Let's talk about Loot Boxes

[Benny]

I don't really like Jimquisition most of the time, but this video pretty much refutes most of Broker's arguments, just for the sheer number of examples:

 

 

To argue that the slippery slope hasn't been shown to have literally been happening in this case is laughable.

[Stanley]

Broker didn't actually present an argument for why loot boxes are ok, that's the thing.

[MW_Jimmy]

Because we won't get sequels to multimillion dollar franchises based on one of the largest grossing films of all time otherwise

[Stanley]

3 hours ago, Benny said:

I don't really like Jimquisition most of the time, but this video pretty much refutes most of Broker's arguments, just for the sheer number of examples:

 

 

To argue that the slippery hasn't been shown to have literally been happening in this case is laughable.

"You tit" 

[Flub]

12 hours ago, chamberlago said:

It's seedy and unethical and needs regulating like any other form of gambling.

 

This. It's gambling. Pure and simple. These companies hire various experts and then proceed to design these systems in the most predatory way possible to maximise how addictive they are. The sooner it gets regulated the better.

 

I'm quite happy to directly buy cosmetic items (You should see my purchase history in Star Trek Online) but loot boxes are an absolute pox on the gaming industry. Given how authoritative the UK government can be with the internet I'm amazed they haven't cracked down on it already. But I suppose they've been a bit distracted

[robdood]

I feel I have to just spell this out,  again. 

 

The problem with loot boxes isn't whether they 'break' or 'ruin' games, it's that they are basically disguised gambling mechanisms that cost real money and are designed to be addictive in the same way a slot machine is. 

 

I don't give a fuck how expensive your game is to make or continue making. Potentially creating addicts under the guise of being able to give out free map packs in future to everyone is morally abhorrent. Whether you are the creator or the consumer, defending this practice is inexcusable. 

 

 

[Qazimod]

On 10/10/2017 at 13:58, Nate Dogg III said:

 

Guess you missed the 'sensible' bit. You're putting Overwatch's fun earnable cosmetics on an even keel with the worst kind of game-breaking P2W shit imaginable, and that doesn't get you anywhere. 

 

If you don't know whether you're getting a harmless cosmetic or a broken perk, is it both?

 

Schrödinger's Loot.

[jonny_rat]

The ESRB has stated that loot boxes don't fulfil their definition of gambling, so trying to get any game using them classed as for mature audiences only isn't going to work.

 

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/10/11/esrb-says-it-doesnt-see-loot-boxes-as-gambling

 

It's fair enough I guess, in that the ESRB has a definition that it needs to stick to, and changing that definition would have a wider impact than just loot crates in games. The argument now perhaps needs to switch to whether any kind of randomised purchase needs to be reclassed.

[Stanley]

Unfortunately for the ESRB they don't get to decide what is or isn't gambling. This needs to be raised in parliament.

[Captain Kelsten]

I don't mind loot boxes that offer only cosmetic rewards - the overwatch model - but I don't agree with charging for them. I particularly don't agree when they offer anything that could affect actual gameplay. 

[Halo]

The ESRB are a games industry trade body so no surprise.

 

The analogy between CCGs and loot boxes is fair, but it's a matter of scale. It's far easier to dismiss the slightly dubious morals of the simplistic low-cost Panini sticker book as harmless fun than it is manipulative loot boxes, much like a 2p machine at a fair compared with £1-a-go fruit machines or, even worse, the destructive plague of FOTB machines.

 

Governments need to step in to address the issue. For that to happen, you probably need right-wing press outrage about children gambling.

[SharkyOB]

On 10/10/2017 at 16:19, carlospie said:

I love loot boxes

 

I love lamp.

[Broker]

Just to quickly clarify, I’m not really in favour or against loot boxes/season passes or anything else. I’ve not really done the research to state outright what is or isn’t ok, but the point I was trying to make is that Benny and Stanley’s globalising and homogenising everything isn’t helpful to discussion. Every publisher and ever developer is not the same. Every implementation of additional grabs for revenue is not the same. And every media outlet is not the same. The “games publishers will ALWAYS take the piss” and “EVERY games journalist is a useless shill” statements were what I was arguing with.

[Stanley]

The difference with Panini stickers and Pokemon cards is that, first of all, you haven't already paid  £60 for the sticker album or whatever it is you need for the Pokemon cards. Secondly they are aimed squarely at children and only available through retailers. So it's likely that any purchases would be made and regulated by parents.  Also once your collection is complete there's no compulsion to continue buying them, unlike loot boxes which feature consumable items. In theory there's no end to them. You could carry on buying more and more and never be satisfied.

 

With loot boxes the games are primarily aimed at adults and are much easier to access with no regulation. It's just such a misleading comparison.

[Stanley]

10 minutes ago, Broker said:

Just to quickly clarify, I’m not really in favour or against loot boxes/season passes or anything else. I’ve not really done the research to state outright what is or isn’t ok, but the point I was trying to make is that Benny and Stanley’s globalising and homogenising everything isn’t helpful to discussion. Every publisher and ever developer is not the same. Every implementation of additional grabs for revenue is not the same. And every media outlet is not the same. The “games publishers will ALWAYS take the piss” and “EVERY games journalist is a useless shill” statements were what I was arguing with.

No one was saying that Broker, now you're doing what you're accusing others of, generalising.

 

All publishers that incorporate loot boxes, in any capacity, no matter how seemingly harmless they might appear, are promoting gambling. I think that's pretty inexcusable. They should not be in full price games. End of.

[RFT]

15 minutes ago, Halo said:

The ESRB are a games industry trade body so no surprise.

 

The analogy between CCGs and loot boxes is fair, but it's a matter of scale. It's far easier to dismiss the slightly dubious morals of the simplistic low-cost Panini sticker book as harmless fun than it is manipulative loot boxes, much like a 2p machine at a fair compared with £1-a-go fruit machines or, even worse, the destructive plague of FOTB machines.

 

Governments need to step in to address the issue. For that to happen, you probably need right-wing press outrage about children gambling.

 

While they are, I don;t think you could ever say that they were particularly cosy with or soft on the industry. in general, if they can regulate something, they will...

[Nate Dogg III]

Here's that deep, investigative journalism the corporate shills didn't want you to read http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-11-are-loot-boxes-gambling

[Benny]

That's a good article. Why are you being snarky about it?

[Stanley]

It's alright. The Panini sticker cards comparison needs to stop though.

[Nate Dogg III]

9 minutes ago, Benny said:

That's a good article. Why are you being snarky about it?

 

I'm not being snarky about the piece, it's great. 

[Stanley]

I think we can all agree that it needs better regulation. We're not going to be able to stop them doing it that much is clear. So we need much tougher regulations. To begin with players should be able to set spending limits on them, or even total self exclusion. But further than that industry regulators need to impose those limits too. 

[Benny]

16 minutes ago, Nate Dogg III said:

 

I'm not being snarky about the piece, it's great. 

 

I meant being snarky about posting it.

[Harsin]

I think it might have been in response to my earlier post about the Kotaku article. I may have been a bit hyperbolic. But there are a fair few some sites out there that cheerlead any shitty practice that the games industry has latched onto. I felt the Kotaku article felt like an advertorial. You disagree, fair enough. It wasn't meant as an attack on the entire games media,  I'm more than aware there are also many good sites out there

[Nate Dogg III]

Wasn't at you Harsin, you're fine. There was some sentiment earlier in the thread that the game press doesn't do this stuff. Turns out it does. Who knew!

[Mr Cochese]

Am I fine too?

[TehStu]

38 minutes ago, Nate Dogg III said:

Wasn't at you Harsin, you're fine. There was some sentiment earlier in the thread that the game press doesn't do this stuff. Turns out it does. Who knew!

Not enough of the press. Obviously some do, because VG247 also had a piece laying into loot boxes in BF II.

[MW_Jimmy]

Metro has a great article on them aswell:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/10/12/loot-boxes-are-ruining-gaming-and-only-you-can-stop-them-6994190/amp/

[MW_Jimmy]

Also PEGI response to this is incredibly poor. From the Eurogamer article:

Quote

Loot crates are currently not considered gambling: you always get something when you purchase them, even if it's not what you hoped for," says Dirk Bosmans, from European video game rating organisation PEGI. "For that reason, a loot crate system does not trigger the gambling content descriptor."

 

And a Wikipedia definition of gambling

Quote

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. 

 

I think PEGI are talking a bunch of rubbish. Loot boxes are an uncertain outcome - it's gambling. Also, it's very possible you don't get anything - most (but not all) of these systems don't do anything to recognise duplicates and in those instant you have definitely received nothing for your money.

 

Also here PEGI really descriptive Gambling description:

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/33/

 

Quote

 

Gambling
Games that encourage or teach gambling

 

A label that Yakuza Zero has on its box for its entirely pretend gambling (but obviously has to have it for teaching roulette, poker etc.) but it seems to me they are not putting onto games that encourage gambling - loot boxes.

[Harsin]

So if Ladbrokes gave you a Freddo every time you lost they wouldn't be subject to gambling legislation? Someone needs to tell them!

[Flub]

It's yet another area where the law hasn't caught up to the internet world yet.

 

I'm really disappointed about Battlefront 2

 

 

 

Jim commented in one of his earlier videos that the $60 games getting this shit are mostly the ones that least need it. The biggest of the AAA titles.