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.

Good.

This level of abusive, manipulative behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

It's really a shame that it hasn't been talked about in more legislative bodies really.

Pay for risk is fine. What isnt fine getting the state involved where no rights have been violated.

You guys dont learn from history do you?

You can boycott goods just fine. I do.

If you guys had your way you'd have the state destroy the card game industry as well.

 BuFFo wrote:
If you guys had your way you'd have the state destroy the card game industry as well.

Given how much of a broken, irreparable mess Yugioh is, it could use some destroying. But your hyperbole is nonsense.

 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.

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:
Pay for risk is fine. What isnt fine getting the state involved where no rights have been violated.

You guys dont learn from history do you?

You can boycott goods just fine. I do.

If you guys had your way you'd have the state destroy the card game industry as well.

Those companies got the state involved by not regulating themselves and doing harm to children. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

"It's not heroin, it's surprise opiates."

 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.

 Togusa wrote:

 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.

 Hawky wrote:

 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:

 Hawky wrote:

 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.

Now we only need the pope declare a crusade.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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....

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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?!

Very worrisome.

 Togusa wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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?!

Very worrisome.

Aye it's no longer mp, or Sports game.

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.