Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[nakamura]

EA are right, it's not gambling. Fact. That doesn't mean it's an especially good practice though.

[dataDave]

Fighting a legal battle to defend screwing your customers over by have gambling in your game. What a hill to die on.

They won't be dying for quite some time yet...

[cutmymilk]

I hate microtransaction and the idiots spending hundreds buying them. I feel like an old man not "getting" it while all the kids seem to love throwing their money at their favourite game. However, I don't think they should be illegal.

[MartyG]

EA are right, it's not gambling. Fact. That doesn't mean it's an especially good practice though.

gambling
[gam-bling]
SynonymsExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for gambling on Thesaurus.com
noun
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

It is gambling. It's a game of chance that you pay money for. It is literally the definition of gambling.

[dataDave]

However, I don't think they should be illegal.

Gambling aimed at minors should most certainly be illegal.

Imagine if Nintendo started to put Amiibo in mystery boxes, only there is a mere 15% chance of actually obtaining the Amiibo you're paying for. The other 85% of the time you get a folded piece of paper with "Please understand" printed on it.

[Dogg Thang]

The thing there, Dave, is that happens a lot. Like with Lego minifigures, for example. You will get a fig but maybe not the one you want. It doesn’t mean it’s not gambling by definition but there are many real world examples of the same thing. But it feels like it gets abused in gaming, especially in instances where you have to pay 60 quid to even enter then system.

[nakamura]

gambling
[gam-bling]
SynonymsExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for gambling on Thesaurus.com
noun
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

It is gambling. It's a game of chance that you pay money for. It is literally the definition of gambling.

You aren't getting any other stakes. You are getting nothing in return. It's literally not gambling because you can't win anything. It's all self contained in a yearly package that is reset and turned off shortly after. It's a mugs game for sure.

The whole meaning of stakes is to increase what you had before. Before you play FUT you have nothing, after, you still have nothing.

[MartyG]

Where does the definition say anything about winning or that the stake has to be worth more than the cost of entry? The game of chance is the lootbox itself, the stake is cost of purchase for the content within the box which is not guaranteed to be a rare item so the value is variable - that is your risk; EA have introduced a variability by giving each card a rarity value and skewing the odds of receiving them. If it was a matter of always getting something back, then casinos could return a token item for all outcomes and claim their premises weren't entertaining gambling because you never lose.

the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

It is by the dictionary definition, gambling. That is exactly what you are doing with FUT lootboxes.

[fishbowlhead]

You aren't getting any other stakes. You are getting nothing in return. It's literally not gambling because you can't win anything. It's all self contained in a yearly package that is reset and turned off shortly after. It's a mugs game for sure.

The whole meaning of stakes is to increase what you had before. Before you play FUT you have nothing, after, you still have nothing.

ES’s look cards/boxes are the very definition of gambling. Unless we’re now working on trump rules where everything means nothing anymore and we just make up what we please?

[nakamura]

There are no stakes. You cannot win anything.

[Cassius_Smoke]

There is a book called The Power of Habit. Its a great book and it'd recommend reading it to help form useful habits and curve addiction.
In it the author describes the mechanics of habit/addiction forming.
Essentially its a loop of Cue>Habit>Reward.

The cue could be the time of day.
The habit is going outside, picking out a cigarette from the box and lighting it.
The reward is the Nicotine.

It could also be

The cue: Playing a video game and wanting to be better/have better stuff.
The habit: Putting money into the microtransation system.
The reward: Adrenalin rush built on the possibility of receiving something worthwhile.

You can apply a similar loop to one armed bandits.

Not all people get addicted to microtransactions, but some do; and putting real world money in and facing possible financial ruin because of this addiction is something that needs addressing. Especially when the game designers know that children can get pulled into this loop too.
Its not the addictions of playing the game that's the problem, all games are addictive, and this is essentially a forum of addicts in that respect.
Its the deliberate introduction of habit forming psychological loops designed to squeeze money out of people and children that needs to be restricted.

[cutmymilk]

I used to spend my dinner money on stickers. At least with FUT parents have to give their child PSN points or whatever ON PURPOSE to buy them.

I understand the peer pressure aspect of it very well and it is exploitative and I wish lootboxes didn't exist at all. But government getting involved is ludicrous. Ban Fortnite whilst at it - did way more damage to kids last year than lootboxes.

[MartyG]

The Belgium Government (or rather the Belgian Gaming Commission) is applying the existing laws applicable on its statute books. Are you saying that Belgium's laws shouldn't apply to EA?

[Asura]

Ban Fortnite whilst at it - did way more damage to kids last year than lootboxes.

This is my worry. People are flocking to write to their MPs asking for governments to intervene in videogame practices; a bizarre inversion of what happened back in the 90s when people were hoping and praying that governments kept their nose out of videogames.

I just worry if EA press the issue, they're going to bring down the fire and fury and the entire industry will be slapped with requirements that are draconian. Imagine if some idiot in Whitehall suggests that videogames which offer you any form of payment for any form of random rewards are gambling and thus need to be regulated, leading to their removal from games.

No more loot from enemies in Final Fantasy, no loot drops in World of Warcraft, because you paid something (for a game, a sub fee) and the rewards were random. Perhaps even no more randomness in the damage values of RPGs, because you bought the game but your weapon isn't guaranteed to do the exact amount of damage all the time.

These are all daft, but similarly, people in government have very little understanding for videogames. They're the sort of people who, if you the question arose, would need to ask their daughter "what Nintendo Playstation do you have? is it 3? or 5? X-wii or something, the one with Fortnite on".

[Cassius_Smoke]

Realistically all the government has to do is rewrite the line in the law (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...heading/gaming) which defines gambling as needing a prize of money or moneys worth.

If you look at Belgiums law it says:

Be a game.
Involve a stake of any kind.
Result in a loss or a gain.
Involve at least a minimal degree of chance in the outcome.