Now I am not a big fan of the house of lords , but for once I agree with them, loot boxes is gambling, they act like slot machines. I really want this to happen because I really despise this practice in full priced games. Hopefully this will be the end of loot boxes.
I posted this on HeelVsBabyface video about the same… It’s pretty sad when you’re happy for government involvement into private business practices. But when those practices are so egregious, as loot boxes are, you have to root for this to happen. Hopefully the US will take it up next.
The name “loot boxes” has to be changed. “Loot” implies “looting” therefore they must be renamed, “Protest Boxes.”
I’m sure something will pass in America, soon enough.
If we can stop listening to the medias attempt to start a race war long enough, anyway.
Now, let’s see how else governments start interfering with gaming in the name of protecting children.
We gave them way in. They will take full advantage.
Being forced to buy extras after buying a $60 game is abuse.
Full DLC? Fine. If you get content like in the Witcher where the 2 main DLCs were an additional 15 – 20 hours.
DLC that is a new set of clothing? Fuck off.
I completely agree, micro-transactions do not belong in full priced games. Free to play can have them as long as they are not stupid prices. But in full price games it’s pure unfettered greed.
In a world where Gamestop is still a thing pushing used game sales…micro-transactions have their place as no one is really twisting your arm to buy anything extra outside the mobile market. If nickel and diming GTA Online players with in game currency allows Rockstar the luxury of spending eight years to develop masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption 2, I have no problem with it. If it helps smaller studios ensure the continued support of what may be a niche title and allow them to grow as a company, I have no problem with it. It’s no different than Jeremy having membership tiers on the site and selling merch. Even Battlefront II’s lootboxes and dlc currency served a purpose as the game was set to offer tons of free content through regular updates and be supported for several years in a marketplace where games are usually discounted within months.
Defends Battlefront 2 and expects people to take him seriously. haha
These companies make record profits every year, in the billions, you are straight up retarded if you believe the defense “they cant afford to make games unless they exploit children and addiction”.
People like you are to gaming as woke culture is to movies.
I’m only against “Pay to Win” stuff.
If you pay only for skins and visual stuff, then I don’t care, you do you. I’m more of a single player anyway. :P
I don’t like the idea of loot boxes at all. If it was just straight up microtransactions that you can see what you’re buying, I’m fine with that. I think the only loot box system I didn’t really mind was in Fortnite’s Save the World because you could earn V-bucks in-game relatively easy and spend them on the loot llamas if you wanted. They also had other forms of currency you could earn to get seasonal items as well. It doesn’t feel predatory. The battle royale on the other hand..
Yeah I think microtransactions are ok to a point nothing that’s pure pay to win cosmetic only, I agree with you on loot boxes, the problem as you point out is you don’t know what you are getting and it does fall under gambling.
Thread’s glitched, so if this posts multiple times…my bad?
I never said EA couldn’t afford it…but they are in the business to make money, plain and simple.
Long answer… they had the mother of all high dollar licenses and multiple projects in the works with tons of folks employed across several studios with two games fueling interest in their efforts and expected to keep interest high for the mothership that were the films. They were releasing a sequel to a game that scored mixed reviews and was heavily discounted (which could’ve ate into sales), they were offering free substantial dlc packs over several years in a marketplace which sees prices tank within months for most games. Again, they’re in the business to make money, when has any CEO been all like…”We’re perfectly fine with only getting a certain amount for our product, and not all that we can”?
Now sure, they could’ve came up with a better way to nickel and dime the folks that have no problem with being nickel’d and dimed, but the lootboxes weren’t as bad as folks made them out to be. Did they exploit children and those with gambling addictions? No more than every other blind box thing out there that nobody raises a stink about in the collectibles aisle or card packs that have been around for decades. Kids buy stupid shit, always have, this is no different just because it’s in digital form. Parents should be more responsible in regards to monitoring their child’s spending habits just as much as they should be in what they play.
And yeah, BF2 actually does deserve some defending as under the old upgrade system (which was better btw once they adjusted the character and vehicle costs prerelease) it allowed you to improve other classes/characters/vehicles while you concentrated on whichever ones you were focused on at the time which made it quicker to level up stuff across the board. The only thing they offered which was truly “pay to win” was the preorder exclusive tier four cards as you normally couldn’t acquire those in game until you reached a certain level, but even that didn’t make much of a difference after a weekend or so after release when most of the player base had upgraded their stuff.
Now as far as the claim… “People like you are to gaming as woke culture is to movies.” I’m not the one here virtue signaling, Kenneth…so that comparison doesn’t fly.
It won’t be the end of loot boxes. UK laws simply mean minors are not allowed to legally gamble, so I think if any regulations come to pass it’ll mean games that feature such content will have to be rated at 18+ or they won’t be allowed to sell their product. Publishers may also have to pay a gambling license and it’ll up to them to decide if it’s worth the hassle.
I still think it’ll be a good step in the right direction. Hopefully this could lead to discouraging game companies from the more exploitative practices that come with microtransactions. Personally I’m okay with cosmetic-only stuff; it’s your money if you want your character to look fab, but “pay-to-win” is absolutely cancerous.
I am against, looks dota 2, they specifically create the heroes ugly, wih poor shitty outfit, to give the player no choice to pay for a good outfit for they haven’t to play with lame characters,
they updated and make stronger characters when they add them legendary expensive outfit, and put down their stats months latter when the sellings of these outfits dropped ,
they always trick people, you think it’s just outfit, it always start like that, and give false excuse like re-equilibrating the game, it’s still a pay to win but so sneaky people won’t notice it fast!
plus people such I which grow up with games that unlock full,oufit when you master the game and the endings, want to unlock every outfit !
it’s a goal!
I fully agree with this, loot boxes are a lottery and are gambling for children plain and simple.
However, it is complicated because this is a sales model that has been used for a long time by things such as the football stickers – you buy a sealed pack of stickers hoping to get the Maradona shiny to complete your book but get ten Teddy Sheringhams instead – so if this passes for gaming loot boxes in games then are football stickers etc. next? And what about those sealed Lego minifigures etc. – you’re paying a fiver for a random chance of getting the one you want. That sounds like a small gamble to me too.
The companies will no doubt argue about it not being as lottery as you do get goods worth the value you pay for every time adn that is what you buy, and therefore there is no monetary stake put down for the random chance of it being a lot better than what you pay for.
But yes, it’s good of The Lords to raise this issue.