Jump to content
NEurope
Sign in to follow this  
Choze

EA and Star Wars leads to governments looking to get loot crates under control.

Recommended Posts

On 27/02/2019 at 10:57 AM, Dcubed said:

Since this has sort of become the unofficial Jimquisition thread...

 

... I can't wait to hear his take on the whole THQ Nordic fiasco!

That's gonna be fun! In a sorta depressing way.

"Depressing fun!" should be the blurb for his videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 27, 2019 at 10:57 AM, Dcubed said:

Since this has sort of become the unofficial Jimquisition thread...

 

... I can't wait to hear his take on the whole THQ Nordic fiasco!

It has arrived.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nintendo are ending both Fire Emblem Heroes and Animal Crossing Pocket Camp in Belgium.

Quote

Due to the current unclear situation in Belgium regarding certain in-game revenue models, we have decided to end the service for Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes in Belgium. It will therefore no longer be possible to play and download the games from Tuesday 27 August 2019.

Players who still have Orbs and / or Leaf Tickets in their account can continue to use them until the service ends.

In addition, future Nintendo games with similar earnings models will no longer be released in Belgium.

We would like to thank all players in Belgium for playing Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes.

Just a shame that only Belgium are enforcing these laws. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/05/2019 at 1:11 PM, Hero-of-Time said:

Nintendo are ending both Fire Emblem Heroes and Animal Crossing Pocket Camp in Belgium.

Just a shame that only Belgium are enforcing these laws. 

Odd. From the way the message is written, it sounds like Nintendo is uncertain whether those games are affected by Belgium's law or not.

If so, it is possible another company (likely EA) might decide to deliberately undergo a legal battle just to find out exactly how restrictive that law is, and how much they can get away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonnas said:

Odd. From the way the message is written, it sounds like Nintendo is uncertain whether those games are affected by Belgium's law or not.

If so, it is possible another company (likely EA) might decide to deliberately undergo a legal battle just to find out exactly how restrictive that law is, and how much they can get away with.

EA were originally going to do that but then backed down.

It looks like the anti-lootbox bill over in the US is gaining more support from other senators.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/23/18637155/loot-box-laws-us-senate-josh-hawley-ed-markey-richard-blumenthal

I bet a lot of publishers are starting to worry a bit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

EA were originally going to do that but then backed down.

It's one thing to oppose the bill being passed in the first place (which is what they tried to do, iirc).

What I'm suggesting is that, once the law exists and is being enforced, someone will launch a game that pushes the boundaries of what the law may allow. For example, if you pay for a specific costume, but a small element of it (like a colour, or an accessory) is randomized, does that count? What about paid DLC for randomized levels in a roguelike? Does the law's wording happen to cover that? Those sorts of idiosyncrasies.

EDT: It just occurred to me, that if that US bill passes, this is a legal battle we're more likely to see over there.

Edited by Jonnas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2019 at 11:26 PM, Jonnas said:

It's one thing to oppose the bill being passed in the first place (which is what they tried to do, iirc).

What I'm suggesting is that, once the law exists and is being enforced, someone will launch a game that pushes the boundaries of what the law may allow. For example, if you pay for a specific costume, but a small element of it (like a colour, or an accessory) is randomized, does that count? What about paid DLC for randomized levels in a roguelike? Does the law's wording happen to cover that? Those sorts of idiosyncrasies.

EDT: It just occurred to me, that if that US bill passes, this is a legal battle we're more likely to see over there.

Well alot is happening. Even time spent gaming is on the table.

Gaming introduces health issues and costs on economies if people play or spend too much! Its good politicans all round agree here. The industry quite frankly is pushing themselves into a bad state. Many of us are flawed human beings and we definately are too close to make the best choices here.

We can see many gamers actively post about asking for more grinding and loot luck in their games.

Gambling is destructive. The gaming industry has endorsed Gambling. You are competing against teams of psychologists, economists and game designers. Its not a fair playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 05/06/2019 at 10:18 PM, Choze said:

 

Gambling is destructive. The gaming industry has endorsed Gambling. You are competing against teams of psychologists, economists and game designers. Its not a fair playing field.

I disagree with that bit. I think it's more people who see that video games are popular (but still controversial) and have found a topic to latch onto to gain popularity to further their own agendas.

If they actually cared about the impact of gambling, they would be targeting the same thing that exists physically: collectible card games and kids blind box toys.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cube said:

 

I disagree with that bit. I think it's more people who see that video games are popular (but still controversial) and have found a topic to latch onto to gain popularity to further their own agendas.

If they actually cared about the impact of gambling, they would be targeting the same thing that exists physically: collectible card games and kids blind box toys.

Yes and no.

Sure, the products you mention can be predatory, but there are key differences with those business models. For example, individual cards can be bought and sold, and there are a lot of non-random options (like pre-built decks). The business model for blind box toys don't often depend on whales or longterm player engagement (and the most famous one of all, the Kinder Egg, comes with guaranteed chocolate).

Meanwhile, a lot of the business models we've seen in western-made videogame lootboxes for these past few years is inefficient, unrewarding, and overall really dumb, what with charging 60€ for the base game, then requiring lootboxes with hidden appearance rates to do anything. It's much easier to argue against lootboxes when they decide to be so blatant about it, and extremely easy to make discussion public by applying it to famous licences like FIFA, NBA, or Star Wars. By comparison, the arcades of old required one coin per life to even be played at all, but the fee was so small, that no one made a fuss. Japanese games and toys have also been pioneers of the Gacha model, and they managed to find a niche by generally having accessible free-to-play options, as well as being transparent about drop rates.

Finally, I think the movement to regulate lootboxes has less to do with videogames per se, and a lot more to do with Star Wars. "Gamers" didn't raise the fuss that broke the camel's back, Star Wars fans did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonnas said:

 

 For example, individual cards can be bought and sold, 

 

This makes it actual gambling, though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cube said:

This makes it actual gambling, though.

Yeah, I guess it does. I was thinking strictly on the idea that you don't need to buy a pack to get what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike physical card packs, video game gambling has one very big distinguishing and insidious key difference...

 

... the developer is always rigging the odds in real-time...

 

With physical card packs and collectibles, the physical thing is out there and is immutable.  It can also be traded and sold to get what you want.

 

Video games though? Those scumbags behind those loot boxes are purposely rigging the odds against you in real-time; and they have full control over distribution between players.  That makes it SO much worse for problem gamblers! They are laser targeted in real-time and are actively exploited.  The developers know exactly what they’re doing at any one time; and have so much data they’ve collected on them that they know exactly how to exploit their every weakness.

 

Playing a loot box game is basically like pulling the slots in a Las Vegas casino; the house always wins.

 

This industry has already proven that it can’t control itself.  The time for self-regulation has already passed; now they need outside regulation.

Edited by Dcubed
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/06/2019 at 7:28 AM, Cube said:

 

If they actually cared about the impact of gambling, they would be targeting the same thing that exists physically: collectible card games and kids blind box toys.

I think this will draw attention to those as well by extension. Its just that gaming companies have been found foul of countless stuff lately 'because they can get away with it'. Apple mandating data sharing blocks on kids games for example. It shouldnt be happening but it is.

Edited by Choze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I should make a new thread for this and this seems the most appropriate place for it.

Here's a BBC article looking at examples of parents getting blindsided by kids buying exploitative microstransactions.

It's all too easy for less tech-savvy parents to fall victim to this.

Tom Watson has stated that games that use these microstransactions are a "Gateway to Gambling" and I agree with him.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but if you don’t have your credit card information locked behind a passcode or Touch ID (a pretty simple and sensible thing to set up on any device, especially if you are sharing it with children) and you expect your gadgets to be a digital babysitter, you deserve everything you get.

The “I’m not tech savvy” doesn’t fly anymore. Technology is incredibly user friendly and it takes 5 minutes to find out how to install locks on such stuff and another 5 to implement it. Laziness and a lack of responsibility are the only things that come to my mind with these kinds of stories. I’ve seen this kind of stuff first hand in my own family and this “oh but I didn’t know they would do that” is a pathetic excuse in reality.

What these games are doing is abhorrent, but if the parents were responsible, it simply wouldn’t happen.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

Technology is incredibly user friendly and it takes 5 minutes to find out how to install locks on such stuff and another 5 to implement it.

 

Whilst I generally agree, I find an issue with this bit. It takes us 5 minutes to find out, but for someone who doesn't even know how to use the internet, it takes far longer. Factor in the fact that some people might not even know parental locks etc are even a thing and I can completely understand how this happens.

A lot of people's experiences with buying with a card is limited entirely to physical shops. Shops don't store card info, so someone could be completely forgiven for assuming online shops don't either. They might not understand that their card can be used again without then re-entering the info. Why would they even look into locks etc when they assume it's a one and done transaction?

You have to remember we were not only raised alongside technology, we also have an active interest in it. A lot of parents don't use or care about online transactions etc. Their first experience is when their kid wants something. No one who has ever used anything for the first time knows it all, and parents are no different. You absolutely cannot expect them to know the things we do from the second they pick up a computer/phone/console etc.

My dad (who has never owned a smart phone) actually asked me what Amazon sells the other day and I realised how complicated it actually is. Amazon sell their own products, other people's products, but not everyone's, but also there's the marketplace for some products, which are sold on Amazon, but by other people, but some Amazon marketplace orders are fulfilled by Amazon, whereas others are independent people just using Amazon to list their items. See how confusing that is, and that's just one site. Imagine never having used any internet device before and suddenly being asked to buy something for your kid. I think you'd be entirely forgiven for not knowing a lot of things.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the fact that even the safety features just don't work all the time. My neice managed to buy something on her phone even though there is a password on the purchases. Some quirk with subscriptions I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely blame on both sides, I can understand that parents might not have a clue when it comes to this sort of stuff (though sometimes I think they really shoudn't be giving their kids smartphones but that's another issue) but the game companies on the other hand know exactly what they are doing, they're even bargaining on these things happening in the first place I'd bet, but because these parental features are there on the devices, it often gives certain companies who are perpetuating the situation a get out clause or an opportunity to pass the buck.

Also, while it's good to see that the mainstream media appear to be reporting on this sort of thing, where the BBC is concerned, I have to ask what agenda are they trying to push ultimately, they might look like they're trying to get the stories of people who have been affected by these situations across and while the "gateway to gambling" point is a valid one, it just makes me wonder is all... I think that if there is further regulation then it's just going to mean that the government wants more of the revenue or something along those lines, I don't think anyone will stop all of these microtransactions, loot boxes or surprise mechanics :indeed: and asking the government to step in never really ends well where anything is concerned.

But I do think that there is a simple answer... don't buy the games in the first place, yes I'm aware that this is easy for me to say, I don't have a family of my own so I can't imagine what it must be like to have a kid asking you to buy or install the latest Fifa, CoD or whatever "free to play" game is popular but if there is no access to these games in the first place then that should cut off access to the microtransactions as well and if no one buys the games, maybe the developers and publishers will see this and consider not persuing microtransactions in those games any more.

Or more likely, they'll probably just shut down the studio, cut their "losses" and move onto devouring the next "AAA" money making scheme but there isn't an easy answer to this at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, after seeing in a different light after the story was featured in the latest Jim Stirling video, it does seem to be the case that in the instances used in the article, there was no way that the parents could have known about the microtransactions and the excessive spending until it was too late.

Damnit though, how does it really get to such an unchecked level that companies are able to do this? The example of the hidden object game was pretty bad, I mean... it's a hidden object game, I'm amazed that the company managed to put so many microtransactions into such a game in the first place, I can remember there being loads of hidden object games on the DS which you can pick up for pretty cheap but at least all the content was there.

So it looks like the BBC article was a case of them actually doing some reasonably good journalism (which makes a bloody change) because the fact that we're talking about vulnerable adults here just makes it even worse, they probably didn't even have any comprehension of what they were doing at the time, as far as they were concerned, they were just playing a game. :(

*sigh* This has gotten to a really sickening point, at least it's being highlighted but why do I get the feeling that there isn't much which is going to change? At least it's a warning to others I suppose who then might read it and might be able to prevent it happening in their own households, so it's something. ::shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit saddened to see Rocket League has gone this way. I've always liked their system of buying DLC cars for a couple of pounds. They were purely cosmetic, but I bought a few every so often, as I really enjoy the game and I got it for free originally, so figured giving them a bit if money only seemed fair.

But now they've introduced loot boxes, which you earn in game, but need to buy a key to unlock. I'd say it was more scummy than most, as you already have the box, even more blatantly dangling the carrot in front of your face.

I'm all for microtransactions if you know what you're getting (in game cash or specific items etc), but as soon as a random element is added, it can fuck right off. Random, paid loot is just a way of getting someone to pay more for the thing they actually want. Say there's a 50% chance to get the thing you want, 50% of people will have to pay a second time (or maybe even a third or fourth) time to get what they want. If that's not scummy I don't know what is. It's even worse when it's implemented into a game you've already forked out £50 for.

All it is is maximising profit with complete disregard for its users. They'll make token efforts to prevent anyone blaming then when the inevitable child or vulnerable adult spends an obscene amount, but they really couldn't give a shit as long as the money keeps coming in. It reminds me of a casino I was in a while back. There were signs everywhere "encouraging" sensible gambling, but when a man came in with stacks of cash and started playing 2 roulette tables at the same time and losing hundreds of pounds at a time, no one said anything. The guy clearly had a gambling problem, but neither of the croupiers said a word. They just let him get on with it, losing thousands of pounds in about half an hour.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49084726

COME THE FUCK ON!!! This is absurd!!

This makes the UK Gambling Commission's stance on in-game gambling even more comical! Game publishers are literally laughing at them now!

Yeah, this is absolutely bonkers. I suppose with GTA being an 18 rated game they will have some wiggle room in regards to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Yeah, this is absolutely bonkers. I suppose with GTA being an 18 rated game they will have some wiggle room in regards to this.

These jokers literally advertise GTA5 in trailers for BBFC 12A movies (yes, I have seen this in cinemas) and they're getting away with it.  They know that children are the primary audience for GTA games!

 

PEGI are complete failures! The gambling commission are complete failures! And Rockstar are literally just laughing in their faces while doing this!

Edited by Dcubed
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dcubed said:

These jokers literally advertise GTA5 in trailers for BBFC 12A movies (yes, I have seen this in cinemas) and they're getting away with it.  They know that children are the primary audience for GTA games!

PEGI are complete failures!

Indeed and this is why the government needs to step in, for better or worse. PEGI and ESRB have shown time and time again that they are incapable of doing what's needed and are instead happy to turn a blind eye. Tin foil hat and all that but i'm still adamant that these ratings boards get paid off by a lot of these big publishers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×