Indeed, it shows a correlation between those who exhibit (or self report iirc) problematic gambling and spending on loot boxes.
It certainly doesn't indicate that removing loot boxes reduces problem gambling.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
EA: They’re not loot boxes, they’re “surprise mechanics,” and they’re “quite ethical”
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
Indeed, it shows a correlation between those who exhibit (or self report iirc) problematic gambling and spending on loot boxes.
It certainly doesn't indicate that removing loot boxes reduces problem gambling.
Wonder how long until Sony and Microsoft get dragged into this because ultimately they allow these games to be sold and these systems also make the platform owners plenty of cash as well. It is within their power to say to companies like EA that if you want your game on our platform you need to follow XYZ. They have stipulations like that over super buggy software, so why not for companies who do absolutely zero to protect vulnerable people and children inside of their content. I say, bring it on. We need this shit ousted from gaming, fucking Ultimate Team, loot boxes, stupid Rocket League crates etc. Get it all to fuck.
Been posted before, but easy to miss. Thought this might be of interest to people - this is the entire meeting from which this clip comes, involving representatives of Epic and EA.
The beta was full of dumb shit like power boosting cards being locked behind random rolls in lootboxes. Sure, you could earn lootboxes by playing but paying gave you access to rolling for that power boost. That's what kicked off this entire shitstorm of possible abuse of gambling systems.
Oh, right, I missed that you called out that single sentence. Yeah you would have to assume lootboxes are problem-gambling, instead of correlated, for that to be true
edit: I think NewScientist is actually reporting on this study:
Zendle, D. I., Meyer, R., & Over, H. (2019). Adolescents and loot boxes: Links with problem gambling and motivations for purchase. Royal Society Open Science.
which has only just been published (yesterday!) and seems to be much, much stronger in its assertions.
I don't have time to read it currently.
Yes, but who fucking cares? You can't just try getting away with predatory behaviour like that. Who knows when it'll pop back up? Cat is out of the bag and its obvious to people now how bullshit that kind of monetisation can be.
Excuse my ignorance, but don't these loot boxes work like trading cards? Isn't the objective the same? Pay money for a chance at a good item?
Is the issue the drop rate? Or is it also the lack of an option to buy whatever item individually?
Is the issue the drop rate? Or is it also the lack of an option to buy whatever item individually?
Last edited:
There are a few ways they are different and i'm sure others have covered it much better than i can. But one minor difference is that card packs are going to have certain cards put into them when they leave the factory. Videogame companies, on the other hand, have all kinds of data on individual player behaviour, they can stack the deck in their favour by for example giving you rare drops for heroes you don't play in hopes of getting you to spend more because "You are on a roll". They can tailor the box to get the most money by employing tactics that target a specific subset of players.
I don't trust them enough to think they don't do that already, so maybe regulations are in order?
Its also the velocity of the purchasing along with using and the substituting (2nd or 3rd) currency commonly used to mask actual costs. (Among many other things) *also not to defend publishers and/or Devs, but what you said there, cannot actually be proved. While, we can not say it is happening, they can not say it isn't... nor would they ever publicly admit to it in any case.
In Aus, when it comes to Pokie machines, we are at least assured the owner hasn't fiddled with the odds in the return $ to customer amount due to random spot checks and heavy regulations;- I assume this is probably the same for most.
*late edit.
Last edited:
I wonder if the MPs were aware of that publication linked above, because the results are quite shocking in combination with the Epic and EA reps giving no heed to whether minors are interacting with the lootboxes.
I mean damn, regulation or [AO] classifications are needed yesterday.
Ethics and morals are just opinions which makes discussions like this so long and drawn out.
Wow, and here I thought Jim Ryan's "think of the children" was going to be the dumbest spin I've seen this gen.
EA is definitely shaking due to this proposed bill. Serves them right for building their business on predatory practices.
EA is definitely shaking due to this proposed bill. Serves them right for building their business on predatory practices.
What proposed bill? I don't think there is any proposal in the UK with any weight behind it whatsoever. This comes from an extremely broad inquiry which, I'd imagine will produce absolutely nothing given the total lack of competence shown by the MPs yesterday.
Unfortunately, while I think this is spot on and precisely the argument I would use against loot boxes, that's several thousand levels beyond the understanding of the MPs in that hearing. I also think a lot of people in this thread, most of whom are taking 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach to this, might be a bit surprised when the findings of this committee suggest legislation which will do much, much more than just affect loot boxes. Some of the MPs sounded like they'd like games to prevent you playing for long sessions, for example.
Last edited:
Yeah my apologies, I missed the part about the Scottish MP and thought this was news from the US.
It was the same with the recent US story about that senator introducing legislation against lootboxes. That also included the inability to purchase extra virtual currency to save real money, even though buying in bulk at physical retail is legal, and it potentially included the requirement to track all players ages. That same senator is also introducing legislation so the Govt can go in to tech companies private systems to ensure they are "politically neutral". People shouldn't be for these sorts of things just because they are against some other thing, for which they often state they never buy such games anyway, yet they still want to welcome Big Govt in.
The power of loot boxes I guess. Jack Thompson must be kicking himself for picking the wrong fight.
That's a bold claim. Meanwhile there are doctors doing studies with thousands of people and analyzing the data and writing reports, who are obviously quite invested in coming to your conclusion, yet they are unable to do so.
Not sure how it's a bold claim exactly.
We have the companies comparing them to kinder surprises, a chocolate egg with a plastic toy no one tries to collect the whole set when loot boxes are things kids and adults can spend thousands a year just trying to get an item that they can't sell and will be redundant in next year's game.
Thanks for the link. From that new study (below), just 1.6% bought a lootbox on the first day of playing a game, and only 3.3% in the first week. The authors once again do not even attempt to correlate play time with spending, which is a huge thing to miss.
In total, 1158 full responses from participants aged 16–18 were collected. Two of these participants listed their monthly loot box spending at over $1 000 000. These were deemed non-serious and removed from the study. One additional participant listed their loot box spending at over $20 000 and also incorporated an abusive message to the researchers into the qualitative portion of their survey completion. They were deemed non-serious and removed from the sample. This left 1155 full responses.
Overall, 687 participants (59.5%) had not paid for a loot box in the past month, and 468 participants (40.5%) had.
When it came to how quickly they had started buying loot boxes, of the 468 'buyers' in the sample, only 19 (4.1%) estimated that they had bought their first loot box within a day of playing a game; a further 20 (4.3%) estimated that they had bought a loot box within their first week of playing a game; 52 adolescents estimated they had bought their first loot box within a month of starting to play a game (11.1%); and an overwhelming majority of 377 adolescents (80.6%) estimated that they bought their first loot box more than a month after starting to play a game.
Personally I don't think anyone wants the government, of any kind, to have to step in. However these companies are absolutely using predatory practices based off of gambling algorithms to profit off of people with addictive tendencies that in no way improve the quality of the products they sell and are, based on the findings of studies like the ones linked above, either potentially harmful in encouraging gambling addictions or managing to just exploit such tendencies very well particularly in adolescents. People have complained about them, to the point companies have made changes, but they creep right back in because the companies can't resist the profit.
I mean I'd mean I'd much rather the companies just decide to not to do this garbage and find a method of self regulation like the ESRB did for violent video games so many years back. If the ESA worked as intended it would be trying to make that happen, but now it's more a lobby group to deflect from the shortcomings of the industry giants. Looked like a couple of years ago publishers started pulling back from loot boxes when rumors of legislation were happening then but dove right back into it anyway. They're welcoming Big Govt in by ironically being unable to check their worst impulses.
With the way they've handled it I'm not happy about the 'enemy of my enemy' I'm more 'well they got it coming because they decided chasing profit today at any cost was more important than long term success and their use base, and now the rest of us will suffer from whatever other regulations get stuffed in there, thanks a lot publishers'.
EA can shit 💩 in their hand smh
They really gne make me skip out on Star Wars huh? Even if there are no mtx in the game, I can't rock with this at all. Fuck off lol.
They really gne make me skip out on Star Wars huh? Even if there are no mtx in the game, I can't rock with this at all. Fuck off lol.
There's a slight bit of difference between trading cards that you physically own and can be traded off or even resold to others and a $60 Buy-in followed up with purchases made that won't carry over to the following $60 game that rinses and repeats the formula...
The problem we have is how the gaming industry could have put in some consumer protections and regulations to help "levitate" the problem, and chose not to. As such while it may not be appropriate to impose special regulations on the industry, they kind of brought this upon themselves by doing such actions in the first place and not trying to fix it afterwards.
Honestly, Mr. Sterling does a much better job in pointing out the flaws in EA's nonsense than I ever could.
Doing a quick calc and using EAs earning reports it takes roughly 17 people not buying a game for them to notice on their reports....
Their accounts use $1000 as the minimum unit to report, so 1000/60 is 16.66, so round it up to 17.
in other words if a handful of people boycott them they will see it, not that they'll comment on it.
The video raises a fair point. The Fallen Order was announced with no Lootboxes being in the game, or added at a later date. However, this doesn't mean that there won't be Surprise Mechanics in the game now. Might want to see some clarification on this from the devs.
The problem is that the entire model is built on "whales," where a small handful of people (many of whom have addiction issues) prop the whole thing up by spending way more than average. Even if the vast majority of people don't spend a dime (or refuse to play altogether,) the model won't really be affected. As long as the whales are there, it will continue.
It's a system built on siphoning the most money from a specific subset of players. Where most developers used to try to satisfy as much of their audience as possible (because they were, generally speaking, all paid customers worth about the same,) the new model is fine with kneecapping most players if it means the whales will spend more.
It's a difficult thing to fight against because of this. The only people with the real power to affect change either have enough money and don't care, or are victims of addiction and are being manipulated to overspend.
...
It's super weird to see a defense of TCGs here because packs are 100% gambling. Are kids going to be spending thousands in a day? No, but they'll pester parents every week.
Konami is super manipulative with its short printing of chase cards as of late too.
Folks that want to spend 200, go ahead.
But let me buy the 3 skins I want each for 3.99 or some shit. Who cares. Whales are still going to get everything.
But now, you also have a lot of folks that like askin and they buy it. I guarantee each event, if you sold a skin for 1 -4.,99, folks will buy it
Did you honestly think you could get definitive conclusion within a few years for damn near anything of this nature? It would take many many years to come to a concensus. It's simply the nature of this type of research.