Surprise Mechanics (Loot boxes and other horrible mechanics currently plaguing games)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

Yeah, I'm only posting in relation to the non-political side of things, how this is really convenient for abusive game company practices.

**Not Online!!!**

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:

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.

**LordofHats**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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

**Overread**

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.

**LordofHats**

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).

**LunarSol**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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?

**LunarSol**

Yes, 100% accident. It could have happened at the line for the bathroom for all the specifics mattered.

**Not Online!!!**

LunarSol wrote:
Yes, 100% accident. It could have happened at the line for the bathroom for all the specifics mattered.

I get the urge to Slap my head repeatadly into a table.

Or do this https://irockdecals.com/meme-s-facepalm-meme-decal/

**balmong7**

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

**Not Online!!!**

balmong7 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

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.)

**Kroem**

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.

**BaconCatBug**

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.

**Overread**

BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

**Not Online!!!**

Overread wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

**Hawky**

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?

**Yodhrin**

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.

**Ratius**

Interesting:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2019/08/07/under-threat-of-legislation-sony-microsoft-and-nintendo-agree-to-force-loot-box-odds-disclosure/#5ac12ed6449e

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.

**LunarSol**

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

**Kroem**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

I just drop this here, and go laugh crying in a corner.

**Eumerin**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

Eumerin wrote:
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.

**LunarSol**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Eumerin wrote:
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.

**Not Online!!!**

LunarSol wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Eumerin wrote:
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.

BTW, how bout this?

**Not Online!!!**

Oooooffffffff.

Virtuel slot machine for 3 year olds
Wp, Wp.
Industry standard just dropped lower somehow.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Not Online!!!**

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.