The War Against Lootboxes

So, as lootboxes have become a bigger and bigger part of industry revenue (Ubisoft admitted they make more than half of their income from microtransactions), gamers have been getting less and less happy with how integrated these systems have become with AAA games.

Star Wars Battlefront 2 features lootboxes as the primary means of progression in the game, and EA wound up pushing the envelope a little too far. After a massive backlash originating on Reddit, they've had to backtrack quite a bit.

Initially, they reduced the credit cost of crates by 75% after the assessments that it would take 40 hours of grinding per hero. However, the community on Reddit had already expected a reduction, and had concluded that EA had priced things higher so that they could "listen to their customers" and reduce prices...while forcing people to accept the lootbox basis of progression. And the community was having none of it.

Concerted efforts began to appeal to various higher authorities. There is a petition to get the ESRB to classify lootboxes as gambling. Notes were sent to Disney to make them aware that EA was using their IP to push gambling to children. And contact was made with the media to push the same perspective. Which earned several articles on mainstream news sites, including Fortune and Forbes.

What's more, regulators are starting to look at the lootbox scenario. Dutch regulators and the Belgian Gaming Commission, which could have serious legal implications across the EU.

EA has removed the ability to purchase credits to buy lootboxes as of now. But the progression system is still tied to lootboxes, and the ability to purchase them as microtransactions is due to return once they've "rebalanced" it.

While I agree something should be done about loot boxes in general, I fear government involvement to regulate the industry in any capacity will lead to a possible disaster down the line. If we give governments the okay to regulate games because of gambling issues related to having children access said features, who says they won't use the same logic to finally censor or outright prevent games with violent content from being released because, hey, a child might play a violent game like they would those crafty gambling games!

Again, something needs to be done. I don't trust any government with things at this point.

But governments already regulate gambling to be honest. And trying to make the leap from regulating games that involve something worse than gambling (all of the addictive aspects of gambling with no chance of ever winning real money), to using that as justification to censor games based on content seems a stretch to me. Not saying it couldn't happen, it just seems like something that'd be a hard thing to both sell to the public and the courts when it's inevitably challenged.

And other than government regulation, what else can be done? People can stop buying them, though that doesn't seem to be happening. And it's doubtful the people they make the most money off of in microtransactions will have the willpower to simply stop doing it. Maybe more people need to hear the terms game companies use to describe the big spenders. Because they don't see them as people who potentially have an addiction problem. They see them as whales. Something to be exploited for as much money as they can squeeze out of them. And they are constantly looking for ways to turn more people into whales. Because they don't place any value on the human being who will ultimately play the game.

The rise of loot crates and microtransactions in full price games is a really poor business practise and is a factor for my dwindling interest in Triple A games. I understand why these mechanics are in free-to-play games but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The constant carving up of content for pre-order bonuses was bad enough, but to actively restrict the likes of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars game is absurd.

It’s frustrating because I like the concept of a random loot box both in games and in things like blind boxes IRL and I think they have a place. For those of you who played my recent EoFF RPG, that had loot boxes and that was my ideal model. I offered every item in the boxes separately so that it would work out cheaper if you get them in a box, but if you desperately wanted something you had the option to get it. From what I saw of player behaviour, people seemed to prefer the random boxes rather than paying for specific items.

There are even worse predatory practises looming on the horizon. I know Activision-Blizzard are the darlings of a lot of people here for games like Overwatch (which also has loot crates), but they are probably worse than EA at this point. They filed a recent patent for a game mechanic that works like this: The game notices you like using, say, sniper rifles, and it wants you to buy its premium expensive sniper rifle for real money. So it matches you up with players who not only have that sniper rifle, but are also of a much higher skill level of you. When that high skill player is done stomping you with their sweet gear, something along the lines of "xXSniperDude420Xx beat you using this super sweet mega sniper rifle. Press X to buy for $10" pops up at the end of the match. Setting people up to fail and have a miserable time with a game they already paid a significant amount of money for is just repugnant, but this and practices like it will become more and more commonplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

While I agree something should be done about loot boxes in general, I fear government involvement to regulate the industry in any capacity will lead to a possible disaster down the line.

---

I agree, government intervention will severely damage the industry. But whose fault is that? The consumers who reported the issue or the multi-million dollar companies who exploited them in the pursuit of more and more profit?

Yeah, I'm kind of disappointed with fans giving Overwatch a pass. True, their loot boxes are for cosmetic things, but I knew they weren't going to stop there. That is pretty shady. I'm really glad I never bought into that game.

According to Activision-Blizzard, they haven't implemented that system in any game.

...Yet.

Though it'd be nearly impossible to tell if they had, and it also doesn't say anything about whether or not they licensed the patented idea to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

There are even worse predatory practises looming on the horizon. I know Activision-Blizzard are the darlings of a lot of people here for games like Overwatch (which also has loot crates), but they are probably worse than EA at this point. They filed a recent patent for a game mechanic that works like this: The game notices you like using, say, sniper rifles, and it wants you to buy its premium expensive sniper rifle for real money. So it matches you up with players who not only have that sniper rifle, but are also of a much higher skill level of you. When that high skill player is done stomping you with their sweet gear, something along the lines of "xXSniperDude420Xx beat you using this super sweet mega sniper rifle. Press X to buy for $10" pops up at the end of the match. Setting people up to fail and have a miserable time with a game they already paid a significant amount of money for is just repugnant, but this and practices like it will become more and more commonplace.

---

Hmm hadn't heard about that. Is that for like destiny 2?

Personally I have no issue with cosmetic loot boxes, I argued this in discord the past two days xD Gameplay lootboxes are what is trout to me. Paying money to look pretty is whatever, it doesn't affect gameplay. Paying money to get a better weapon that will murder people more easily, that's lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

Yeah, I'm kind of disappointed with fans giving Overwatch a pass. True, their loot boxes are for cosmetic things, but I knew they weren't going to stop there. That is pretty shady. I'm really glad I never bought into that game.

---

OW doesn't have any purchaseable weapons so it most likely doesn't reference OW. IT's probably destiny 2 as it's now on the Blizz launcher but it's not Blizz themselves. Still activision tho

I think it all will depend on how gambling is classified. Maybe it should be taken into account for the rating, if nothing else. If it has gambling, make it a T or equivalent rating. Put it on the back of the box, just like violence or alcohol. It's far too late to make it go away, but at least that way, it's noted, and hopefully parents or the players can make a decision about it. Does anyone remember the casino in pokemon red and blue? It's strait up gambling, albeit without the use of irl money, but it was just as addictive as any other form, and it wasn't mentioned anywhere as a warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chibi Youkai

I think it all will depend on how gambling is classified. Maybe it should be taken into account for the rating, if nothing else. If it has gambling, make it a T or equivalent rating. Put it on the back of the box, just like violence or alcohol. It's far too late to make it go away, but at least that way, it's noted, and hopefully parents or the players can make a decision about it. Does anyone remember the casino in pokemon red and blue? It's strait up gambling, albeit without the use of irl money, but it was just as addictive as any other form, and it wasn't mentioned anywhere as a warning.

---

I'd go ahead and make it rated "M". Heck, most of these games already have a "T" rating.

Also, why do you think it's too late to make it go away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

There are even worse predatory practises looming on the horizon. I know Activision-Blizzard are the darlings of a lot of people here for games like Overwatch (which also has loot crates), but they are probably worse than EA at this point. They filed a recent patent for a game mechanic that works like this: The game notices you like using, say, sniper rifles, and it wants you to buy its premium expensive sniper rifle for real money. So it matches you up with players who not only have that sniper rifle, but are also of a much higher skill level of you. When that high skill player is done stomping you with their sweet gear, something along the lines of "xXSniperDude420Xx beat you using this super sweet mega sniper rifle. Press X to buy for $10" pops up at the end of the match. Setting people up to fail and have a miserable time with a game they already paid a significant amount of money for is just repugnant, but this and practices like it will become more and more commonplace.

---

Hmm hadn't heard about that. Is that for like destiny 2?

Personally I have no issue with cosmetic loot boxes, I argued this in discord the past two days xD Gameplay lootboxes are what is trout to me. Paying money to look pretty is whatever, it doesn't affect gameplay. Paying money to get a better weapon that will murder people more easily, that's lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

Yeah, I'm kind of disappointed with fans giving Overwatch a pass. True, their loot boxes are for cosmetic things, but I knew they weren't going to stop there. That is pretty shady. I'm really glad I never bought into that game.

---

OW doesn't have any purchaseable weapons so it most likely doesn't reference OW. IT's probably destiny 2 as it's now on the Blizz launcher but it's not Blizz themselves. Still activision tho

---

I'd still be very, very concerned if I played Overwatch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I'd go ahead and make it rated "M". Heck, most of these games already have a "T" rating.

Also, why do you think it's too late to make it go away?

---

I can agree with making it an M rating, since we have similar limits on age for what is considered traditional gambling. As for why I don't think it will go away is just because it's hard to put a cat back in the bag once it's let out. Unless the rules change, as much as it's morally reprehensible to use psychological gambits to part you with your money, it's still not illegal. As long as people still buy the products, unless the rules change, that sort of micro-transaction is probably here to say. The outrage on reddit is a good first step, though. And hopefully the people making the games will respond to that and adjust, but as long as there are companies that care about nothing more than the bottom line, they will always try to find a way to part people with their money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Hmm hadn't heard about that. Is that for like destiny 2?

---

Probably more like Destiny 3. I should've been clearer - it's the next step after loot crates, given that loot crates themselves had pre-order bonuses, online passes and season passes as precursors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Personally I have no issue with cosmetic loot boxes, I argued this in discord the past two days xD Gameplay lootboxes are what is trout to me. Paying money to look pretty is whatever, it doesn't affect gameplay. Paying money to get a better weapon that will murder people more easily, that's lame.

---

I disagree for the simple reason: Cosmetics are gameplay. I think, more than many hardcore gamers will admit, having customisation options and being able to create a unique character as part of your own identity, particularly in an online game, is fun. This is especially relevant to a game like Overwatch or Destiny where doing your thing with skins is both part of the experience itself and the game's identity. And if you enjoy both, who is to say the fun you have from getting a headshot is any more valid than the fun you have from making a cool outfit? Why should one experience be subjected to real money gambling mechanics and not the other?

The obvious caveat to this is that the average player will spend much more time having fun with the actual fighting than with the dress up, but I would argue that there's no benefit to players to having any of the gameplay experience gated off unless they stump up the cash, regardless of how much time they spend on that particular aspect.

You are, of course, within your rights to tell me you don't enjoy the cosmetic side of things in the slightest and that's okay. That's a two way street though, and it'd be churlish to deny that it is a big part of the experience for a lot of other people who play the game and I'd hope, regardless of your personal stance on cosmetics, you'd agree that they don't deserve to be subject to exploitative business practises. If it's a "meh, not my problem" thing then you do you, but to that I would say take note of Battlefront 2 and realise the slippery slope to performance enhancing loot boxes is very real.

Oh i'm a cosmetic whore when it comes to games. The random lootboxes thing on getting cosmetic stuff is fine by me cause i like EVERY character to have stuff. So I don't get salty if I get one for a different character I may not normally play. OW for example though doesn't just gate lootboxes off via cash. You get it for leveling and for playing the weekly arcade and you can get several a week just by playing the game. They just also allow you to spend real money for it.

I would disagree with cosmetics = gameplay mechanics though. It's literally just new skins and colors. That doesn't make you have a advantage in the game over someone else. Even if you personally are like "man it's great to kill someone as a yeti!" that didn't actually give you an advantage over your opponents, it just looked cool to you. So dropping money so you can look cool is meh to me, no biggie. As cosmetic items aren't really necessary to the game outside of looking cool. But dropping money to actually have an advantage, that's what I find lame.

It's one thing to kill someone as a yeti
It's another to have that yeti skin give you a 50% damage boost.

Being able to earn those cosmetic boxes in game in various ways it perfectly fine. Having an option to also buy those via real cash, what does that hurt? You're still able to get a lot of the boxes without paying a dime and it's not giving you an advantage in game outside of you feeling like it's cool that you're a yeti.

Now I keep seeing the saying "slippery slope!" with OW as if OW started the box thing or "normalized" it. But Loot boxes and buying them was very popular before OW even came out. People forget it's only been around for a year now. Heck GTAV (2013) apparently was one of the worst offenders. I remember reading recently about whales dropping tons of money for ME3's Multiplayer (2012). Most often this is coming from EA games anyway. So they've been testing the waters on how far they can go for a while.

Lootboxes just seem like the end result of monetization practices that continuously pushed the envelope. Remember when we thought pre-order content or day one DLC felt bad? Those feel quite tame now.

But it's not something that I see an easy solution.

There won't be any self-regulation from the AAA developers themselves; they make too much money and EA's bad PR--while incredibly satisfying--will probably not significantly affect their bottom line. The ESRB raison d'etre was to protect the industry from government regulation (back when violent games were all the rage); I don't see the ERSB having an impact. I'd much rather trust Sony and Nintendo (but lol not Microsoft) to be the chief regulators here; Nintendo banning lootboxes from their console could be a perfect marketing ploy.

Government 'gambling regulation' itself is something I'm iffy on. Here't the skinny: there's no real way for the federal government to enforce gambling. Point in case: fantasy football has been around for how many years now? States have to enforce the federal online gambling law, although federal courts adjudicate violations. Too easily I can see bigger developers (especially in the mobile market) setting up predatory legal teams to target smaller developers for their microtransactions. Some creativity might be in order here, e.g. limiting the amount of money developers can accept in the form of microtransactions (per month per costumer) to kill off the whales.

But, without government or industry self-regulation, what is there? The most I can say is to try to change consumer norms. But even I have a hard time taking that idea seriously: as long as whales exist lootboxes will too and even if we can convince 95% of game players lootboxes are bad, if it isn't the critical few percent, does it really matter? The cynic in me says no. But also consider how Microsoft's Xbox One concept turned 180 degrees because of expected consumer response and EA isn't entirely unresponsive with Battlefront II shenanigans either.

My general feeling is indsutry self-regulation would be great, but unlikely; consumer norms changing would be optimal, but also unlikely; government regulation might be haphazard, but what else is there?

The situation honestly kind of sucks.

It will hit a point anyway.

This is not the first mass customer rebellion against the gaming industry.

Remember E.T. for the Atari 2600. The game itself wasn't absolutely terrible, for the time. But it was just a result of having so many shovelware games thrust out that consumers didn't care anymore. They just quit buying.

The practice of relying on a handful of whales does somewhat isolate developers from this practice. Whales are, after all, the most dedicated of consumers, and will hang on longer than most.

But part of the idea of the system is that whales need other players. Without a solid community of non-whales serving as content, whales get bored and stop buying.

If the trend of driving away regular customers to get bigger and bigger returns from the whales continues, it will hit a point where there aren't enough regular customers to keep the whales coming, and that exodus will slam the pocketbook of companies like EA hard.

That's the real reason why EA is going through hoops trying to keep people buying right now. They don't care about the lost $60 sales, because they're changing the income stream to rely on thousands from a handful of specific players, who aren't going to care about this mess. But if there's a mass player exodus, the game community won't be large enough to interest the whales, and that revenue stream will collapse.

Ah, video game controversies. I love watching EA, Ubisoft, WB, Activision-Blizzard, Bethesda Softworks (ZeniMax) and Konami shoot themselves in the foot and then wonder why everyone's so mad. I hate the practices. Even cosmetic lootboxes, if I want to customize my character, I should be allowed. In that regard, I should be able to buy a skin, or pay less for a random skin. But I also hate the idea of getting a skin I already have, because I know there's going to be crap skins you would receive multiple times. The things where you never receive the same thing twice is nice. The option to break things down and build your own is less optimal, but at least it's not a waste

But i've never really been a big fan of microtransactions to begin with. I'm really just okay with legitimate expansions. Once those became "DLC" I started to lose interest. And now I'm outright repelled by these practices and ONLY buy actual expansions, if anything at all. But i'm also not a big fan of digital content in general though so I guess I'm less susceptible

But I love watching EA squirm. I loathe the fact that they're just covering their heads and waiting though. They haven't learned anything legitimate by this. Just how not to show their hand. I imagine they're just waiting for things to blow over rather than actually rethink what they've done. Their business plan is in stone, and anything short of government regulation or mass consumer exodus is going to do jack all to make them change their desires

EA is one of those companies where I just don't trust them and don't want to pay them. Outside of BioWare games, I don't buy anything from them new, if at all.

Welp: http://www.pcgamer.com/amp/belgium-s...ned-in-europe/

The regulators in Belgium decided lootboxes are gambling, and is going to push for them to be banned in the EU.

I'm not overly surprised. Loot boxes are one of those things where it might not meet a technical or a legal definition of gambling, but it's gambling. The feeling and the system of reward and psychological feedback they use is the same. It's the same in spirit.

Congratulations Triple A gaming industry, that's what happens when you take trout too far with no consideration as to the consequences.

While, in their last look, the ESRB did not classify loot boxes as gambling (with arguments that you always get something, and that your prizes can't be traded back for monetary worth, IIRC), that argument is not swaying a growing number of legislators.



All the companies who had been using microtransactions have got to be burning EA in effigy at this point. "You just HAD to see how far you could push it, didn't you? You just HAD to take back your 'worst company' award, didn't you?"

I bet all the non EA devs are like "Damnit EA, you pushed it too smurfing far and now you got us all screwed over." lmao

I love this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

It will hit a point anyway.

This is not the first mass customer rebellion against the gaming industry.

Remember E.T. for the Atari 2600. The game itself wasn't absolutely terrible, for the time. But it was just a result of having so many shovelware games thrust out that consumers didn't care anymore. They just quit buying.

---

Wouldn't really call that a rebellion. People just found it more difficult and strenuous to attempt to work back then what could possibly be a polished video game back then, as there was no internet to show them what was bad and what to avoid. There was video game magazines, but even back then you couldn't always trust what video game journalists said. So buying a new video game back then was like playing Russian Roulette.

Imagine the risk you would have with video gaming back then. Only to find out it was a rushed, glitch-y mess and a waste of your hard earned cash. The wife is fuming. Your son is letdown. You wasted $50. Money that could've gone to pay those bills, fix up the car or the kitchen etc. Money that could've gone to a new bike instead. Yikes.

So when something seemed like a wise choice for a new game and Christmas gift; Americans just didn't know what to buy or trust anymore when it came that entertainment. American media also assumed that video game/s was just a fad that would die out within a few years too.

I say Americans, because there was supposedly no Video Games Crash in UK/ Europe. They survived on PC Gaming and The Sega Master System.

There is a rebellion happening with EA today though, which, fair enough. They are one of the worst companies ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maybee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

It will hit a point anyway.

This is not the first mass customer rebellion against the gaming industry.

Remember E.T. for the Atari 2600. The game itself wasn't absolutely terrible, for the time. But it was just a result of having so many shovelware games thrust out that consumers didn't care anymore. They just quit buying.

---

Wouldn't really call that a rebellion. People just found it more difficult and strenuous to attempt to work back then what could possibly be a polished video game back then, as there was no internet to show them what was bad and what to avoid. There was video game magazines, but even back then you couldn't always trust what video game journalists said. So buying a new video game back then was like playing Russian Roulette.

Imagine the risk you would have with video gaming back then. Only to find out it was a rushed, glitch-y mess and a waste of your hard earned cash. The wife is fuming. Your son is letdown. You wasted $50. Money that could've gone to pay those bills, fix up the car or the kitchen etc. Money that could've gone to a new bike instead. Yikes.

So when something seemed like a wise choice for a new game and Christmas gift; Americans just didn't know what to buy or trust anymore when it came that entertainment. American media also assumed that video game/s was just a fad that would die out within a few years too.

I say Americans, because there was supposedly no Video Games Crash in UK/ Europe. They survived on PC Gaming and The Sega Master System.

There is a rebellion happening with EA today though, which, fair enough. They are one of the worst companies ever.

---

Okay, then...

How about the original release of Mortal Kombat? When consumers were so upset with the industry that they threatened legal regulation if it didn't regulate itself, thus giving birth to the ESRB.

Which, hilariously enough, is something the industry should have paid a bit of attention to. We asked developers not to do this. They did any way. We told EA that the system wasn't working. They kept it in anyway. We asked the ESRB to regulate lootboxes. They decided to stick their thumbs up their rears and explain why they're not technically gambling, ignoring that the point was to regulate the industry practices that consumers found unacceptable, not justify them legally, in order to AVOID legal regulation.

The consumers tried, tried, and tried again. They were constantly rebuffed and ignored. So they turned to legal response. The AAA gaming market has no one to blame but themselves. And if it has a massive impact on a lot of "innocent" games like Hearthstone, Overwatch, or mobile titles, maybe they should have simply agreed to customer demands in the first place.

As a random aside, the ESRB as it exists serves no useful purpose and is only damaging to the video game industry. Also no one who was mad about Mortal Kombat was a "consumer" of Mortal Kombat, similar to the fake outrage about GTA many years later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

As a random aside, the ESRB as it exists serves no useful purpose and is only damaging to the video game industry. Also no one who was mad about Mortal Kombat was a "consumer" of Mortal Kombat, similar to the fake outrage about GTA many years later.

---

Consumer - a person who purchases goods and services for personal use.

I thought it was widely accepted that the purchases at the time were made by the parents, though not intended for their use. Thus, they were the consumers, as they were the ones paying for it, and they were indeed the ones outraged.


In the current generation, with those gamers growing up and sticking with games, we live in an era where many gaming consumers purchase the products for themselves, as well as their children.