who are almost certainly not "whales" withholding their custom altogether.
Many brands of phone are built by borderline slaves using raw materials soaked in blood, most people are still perfectly willing to sign up to contracts that give them a new handset every year or two even after they know that, so the idea enough people to make any kind of difference will take a principled stand against a mechanic in a game that is obviously bad and harmful but orders of magnitude less harmful than the horrors behind a lot of the other things they buy regularly just doesn't track.
"The free market" is always going to be an engine of misery even if it's regulated heavily enough to remove the commonly recognised issues like power imbalances between consumers and corporations, because humans are fantastic about compartmentalising, minimising, and dismissing things that make them feel uncomfortable and it's extremely rare that you can mobilise enough people to overcome that innate instinct to protect our sense of ourselves as fundamentally good people without a mass political movement to drive it forward and give it form.
Ahhh the old we have murderers who are worse, so we should let the rapists go defence :p
If your really worried about mobiles don't buy apple which given there sales figures is actually happening.
Anyway back to the biggest parasite in the games industry EA are an open sore on the hobby if you look at anything bad in the industry you can normally trace it back to them first and from there it spreads to the other less reputable publisher's. EA are basically the typhoid Mary of gaming and until a government does something about them like with the real Mary there just going to keep spreading misery.
BrookM wrote: Right now with a lot of this stuff it's a case of seeing how far things can be pushed before either an official body steps in (already happening in some places, but I've been told that Europe is of no real importance ) or people in general get fed up with things and everything comes crashing down.
As always, vote with your wallet, which especially with surprise mechanics is the way to let a company know it's not the way to go.
Voting with your wallet doesn't work for mass-market internationally distributed products, because there are always enough people who don't care about or aren't aware of the problem to keep things ticking along, and many of them are price-insensitive enough when it comes to their luxuries/hobbies they can easily be made into "whales" to cover any shortfall that might arise from a modest number of customers who are almost certainly not "whales" withholding their custom altogether.
Many brands of phone are built by borderline slaves using raw materials soaked in blood, most people are still perfectly willing to sign up to contracts that give them a new handset every year or two even after they know that, so the idea enough people to make any kind of difference will take a principled stand against a mechanic in a game that is obviously bad and harmful but orders of magnitude less harmful than the horrors behind a lot of the other things they buy regularly just doesn't track.
"The free market" is always going to be an engine of misery even if it's regulated heavily enough to remove the commonly recognised issues like power imbalances between consumers and corporations, because humans are fantastic about compartmentalising, minimising, and dismissing things that make them feel uncomfortable and it's extremely rare that you can mobilise enough people to overcome that innate instinct to protect our sense of ourselves as fundamentally good people without a mass political movement to drive it forward and give it form.
Ahhh the old we have murderers who are worse, so we should let the rapists go defence :p
If your really worried about mobiles don't buy apple which given there sales figures is actually happening.
Anyway back to the biggest parasite in the games industry EA are an open sore on the hobby if you look at anything bad in the industry you can normally trace it back to them first and from there it spreads to the other less reputable publisher's. EA are basically the typhoid Mary of gaming and until a government does something about them like with the real Mary there just going to keep spreading misery.
If you read a little closer you'll note I'm not actually "defending" anything, I'm putting forward reasoning as to why boycotting/"voting with your wallet" almost never works, because if it did people would be doing it over those much worse things already, and since they're not, they're unlikely to start doing it over the minor thing.
Individuals should feel free to withhold their money from any product, service, or company if they find they can't support them, but you should never do that in the expectation that it will change anything. I bought a secondhand smartphone three years ago and have no intention of upgrading it for the foreseeable future, but I did that for my own sake, I don't believe it will actually change anythiing, and neither will a handful of people refraining from buying into lootboxes or fee-to-pay or game streaming or whatever the next anti-consumer industry practice is.
The other issue is that the loot-boxes are an optional element in the games, masses of people can keep playing and buying the games without touching them; or they might only touch them once or twice. That once or twice still generates significant profit when your'e dealing with the population sizes that many of these AAA titles have.
Overread wrote: The other issue is that the loot-boxes are an optional element in the games, masses of people can keep playing and buying the games without touching them...
This has been proven time and time again to be false. Publishers intentionally stretch out the progress grind in games so that Loot Boxes become the defacto way to move forward, or the introduction of microtransactions utterly ruins the flow of the game. Gamblefront II proved this. As did Shadow of War.
Overread wrote: The other issue is that the loot-boxes are an optional element in the games, masses of people can keep playing and buying the games without touching them; or they might only touch them once or twice. That once or twice still generates significant profit when your'e dealing with the population sizes that many of these AAA titles have.
Now, I am 100% against threatening and dogpiling people, there's just no need.
That said, if I were to open the newspaper tomorrow and see a story about that Torulf Jernstrom guy having died slowly as a result of having his danglies immersed in an angry hornet's nest, I would struggle to feel anything other than a faint sense that perhaps we live in a just universe afterall.
Still, it's amazing what they can do with technology these days - who'd have thought we'd live to see the day when they can make passable facsimiles of humans out of a literal sack of gak? We truly do live in the future now.
Yodhrin wrote: Now, I am 100% against threatening and dogpiling people, there's just no need.
That said, if I were to open the newspaper tomorrow and see a story about that Torulf Jernstrom guy having died slowly as a result of having his danglies immersed in an angry hornet's nest, I would struggle to feel anything other than a faint sense that perhaps we live in a just universe afterall.
Still, it's amazing what they can do with technology these days - who'd have thought we'd live to see the day when they can make passable facsimiles of humans out of a literal sack of gak? We truly do live in the future now.
Won't you need higher dikes? Wouldnt he be the perfect filling material for one?
Togusa wrote: It's not cancer, it's surprise exponential cell growth!
It's not an apocalyptic impact of a Asteroid, it's a surprise space nudge.
God.
....
I feel EA now.
Someone in my office this week said "It's not pedophilia, it's early access!"
I both laughed and simultaneously died a little in side hearing that. I could see that EA lady actually saying this, and it makes it ten times worse...
Here is the thing. When it comes to the stories he plays in that little video (This is why I really don't like Jim) is because he cherry picks the WORST cases and then tries to hold them up as proof that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Togusa wrote: Someone in my office this week said "It's not pedophilia, it's early access!"
I both laughed and simultaneously died a little in side hearing that. I could see that EA lady actually saying this, and it makes it ten times worse...
It's one of those jokes that's funny because it's so wrong which only makes you feel guilty and then you laugh more.
because he cherry picks the WORST cases and then tries to hold them up as proof that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Cherry picking? I'm sure you meant to say "Surprise Selections."
I think this is a general habit in this debate that's kind of poison to it. It mixes the message on who companies are really targeting with these mechanisms, and how they're actually built into games to encourage their purchase. It's the equivalent of Adam Sandler level comedy. Poorly thought out, not nearly as clever as it thinks it is and misses the mark more than anything. And it is something Jim does a lot of in his videos (along with completely belaboring the point like another chicken fight gag on an episode of Family Guy).
.
Especially that your marketing to children, its no surprise they would want to defend it, it is shady and possibly illegal. People make alot of money off lootboxes and grinding for other people to get the items they want. Especially in games like Fifa where somethings have monetary value in competitive settings.
Really stupid and EA needs to take a step back for once and self reflect.
From the top of my head, games that use similar mechanics where their items are monetized are :
CSGO Team Fortress 2 Fortnite Overwatch Evolved Battlefront 2 and Battlefront 1 Most Sports Games (FIFA, Madden, and baseball champs)
They have tons of monetized gambling machines in their platform it makes money so its not surprising they do have those.
It doesn't help that those with gambling addictions are incentivized to pay more because of the systems in place. Along with the monetization efforts creating casinos and addictive scenarios for its users. The entire point of lootboxes and free to play is to get 'whales' to support their platforms and services. These whales are not rich people but people who have mental issues or addictive personalities, very few are actually doing it by conscious choice. This article by the royal society lays it out quite nicely : https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190049
Most chiefly that monetization efforts have adverse effects on people who play it.
"Loot boxes are items in video games that can be paid for with real-world money but contain randomized contents. Many games that feature loot boxes are played by adolescents. Similarities between loot boxes and gambling have led to concern that they are linked to the development of problem gambling in adolescents. Previous research has shown links between loot boxes and problem gambling in adult populations. However, thus far, there is no empirical evidence of either the size or existence of a link between loot box spending and problem gambling in adolescents. A large-scale survey of 16- to 18-year-olds (n = 1155) found evidence for such a link (η2 = 0.120). The link between loot box spending and problem gambling among these older adolescents was of moderate to large magnitude. It was stronger than relationships previously observed in adults. Qualitative analysis of text data showed that gamers bought loot boxes for a variety of reasons. Several of these motivations were similar to common reasons for engaging in gambling. Overall, these results suggest that loot boxes either cause problem gambling among older adolescents, allow game companies to profit from adolescents with gambling problems for massive monetary rewards, or both of the above. Possible strategies for regulation and restriction are given."
They go onto explain what games they researched :
In [15], Drummond & Sauer undertook a systematic analysis of 22 video games that feature loot boxes to determine the extent to which they fulfilled these characteristics. They found that 10 of the 22 video game loot boxes fulfilled all of the criteria listed above, and many more fulfilled most of them. They found that loot boxes not only shared ‘important structural and psychological similarities with gambling’, but that ‘100% allow for (if not actively encourage) underage players to engage with these systems'. Indeed, Drummond and Sauer concluded that the presence of loot boxes in video games might therefore be forming a ‘ripe breeding ground’ for the development of problem gambling among children.
And these aren't your cheap phone games, but triple A games that are sold to basically everything below a T rating.
In order to prevent these mechanics getting in the hands of kids, either we :
Enforce a ban on all lootbox mechanics or Create a rating in the game that prevents lootboxes from being sold below Mature rating.
That all games cannot be sold to minors if they have loot box mechanics or gambling mechanics.
Along with this the ESRB must enforce these rulings on all games and must retroactively rate all games that have lootbox mechanics with a mature rating, and the developers must make their customers aware of or try to implement:
1. How much money they are spending within the game. 2. Parental Controls that turn off lootboxes (parental lock) 3. Must warn the players that they are engaging in buying an item in their game that has a random chance. 4. Displaying the chances of receiving an item or rarity breakdowns for every item in the game (they do that in china). 5. Must offer those items outside of a randomized value on a store. 6. Must offer users a way to refund lootboxes if it was proven a child has used and bought a game.
Finally, companies must be held accountable for selling gambling to kids. Even if it isn't wide spread, lootboxes are a cancer on the games industry, I rather pay 70$ for a triple A game than have a loot box mechanic. There are many people out there who are addicts and use video games as a way to recover from addictions to gambling, sex, etc. These are outlets for creativity. And they shouldn't be places for widespread abuse of players. They are not services but entertainment.
Overall as an enterianment medium the games industry should not be struggling this much to enact on itself a way to prevent the rampant abuse we are seeing. Games are making a lot of money and most of it is well dirty money. From kids, addicts, and deseperate people. And it is despeciable.
the esrb will not be able to do anything so long EA and Actiblizz and consorts are those that finance it the most.
Companies controlling themselves is bad. Same with police work, you get outside groups to controll them successfully.
Thirdly it is Illegal, as stated above it ticks most or all boxes of a one armed bandit. In Switzerland not only is this ilegal gambling without licensce, it's also gambling with minors and tax evasion and belive me, tax evasion in regards to the gambling taxation is a sure fire way to get your buisness closed down here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the thing. When it comes to the stories he plays in that little video (This is why I really don't like Jim) is because he cherry picks the WORST cases and then tries to hold them up as proof that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Considering the man also made this video which was way better and didn't use cheap emotional manipulation i'd forgive him for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsc14gDPbk
Not Online!!! wrote: the esrb will not be able to do anything so long EA and Actiblizz and consorts are those that finance it the most.
Companies controlling themselves is bad. Same with police work, you get outside groups to controll them successfully.
Thirdly it is Illegal, as stated above it ticks most or all boxes of a one armed bandit. In Switzerland not only is this ilegal gambling without licensce, it's also gambling with minors and tax evasion and belive me, tax evasion in regards to the gambling taxation is a sure fire way to get your buisness closed down here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the thing. When it comes to the stories he plays in that little video (This is why I really don't like Jim) is because he cherry picks the WORST cases and then tries to hold them up as proof that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Considering the man also made this video which was way better and didn't use cheap emotional manipulation i'd forgive him for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsc14gDPbk
Some countries and many european countries have their own independent rating systems, the us won't be effected as you say because the ESRB is extremely corrupt. But the European systems judge themselves and can do that themselves when it comes to rating the games with lootboxes.
Though i think regulation for moment is the only way for the US to do so, but by the time they do implement the law it will be far too late.
If you need proof of EA sucking look no further than all the franchises and companies they grabbed up and destroyed. No more c&c, dead space, the sims and countless others all thanks to EA. Yes i know c&c is possibly coming back but do you really think EA won't screw it up?
In a way we lost a whole Generation of potentially great games to this practices with artificial inflated grind and terribad mechanics.
Look at Fallout 76. The potential for that game, had it been a true single player fallout game was immense. Ripe for story telling and exploring a wasteland just a couple of decades after the war. Unfortunately, even Bethesda saw the dollar signs. :(
flamingkillamajig wrote: If you need proof of EA sucking look no further than all the franchises and companies they grabbed up and destroyed. No more c&c, dead space, the sims and countless others all thanks to EA. Yes i know c&c is possibly coming back but do you really think EA won't screw it up?
Remember people, EA'S the good guys...
Yes they honestly stated they don't understand the negative assosiaction.
In a way we lost a whole Generation of potentially great games to this practices with artificial inflated grind and terribad mechanics.
Look at Fallout 76. The potential for that game, had it been a true single player fallout game was immense. Ripe for story telling and exploring a wasteland just a couple of decades after the war. Unfortunately, even Bethesda saw the dollar signs. :(
Massive disagree.
Bethesda couldn't even Programm itself out of a Wet paper bag. Look at skyrim remasters, heck i find solution to Bugs on 8 + year old forums!
Also bethesda has no idea what Fallout as a franchise should be, also massively lacking the depth of choice and morale ambiguity that Fallout of all games should have.
But they've helped publish (monetize) up to six indie games! That makes them good guys... Right?
For whatever reason, that was the context of the recent interview where whichever VP was confused about EA being baddies. Because EA Originals exists. Never mind that the public doesn't know the terms of the deals, half the games haven't been released yet, and even if it is benevolent rather than just business, it doesn't magical make all the shady business practices and crisp games magically go away.
flamingkillamajig wrote: If you need proof of EA sucking look no further than all the franchises and companies they grabbed up and destroyed. No more c&c, dead space, the sims and countless others all thanks to EA. Yes i know c&c is possibly coming back but do you really think EA won't screw it up?
In fairness many of those companies were likely going to go belly-up anyway. Computer games are a terrible market for stability and even companies which have produced solid titles over the years have closed doors or wound up downsizing to the point where they can't produce games of the same calibre as they once did. EA has always had their sports to produce a lump sum every year and its a market they dominate in because of their unique contracts. So they've had a stable rock of annual money which allowed them to ride out the rough times and to buy up skills and teams from other companies as they got into trouble.
The problem is EA does this more to secure assets, but then often takes niche market titles and tries to make them more casual for the general market. I think they also tend to have a stronger eye toward the finances which means games are profitable, but perhaps not as polished as the might otherwise be. All this can really annoy the original market and they can easily kill off titles or series because there's simply no big profit projection for it. Lets not forget they did make several CnC titles under their belt (including Generals); I think CnC died because they went chasing the "MMO-RTS" formula like a few other companies did around the same time; and it seems that there was a resounding failure in the development of those games because none of them made it out. In fact the whole concept was basically dropped though Petroglyph are sort of mucking around with it in Forged Battalion but it seems to have failed. I get the feeling they simply ran out of cash and skill after Grey Goo didn't turn into Starcraft 2 levels of competitive gaming and have been floundering since then - though they are apparently now hired in by EA to work on the CnC remasters (which likely suggests that RTS developers are a rarity right now outside of Blizzard).
True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).
Overread wrote: True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).
The HD remake for AoE2 has been a huge development for the franchise though- the original game contained 13 civilisations and 5 campaigns (with one being the tutorial campaign) and the initial Conquerors expansion added a further 5 civs and campaigns.
Since the HD remake, we have received 3 new expansions, for a total of 13 new civs and 15 new campaigns, with a slew of new terrain textures and scenario editor items to spruce up games and represent new areas (including new random maps). That has roughly doubled the content of the original two releases.
Further to this, a 5th expansion will be released in the Definitive Edition remake, providing another 4 civs (and three campaigns apparently). For a 20 year old game, that is a staggering amount of support!
Age 1 has already received a Definitive Edition, and Age III has had one announced. AoE 4 has also been announced.
Overread wrote: In fairness many of those companies were likely going to go belly-up anyway.
[CITATION NEEDED]
If that's the best argument you got, then you don't really have an argument.
I'm going to agree with this.
Acknowledging that the market is a cruel mistress, I have a hard time seeing any way to separate the demise of Mythic, Visceral, and the tanking of Bioware and Digital Illusion's reputations from EA's executive meddling and shoddy attempts to manipulate the market. The company buried Age of Empires with a god awful money grabber, relegating the franchise to remakes. Same with Command and Conquer. Those things may well have happened anyway, but in the present we can look back and solidly point at EA and say "they did it" so what might have happened is more fan fiction than reality.
It's very similar to the editorial decisions that damned a lot of big events in the comic industries. Sometimes, good writers are basically forced by their boss to make bad stories.
Westwood got shut down because they couldn't fulfil the demand by EA that every game they put out "be a hit". Last games they put out were Renegade and some MMO, so yeah..
Overread wrote: True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).
Game design is really stagnant right now, it's been that way for several years. What really boggles my mind is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to preform some simple public testing to see what the public is looking for. When FO4 launched, I remember the EA CEO saying via his twitter account that single player games were dead and that DRM-Online games were the future. It only took a few days for FO4 to outsell, by a large margin EA's poster child for online gaming, Star Wars Battlefront game which had also just released. Metal Gear Solid V, for all its faults cost nearly 80 million USD to make, and in three days turned a profit of nearly 200 million dollars. That was a PROFIT of 200 Mil in THREE DAYS.
AOE4 or AOM2 would most-likely bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, but for some reason all the dev community gets to make these days are more bland, uninspired manure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Hell if they were given more time and freedom, Renegade could have been a lot better than it was. It wasn't a bad game.
Renegade was an amazing concept of a game, for a fantastic universe. I probably put 60 hours of game play into that game when it came out. Absolutely adored it, the look and feel of the game at the time was pretty unique, and it felt amazing to drive tanks I'd seen for years from the top down.
Melissia wrote: It's very similar to the editorial decisions that damned a lot of big events in the comic industries. Sometimes, good writers are basically forced by their boss to make bad stories.
You can go even further back to early Sci-fi and Weird fiction serials, where many authors produced stories at the publisher/editors request that they didn't even want to write. Some of those actually ended up being pretty good, but in video games it almost seems the opposite. Dragon Age: Origin started as EA letting Bioware make a pity project. They stayed out of the development. It was great. People loved it. Then EA jammed their hands into the soup.
Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.
It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.
LunarSol wrote: Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.
It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.
Yeah but at this point most Dev’s should be aware that selling out to EA is hardly a lifetime of financial stability it’s at best 2-3 years of low wages and crunch followed by redundancy. I mean yes the owners make out like bandits but everyone else is fethed, I mean seriously why do people even stay at an EA bought dev as there on borrowed time at best.
LunarSol wrote: Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.
It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.
Yeah but at this point most Dev’s should be aware that selling out to EA is hardly a lifetime of financial stability it’s at best 2-3 years of low wages and crunch followed by redundancy. I mean yes the owners make out like bandits but everyone else is fethed, I mean seriously why do people even stay at an EA bought dev as there on borrowed time at best.
Its a hard industry to find a job in, so most people try to hold onto any job they get for as long as they can. The decision is out of their hands and the people making it get to run off and start the cycle all over again.
I read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.
What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”
Strg Alt wrote: the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men
Gillette did not "ridicule men". Their ad attacked harassment, bullying, and toxic behavior.
You are wrong on all accounts.
No, I am not. The ad showed images of abusive and toxic behavior, then proclaimed "men are better than this" and that men should always try to be the best they can be.
I suspect you never actually watched the ad and merely allowed yourself to be swayed by angry social media knee-jerk reactions.
Strg Alt wrote: This whole affair reminds of the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men which are their customers by the way. Lesson learned:
Don´t buy from Gilette and EA. Case closed.
Hmm. And yet now I want to go buy razors and still avoid EA.
Though also, funny story- Gillette made a lot of money off that campaign. So did Nike when they put out a commercial deemed 'outrageous.'. Those are actually well thought marketing campaigns that work.
EA has various execs spewing visible nonsense in a panic. It isn't helping.
read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.
What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”
Ever heard of *leans in* corruption?
Or idiocy? Look the dude might be a professor, truth is most of these are neither digital natives nor aquainted with gaming.
chose your poison, because if A is the case, his whole carreer needs to be called into question. If B is correct he does not propperly prepare and analyze his statements he gives, which leads to doubt in his works which then leads to scrutiny.
I read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.
What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”
Oh it's gambling. No doubt. I hate what it has done to games too, hence why I go out of my way to not support games that feature any of these mechanics.
But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.
But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.
Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.
But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.
Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.
They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.
But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.
Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.
They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.
So basically enforce a real standard of age gating / Rating system and enforce lootboxes as gambling aswell as microtransactions as manipulating and Instantly slap an M on it on top of duties for the publishers?
Ya that could work.
Altough government action is really disliked on some places.
Still everything that solves these issues right now is better then more generations of gaming beeing squandered with artificial grind and shity incomplete state.
...
Kinda sad really.
I remember a time were pre order dlc was considered the Epitome of evil in gaming.
But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.
Whilst true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz? Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.
They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.
So basically enforce a real standard of age gating / Rating system and enforce lootboxes as gambling as well as micro-transactions as manipulating and Instantly slap an M on it on top of duties for the publishers?
Ya that could work. Although government action is really disliked on some places. Still everything that solves these issues right now is better then more generations of gaming being squandered with artificial grind and gakky incomplete state.
... Kinda sad really. I remember a time were pre order dlc was considered the Epitome of evil in gaming.
Heh, I remember that too. I can recall having many discussions about the first few times Call of Duty featured DLC packs (I think it started with MW3?) but I don't know. I was going to say parents should parent. I'm not keen on the government getting involved, though that may end up being unavoidable...
But as I see it, there is a rabbit hole here. Once the lootbox controversy either picks up and gets dealt with by the various government and regulatory systems, the hammer won't stop. CCG's are very much in this gray area of gambling too. What happens to those games?
Hmm actually ccg would Fall under gambling.
Actually lootboxes are more like Fraud, considering that the virtual items are literally Un sellable after game x shuts down.
So not only is it gambling but also fraudelent one?
Yikes
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
Not Online!!! wrote: Hmm actually ccg would Fall under gambling.
Actually lootboxes are more like Fraud, considering that the virtual items are literally Un sellable after game x shuts down.
So not only is it gambling but also fraudelent one?
Yikes
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
They are. I played MTG for years and got all kinds of great feels when opening packs of cards, the older the set, the better too. But it is an interesting question, if this were to swing wide, MTG is basically what keeps a lot of FLGS open, if it were to be regulated, this could be catastrophic.
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
Sure they are. They've been very well designed to open in such a way that you encounter increasingly rarer cards until you hit the shiny one at the back. Watch anyone open a box and you'll see the ritual develop rather quickly.
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
Sure they are. They've been very well designed to open in such a way that you encounter increasingly rarer cards until you hit the shiny one at the back. Watch anyone open a box and you'll see the ritual develop rather quickly.
That is still not actually as bad as the massive visual and audio cues you get from a lootbox or slot machine now isn't it?
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
Sure they are. They've been very well designed to open in such a way that you encounter increasingly rarer cards until you hit the shiny one at the back. Watch anyone open a box and you'll see the ritual develop rather quickly.
That is still not actually as bad as the massive visual and audio cues you get from a lootbox or slot machine now isn't it?
Have you ever been into MTG?
If not, then stop dude.
I can recall getting so "high" off those cards that I once dropped 400$ on boxes in one night just to try and get a super rare card I wanted. It took two and a half boxes to do it. There isn't any difference, addiction is addiction.
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.
Sure they are. They've been very well designed to open in such a way that you encounter increasingly rarer cards until you hit the shiny one at the back. Watch anyone open a box and you'll see the ritual develop rather quickly.
That is still not actually as bad as the massive visual and audio cues you get from a lootbox or slot machine now isn't it?
Have you ever been into MTG?
If not, then stop dude.
I can recall getting so "high" off those cards that I once dropped 400$ on boxes in one night just to try and get a super rare card I wanted. It took two and a half boxes to do it. There isn't any difference, addiction is addiction.
I think its important to draw a line between gambling "highs" and something like "addiction" which is a word we more often link to things like drink and drugs. Where there's a chemical component beyond natural endorphins within your body.
Actually most CCG's should be fine theres a reason that they all run along the lines of each 8 card pack having a minimum amount of commons,uncommons and rares.
While the cards you get are random the quality has a fixed minimum so its impossible to buy 6 packs and get 48 common cards.
As opposed to loot boxes were you can drop hundred's of dollars and pull all trash tier, that combined with being able to sell and buy from other people outside of the publishers should give them a strong defense against it being gambling.
LunarSol wrote: So they just need to guarantee one Rare and then flood the Rare tier with garbage and everything will be okay?
I enjoy card games, and honestly, this ^
First off, rarity has almost no relation to how good an card is in MTG. Some of the best MTG cards at any given time have been commons or uncommons. The "Rare" tier has been diluted in numerous card games with the addition of "Super rares" and "secret rares" and some rares are rarer than others. Many loot boxes already use a similar model, like those in ESO. Rarities are often manipulated by the smartest people to encourage more purchases, like how most Pokémon card sets now have one or two common/uncommon cards that are very very good, but only really work under the circumstances provided by a rare card.
SeanDrake wrote: Actually most CCG's should be fine theres a reason that they all run along the lines of each 8 card pack having a minimum amount of commons,uncommons and rares.
While the cards you get are random the quality has a fixed minimum so its impossible to buy 6 packs and get 48 common cards.
As opposed to loot boxes were you can drop hundred's of dollars and pull all trash tier, that combined with being able to sell and buy from other people outside of the publishers should give them a strong defense against it being gambling.
Also we often don't know the chances of getting a specific drop rarity.
SeanDrake wrote: Actually most CCG's should be fine theres a reason that they all run along the lines of each 8 card pack having a minimum amount of commons,uncommons and rares.
While the cards you get are random the quality has a fixed minimum so its impossible to buy 6 packs and get 48 common cards.
As opposed to loot boxes were you can drop hundred's of dollars and pull all trash tier, that combined with being able to sell and buy from other people outside of the publishers should give them a strong defense against it being gambling.
Also we often don't know the chances of getting a specific drop rarity.
box mapping would kind of disagree, (its basically reverse engineering how the print sheet is laid out and how the cards are randomised during packing, its not infalliable but it usually provides a near enough result)
and whilst I'm off the cardboard crack CCGs are a far lesser evil as wotc or ffg don't expect you to pay £40 before you can even crack a booster
SeanDrake wrote: Actually most CCG's should be fine theres a reason that they all run along the lines of each 8 card pack having a minimum amount of commons,uncommons and rares.
While the cards you get are random the quality has a fixed minimum so its impossible to buy 6 packs and get 48 common cards.
As opposed to loot boxes were you can drop hundred's of dollars and pull all trash tier, that combined with being able to sell and buy from other people outside of the publishers should give them a strong defense against it being gambling.
Also we often don't know the chances of getting a specific drop rarity.
box mapping would kind of disagree, (its basically reverse engineering how the print sheet is laid out and how the cards are randomised during packing, its not infalliable but it usually provides a near enough result)
and whilst I'm off the cardboard crack CCGs are a far lesser evil as wotc or ffg don't expect you to pay £40 before you can even crack a booster
I disagree. They definitely encourage players to drop 150$ on a box over "just a few packs."
There's little practical difference between Loot Boxes and Card Packs. The latter mostly skirts by because it was built on an existing industry that was pretty socially acceptable (baseball cards) and for all its popularity has never been exactly mainstream. They are also largely distributed through established channels that provide at least some negligent oversight over the industry. By comparison, Loot Boxes are a mainstream free for all beamed directly into people's homes and deducting funds automatically from accounts. Personally, I think there's a lot of problems with blind purchase games as a whole that have largely been ignored, but I also get why they're more problematic when applied to videogames.
yeah maybe but there's quite the difference between that and purposefully compromising game design to sell you an answer to said problems
lucky for me that my general tightfistedness means I've got a £10ish limit on video game purchases rendering me largely immune to surprise wotsits (my ancient pc also helps here)
Turnip Jedi wrote: yeah maybe but there's quite the difference between that and purposefully compromising game design to sell you an answer to said problems
lucky for me that my general tightfistedness means I've got a £10ish limit on video game purchases rendering me largely immune to surprise wotsits (my ancient pc also helps here)
Ubisoft with assasins creed Odyssee is one of the more recent exemples of making the grind agrivating in order to sell you XP boosters.
But if players create missions for that from provided Tools it's suddenly against the "spirit of the game".
Turnip Jedi wrote: yeah maybe but there's quite the difference between that and purposefully compromising game design to sell you an answer to said problems
lucky for me that my general tightfistedness means I've got a £10ish limit on video game purchases rendering me largely immune to surprise wotsits (my ancient pc also helps here)
Turnip Jedi wrote: yeah maybe but there's quite the difference between that and purposefully compromising game design to sell you an answer to said problems
lucky for me that my general tightfistedness means I've got a £10ish limit on video game purchases rendering me largely immune to surprise wotsits (my ancient pc also helps here)
Ubisoft with assasins creed Odyssee is one of the more recent exemples of making the grind agrivating in order to sell you XP boosters.
But if players create missions for that from provided Tools it's suddenly against the "spirit of the game".
We live in strange times. Remember when games were about fun?
Wait Assassin's Creed - a singleplayer game - sells you experience boosters? You know I'd actually rank that worse than random loot boxes. I mean its not like either of them are ranking very high at all, but darn that's just really scummy. I know it's how the MMO market survives, but at least there the game companies have to keep the servers running - there's a continual cost for the developer so having some means of trickle income for them is justifiable to some extent - be it from subscriptions or optional boosters or cosmetics.
Overread wrote: Wait Assassin's Creed - a singleplayer game - sells you experience boosters? You know I'd actually rank that worse than random loot boxes. I mean its not like either of them are ranking very high at all, but darn that's just really scummy. I know it's how the MMO market survives, but at least there the game companies have to keep the servers running - there's a continual cost for the developer so having some means of trickle income for them is justifiable to some extent - be it from subscriptions or optional boosters or cosmetics.
Oh it's not just that. They purposefully make the exp in the game way more grindy and you almost NEED those boosters.
This is why I've not bought any of their games since FC4.
Agreed. It was such a horrendous grind that I still haven't beaten the game, I jsut stopped and haven't cared cause it was so dragged out, and I sure as hell am not buying gakky xp booster.
Melissia wrote: Agreed. It was such a horrendous grind that I still haven't beaten the game, I jsut stopped and haven't cared cause it was so dragged out, and I sure as hell am not buying gakky xp booster.
It was a bit easier for me because I've never really liked that style of gameplay, and this game was my introduction to the series. When I saw the XP Boosters and the skins I just said "no thank you" and I was really glad that I was playing it on a friends machine and not my own.
TBH it was my first Assassin's Creed game, and also now my last. I've never been a HUGE fan of ubisoft action games aside from just playing around with friends.
Thing is, the gameplay was decent enough that I'd have gone through with it anyway to the end, except the grind got excessive and they always put the next mission a few levels above, literally scaling as I gained levels so gained levels felt useless, but taking on enemies higher level was worse than trying to sequence-skip in a dark souls game.
Melissia wrote: TBH it was my first Assassin's Creed game, and also now my last. I've never been a HUGE fan of ubisoft action games aside from just playing around with friends.
Thing is, the gameplay was decent enough that I'd have gone through with it anyway to the end, except the grind got excessive and they always put the next mission a few levels above, literally scaling as I gained levels so gained levels felt useless, but taking on enemies higher level was worse than trying to sequence-skip in a dark souls game.
No good. I am not a fan of that type of game play. Stuff like Skyrim and Fallout are more my style.
If you play through the series you can see the decline. Personally I quit after the third one, though it was more due to "HEY, HERE'S ANOTHER HISTORICAL GIANT YOU JUST HAPPEN TO MEET" than anything else. For me personally the second game is still the best one in the series. Ezio, oh Ezio~
It's sad though the way Ubisoft is killing everything I love. I really, really like Wildlands and whilst it has become a lootbox palooza, it is still playable without them and best of all, all the single player content post-launch (barring the two DLC "campaigns") has been put out for free. So, having them thoroughly kill off my hype for the sequel with their horrible practices is just blargh.
Only relief is that Siege is played on high level and is something you can't put pay 2 win into. So, just cosmetic dickery there.
Black Flag still remains the only game I've ever seen screen tearing in! It's that or I have to suffer it slowing down everytime the camera moves. Which is a shame as the core gameplay is quite fun.
Ratius wrote: Never had those issues tbh.
What let BF down was the tedious outside the animus in the office bits.
Yeah I still don't quite the the point of that. First time it happened its jarring and then you are sort of led around and you do the whole "walk after someone whilst they talk at you because pressing the w key is more fun than just watching a cinematic..." and then you're back to the game you actually want to play. Esp as the out of animus bit didn't add any mystery or content or game.
I have vague recollections that the out of animus sequences in each of the AC games told you a bit more of the overall AC plot but didnt play enough of them to confirm/care
Not Online!!! wrote: Fallout? Or skyrim?
From no advantage for gameplay bethesda?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Over the years I've been pretty lucky, so far I've yet to have a major issue with FO4 or Skyrim. Fo3 a few times axed my save files, but I always made backups so, I've never really been into the whole "bethesda makes bad bugs" memes, because I just don't think they're as bad as most people claim.
Ratius wrote: Never had those issues tbh.
What let BF down was the tedious outside the animus in the office bits.
Yeah I still don't quite the the point of that. First time it happened its jarring and then you are sort of led around and you do the whole "walk after someone whilst they talk at you because pressing the w key is more fun than just watching a cinematic..." and then you're back to the game you actually want to play. Esp as the out of animus bit didn't add any mystery or content or game.
The style of the AC games just doesn't interest me. I get the point, it's just, not my cup of coffee.
I stopped giving a gak about AC when Ubisoft stopped giving a gak about coherence.
The Assassin's Creed movie was the perfect adaptation of the franchise. No one knows what's going on. No one has any clue why anything is happening. The plot is nonsensical from start to finish and oh hey look someone just stabbed someone lets go do some stabbing.
BrookM wrote: If you play through the series you can see the decline. Personally I quit after the third one, though it was more due to "HEY, HERE'S ANOTHER HISTORICAL GIANT YOU JUST HAPPEN TO MEET" than anything else. For me personally the second game is still the best one in the series. Ezio, oh Ezio~
It's sad though the way Ubisoft is killing everything I love. I really, really like Wildlands and whilst it has become a lootbox palooza, it is still playable without them and best of all, all the single player content post-launch (barring the two DLC "campaigns") has been put out for free. So, having them thoroughly kill off my hype for the sequel with their horrible practices is just blargh.
Only relief is that Siege is played on high level and is something you can't put pay 2 win into. So, just cosmetic dickery there.
I picked up Black Flag, but didn't really play it. AC3 where I dropped off as well, though technically I gave up half way through 2.2 and didn't play 2.3. I finished AC3 for some reason I the experience just kind of burned out what interest remained.
LordofHats wrote: I stopped giving a gak about AC when Ubisoft stopped giving a gak about coherence.
The Assassin's Creed movie was the perfect adaptation of the franchise. No one knows what's going on. No one has any clue why anything is happening. The plot is nonsensical from start to finish and oh hey look someone just stabbed someone lets go do some stabbing.
AC in a nutshell
Specaking of, what is the basic story of this franchise? Why are you assassinating all these people? And what's with the weird history jumping stuff and the really weird high tech scenes I've seen.
Over the years I've been pretty lucky, so far I've yet to have a major issue with FO4 or Skyrim. Fo3 a few times axed my save files, but I always made backups so, I've never really been into the whole "bethesda makes bad bugs" memes, because I just don't think they're as bad as most people claim.
Specaking of, what is the basic story of this franchise? Why are you assassinating all these people? And what's with the weird history jumping stuff and the really weird high tech scenes I've seen.
I don't know what it is now. Which is the joke.
TLDR;
Assassins and Templars are secret orders waging secret wars against one another all over the globe throughout history to control various alien artifacts. Yes the series spirals into ancient aliens by the end of the first game completely randomly with zero foreshadowing and then proceeds to make less and less sense as each new entry contrives new reasons to keep telling the story.
To be fair though I'm not sure anyone is in it for the story anymore.
Specaking of, what is the basic story of this franchise? Why are you assassinating all these people? And what's with the weird history jumping stuff and the really weird high tech scenes I've seen.
I don't know what it is now. Which is the joke.
TLDR;
Assassins and Templars are secret orders waging secret wars against one another all over the globe throughout history to control various alien artifacts. Yes the series spirals into ancient aliens by the end of the first game completely randomly with zero foreshadowing and then proceeds to make less and less sense as each new entry contrives new reasons to keep telling the story.
To be fair though I'm not sure anyone is in it for the story anymore.
Frankly put, regard it as flashback- of - your - last - reincarnation - stabbyMCSTAB-SIMULATOR.
Also something, something order vs. freedom or whatever. But I have no idea which side is supposed to be which, and both sides appear to be manipulated by different factions (or the same faction) of the dead aliens, who are mostly holograms or something.
The more recent games (especially Odyssey), have living aliens and their creations running around, and the modern day past lives flashback bit is even more nonsensical and a pointless digression from the main plot. [And the assassins and templars don't even exist in any meaningful sense at the time of the game] It's a framing device that isn't even vaguely necessary at this point and a meta excuse as to why you get back up when you 'die'- you've actually just de-synced from the past life computer and have to log back in again.
They'd improve the games immensely by dispensing with all the [cult/alien/past life] garbage and just focusing on the story of the game's protagonist.
Voss wrote: Also something, something order vs. freedom or whatever. But I have no idea which side is supposed to be which, and both sides appear to be manipulated by different factions (or the same faction) of the dead aliens, who are mostly holograms or something.
The more recent games (especially Odyssey), have living aliens and their creations running around, and the modern day past lives flashback bit is even more nonsensical and a pointless digression from the main plot. [And the assassins and templars don't even exist in any meaningful sense at the time of the game] It's a framing device that isn't even vaguely necessary at this point and a meta excuse as to why you get back up when you 'die'- you've actually just de-synced from the past life computer and have to log back in again.
They'd improve the games immensely by dispensing with all the [cult/alien/past life] garbage and just focusing on the story of the game's protagonist.
again, regarding the plot that supposedly is there and contrasting it via what the game is actually.
There is also a deadly solar flare or something that is going to wipe out all live, but requires a sacrifice to the aliens to stop it from happening, which is part of the larger arc the first three games go through.
To backtrack slightly with the CCG's are just as much gambling with loot boxes. If I recall correctly there was actually a lawsuit for this during the Pokemon card game craze. I believe the lawsuit was thrown out because "Card packs give a tangible product that can be resold at a value". So if you go by that, another lootbox solution is a Steam marketplace style thing where you can resell what you get in your lootboxes to other players.
Voss wrote: Except a 'steam marketplace style thing' doesn't yield a tangible product, let alone one that can be resold at a real value.
Except that's exactly what the steam marketplace does. it gives the individual rewards from your Lootbox rewards from TF2 and CS:GO real value. Now that value is laughably small. However, you can sell that duplicate skin or unwanted Hat on the steam marketplace.
You can argue its not a tangible product. However, it for sure gives the lootbox resale value.
I'd rather they just get removed entirely. I don't really want a steam marketplace of lootbox rewards being offered up for sale in every game. However, it is a possible way to avoid weird government legislation.
BrookM wrote: There is also a deadly solar flare or something that is going to wipe out all live, but requires a sacrifice to the aliens to stop it from happening, which is part of the larger arc the first three games go through.
I'd argue the AC3 ending is worse than ME3; it just benefits from aggressively not making you care about the story by the time it happens so you're more accepting of the stupidity.
Keep in mind, ME3 is one of my like.... 3? Real nerd rage moments. I can only think of one other, but I'm sure there was probably at least one more.
BrookM wrote: There is also a deadly solar flare or something that is going to wipe out all live, but requires a sacrifice to the aliens to stop it from happening, which is part of the larger arc the first three games go through.
I'd argue the AC3 ending is worse than ME3; it just benefits from aggressively not making you care about the story by the time it happens so you're more accepting of the stupidity.
Keep in mind, ME3 is one of my like.... 3? Real nerd rage moments. I can only think of one other, but I'm sure there was probably at least one more.
ME was a removed bar none.
Well alteast the 3rd iteration.
I think I might be one of the few who really likes the AC meta-plot at Abstergo, and moving around the offices discovering the modern-day conspiracy. It was heaps of fun in Rogue where you joined the bad guys at the end.
Anyway, I have a concern with a new GTA Online update that's about to hit. The long unused casino in Los Santos is about to open in a big way, and, as you'd expect, the casino has loads of casino games - blackjack, roulette, slots, etc.
Presumably you pay for this using in-game currency. In-game currency, which you can purchase for real currency.
So you can pay real money to be part of virtual casino gambling.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think I might be one of the few who really likes the AC meta-plot at Abstergo, and moving around the offices discovering the modern-day conspiracy. It was heaps of fun in Rogue where you joined the bad guys at the end.
Anyway, I have a concern with a new GTA Online update that's about to hit. The long unused casino in Los Santos is about to open in a big way, and, as you'd expect, the casino has loads of casino games - blackjack, roulette, slots, etc.
Presumably you pay for this using in-game currency. In-game currency, which you can purchase for real currency.
So you can pay real money to be part of virtual casino gambling.
Is this not raising any red flags?
Not red no, but it's weird. Someone spilled blood all over the white flag
BrookM wrote: I'm sure Jim or one of the other ones out there will tackle it sooner or later. I'd be surprised if Jim didn't talk about it at some point.
The massive difference beeing that this time it is an Grey area casino in a propperly marked game for the age.
Still though, no checks on gambling addicts.
And no license.
Overread wrote: Unless they make it a casino with its own internal currency that has no value outside of it?
So long you can buy the currency, so long it is one.
Ergo yes, an grey area Casino.
You know, this might sound crazy, but maybe we should hire Jack Thompson. Remember him? Just tell him to lock in on loot boxes and in-game gambling and go at it. Maybe he'll actually get somewhere on a topic he has a leg to stand on with
On the one hand, as someone who has struggled with real gambling addition, my initial thought is "just learn self control like the rest of us" and "stop being such bad parents and take responsibility for once in your life."
On the other, I wish PEGI/ERSB would stop capitulating to the game publishers and make any game with microtransactions an 18+/Adult Only game. That would help curb the excesses. If they don't then the governments will get involved which is never a good thing.
BaconCatBug wrote: On the one hand, as someone who has struggled with real gambling addition, my initial thought is "just learn self control like the rest of us" and "stop being such bad parents and take responsibility for once in your life."
On the other, I wish PEGI/ERSB would stop capitulating to the game publishers and make any game with microtransactions an 18+/Adult Only game. That would help curb the excesses. If they don't then the governments will get involved which is never a good thing.
Roffle, again, these "rating controllers" or however you want to name them are purely voluntary and financed by the most eregious exemples of the gaming industry. Do you honestly think they have enough baseline integrity to grow a spine?
That is wishfull thinking. And it still does not solve the issue of underaged unlicensed gambling. Which is very much a problem.
So yes, imo the hammer has to fall, else nothing happens and we get more AC odyssees and SWBF2(EA) then we allready have, and i for one am sick and tired of this gak, especially when you talk to people that work in the industry and basically confirm the hire and fire practices, crunch etc. whilest the big publishers roll in so much dough for zero actual investment.
You know, this might sound crazy, but maybe we should hire Jack Thompson. Remember him? Just tell him to lock in on loot boxes and in-game gambling and go at it. Maybe he'll actually get somewhere on a topic he has a leg to stand on with
It's a crazy idea. It just might work. Shame he got disbarred.
BaconCatBug wrote: On the other, I wish PEGI/ERSB would stop capitulating to the game publishers and make any game with microtransactions an 18+/Adult Only game. That would help curb the excesses. If they don't then the governments will get involved which is never a good thing.
They're a paper tiger.
If they rated FIFA 20[current year] R18+ for gambling, you can bet that loot boxes and in-game real money stores would be patched out overnight. But they won't, because they're an industry regulator and they masters are the people they're rating.
But that's something Jim keeps bringing up: The longer they ignore this and fail to take action, the closer we get until the government steps in. They won't like that.
Specaking of, what is the basic story of this franchise? Why are you assassinating all these people? And what's with the weird history jumping stuff and the really weird high tech scenes I've seen.
I don't know what it is now. Which is the joke.
TLDR;
Assassins and Templars are secret orders waging secret wars against one another all over the globe throughout history to control various alien artifacts. Yes the series spirals into ancient aliens by the end of the first game completely randomly with zero foreshadowing and then proceeds to make less and less sense as each new entry contrives new reasons to keep telling the story.
To be fair though I'm not sure anyone is in it for the story anymore.
It sounds like gak. I'm glad I've skipped these games.
Yeah I remember Warframe trying to push people to stream Warframe on twitch, and trying to get people to watch people playing Warframe on switch-- to the point that you had more rewards for watching someone else play than you did for actually playing!
Melissia wrote: Yeah I remember Warframe trying to push people to stream Warframe on twitch, and trying to get people to watch people playing Warframe on switch-- to the point that you had more rewards for watching someone else play than you did for actually playing!
It got on my nerves.
Well warframe atleast had the decency to be a free and decent game.
Unlike the recent EA garbage, or bethesda or unbisoft.
This certainly is true. But I still don't like the forced inclusion of social media. And it was an endorsement deal too cause it was only for peopel who had paid twitch accounts.
Melissia wrote: This certainly is true. But I still don't like the forced inclusion of social media. And it was an endorsement deal too cause it was only for peopel who had paid twitch accounts.
Ayy, i agree on that.
The forced multiplayer aspect sure is annoying.
Especially when you consider that some of the best IP 's were that.
...
In a way we see now the mobilification of the normal games market.
So the UK deemed the Lootboxes not strictly gambling but threatening?
I mean, i don't know how the UK functions but it seems to me that that will get other commissions involved, commissions that may turn out better or worse.
Overall i am surprised that there was no point beeing made in the law beeing outdated from the gambling commission..
BaconCatBug wrote: And now GTAV introduced a literal casino you can buy money for, but not cash it out...
"BuT It'S nOt sTriCtLy GaMbLiNg"
That certainly won't lead to issues for addicts. No never how could it, it isn't like a casino without any oversight or register for gambling addicts. No that won't be an issue at all mister.....
Well atleast GTA is 18+ not e/3+. but still.......
BaconCatBug wrote: And now GTAV introduced a literal casino you can buy money for, but not cash it out...
"BuT It'S nOt sTriCtLy GaMbLiNg"
That certainly won't lead to issues for addicts. No never how could it, it isn't like a casino without any oversight or register for gambling addicts. No that won't be an issue at all mister.....
Well atleast GTA is 18+ not e/3+. but still.......
Yep this one has me stumped, I'm not up on the psychology of gambling and addiction but given the difference between a virtual pretend casino and an actual online casino is but a click I'm really not sure if this is dangerous or not, maybe a bit gateway and doubtless there is some shady 3rd party exploiting that'll occur, and if pretend gambling is more fun than pretend running and gunning then I kind of glad my PC can't cope with GTA V
BaconCatBug wrote: And now GTAV introduced a literal casino you can buy money for, but not cash it out...
"BuT It'S nOt sTriCtLy GaMbLiNg"
That certainly won't lead to issues for addicts. No never how could it, it isn't like a casino without any oversight or register for gambling addicts. No that won't be an issue at all mister.....
Well atleast GTA is 18+ not e/3+. but still.......
Yep this one has me stumped, I'm not up on the psychology of gambling and addiction but given the difference between a virtual pretend casino and an actual online casino is but a click I'm really not sure if this is dangerous or not, maybe a bit gateway and doubtless there is some shady 3rd party exploiting that'll occur, and if pretend gambling is more fun than pretend running and gunning then I kind of glad my PC can't cope with GTA V
Addiction isn't really that difficult to understand.
It has to do with how our brain rewards us.
Addiction to substances more often then not triggers the happiness hormones "tanks" into throwing them out.
Psychological addiction torwards an act or behaviour functions the same but without the substances but the act in the Center of it. E.g. Winning in gambling.
BaconCatBug wrote: And now GTAV introduced a literal casino you can buy money for, but not cash it out...
"BuT It'S nOt sTriCtLy GaMbLiNg"
That certainly won't lead to issues for addicts. No never how could it, it isn't like a casino without any oversight or register for gambling addicts. No that won't be an issue at all mister.....
Well atleast GTA is 18+ not e/3+. but still.......
Yep this one has me stumped, I'm not up on the psychology of gambling and addiction but given the difference between a virtual pretend casino and an actual online casino is but a click I'm really not sure if this is dangerous or not, maybe a bit gateway and doubtless there is some shady 3rd party exploiting that'll occur, and if pretend gambling is more fun than pretend running and gunning then I kind of glad my PC can't cope with GTA V
Addiction isn't really that difficult to understand.
It has to do with how our brain rewards us.
Addiction to substances more often then not triggers the happiness hormones "tanks" into throwing them out.
Psychological addiction torwards an act or behaviour functions the same but without the substances but the act in the Center of it. E.g. Winning in gambling.
(heavily simplified)
but is there a difference if the reward is virtual or real ? I'm not defending GTA its just I cant see the appeal of using real money to win pretend money when other options exist
but is there a difference if the reward is virtual or real ? I'm not defending GTA its just I cant see the appeal of using real money to win pretend money when other options exist
There's a difference. But it's difficult to quantify exactly how big of a difference it is.
You're not going to have players fantasizing about quitting their day job and retiring as a result of hitting it big in the GTAV casino. Because you can't pull the money back out, any real-world money that you sink into the game is permanently gone. You can't consider it an (very risky) investment. That should theoretically curb some of the most reckless behavior. But the addictive aspects of gambling are still present, as discussed in other parts of this post.
And virtual gambling is popular for a lot of people. In-game casinos (that only use in-game currency, mind you) pop up often enough in JPRGs. And when they're around, it's quite common to have particularly valuable equipment only available through doing well in the casino games.
BaconCatBug wrote: And now GTAV introduced a literal casino you can buy money for, but not cash it out...
"BuT It'S nOt sTriCtLy GaMbLiNg"
That certainly won't lead to issues for addicts. No never how could it, it isn't like a casino without any oversight or register for gambling addicts. No that won't be an issue at all mister.....
Well atleast GTA is 18+ not e/3+. but still.......
Yep this one has me stumped, I'm not up on the psychology of gambling and addiction but given the difference between a virtual pretend casino and an actual online casino is but a click I'm really not sure if this is dangerous or not, maybe a bit gateway and doubtless there is some shady 3rd party exploiting that'll occur, and if pretend gambling is more fun than pretend running and gunning then I kind of glad my PC can't cope with GTA V
Addiction isn't really that difficult to understand.
It has to do with how our brain rewards us.
Addiction to substances more often then not triggers the happiness hormones "tanks" into throwing them out.
Psychological addiction torwards an act or behaviour functions the same but without the substances but the act in the Center of it. E.g. Winning in gambling.
(heavily simplified)
but is there a difference if the reward is virtual or real ? I'm not defending GTA its just I cant see the appeal of using real money to win pretend money when other options exist
No not really, else virtual casinos wouldn't work.
It is the act and winning against the odds that reeinforces that behaviour.
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
Do you have a reputable news source for that claim?
Really? Nitpicking over something like this? What, did having your thread shut down leave you salty enough to try and be "RAW" for IRL stuff like this too?
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
Do you have a reputable news source for that claim?
Really? Nitpicking over something like this? What, did having your thread shut down leave you salty enough to try and be "RAW" for IRL stuff like this too?
Your search fu is weak, that or you got confirmation bias coming out of your ears.
Forbes is also not reputable. They allow anyone and everyone to write for them, no better than Buzzfeed. There is also nothing in the article to corroborate the clickbait headline.
Reddit put together a list of over 50 countries with gambling laws that appear to be restricting the gambling features of GTA Online, some with conflicting reports.
Oh wow, ok so random redditors are now authoritative sources? It even says "some with conflicting reports" so it's not even trying to claim to corroborate.
BaconCatBug wrote: Disingenuous to claim that at best. 50 countries have not "banned" the new GTAV update, Rockstar has not made it available to those countries.
Do you have a reputable news source for that claim?
Really? Nitpicking over something like this? What, did having your thread shut down leave you salty enough to try and be "RAW" for IRL stuff like this too?
Your search fu is weak, that or you got confirmation bias coming out of your ears.
Forbes is also not reputable. They allow anyone and everyone to write for them, no better than Buzzfeed. There is also nothing in the article to corroborate the clickbait headline.
Reddit put together a list of over 50 countries with gambling laws that appear to be restricting the gambling features of GTA Online, some with conflicting reports.
Oh wow, ok so random redditors are now authoritative sources? It even says "some with conflicting reports" so it's not even trying to claim to corroborate.
If the articles aren't what you want, can you provide a "reputable" article that supports the counter claim you're making? Looking into this, it seems pretty straight forward, that some countries have indeed laws that has essentially banned said update.
Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.
Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.
Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.
I'm half expecting BCB to use The Onion as counter site example of countries allowing GTA 5 Online Casino to run rampant in school playgrounds as a new curriculum, while unironically stating that we're all morons for not seeing the truth and "fake news" as he does.
BaconCatBug wrote: Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.
Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.
Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.
You know just because you don't like something, doesn't make it automatically unuseable. I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...
On the topic of Rockstar, this is the exact reason why I won't be supporting their company any longer. GTA5 was a fun game, but it's had zero offline content.
BaconCatBug wrote: Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.
Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.
Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.
You know just because you don't like something, doesn't make it automatically unuseable. I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...
On the topic of Rockstar, this is the exact reason why I won't be supporting their company any longer. GTA5 was a fun game, but it's had zero offline content.
Yeah, its a far cry from the solid DLC side stories that intertwined with the main story of GTA 4 so well, TBAGT and TLATD were both great, I felt sad there was nothing DLC wise for GTA5 post campaign, I was really hoping an expansion into North Yankton.
I have found a real calling in old retro games, like FF1-8, Old SNES Games, NES games, and free to play mods for old games like BrutalDoom, or Doom Black Edition. All free to play or download, and tons of new content out there.
I put down my controller for the PS4 after Uncharted 4, and the DLC game with the two female Protagonists (Both amazing) and I haven't looked back. It's really freeing to not have to pay for the crap that comes out these days.
Especially when there are so many amazing games out there that are free. Currently 75% of the way through Robotrek and loving it. Up next is Earthbound.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
hahahahahha Counterpoint.
RDR2 Online.
RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.
And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.
So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
hahahahahha Counterpoint.
RDR2 Online.
RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.
And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.
So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.
It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.
Togusa wrote: I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...
At the very least, what they put online is so much less hysterically insane than what they put on TV, you often have to wonder if they're even the same company XD
Togusa wrote: I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...
At the very least, what they put online is so much less hysterically insane than what they put on TV, you often have to wonder if they're even the same company XD
Differing offices probably.
Also the online one might be more aware of it's reputation.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
hahahahahha Counterpoint.
RDR2 Online.
RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.
And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.
So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.
It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.
Depends on what you're judging. If you're judging average game quality, sure it matters. If I'm looking for companies that could put out a great game, not so much. Because I don't need to play every game a studio offers to enjoy their best games. I'd rather a studio put out 1 great game and 1 terrible game over 1 average game. I'm only going to play the games I most want to play, as there's far too many of them to play them all. So only the best games really matter.
To put it another way: which place would you rather eat:
Place A: You can order The Best Pizza Ever, or Day Old Grilled Cheese
Place B: Serves Dominos-quality pizza
I'm going to eat at place A. Sure, Day Old Grilled Cheese is worse than Dominos-quality pizza. But I'm not going to order it, so it doesn't really matter.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
hahahahahha Counterpoint.
RDR2 Online.
RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.
And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.
So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.
It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.
Depends on what you're judging. If you're judging average game quality, sure it matters. If I'm looking for companies that could put out a great game, not so much. Because I don't need to play every game a studio offers to enjoy their best games. I'd rather a studio put out 1 great game and 1 terrible game over 1 average game. I'm only going to play the games I most want to play, as there's far too many of them to play them all. So only the best games really matter.
To put it another way: which place would you rather eat:
Place A: You can order The Best Pizza Ever, or Day Old Grilled Cheese
Place B: Serves Dominos-quality pizza
I'm going to eat at place A. Sure, Day Old Grilled Cheese is worse than Dominos-quality pizza. But I'm not going to order it, so it doesn't really matter.
No, what i mean with affecting is a lack of singleplayer content that will not be developped due to the focus beeing on "live Services"
See, that was my point about not focussing on actual game content and instead using the cheap cop out and spam live services with real gambling this time.
I have found a real calling in old retro games, like FF1-8, Old SNES Games, NES games, and free to play mods for old games like BrutalDoom, or Doom Black Edition. All free to play or download, and tons of new content out there.
Defo. So many solid emulators out there for the likes of SNES, Amiga, NeoGeo, Megadrive, N64 etc.
All with lots of golden games on them.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.
Better go get cover, the barage of rockstar Fans will be incoming.
Jokes aside, it wasn't bad.
Just, ech idk.
It was fun, I spent around 24-30 hours in game doing the story stuff. Once that was done however, I had no other reason to keep playing. I just found the game to be mediocre.
Bharring wrote: Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:
RDR2 is a masterpiece.
Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.
Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.
Better go get cover, the barage of rockstar Fans will be incoming.
Jokes aside, it wasn't bad.
Just, ech idk.
It was fun, I spent around 24-30 hours in game doing the story stuff. Once that was done however, I had no other reason to keep playing. I just found the game to be mediocre.
Can agree with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Never saw any draw in either RDR1 or 2, myself. GTAV was okay. But then they decided they only wanted to do multiplayer content.
Which to my knowledge is a live Service steaming trainwreck.
Still.
If it ain't making Bank like GTA online it ain't good enough for them anymore.
Mostly because stakeholders would get annoyed at the lower return.
I'm a bit torn on unlocks being paid for additions. Obviously being random drops in loot boxes is annoying.
In games like Timesplitters, Mortal Kombat or Smash Bros discovering and doing the challenges to unlock the characters was a large part of the fun.
On the other hand, in Gears 2 i was annoyed that I couldn't play as Savage Theron Guard because I couldn't get 3 friends to commit the time to do beast mode on insane. So I definitely would have paid for an unlock everything cheat!
Latest video related to this, that I admit that I am not sure I should post because it does have politics involved, but...
In summary, the main part of the argument he's putting that's relevant here is that mainstream video game companies actually benefit from being blamed for mass shootings. After all, it lets them distract people from the arguments about lootboxes, or their lack of concern for privacy and the protection of personal information, or what have you, and forces people to split their attention and energy between simultaneously defending games themselves and also attacking the nasty, predatory practices that game developers have.
Melissia wrote: Latest video related to this, that I admit that I am not sure I should post because it does have politics involved, but...
In summary, the main part of the argument he's putting that's relevant here is that mainstream video game companies actually benefit from being blamed for mass shootings. After all, it lets them distract people from the arguments about lootboxes, or their lack of concern for privacy and the protection of personal information, or what have you, and forces people to split their attention and energy between simultaneously defending games themselves and also attacking the nasty, predatory practices that game developers have.
Spoiler:
See, Switzerland has a nearly equal gun / capita rating then texas, the difference is, carrying a gun around is a LOT more difficult, and gun safety is provided via mandatory conscritpion training, which also does psychological screening beforehand of the Conscripts which leads to a rather nice filter effect and leads to overall better and more easily achievable mental healthcare.
his point about defending the industry by stating that it has no violence effect psychically but also still haves a gambling effect psychically making it easier for the companies to defend themselves from toxic gamer outrage of pure entitlement is actually a interesting angle imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: Let's keep the politics out, okay? We've been doing moderately well so far.
There's also this one:
It's a tactic now employed. Avoid potential criticism because you no longer can buy the relevant reviews to cover your micro transactions.,
IMplement them at a later stage where only the core fanbase is left. Profit from these dedicated people which will more likely spend more money on the game.
At risk, I will say I was amazed to see the "video games make people shoot people" argument return to mainstream headlines. I honestly thought that nonsense had been relegated to the stuff shills say in private to "concerned" moms because saying it in front of Cameras is asking to be lampooned.
LordofHats wrote: At risk, I will say I was amazed to see the "video games make people shoot people" argument return to mainstream headlines. I honestly thought that nonsense had been relegated to the stuff shills say in private to "concerned" moms because saying it in front of Cameras is asking to be lampooned.
it is an comfortable scapegoat.
And it has a multibillion dollar industry to cover it.
Would not happen if gaming companies would back political campaigns, wanna bet
LordofHats wrote: At risk, I will say I was amazed to see the "video games make people shoot people" argument return to mainstream headlines. I honestly thought that nonsense had been relegated to the stuff shills say in private to "concerned" moms because saying it in front of Cameras is asking to be lampooned.
Eh I think its an old reliable that some likely use when they've got nothing else to say right now. Far as most are concerned games are totally normal parts of life now and they don't make people violent (at least the overwhelming vast majority). Game Violence had its heyday when it was mostly unknown and niche; rather like how rock music was supposed to give you messages from the devil. Heck many kids today have parents who game without being geeks and games like Call of Duty are very mainstream.
Asides I believe the only guy pushing it in courts got barred and his licences revoked; which pretty much killed any real long term support for the notion in the legal system.
The only way it has a sting now is in cumulative problems. Gamers are violent, addictive, money stealing etc.... Ergo when you add it to micro transactions etc... Then it might well gain some weight, though hopefully only in the form of regulatory bodies; which we technically have already so it might just firm up some rules. Micro transactions are far more an issue, even if its not as juicy for the popular media.
Overread wrote: Far as most are concerned games are totally normal parts of life now and they don't make people violent (at least the overwhelming vast majority).
Well my personal favorite response has been the "Japan doesn't have gun violence because Japan doesn't have any games" memes, but this is ultimately off-topic I suppose.
I don't know that I agree with Jim. I think gamers learned to shrug off this nonsense long ago. People'll still be angry about micro-transactions in a year, and not a one will be able to name a politician who blamed video games for violence by name (my bet).
On the subject of blaming videogames for things; this is a real thing that happened to me last night and I had to share:
I took my daughter to a block party and a bunch of the kids were taking turns playing Smash Bros in a nearby room. During a switchover, one of them got his hand slammed in the door and broke a finger. After medical attention was administered and the party resumed, one of the mom's says to another "and that's why I don't let my kids play videogames" which is pretty much the point where my brain stopped processing information and I just stared stupidly until my daughter needed something and broke the spell.
LunarSol wrote: On the subject of blaming videogames for things; this is a real thing that happened to me last night and I had to share:
I took my daughter to a block party and a bunch of the kids were taking turns playing Smash Bros in a nearby room. During a switchover, one of them got his hand slammed in the door and broke a finger. After medical attention was administered and the party resumed, one of the mom's says to another "and that's why I don't let my kids play videogames" which is pretty much the point where my brain stopped processing information and I just stared stupidly until my daughter needed something and broke the spell.
So accident right?
I mean should we all stop drinking water or get vaccinated just because some got ill /.dropped down the stairs with a waterglass in Hand?
his point about defending the industry by stating that it has no violence effect psychically but also still haves a gambling effect psychically making it easier for the companies to defend themselves from toxic gamer outrage of pure entitlement is actually a interesting angle imo.
Haven't watched the video yet. But here's my take.
I feel like these are two different issues. Video Games have been pretty well studied to reduce aggression among individuals. People have a bad day, shoot some zombies, then turn off the game and feel better. Rather than to turn off the game and seek somewhere else to place that aggression.
If anything, video games are preying on people with violent tendencies in an effort to sell them more games. Just like loot boxes preying on gamblers to find their gambling fix in Overwatch rather than a casino.
I personally have an issue with "fear of missing out" that will often cause me to drop a lot of money during special events in games to grab all the skins or new characters and other goodies. I've had to drop a lot of mobile games that I was genuinely enjoying because I realized that I was dropping $30 a month trying to keep up with essentially identical event releases.
his point about defending the industry by stating that it has no violence effect psychically but also still haves a gambling effect psychically making it easier for the companies to defend themselves from toxic gamer outrage of pure entitlement is actually a interesting angle imo.
Haven't watched the video yet. But here's my take.
I feel like these are two different issues. Video Games have been pretty well studied to reduce aggression among individuals. People have a bad day, shoot some zombies, then turn off the game and feel better. Rather than to turn off the game and seek somewhere else to place that aggression.
If anything, video games are preying on people with violent tendencies in an effort to sell them more games. Just like loot boxes preying on gamblers to find their gambling fix in Overwatch rather than a casino.
I personally have an issue with "fear of missing out" that will often cause me to drop a lot of money during special events in games to grab all the skins or new characters and other goodies. I've had to drop a lot of mobile games that I was genuinely enjoying because I realized that I was dropping $30 a month trying to keep up with essentially identical event releases.
Yeah, but the argument for the gaming companies remains.
I also take more issue with this:
In a way i have no issue with games going after the violent people, that could be considered "free" mental healthcare. gak day after gak day. Go feth gak up in GTA /BF/ COD etc.
I have an issue when the gaming industry starts to feed addictions though. Like with you, praying on those with insecurities and or addictive personalities.
Overall though it's a true and tried scapegoat for politicians to not put the blame where it belongs. (and as you can see under my comment under the spoiler what could be done instead, altough the states with a conscript army would probably piss off alot of people and would become an issue again due to Vietnam trauma.)
What I'd like to see is a independent body like Fair Trade or the Red Tractor that lets the consumer make an informed decision about what sort of game they are buying, with regard to ethical standards in production and what psychological hooks are in the game.
Kroem wrote: What I'd like to see is a independent body like Fair Trade or the Red Tractor that lets the consumer make an informed decision about what sort of game they are buying, with regard to ethical standards in production and what psychological hooks are in the game.
The ERSB and PEGI are meant to do that, but the publishers have their money claws in them. Any "independent" body will eventually fall to lobbying money.
Kroem wrote: What I'd like to see is a independent body like Fair Trade or the Red Tractor that lets the consumer make an informed decision about what sort of game they are buying, with regard to ethical standards in production and what psychological hooks are in the game.
The ERSB and PEGI are meant to do that, but the publishers have their money claws in them. Any "independent" body will eventually fall to lobbying money.
It also doesn't help that in practice many parents overlook those ratings or don't even pay attention to them. As evident by all the kids who get hold of GTA games and the like. Heck way back in the day I got my mother to get me Red Alert and that was a 15 or 18 rated game in that era.
Kroem wrote: What I'd like to see is a independent body like Fair Trade or the Red Tractor that lets the consumer make an informed decision about what sort of game they are buying, with regard to ethical standards in production and what psychological hooks are in the game.
The ERSB and PEGI are meant to do that, but the publishers have their money claws in them. Any "independent" body will eventually fall to lobbying money.
It also doesn't help that in practice many parents overlook those ratings or don't even pay attention to them. As evident by all the kids who get hold of GTA games and the like. Heck way back in the day I got my mother to get me Red Alert and that was a 15 or 18 rated game in that era.
Honestly, it's a combination of both: questionable self regulating bodies AND questionable parenting.
Otoh i doubt the damage that could be done to a 16 year old by playing an 18 + game.
It's nothing. I played GTA SA when I was 13 and no damage was done. Do any of you guys like building a nice city in Cities Skylines before bombarding it with meteors?
Kroem wrote: What I'd like to see is a independent body like Fair Trade or the Red Tractor that lets the consumer make an informed decision about what sort of game they are buying, with regard to ethical standards in production and what psychological hooks are in the game.
Unfortunately Fair Trade is pretty much on its deathbed at this point. More & more companies are coming out with their own brand-specific "ethical" labels which of course operate based on standards the company chooses themselves, is audited by the company themselves, and only provides the supposed additional benefit to the farmers on the terms the company chooses. The problem being most folk don't have the mental energy to differentiate between and research the practical implementation of 50+ different labels, so "Fairly Traded" and all the others occupy the same headspace as actual-Fair Trade without deserving it, and actual-Fair Trade is beginning to lose industry support as these companies realise they can get all the wokebux without the financial outlay.
No system that involves corporations can protect consumer rights for any appreciable length of time, because if it places any burden on the corporations at all(which it must necessarily do in order to protect consumer rights), they will seek to control, subvert, or supplant it as soon as they can. In the end, "independent bodies" are a distraction from the only real choice before us; abdicate our rights, or regulate.
Congress started to get interested in loot boxes earlier this year, and the video game industry appears to be willing to play ball. The three major console manufacturers--Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo--today announced a plan to start requiring all games with paid loot boxes to start disclosing the odds of getting different items, following other platforms in an effort to combat claims that loot boxes function as exploitative pseudo-gambling. Video game lobbying organization The Entertainment
MORE ON THIS TOPIC FROM FORBES
Ambition Outperforms Execution In ‘The Black Widow’
'GTA Online': Over 50 Countries Have Banned Gambling In The New Diamond Casino
GTA Online's New Casino Lets Players Spend Real Money On Virtual Gambling [Updated]
Software Association made the announcement based at a recent FTC workshop on loot boxes.
From the announcement:
To further that effort, several video game industry leaders are announcing new initiatives to help consumers make informed choices about their purchases, including loot boxes. The major console makers – Sony Interactive Entertainment, operator of the PlayStation platform, Microsoft, operator of Xbox and Windows, and Nintendo, operator of the Nintendo Switch gaming platform – are committing to new platform policies that will require paid loot boxes in games developed for their platforms to disclose information on the relative rarity or probability of obtaining randomized virtual items. These required disclosures will also apply to game updates, if the update adds new loot box features. The precise timing of this disclosure requirement is still being worked out, but the console makers are targeting 2020 for the implementation of the policy.
Honestly, it's a combination of both: questionable self regulating bodies AND questionable parenting.
Otoh i doubt the damage that could be done to a 16 year old by playing an 18 + game.
The point of ratings isn't to tell parents when their kids are ready for something; its to tell retailers when its up to parents to determine if their kids are ready for something. There's nothing wrong with parents determining their kids are mature enough for 18+ stuff beyond the fact that too many parents don't actually do their research when the warning label tells them to.
Nice to see the console troika using their influence to improve things! Hopefully Steam and Epic follow suit to put the squeeze on PC developers as well.
Hawky wrote: It's nothing. I played GTA SA when I was 13 and no damage was done. Do any of you guys like building a nice city in Cities Skylines before bombarding it with meteors?
Whielst i don't play city skylines it has a certain apeal, just like removing the stupid minecraft villagers, esecially when the morons got you killed.
Kroem wrote: Nice to see the console troika using their influence to improve things! Hopefully Steam and Epic follow suit to put the squeeze on PC developers as well.
Many of the gacha games already do this. It's good to let the player know that they've got a *really* bad chance of getting that particular item that they want. But I'm not sure how helpful it will ultimately be toward curbing profligate spending on lootboxes. After all, "whales" (people who spend a ridiculous amount of money on micro-transactions in games) still exist within those games, even though the people throwing out the money know that they have a very poor chance to get the item that they want.
Kroem wrote: Nice to see the console troika using their influence to improve things! Hopefully Steam and Epic follow suit to put the squeeze on PC developers as well.
Many of the gacha games already do this. It's good to let the player know that they've got a *really* bad chance of getting that particular item that they want. But I'm not sure how helpful it will ultimately be toward curbing profligate spending on lootboxes. After all, "whales" (people who spend a ridiculous amount of money on micro-transactions in games) still exist within those games, even though the people throwing out the money know that they have a very poor chance to get the item that they want.
Ayy, it also does not help when the market is Children which understand probability only under might get the thing they want.
Instead of the chance they really got.
Kroem wrote: Nice to see the console troika using their influence to improve things! Hopefully Steam and Epic follow suit to put the squeeze on PC developers as well.
Many of the gacha games already do this. It's good to let the player know that they've got a *really* bad chance of getting that particular item that they want. But I'm not sure how helpful it will ultimately be toward curbing profligate spending on lootboxes. After all, "whales" (people who spend a ridiculous amount of money on micro-transactions in games) still exist within those games, even though the people throwing out the money know that they have a very poor chance to get the item that they want.
Ayy, it also does not help when the market is Children which understand probability only under might get the thing they want.
Instead of the chance they really got.
I think its cute that you think this mostly applies to children.
Kroem wrote: Nice to see the console troika using their influence to improve things! Hopefully Steam and Epic follow suit to put the squeeze on PC developers as well.
Many of the gacha games already do this. It's good to let the player know that they've got a *really* bad chance of getting that particular item that they want. But I'm not sure how helpful it will ultimately be toward curbing profligate spending on lootboxes. After all, "whales" (people who spend a ridiculous amount of money on micro-transactions in games) still exist within those games, even though the people throwing out the money know that they have a very poor chance to get the item that they want.
Ayy, it also does not help when the market is Children which understand probability only under might get the thing they want.
Instead of the chance they really got.
I think its cute that you think this mostly applies to children.
I think i kinda have too due to personal convictions.
And atleast basic educational level here would put me in the firmly correct area due to curriculum.
I imagine corporate officers would be happier if we paid no attention to getting children involved in gambling; they prefer gamers just focus on the stupid politicians blaming gaming for violence.
Ahtman wrote: I imagine corporate officers would be happier if we paid no attention to getting children involved in gambling; they prefer gamers just focus on the stupid politicians blaming gaming for violence.
Mostlikely.
Altough the trailers now unlisted and will probably be tampered with to lower the PR nightmare that they invited upon themselves.
Virtuel slot machine for 3 year olds
Wp, Wp.
Industry standard just dropped lower somehow.
Somewhat related, but every time I see that big red "EPIC FAIL" letter tag on a video, it comes from one of those Youtoube edgeboy channels. I can't think of his name, but that whiny beared dude who got kicked out of magic uses it all the time when he rants about marvel movies daring to have female characters. I just can't take it seriously anymore.
But yeah, that trailer literally looks like it came straight out of a vegas casino. Holy gak that is incredible.
I don't know whom you talk about, but in general it's a pretty standard klickbait strategy and the only reason i looked the vid was because i respect AJ's critique of games.
Grimskul wrote: Sadly, it's almost a necessity in some cases due to how the YT algorithm works.
Tbf now with unskipable adds, the demonitization of history channel or anything slightly with edge, i kinda wait until it Burns down.
You and me both, this is what happens when one site has a monopoly, I'm just waiting to see what competitors come out in the future so YT actually has real pressure to improve their current system.
Ah yes. "Disingenuously presenting my opponent as an idiot extremist by fake quoting something he never said".
Truly, you are a master debater.
Or something close, anyway.
So, as someone who works in the industry, I'd like to call out the darker side of this in terms of development.
Unless you have a game that's simplistic and quick/low cost to create content for, DLC ends up being both a crutch that props up a producer/execs ability to over scope a game.
By this I mean they push for, and get approved, unrealistic levels of content for a game, which results in a lot of developer hours. They set unrealistic dates resulting in overtime and crunch.
They justify the cost of all this thinking they can sell a bunch of gambling style DLCs.
Vertrucio wrote: So, as someone who works in the industry, I'd like to call out the darker side of this in terms of development.
Unless you have a game that's simplistic and quick/low cost to create content for, DLC ends up being both a crutch that props up a producer/execs ability to over scope a game.
By this I mean they push for, and get approved, unrealistic levels of content for a game, which results in a lot of developer hours. They set unrealistic dates resulting in overtime and crunch.
They justify the cost of all this thinking they can sell a bunch of gambling style DLCs.
Question, how often do you see a product pitch that also get's carved up into dlc?
As for the crunch in the industry, blame terrible work laws.
But the heavier reliance on crunch shows imo, especially in AAA games.
I would accept the argument that DLC helps content creators avoid crunch IF:
1. Every game that has this type of predatory DLC wasn't just a re-skin of last years games with zero actual content development
2. The content creators were indie devs who would otherwise fail to put out a product without said content, which even still is a gakky argument because it's completely lacking in personal accountability.
If your product fails to meet consumer sales to the extent needed to garner "success", then creating a morally duplicitous standard for DLC isn't the answer, it should be MAKE A BETTER GAME.
A large majority of sports games today are just re-skinned cash grabs by greedy publishers that justify the proverbial rape of their dev teams by threatening to stifle debate or even discussion through locking access or outright banning players/testers. Not even going to mention what happens to reviewers who don't toe the line and pump out those 9/10 reviews.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I would accept the argument that DLC helps content creators avoid crunch IF:
1. Every game that has this type of predatory DLC wasn't just a re-skin of last years games with zero actual content development
2. The content creators were indie devs who would otherwise fail to put out a product without said content, which even still is a gakky argument because it's completely lacking in personal accountability.
If your product fails to meet consumer sales to the extent needed to garner "success", then creating a morally duplicitous standard for DLC isn't the answer, it should be MAKE A BETTER GAME.
A large majority of sports games today are just re-skinned cash grabs by greedy publishers that justify the proverbial rape of their dev teams by threatening to stifle debate or even discussion through locking access or outright banning players/testers. Not even going to mention what happens to reviewers who don't toe the line and pump out those 9/10 reviews.
Not even then, and the latter part about games journalism, i'll be honest, the Game journalists run themselves into a corner with beeing buyable. And don't tell me they weren't considering the ratings of Battlefront etc. Basically EA titles f.e. that miracoulusly were a 7/8 out of 10 even though they were buggyy messes at launch (BF4 comes to mind)
Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.
Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.
Gitzbitah wrote: Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.
Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.
Am I wrong?
Nope. Plus its also important to realise that most DLC is not random in nature - you buy the DLC pack you get it and all its content without a gamble that you get a DLC you've got already or something that you didn't want.
With random loot boxes you're not just getting new digital content; you're getting core game content but paying for it - in addition its a gamble so you've no idea exactly what you will get.
It's also important to realise that games ilke Crusader Kings 2 weren't originally made for"lots of DLC" with content stripped out of the core game ;but more that the core game sold so well that the developers keep adding too it through DLC rather than making a whole new game.
Gitzbitah wrote: Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.
Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.
Am I wrong?
"Surprise Mechanics (Loot boxes and other horrible mechanics currently plaguing games) "
this thread is for all of the hallmarks of the industry, think of it as a safety valvet. (Crunch, Epic exclusive bait and switzch, crunchmesslaunches, Toxic DLC looking at you paradox, Microtransactions in a full priced game, Lootboxes, etc)
Also lootboxes and minor content, it seems from the outside of it minor content however considering people throw default as an insult at each other in school yards to bully people with default skins, i find that a bit naive statement.
Also don't forget macrotransactions of Bethesda
Gitzbitah wrote: Aren't loot boxes and DLC different things? When I think of DLC, I think of stuff like Paradox games, where the basic game is 20 or 30 bucks, and then you'll want 50 bucks of DLC to make it good, 100 if you want the full experience.
Loot boxes I think of usually very minor content- new emotes, skins, maybe a new character or two. I don't think of them as the same category.
Am I wrong?
Nope. Plus its also important to realise that most DLC is not random in nature - you buy the DLC pack you get it and all its content without a gamble that you get a DLC you've got already or something that you didn't want.
With random loot boxes you're not just getting new digital content; you're getting core game content but paying for it - in addition its a gamble so you've no idea exactly what you will get.
It's also important to realise that games ilke Crusader Kings 2 weren't originally made for"lots of DLC" with content stripped out of the core game ;but more that the core game sold so well that the developers keep adding too it through DLC rather than making a whole new game.
Ofcourse then we have EUIV on the other side, and HOIV.
Which reek of cut content.
I can agree on HoI4, but how on earth does EU4 "reek of cut content"? It's a six year old game and they're still adding new stuff through DLC. There is absolutely zero ways they could've had the current game at launch. It's a phenomenal game and it keeps getting better.
The entry-cost for a new player at this point, on the other hand...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I can agree on HoI4, but how on earth does EU4 "reek of cut content"? It's a six year old game and they're still adding new stuff through DLC. There is absolutely zero ways they could've had the current game at launch. It's a phenomenal game and it keeps getting better.
The entry-cost for a new player at this point, on the other hand...
Go take a look at the base game. Play a round or two.
That doesn't mean the game "wasn't finished" or had mechanics "cut" though. Do you need the DLCs to fully enjoy the game today? Mostly yes (not all of them are essential, but still). Did the lack of the stuff the DLCs have covered make the game feel incomplete at the release of the game? Absolutely not. The DLCs have added a metric tonne to the game since release to the point where the base game is much worse than the game with DLCs, but comparing the base game today to the base game at release the game is much better off. It's not that they cut stuff out at release, it's that they've had six years of improvements to the point that the base game has been left behind.
Compare this to HoI4 where naval combat is still fethed over despite having an entire DLC dedicated to fixing it. EU4 wasn't anywhere near as unfinished on release as HoI, nor did the DLCs fix things that should've been in at start.
I don't get why Paradox doesn't reduce the price of the older DLC for EU4 more, but that is a separate point from the one you were arguing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That doesn't mean the game "wasn't finished" or had mechanics "cut" though. Do you need the DLCs to fully enjoy the game today? Mostly yes (not all of them are essential, but still). Did the lack of the stuff the DLCs have covered make the game feel incomplete at the release of the game? Absolutely not. The DLCs have added a metric tonne to the game since release to the point where the base game is much worse than the game with DLCs, but comparing the base game today to the base game at release the game is much better off. It's not that they cut stuff out at release, it's that they've had six years of improvements to the point that the base game has been left behind.
Compare this to HoI4 where naval combat is still fethed over despite having an entire DLC dedicated to fixing it. EU4 wasn't anywhere near as unfinished on release as HoI, nor did the DLCs fix things that should've been in at start.
I don't get why Paradox doesn't reduce the price of the older DLC for EU4 more, but that is a separate point from the one you were arguing.
yeah sure, tell that All the missing mechanics that should've been in the basegame which were added in the first bunch of DLC
As for HOI4 naval combat.
The genious coming up with it should've been fired.
No, actually: YOU tell us what those mechanics were.
The first really major mechanic added in a DLC was the Religious Leagues in Art of War, the fourth DLC released more than a year after the game itself. Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, and Res Publica added a bunch of stuff that made the game better but was by no means "required" to play it, so where's the reek coming from again?
The first really major mechanic added in a DLC was the Religious Leagues in Art of War, the fourth DLC released more than a year after the game itself. Conquest of Paradise, Wealth of Nations, and Res Publica added a bunch of stuff that made the game better but was by no means "required" to play it, so where's the reek coming from again?
I played today without these, it's not complete thank you.
Sincerly someone that did just today suffer through a round without any.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. Of course it's not complete today without six years' worth of content. That doesn't mean content is "cut" like you argued, any more than World of Warcraft has content "cut" just because you're not playing with the latest expansion.
Hearts of Iron had a bunch of stuff that clearly wasn't finished at release; EU4 worked perfectly fine as a game at release and was made better by DLC over time. You can still play older versions of EU4 through rolling back patches, so there's not even the argument that they "took that away".
I'll ask again: what content was not there at release that "should have been"? Whether or not you played a DLC-less version today or not is wholly irrelevant.
It was bound to happen - this last year or two its been clear that a good few developers were just chasing the money for as much as they could get out of it. Milking the cow dry before it got closed off.
Overread wrote: It was bound to happen - this last year or two its been clear that a good few developers were just chasing the money for as much as they could get out of it. Milking the cow dry before it got closed off.
I do wonder though, what will the shareholders make of this?
I do like that the "surprise mechanics" lady from EA got called out, as you could tell the committee member clearly wanted to scream "oh do fup off" at the time at her pre-programmed inanity
Plus most card companies like Magic are far more up front about the random elements and such. Plus the system is quite well known and publicised. And even though they rotate blocks constantly there's always their open ended game - plus being a physical product you at least have a product at the end of it.
They are slightly different even though they do rely on many of the same mechanics. There might even be some positive justification for the cardgame system considering how many geek stores appear to rely heavily upon it to remain open in times when highstreet stores are mostly closing their doors.
Game loot boxes is basically a purely profit driven enterprise that was optionally bolted onto games to generate excess; especially for msot of the iconic games that got drawn into this where they weren't even mmo games that could justify covering running costs through the mechanic.
BuFFo wrote: What isnt fine getting the state involved where no rights have been violated.
Exploiting people who are vulnerable to gambling addiction is a violation of rights, just like showing up to an AA meeting with free beer because you know that alcoholics can be very profitable if you can get them to drink again. Deceptive marketing is a violation of rights. Exploiting parents who don't fully understand the purchase mechanics and encouraging kids to spend tons of their parents' money is a violation of rights.
If you guys had your way you'd have the state destroy the card game industry as well.
Sounds fine to me, nothing of value would be lost. I'd be perfectly happy if CCGs were banned and the industry had to move to the far superior LCG model.
BuFFo wrote: If you guys had your way you'd have the state destroy the card game industry as well.
There is a reason Casinos and Gambling are heavily regulated.
No, of course not, any Regulation is tyranny, of course I am a libertarian. What? company states generally abuse and kick freedom and the free market down by attempting to establish monopolies, and abuse the workforce? Who could've thunk.
On a more serious note, taking advantage of the vulnerable is despicable. There's a reason why Japan regulates TCGs and Gacha games to force them to give a higher level of transparency. The USA honestly could follow suit in that regard..
Melissia wrote: On a more serious note, taking advantage of the vulnerable is despicable. There's a reason why Japan regulates TCGs and Gacha games to force them to give a higher level of transparency. The USA honestly could follow suit in that regard..
So I am a little bit dubious of the whole "I'm a victim of loot boxes" argument that has been going around. While I don't like lootboxes or other surprise mechanics making their way into games, I could only find about half a dozen verifiable stories of people losing a significant amount of money due to what I would call a legitimate gambling problem. While even one might be too many, it's far from the epidemic that Stirling would have us believe it is.
I'm concerned that this narrative is being pushed because of how "scary" it is. Addiction is quite a frighting disorder for one to have to deal with, and I feel that some of the opponents of surprise mechanics are using it to pump up support.
I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
Left unregulated we'd just see major developers using them all the more to push content until they'd reach a point where the investment in them doesn't yield a net return. The issue is more than just the handful of people who take it to the extreme; its also about getting a sensible value for money from a product. The way many developers were using it was basically to just print money for themselves for little reward to the player (even no actual reward).
Also many were basically gambling systems in all but name and we have regulation on gambling by law. So not only was it something gamers weren't really "wanting" it was also something that was breaking the law by getting around gambling regulation.
Honestly if regulation is all that happens then developers got of light! In theory regulation and assessment could come with penalties for many for undeclared profits from gambling.
Melissia wrote: On a more serious note, taking advantage of the vulnerable is despicable. There's a reason why Japan regulates TCGs and Gacha games to force them to give a higher level of transparency. The USA honestly could follow suit in that regard..
So I am a little bit dubious of the whole "I'm a victim of loot boxes" argument that has been going around. While I don't like lootboxes or other surprise mechanics making their way into games, I could only find about half a dozen verifiable stories of people losing a significant amount of money due to what I would call a legitimate gambling problem. While even one might be too many, it's far from the epidemic that Stirling would have us believe it is.
I'm concerned that this narrative is being pushed because of how "scary" it is. Addiction is quite a frighting disorder for one to have to deal with, and I feel that some of the opponents of surprise mechanics are using it to pump up support.
I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
How many tripple A title recently launched without Lootboxes?
How many Launched with lootboxes and in some cases actively worked against players bypassing their gakky ingame market (bethesda and removed come to mind)
The Brits did a whole study, and found it to be gambling and are reccomending regulation now.
And in the light of casino regulation, don't you think mechanics that resemble one armed bandits should be accessible for gambling addicts? Without the safety nets of blacklists?
Should we also ignore it that it is in direct contrast to sovereign countries gambling laws, and massive tax evasion. (F.E: Switzerland does not allow you to gamble without license which you only get by beeing a responsible company, and taxes earning through gambling with 70-80% to fund cultural things aswell as to help out addicts and fight negative impacts of gambling)
Because frankly if the law would hit propperly here, these melon-fethers would get sued and incarcareted for running an organized crime racket, WHICH THEY DESERVE.
And i for one can't wait until that happens.
Main problem is that major companies don't care about the gamers at all, and react only when a massive backlash happens. (Battlefront 2)
Another thing is that money from lootboxes make up 20% od EA's income, which is HUGE, and most of it is generated by a small percent of players who buy lootboxes regularly.
Or course you don't give up 20% of your income away, just because people on the internet want you to, no matter how immoral it may seem, it's just another way to make money. That's why you need laws.
I'm okay with companies keeping microtransactions, but they must list what exactly you get for your money, so it's not gambling.
I can say how easy it is to catch a taste for it. In Warface, I was grinding in-game money to buy lootboxes, because I wanted MG3 machinegun, and I kept doing so until I got it. Took about 35 boxes to get it.
Heck you want bad - Ubisoft put a micro transaction for both experience and crafting item boosters into their newest Assassin's Creed game - a singleplayer game where you pay real money in micro transactions to get experience boosters.
They've even been removing user created missions with the tools Ubi gave and marketed to users to stop people just giving bigger rewards to bypass it.
Now THAT is really sinking low (I'm honestly surprised Ubi got away with it without an insane backlash).
This is why you need regulation, because for all the passionate and great workers within a company it only takes one person near the top to get greedy and they can spot ways like that to make large amounts of money and spoil the game experience.
Overread wrote: Heck you want bad - Ubisoft put a micro transaction for both experience and crafting item boosters into their newest Assassin's Creed game - a singleplayer game where you pay real money in micro transactions to get experience boosters.
Well, you have to really dumb (or well-off and lazy) to buy this. Game urinalist level dumb.
Overread wrote: Heck you want bad - Ubisoft put a micro transaction for both experience and crafting item boosters into their newest Assassin's Creed game - a singleplayer game where you pay real money in micro transactions to get experience boosters.
Well, you have to really dumb (or well-off and lazy) to buy this. Game urinalist level dumb.
The thing is Ubi made the levelling grind VERY heavy in the game. They basically encourage you to use the boosters. It's a bit like how games like League of Legends will let you earn in-game coin and experience; but its slow. For onilne games its an ok mechanic because the concept is that the money raised goes toward the upkeep of the game in terms of servers, support, maintenance and future content and also allows for a portion of the userbase playing for free. For a singleplayer game where you pay a fullprice for the purchase of the product (no freeplay) and where there is no real long term upkeep like there is for an MMO; its purely a strategy to generate profit with no gain for the customer.
Honestly its the kind of thing that 20-15ish years ago would have sunk a game hard. Heck I recall when Games for Windows Live first came out and Microsoft were going to charge PC gamers real money for online play. Every single game on the service at the time (which was not many) got abysmal reviews (this was back when magazines held the power on the market in terms of marketing). Several good and decent games simply died off - Universe at War was one such game - heck they never even released the expansion for the human faction despite the fact that all the human assets were already programmed into the game (you even played them in the intro tutorial missions).
Overread wrote: Heck you want bad - Ubisoft put a micro transaction for both experience and crafting item boosters into their newest Assassin's Creed game - a singleplayer game where you pay real money in micro transactions to get experience boosters.
Well, you have to really dumb (or well-off and lazy) to buy this. Game urinalist level dumb.
The thing is Ubi made the levelling grind VERY heavy in the game. They basically encourage you to use the boosters. It's a bit like how games like League of Legends will let you earn in-game coin and experience; but its slow. For onilne games its an ok mechanic because the concept is that the money raised goes toward the upkeep of the game in terms of servers, support, maintenance and future content and also allows for a portion of the userbase playing for free. For a singleplayer game where you pay a fullprice for the purchase of the product (no freeplay) and where there is no real long term upkeep like there is for an MMO; its purely a strategy to generate profit with no gain for the customer.
Honestly its the kind of thing that 20-15ish years ago would have sunk a game hard. Heck I recall when Games for Windows Live first came out and Microsoft were going to charge PC gamers real money for online play. Every single game on the service at the time (which was not many) got abysmal reviews (this was back when magazines held the power on the market in terms of marketing). Several good and decent games simply died off - Universe at War was one such game - heck they never even released the expansion for the human faction despite the fact that all the human assets were already programmed into the game (you even played them in the intro tutorial missions).
Removed, do not circumvent the language filter - BrookM
I see, I didn't know that. The last game I played made by Ubisoft was probably Far Cry 2, so... yeah. But I could have thought so there might be something to it.
whilst it would be tricky to legislate I really hope something is done about the deliberate and somewhat pernicious secondary currency trick, make everything priced in real money not smoke and mirrors bullgak of crystals, gems or whatever
Honestly, I just don't play videogames anymore unless they're on the Switch. It's not a moral outrage (though I find it outrageous) I just don't feel any real compulsion towards random drops and every game I've picked up in the last few years as had horrendous pacing. I've spent a lot more time going back through my collection and I'm amazed at how even things like the Epic SNES Square RPGs feel lightning paced compared to most modern titles.
Seeing what the mobile market has become gives me little hope things will get better. A decade ago things like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, and Plants vs Zombies were providing amazingly designed game mechanics with fantastic pick up and play mechanics. A few years later they had all become soul grinding messes of Candy Crush inspired panning for gold. A bit of PvP later and the whole thing is just... raw misery. I don't even have games on my main screen anymore for a platform that once seemed like the future.
Togusa wrote: I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
The fact that you keep using that phrase over and over again just tells us that you've bought into EA's bull gak.
I don't support them though. I generally view surprise mechanics as a waste of money, but at the same time a lot of the games I play don't have them in the game. So it's easier for me to avoid them I think.
Togusa wrote: I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
The fact that you keep using that phrase over and over again just tells us that you've bought into EA's bull gak.
I don't support them though. I generally view surprise mechanics as a waste of money, but at the same time a lot of the games I play don't have them in the game. So it's easier for me to avoid them I think.
Most of the games I play don't have them in either, the thing is though they are spreading into more titles and the big developers were all eying them up. The issue then is that today they don't affect you; but tomorrow they end up doing so. Already you've got Assassin's Creed - singleplayer adventure/RPG game iwth them sneaking it in and a full on gambling room in a Basketball sim up above. So its already creeping well outside of the "multiplayer shooter games" and such. How long before they appear in more RPG games (Dragon Age 4 for example is under MS and could easily end up with micro transaction loot - surprise box horse armour and experience booster cards - al lwhislt being singleplayer); or RTS; or TBS?!
I had a little moment where I thought I was done with videogames; then Shadow of Mordor came out and I found myself engrossed in a game like I hadn't in ages. I was sooooo excited for Shadow of War and then....
Togusa wrote: I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
The fact that you keep using that phrase over and over again just tells us that you've bought into EA's bull gak.
I don't support them though. I generally view surprise mechanics as a waste of money, but at the same time a lot of the games I play don't have them in the game. So it's easier for me to avoid them I think.
Most of the games I play don't have them in either, the thing is though they are spreading into more titles and the big developers were all eying them up. The issue then is that today they don't affect you; but tomorrow they end up doing so. Already you've got Assassin's Creed - singleplayer adventure/RPG game iwth them sneaking it in and a full on gambling room in a Basketball sim up above. So its already creeping well outside of the "multiplayer shooter games" and such. How long before they appear in more RPG games (Dragon Age 4 for example is under MS and could easily end up with micro transaction loot - surprise box horse armour and experience booster cards - al lwhislt being singleplayer); or RTS; or TBS?!
Togusa wrote: I feel like there is a better way to deal with surprise mechanics than to either outright regulate them or ban them.
The fact that you keep using that phrase over and over again just tells us that you've bought into EA's bull gak.
I don't support them though. I generally view surprise mechanics as a waste of money, but at the same time a lot of the games I play don't have them in the game. So it's easier for me to avoid them I think.
Most of the games I play don't have them in either, the thing is though they are spreading into more titles and the big developers were all eying them up. The issue then is that today they don't affect you; but tomorrow they end up doing so. Already you've got Assassin's Creed - singleplayer adventure/RPG game iwth them sneaking it in and a full on gambling room in a Basketball sim up above. So its already creeping well outside of the "multiplayer shooter games" and such. How long before they appear in more RPG games (Dragon Age 4 for example is under MS and could easily end up with micro transaction loot - surprise box horse armour and experience booster cards - al lwhislt being singleplayer); or RTS; or TBS?!
The thing is we know that single player games filled with microtransactions have been artificially turned into grind-fests to tempt you to buy the "time saving" microtransactions.
Shadow of War is the best recent example, with the devs admitting that the inclusion of loot boxes broke the game's progress. So they fixed it and redid the progression so it wasn't so grindy.
And for anyone buying into a publisher's "but they're optional" nonsense, remember that if the publisher didn't want you to buy them, they wouldn't be there in the first place.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The thing is we know that single player games filled with microtransactions have been artificially turned into grind-fests to tempt you to buy the "time saving" microtransactions.
Shadow of War is the best recent example, with the devs admitting that the inclusion of loot boxes broke the game's progress. So they fixed it and redid the progression so it wasn't so grindy.
And for anyone buying into a publisher's "but they're optional" nonsense, remember that if the publisher didn't want you to buy them, they wouldn't be there in the first place.
Assasins Creed Odyssee is more egriegous as is wolfenstein.
Infact the wolfenstein exemple from bugthesta is even more glorious due to the game beeing an terrible mess, but the first thing fixed was making cheat engine go away in order to defend their gakky microtransaction market.
In a single and coop player game.
