Chris Lee (loot box bills): "ESA lobbyists roaming the halls of the state capitol here as we speak"

[Animal Liberation Ⓥ]

From a few weeks ago: http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/ea-star-wars-battlefront-ii-microtransactions-1202682882/

"In the wake of the backlash, EA removed microtransactions from the game the day before it went on sale, although the company stated that they would be reinstated at a later date."

That's a statement of intent during their earnings call, doesn't get more official than that.

Click to shrink...

And they also just announced (a few weeks back) it is coming back (again); and they will detail it next month.

Why are some being so purposefully obtuse to this?

 

[Deleted member 896]

Just out of earnest curiosity, is there any site reporting on the actual process of the Hawaii bills re: their likelihood of passage or what would happen next if they did?

 

[Luxorek]

European Space Agency and loot boxes, gee wheez, anything's possible with Trump in the White House.

But seriously, too bad. When big money is at stake I'm not surprised lobbying intensifies.

 

[Abriael]

From a few weeks ago: http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/ea-star-wars-battlefront-ii-microtransactions-1202682882/

"In the wake of the backlash, EA removed microtransactions from the game the day before it went on sale, although the company stated that they would be reinstated at a later date."

That's a statement of intent during their earnings call, doesn't get more official than that.

Click to shrink...

Are you seriously basing your idea of something based on a summary by some random site?

I listened to the eanings call directly (and both transcripts and recording are available online if you're curious to hear what they actually said and not what some site reported). Not once it was mentioned that *loot boxes* or any mechanism that can be identified as gambling (even stretching the definition) will return. They have been extremely generic on what form of recurring revenue will be implemented.

Incidentally, "microtransactions" do not imply gambling. Any DLC is a microtransaction, and assuming that it'll be a form that involves gambling is as fallacious as Lee's position.

 

[Bandage]

They're literally the NRA.

 

[Deleted member 888]

Just out of earnest curiosity, is there any site reporting on the actual process of the Hawaii bills re: their likelihood of passage or what would happen next if they did?

Click to shrink...

Good question. I don't know enough about American Bill passing to guess. I presume either Hawaii only legislation or if multiple states adopt the Bills it could be many dropping them at once.

 

[Deleted member 896]

Incidentally, "microtransactions" do not imply gambling. Any DLC is a microtransaction, and assuming that it'll be a form that involves gambling is as fallacious as Lee's position.

Click to shrink...

Just to be clear here I'm not now nor have I ever been a vocal opponent of the concept of loot boxes, so I'm not saying this as a cynical jaded consumer. But my honest suspicion is that loot boxes probably will come back and that they'll probably just pivot to cosmetics over perceived Pay2Win gameplay advantages when they return.

I could easily be wrong, however, as I won't pretend to have any sort of actual insight into the development process right now.

 

[ManaByte]

Just out of earnest curiosity, is there any site reporting on the actual process of the Hawaii bills re: their likelihood of passage or what would happen next if they did?

Click to shrink...

The very next day Blizzard sues (since Hearthstone and Overwatch would be banned based on the wording of the bill).

 

[Mondy]

With the 2018 blue wave looming, this doesn't mean shit

 

[RexNovis]

Citizens United remains the single worst Supreme Court decision in the country's history. Until it's adressed the corruption and lobbying resulting from the decision will never allow true representation. The best we can hope for is small victories.

 

[Abriael]

Just to be clear here I'm not now nor have I ever been a vocal opponent of the concept of loot boxes, so I'm not saying this as a cynical jaded consumer. But my honest suspicion is that loot boxes probably will come back and that they'll probably just pivot to cosmetics over perceived Pay2Win gameplay advantages when they return.

I could easily be wrong, however, as I won't pretend to have any sort of actual insight into the development process right now.

Click to shrink...

It's certainly a possibility. There could be several other possibilities.

The fact remains that at the moment we don't know. Mr. Lee certainly doesn't know and didn't know when he made the statement I'm talking about. He defined a casino something that wasn't, and still isn't. And that is not a good foundation to base any cause on, even more so considering how canned and staged the whole video felt.

Whatever will happen in the future, a statement that is false at the time in which is made remains a false statement.

 

[Deleted member 896]

Good question. I don't know enough about American Bill passing to guess. I presume either Hawaii only legislation or if multiple states adopt the Bills it could be many dropping them at once.

Click to shrink...

I don't think I was clear enough. I mean is there anyone connected enough with state politics in Hawaii that has their finger on the pulse of what the state legislature is likely to do? Is the bill a pipe dream or is it actually likely to be passed? Or, since there's a couple of different bills, which bill(s) are likely to be passed? Once passed, is there a way for the ESA to challenge the bills?

I get that maybe it's just too early to know anything more, but all the reporting I've seen on various state bills seems to go no further than acknowledging that this is something some legislators are trying. And I'm honestly not sure if this is something where people like Chris Lee are just trying to spark the debate or whether tangible regulation is actually imminent.

 

[DR2K]

Again, we don't have the slightest idea about what form microtransactions will have in Battlefront II. Assuming that "the casino will reopen" is just an assumption. That statement made with that timing, in the present tense, is false. Plain and simple. Star Wars Battlefront II was not a casino then, it isn't now, and we don't know if it'll be in the future.



Because I don't think lies should be tolerated, and any cause based on them is severely undermined, muddling the discourse by appealing to feeling instead of rational thinking.

Why are you ok with falsehood as long as it fits a narrative that furthers a cause you're ok with?

Click to shrink...

We already know what their plans were going to be, since they announced it right before the release of the game. They also stated that they were turning off microtransactions temporarily.

I think it's pretty rational to want to wall off gambling like mechanics from children. Which is the point that we both understand it to be. I don't think his intentions really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Abriael]

I get that maybe it's just too early to know anything more, but all the reporting I've seen on various state bills seems to go no further than acknowledging that this is something some legislators are trying. And I'm honestly not sure if this is something where people like Chris Lee are just trying to spark the debate or whether tangible regulation is actually imminent.

Click to shrink...

The fact that there are lobbyists in action at some level, if true, means that they're opposing something some politicians are trying to get done. Whether actual regulation is coming or not, is up in the air now. Personally, especially with this government and with lobbying power the ESA has, I seriously doubt Lee's cause will go anywhere tangible in the US, especially since he undermined it on his own to begin with. We'll see.

We already know what their plans were going to be, since they announced it right before the release of the game. They also stated that they were turning off microtransactions temporarily.

Click to shrink...

We know they plan to have microtransactions in some form. What form, we don't know, and there isn't a single element one way or another.

I think it's pretty rational to want to wall off gambling like mechanics from children. Which is the point that we both understand it to be. I don't think his intentions really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Click to shrink...

You think the point is to wall off gambling-like mechanics from children. I think the point for Lee is a bid to grab consensus like it has always been in the past for politicians targeting video games with exactly the same methods, misinformation and pleads to knee-jerk reactions.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna tolerate that, no matter how noble he claims his cause is.

 

[ManaByte]

I don't think I was clear enough. I mean is there anyone connected enough with state politics in Hawaii that has their finger on the pulse of what the state legislature is likely to do? Is the bill a pipe dream or is it actually likely to be passed? Or, since there's a couple of different bills, which bill(s) are likely to be passed? Once passed, is there a way for the ESA to challenge the bills?

Click to shrink...

The ESA can challenge it based on the precedent set by Brown V Entertainment Merchants Ass'n:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass'n

The Hawaii bill will ban sale of games that fit the criteria to anyone under 21. So once it goes into effect (and Hearthstone and Overwatch are banned) Blizzard and the ESA can sue and cite the Supreme Court case as precedent.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

If people now hate the ESA so much, then don't watch any E3 streams. Don't consume any E3 content or engage with anything E3 related on social media. And absolutely don't pay them for a ticket to attend the show. Aside from the ESRB, E3 is their big thing.

Click to shrink...

Done.

 

[Primus]

I don't think I was clear enough. I mean is there anyone connected enough with state politics in Hawaii that has their finger on the pulse of what the state legislature is likely to do? Is the bill a pipe dream or is it actually likely to be passed? Or, since there's a couple of different bills, which bill(s) are likely to be passed? Once passed, is there a way for the ESA to challenge the bills?

Click to shrink...

I mentioned in an earlier thread that I seriously doubt the bills will pass this session. The Hawaii State Legislature is very entrenched and stacked by old guard Democrats who basically run the show. Anything new, or championed by younger members (as in the case with these bills) will usually take a few sessions before they gain real momentum. Case in point, legislation that would open the books on police misconduct records looks like it'll finally pass this year, after dying in session for the past 4-5 years in a row.

 

[Sacul64]

It hasn't reopened and there's been absolutely no hint that they plan on bringing it back anytime soon.

Click to shrink...

Except you know EA telling everyone it will reopen multiple times.

 

[Billfisto]

I listened to the eanings call directly (and both transcripts and recording are available online if you're curious to hear what they actually said and not what some site reported). Not once it was mentioned that *loot boxes* or any mechanism that can be identified as gambling (even stretching the definition) will return. They have been extremely generic on what form of recurring revenue will be implemented.

Click to shrink...

Okay.

I'll trust that EA, the company that revamped the core systems of all their major francises to crudely insert some of the worst implementations of loot boxes we've seen, and who have cancelled products because they couldn't do the same, was intentionally vague and cagey in a series of press releases / official communications because they're going to revamp the entire progression model of their game.

 

[Abriael]

Okay.
I'll trust that EA, the company that revamped the core systems of all their major francises to crudely insert some of the worst implementations of loot boxes we've seen, and who have cancelled products because they couldn't do the same, was intentionally vague and cagey in a series of press releases / official communications because they're going to revamp the entire progression model of their game.

Click to shrink...

So you're going to instead trust a politician who openly lied in a video for effect?

 

[Nanashrew]

The ESA can challenge it based on the precedent set by Brown V Entertainment Merchants Ass'n:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass'n

The Hawaii bill will ban sale of games that fit the criteria to anyone under 21. So once it goes into effect (and Hearthstone and Overwatch are banned) Blizzard and the ESA can sue and cite the Supreme Court case as precedent.

Click to shrink...

They've addressed this. https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-esa-responds-to-hawaii’s-loot-box-regulation-proposals.23616/

"When I was a teenager, a senator by the name of Joseph Lieberman tried to regulate the content of violent video games," Quinlan told GamesIndustry.biz. "His attempts to conflate video game violence with real world violence did lasting damage to the image of video games and certain publishers.

"I want to make it clear that we are only regulating a mechanism, not the content of the game itself. I would hope that any further legislation dealing with video games would similarly only look at particular mechanisms and not content itself.

"We live in an age where behavioral psychologists have discovered certain triggers and strategies that are extremely efficient at separating people from their money at a frightening pace. If even mature and intelligent adults are falling victim to these mechanisms, how are kids expected to respond?"

Click to shrink...

 

[Irnbru]

They pay people to shill for loot boxes? They should just show them an Overwatch loot box thread.

Click to shrink...

I mean look at this thread lol, although I guess they might do doing it for free which would make it even sadder

 

[Tater]

Are you seriously basing your idea of something based on a summary by some random site?

I listened to the eanings call directly (and both transcripts and recording are available online if you're curious to hear what they actually said and not what some site reported). Not once it was mentioned that *loot boxes* or any mechanism that can be identified as gambling (even stretching the definition) will return. They have been extremely generic on what form of recurring revenue will be implemented.

Incidentally, "microtransactions" do not imply gambling. Any DLC is a microtransaction, and assuming that it'll be a form that involves gambling is as fallacious as Lee's position.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't call Variety "some random site", not sure why you're attacking sources without backing up your reasoning.

Here is a link to the January 30, 2018 transcript: http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...9F8E8B8DF/Q3_F18_Earnings_Call_Transcript.pdf

At the end, there are some questions asked about loot boxes (page 14 in the above transcript):

Two on loot boxes. One, sort of the ground level, curious if Disney has formulated any sort of opinion on whether they're comfortable with that sort of monetization mechanic in Battlefront or feature games. And then maybe from a higher level, how we should think about balance of risk in this sort of constrictive framework emerging around loot boxes and maybe how you think about -- if you do see that as a risk, how you think about mitigating that as a company or -- and/or as an industry?

Click to shrink...

So first, I would choose my words carefully. You shouldn't believe everything that you read in the press. We have a tremendous relationship with Disney. We have built some amazing games together, Battlefront, Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes and even -- and Star Wars Battlefront II. And we have been very proactive in that relationship in service of our players. And so at a point where we make the decision that we believe we have the right model for our players and our global community, I have no doubt that we will get the support of Disney on that. And again, as we look forward, the big learning is there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to event-driven live services. But at the very core, we must always build on a foundation of player choice. And that might be the choice of whether a player engages in a particular mode or not, that might be whether a player decides to grind for something or not. But in all things, it's around providing a fair playing field where players feel they have choice. And you should expect that we will continue to drive hard against that and ensure that -- again, we didn't set out, as I said in the prepared remarks, to build a feature set that could be perceived to be anything other than fair. It's clear that we didn't get quite that balance right, but we are doubling down now to ensure that we do.

Click to shrink...

Yes. And I'll just add, we do not believe that loot boxes and similar mechanics are a form of gambling. I think there are plenty of governments around the world that would agreed with us on that. And it's not just us, it's the entire industry. We work very carefully and closely with all of our industry partners and the ESA, the industry body, to make sure that people understand exactly what loot boxes are, exactly why they're not gambling. And we'll continue to engage in that going forward, we think that's important. And I think there's a lot of consumers that would argue the same thing based on the great experience they've had with fun games that have associated live services with them that some may be misconstruing as a loot box or a gambling mechanism.

Click to shrink...

We can split hairs here, but the last quote from Jorgensen shows that:
1) They know what loot boxes are
2) They don't believe they are gambling
3) They will "engage" on that going forward

Why would they engage on that going forward, if loot boxes were going away? Clearly, they plan to market loot boxes going forward. The previous implementation they revealed was derided on all sides as a casino, so that's the only data point we have to work with here. Maybe they learned their lesson, but all we have to go on is their statements and past behavior.

As a side note, I would agree with you that microtransactions don't necessarily mean gambling, but it's a loosely defined term these days (see PUBG and crate keys, etc).

 

[ManaByte]

They've addressed this. https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-esa-responds-to-hawaii's-loot-box-regulation-proposals.23616/

Click to shrink...

Actually that doesn't address it. The CA law would've banned violent games to anyone under 21. This law would ban games that have loot boxes to anyone under 21 (again, Hearthstone, Overwatch, League of Legends, PUBG, etc would all be banned). The ruling in Brown V Entertainment Merchants Ass'n stated that games are protected under the First Amendment and any such content-based (loot can be argued as content) restrictions are as such unconstitutional. It'll be an easy win for any publisher who wants to challenge it thanks to what CA tried to do a few years ago.

 

[Billfisto]

So you're going to instead trust a politician who openly lied in a video for effect?

Click to shrink...

I don't accept your position that he lied. Although they don't meet the current legal definition of gambling, I believe that loot boxes are gambling. EA intended to go forward with the implementation they had, and until they confirm otherwise, they have purposefully avoided discussing any changes. By this point they should be well aware of how they will be implementing microtransactions going forward, so their continued silence is more indicative that they're looking for things to blow over.

Also, phrasing it in that manner made it more clear to the layman. Have you tried explaining loot boxes to a non-gamer? "It's gambling" loses some nuance, but it gets the gist across.

 

[Abriael]

I wouldn't call Variety "some random site", not sure why you're attacking sources without backing up your reasoning.

Click to shrink...

For what video games are concerned, Variety is literally "some random site."

We can split hairs here, but the last quote from Jorgensen shows that:
1) They know what loot boxes are
2) They don't believe they are gambling
3) They will "engage" on that going forward

Why would they engage on that going forward, if loot boxes were going away? Clearly, they plan to market loot boxes going forward. The previous implementation they revealed was derided on all sides as a casino, so that's the only data point we have to work with here. Maybe they learned their lesson, but all we have to go on is their statements and past behavior.

As a side note, I would agree with you that microtransactions don't necessarily mean gambling, but it's a loosely defined term these days (see PUBG and crate keys, etc).

Click to shrink...

The fact that they'll engage in loot boxes going forward does not in any shape or form mean that it'll happen in Star Wars Battlefront II. Whether it'll happen or not is not said or implied in any shape or form in the text you quoted.

Of course, they'll keep engaging on loot boxes going forward. They have active games including them even now. That has nothing to do with Battlefront or with Lee's false statement.

What remains a fact is that Lee's statement is false. Whatever EA will do in some unspecified future does not change that. At all.

I don't accept your position that he lied. Although they don't meet the current legal definition of gambling, I believe that loot boxes are gambling.

Click to shrink...

Whatever definition of gambling you use, it does not apply when money is not involved. And when Lee made his statement, it was not, and it still is not. Whether they might in the future or not, has no bearing here. A statement is either true or false. A statement that is false when it is made, remains false no matter what may or may not happen in an unspecified future.

Feel free not to accept the position that he lied, but he did.

 

[Irnbru]

For what video games are concerned, Variety is literally "some random site."



The fact that they'll engage in loot boxes going forward does not in any shape or form mean that it'll happen in Star Wars Battlefront II. Whether it'll happen or not is not said or implied in any shape or form in the text you quoted.

Of course, they'll keep engaging on loot boxes going forward. They have active games including them even now. That has nothing to do with Battlefront or with Lee's false statement.

What remains a fact is that Lee's statement is false. Whatever EA will do in some unspecified future does not change that. At all.



Whatever definition of gambling you use, it does not apply when money is not involved. And when Lee made his statement, it was not, and it still is not. Whether they might in the future or not, has no bearing here. A statement is either true or false. A statement that is false when it is made, remains false no matter what may or may not happen in an unspecified future.

Feel free not to accept the position that he lied, but he did.

Click to shrink...

It's like you're missing the forest for the trees, Jesus Christ

 

[Abriael]

It's like you're missing the forest for the trees, Jesus Christ

Click to shrink...

If you don't pay attention to the trees, you're gonna get a bloody nose.

 

[PensivePen]

Whatever definition of gambling you use, it does not apply when money is not involved. And when Lee made his statement, it was not, and it still is not. Whether they might in the future or not, has no bearing here. A statement is either true or false. A statement that is false when it is made, remains false no matter what may or may not happen in an unspecified future.

Feel free not to accept the position that he lied, but he did.

Click to shrink...

If a casino closes down temporarily for maintenance, it's still a casino.

 

[Irnbru]

If you don't pay attention to the trees, you're gonna get a bloody nose.

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's not how this works. You're so focused on a single game EA you're completely missing the point of everything and the ecompassing issue it is in the industry. But hey, get your shitty scientifically researched for best psychological addition rng loot boxes

 

[Abriael]

If a casino closes down temporarily for maintenance, it's still a casino.

Click to shrink...

I've heard this excuses multiple times, but we don't know in what form microtransactions will come back. If a building intended to be a casino (assuming that we can define it so, which is already a tall assumption) never actually opens, and when it actually opens, it does as a clothes store, it's not a casino.

Fact is that when Lee made his statement, Star Wars Battlefront II was not a casino. It was simply a building that could be reopened as any number of things.

Yeah that's not how this works. You're so focused on a single game EA you're completely missing the point of everything and the ecompassing issue it is in the industry. But hey, get your shitty scientifically researched for best psychological addition rng loot boxes

Click to shrink...

If you're ok with supporting a politician that lies to the public, that's your decision. I am not, regardless of the cause he champions to grab his votes.

 

[Kcannon]

Error post, sorry.

 

[mindatlarge]

The amount of corruption and greed in politics and at the corporate level makes me sick. Seems like everyone has a price eventually.

 

[Chettlar]

I'm sure many will hate me for saying this, but I'm amazed by how this politician can parade around with a massive holier than thou attitude after he started this whole campaign with a massive bold-faced lie on video.

The whole thing began with him falsely defining Star Wars Battlefront a "star wars themed online casino" when Star Wars Battlefront had already deactivated microtransactions a while before. You can't have a casino where you can't spend money. I would be surprised if he doesn't get called on it sooner or later, which he should, even if politics and lies go hand-in-hand nowadays.

The initial video with the mom, the priest, and the stereotypically unkempt (probably fake) "gamer" pleading for his kids was the climax of pathetic and reminded me of times that I hoped were gone. He's appealing to feeling instead of rationality, and I definitely question his honesty in this. Seems like a consensus grab to me.

Click to shrink...

Um, wasn't the video made before EA pulled monetization...

 

[Nanashrew]

Actually that doesn't address it. The CA law would've banned violent games to anyone under 21. This law would ban games that have loot boxes to anyone under 21 (again, Hearthstone, Overwatch, League of Legends, PUBG, etc would all be banned). The ruling in Brown V Entertainment Merchants Ass'n stated that games are protected under the First Amendment and any such content-based (loot can be argued as content) restrictions are as such unconstitutional. It'll be an easy win for any publisher who wants to challenge it thanks to what CA tried to do a few years ago.

Click to shrink...

I honestly don't believe the first two bills will pass, the second set of bills however are the most likely, that it will be law to disclose odds, etc.

But you can also thank the game industry for not regulating itself that we have reached this point. Several times Chris Lee and Sean Quinlan have told the industry to self regulate or face consequences and now ESA is lobbying to end any kind of discussion on the matter.

 

[Abriael]

Um, wasn't the video made before EA pulled monetization...

Click to shrink...

Nope. After.

 

[Kcannon]

Feel free not to accept the position that he lied, but he did.

Click to shrink...

Quite the hill to die on there. "Won't somebody think of the poor corporations".

Gotta love people who focuse on small technicalities while ignoring the larger context of things, as if EA had never did anything shady or wrong.

Who cares if the dude did the video before or after? We knew EA had a clear objective regarding their use of MTX in the future.

 

[Irnbru]

I've heard this excuses multiple times, but we don't know in what form microtransactions will come back. If a casino closes down temporarily and it reopens as a clothes store, it's not a casino anymore.

Fact is that when Lee made his statement, Star Wars Battlefront II was not a casino. It was simply a building that could be reopened as any number of things.



If you're ok with supporting a politician that lies to the public, that's your decision. I am not, regardless of the cause he champions to grab his votes.

Click to shrink...

You're so focused on that, it's like you don't understand how planning this shit works or debating works, it doesn't matter if it's battlefront at that very moment shut it down, it was mostly likely at the moment the statements were being built and coms were built it was. ( I work with folks in coms for a large company ) and he's better clarified his statements as posted many times in this thread. Fact of the matter is you can't dance around the fact the entire game was built around it. Like, get your horse blinders off dude

 

[ManaByte]

I honestly don't believe the first two bills will pass, the second set of bills however are the most likely, that it will be law to disclose odds, etc.

But you can also thank the game industry for not regulating itself that we have reached this point. Several times Chris Lee and Sean Quinlan have told the industry to self regulate or face consequences and now ESA is lobbying to end any kind of discussion on the matter.

Click to shrink...

The law to disclose odds will pass and is easy to implement. Blizzard already does that because of a similar law in China (others do too). The one banning sales of games to anyone under 21 is doomed to fail in court challenges.

 

[Abriael]

You're so focused on that, it's like you don't understand how planning this shit works or debating works, it doesn't matter if it's battlefront at that very moment shut it down, it was mostly likely at the moment the statements were being built and coms were built it was. ( I work with folks in coms for a large company ) and he's better clarified his statements as posted many times in this thread. Fact of the matter is you can't dance around the fact the entire game was built around it. Like, get your horse blinders off dude

Click to shrink...

What the game is built on is irrelevant to that statement. What is relevant is what the game is. And the game is not a casino under any definition, no matter how stretched, of a casino.

Quite the hill to die on there. "Won't somebody think of the poor corporations".

Gotta love people who focuse on small technicalities while ignoring the larger context of things, as if EA had never did anything shady or wrong.

Click to shrink...

I don't believe a politician pulling a bold-faced lie on a public video is a "small technicality."

 

[Inuhanyou]

Money in politics is present in every issue. Just pay off your opposition

 

[Irnbru]

What the game is built on is irrelevant to that statement. What is relevant is what the game is. And the game is not a casino under any definition, no matter how stretched, of a casino.



I don't believe a politician pulling a bold-faced lie on a public video is a "small technicality."

Click to shrink...

And the discussion revolves around gaming as a whole, and metaphors , how do they work?! If it smells like a Casino, quacks like a casino, it's probably a casino. Fuck, just look at the loot box system from need for speed

 

[Inuhanyou]

.

 

[Chettlar]

Nope. After.

Click to shrink...

Okay 1. That's not how I remember it but if you have dates I'm willing to be convinced, and 2. EA is going to reintroduce monetization in the future. They announced that they were pulling it "temporarily." This is a transient situation. They will be back.

If a casino comes under fire and makes their establishment free for a few months just seeking food and drinks and hotel rooms in the mean time, with the announcement that they will be allowing payed gambling again, are they suddenly not a casino? No, because while they are functionally not a casino for a few months, they most certainly will be once monetization returns.

Battlefront 2 is a dormant casino. Heck it's not even dormant. Right now it is seeking to get more people into it and invested into the ecosystem so that when monetization returns, they can manipulate people into buying them again.

Calling it a casino, even if it is dormant, is not a lie. Perhaps not 100% accurate. But far, far from a lie as you claim. It is still true it his message. You are arguing semantics and you're not even being 100% accurate either. You're actually being a little misleading by implying that the game is harmless due to a temporary deactivation if a predatory business practice that will return.

And the game is not a casino under any definition, no matter how stretched, of a casino.

Click to shrink...

A dormant casino is most certainly by some stretches, a casino. This one is built to draw others in so that when monetization returns it still has a large userbase that is ripe for manipulation. You are acting like there is nothing affecting monetization in this game, and you are wrong.

 

[Abriael]

And the discussion revolves around gaming as a whole, and metaphors , how do they work?! If it smells like a Casino, quacks like a casino, it's probably a casino. Fuck, just look at the loot box system from need for speed

Click to shrink...

The statement was made explicitly on Star Wars Battlefront II. It wasn't made on gaming as a whole, and it wasn't made on Need for Speed.

Star Wars Battlefront II does not quack like a casino.

 

[dose]

What do you mean "reopen"? It never opened in the first place.

And no, what a game has during alpha or beta doesn't mean jack shit. Tons of video games have had random stuff during their alpha/beta periods.

The only thing that matters is what's actually in a game when it officially releases to retail.

Click to shrink...

What are you on about? The game was launched on Origin Access, a trial of the full game.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...star-wars-battlefront-2-loot-crates-at-launch
The trial of the full game contained loot boxes.

The retail game was then also reviewed by the likes of IGN, Gamespot etc and they complained about loot boxes in it.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-ii-review/1900-6416810/
The review copies had loot boxes in.
After this shitstorm EA took them out. So yes, it was opened in the first place. Doing some research before posting would help.

 

[Deleted member 888]

The law to disclose odds will pass and is easy to implement. Blizzard already does that because of a similar law in China (others do too). The one banning sales of games to anyone under 21 is doomed to fail in court challenges.

Click to shrink...

Sorry to disappoint

Blizzard in China - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...nas-loot-box-laws-by-selling-in-game-currency

Hence why overzealous defending of Blizzard rubs me the wrong way.

The bill Chris and his team are proposing stops Blizzard being able to do the above. I almost hope it passes just so Blizzard have to comply and be transparent with Overwatch after the above.

 

[ManaByte]

Sorry to disappoint

Blizzard in China - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...nas-loot-box-laws-by-selling-in-game-currency

Hence why overzealous defending of Blizzard rubs me the wrong way.

The bill Chris and his team are proposing stops Blizzard being able to do the above. I almost hope it passes just so Blizzard have to comply and be transparent with Overwatch after the above.

Click to shrink...

Blizzard does disclose the odds of the Overwatch, Hearthstone, and Heroes loot boxes though.

https://kotaku.com/blizzard-reveals-overwatch-loot-box-odds-in-china-1794956138

• [*]Every box contains at least one rare (blue) item.
  
  [*]Players get an epic (purple) item once every 5.5 boxes.
  
  [*]Legendary items appear once every 13.5 boxes.

  Click to shrink...

This is it on the Chinese Overwatch site: http://ow.blizzard.cn/article/news/486

 

[Kcannon]

I don't believe a politician pulling a bold-faced lie on a public video is a "small technicality."

Click to shrink...

Gee, what a lie.

EA is exploiting consumers with gambling-like MTX, removes them after backlash, issues statement about the return of exploitative practices that could be interpreted in several ways because the arguments is vague enough for that, senator assumes EA will continue with the practices based on a reasonable interpretation of his, because they were doing it just a short time ago.

Like, come on man. This is fucking petty. It's not forbidden for one to make assumptions based on logic when it comes to arguments.

Hell, if anything, that's what politicians always do. They always try to come up with justifications for why crime, violence, health, economy and all other sorts of issues happen and what could possibly fix them, often based solely on interpretations of statistical data, public opinion or their own perception.

 

[Deleted member 1849]

The ESA are literally the combined lobbying arm for the gaming industry. This is exactly what they would do and it should surprise nobody.