Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)

The real problem with microtransaction is that many people are prey to them.

This is due to the sad state of the society (yes I know the meme) where people are depressed, sad, uneducated and therefore easily exploitable by addictive mechanics.
They are no different than gambling thus they should be banned to minors.

I hope in a world without mtx but it has to be that way because there is no market for them because people live a happy balanced life.
 
lefantome said:
The real problem with microtransaction is that many people are prey to them.

This is due to the sad state of the society (yes I know the meme) where people are depressed, sad, uneducated and therefore easily exploitable by addictive mechanics.
They are no different than gambling thus they should be banned to minors.

I hope in a world without mtx but it has to be that way because there is no market for them because people live a happy balanced life.
Click to expand...
Please see my point about correct terminology above! ;)
 
Malo said:
The main difference with digital is the focus by game creators on the presentation, audio, graphics etc. to greatly enhance that enticement, in addition to the ease of obtaining the loot boxes and repeating purchases.
Click to expand...

i bet there's an entire department, specialized for designing the SFX, AFX, UI, etc for the loot box.

all of the lootbox games i have ever played (not many tho...) have those utterly unbelievable over-produced effects. its like as if each box is the coming of God or something. To make things worse, there's no skip button :(

so im forced to watch it, and to make things worse. IT DOES INVADE MY MIND. I used to think all of them are annoying. Then i just blank-minded on every lootbox screen. then i starts to think "whoa this looks neat".

OMG MY MIND

and im more than 30 years old! the visuals/audio still affect ME! yikes. i cant imagine how exploitative that is for kids


EDIT: what weird is that i actually like lootbox rush in Destiny 1 raid. Despite it have pretty tame FX. when the icons starts to rolls, im as calm as usual, but then Vex Myth comes and WHOA im screaming like little kids.
 
Full ArsTechnica article: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...ly-introduce-loot-box-pay-to-win-legislation/

GOP, Dem Senators officially introduce loot box, “pay-to-win” legislation
Expansive prohibitions could heavily impact large swathes of the game industry.

Weeks ago, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released an outline for the The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, aimed at stopping randomized loot boxes and pay-to-win mechanics in the game industry. Today, Hawley was joined by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in formally introducing that bill in the Senate, complete with an 18-page draft of its legislative text.

Perhaps the most interesting portion of the bill attempts to define so-called "pay-to-win" mechanics in games. Those are defined broadly here as purchasable content that "assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction" or which "permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts."

For multiplayer games, this would also include any purchasable in-game content that "from the perspective of a reasonable user, provides a competitive advantage."

As far as loot boxes are concerned, the act targets games where purchasable in-game content is randomized or partially randomized. This includes games where you purchase one item for the chance to purchase unknown or random items in the future, closing one potential loophole before it even starts.
 
I hope that even if it goes nowhere, it continues and brings much more attention to the issues. It would be awesome if the mobile market was completely upheaved by this type of control. The mobile market is a disgusting cesspit.
 
Malo said:
I hope that even if it goes nowhere, it continues and brings much more attention to the issues.
Click to expand...
It's a bipartisan proposal. It refers to kids getting addicted to gambling.
IMO there's no amount of lobbying that will stop this from happening.

The ESA and ESRB can do all the acrobatics and gymnastics they want, this thing is unstoppable.
It's not only common sense to stop children and teenagers from gambling in a casino, there's also no major party in the US that will be opposing this.
 
BRiT said:
Perhaps the most interesting portion of the bill attempts to define so-called "pay-to-win" mechanics in games. Those are defined broadly here as purchasable content that "assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction" or which "permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts."
Click to expand...
Does DLC of new weapons or vehicles count as pay-to-win? What about a time-limited trial-and-unlock title - you can play for free but then have to pay to continue?

Gambling and in-game consumables need to be addressed, but I expect politicians to screw it up and make a dumb hash of it, and we'll have to go through a long, ugly process of trying to balance game finance with fair policy because they just plain aren't intelligent enough and impartial enough to come up with intelligent, well considered solutions.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
It's a bipartisan proposal. It refers to kids getting addicted to gambling.
IMO there's no amount of lobbying that will stop this from happening.

The ESA and ESRB can do all the acrobatics and gymnastics they want, this thing is unstoppable.
It's not only common sense to stop children and teenagers from gambling in a casino, there's also no major party in the US that will be opposing this.
Click to expand...
Won't the definition of gambling have to be updated which could have implications beyond these games? I just don't see it happening, especially in a political environment controlled by big companies.
 
There's a chance there will be a PS5 inside of one.

Your chances to win a PS5. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Your chance to win a T-shirt, all other chances. :p

Regards,
SB
 
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...s-until-evidence-proves-theyre-safe-for-kids/

UK Parliament: Ban all loot boxes until evidence proves they’re safe for kids
Call comes as part of massive inquiry into "immersive and addictive technologies."

"We recommend that loot boxes that contain the element of chance should not be sold to children playing games, and instead in-game credits should be earned through rewards won through playing the games," the Parliament report reads. "In the absence of research which proves that no harm is being done by exposing children to gambling through the purchasing of loot boxes, then, we believe the precautionary principle should apply and they are not permitted in games played by children until the evidence proves otherwise."
 
Imagine the impact on the mobile game market. It would be fantastic if these efforts come to fruition but I just can't see it happening.
 
Malo said:
Imagine the impact on the mobile game market. It would be fantastic if these efforts come to fruition but I just can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

EA would be f'ed if they slapped a mature rating on FIFA and had to put some kind of warning label on it about gambling. The amount of money they make off of FUT in the UK is insane.
 
BRiT said:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...s-until-evidence-proves-theyre-safe-for-kids/

UK Parliament: Ban all loot boxes until evidence proves they’re safe for kids
Click to expand...
Note that this is the recommendation from a committee tasked with investigating it, and isn't the policy of any government body and isn't 'Parliament' as that poorly worded article says. It's equivalent to the suggestions of some consultants which may or may not be agreed upon in part of whole by the policy makers.
 
And why this particular proposed will go nowhere is this flawed basis:

"In the absence of research which proves that no harm is being done by exposing children to gambling through the purchasing of loot boxes, then, we believe the precautionary principle should apply and they are not permitted in games played by children until the evidence proves otherwise."
Click to expand...

It is not for others to provide research to disprove your proposal, it is for the proposing group to provide evidence to support the proposal, that new legislation is required in the first place. The precautionary principle is something parliamentarians generally only accept when faced with overwhelming risk of damage or suffering. In this case, the expectation will be for the proposing group to go away and find evidence, commissioning somebody to do it if necessary. This shouldn't be that hard, we know gambling is addictive and that children are mentally and emotionally underdeveloped compared to adults - who themselves get addicted to gambling.
 
There may yet be hope that publishers and developers will switch away from micro-transactions, or at least gamers are voting with their wallets.

https://www.superdataresearch.com/additional-content-revenue/

1. Players are spending less overall money on in-game content but are proportionally spending more on one or two games.
2. Additional content is failing to effectively convert players.
3. Players are growing more and more wary of monetization tactics.

[On Point 1]
Fortnite in-game spending has been mostly declining since the start of 2019 with PC, console and mobile combined revenue failing to break $100M in September 2019. Additionally, in-game conversion has dropped to 16% and 10% on PC and console respectively from 30% and 36% in September 2018.

[On Point 2]
Despite generating $6.5B in PC revenue and $1.4B in console revenue in Q3 2019, in-game spending is failing to reach a sizeable portion of the gaming market. Half of gamers (51%) did not spend on additional in-game content in the past month despite major releases among microtransaction-heavy games such as FIFA 20 and NBA 2K20. Capturing the attention of those who do not spend on in-game content will require new and enticing solutions from publishers. Implementation is key, however, and game makers should be transparent in the ways they sell additional content.

[On Point 3]
Between loot boxes, battle passes, one-time booster packs and individual cosmetic purchases, there is no shortage of in-game monetization tactics. These strategies, however, are not enticing everyone to purchase additional content. Developers must seek out and identify the best approach for converting players to spenders or earning back player trust that was lost due to poorly implemented microtransaction models.
 
DSoup said:
And why this particular proposed will go nowhere is this flawed basis:



It is not for others to provide research to disprove your proposal, it is for the proposing group to provide evidence to support the proposal, that new legislation is required in the first place. The precautionary principle is something parliamentarians generally only accept when faced with overwhelming risk of damage or suffering. In this case, the expectation will be for the proposing group to go away and find evidence, commissioning somebody to do it if necessary. This shouldn't be that hard, we know gambling is addictive and that children are mentally and emotionally underdeveloped compared to adults - who themselves get addicted to gambling.
Click to expand...
I would say that gaming addiction is well known enough through the history of humanity that additional evidence isn’t needed.
 
BRiT said:
There may yet be hope that publishers and developers will switch away from micro-transactions, or at least gamers are voting with their wallets.

https://www.superdataresearch.com/additional-content-revenue/

1. Players are spending less overall money on in-game content but are proportionally spending more on one or two games.
2. Additional content is failing to effectively convert players.
3. Players are growing more and more wary of monetization tactics.

[On Point 1]
Fortnite in-game spending has been mostly declining since the start of 2019 with PC, console and mobile combined revenue failing to break $100M in September 2019. Additionally, in-game conversion has dropped to 16% and 10% on PC and console respectively from 30% and 36% in September 2018.

[On Point 2]
Despite generating $6.5B in PC revenue and $1.4B in console revenue in Q3 2019, in-game spending is failing to reach a sizeable portion of the gaming market. Half of gamers (51%) did not spend on additional in-game content in the past month despite major releases among microtransaction-heavy games such as FIFA 20 and NBA 2K20. Capturing the attention of those who do not spend on in-game content will require new and enticing solutions from publishers. Implementation is key, however, and game makers should be transparent in the ways they sell additional content.

[On Point 3]
Between loot boxes, battle passes, one-time booster packs and individual cosmetic purchases, there is no shortage of in-game monetization tactics. These strategies, however, are not enticing everyone to purchase additional content. Developers must seek out and identify the best approach for converting players to spenders or earning back player trust that was lost due to poorly implemented microtransaction models.
Click to expand...

I file this under "problem solved". People are, as always, voting with their wallets. Whatever we get, is what we asked for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Full transcript of John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 Keynote
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
34K
nemisis
N
Back
Top