[Waypoint] For Many Players, Lootboxes Are a Crisis That's Already Here

[apozem]

I find Hearthstone to be the least offensive because a) its a CCG and thats how the game is sustainable and b) you can craft the card you really want from the cards you dont want

Click to shrink...

I think loot boxes make the most sense in the context of a CCG, because random drops encourage unique deck building. Hearthstone's system is less abusive than it could be, but it's still a loot box-based system. It's something I've been on the fence about for a while and this article pushed me over the edge.

 

[Deleted member 36086]

Diablo doesn't have you spending currency (in-game or real money) to get these RNG items; you find them during the course of gameplay. How is that remotely similar to what I was talking about?

Click to shrink...

You did spend money when you bought the game. Thats consideration.

For something to be considered gambling it must have 3 elements: consideration, an element of chance and a prize that has value.

 

[RexNovis]

Pretty much. What really gets me is that so many people on these boards immediately start defending these practices apparently without even considering any of this.

And i find it disgusting that people always bring up personal responsibility without ever demanding ANY kind of responsibility from companies. Empathy seems to be at an all time low on our societies. Empathy for people that is.

Click to shrink...

The current political climate around the world pretty much attests to this. In many countries solidarity and empathy have become the exception to the norm. Its heartbreaking.

 

[yyr]

You did spend money when you bought the game. Thats consideration.

Click to shrink...

No, that isn't even close. You spent money to buy the game, not to buy the RNG items.
The difference is clear: the transactions being debated involve the direct spending of currency on the RNG items themselves.

 

[4Tran]

No, that isn't even close. You spent money to buy the game, not to buy the RNG items.
The difference is clear: the transactions being debated involve the direct spending of currency on the RNG items themselves.

Click to shrink...

For that analogy to work, you'd have to pay consideration for each attempt at getting a prize. I'm not exactly seeing people whip out their credit cards to do another Mephisto run, so Diablo is not going to qualify.

 

[Deleted member 36086]

No, that isn't even close. You spent money to buy the game, not to buy the RNG items.
The difference is clear: the transactions being debated involve the direct spending of currency on the RNG items themselves.

Click to shrink...

Have you not played Diablo 3? The purpose of the game is to get loot. By your definition of gambling, Diablo 3 would be gambling because it contains the 3 requisite elements: consideration (I paid $60), chance (RNG loot drops), prize with sentimental value (in my case, Wand of Woh. Took me an entire year of grinding to get one).

 

[Deleted member 36086]

For that analogy to work, you'd have to pay consideration for each attempt at getting a prize. I'm not exactly seeing people whip out their credit cards to do another Mephisto run, so Diablo is not going to qualify.

Click to shrink...

Now you'e just changing things to suit your narrative. If consideration must be tied to a single attempt at a prize, then casinos could easily circumvent being classified as gambling by just giving you multiple chances and adjusting the odds. Further proof: I can go to a liquor store right now and buy a lottery ticket that gives me 5 chances to win for $5.

 

[jman2050]

There's a very real chance Overwatch would not have nearly the amount of post-release content it has now if it was all earned in game like Timesplitters.

Click to shrink...

So you're essentially saying that you're okay with these games being subsidized by addicts because you personally reap the benefits of it being so.

"F you got mine" is still as real as it always was.

 

[4Tran]

Now you'e just changing things to suit your narrative. If consideration must be tied to a single attempt at a prize, then casinos could easily circumvent being classified as gambling by just giving you multiple chances and adjusting the odds. Further proof: I can go to a liquor store right now and buy a lottery ticket that gives me 5 chances to win for $5.

Click to shrink...

Do casinos charge a lifetime fee and then you can gamble as much as you want afterwards without extra cost? That lottery ticket that you're talking about charges for each chance to win. That's why it's called consideration. Otherwise it'd just be a membership fee, and might not actually count as gambling any more.

 

[yyr]

Have you not played Diablo 3? The purpose of the game is to get loot. By your definition of gambling, Diablo 3 would be gambling because it contains the 3 requisite elements: consideration (I paid $60), chance (RNG loot drops), prize with sentimental value (in my case, Wand of Woh. Took me an entire year of grinding to get one).

Click to shrink...

I bolded the part of your quote that is opinion, not fact. I haven't played D3 but I played a ton of the original Diablo with friends, and while loot was always exciting, the purpose of the game (for us) was to have fun and eventually win. I don't suppose D3 is *that* much different.

Beyond that: you paid $60 to play the game. You are not paying for each RNG loot drop. That is where the biggest difference is. It absolutely is not the same. You didn't pay for RNG loot drops. You paid for a game that provides entertainment on its own, but also gives the loot a purpose: you want to wear that loot and use it to kill stuff, which is even more fun, and that is what the $60 was ultimately for. If you believe that the only reason to play the game is RNG, you could just play Yahtzee instead, right?

 

[Alienous]

Gambling is a sick temptation to spring on people. All it takes is one go, and a lack of good luck, and it's easy to see how people get stuck in a loop of "I got nothing of value, but if I stop now then the money I've already spent will have been for nothing - I'll give it another go".

 

[Deleted member 15395]

Good article, the fact this caught the attention of governments is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will amount to something.

 

[oni-link]

Heck I don't even necessarily want to get rid of the Overwatch lootboxes, but how much would it seriously hurt to just give the option to buy items with real money?

Click to shrink...

Without "progression" systems, people would stop playing when they have had their fill

If there are bars to fill up, or stuff to unlock, then people will keep playing

I'm not saying OW isn't a great game, I'm sure it's a ton of fun, but the progression is what hooks people, without it, the number of active players (and therefore, payers) would drop a lot quicker

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I was hoping someone would write this article. Good on Waypoint for being on point as usual