Jump to content

General Gaming Thread


TKz

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, RPS said:

I think what is important to point out is that is the legal definition of gambling and it was likely defined in terms of "receiving something in returns for your money" for very specific purposes. The definition of gambling could very well be redefined to include lootboxes. From my view, gambling is not exclusively spending money on the off chance you will receive a prize. Gambling, to me at least, is when an individual expends resources on an uncertain outcome, where the majority of outcomes will be of little or no value to the individual and where a slim minority of rewards will have significant value to to the individual. 

 

I agree, and I hope this practice will be held under further scrutiny as it becomes more common.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trust any change will happen. You'd need the toxic side of the gamer world to join in, and as history has shown, they won't care unless a female indie game developer does something about 1/10th of a percent as unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.pcgamesn.com/star-wars-battlefront-2/battlefront-2-loot-box-gambling-belgium-gaming-commission

Quote

While all eyes are on the Reddit AMA going on with the Star Wars Battlefront II developers today, that’s not the only subject of interest for the game today. It seems one governmental organization is investigating whether the game’s loot box system should be classified as gambling.

Here's everything wrong with the Battlefront II progression system.

According to VTM News, the Belgian Gaming Commission - which regulates all gambling in the country - is currently investigating whether or not loot crates in the game should be categorized as gambling.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tricky - but it can relate down to that.

The lootbox concept in general can be pretty legitimate when it's done right. When companies spend years on game development and only get money out of the initial sale, it kind of sucks - so expansion packs were the norm for quite a while but as the loot box concept started to take hold, micro-transactions as a service started to pick up with GTA V's Shark Cards being the most popular example - and while most companies couldn't get that to work, they started looking at loot boxes as an alternative to create their own 'shark card'. They can go one of two ways;

a) Contents that are only cosmetic or only applicable to a single player experience

b) Contents that give the person getting them an advantage that other players wouldn't have

And then there is the question of how the user gets loot boxes. Are they earn-able through actions in the game? Most of the time yes, but then there is also usually a system where people can pay real money to get boxes instead. I support this if it's option A because when you look at games that people will buy and play for a full year without dropping any extra money to the developer, I think it's a fair shake to say (especially if they are adding content and supporting the game) that if they can create something that people are willing to pay for, that's fine. But if it ends up being option B and you can't earn loot boxes as easy after a certain point.. you're going to have problems.

COD before the most recent one allowed guns to come in loot boxes and the guns that came in them were better than the ones that people just got through regular means. Battlefront 2 is getting hit hard because they have boosts that come in these packs - so if you're running around the game and getting killed by people using these boosts, you're probably going to be pretty discouraged with the slow rate of loot boxes that you are getting and you're either going to pay up to get some yourself or stop playing the game.

Former developers at studios have pointed out how loot box systems are worth it if only 10% of the people who buy the game purchase it, and then you'll have the 1% who spend ridiculous amount of money (look at streamers who play FIFA or Counterstrike) to push that even higher. I honestly think that BF2 is EA seeing how far they can push before the backlash becomes too much - but even with all this the game is still going to sell amazingly so its hard to say where things will go from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA is pulling all microtransactions from the game for the time being. Will work on balance and shit in the game before bringing it back. 

 

Good! If you have to grind stupid amounts of time yo unlock a character, the game should be f2p. Like Rainbow 6.... I paid full price for the game. Why can't I play all the characters?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'for the time being' is key, mind.

I personally am skeptical, and I expect them to wait until after Christmas to return the system with little alterations but nothing that'll make it any less rotten in design. It's a diversionary tactic, a PR olive-branch where they hope that people will give the game a chance and less informed people will buy the game for themselves, their friends, their (grand-kids) and so on.

They're waiting until the shitstorm passes over a little bit, make some token changes, return the system. Then when there's some backlash (less, because the topic will be 'old'), they can squash it through the usual means of 'We have listened to our userbase, we have already done x and x to make it so much better.'

Personally, I have never bought loot crates or anything through microtransactions, period. Whether they be cosmetic or they impact the gameplay, sports titles I have done through my own effort and grinding, and so on.

I don't mind the system per sé, if it's used for cosmetics. But the way it works, the way the gaming business and corporations work, they can't take something without making it a soulless device to greatly improve profits. Pay 2 Win is the most effective way to get consumers to fork over more cash for their video games, and with Battlefront EA has shown they really don't give a rats arse about the consumer.

From the system itself, to the online matchmaking that deliberately(!) matches gamers with special loot against gamers without special loot to skew the balance further to the paying side, and try to dishearten non-paying gamers enough for them to pull their wallets out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, therockbox said:

Aren't lootboxes essentially like buying a pack of football stickers? You want X, it's not in the first one you buy so you get more. Isn't that how it works? The whole lootboxes/microtransaction thing has completely passed me by tbh.

I think the key distinction is that in a digital game, there is no tangible property associated with that. In the example of stickers or cards, I can sell extras or duplicates or I can trade with friends or I can go on E-Bay and specifically buy the card I am looking for. With digital games, it is all self-contained. I can't go and sell my skin in a game I purchased that I got through a lootbox, even if it is a duplicate. 

In tangible properties, it is fine because you can always do what you want with the tangible rewards you get and there are systems in place to bypass the one entity giving the cards out. With digital or intangible properties, it is self contained to one universe where all of the power is in the hands of one entity who controls the drop rate and the property obtained has no value outside of the game itself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly got going to be praising EA here, but the fact that public outcry has forced them to at least look as if they're doing something is a good sign. While I have no time for fans who start throwing tantrums because Sonic's eyes are green or because Dante from Devil May Cry changed his hairstyle, I think there's value in applying pressure over matters like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ruki said:

EA is pulling all microtransactions from the game for the time being. Will work on balance and shit in the game before bringing it back. 

 

Good! If you have to grind stupid amounts of time yo unlock a character, the game should be f2p. Like Rainbow 6.... I paid full price for the game. Why can't I play all the characters?

I mean, Siege is pretty good for that. My only issue with it is that you don't get one demo run with characters before choosing who to unlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really, really need to learn not to get cocky in my 3rd/4th war in EU4, because invariably I get slapped back down so hard that literally all my gains of the prior 80-odd years are wiped out. :(

"Oh I'm sure I can take Venice. They've just had their armies/manpower blitzed by a war with the Ottomans and I only want one measly province off them. I don't need to wait another 16 bloody years to curry enough favours with France so that they join in with me."

Ahahaha, haha, ha. 

tumblr_oynetfAdhU1vwqsxao1_250.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy