Then you're fucking blind and also now on ignore for shitposting.
Loot Boxes Deemed As “Predatory Monetization” (University of Adelaide editorial)
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
Then you're fucking blind and also now on ignore for shitposting.
RNG based game mechanics are not inherently evil, but the lootbox system of microtransactions are designed literally to be as predatory as possible. If you want to talk about how World of Warcraft is as addictive as lootboxes, go for it. I'll say again, I don't think that RNG mechnics in general are predatory to the level that they should be removed from all games, as how they are implemented into the games design and how the player interacts with them determine whether or not we should view them as ethical. One of the most important elements of game design is player feedback and creating a feedback loop where gameplay and "positive" behavior is rewarded, something that RNG systems complement. However, when your entire system is a essentially a tollgate that blocks off game content that's distributed randomly to the player via a system of payments, I see that as predatory and something in need of correcting.
They do these wild exchange rates for a reason, peoples perception of value gets warped. They give you hundreds of thousands, millions for a 20-60 bucks at a clip and you drain that because you think you have a ton of virtually currency(VC) rinse and repeat.
Also they make the next VC exchange more lucrative so you will say oh I get double for less than double.
"inherently evil" is a bit confusing because you don't define evil other than monetary loss. What about game addiction that leads to loss of life? Many hours regretted? Plenty of game elements are designed to keep a player occupied playing that product. That's done using predatory techniques that hook you. On a scale, yeah, losing cash is more troublesome but it's all the same system of bells and whistles.
There isn't even an actual solution put forth that helps prevent and treat addictive personalities. What should be corrected here? Why target the vice? If there's alcohol addiction, do we raise the age on alcohol? Do we ban it? Do we make a required alcohol %? What about problem gambling? A lot of places have 18+ restrictions and 21+ in USA, do you believe this age requirement is actually stopping these addictions? Yeah, it's great to want to do better and make it a better system but... I don't know what to tell you, correcting the system doesn't solve the problem. In truth, I kind of hope loot boxes will shine more light on a thoroughly ignored issue of mental addictions.
I'm not establishing "evil" only in regards to monetary value or loss. You're trying to establish that RNG systems are predatory by nature, which I disagree with. How these systems are implemented and designed should be the ways we view them ethically and morally, and the lootbox system of monetization has established itself as decidedly predatory and invasive. RNG systems by themselves should not be removed from video games, but how these systems are implemented, especially in regards to practices that prey psychologically upon a consumer to spend more money, is something that definitely should be corrected if not outright removed. That's what I mean when I say "inherently evil". Also the idea that correcting systems don't 100% solve the issue so why bother is bogus and dismissive, why not just get rid of all laws then? You honestly seem to be arguing in favor of Loot Boxes here.
Bungie did the same for Destiny prior to it having loot boxes, and it got millions to buy an empty shell of a game and play it for tens/hundreds/thousands of hours while continuing to spend money on it. Every major corporation in the world does the same when packaging and promoting all of their products because it increases sales and parts consumers from their money on a more regular basis when they see that packaging and associate it with their previous experience with the product. I don't know where the line should be drawn for loot boxes, or why there even needs to be a line drawn in the first place for that matter. Maybe parental controls are missing something in regards to loot boxes that I don't know about, but that seems like an issue entirely unrelated to what loot boxes are.
So, in a nutshell: spend money with RNG = bad, no money + RNG = alright. You're not setting up a good reason why RNG systems designed to keep players isn't predatory. There are cases where these types of RNG based games have led to death due to long sessions. Some that aren't even RNG.
If you want to prevent something and you put in new rules or legislation to make that happen and it doesn't, can you say it was worth it?
You don't seem to understand what the actual problem is, it isn't loot boxes, and it is quite obvious loot boxes are the scapegoat for not wanting better mental health care. I'm surprised there's a lot of chatter about loot boxes nowadays when the signs of addiction were here long before. I suppose developers just rubbed players the wrong way. It makes you wonder how much of this movement is fueled on hating the developers or wanting true help for those actually abused by the system (and this extends outside of lootboxes).
Do you support the current system of Lootboxes, yes or no?
That answer is far more nuanced than "yes or no", and seeing as you want a binary answer, it's pretty obvious you don't care for the larger problem here.
I don't understand how anyone can justify these practices or not see them as economically predatory.
They purposefully exploit well documented weaknesses in human psychology for profit. Moving away from a good for service to this exploitative model has nothing good in store for this medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
They purposefully exploit well documented weaknesses in human psychology for profit. Moving away from a good for service to this exploitative model has nothing good in store for this medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
This buying compulsion isn't unique to loot boxes, but it is exacerbated by the fact that the system is constructed to make it as easy and convenient as possible to spend money and get instant gratification.
When I compare this to my own hobby (miniature war-gaming), there is a similar feeling of constantly needing to spend more to reach your goal, and being motivated to do so by the fact that you've already spent so much to get there. However it doesn't have the same instant gratification as it takes time to build and paint your models, and those figures have real world value, so your time and money aren't just being tossed into a furnace.
I don't know where the cut-off point is before something becomes too predatory to be left unregulated, but I'm absolutely certain that wherever that line is, loot boxes have crossed it.
When I compare this to my own hobby (miniature war-gaming), there is a similar feeling of constantly needing to spend more to reach your goal, and being motivated to do so by the fact that you've already spent so much to get there. However it doesn't have the same instant gratification as it takes time to build and paint your models, and those figures have real world value, so your time and money aren't just being tossed into a furnace.
I don't know where the cut-off point is before something becomes too predatory to be left unregulated, but I'm absolutely certain that wherever that line is, loot boxes have crossed it.
Jim Sterling called lootboxes and other similar types of monetization predatory for months now and now it's actually been deemed as such by a university study but there are still people who remain incredulous or in disbelief.
I'm not sure whether I feel surprised or dismayed that there are consumers who would defend or dismiss something diminishes the quality of their games by filtering and limiting how much of what they paid for they are able to use or unlock over time and can potentially harm them financially with its constant insistence and tactics.
Right now, at this point in time, publishers are making more profit off of these types of microtransactions than they are making out of their actual games and the more these types of studies expose the underhanded tactics they use the more likely they are to become regulated, limited or outright banned as some countries/regions have already started to consider.
People have been speculating about a bubble bursting in gaming for a long time but I have to wonder that if what now accounts for over 50% of publisher earnings was damaged/limited in a significant manner if that wouldn't bring dire consequences to many developers.
I'm not saying I endorse these predatory practices of course, I'm just stating that when these changes come to pass (I believe it's more a matter of "when" than "if") developer studios are more likely to see the short end of it just as they did when the mobile gaming bubble burst.
I'm not sure whether I feel surprised or dismayed that there are consumers who would defend or dismiss something diminishes the quality of their games by filtering and limiting how much of what they paid for they are able to use or unlock over time and can potentially harm them financially with its constant insistence and tactics.
Right now, at this point in time, publishers are making more profit off of these types of microtransactions than they are making out of their actual games and the more these types of studies expose the underhanded tactics they use the more likely they are to become regulated, limited or outright banned as some countries/regions have already started to consider.
People have been speculating about a bubble bursting in gaming for a long time but I have to wonder that if what now accounts for over 50% of publisher earnings was damaged/limited in a significant manner if that wouldn't bring dire consequences to many developers.
I'm not saying I endorse these predatory practices of course, I'm just stating that when these changes come to pass (I believe it's more a matter of "when" than "if") developer studios are more likely to see the short end of it just as they did when the mobile gaming bubble burst.
Your talking in circles about player engagement being just as bad as addiction and how we should look at that, but also saying trying to protect people from predatory practices or addiction is pointless, but also trying to argue that people don't really care about protecting people from these systems and its all about getting back at the developers, but also saying lootboxes are good because they allow us to view this problem in a burn it all down approach. I understand that the answer is nuanced, but at this point I'm talking to a brick wall. I'm out. Later.
Fun fact: People talked so much "how about card games?" in almost every thread about Loot Boxes that I bought some to myself
You don't think game addiction that leads to death isn't bad? You're missing the point that predatory practices extend further than just monetization. You're misconstruing a lot here even to the point where you say, " but also saying lootboxes are good because they allow us to view this problem in a burn it all down approach". I could even ask you where that point came from but I doubt you could source it as me.
Yeah, I completely agree with you, which is why "predatory monetization" is a much better term, because it ignores the whole "is it gambling" debate altogether, and just focuses on if it's predatory.
It's one thing to argue that it isn't gambling. It's another thing to pretend that this isn't predatory. I mean, come on. Even without the damning evidence (which is greatly appreciated), it's pretty fucking obvious, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant or biased to suggest otherwise.
It always amusing me when I see people arguing so hard that they're not gambling, as if that just ends the debate
I 100% agree with their findings. Ever since my first exposure to loot boxes (ME3) I've seen the correlation with scratch tickets and grimaced. I've never bought one and I never will, but I know people with addictive tendencies who have wound up in rough situations after being enticed into the practice.
Welp, an actual academic study comes to the obvious conclusion, and yet there are still people defending loot boxes. I'm not surprised, but I am also very annoyed that we still have to put up with this shit.
Yeah I think that's probably why not many members of the Era lootbox defence force have commented so far
This isn't something that can be handwaived away by shrieking about card games and dictionary definitions
What do you want done? What is the proposal to help those with addictive personailities?
This isn't an 'academic study', this is an editorial, the full text of which is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/add.14286. I broadly agree that loot boxes are problematic, but this article, thread, and most of the comments in it are blatant examples of confirmation bias. This is the written opinion of experts (on psychology, not games), and that's interesting, but it's not a study, it doesn't contain findings or new evidence specifically about loot boxes in video games.
I don't really understand your point, it's an article on the study, which is also linked in the article and the OP, that sums up the findings of the study, which you agree with, however that's confirmation bias?
Would it not have been confirmation bias if only the study was linked in the OP? Do you think the article is misleading?
I'm looking at the link to the abstract (something that an editorial does not need, btw) and it is not consistent with the link that you provided. The study is gated for researchers, as far as I can tell, and is not publicly available.
Yep. Even I've been a victim of this and I have some pretty strong principles and good resistance in general against these kind of practices.
Click the link to the study in the OP and click request full text, then click "not a researcher" which is the last option and it asks for for an email address so they can share the full text
I don't really know what the answer is, but are we not allowed to comment on things we see as problematic unless we also have the answer?
Stopping companies exploiting their weakness for money would be a good start.
"Predatory Monetization" is a pretty good starting point to define what it is without using "gambling" which has different implications legally. That doesn't mean it should be banned, or that there aren't people who willingly partake it in and can afford it, knowing full well of the risks. Regulation is good for everyone, and no one should be afraid of it.
It merely has the same title, the same authors, and the same abstract (the italicised part) and contains all of the snippets that were quoted in the linked article. It also has the same DOI.
I've requested access to the full text via Research Gate, but I'm certain it is the same text as that on Wiley. Just one of the things about academic papers, freely available in some places and restricted in others. Never quite understood it.
My point is that there is no study. To be 100% clear, this is not a criticism of the editorial, of King or Delfabbro. Their editorial is being mistook for something else.
I'm personally positive on loot boxes and micro transactions in general, but I will always follow where the evidence leads.
I've requested the contents of the study as a Citizen Scientist. When I receive the link, I'll confirm if it is indeed a study or not.
I think the real "lootbox defense force" should welcome more studies and steps towards regulation. I like lootboxes, but more transparency and regulation is a good thing for the monetary scheme. The truth is, big games that do it right don't need whales who are a danger to themselves. They get whales because some people can really afford this stuff and don't care about spending a lot of money on it. Hooking addicts who shouldn't be spending money they cannot afford is a consequence, and not really part of the business plan. Many companies are just too irresponsible to take proper steps to stop these people from hurting themselves. Even with proper self-regulation stopping children and problem gamblers from spending more than they can afford, I think the numbers back up that successful lootbox and gacha games will still be very successful. That's the sad part of it all, the people pushing back against regulation are really only giving the entire industry a bad name and looking like greedy idiots if they are execs, or doofus fanboys if they have nothing to gain personally from it.
This is a preposterous claim unless you can prove that your request was fulfilled with the editorial. What you are doing right now is spreading misinformation.
As a researcher and scientist myself, this process of requesting access to academic studies is absolutely normal and typical, and not being granted that access does not mean that the study does not exist.
Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The editorial may very well be based on the findings in the study. We will see soon enough.
So you're just going to ignore the complications of "own volition" because that's not simple enough for you?
- Same title
- Same authors
- Same abstract
- Same quotes
- Same DOI
More importantly, unless I'm missing something, they do not refer to an additional study anywhere in the editorial that we all have access to.
And yet you have not produced any evidence to demonstrate the veracity of (or lack thereof) the sources provided by the article. Until you do so, your statements will remain as pure conjecture.
I agree with you here, and I wouldn't go so far as to say they should be banned.
I think it will be difficult to find a middle ground though, as any caps or limits will frustrate "whales" but any system that is built around getting players to buy lootboxes is going to naturally fall into the traps of what the article talks about
Seriously?
I have, accurately, pointed out that the 'study' this thread refers to is, in fact, not a study. I have provided a link to what it actually is, an editorial. I have shown that it is beyond all reasonable doubt the text referred to by the linked article. How are you taking issue with me rather than the dozens of people in this thread who are spreading misinformation?
I think it would be helpful to have more warnings, more information about the nature of the rates and content, and easier options to opt-out or block accounts from payment, and refunding improper transactions. Some games already comply with a lot of this on their own. But on a whole industry-wide it's the failure of self-regulation which puts these games in a bad spot.
Because the people in this thread are responding to the evidence that has been presented before them, by the article, and the article has provided sources for reference. That is reasonable discourse.
What you have done is made a claim based on a source that has not been provided by the article, and then attempted to discredit the claim made by the article based on that source. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. You can not reasonably infer that the article's claim was based on your source when they did not cite your source, but a different source. It does not matter how much information is corrolary between the two.
It is fine to speculate that the article is lying (because that would have to be the implication here), but you have no proof. Your best bet is to attempt to verify THEIR source, not yours, as it is their claim, not yours. If you cannot verify their source at the moment, at the most, you can suggest that we don't know if a study was actually conducted until you are able to verify that that indeed was the case. However, under no circumstances does your finding a different source containing all the same information as the article's source definitively prove that the article's information is based on the source that you provided.
If you cannot understand how fallacious your reasoning is at this point, I'm not sure I can help you.
Last edited: