EA’s Loot Box U-Turn: Gamers Won the Battle but Lost the War

Raptomex · Nov 17, 2017

This thread is brought to you by SHØGVN. Made possibly by the Adopt-a-User Program.

This is an article I wrote myself: https://medium.com/@shogun/eas-loot-box-u-turn-gamers-won-the-battle-but-lost-the-war-30b3d765de95

There has been an insidious element creeping into the video game medium, and it took the most high-profile PR disaster in recent memory for us to fight it.

Arguably, the case against EA is even more clear cut. They have started building entire systems into their games designed to nudge gamers towards microtransactions, the latest and most unpopular example being Star Wars Battlefront 2. The worst part? Lootboxes. Instead of paying $2.50 for horse armor, how about $2.50 for a chance at getting horse armor or a bunch of useless tat? And how about we make it so the horse armor gives the user an advantage in online multiplayer?

We have to ask ourselves why games like Overwatch get a free pass with its loot boxes, which in some corners are actually lauded. You can argue that Overwatch's loot boxes only contain cosmetic items, but loot boxes are loot boxes; predatory slot machine-esque devices profitting off people with low impulse control, often children who don't know any better.

It seems like we gamers are a fickle bunch, willingly throwing money at "influencers" to spend in games, then giving them clicks on videos complaining about greedy publishers. We'll sign a petition calling for loot boxes to be regulated as a form of gambling, while turning a blind eye to other instances of microtransactions. And if by some miracle they do disappear, what's going to make up for the billions of dollars (and I do mean billions if we account for mobile games) being pumped into the industry as a result of them?

Deleted member 135 · Nov 17, 2017

We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

Principate · Nov 17, 2017

The war isn't over yet. The still long way go in terms determining how many games and deep these sorts of monetisation schemes go.

Beartruck · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

Anti-gambling regulations when the current president is an ex-casino magnate who hates regulations? Surejan.gif

Ahasverus · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

Under the Trump administration? Keep dreaming

MinerArcaniner · Nov 17, 2017

Raptomex said:
We have to ask ourselves why games like Overwatch get a free pass with its loot boxes, which in some corners are actually lauded. You can argue that Overwatch's loot boxes only contain cosmetic items, but loot boxes are loot boxes; predatory slot machine-esque devices profitting off people with low impulse control, often children who don't know any better.

This always pisses me off.

The gambling aspect of lootboxes is the problem, not what specific stuff people are able to gamble on. Kids or gambling addicts getting caught up isn't any better when it "doesn't affect gameplay balance."

Deleted member 7450 · Nov 17, 2017

"War"

More like a riot.

Talraen · Nov 17, 2017

Raptomex said:
And if by some miracle they do disappear, what's going to make up for the billions of dollars (and I do mean billions if we account for mobile games) being pumped into the industry as a result of them?

I couldn't agree more, great article. Particularly the last paragraph. We on this very forum decry microtransactions while also calling for games to be either longer or cheaper (or both!). The idea of equating "value" with gameplay time is exactly what leads to GaaS and grind-filled games.

PeskyToaster · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

I bet a state-wide campaign would get more traction and have a better chance at being more successful

freakybj · Nov 17, 2017

It is borderline unreasonable to expect a maximum $60 price line for dozens of hours of entertainment, after accounting for inflation, ever-expanding production budgets and the unspeakable man hours often associated with the risk-laden process of game development.

Umm, why is expecting dozens of hours of entertainment for $60 unreasonable for the consumer? The developer and publisher chose to sell the game for that price. It's not the customer's fault.

And I don't think there's a double standard when gamers choose to donate money to streamers. This is something they choose to do to support someone that provides them entertainment. There's no manipulation by the streamer to coerce someone into donating. Developers putting microtransaction scams in their games in the form of loot boxes are manipulating the customer to spend more than they should for items they want while adversely impacting their core game. It would be better if developers just put a donate button on their menu screen instead of using loot boxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would donate money to keep supporting the game they love to play.

I sort of agree when you say there's a double standard for games like Overwatch. But a key difference is that the microtransactions in Overwatch, Rocket League, PUBG, etc. aren't pay to win impacting the core gameplay. It's still shady though but not nearly as egregious as what EA is trying to pull.

Deleted member 135 · Nov 17, 2017

Beartruck said:
Anti-gambling regulations when the current president is an ex-casino magnate who hates regulations? Surejan.gif

Ahasverus said:
Under the Trump administration? Keep dreaming

PeskyToaster said:
I bet a state-wide campaign would get more traction and have a better chance at being more successful

I don't expect there to be legislation, we just need another Congressional Hearing to be called like what happened in the 90s that led to the formation of the ESRB. Scare the shit out of the industry.

PeskyToaster · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
I couldn't agree more, great article. Particularly the last paragraph. We on this very forum decry microtransactions while also calling for games to be either longer or cheaper (or both!). The idea of equating "value" with gameplay time is exactly what leads to GaaS and grind-filled games.

That's for the million dollar CEOs to figure out. I have zero sympathy for the games industry, everyone else has this figured out. My only responsibility is to tell them where my personal line is. I think it's plain wrong for these companies to guilt people by dangling the livelihoods of developers and their favorite characters over a cliff if their fans don't support the industry's predatory practices and poor management. How about instead of sucking pennies out of kids you improve your industry, your tools, and your personnel so that you can make games in a defined schedule and actually combat ballooning costs by improving the pipeline instead of foisting it all onto consumers. The whole software industry needs a zap because it's stuck in the artisan phase in a world that requires it to be industrial.

Isee · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

Made a thread about this option a couple of days ago. Most people didn't like the idea of involving politicians.

Carthago Delenda Est · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
I don't expect there to be legislation, we just need another Congressional Hearing to be called like what happened in the 90s that led to the formation of the ESRB. Scare the shit out of the industry.

I don't think you actually want this to happen.

ItsBobbyDarin · Nov 17, 2017

The game industry is profitable, and publishers are making huge amounts of money, much more today than they did yesterday. So stating that micro transactions is a necessity for the game industry to making enough money to continue making AAA games or other, is a false statement.

Talraen · Nov 17, 2017

PeskyToaster said:
That's for the million dollar CEOs to figure out. I have zero sympathy for the games industry, everyone else has this figured out. My only responsibility is to tell them where my personal line is. I think it's plain wrong for these companies to guilt people by dangling the livelihoods of developers and their favorite characters over a cliff if their fans don't support the industry's predatory practices and poor management. How about instead of sucking pennies out of kids you improve your industry, your tools, and your personnel so that you can make games in a defined schedule and actually combat ballooning costs by improving the pipeline instead of foisting it all onto consumers. The whole software industry needs a zap because it's stuck in the artisan phase in a world that requires it to be industrial.

High-end game prices have not increased from $60 (in the US) since that became the norm circa 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 is worth about $74 now. So not only are costs increasing, the actual sale price of games is decreasing. And the reason is because gamers won't accept higher prices. We have to share a part of the blame here.

Vinc · Nov 17, 2017

They're more profitable than ever largely because of microtransactions, no?

Antrax · Nov 17, 2017

Are there actually kids spending thousands on these things? I've only ever heard of that happening in mobile games (where presumably it's easy to pay with a credit card that's pre-loaded onto the phone).

jdmonmou said:
Umm, why is expecting dozens of hours of entertainment for $60 unreasonable for the consumer? The developer and publisher chose to sell the game for that price. It's not the customer's fault.

No, the devs/pubs set that price because it's the max that gamers will pay. Nobody will buy games for $80. You'd see Lawbreakers numbers with a pricepoint like that. At this point, people usually argue that "fine, just trim the graphics and all that." To which I point out that an entire website exists (and constantly generates threads here, on Reddit, etc..) dedicated to comparing the tiniest details between different versions of a game's graphics to see which one has extra shadows under the blades of grass and such.

I don't think it's controversial to say:
1. Gamers want and are impressed by increased production budgets (specifically the results of those increased budgets).
2. Gamers do not want to pay more than $60 for games (and many use things like Best Buy and Amazon to skirt that price anyway).
3. Therefore, as budgets go up, either content needs to be paid for as it's completed (DLC, maybe an ongoing subscription) or it needs to be subsidized in some way (loot boxes, microtransactions, etc...).

There are good and bad implementations of any of these options: DLC can be too short to justify its pricepoint, a subscription service needs frequent streams of content to create value, loot boxes should probably disclose odds and be obtainable for free, microtransactions can throw off gameplay, etc...

Occam · Nov 17, 2017

I'm not aware of any loot box u-turn. They still use them.

Loot box / microtransaction tax please.

Sephzilla · Nov 17, 2017

Begun, the loot box war, has

thefro · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
High-end game prices have not increased from $60 (in the US) since that became the norm circa 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 is worth about $74 now. So not only are costs increasing, the actual sale price of games is decreasing. And the reason is because gamers won't accept higher prices. We have to share a part of the blame here.

There's already "special editions", DLC passes, etc that make the prices more expensive.

I think people might be more accepting of higher prices if they were sure companies wouldn't firesale the games for ten to fifteen bucks a copy within a year, or give them away for "free" with PS+/Games With Gold/EA Vault, etc.

Kill3r7 · Nov 17, 2017

Occam said:
I'm not aware of any loot box u-turn. They still use them.

Loot box / microtransaction tax please.

.

Nothing has changed. They will reappear a few months down the road or when the first free DLC drops.

A Syrian Communist · Nov 17, 2017

Antrax Suicide said:
Are there actually kids spending thousands on these things? I've only ever heard of that happening in mobile games (where presumably it's easy to pay with a credit card that's pre-loaded onto the phone).

No, the devs/pubs set that price because it's the max that gamers will pay. Nobody will buy games for $80. You'd see Lawbreakers numbers with a pricepoint like that. At this point, people usually argue that "fine, just trim the graphics and all that." To which I point out that an entire website exists (and constantly generates threads here, on Reddit, etc..) dedicated to comparing the tiniest details between different versions of a game's graphics to see which one has extra shadows under the blades of grass and such.

I don't think it's controversial to say:
1. Gamers want and are impressed by increased production budgets (specifically the results of those increased budgets).
2. Gamers do not want to pay more than $60 for games (and many use things like Best Buy and Amazon to skirt that price anyway).
3. Therefore, as budgets go up, either content needs to be paid for as it's completed (DLC, maybe an ongoing subscription) or it needs to be subsidized in some way (loot boxes, microtransactions, etc...).

There are good and bad implementations of any of these options: DLC can be too short to justify its pricepoint, a subscription service needs frequent streams of content to create value, loot boxes should probably disclose odds and be obtainable for free, microtransactions can throw off gameplay, etc...

People buy $100 collector's editions literally all the time, what are you talking about? If those didn't sell we wouldn't be getting them.

Talraen · Nov 17, 2017

thefro said:
There's already "special editions", DLC passes, etc that make the prices more expensive.

I think people might be more accepting of higher prices if they were sure companies wouldn't firesale the games for ten to fifteen bucks a copy within a year.

Nintendo has a policy against reducing game prices, but I honestly have no idea how well that's worked out for them. Does anyone have any data on that?

I do agree that sales are problematic for game prices, though. I'm the only gamer I know in real life that almost always buys games at launch. Many gamers are super cheap, it seems.

Sami said:
People buy $100 collector's editions literally all the time, what are you talking about? If those didn't sell we wouldn't be getting them.

Yes, some people buy overpriced collector's editions (myself included), but if that was the only edition, people would cry foul. The point, much like DLC, is to get as much money as possible from those willing to pay it, while still selling to those who want the game as cheap as possible.

TylersProphecy · Nov 17, 2017

gigantor21 said:
This always pisses me off.

The gambling aspect of lootboxes is the problem, not what specific stuff people are able to gamble on. Kids or gambling addicts getting caught up isn't any better when it "doesn't affect gameplay balance."

You arent gonna save kids or addicts from anything in this day and age. Theyll simply find their fix in any number of avenues anymore. What i have a problem with is the dishonesty.
Want lootboxes in your games? Fine, but be honest. That shit, by definition, IS gambling, no two ways about it.
Now, whether or not the country youre trying to sell your game is ok with that is an entirely other matter. Most arent but the consequences to your product doesnt negate the need for honesty and in fact legally requires it. I feel like overtime, this shift may occur within the current climate of outrage but that may be too optimistic.

Antrax · Nov 17, 2017

Sami said:
People buy $100 collector's editions literally all the time, what are you talking about? If those didn't sell we wouldn't be getting them.

Are you arguing that people will buy games for more than $60 because some people like to buy editions with extra stuff in them?

You know, people will buy books with signatures in them for a lot of money. All books should now accommodate this price point since people will pay it.

SHØGVN · Nov 17, 2017

Antrax Suicide said:
Are there actually kids spending thousands on these things? I've only ever heard of that happening in mobile games (where presumably it's easy to pay with a credit card that's pre-loaded onto the phone).

No, the devs/pubs set that price because it's the max that gamers will pay. Nobody will buy games for $80. You'd see Lawbreakers numbers with a pricepoint like that. At this point, people usually argue that "fine, just trim the graphics and all that." To which I point out that an entire website exists (and constantly generates threads here, on Reddit, etc..) dedicated to comparing the tiniest details between different versions of a game's graphics to see which one has extra shadows under the blades of grass and such.

I don't think it's controversial to say:
1. Gamers want and are impressed by increased production budgets (specifically the results of those increased budgets).
2. Gamers do not want to pay more than $60 for games (and many use things like Best Buy and Amazon to skirt that price anyway).
3. Therefore, as budgets go up, either content needs to be paid for as it's completed (DLC, maybe an ongoing subscription) or it needs to be subsidized in some way (loot boxes, microtransactions, etc...).

There are good and bad implementations of any of these options: DLC can be too short to justify its pricepoint, a subscription service needs frequent streams of content to create value, loot boxes should probably disclose odds and be obtainable for free, microtransactions can throw off gameplay, etc...

Yes, that's why gamers' expectations have become skewed if they won't pay more than $60 on a premium game in this day and age, when there are people dropping way more than that on F2P games. It's ludicrous that games like Dishonored 2, Prey and Evil Within 2 have flopped commercially while PUBG is making a killing. Like that game is in paid early access and has freaking loot boxes already.

AyaisMUsikWhore · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
I couldn't agree more, great article. Particularly the last paragraph. We on this very forum decry microtransactions while also calling for games to be either longer or cheaper (or both!). The idea of equating "value" with gameplay time is exactly what leads to GaaS and grind-filled games.

This. All outcry but no real solution to something that will eventually cause an uprise to the next big thing to kill traditional gaming.

LinkStrikesBack · Nov 17, 2017

Sami said:
People buy $100 collector's editions literally all the time, what are you talking about? If those didn't sell we wouldn't be getting them.

How many people buy those though? Of the >13 million copies of Star wars Battlefront they sold, I struggle to imagine anything but the vast majority of sales being the cheapest edition + the edition with the season pass tacked on, if that was a thing for that game.

ChapterBlack · Nov 17, 2017

MMO's were blasted in the mainstream media for being dangerously addictive yet you won't hear a peep about this stuff which is arguably even more predatory

emb · Nov 17, 2017

thefro said:
I think people might be more accepting of higher prices if they were sure companies wouldn't firesale the games for ten to fifteen bucks a copy within a year, or give them away for "free" with PS+/Games With Gold/EA Vault, etc.

Problem with that is that, if company A doesn't do it, company B will. Race to the bottom and all that, there are just simply a ton of creators making video games. Even if it were proven unsustainable, you'd have people releasing games out of passion just because they love it. Wealth of options helps keep price maybe not on the lower end, but at least pretty apt to fall over time.

TheThreadsThatBindUs · Nov 17, 2017

gigantor21 said:
This always pisses me off.

The gambling aspect of lootboxes is the problem, not what specific stuff people are able to gamble on. Kids or gambling addicts getting caught up isn't any better when it "doesn't affect gameplay balance."

Whilst I'd agree with the general premise, I would argue that the psychological response to the activity of "betting on lootboxes" is still heavily linked to the value the user places on the perceived reward.

If lootbox rewards encompass merely ancillary cosmetic items (that can also be acquired in other ways) then the incentive that drives the gambling addiction is significantly reduced, depending on of course how much value a player places in those cosmetic items.

If lootbox reward also encompass items which play a significant role in the core game's progression mechanics, then the value of the perceived reward to the player is much greater (there's a reason why pubs like EA are itching so much to tie progression to lootbox rewards). The greater the value of the lootbox rewards the greater the incentive to gamble and thus the behavioral concerns with respect to lootboxes have greater merit in my mind.

PeskyToaster · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
High-end game prices have not increased from $60 (in the US) since that became the norm circa 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 is worth about $74 now. So not only are costs increasing, the actual sale price of games is decreasing. And the reason is because gamers won't accept higher prices. We have to share a part of the blame here.

And how has the audience expanded since then? Are profits shrinking because of the constant price tag? What about this? Instead of charging more for games you improve your project management and develop (instead of burning out) talent so that the overall cost of a project comes down and you don't have to sell the game at $60 plus over two thousand dollars worth of transactions to make some cash. Like I said, it's not my responsibility to prop them up while they try to foist the costs of their poor management skills and unsustainable personnel environment onto me. I don't feel any of the blame and no consumer should. Constraints breed innovation. People won't pay a dime over 60 bucks and here's the line for loot boxes. There's your constraints, figure it out or go out of business and let someone else try.

Ge0force · Nov 17, 2017

We haven't lost the war, we are still fighting. Core gamers gave a huge message to EA and other publishers that they won't accept anything. We just need to keep doing that, and maybe, maybe there's a chance that we can keep pay2win out of our favorite games.

404LinkNotFound · Nov 17, 2017

PeskyToaster said:
And how has the audience expanded since then? Are profits shrinking because of the constant price tag? What about this? Instead of charging more for games you improve your project management and develop (instead of burning out) talent so that the overall cost of a project comes down and you don't have to sell the game at $60 plus over two thousand dollars worth of transactions to make some cash. Like I said, it's not my responsibility to prop them up while they try to foist the costs of their poor management skills and unsustainable personnel environment onto me. I don't feel any of the blame and no consumer should. Constraints breed innovation. People won't pay a dime over 60 bucks and here's the line for loot boxes. There's your constraints, figure it out or go out of business and let someone else try.

On top of that ,dont forget that in many other countries video games cost Way more than 60 dollars and are super costly (in my country games cost upwards to 100 US give or take) so i dont think its wrong that many people dont want the base americam price to increase and in turn increase else where too.

Aranjah · Nov 17, 2017

gigantor21 said:
This always pisses me off.

The gambling aspect of lootboxes is the problem, not what specific stuff people are able to gamble on. Kids or gambling addicts getting caught up isn't any better when it "doesn't affect gameplay balance."

Exactly. Personally, I don't give Overwatch a free pass.
I felt outright disgust when they patched that loot box trash into HotS (with bonus new banners, sprays, voice lines, and emoji to be the filler) instead of just letting me directly buy the mounts, skins, etc that I want.
At least HotS still has the weekly specials which they allow you to purchase directly with the fake currency that costs real money (which is a compromise I'd gladly take in Overwatch if they'd offer it. They'd get any money out of me whatsoever instead of $0 beyond my original purchase).

Personally, I will happily buy the $100 collector's editions or the $7 dollar skins or whatever if I think it's a good value. I know what I'm getting before I make the purchase.
The chance at getting something that I possibly want (instead of the white/white/blue/white where the blue is a duplicate victory pose, that it most likely will be) is not worth the 99 cents to me.

saenima · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
High-end game prices have not increased from $60 (in the US) since that became the norm circa 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 is worth about $74 now. So not only are costs increasing, the actual sale price of games is decreasing. And the reason is because gamers won't accept higher prices. We have to share a part of the blame here.

No. This is not on the customer to fix. Every other industry that is reliant on customer interest has to evolve to survive and grow. Most evolve by listening to costumers and finding ways to serve them better. The biggest companies in the gaming industry apparently refuse to manage their businesses in a sustainable way, and constantly try to force the costs of their mistakes onto the developers and customers. I mean, these companies show massive profits while evading taxes, exploiting their employees and constantly shitting on their customers.

I refuse to 'share the blame'.

Ge0force · Nov 17, 2017

Talraen said:
High-end game prices have not increased from $60 (in the US) since that became the norm circa 2006. Adjusted for inflation, that $60 is worth about $74 now. So not only are costs increasing, the actual sale price of games is decreasing. And the reason is because gamers won't accept higher prices. We have to share a part of the blame here.

I hope you are aware that EA made 1.4 BILLION dollars PROFIT last year?

Geoff · Nov 17, 2017

I think we are conflating several issues here;

1. Gambling - this is bad for games aimed at children but, personally, I don't give two fucks if grown people want to take a punt on cosmetic items. More fool them. I have no interest in doing this myself. If it's aimed at children, like I said, that's bad.

2. It isn't gambling anyway - I made a thread about this on the old place and there wasn't much interest but loot crates are not really gambling and not because of some bullshit like you always win *something*, they are not gambling because they are a stone cold scam, there is no 'random' element, it's all just designed to keep you spending. I got this from the horse's mouth so to speak but I'm not naming names and therefore I understand if people don't take this seriously.

3. Pay2Win - This I don't like. If someone can buy some shit that fucks me up that I can't earn myself in a reasonable amount of time, then fuck that. That game is dead to me unless it is free.

4. The (perception of the) impact of having Pay2win on the structure of the game - I've been saying this since Dead Space 3. It doesn't matter if the game hasn't been designed to be artificially 'grindy', if I can buy shortcuts, whether that be in SP or MP, I am going to assume that that grind is only there to push me towards the shortcut. It doesn't matter if that grind would have been there anyway because in my mind, I'm being mugged off and if I'm being mugged off, I'm not having fun. You put a paid for pwing in SMB 3 and when that Sun bastard is coming for my arse in World 8, I'm assuming that motherfucker is only there to make me buy that pwing and then I'm resentful. I'm not having fun. It doesn't matter that that isn't the case, it's my perception that matters. And of course, if the game really has been altered to make you buy that shit, then that's just awful.

Now for some people, they're OK with 3 and other people, like me, don't care about 1 because I wouldn't touch that shit anyway, although nobody likes 2 and 4, and with BF2 all that nonsense was all mixed up together for the first time in a full price game and different people have different views on the parts of it they don't like and the parts they can tolerate but really, it's all bad. It's all predatory, dishonest bullshit and is only presented in the way that it is because it's dishonest and it all needs to go.

TangoAlphaLima · Nov 17, 2017

thefro said:
I think people might be more accepting of higher prices if they were sure companies wouldn't firesale the games for ten to fifteen bucks a copy within a year, or give them away for "free" with PS+/Games With Gold/EA Vault, etc.

emb said:
Problem with that is that, if company A doesn't do it, company B will. Race to the bottom and all that, there are just simply a ton of creators making video games. Even if it were proven unsustainable, you'd have people releasing games out of passion just because they love it. Wealth of options helps keep price maybe not on the lower end, but at least pretty apt to fall over time.

This is the open market at work, people. There is competition, and it drives down prices for consumers. That's why publishers love these extra revenue streams from microtransactions, they're almost wholly separate from the game market itself.

It's also stunning that people keep making the "but games cost a lot to make" argument. The first Battlefront sold 14 million copies. And how many season passes did it sell at $50 a pop? Or how many "Ultimate Editions" after it was rebundled with the season pass the following year. Total, EA and its various partners (distributors, retailers, online services, etc.) would have brought in over a billion dollars in revenue. A BILLION DOLLARS. Now maybe EA only sees about a half of that, but that's still $500 million.

Why are we so hung up on this concept that we need to pay more for video games? I just don't get it. Is there any other industry out there where consumers are actually advocating to pay more? Do people go to a car dealership and tell the salesman that Ford should raise their sticker prices? Do people go to the movies and tell the cashier that movie ticket prices are too low? I just don't get where this notion comes from in the video game industry. It's absolutely insane.

FHIZ · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

It's naive that anyone thinks that opening the door for government regulation in video games is anything close to a good idea.

Stuart · Nov 17, 2017

FHIZ said:
It's naive that anyone thinks that opening the door for government regulation in video games is anything close to a good idea.

Yep, haven't forgotten Hillary Clinton's complete idiocy over the "Hot Coffee" GTA mod. She wanted to regulate all videogames heavily because of some hidden mini game.

justiceiro · Nov 17, 2017

This article:

I dont buy this "gamers will not accept 60+ dollars games" argument, nobody really tried yet. They accepted worse.

This is just a excuse to pratices that are, in fact, more profitable.

CloseTalker · Nov 17, 2017

The immediate response of "we did it Reddit!" shows how few gamers actually read past the first line.

EA just pulled a super transparent and blatant PR move, they rectified absolutely none of the inherent problem, just put it on the back burner for a bit, knowing full well that by the time they bring microtransactions back, gamers will have moved on to bitching about something else. And they're exactly right.

Deleted member 24550 · Nov 17, 2017

PeskyToaster said:
That's for the million dollar CEOs to figure out. I have zero sympathy for the games industry, everyone else has this figured out. My only responsibility is to tell them where my personal line is. I think it's plain wrong for these companies to guilt people by dangling the livelihoods of developers and their favorite characters over a cliff if their fans don't support the industry's predatory practices and poor management. How about instead of sucking pennies out of kids you improve your industry, your tools, and your personnel so that you can make games in a defined schedule and actually combat ballooning costs by improving the pipeline instead of foisting it all onto consumers. The whole software industry needs a zap because it's stuck in the artisan phase in a world that requires it to be industrial.

I wanted to frame this post.

So I framed it in a quote box.

FHIZ · Nov 17, 2017

Stuart said:
Yep, haven't forgotten Hillary Clinton's complete idiocy over the "Hot Coffee" GTA mod. She wanted to regulate all videogames heavily because of some hidden mini game.

Mmhmm, and having them actually do something sets a precedent for them to come in and do more that no gamer or consumer wants. This got discussed briefly on the Bombcast this week, and I sat here thinking that given the opportunity, the US is more likely to pass "gun control" in video games, IE limiting violent games, than they are to pass something resembling actual gun control.

The best course of action is for consumers to actually put their money where there mouth is an reject this kind of pay to win shit. While loot boxes and microtransactions aren't going anywhere anytime soon, Star Wars is a cautionary tale for the industry. I'd be shocked if we ever see a developer host a live stream like the one for Shadow of War where they go "hey everyone, let's look at our loot box system, you're gonna love it!"

HighResTomato · Nov 17, 2017

I remember when DLC became a thing and people moaned about having to pay extra for items clearly developed during the delevopment cycle of the game. And not after.

Now it's just ridiculous, have a CHANCE at getting the DLC you are really after

Just let people pay and get exactly what they want and stop this chance shit. I can't see how anyone can support these practices unless they are directly involved in the production of video games or profiting from it.

Thatguy · Nov 17, 2017

My gaming budget doesn't change. The industry isn't getting more from me. It all comes down to what game gets bought. Personally I prefer many games over fewer games. So I will always gravitate towards single purchase games. That said, if the game is really good, I'll drop money on more dlc. But my basic rule of thumb is $1/hour. I'll spend on dlc if I get 60 hours out of the base game. If I don't then I really don't love the game and thus my money is better spent on a new game.

Plumpbiscuit · Nov 17, 2017

Foltzie · Nov 17, 2017

SG-17 said:
We still have the nuclear option.

https://www.congress.gov/members

I would challenge you to describe, in somewhat clear (if not necessarily simple) terms if you can, a definition that could be legislated that excludes Battlefront style loot boxes, but not say, capsule vending machines, other F2P mechanics, or RNG based logic.

If you can create such a definition, does someone get around that definition by moving to something slightly skill based like a claw mini-game?

This is a tough cookie to crack if you want to go about it via some sort of regulation. The recent push to classify such games as AO via the ESRB was never going to work, but perhaps always M or 18+ might be doable.

EA’s Loot Box U-Turn: Gamers Won the Battle but Lost the War

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Herald of Stoptimus Crime

One Winged Slayer

Self-requested ban.

Self-requested ban.

Ac

One Winged Slayer