I was making the three comparisons to show the “slippery slope” — at what threshold does this flimsy definition of gambling, requiring that you get nothing in return hold and still be relevant?
You’re conflating two definitions of “win” — getting the prize you actually wanted (say, a ton of cash from hitting triple 7s), with our artificially contrived consolation prize (objectively worthless used tissues). I’m relying on luck to ensure I get the prize that incentivizes me to play and win (the cash). The consolation used tissues prize would not, incentivize me to play. I would consider that poor value. The same as when I open a loot box I paid money for and I get a skin or a spray I’m never going to use, then I also consider that poor value. That doesn’t change the fact I burned actual money on the thing for a chance to get what I wanted. If the cash prize in the slot machine/legendary skin I actually wanted didn’t exist, then the problem here would be moot.
I probably should have been more specific — the dopamine rush is addictive and is linked to gambling problems (google it, there have been studies done). I’m using the biological aspect to emphasize that the difference between common gambling and loot boxes to your brain is very small. Therefore, we should not be viewing loot boxes as “much different” from actual gambling like slot machines. Whether we bring this into legislation is its own matter.
Additionally, there is a reason why loot boxes give off sounds, animations, bright flashes and are sensationalized and drawn out. Because that’s the same techniques actual casinos use you to get hooked. Take EA’s Need for Speed for example.
I dont think so… I mean.
Lets even see how OW even makes money.
Selling the game via PC, Digital Stores, and the other Consoles.
Merchandises and stuff.
Blizzcon and Tickets for OWL
I dont see much of a big part of income.
There are some places where Lootbox is FINE and where it is BAD
Dmon, if you see this great for Overwatch, I prefer that you and people like you, dont look forward for Server Stability and more skins since they cost money and lot of days to make. Its a big process to keep the servers up, maintenance and bugs/patches to be done.
Many of the olden games are dead cause of this who used to have Multiplayers but no one plays cause of either no players, no new content and stability. Why you ask? Cause of course, no income.
Overwatch is actually one of the games I am pretty fine with Lootboxes. They arent like SUPER DIFFICULT to earn like Ea’s Battlfront or Ubisoft new Trials game. Just level up, open box and easy.
Heck for people like you, they even opened Arcade to earn 3 per week in 9 games.
Team Fortress 2 did a scummy deal by changing from Pay 2 Play to Free 2 play just so they can remove crafting and add tier cosmetics cause they know, idiots will pay money for that stuff. And when you level up an do quests, you get the lowest of items and you gotta still buy a key for that, even pubg.
Overwatch is fine in its lootboxes, its not super impossible or cheating you. Its a lootbox which is can be accessed without purchasing a key.
I admit I will be kinda bummed if they get rid of lootboxes in my region because I think they’re fun, to an extent. I don’t know what I’m getting and I might like what I end up with even if I didn’t think to seek it out.
And I bought like 20 during Halloween for the Halloween stuff. :’D
I’ll pretty much just echo what Jim Stirling said and say that if the game industry won’t self-regulate, someone else will come in and regulate for them.
The loot boxes in Overwatch aren’t particularly bad, but in other games they’re horrible and are a form of pseudo gambling. But since the ESA/ESRB won’t step in to keep things on the level and instead let developers have free reign with their aggressive monetization, the FTC will do it for them.
Lootboxes can be very addictive to people without self control and 90% of us do not have self control especially kids under 15 years ago.
I know a 15 years old dude spent over 900 USD on fornite this year lol and one of my cousins spent over 2000 USD on gears of wars packs that is a retarded amount of money for simple vanity items
You see if it’s happening at that age, it sounds like bad parenting or even financial neglect.
When my parents purchased anything for us on console or even PC back in the day, they did it themselves, punched in the numbers themselves, then deleted the card or set it to one time use.
My brother did this once when he was 16, bought a year of gold and like 3 games totaling like $150 because my dad had left his card on the console by accident. Chump change really especially they were pretty successful, but my parents beat his *** and made him pay it all back over the summer.
If that’s happening with kids, it’s the parent’s responsibility to step in or at least monitor their accounts because I sure as hell know that 15 year old doesn’t have $900 laying around of his own accord. I blame the parents whole heartedly, not the business practices.
Idk how many OW players are happy about it because they just have skins, but in a lot of games the boxes provide a very clear advantage over other players. It might be a good thing if instead, they just give us coins to buy the skins we want.
I have a great idea for blizzard to make money. how about they sell Overwatch as a full priced game. or sell merchandise based on characters from the game or they could sell tickets to go see the esports they have…
I saw no problem with lootboxes, you got them just for playing anyway and really again why should people have to lose out because some parent decided it was a good idea to give their credit card info to their child or because someone cannot budget their money properly?
Most I talked to who hate lootbox systems seem to think the skins and such will be obtainable in-game from achievements or now free, laughing in my head they were already kinda free to get in-game just by leveling/arcade anyway just abit slower.
I laugh at those who think skins won’t have a price-tag on them making them wish the lootboxes to return.
I mean what angle do you want me to approach this from? Should we talk about people with addictive personalities or poor impulse control like the guy who spent 15,000 dollars on fifa lootboxes? Should we talk about loot boxes that have been tied to progression like in Star Wars battlefront 2? Or maybe we should talk about it by looking at how games like Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II had to be retuned when they had their lootboxes removed because they had been intentionally designed to be grindy and repetitive nightmares to try to encourage people to buy lootboxes before the removal laid bare how actually unplayable they were rendered just to try to push people to resort to putting down cash?
I wish that I could say that just because you or I might choose not to buy loot boxes that they have no negative impact but the sad fact is that they do. Whether it’s by their effects on susceptible individuals as unregulated gambling or whether it’s by mutating the experience for the rest of us, as they continue to spread across the industry like some malignant infection they are certainly having an impact.
I don’t think that OW’s loot boxes are the worst thing ever. This is a case unfortunately where OW is going to have to suffer for the greed and the lack of restraint that other companies have shown. That being said, I honestly wish they would let me make direct purchases at reasonable price points.
Looking at how much they charged for that 30 dollar Lucio Emote or those All Star (?) skins though I can’t say I’m optimistic that they understand what a reasonable price point is.
No one is asking for free stuff. It’s asking for company to stop anti consumer practices there’s a million other profitable business options they can still use and would work
I agree with your concerns and explanation in the first paragraph, however, I have a problem with one thing.
People like to argue with addictive personalities, addicted people to gambling and associate it with lootboxes. Fair enough. Now let’s fix the problem - let’s ban lootboxes. Oh, they are now at casinos, losing tens of thousands every minute, wasting not only their money, but also property, family property and raising incredible debts. They successfully ruined their lives. Okay, that did not work.
The problem is - banning one small “problem” will lead to even bigger problems for addicted people. They need a professional. Society should not shape around them, we can help them, prehaps ‘cure’ them, but not focus on them, they are minority.
The more reasonable approach may be the argument it can spark such addiction. Let’s say, kids (another liked topic to discuss regarding this) can develop addictive spending thanks to lootboxes. But it can also work the other way around. Those things can help teach the kids to spend responsibly, if they parents care. They can also help teach kids that chances are, you are not getting what you want, discouraging them from slot machines.
I believe it is true that it can spark addiction, but again, we should not shape society according to minorities. If this happens to bring up such behaviour, let them see professional and it may prevent the problem. It is way better than if they visited casino and made a debt during their first visit, successfuly increasing it with each visit after that. Try to stop them then, when they lost so much, and they believe they are so close to winning it back, and even multiplying it.
Conversely, I believe that you can judge a society based on how it treats it’s minorities. To the amount of consideration that it grants to people who are not in the majority.
Do I think it’s obnoxious when say, a school bans peanut butter because a few kids have an allergy? Sure. But I ask myself if I, in those people’s shoes (either as one of those kids or the parent of one of those kids) would appreciate that same consideration.
And that’s exactly what I meant. You raised a very good point. It is all subjective. If I don’t have peanut butter allergy and I like peanut butter it will have only negative consequences. If I don’t like it, it will have no consequences at all. If I however have allergy it will have negative consequences.
Who of those kids should do something about it? If it gets banned, kids with allergy can become too comfortable that they can not come in contact with the thing that causes allergy to them in school that they will not be prepared for it. They may not take their medication with them and if they somehow come in contact, they will have a big problem. If it wasn’t banned, they would be always ready for it, they would be more cautious and bring medications with them, which would help them in the future if they developed such a habit early in school.
This problem is not about majority or minority, it’s about caring for oneself. As they should bring medications always with them, so should addicted people seek professional help. Banning the problem is not the solution. You can’t completely isolate someone from allergen or gambling. They need to be educated, aware of their problem and take actions to prevent it or mitigate the consequences. I probably should have used different examples in my previous post, majorities and minorities is not a good example of this, but it somehow fits for me. This is better one, I believe.