Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Asura]

I can see this being easily circumvented by doing what they currently do: release the game without loot boxes then patch them in later.

They can't do that. When you release patches on the consoles, those patches have to pass a submission process with the platform holder which has similar rigour to the game submission process; you can't "stealth" stuff.

The only patches which can side-step those rules have specific conditions. This is also one of the reasons you don't see many MMOs on console, as this process is lengthy and also expensive, and MMOs tend to patch frequently.

[Digfox]

It'll just be vague statements similar to what EA did with FUT, so 'less than 1% chance for the best card'. Which in reality is closer to zero.

[Asura]

It'll just be vague statements similar to what EA did with FUT, so 'less than 1% chance for the best card'. Which in reality is closer to zero.

Let's see what they do; I would be surprised if they tolerate this. I suspect they're going to ask for the actual odds as specified in the game's config data.

The thing is, I'm not certain how much difference this will make. People already know that the odds of getting the items they want from lootboxes are bad; they buy them anyway.

[Cassius_Smoke]

It would have been a more bold statement if they said they won't allow games with loot boxes or gambling mechanics on the next gen consoles. But that's never gunna happen.

[Neon Ignition]

Presumably, as platform makers, they're beginning to sense trouble is brewing around all these practices and their relation to gambling and the move is more about legal protection for themselves rather than curbing their existence. We've had DLC, Online Passes, Microtransations, Loot Boxes etc I wonder what next gens fad wallet milking approach will be?

[wakka]

This is a good, if small, step forward. But there’s no way knowing the odds will stop people buying them. Otherwise no one would play casino games or buy lottery tickets.

[Asura]

This is a good, if small, step forward. But there’s no way knowing the odds will stop people buying them. Otherwise no one would play casino games or buy lottery tickets.

It won't stop a lot of people. I know it's hard to believe, but there are people who genuinely like these games, and enjoy the freedom of spending a little or a lot that gacha games give them. These people aren't necessarily exploited any more than we felt exploited by the difficulty of 80s arcade games that asked for more coins when you died. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all the people paying for freemium games are doing so just because they're naive and are being manipulated; some people genuinely enjoy them and weigh up their expenditure according to that enjoyment.

There are also people who have compulsion problems, or poor impulse-control, who end up spending huge amounts of money on these things, and it's also absolutely true that there are unscrupulous developers/publishers who are intentionally targeting those people. The problem is I doubt that this would help those people either, because, as you mention, lottery tickets.

It will probably stop some, though. I'm curious to know how much.

[Neon Ignition]

I've no idea exactly how the Casino operates in GTA Online as GTAO is such a broadly weak experience I don't bother with it but surely a literal Casino in a game that uses monetary funding via Shark Cards falls directly into the legal pit of online gambling and creates an issue for the game and platform holders given the high number of underage users?

[Asura]

I've no idea exactly how the Casino operates in GTA Online as GTAO is such a broadly weak experience I don't bother with it but surely a literal Casino in a game that uses monetary funding via Shark Cards falls directly into the legal pit of online gambling and creates an issue for the game and platform holders given the high number of underage users?

Again, GTA is 18-rated. If we're saying that these ratings are ineffective that opens up an enormous can of worms for the government to **** over gamers, so for the moment we should maybe pretend it's played by adults.

That being said the catch-all is simple; there's no way to convert that casino currency back into real money. Gambling mechanics show up in loads of videogames, even ones for kids. How many games have some location where the character plays a slot machine, or a card game, for an in-game currency? Even the Mario games do this.

You could argue, for example, that the random loot drops in MMOs are a game of chance because players are putting in paid time for an uncertain reward.

I'm really hoping the industry (mainly the platforms) move FASTER to try and self-regulate this because as I keep saying, if the government wades in, we will all lose.

[Dogg Thang]

If we're saying that these ratings are ineffective

And again, there is no "if" here. We have all said it and we all know it. So let's be very clear: we ARE saying it.

And gambling in a game with paid-for currency isn't the same as doing it in a game where there is no facility to spend real money or the ability to assign in any way a real world value to that currency. And yet having said that, Pokemon had to drop its casinos in spite of having no real world purchases. So this is an issue no matter what way you try to twist it.

But Rockstar know what they are doing and what could hurt another company in terms of controversy often becomes a useful tool for Rockstar. They have been through far worse fires so I wouldn't be surprised if they're just going all-in to see what happens.

[Asura]

And again, there is no "if" here. We have all said it and we all know it. So let's be very clear: we ARE saying it.

And gambling in a game with paid-for currency isn't the same as doing it in a game where there is no facility to spend real money or the ability to assign in any way a real world value to that currency. And yet having said that, Pokemon had to drop its casinos in spite of having no real world purchases. So this is an issue no matter what way you try to twist it.

But Rockstar know what they are doing and what could hurt another company in terms of controversy often becomes a useful tool for Rockstar. They have been through far worse fires so I wouldn't be surprised if they're just going all-in to see what happens.

I don't disagree with you one bit, and yes, I fully understand the nuances.

What I'm saying is that we're talking about a government who only a few years ago had to have social media explained to them by an expert who used an example of water in pipes. The nuance is wasted on them. If they get involved, I fully expect them to err on the side of caution to the point of destructiveness; if anything looks remotely like a slot machine, it'll be labeled gambling, if anything's ever a game of chance, it'll be labeled gambling.

It's totally unwarranted and we all know this, but that's how it'll go.

I don't disagree that these IAP practices from some publishers are reprehensible; I just want the government to keep its hands off my hobby in the same way I don't want a gorilla to service my television.

[Dogg Thang]

I just want the government to keep its hands off my hobby in the same way I don't want a gorilla to service my television.

And yet when your TV is broken and setting fire to your sitting room, at some point you have to let someone service it.

[Team Andromeda]

I just want the government to keep its hands off my hobby in the same way I don't want a gorilla to service my television.

Agreed. They'll just make silly and bad laws. I just hate the thought of Government getting involved with regulation for the gaming industry; in terms of what 'content' can be put into games. I'll still laugh at one of the most vocal senators against Night Trap, whom when giving evidence, admitted that he'd never seen or played the actual game

When it comes to content like Lootboxes Ect I would say the consumer will do far more than regulation, in terms of bad PR and vetoing the product. Will will make the publishers and developers take note, far more than kneejerk legislation

[Neon Ignition]

When it comes to something like GTAO (and I'm still assuming in any case Take Two will just throw money at the problem to make it go away) would another countries government be a risk? Given some countries have been more hostile to gambling in games, loot boxes etc then if a couple push back it would cause the issue to fold because they won't want different countries requiring different versions of GTAO?

I mean, they'll have covered this themselves, I imagine it's entirely why Casino took so long to arrive. Last night I installed 5 (5!) GTA instalments from the PS2 onto my PS3, there's two and two expansions from the PS3 era. I'm literally not playing a new GTA because people are throwing money at Rockstar to own an imaginary Condo in a near two generations old game. How can they not be bored of the same environment by now? And how can they not recognise that they're GTA fans effectively blocking getting a new GTA game? GAAS suck so-so very hard.

[Cassius_Smoke]

In borderlands 2 there are one-armed Bandits, and I have stood there for quite some time throwing all my imaginary money into them in the hope of getting something good. Many other games have similar, for example Fallout New Vegas had a casino and i'm pretty sure I wasted all my Caps in there. However, none of this had any real world affect on me other than wasting my time and possibly teaching me how to play blackjack.

Adding the ability to buy imaginary money with real money and gambling it away does create a tangible real world affect. What they have created is a gambling simulator. One in which the house always wins and one were they can increase and decrease the odd of winning in a patch any time they want. People winning too much at blackjack? Just decrease the odds by a percent every few months and watch people kill themselves trying to win. Its just ****ty practice.