[Semi OT] Microtransactions, Lootboxes and in-game pay mechanisms - The Thread.

[Snowflakez]

I think there's definitely more nuance to the situation than even this poll can/does capture.

Here are my complete thoughts on the microtransaction/loot box debate, in detail.

First of all, Free to Play games should absolutely have microtransactions. How else are they supposed to make money? Whether or not those microtransactions come in the form of loot boxes is inconsequential to me, since its a free-to-play title, but I'd largely prefer them to be non-loot boxes, of course. Still, I'm OK with basically any form of monetization here, because that's the price you pay for playing a free-to-play title. I do put my foot down when it comes to pay-to-win stuff, though. I'm OK with small advantages coming from lootboxes or microtransactions (pay to progress faster, in other words), but nothing significant.

Second, multiplayer titles that receive frequent FREE updates and DO NOT have DLC or other forms of monetization. In this situation, I'm also 100% OK with microtransactions, and I'm OK with COSMETIC loot boxes. I used to feel differently - I used to feel that, even in the case of Overwatch, loot boxes in general were both predatory and anti-consumer. While I still feel they are predatory, I also recognize that with the ongoing costs associated with a game like Overwatch (Server costs, bigger billing departments, and ongoing development, free content and heroes etc.), they are necessary. Why specifically loot boxes? Why not "buy cosmetics outright"? Because loot boxes allow a very small portion of the player base to finance a ton of free content for the rest of the playerbase (I'm referring to the "whales" and "dolphins", of course). Is it predatory? Again, yes, but Blizzard understands its basically the best method available right now to keep the game going.

The other category here is multiplayer titles that do NOT receive free content updates, and see annual releases (Call of duty, Battlefield, etc.), and get paid DLC. These can have microtransactions, but MOST CERTAINLY NOT loot boxes. Why? Because they never reach the point where they need to start recouping ongoing development costs. These games re-release annually, and are constantly seeing a stream of massive revenue from that alone. They also have PAID (not free!) DLC, map packs, expansions, and more. There is no excuse for loot boxes at all here.

Finally, singleplayer titles. No microtransactions, period. End of story. They do NOT belong in singleplayer titles, and I will NOT purchase games that have them. There is absolutely no excuse. Singleplayer games do not have anywhere near the level of ongoing expenses a game like Overwatch has, and especially with games like the Witcher 3, large DLC packs can come in at $30+ with great success, and you still see stuff like deluxe editions, collectors editions, pre-order bonuses, product partnerships (Doritos and mountain dew, anyone?) and more that bring in additional revenue.

 

[Balloers100]

They're not trying to outlaw lootboxes, merely regulate the gambling aspects of their current implementation.

No, the Hawaiian senator who is working with the other 49 states is trying to make in app purchases and microtransactions illegal if you watch the YouTube video that he and his staff made to give out the statement and read about what the mother of two kids he had to also talk about and a video gamer he had up at the podeum to talk about how he doesn't want his two kids to grow up addicted to purchasing them.

It has been said Overwatches cosmetic items will also be banned.

The Hawaiian senator is also wanting to address the psychological and mental health issues that come with impulse purchases of microtransactions in video games.

So yeah the government of the United States of America in the coming year is officially stepping in to regulate video games so greedy companies don't take advantages of children and make people who have no self control end up in debt or lose their house or lose their jobs.

If you read what Chris Less said you can read in his comment he said loot boxes and microtransactions causing psychological issues and how they are targeted to people to keep on purchasing them.

 

[Suhiira]

No, the Hawaiian senator who is working with the other 49 states is trying to make in app purchases and microtransactions illegal if you watch the YouTube video that he and his staff made to give out the statement and read about what the mother of two kids he had to also talk about and a video gamer he had up at the podeum to talk about how he doesn't want his two kids to grow up addicted to purchasing them.

Like so many other attempts to legislate things I suspect this is yet another case of a political figure jumping on a band wagon with little to no real knowledge of the subject matter.
There's absolutely nothing even remotely illegal or immoral about cosmetic lootboxes. They're an optional item with zero real effect on a game.

They might as well try to regulate that all games must be PG. They're games after all so obviously the target audience is children!
No ... wait ... they tried that ... and look how far it got them.

 

[Balloers100]

Like so many other attempts to legislate things I suspect this is yet another case of a political figure jumping on a band wagon with little to no real knowledge of the subject matter.
There's absolutely nothing even remotely illegal or immoral about cosmetic lootboxes. They're an optional item with zero real effect on a game. That might as well try to say all games must be voice acted, or never be voice acted. Ultimately to presence or absence of voice is cosmetic. (In spite of some people's claims otherwise.)

I think we should just wait and see what the law does when it goes into effect in 2018 if it does or in 2019.

 

[Sardukhar]

Ah, there is zero guarantee of any law going into effect, for multiple reasons.

1. It's still just on the agenda of Hawaii and Belgium as a proposal - not legislation. Not even a formal proposal that might become legislation.

2. States regulate state law, not federal law. Big difference. The US Government is very much -not- stepping in to regulate this activity yet. One (not very powerful) state would like to see it happen, but that's a very long way from a law. And the US Federal right now is very corporate-friendly. Bet against it being a federal law.

3. UK Gambling Commission has restated loot boxes aren't gambling - that's a big piece of evidence against the gambling argument. They did say it can still be harmful to children - but that rolls back on videogames as harmful, not the same argument as lootboxes being a form of gambling.

4. This is all one-sided yet - the companies have yet to make serious legal counterarguments, which is what happens when the law is tested. EA has already stated their strong opposition.

5 The Australians are far from decided. The regulator for the Australian state of Victoria says, ""The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) is aware of the issue of "loot boxes". This is a complex issue and the VCGLR is committed to working with other agencies and jurisdictions to address the risks involved.

"The VCGLR has not made a determination that "loot boxes" are an unauthorised form of gambling under Victorian legislation.""


So there is no timeline for a law, there is no existing proposal for state or federal laws in place and there is no framework in place for enforcement of the law that there is no proposal for or legislation for such proposal. There is a serious gambling body deciding it's not gambling, another one undecided and many beginning inquiries.

 

[eraser7278]

There's absolutely nothing even remotely illegal or immoral about cosmetic lootboxes. They're an optional item with zero real effect on a game.

it could be argued they violate civil contract law, the essential elements of which are:
(1) offer
(2) acceptance
(3) consideration
(4) mutuality of obligation
(5) competency and capacity

minors lack competency and capacity to contract, which is why several "free to play" games have "chosen" to forgive innumerable in app purchases made by children. The thing with lootboxes is there can be no "meeting of the minds", one party is selling a random item of no tangible value which it can delete from existence at a later date when they take the servers down. There's also the lack of transparency about drop rates and artificial scarcity, to say nothing of the predatory nature of these skinnerboxes.

If the companies want to avoid scrutiny on the gambling front they could do what every other business does, sell a known quantity for an advertised price.

 

[felixsylvaris]

It s generally pro consumer for good to provide information what critical ingrediens it contain. It could be hazlenuts or palm oil.
It could be information about online gaming, violence, gambling.
Parents want information if the new Lego game contains MTX lootboxes.
Adult gamers may as well value information about MTX.
Info like "P2W" would be helpfull in decision making.

 

[Suhiira]

If the companies want to avoid scrutiny on the gambling front they could do what every other business does, sell a known quantity for an advertised price.

Agreed, but we all know that's exactly why they don't do just that.
They count on the "win at any cost" nature of some PvP players, the "I want it now" nature of other players, and the "I don't have time to grind" nature of yet other players.

Viewed as a study in gamer psychology they've done a spectacular job of appealing to many players. And let's face it, the ones that spend very little or nothing on loot boxes can bitch all they want, the company wasn't getting much of anything out of them in the first place so who cares.

 

[Balloers100]

Ah, there is zero guarantee of any law going into effect, for multiple reasons.

1. It's still just on the agenda of Hawaii and Belgium as a proposal - not legislation. Not even a formal proposal that might become legislation.

2. States regulate state law, not federal law. Big difference. The US Government is very much -not- stepping in to regulate this activity yet. One (not very powerful) state would like to see it happen, but that's a very long way from a law. And the US Federal right now is very corporate-friendly. Bet against it being a federal law.

3. UK Gambling Commission has restated loot boxes aren't gambling - that's a big piece of evidence against the gambling argument. They did say it can still be harmful to children - but that rolls back on videogames as harmful, not the same argument as lootboxes being a form of gambling.

4. This is all one-sided yet - the companies have yet to make serious legal counterarguments, which is what happens when the law is tested. EA has already stated their strong opposition.

5 The Australians are far from decided. The regulator for the Australian state of Victoria says, ""The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) is aware of the issue of "loot boxes". This is a complex issue and the VCGLR is committed to working with other agencies and jurisdictions to address the risks involved.

"The VCGLR has not made a determination that "loot boxes" are an unauthorised form of gambling under Victorian legislation.""


So there is no timeline for a law, there is no existing proposal for state or federal laws in place and there is no framework in place for enforcement of the law that there is no proposal for or legislation for such proposal. There is a serious gambling body deciding it's not gambling, another one undecided and many beginning inquiries.

Whose to say that the law won't happen though? The Hawaiian senator said he is working with the other 49 states to get them to work on the legislation to happen and he wants it to happen within the coming year.

He doesn't just want it to be a federal law he wants all 50 states to have it as a law.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Agreed, but we all know that's exactly why they don't do just that.
They count on the "win at any cost" nature of some PvP players, the "I want it now" nature of other players, and the "I don't have time to grind" nature of yet other players.

Viewed as a study in gamer psychology they've done a spectacular job of appealing to many players. And let's face it, the ones that spend very little or nothing on loot boxes can bitch all they want, the company wasn't getting much of anything out of them in the first place so who cares.

Who cares? The people who would never buy them or rarely do are now being bombarded by these pay models with AAA games that DO NOT need them and these players would never otherwise bother with buying them. Case an point, Battlefront 2. These are players that only want to buy a full retail priced game and play it 100%, maybe spend money on actual DLC expansions later on. They didn't download a mobile game required to buy everything else.

When mobile games did it, there just little free games, no one cares, Ok. MMO's do it, its ok they're massive games constantly getting fresh new content for years. Players know what their buying. They're invested, no one cares, Great! Loot boxes on the other hand are entire random chance and don't need to be in any game. There's also a huge difference in paying for content you know exactly what your getting rather then an in game slot machine where its random.

Yes, this type of pay model wasn't being supported by those people, but when companies starting stepping into the territory of gamers who don't want them, that's where we're currently at now and people have reason to bitch about it or else you're going to have loot boxes in all single player games.

 

[Snowflakez]

To be clear, nobody is trying to outlaw microtransactions. That would be stupid, anti-business and anti-consumer in the end. They are specifically trying to regulate LOOT BOXES, a particular subset of microtransactions that are predatory in nature, since countries like Belgium and states like Hawaii view them as basically gambling. Personally, I'm all for it, but my stance on them is clear from the above post.

 

[Balloers100]

To be clear, nobody is trying to outlaw microtransactions. That would be stupid, anti-business and anti-consumer in the end. They are specifically trying to regulate LOOT BOXES, a particular subset of microtransactions that are predatory in nature, since countries like Belgium and states like Hawaii view them as basically gambling. Personally, I'm all for it, but my stance on them is clear from the above post.

Sigh, it is the Belgian government who is only trying to outlaw loot boxes, it is the Australian government gambling commission who is trying to outlaw the loot boxes.

The Hawaiian senator though is trying to make microtransactions illegal too, not just loot boxes.

Read his comment on reddit.com again he says loot boxes and microtransactions that cause psychological issues and keeping people from keeping on purchasing them.

It has been said that Overwatches cosmetic microtransactions will be banned. I do not know why people do not seem to get this and ignore it.

 

[Sardukhar]

Read his comment on reddit.com again he says loot boxes and microtransactions that cause psychological issues and keeping people from keeping on purchasing them.

It has been said that Overwatches cosmetic microtransactions will be banned. I do not know why people do not seem to get this and ignore it.

Because there is nothing illegal about microtransactions - they aren't gambling.

Chris Lee, from Hawaii, said this:

"These kinds of lootboxes and microtransactions are explicitly designed to prey upon and exploit human psychology in the same way casino games are so designed."


The same way casino games are designed. That means loot-box style microtransactions. Buying horse armour or a cosmetic skin isn't at all like a casino game. You pay your money and you get what's advertised. No one is trying to stop that. You really couldn't, any more than you could ban car makers from selling after-purchase accessories.

When you buy a skin in Overwatch, that's not gambling. When you buy a crate that -might- contain a skin or a prize, but might not, that is gambling. That's why those kinds of microtransactions are under scrutiny.

And, again, one Hawaii senator is not 49 other states. I haven't seen statements that they are onboard or any state governments are trying to regulate it. "In discussions" doesn't mean a lot and "looking at regulating it" doesn't mean a lot.

 

[Suhiira]

Who cares?

I ment who cares on the corporate side.
The only thing we as players can do is not buy their games in the first place. And given the amounts they make off loot boxes even the initial game sales figures pale in comparison in many cases.
It's obvious E/A for instance could care less what gamers think of them as long as they continue to turn the highest possible profit.

They make an excellent case study in corporate strategy for CP2077.

 

[Balloers100]

Because there is nothing illegal about microtransactions - they aren't gambling.

Chris Lee, from Hawaii, said this:

"These kinds of lootboxes and microtransactions are explicitly designed to prey upon and exploit human psychology in the same way casino games are so designed."


The same way casino games are designed. That means loot-box style microtransactions. Buying horse armour or a cosmetic skin isn't at all like a casino game. You pay your money and you get what's advertised. No one is trying to stop that. You really couldn't, any more than you could ban car makers from selling after-purchase accessories.

When you buy a skin in Overwatch, that's not gambling. When you buy a crate that -might- contain a skin or a prize, but might not, that is gambling. That's why those kinds of microtransactions are under scrutiny.

And, again, one Hawaii senator is not 49 other states. I haven't seen statements that they are onboard or any state governments are trying to regulate it. "In discussions" doesn't mean a lot and "looking at regulating it" doesn't mean a lot.

I will hold off judgment to see what happens whenever it is that the legislation goes into effect and becomes law.

Chris Lee would not have a mother of two kids and a video gamer of two kids go up to the podium to also speak about not wanting their children to grow up with this stuff and to not want them to make their way from the mobile smart phone video games into the video games sold for PC and for consoles like the video gamer said at the podium.

It doesn't even change the fact that it's been said and being discussed that Overwatches microtransactions will be banned, they use Overwatch as a example since Overwatch has A LOT of cosmetic microtransactions.

Believe what you will, but I will believe the way the wording is worded in his comment in that way.

I seriously hope the money squeezing of microtrasactions become illegal too not just loot boxes.

 

[Snowflakez]

You realize microtransactions are essential for many games to survive, right? It would be ridiculous to just say "ban em all!" without any thought of the consequences.

Yes, we are gamers, and we want to be treated well. However, if you don't even bother to look at it from the business' perspective as well (I am NOT referring to anti-consumer microtransactions, just so you know), you aren't getting the whole picture. How can we expect a game like Heroes of the Storm, for example, to continue putting out heroes, updates, etc. without microtransactions? I despise their Loot Box system and would prefer they allowed for the purchasing of cosmetics outright, but since its F2P they get more leeway in my eyes.

What about Overwatch? Overwatch isn't getting massive game sales on a regular basis, they get their income from people who buy the cosmetic loot boxes. I don't like it, but that's pretty much the best method available to them right now.

And yes, as Sard said, Hawaii is looking to specifically outlaw microtransactions that prey upon those with gambling addictions. He doesn't want a blanket ban on all micro-transactions, again that would be ridiculous and do serious harm to the multiplayer side of the gaming industry. Way too many multiplayer games of all stripes (especially those from non-shitty companies, as in, not EA, Ubisoft or Activision) rely on them to get by.

Singleplayer titles like CP2077 or TW3 would, of course, be unaffected by such a move.

Let's just say Overwatch removes all microtransactions. That'll never happen, but let's say they do that. How the heck do they continue to fund development? As I said, game sales are not nearly enough to keep the game afloat past the initial sales period, not for a game like Overwatch. You reach a certain point where most of the people who are going to buy the game, have already bought the game. Overwatch consistently puts out high-quality free content updatess, and creates new heroes regularly. I don't play the game, but I respect the business side.

 

[eraser7278]

Chris Lee would not have a mother of two kids and a video gamer of two kids go up to the podium to also speak about not wanting their children to grow up with this stuff and to not want them to make their way from the mobile smart phone video games into the video games sold for PC and for consoles like the video gamer said at the podium.

Question: how can you tell that a politician is lying?
Answer: you see their lips moving.

It's highly probable he's just posturing, kids make great props and moral panic brings out the elderly voters. That senator is not in the majority party, not in his own party's leadership and he sits on no sub-committee that would allow him to push this uphill. I'd be thrilled if something came of it, but all indications point to it being that old time political grandstanding.

 

[Balloers100]

You realize microtransactions are essential for many games to survive, right? It would be ridiculous to just say "ban em all!" without any thought of the consequences.

Yes, we are gamers, and we want to be treated well. However, if you don't even bother to look at it from the business' perspective as well (I am NOT referring to anti-consumer microtransactions, just so you know), you aren't getting the whole picture. How can we expect a game like Heroes of the Storm, for example, to continue putting out heroes, updates, etc. without microtransactions? I despise their Loot Box system and would prefer they allowed for the purchasing of cosmetics outright, but since its F2P they get more leeway in my eyes.

What about Overwatch? Overwatch isn't getting massive game sales on a regular basis, they get their income from people who buy the cosmetic loot boxes. I don't like it, but that's pretty much the best method available to them right now.

And yes, as Sard said, Hawaii is looking to specifically outlaw microtransactions that prey upon those with gambling addictions. He doesn't want a blanket ban on all micro-transactions, again that would be ridiculous and do serious harm to the multiplayer side of the gaming industry. Way too many multiplayer games of all stripes (especially those from non-shitty companies, as in, not EA, Ubisoft or Activision) rely on them to get by.

Singleplayer titles like CP2077 or TW3 would, of course, be unaffected by such a move.

Let's just say Overwatch removes all microtransactions. That'll never happen, but let's say they do that. How the heck do they continue to fund development? As I said, game sales are not nearly enough to keep the game afloat past the initial sales period, not for a game like Overwatch. You reach a certain point where most of the people who are going to buy the game, have already bought the game. Overwatch consistently puts out high-quality free content updatess, and creates new heroes regularly. I don't play the game, but I respect the business side.

You realize a video game like Overwatch which sold something like 30+ million copies at $60 dollars (USD) and less Blizzard Entertainment can keep on supporting it and release cosmetic items for years and years, since they earned over $1+ billion dollars (USD) in selling the video game?

Heroes of the Storm can be changed from a Free to Play (F2P) video game to a paid video game for $30 dollars (USD) and get expansion packs released for sale as well.

Change all Free to Play (F2P) video games to paid video games, unless they are MMO video games then those I guess can stay Free to Play (F2P) because no other MMO video game will ever top World of Warcraft's $15 dollars (USD) a month subscription.

World of Warcraft is the only MMO video game I actually play and have been paying $15 dollars (USD) a month for World of Warcraft.

I play EVE Online as well.

I play The Elder Scrolls Online also.

I rarely or don't even play Free to Play (F2P) video games.

Any video game that is Free to Play (F2P) if it goes to become a paid video game then I will purchase it from gog.com or pay $15 dollars (USD) if it's a MMO like World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XIV.

 

[exogenesis09]

You realize microtransactions are essential for many games to survive, right? It would be ridiculous to just say "ban em all!" without any thought of the consequences.

Yes, we are gamers, and we want to be treated well. However, if you don't even bother to look at it from the business' perspective as well (I am NOT referring to anti-consumer microtransactions, just so you know), you aren't getting the whole picture. How can we expect a game like Heroes of the Storm, for example, to continue putting out heroes, updates, etc. without microtransactions? I despise their Loot Box system and would prefer they allowed for the purchasing of cosmetics outright, but since its F2P they get more leeway in my eyes.

What about Overwatch? Overwatch isn't getting massive game sales on a regular basis, they get their income from people who buy the cosmetic loot boxes. I don't like it, but that's pretty much the best method available to them right now.

And yes, as Sard said, Hawaii is looking to specifically outlaw microtransactions that prey upon those with gambling addictions. He doesn't want a blanket ban on all micro-transactions, again that would be ridiculous and do serious harm to the multiplayer side of the gaming industry. Way too many multiplayer games of all stripes (especially those from non-shitty companies, as in, not EA, Ubisoft or Activision) rely on them to get by.

Singleplayer titles like CP2077 or TW3 would, of course, be unaffected by such a move.

Let's just say Overwatch removes all microtransactions. That'll never happen, but let's say they do that. How the heck do they continue to fund development? As I said, game sales are not nearly enough to keep the game afloat past the initial sales period, not for a game like Overwatch. You reach a certain point where most of the people who are going to buy the game, have already bought the game. Overwatch consistently puts out high-quality free content updatess, and creates new heroes regularly. I don't play the game, but I respect the business side.

THIS! This is what I want to say and smack this into their face to Microtransaction Haters. They feel like they are the victim but in the reality of business they are also a victim as well. Just like he said about cosmetics and stuffs, I also want to add about the Piracy of the Single Player games in the game industry that’s still unavoidable until now.

One of the reason why CEO Kiciński is teasing the Online Elements of Cyberpunk 2077 it’s because of this. He want to practice a Online Business Services such as Blizzard for his Games and I’m totally support for that because they have right to deserve it. CDPR wants to give us more greater experience for the game where us and them works right. Blizzard Game such as WoW and Overwatch doesn’t practice what EA does. They have different games and way of service for customers. CDPR wants to have that kind of service too for us fans and their customers. I’m completely not against for that idea and I wish they will become more like Blizzard Entertainment when it comes to reputation of the company.

Let’s support CDPR until they explain us what is their truly goal for this Cyberpunk 2077 and their future.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Might as well sticky this thread, its going to remain on top until the end of time.