Any gamers around here?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've been a fan of Alan Smithee since the 1930s.

;)

[Cavebear]

I've been a fan of Alan Smithee since the 1930s.

;)

No value judgement or ageism or anything, but just out of curiosity, which one of you comes from the 1930's, you or him?

[Hydra009]

So I'm playing Endless Space 2 as Riftborn (aliens from another universe) and a scout ship found a lush paradise world teeming with life:



The Riftborn's home dimension was a very different place than our universe.  Biological life horrifies and disgusts them.  This universe is a scary, unpredictable, and messy place that can only be improved upon.  I feel like they really get me.

[_Xenu_]

No value judgement or ageism or anything, but just out of curiosity, which one of you comes from the 1930's, you or him?

Alan Smithee came from the late 60's, but you might want to google the name to understand what he is saying.

[Shiranu]

They aren't loot boxes, they are "Surprise mechanics"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlWr5Ss0Cw

*Sigh*

[Hydra009]

They tried to compare loot boxes to blind bags (opaque toy containers where the exact toy is unknown) which imo is a deeply flawed comparison.

For starters, they disclose both the available pool and the odds in blind bags.  And of course, loot boxes are typically dispersed liberally throughout the virtual world but require keys to open, psychologically pushing players to pay real money for the ability to open their collection so they don't "waste" them.  Blind bags don't work that way.  (for the record, I'm not a fan of blind bags, and loot boxes take their unsavory characteristics and crank it to a whole new level)

A much more accurate comparison is a slot machine.  Slot machines rarely disclose the actual odds.  And like loot boxes, they operate on variable-ratio schedule conditioning.  Basically, they respond unpredictably, sometimes giving you jackpots and sometimes giving you bupkis.  So naturally, the subject (which is what you are to EA) is conditioned to pull that lever (by giving money to EA) as much as possible to chase that sweet jackpot high.  The predictable end result is compulsive gambling.  This is being done to kids.  Intentionally.  Disgusting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No value judgement or ageism or anything, but just out of curiosity, which one of you comes from the 1930's, you or him?

Yes.

[Sal1981]

Loot boxes, ala the TF2 crates, is essentially gambling 1-on-1. But unlike TF2 crates, the best rewards were the very rare unusual which were essentially cosmetic, but you still need to buy the keys (only way to open the TF2 crates) or trade them from someone else who bought the keys. I haven't played TF2 for at least 3 years now, so I don't know how the situation is with crates now or overall mtx there.

Pretty much every amount of mtx devolves into p2w bullshit. Usually begins with innocuous cosmetic skins/doodads/whatever, but will eventually result in in-game advantages. This was the process in RuneScape 3 with spins/Treasure Hunter which gave in-game cosmetics to begin with and some minimal in-game items and exp then finally into straight bonds (which you can redeem for membership or sell for ingame gp).

This whole renaming of loot boxes, mtx and p2w advantages is really nefarious.

Gaming should be an art form, not gambling bullshit skinner boxes.

[Hydra009]

Apparently EA has a much more seductive message than I thought because I went over to r/gaming and there's a flurry of posts either in defense of EA or muddying the water.

Hell, there's even a really popular post claiming that Magic The Gathering packs are just like loot boxes.  Huh?  I mean, ffs, that's just collecting a somewhat randomized assortment of cards from a specific pool of cards.  That doesn't have a whole lot to do with ponying up $20 for whatever's inside EA's mystery box.

[Shiranu]

Apparently EA has a much more seductive message than I thought because I went over to r/gaming and there's a flurry of posts either in defense of EA or muddying the water.

Hell, there's even a really popular post claiming that Magic The Gathering packs are just like loot boxes.  Huh?  I mean, ffs, that's just collecting a somewhat randomized assortment of cards from a specific pool of cards.  That doesn't have a whole lot to do with ponying up $20 for whatever's inside EA's mystery box.

I'll have to deviate from agreeing with you for once... I do believe card packs are a form of loot boxes. It's the exact same mechanics.

[Hydra009]

I'll have to deviate from agreeing with you for once... I do believe card packs are a form of loot boxes. It's the exact same mechanics.

There's some similarity, sure.  But there are some important differences:

* CCGs are physical, not virtual (though in recent years, that has been changing) so you're getting something that can potentially last decades, not disappear when the company shuts down the server.

* cards are tradeable, so you're not entirely at the mercy of a centralized authority in obtaining what you're looking for.  In fact, you don't necessarily have to buy a single pack to create your deck.

* The pool of cards is known and odds of getting a specific card can be calculated (most sets have 200-300 cards, and every 15-card pack yields a guaranteed rare, 3 uncommons, and the rest are commons) so you're not going into it blind and you're not getting worthless crap for your money.

Note that I do perceive the issue as a sort of sliding scale of gambling, it's not all black and white (it can be blue, red, and green as well  :P  Sorry, I couldn't resist)  There are milder forms, like card packs (athletics, CCGs, etc) and blind toy bags and then there's loot boxes and slot machines.

[Hydra009]

And I kinda feel like I'm playing with fire here (and possibly also playing Lord of the Pit's advocate), but I'd also claim that the nature of playable card games with an increasing pool of cards (CCGs) basically requires a card pack system - the unpredictability is a useful feature in coaxing players into learning novel strategies and expanding their horizons.

If Wizards of the Coast sold their cards directly, players would gravitate towards a very small portion of cards and ignore the rest.  I know that I would go straight for blue and ignore everything else.  More of what you love and less of what you dislike, sound good, right?

Well, with the randomized packs, I got a lot more green than blue.  So I learned how to make do with a limited pool of cards and learned to how to play green effectively.  I was exposed to more art, more of the overarching story, different ways of playing the game than I otherwise would have, and come to think of it, exposed me to a different perspective than the one I usually view things through (green follows a markedly different philosophy than blue).

Naturally, it also made Wizards of the Coast a few more bucks, so they're not complaining.  At the end of the day, they're a business and they're profit-driven, but I'd like to think they also concern themselves with encouraging a bit of strategic thinking (getting the most out of what you have), encouraging imagination, and encouraging an appreciation for art.  That's a slightly different impression than I get from poor and desperate people picking out scratchers and handing over wealth for the possibility of wealth - where wealth and wealth alone is sought and valued.

[Shiranu]

* CCGs are physical, not virtual (though in recent years, that has been changing) so you're getting something that can potentially last decades, not disappear when the company shuts down the server.

They may last decades, but they may have zero worth a month from now. At the end of the day, they are just paper and loot boxes are pixels and neither has any tangible value.

* cards are tradeable, so you're not entirely at the mercy of a centralized authority in obtaining what you're looking for.  In fact, you don't necessarily have to buy a single pack to create your deck.

True, but the Belgian law (and some of the other nations) are more specifically targeting things like FIFA Packs, which are tradeable. And if you want to get a bit technical, I would argue that loot boxes are tradeable as well; if you like, you can sell the account you received them on and buy one with what you want.

* The pool of cards is known and odds of getting a specific card can be calculated (most sets have 200-300 cards, and every 15-card pack yields a guaranteed rare, 3 uncommons, and the rest are commons) so you're not going into it blind and you're not getting worthless crap for your money.

AFAIK, most loot boxes/online packs have similar mechanics... though companies generally keep them very secretive as to what the odds are.

(I'm not really all that invested in this argument by the way, and certainly don't want to defend AAA-publishers or attack trading cards. I just personally don't see much difference and if someone else does... that's perfectly cool with me)


Edit - And I will fully agree with your last post.

[Hydra009]

I regularly play a match-3 video game with randomized card packs.  The packs are purchased with premium currency (which can be earned fairly swiftly by just playing the game, no purchase is necessarily required).  If I buy a pack with currency that I got solely from gaming, am I gambling?

I think what I'm trying to get it is that there is less of a connection between randomized loot and lock boxes than most people would initially surmise.

I think that's the main thing that irks me about EA's ploy to equate what they're doing with other randomized loot systems.  They're intentionally cultivating compulsive behavior in general and creating whales (players who regularly spend large sums of money in the game) in specific.  Other systems either don't do that or do that to a much lesser degree.

[Blackleaf]

If game developers wanted to self-regulate, before government steps in and does it for them, one thing that might help is if their games detected excessive spending and either discouraged the player from continuing or cutting them off altogether. Perhaps with a message like, "You've spent $100 in our e-shop today. Are you sure you want to continue?" Seeing the total money spent could be enough of a wake up call for some people. At the very least, it would make the developers appear less malicious. Or they could do nothing, and potentially lose lots of money when the government decides to get involved.