Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court(ruetir.com)
ruetir.com
Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court
https://www.ruetir.com/2022/03/09/bold-statement-loot-boxes-in-football-game-fifa-now-allowed/
140 comments
I'm sure my parents would disagree that Pokémon trading cards weren't a giant money sink designed to take their money.
I can see a lot of problems with giving children access to credit cards, but I honestly fail to see how loot boxes are different from trading cards marketed to children. My high school enacted and enforced a ban on all card and board games because some parents were worried about child gambling; I'm still mad that they took the fun away from school recess because of a dumb moral panic.
I can see a lot of problems with giving children access to credit cards, but I honestly fail to see how loot boxes are different from trading cards marketed to children. My high school enacted and enforced a ban on all card and board games because some parents were worried about child gambling; I'm still mad that they took the fun away from school recess because of a dumb moral panic.
This definitely isn't a universal experience and there are definitely a lot of trading card horror stories, but for me + friends growing up the purchase of trading cards had a different place in life. They were like one of life's small rewards you had a chance of rolling whenever going into a shop with a parent/guardian. Being at the checkout, putting on the little kid puppy-dog 'pleaseeeeeee' and the adult deciding if you've been 'good enough' and possibly giving you something for that. Acquisition was separate from their consumption and social role.
With lootboxes, you're actively pursuing the purchase to immediately try to meet a goal. You want the purchase, make it, have the question answered of whether your roll was good or not and that's mostly it. Trading cards were taken home (or at least to the car), physically admired, stored, socially shared even if they weren't 'worth' sharing, and had a larger variance in subjective value for trading or gifting later.
With lootboxes, you're actively pursuing the purchase to immediately try to meet a goal. You want the purchase, make it, have the question answered of whether your roll was good or not and that's mostly it. Trading cards were taken home (or at least to the car), physically admired, stored, socially shared even if they weren't 'worth' sharing, and had a larger variance in subjective value for trading or gifting later.
Did we have different childhoods, or do you not really forget yours?
Children used to steal trading cards and have violent fights over them. Only a few dedicated nerds played the game; the rest just collected the cards and showed them as a proxy of self-worth.
This is perfectly normal child behaviour, and I'm sure it was much worse than whatever's happening right now with lootboxes. The main difference between them isn't the lack car rides to the store; it's the moral panic mostly distributed by social media about how $fun_thing is killing children.
Children used to steal trading cards and have violent fights over them. Only a few dedicated nerds played the game; the rest just collected the cards and showed them as a proxy of self-worth.
This is perfectly normal child behaviour, and I'm sure it was much worse than whatever's happening right now with lootboxes. The main difference between them isn't the lack car rides to the store; it's the moral panic mostly distributed by social media about how $fun_thing is killing children.
We had different childhoods, I never saw violent fights. Totally didn't mean to present my memory as a universal truth which is why I led with the first sentence. Definitely whole weavings of intertwined complexities to unravel!
Where on earth did you grow up?
> Children used to steal trading cards and have violent fights over them.
This is messed up - is this real or overstated?
> This is perfectly normal child behaviour
Stealing and fighting? Where would this be the case?
This is messed up - is this real or overstated?
> This is perfectly normal child behaviour
Stealing and fighting? Where would this be the case?
Maybe "violent fights" wasn't the right phrase here. I was talking about the usual boy light violent play.
That is not even remotely normal child behavior.
One small caveat: digital collections of lootbox items can be admired, organized, displayed, and in some games traded to other players. Of course, all these actions are dictated by the software for the most part, and can be arbitrarily restricted. I won't be able to seal a fancy digital hat and donate it to a local museum.
It's true, which is why I tried to caveat it with 'even if they aren't worth sharing'. If I got a Tangela and had it in my pocket I'm still going to show the neighbour friend, she might even like Tangela especially well as a preference (tried to get at this with 'subjective value'). But with the number of football players and how it's much more stat/goal-based and the collector aspects are skewed towards the higher level, kids probably aren't making Discord calls to show their friend John Smith from the English division 2 league because he has a cute nose :)
Doesn't gambling mostly come down to diposition?
I did many addicting things in life an never became addicted.
I did many addicting things in life an never became addicted.
I feel they are very similar, but do have a few key differences. If these differences matter enough to make a moral difference is something we can discuss.
A few of the key differences, in no particular order:
1. Trading card games come with base sets that have guaranteed cards and are useful for playing the game. This makes it TCGs better.
2. CCGs can be traded to others or sold. This one I'm unsure about.
3. Loot boxes are wrapped into games and are often designed to appeal to players in a much more intrusive way than TCGs . This makes loot boxes worse.
4-1. Some loot boxes have no impact on gameplay. These make loot boxes better.
4-2. Some loot boxes have an impact on gameplay larger than the impact of buying TCG boosters. These make loot boxes worse.
5. Loot boxes are often purchased through currency systems made to separate the buyers understanding of how much they are paying. This is why games often make you buy some currency and then use that currency to buy loot boxes, with some games have layers of currency in between. Compare this to TCG boosters which are sold in stores for specific dollar amounts. This make loot boxes worse.
6. You can buy specific cards you need directly from other players, while most loot box systems require buying more loot boxes until you get the specific item desired. This one is related to 2 and I am also unsure about.
7. Loot boxes are often built into games on ones phone and use tactics to encourage worse spending habits. This make loot boxes worse.
Overall my personal opinion would be that loot boxes as a whole are worse than TCGs, but the better done loot boxes are comparable or slightly better (less predatory) than TCGs while the worse loot boxes are much much worse (more predatory).
Edit: One way to look at it is that the more predatory loot boxes are an extension of TCGs that doubled down on the worse parts, which might be enough for it to cross a person's personal moral threshold.
A few of the key differences, in no particular order:
1. Trading card games come with base sets that have guaranteed cards and are useful for playing the game. This makes it TCGs better.
2. CCGs can be traded to others or sold. This one I'm unsure about.
3. Loot boxes are wrapped into games and are often designed to appeal to players in a much more intrusive way than TCGs . This makes loot boxes worse.
4-1. Some loot boxes have no impact on gameplay. These make loot boxes better.
4-2. Some loot boxes have an impact on gameplay larger than the impact of buying TCG boosters. These make loot boxes worse.
5. Loot boxes are often purchased through currency systems made to separate the buyers understanding of how much they are paying. This is why games often make you buy some currency and then use that currency to buy loot boxes, with some games have layers of currency in between. Compare this to TCG boosters which are sold in stores for specific dollar amounts. This make loot boxes worse.
6. You can buy specific cards you need directly from other players, while most loot box systems require buying more loot boxes until you get the specific item desired. This one is related to 2 and I am also unsure about.
7. Loot boxes are often built into games on ones phone and use tactics to encourage worse spending habits. This make loot boxes worse.
Overall my personal opinion would be that loot boxes as a whole are worse than TCGs, but the better done loot boxes are comparable or slightly better (less predatory) than TCGs while the worse loot boxes are much much worse (more predatory).
Edit: One way to look at it is that the more predatory loot boxes are an extension of TCGs that doubled down on the worse parts, which might be enough for it to cross a person's personal moral threshold.
A bit off topic but as a game developper I see surprising often the opinion : "This is why games often make you buy some currency and then use that currency to buy loot boxes" ,it's even in my google search top :
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-games-make-you-convert-real-wor...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
and so on. I'm confident it's a purely anecdotical side effect, they are tons of reasons to use a virtual currency. Manipulating money on internet if awfully complicated AND Costly. Each transaction cost a lot (when dealing with microtransaction like in games), currencies are complicated and their value change a lot, simply reimbursing someone for low amounts can cost you more than the transaction total, and convincing someone to spend the time to fill a payement form is aldready complicated,asking to do so each time you want to spend less than the cost of a coffee is doomed to fail. In the (frequent) case of working with multiple store/processor, it also help you to abstract things : painfully make your currencies pack once in each store/platform, and them internally code your in game store using this currency, like 'standard' game currency.
"Tricking" users who can't apply a rule of three seems like anecdotical.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-games-make-you-convert-real-wor...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
and so on. I'm confident it's a purely anecdotical side effect, they are tons of reasons to use a virtual currency. Manipulating money on internet if awfully complicated AND Costly. Each transaction cost a lot (when dealing with microtransaction like in games), currencies are complicated and their value change a lot, simply reimbursing someone for low amounts can cost you more than the transaction total, and convincing someone to spend the time to fill a payement form is aldready complicated,asking to do so each time you want to spend less than the cost of a coffee is doomed to fail. In the (frequent) case of working with multiple store/processor, it also help you to abstract things : painfully make your currencies pack once in each store/platform, and them internally code your in game store using this currency, like 'standard' game currency.
"Tricking" users who can't apply a rule of three seems like anecdotical.
>
5. Loot boxes are often purchased through currency systems made to separate the buyers understanding of how much they are paying. This is why games often make you buy some currency and then use that currency to buy loot boxes, with some games have layers of currency in between. Compare this to TCG boosters which are sold in stores for specific dollar amounts. This make loot boxes worse.
Converting between currencies is easy "rule of three" - you learn that very early in school. Also, before the introduction of the Euro (and for some border frontiers in Europe even after), children who lived near borders of neighboring countries very often had to become accustomed to two (multiple) currencies from very early on and better were able to convert them in their heads.
> 7. Loot boxes are often built into games on ones phone and use tactics to encourage worse spending habits. This make loot boxes worse.
Encourage bad spending habits: sounds like classical advertising.
Converting between currencies is easy "rule of three" - you learn that very early in school. Also, before the introduction of the Euro (and for some border frontiers in Europe even after), children who lived near borders of neighboring countries very often had to become accustomed to two (multiple) currencies from very early on and better were able to convert them in their heads.
> 7. Loot boxes are often built into games on ones phone and use tactics to encourage worse spending habits. This make loot boxes worse.
Encourage bad spending habits: sounds like classical advertising.
>Encourage bad spending habits: sounds like classical advertising.
Extremely targeted, omni-present advertising with more techniques used to maximize the impact.
It's a bit like asking where does kids rough housing turn into assault and battery. If you took 100 different situations that fall in-between these two points and ordered them, each one would sound like the ones next to them, yet the one furthest on one side would be categorically different than the one furthest on the other side.
Or a bit like the example where you start a paragraph with a red word and ever letter you shift the smallest amount possible with RGB towards blue. Eventually you end up at blue, but every letter looks almost identical to the letter next to it.
Extremely targeted, omni-present advertising with more techniques used to maximize the impact.
It's a bit like asking where does kids rough housing turn into assault and battery. If you took 100 different situations that fall in-between these two points and ordered them, each one would sound like the ones next to them, yet the one furthest on one side would be categorically different than the one furthest on the other side.
Or a bit like the example where you start a paragraph with a red word and ever letter you shift the smallest amount possible with RGB towards blue. Eventually you end up at blue, but every letter looks almost identical to the letter next to it.
It was Magic the Gathering for my age group. Thankfully(?!) my school had bigger problems to deal with vis a vis gang activity including actual drug dealing; we were just a few quiet mostly-white nerds that played Magic in a math teacher's room at lunch. But, I never spent my parents' money. I earned my dollars-a-week allowance doing chores, and started blowing it on Magic cards. My parents did grow concerned when they noticed my bank account was dropping, but when I showed them, my mom was enchanted by the beautiful pictures on the cards and my dad was glad that I wasn't doing drugs.
Loot boxes kinda suck by comparison. Loot boxes are pretty straight gambling, mostly for decorative skins. Magic, Pokemon, etc., cards are different. There's some gambling, but deck-building requires a lot of strategy -- they're good for the brain. Where there might be some value (I don't see it) to playing stuff like FIFA and Fortnight, it isn't in the loot boxes.
Loot boxes kinda suck by comparison. Loot boxes are pretty straight gambling, mostly for decorative skins. Magic, Pokemon, etc., cards are different. There's some gambling, but deck-building requires a lot of strategy -- they're good for the brain. Where there might be some value (I don't see it) to playing stuff like FIFA and Fortnight, it isn't in the loot boxes.
Its anticipation vs instant gratification.
You needed to get the money and then make it to the shop that sells packs. It takes time and planning. Get money - maybe earn it by doing chores - go to shop and get the reward. While this might be problematic when thinking about gambling aspect it still taught you work => reward which is positive character building lesson for a child.
Versus use dad's credit card to get dopamine hit of opening the lootbox. Also almost entirely lootboxes are useless as you cannot sell the content, unlike the cards. And companies are introducing new ones with new rewards you NEED to get. I fail to see any positives for a child development here.
It sounds like trading cards and lootboxes are the same but its clearly not if you think about it.
You needed to get the money and then make it to the shop that sells packs. It takes time and planning. Get money - maybe earn it by doing chores - go to shop and get the reward. While this might be problematic when thinking about gambling aspect it still taught you work => reward which is positive character building lesson for a child.
Versus use dad's credit card to get dopamine hit of opening the lootbox. Also almost entirely lootboxes are useless as you cannot sell the content, unlike the cards. And companies are introducing new ones with new rewards you NEED to get. I fail to see any positives for a child development here.
It sounds like trading cards and lootboxes are the same but its clearly not if you think about it.
> And companies are introducing new ones with new rewards you NEED to get.
You don't NEED to get lootboxes.
You don't NEED to get lootboxes.
yeah as a grown adult you dont.
Do you know what is an insult for kids these days?
"Default"
Meaning you are too poor to buy skins in online games.
Your argument is poor at best,actually its broken at so many levels.
"You don't need to take heroin you can just stop."
In fifa you need to buy them to have a equal chance vs other players (pay to win)
Do you know what is an insult for kids these days?
"Default"
Meaning you are too poor to buy skins in online games.
Your argument is poor at best,actually its broken at so many levels.
"You don't need to take heroin you can just stop."
In fifa you need to buy them to have a equal chance vs other players (pay to win)
> "You don't need to take heroin you can just stop."
This analogy doesn't make sense. An addiction can't be compared to social pressure.
> In fifa you need to buy them to have a equal chance vs other players (pay to win)
Lootboxes are usually cosmetics instead of pay to win, I'm talking about the cosmetics kind to be clear.
This analogy doesn't make sense. An addiction can't be compared to social pressure.
> In fifa you need to buy them to have a equal chance vs other players (pay to win)
Lootboxes are usually cosmetics instead of pay to win, I'm talking about the cosmetics kind to be clear.
> An addiction can't be compared to social pressure.
Some people get addicted to the adrenaline rush of opening the lootboxes. It 100% falls under addiction for people susceptible to it.
There is even term for it 'whale', person that spends on micro-transaction so much money that it hurts reading about it.
> I'm talking about the cosmetics kind to be clear.
Social pressure and FOMO tactics are still harmful and predatory, no matter how you put it and defend it.
At this stage you are splitting hair in order to defend some niche example of a lootbox in order to defend something vile in most of cases. Whats the point?
Some people get addicted to the adrenaline rush of opening the lootboxes. It 100% falls under addiction for people susceptible to it.
There is even term for it 'whale', person that spends on micro-transaction so much money that it hurts reading about it.
> I'm talking about the cosmetics kind to be clear.
Social pressure and FOMO tactics are still harmful and predatory, no matter how you put it and defend it.
At this stage you are splitting hair in order to defend some niche example of a lootbox in order to defend something vile in most of cases. Whats the point?
> Some people get addicted to the adrenaline rush of opening the lootboxes. It 100% falls under addiction for people susceptible to it.
You're moving the goal posts here. You were talking about kids that succumb to social pressure because of a default character and that is what I replied to.
> At this stage you are splitting hair in order to defend some niche example of a lootbox in order to defend something vile in most of cases. Whats the point?
I don't get what you mean, what am I splitting hairs about? You don't NEED to buy lootboxes, that's a fact. Lootboxes are almost always cosmetics, that's also a fact.
You're moving the goal posts here. You were talking about kids that succumb to social pressure because of a default character and that is what I replied to.
> At this stage you are splitting hair in order to defend some niche example of a lootbox in order to defend something vile in most of cases. Whats the point?
I don't get what you mean, what am I splitting hairs about? You don't NEED to buy lootboxes, that's a fact. Lootboxes are almost always cosmetics, that's also a fact.
I'm not sure how to feel about collectibles, I bought a lot of baseball card packs and didn't open them as an "investment" as a kid. Probably they beat inflation, but the market would be lower if people like me could ever be bothered to sell.
In the case of digital "assets" though, I don't find it so legitimate. AFAIK, they can change their ToS whenever they like or cancel this version of the game, etc.
Perhaps a shrewd system would pretend to be indifferent yet force them to escrow money for obligations related to hosting these assets and eventually make them wonder why they didn't just print cards and be done with it as complicated civil cases begin to emerge.
(But should we really let the human endeavour degrade to the point where bartering pointless collectibles is where the smart people get allocated? I kind of agree with the IRS that we should add disincentives.)
In the case of digital "assets" though, I don't find it so legitimate. AFAIK, they can change their ToS whenever they like or cancel this version of the game, etc.
Perhaps a shrewd system would pretend to be indifferent yet force them to escrow money for obligations related to hosting these assets and eventually make them wonder why they didn't just print cards and be done with it as complicated civil cases begin to emerge.
(But should we really let the human endeavour degrade to the point where bartering pointless collectibles is where the smart people get allocated? I kind of agree with the IRS that we should add disincentives.)
I am a parent and I agree that pokemon cards business model is predatory and a giant sink designed to exploit kids into harassing parents into spending money.
You have to be blind not to see that.
You have to be blind not to see that.
[deleted]
True, but those trading cards are worth big bucks nowadays. Lootbox rewards are basically worthless since you don't really "own" them and cant resell them
It's really only some first gen holo mint cards that are worth decent money. That's gotta be a tiny, tiny percentage.
You mean, the issue with child gambling these days is that there's no promise of a big pay out?
The gambling part is no good in either case. But there is a difference between buying a toy/collectible and actually owning it vs. this digital skinner box stuff where all you really get is a hit of dopamine, the latter seems more insidious to me
[deleted]
Especially when there's a new game coming out every year and your old digital collection is now worth less (maybe worthless even) and on its way to being deleted when the game stops being supported and the servers are shut down in a few years time.
And every year, they become useless. I still don't get why people spent so much money... Every year..
So you're basically arguing for NFTs?
> While loads of us may have had fun experiences trading cards and whatnot, this all still happens with kids but with a much more overt monetary component.
The more I think about it, the more I realize loot boxes to kids now are what trading card packs were to kids back in the day. When I was in elementary school, I was deep into Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. Card packs ran ~$4 and carried the chance that you got a super powerful card. I spent probably close to $100 on cards over the years which, for a 8 year old kid, would be akeen to me dropping $3k on the new Mac Studio.
But there were natural controls in place back then. I had to save up every week to get a new pack, and I only had one chance per week to buy a pack. Now with microtransaction, the biggest problem (in the context of kids), is how easily accessible it is. If I came home and opened my pack to find that it didn't have any good cards, I would have to wait another week to get another pack. Now a kid can just go and get another lootbox instantly.
The more I think about it, the more I realize loot boxes to kids now are what trading card packs were to kids back in the day. When I was in elementary school, I was deep into Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. Card packs ran ~$4 and carried the chance that you got a super powerful card. I spent probably close to $100 on cards over the years which, for a 8 year old kid, would be akeen to me dropping $3k on the new Mac Studio.
But there were natural controls in place back then. I had to save up every week to get a new pack, and I only had one chance per week to buy a pack. Now with microtransaction, the biggest problem (in the context of kids), is how easily accessible it is. If I came home and opened my pack to find that it didn't have any good cards, I would have to wait another week to get another pack. Now a kid can just go and get another lootbox instantly.
But they still have to pay for it right? How is this different than say if you bought your game cards, opened them up outside the store and after you realized you didn't get the card you wanted, you went back inside and bought another one? I'm confused how this is different
Packs of cards don't have psychologically manipulative lights and sounds which probably does make a difference, but a pack of cards also can't send you constant notifications, and isn't accessible 27/7. Opening a pack outside the store and going right back inside isn't the same unless the kid never leaves the store's property and the store never closes.
Packs of cards also released specific sets with set odds. Games can add or change the contents of lootboxes on the fly, as well as adjust the odds to keep you hooked. They can strategically give you a rare or very useful (for you) item when you've had a long streak of junk to keep you interested, or evaluate your play-style and chats to determine exactly when you're most vulnerable (tired, manic, just got your birthday money, etc).
Loot boxes and gacha mechanics have their place, and can be fun but they are gambling and can also be exploitative. It's worth keeping a close eye on how they're being used and limiting the impact they'll have on kids.
Packs of cards also released specific sets with set odds. Games can add or change the contents of lootboxes on the fly, as well as adjust the odds to keep you hooked. They can strategically give you a rare or very useful (for you) item when you've had a long streak of junk to keep you interested, or evaluate your play-style and chats to determine exactly when you're most vulnerable (tired, manic, just got your birthday money, etc).
Loot boxes and gacha mechanics have their place, and can be fun but they are gambling and can also be exploitative. It's worth keeping a close eye on how they're being used and limiting the impact they'll have on kids.
Loot boxes should be regulated in the same way as other gambling, so for like poker/slot machines where there's a minimum payout and known fixed odds of winning.
They should be age restricted as well, although that doesn't really work with games as I've heard many stories of mothers buying their 12 year old a copy of Cyberpunk 2077 or other adult rated games.
They should be age restricted as well, although that doesn't really work with games as I've heard many stories of mothers buying their 12 year old a copy of Cyberpunk 2077 or other adult rated games.
I think the effect is similar to what Peter Norvig described in his "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data" lecture (which if you haven't seen, you should really check it out -- its awesome).
In essence, yeah, the core mechanic is the same, but the digitization of it fundamentally transforms its ubiquity, how often it can be iterated, optimized for more and more segmented group of kids, etc. I think there is an argument to be made that enough of that can effectively change the character of the activity itself, even if it is at first glance "sorta the same thing."
In essence, yeah, the core mechanic is the same, but the digitization of it fundamentally transforms its ubiquity, how often it can be iterated, optimized for more and more segmented group of kids, etc. I think there is an argument to be made that enough of that can effectively change the character of the activity itself, even if it is at first glance "sorta the same thing."
You quite certainly did not sit in front of the supermarket's cash register with your mom's credit card shoving packs of cards over the counter for hours on end. The overall physicality of the process back in the day prevented the feedback loops to manifest. The lack of speed decoupled spending from gratification thus ensuring your behavior wouldn't devolve into a bonafide gambling addiction.
Many of these games have different types of in game currency which can be used to purchase lootboxes. With FIFA, one of those currencies can be bought with money. The other one can't be purchased directly and is earned through playing the game or selling what is received in the lootboxes. This means that a person doesn't need to use real money to participate in the gambling aspect. They can instead gamble their time which might not be as damaging as gambling money, but is still just as addicting.
Also even the real money gambling in a game like FIFA is more dangerous than physical trading cards. With physical cards, you had to go to a store and pay at point of sale. You couldn't easily do that with your parent's credit card and there was always a person on the other end of the transaction to stop you or even just exist as a social obstacle to discourage obscene spending. Those obstacles don't exist with lootboxes. A parent's credit card can easily be added to an account and you don't have to look another human in the eyes to make a purchase.
Also even the real money gambling in a game like FIFA is more dangerous than physical trading cards. With physical cards, you had to go to a store and pay at point of sale. You couldn't easily do that with your parent's credit card and there was always a person on the other end of the transaction to stop you or even just exist as a social obstacle to discourage obscene spending. Those obstacles don't exist with lootboxes. A parent's credit card can easily be added to an account and you don't have to look another human in the eyes to make a purchase.
> With physical cards, you had to go to a store and pay at point of sale.
No, you didn't; mail-order and then online retail in the hobby games industry has existed as long trading card games have.
No, you didn't; mail-order and then online retail in the hobby games industry has existed as long trading card games have.
Fair enough, but I believe that is a fraction of the business compared to in person sales. Most kids were buying baseball cards or Pokemon cards from local stores. Plus those methods of purchase introduce their own obstacles such as latency. It is much more difficult to form an addiction when there is a two-week turnaround in each transaction compared to the instantaneous clicking of a button.
I think the point stands: there is an aspect of delayed gratification in the waiting a week for money then getting away to go the store, and possibly waiting until you got home to open them. Mail order was worse, as postage added more waiting time and cost.
Having it instantly accessible from your phone makes it so much easier to lose impulse control.
Having it instantly accessible from your phone makes it so much easier to lose impulse control.
I agree; is the premise here that audiovisual spectacle of opening the box in the video game somehow compounds the problem? Or that there's some manipulation of scarcity or something? The "core mechanic" seems exactly the same.
I think the issue is the lower barrier of access. Every small step added to the process discourages the use: get driven to the store, walking to the counter, talking to the employee, physically pulling money out of your pocket, physically seeing how much money you have left.
All of those contribute to making it more difficult to buy cards.
Loot boxes, on the other hand, is much easier. Once you store your credit card info, all you have to do is press a button or two.
This is the general idea Nudge Theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#:~:text=Nudge%2....) when shaping behavior.
All of those contribute to making it more difficult to buy cards.
Loot boxes, on the other hand, is much easier. Once you store your credit card info, all you have to do is press a button or two.
This is the general idea Nudge Theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#:~:text=Nudge%2....) when shaping behavior.
I assume because an 8 year old kid needs a ride, and more money to buy another pack.
I don't think it matters a whole lot whether or not there are any differences between lootboxes and TCs. I think there are but let's assume they are identical. So what? I know that I had TCs growing up yet I find lootboxes so infuriating that I have almost entirely stopped playing games created after 2015.
I don't think you're way off the mark, or being a "grumps" on the subject. Young minds can be heavily influenced which is why many societies regulate experiences that may cause harm.
I'm sure there are children who aren't impacted by EA lootboxes, as I'm sure there are children who are. It's the ones that are I'm concerned about, and the families that will end up dealing with the fallout.
I don't see why it's not possible to gate it behind a proof of age... however it's obvious that there is no incentive for EA to do so.
I'm sure there are children who aren't impacted by EA lootboxes, as I'm sure there are children who are. It's the ones that are I'm concerned about, and the families that will end up dealing with the fallout.
I don't see why it's not possible to gate it behind a proof of age... however it's obvious that there is no incentive for EA to do so.
This is all really sad and I wonder how I'll ever protect my child from what these cooperations will come up with 10 years from now. I know probably every generation has lamented about this but I wonder if childhood these days is as fun as it used to be. Yesterday we overheard two kids, maybe 9 years old, discuss the local real estate market and how one house across the street went for a million bucks to which the other kid responded that it was probably because of their finished basement. WTH.
I hear what you're saying but my conclusion was that I'm never going to be able to protect my son and all I can do was prepare him in stages as best as possible.
Change is inevitable... and in the past I used nostalgia as a mental point of origin to judge situations today. However I've come to see that change creates both negative and positive opportunity but it's just a matter of perspective.
I'm sure there are positive aspects to those 9 year olds discussing real estate, like an opportunity to discuss sustainable development or homelessness and charities like Habitat for Humanity. Who knows where those seeds will lead a 9 year old?
Change is inevitable... and in the past I used nostalgia as a mental point of origin to judge situations today. However I've come to see that change creates both negative and positive opportunity but it's just a matter of perspective.
I'm sure there are positive aspects to those 9 year olds discussing real estate, like an opportunity to discuss sustainable development or homelessness and charities like Habitat for Humanity. Who knows where those seeds will lead a 9 year old?
Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing!
Could be a sign of good parenting if they are aware of their future costs and that they should start investing their allowance in index funds to afford a house, as opposed to wasting it by gambling on lootboxes or yu gi oh cards.
Just have a rule against closed software in the house. It works very well.
I'm of a mixed opinion. I think lootboxes for kids could actually be good. Kids are in a position where they can spend every dollar they have on useless boxes and still have a place to live, food to eat, and resources for school. And I think that these games eventually give them a realization about how much of a waste of money it was. I saw people I went to school with spend all of their after school job money on loot crates and then realize they got very little from it in the end so they stop.
On the other hand, if it turns out they don't cause many kids to have this realization and it instead turns it in to a habit they don't grow out of, then yeah it could be pretty bad.
But without knowing that, it seems like kids are the only ones able to safely gamble since they can't truly lose.
On the other hand, if it turns out they don't cause many kids to have this realization and it instead turns it in to a habit they don't grow out of, then yeah it could be pretty bad.
But without knowing that, it seems like kids are the only ones able to safely gamble since they can't truly lose.
One thing FIFA has that MTG never did: it effectively destroys you collection of cards every year. You can’t carry over cards between their yearly releases, and you can’t get updated rosters without getting the latest release.
It is, at least for sports games, incomparable to MTG or Pokémon.
It is, at least for sports games, incomparable to MTG or Pokémon.
Hmm, aren't MTG releasing new sets every year? And don't they only allow cards from the last few years in tournaments?
They have different formats that people play with varying amounts of sets being legal, one of the most popular formats is a casual format where almost every card printed is legal. Sure a lot of it becomes chaff, but it is not unusual for cards you buy to appreciate in value, or even gain a substantial amount of value when they become viable and popularized in decks or are enabled by new cards that are released.
The cards I played with decades ago when I was a kid in school have appreciated in value many multiples of times over.
The cards I played with decades ago when I was a kid in school have appreciated in value many multiples of times over.
I can still pull out my 20+ year old cards and play with friends. Some cards are reprinted and remain legal. Either way you aren’t playing your old fifa ones vs new ones
I played Magic: the Gathering competitively growing up, and me and all of my contemporaries revered the idea of gambling. Loot boxes may be a different beast, which I would think would actually lead you more toward making simply bad financial decisions, like buying status items that you do not need and cannot afford with debt you will struggle to pay back. My adolescent milieu went on to have mixed results with regards to their participation in society. I think the gambling that Magic: the Gathering players revere is actually preferable to these items, which are a purchase and seem to discourage analysis of the value proposition or expected value of the act of purchase.
This is another level. Developers like EA know the potential of earnings and use psychologists to incentivize people to spend money. The barrier is much lower too.
Sure, a smaller form with trading cards always existed, but it wasn't a billion dollar industry with support from specialists to maximize exploitation.
You cannot really generalize the problem to loot boxes though. There are exceptions where it just provides a form of monetization that isn't necessarily predatory and it will not affect everyone negatively.
Sure, a smaller form with trading cards always existed, but it wasn't a billion dollar industry with support from specialists to maximize exploitation.
You cannot really generalize the problem to loot boxes though. There are exceptions where it just provides a form of monetization that isn't necessarily predatory and it will not affect everyone negatively.
This makes me sad. I think loot boxes with RNG rewards are a disgusting practice. It's gambling that minors are allowed to do.
One of the things I respect Epic Games for is they didn't follow this profitable path for Fortnite. In Fortnite, you want the skin, you buy the skin. You don't buy a ton of boxes and hope to get lucky.
Gambling with an immediate result is bad. It's particularly bad for children. But it's also bad for adults (eg online slot machines).
One of the things I respect Epic Games for is they didn't follow this profitable path for Fortnite. In Fortnite, you want the skin, you buy the skin. You don't buy a ton of boxes and hope to get lucky.
Gambling with an immediate result is bad. It's particularly bad for children. But it's also bad for adults (eg online slot machines).
Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day, with no indication of whether they'll return, so that you feel you have to buy things now in case you never have the chance again.
Fear Of Missing Out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out
Yes agreed, Epic's behavior in Fortnite is just as, if not more, predatory and relies on FOMO which is a huge factor in peer pressure among young people. Epic is not deserving of respect but should be called out more.
Yes agreed, Epic's behavior in Fortnite is just as, if not more, predatory and relies on FOMO which is a huge factor in peer pressure among young people. Epic is not deserving of respect but should be called out more.
I don’t have any interest in fortnite but I don’t follow why this is bad. These are just skins right? Like no differentiation besides personal aesthetic preference? Couldn’t these be sold with no ambiguity, never ever coming back, and have literally no impact on your desire to buy?
Have you ever felt a desire to buy a shirt because it won’t be available to purchase again?
Is there really a world where they say “this asset is for sale today and in 28 days” and you say “oh good I will want to be it then but not now”?
Have you ever felt a desire to buy a shirt because it won’t be available to purchase again?
Is there really a world where they say “this asset is for sale today and in 28 days” and you say “oh good I will want to be it then but not now”?
Selling cosmetic things is literally the best way of extracting money from this. Humans are social creatures, and clothes, real or virtual, are part of social display, some people (me for example) don't care about it, but they are exceptions, most people care deeply about using clothes for social display, and "threatening" them with not having a potentially high social status piece is a good way to make these people buy everything.
This is the whole point of the fashion industry too, every year the "collection" changes, this makes people both afraid of being "left behind", but also of missing "classics" that won't be manufactured again, also it is why fashion designers release things in "collections", idea is seduce people in buying the entire collection, not just the piece they liked.
When you are dealing with something that has an actual value, for example a base-version magic the gathering or pokemon card, the value is exactly whatever the item is useful for, the more useful it is the more people pay for it, but when you are dealing with stuff that is useful to display social status, things change, and you end with people paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy a brick written "Supreme" when the "Supreme" guys themselves are not sure why this is happening.
https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/skate-brand-supreme-se...
Or in case of game cards, people willing to pay sky high prices because the card has special art, sometimes even if the art is UGLIER than the base version, just because it is rare and a social status, things get even wilder when the social status is part of the reason the card exists in first place (for example cards that were manufactured to be given to judges or championship winners)
This is the whole point of the fashion industry too, every year the "collection" changes, this makes people both afraid of being "left behind", but also of missing "classics" that won't be manufactured again, also it is why fashion designers release things in "collections", idea is seduce people in buying the entire collection, not just the piece they liked.
When you are dealing with something that has an actual value, for example a base-version magic the gathering or pokemon card, the value is exactly whatever the item is useful for, the more useful it is the more people pay for it, but when you are dealing with stuff that is useful to display social status, things change, and you end with people paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy a brick written "Supreme" when the "Supreme" guys themselves are not sure why this is happening.
https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/skate-brand-supreme-se...
Or in case of game cards, people willing to pay sky high prices because the card has special art, sometimes even if the art is UGLIER than the base version, just because it is rare and a social status, things get even wilder when the social status is part of the reason the card exists in first place (for example cards that were manufactured to be given to judges or championship winners)
Why would a fortnite skin become high status? Aren’t they all available in unlimited quantity for a fairly standard price? That sounds like the opposite of scarcity. If something is popular then it will be the most common and thus the least interesting.
Surely you’re not saying people buy skins because they might turn out to be unpopular and thus cool to wear…
I’m sure there’s a niche culture around always buying the absolute latest piece, but that’s not the fear of missing out and would exist even if everything was always available?
Surely you’re not saying people buy skins because they might turn out to be unpopular and thus cool to wear…
I’m sure there’s a niche culture around always buying the absolute latest piece, but that’s not the fear of missing out and would exist even if everything was always available?
the supply is unlimited, but the number of skins "in the wild" is limited by price. apparently the most expensive Fortnite skins cost hundreds of dollars. not everyone (or more realistically, their parents) can afford to drop that on a digital texture.
"popular" can mean "widely desired", not necessarily "owned by many people".
"popular" can mean "widely desired", not necessarily "owned by many people".
Google suggests fortnite skins cost at most $20
With a few niche edge cases where you need a specific phone to acquire them as a promo for the hardware.
With a few niche edge cases where you need a specific phone to acquire them as a promo for the hardware.
Introducing artificial scarcity on digital goods seems incredibly anti-consumer. Consider a different scenario where someone wants the skin both now and later (for whatever reason - value is driven by the desire of the purchaser), but doesn't have the financial wherewithal to purchase frivolous things at a whim. In that scenario the consumer has to make a choice between purchasing an artificially scarce good or making a good personal financial choice.
From a neutral party standpoint (i.e. I neither want to purchase the skins, nor do I benefit financially from their purchase, nor do I wish to ban their sale outright), it seems obvious that a fungible, non-exhaustible digital good (with it's near-0 maintenance cost) should be restricted from exclusive periods of sale. There is no reason for it, other than to take advantage of human brain chemistry to drive a specific type of sale by producing artificial demand.
From a neutral party standpoint (i.e. I neither want to purchase the skins, nor do I benefit financially from their purchase, nor do I wish to ban their sale outright), it seems obvious that a fungible, non-exhaustible digital good (with it's near-0 maintenance cost) should be restricted from exclusive periods of sale. There is no reason for it, other than to take advantage of human brain chemistry to drive a specific type of sale by producing artificial demand.
That seems like an unlikely edge case given these are probably pretty cheap?
I think it is absolutely an issue if you are a kid or you are living paycheck to paycheck. There is a social/prestige aspect to skins and game rewards that shouldn't be underrated, and that type of business model is always targeting 'whales', i.e. people with a phenotypic disposition to getting carried away and spending a huge amount. I don't think it's right to let companies deploy manipulative business models or collect obscene rents - it always winds up hurting the most vulnerable people. Further, nothing of value is created by that model - it's simply another rent collection tactic to force people to pay up when it's best for the company.
At least with physical goods there is an overhead to keeping old SKUs in the catalog. A digital skin is a metadata blob in a database, which can't be deleted anyways, since anyone who paid for access to that metadata needs it to exist.
At least with physical goods there is an overhead to keeping old SKUs in the catalog. A digital skin is a metadata blob in a database, which can't be deleted anyways, since anyone who paid for access to that metadata needs it to exist.
So why wouldn’t this social prestige effect exist if skins were released at the same rate but were permanently available?
It would still exist. The difference is the artificial scarcity is gone, so customers aren't under time pressure to purchase them. They are free to do so as they are reasonably able to afford it.
If it’s a social prestige thing then you’re likely to want the latest fashion though. So… the time pressure is still there, because the value of yesterday’s fashion quickly falls.
If we assume you are correct, then the makers of these games shouldn't care if we ban exclusive distribution periods, since the results should be exactly the same.
I’m not arguing it doesn’t work. I’m arguing it’s not predatory.
Devil’s advocate, which seems likely to me, is that having a small catalog that is frequently updated is a lot easier to make a sale on for its simplicity and expectation of finding something novel every time you look.
100 options is overwhelming. 5 is easier for the consumer. And if 95% of people who would ever buy your new skin will do so within a week of its release, it makes sense to just ship a new catalog next week and never bother with the old one again.
Devil’s advocate, which seems likely to me, is that having a small catalog that is frequently updated is a lot easier to make a sale on for its simplicity and expectation of finding something novel every time you look.
100 options is overwhelming. 5 is easier for the consumer. And if 95% of people who would ever buy your new skin will do so within a week of its release, it makes sense to just ship a new catalog next week and never bother with the old one again.
What if scarcity is where the value is derived?
meh. selling cosmetic-only items is a pretty good way to fund a low/zero purchase price game imo. no one is priced out of the core experience, and the people that really care pay for everyone else to play.
This is a textbook example of abusing FOMO (fear of missing out). It's real and Epic does it exactly because of this effect on people.
If you're not completely convinced by some cosmetic item you might say "I don't know whether I really want this so I'll just wait and maybe buy it later". But if it's time-limited, in this case without indication whether it'll ever be on sale again, you cannot wait and decide later. It's deliberate time pressure on the decision.
If you're not completely convinced by some cosmetic item you might say "I don't know whether I really want this so I'll just wait and maybe buy it later". But if it's time-limited, in this case without indication whether it'll ever be on sale again, you cannot wait and decide later. It's deliberate time pressure on the decision.
In what universe would you want an aesthetic item later more than you do now? Fear of missing out seems to be more experiential or with regards to items that may turn out to be have more utility in the future in my opinion.
Do you really know whether you like an album after listening to a song once? Enough to buy it? Maybe, maybe not. What if you had to decide today, and might never be able to listen to that album again if you don't buy it? You might regret it later...
That's the kind of manipulation we see in some games. I don't think this should be considered normal. The same applies to Nintendo's Switch games that were only available for purchase for a short time after release, with Nintendo not saying whether those games will ever be available again [0]. We all know that a lot of people bought those games just in case, and that's the intention.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/1/22307522/mario-limited-tim...
That's the kind of manipulation we see in some games. I don't think this should be considered normal. The same applies to Nintendo's Switch games that were only available for purchase for a short time after release, with Nintendo not saying whether those games will ever be available again [0]. We all know that a lot of people bought those games just in case, and that's the intention.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/1/22307522/mario-limited-tim...
The outdated mess of buying music aside… no? I don’t think so. It’s pretty much never once happened that I thought “I wish I had bought that” aside from literal investments which is a different beast entirely. Most unowned things have less appeal to you when they’re no longer new and shiny.
Well, Fortnite doesn't let you customise your appearance at all without buying skins. If you want your character to match your gender, you have to buy a skin. If you want your character to look even slightly good, you have to buy a skin. And then buy a new one in two weeks because you had no idea that they'd give you a better option later and you didn't know how scarce the current week's was.
Ok but how is this different from buying clothes in irl? You usually can’t find the same clothes n months later in the same store.
Fast fashion retailers are similar indeed, but they have vastly larger selections and slower cycle times by comparison. Dozens of different items in each category versus a total number of items I can count on my hands. The item selection changing daily rather than seasonally (monthly?).
Ok but the you don’t buy fast fashion because you’re worried about not being able to buy it later, you buy it because it’s hot now.
[deleted]
I think this argument is a stretch for two reasons:
1. Anyone who sells anything has limited runs, sales and so forth. Like that's just commerce; and
2. Loot box games do all the same thing anyway so at least on Fortnite you know the cost of what you want.
This is one of these situations where Fortnite is strictly better than RNG loot boxes. That's not the same as saying they do no wrong. But better? Objectively, yes.
1. Anyone who sells anything has limited runs, sales and so forth. Like that's just commerce; and
2. Loot box games do all the same thing anyway so at least on Fortnite you know the cost of what you want.
This is one of these situations where Fortnite is strictly better than RNG loot boxes. That's not the same as saying they do no wrong. But better? Objectively, yes.
> Anyone who sells anything has limited runs, sales and so forth.
Yes, but Fortnite pushes this to the absolute extreme. It's one thing to visit a store with thousands of products where there's a discount on some of the items and a few limited-time offers. It's a very different thing to visit another store which has thousands of products but only makes eight of them available for sale each day, always as a limited-time offer, with no information about the rest of the catalogue.
Yes, but Fortnite pushes this to the absolute extreme. It's one thing to visit a store with thousands of products where there's a discount on some of the items and a few limited-time offers. It's a very different thing to visit another store which has thousands of products but only makes eight of them available for sale each day, always as a limited-time offer, with no information about the rest of the catalogue.
>Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day,
They're skins. They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-release Jordan 1s.
They're skins. They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-release Jordan 1s.
>They're skins. They have no in-game effect.
This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.
This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.
There's a huge difference between the two. Shoes and shoe culture can matter a huge amount to some people. Skins aren't really in the same category. Skins literally do nothing, and don't have the same value or impact on a person's identity or social standing. Shoes do. Not to me, but some people do care.
It may surprise you to know that there's a similar culture that revolves around skins. That's why people buy them and trade them.
I don't know a lot about it and it isn't as clearly visible as sneaker culture but I know it exists, because I used to play that game and there were people in various discords and steam chats who were obsessed with skins to the point it was all they could talk about.
I don't know a lot about it and it isn't as clearly visible as sneaker culture but I know it exists, because I used to play that game and there were people in various discords and steam chats who were obsessed with skins to the point it was all they could talk about.
This is a "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" take. Ok, both Nike and Epic are evil; Nike & every other luxury brand should now be banned from any artificial scarcity.
That wasn't really the point I was making.
I was making the point that goods which practically affect one's appearance in reality affect more than just one's appearance due to the nature of human personality.
I was making the point that goods which practically affect one's appearance in reality affect more than just one's appearance due to the nature of human personality.
[deleted]
> I think loot boxes with RNG rewards are a disgusting practice.
I completely agree. I think there exist many disgusting practices; that doesn't mean those practices should be prohibited.
As an alternate approach, suppose that this were addressed through ESRB or similar: "gambling elements" could be called out as a theme (alongside "smoking" or "gore"), and have a minimum associated rating (e.g. not "E for Everyone").
I completely agree. I think there exist many disgusting practices; that doesn't mean those practices should be prohibited.
As an alternate approach, suppose that this were addressed through ESRB or similar: "gambling elements" could be called out as a theme (alongside "smoking" or "gore"), and have a minimum associated rating (e.g. not "E for Everyone").
Yes. Just apply existing VLT gambling laws to this stuff. 18+ rating and odds of winning must be made public.
Fortnite has way more kids playing than Fifa and makes more money, so they're "more" evil, it does not matter if it's a skin on a store it's still a lot of money and kids are hooked to it.
Lootbox issues are no the problem, games like Fortnite, Roblox, CoD are on the same level.
Lootbox issues are no the problem, games like Fortnite, Roblox, CoD are on the same level.
[deleted]
As a kid I used to play the Yu-Gi-Oh trading card game a lot, and the odds for getting cards of certain rarities were published on the packaging so you knew how many packs on average it would take to hit a super rare/ultra rare card. There were 8 commons and one rare slot per pack which had a 1:5 chance of being a super rare, 1:12 for an ultra rare, and 1:23 for a secret rare.[0]
Additionally the cards had actual utility where the rarest cards often had better effects than commons and decks would be built around these rarer cards to be used in a duel. For games like Fortnite where the items in the lootboxes are purely cosmetic, the kids who are playing know that they aren't getting any competitive advantages with different skins in playing. However this becomes a bit murkier in games like FIFA and Star Wars Battlefront 2, where the rarest items from lootboxes contained items that were better than those obtained through leveling up alone. The article says that "92 percent of the FIFA boxes are not bought with real money, but unlocked via football matches and are therefore simply part of the game of skill." which implies players can expect to get a reasonable number of good players to build a team with and a team constructed of said players on aggregate would not provide a significant competitive advantage.
My opinion is that players should spend time in games because they consider it to be fun rather than to be the best for the sake of being the best, and the in-game whales who spend the most $ on a game shouldn't be overpowered to the point where free to play players should feel they need to spend money to win.
[0] https://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Booster_Pack
Additionally the cards had actual utility where the rarest cards often had better effects than commons and decks would be built around these rarer cards to be used in a duel. For games like Fortnite where the items in the lootboxes are purely cosmetic, the kids who are playing know that they aren't getting any competitive advantages with different skins in playing. However this becomes a bit murkier in games like FIFA and Star Wars Battlefront 2, where the rarest items from lootboxes contained items that were better than those obtained through leveling up alone. The article says that "92 percent of the FIFA boxes are not bought with real money, but unlocked via football matches and are therefore simply part of the game of skill." which implies players can expect to get a reasonable number of good players to build a team with and a team constructed of said players on aggregate would not provide a significant competitive advantage.
My opinion is that players should spend time in games because they consider it to be fun rather than to be the best for the sake of being the best, and the in-game whales who spend the most $ on a game shouldn't be overpowered to the point where free to play players should feel they need to spend money to win.
[0] https://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Booster_Pack
>The article says that "92 percent of the FIFA boxes are not bought with real money, but unlocked via football matches and are therefore simply part of the game of skill." which implies players can expect to get a reasonable number of good players to build a team with and a team constructed of said players on aggregate would not provide a significant competitive advantage.
It has been years since I played FIFA so maybe things have changed, but this quote is misleading which means the implication you got from it is incorrect. The FIFA lootboxes aren't uniform. There is a wide variety of different packs and they all have different odds and come with different costs. It is very easy to earn the cheapest versions with the worst odds. No one spends real money on those. The real money proportionally will go to the more expensive packs with the best odds and therefore can lead to an imbalance in play because those 8% of packs account for much more than 8% of the rewarded value.
It has been years since I played FIFA so maybe things have changed, but this quote is misleading which means the implication you got from it is incorrect. The FIFA lootboxes aren't uniform. There is a wide variety of different packs and they all have different odds and come with different costs. It is very easy to earn the cheapest versions with the worst odds. No one spends real money on those. The real money proportionally will go to the more expensive packs with the best odds and therefore can lead to an imbalance in play because those 8% of packs account for much more than 8% of the rewarded value.
> My opinion is that players should spend time in games because they consider it to be fun rather than to be the best for the sake of being the best, and the in-game whales who spend the most $ on a game shouldn't be overpowered to the point where free to play players should feel they need to spend money to win.
this is very debateable
all games have (egaming and regular sports) have a competitive level, you always start playing for the fun, then you either become bored or you realize that you are good and want to start playing vs people with your same or more level of skill/ability, and thats where monetization comes.
You talk about whales being able to pay for the best cards/items/etc in a game, but those usually get quickly demoralized as having overpowered stats/items/etc doesn't mean you can enter competitive skill inmediatly, it's easy for people in those games ti quickly identificate players who bought their way to the pro scene of the game, usually called pay to win players and defeat them
I see it as something that needs to happen, in the past I've been the one in the other side of the trade, mostly in MMORPGS, where I was able to farm/craft/bot for really rare/unique items and sell to those willing to pay thousands of USD for them and yet, beat them in regular matches/pvp/etc, so it somehow encouraged the economy inside the game, and kept actual pro gamers happy, kept devs happy, kept the general population happy, the only ones really unhappy were the ones that paid for the items and got sad when it really didnt help
of course, I understand that it should be regulated and not to make it fully stupid, but well, at the end, all of this things keep people invested and interested in games, otherwise, they would generally just die.
this is very debateable
all games have (egaming and regular sports) have a competitive level, you always start playing for the fun, then you either become bored or you realize that you are good and want to start playing vs people with your same or more level of skill/ability, and thats where monetization comes.
You talk about whales being able to pay for the best cards/items/etc in a game, but those usually get quickly demoralized as having overpowered stats/items/etc doesn't mean you can enter competitive skill inmediatly, it's easy for people in those games ti quickly identificate players who bought their way to the pro scene of the game, usually called pay to win players and defeat them
I see it as something that needs to happen, in the past I've been the one in the other side of the trade, mostly in MMORPGS, where I was able to farm/craft/bot for really rare/unique items and sell to those willing to pay thousands of USD for them and yet, beat them in regular matches/pvp/etc, so it somehow encouraged the economy inside the game, and kept actual pro gamers happy, kept devs happy, kept the general population happy, the only ones really unhappy were the ones that paid for the items and got sad when it really didnt help
of course, I understand that it should be regulated and not to make it fully stupid, but well, at the end, all of this things keep people invested and interested in games, otherwise, they would generally just die.
(For anyone going just by the title: this is the purchase of loot boxes.)
I’m personally against this for moral reasons having to do a lot with corporate greed and and then some to do with gambling in general, but I do want to point out this isn’t remotely new and isn’t something that the digital gaming/entertainment industry came up. When we were kids, we all used to gamble by buying Pokémon booster packs for $4 or $5 hoping they would contain a Charzard or a holographic Magikarp only to discover just another Koffing. That was specifically marketed towards and aimed at kids - probably even younger than those playing FIFA.
Although - I realize now that I may be speaking out of ignorance as I have no clue if the Netherlands allowed the sale of Pokémon cards to minors in the first place?
(I learned a few years ago that the smarter guys used to go in with a scale and weigh the packs to see which one was heavier due to the presence of a holographic card until Hasbro/TPCI wisened up and began adding blanks to make up for the weight difference.
I’m personally against this for moral reasons having to do a lot with corporate greed and and then some to do with gambling in general, but I do want to point out this isn’t remotely new and isn’t something that the digital gaming/entertainment industry came up. When we were kids, we all used to gamble by buying Pokémon booster packs for $4 or $5 hoping they would contain a Charzard or a holographic Magikarp only to discover just another Koffing. That was specifically marketed towards and aimed at kids - probably even younger than those playing FIFA.
Although - I realize now that I may be speaking out of ignorance as I have no clue if the Netherlands allowed the sale of Pokémon cards to minors in the first place?
(I learned a few years ago that the smarter guys used to go in with a scale and weigh the packs to see which one was heavier due to the presence of a holographic card until Hasbro/TPCI wisened up and began adding blanks to make up for the weight difference.
> I have no clue if the Netherlands allowed the sale of Pokémon cards to minors in the first place?
They did. Technically you can't sell anything to a minor since they aren't allowed to enter into contracts. In practice everyone all over sells shit to minors and just crosses their fingers their guardians don't show up for their money back. Seems to work in practice.
They did. Technically you can't sell anything to a minor since they aren't allowed to enter into contracts. In practice everyone all over sells shit to minors and just crosses their fingers their guardians don't show up for their money back. Seems to work in practice.
I kept hoping someone would answer my question as it was nagging at me. Thanks!
I was really hoping that the pushback on videogame gambling by minors would gain more regulatory momentum, not less.
I think it's going to take longer to see regulation stick due to a lack of first hand knowledge of lootboxes by politicians and judges, who to be fair, are of a generation that just do not understand the subject matter.
I think it's going to take longer to see regulation stick due to a lack of first hand knowledge of lootboxes by politicians and judges, who to be fair, are of a generation that just do not understand the subject matter.
I don't think legislators are entirely ignorant of the problem. They probably don't want to even try regulating artists; and the companies selling these lootboxes have insisted that any regulation would impinge upon freedom-of-speech. The regulations we have on gambling applies because the games involve wagering money; things like loot boxes[0] get around this primarily by not offering anything of value.
Of course, the counterargument (which I agree with) is that these have the spirit of gambling - i.e. being designed to maximally fuck with the heads of people who are even slightly vulnerable to dopamine. You will probably get politicians to agree with you on that, but they won't want to waste political capital on an antipartisan[1] issue. Sure, it might have popular support, but it harms the country's interests to be regulating things that make money.
[0] And their historical antecedents such as TCG booster packs, figurine blind bags, coin-op arcade games, and so on
[1] Political issues can be broadly categorized into "partisan", "bipartisan", and "antipartisan":
- Partisan issues are ones that typically find their way into a political party's "agenda". They are issues that one or more parties support and one or more parties oppose. Examples include basically any wedge issue in American politics.
- Bipartisan issues are ones that are obvious to a supermajority of politicians. These are issues that "everybody supports" and pass Congress with wide margins. Examples include things like copyright law.
- Antipartisan issues are ones that are obviously bad to a supermajority of politicians, regardless of whatever popular support they might have. Examples include things like right-to-repair.
Of course, the counterargument (which I agree with) is that these have the spirit of gambling - i.e. being designed to maximally fuck with the heads of people who are even slightly vulnerable to dopamine. You will probably get politicians to agree with you on that, but they won't want to waste political capital on an antipartisan[1] issue. Sure, it might have popular support, but it harms the country's interests to be regulating things that make money.
[0] And their historical antecedents such as TCG booster packs, figurine blind bags, coin-op arcade games, and so on
[1] Political issues can be broadly categorized into "partisan", "bipartisan", and "antipartisan":
- Partisan issues are ones that typically find their way into a political party's "agenda". They are issues that one or more parties support and one or more parties oppose. Examples include basically any wedge issue in American politics.
- Bipartisan issues are ones that are obvious to a supermajority of politicians. These are issues that "everybody supports" and pass Congress with wide margins. Examples include things like copyright law.
- Antipartisan issues are ones that are obviously bad to a supermajority of politicians, regardless of whatever popular support they might have. Examples include things like right-to-repair.
The article is about the Netherlands, so basically none of your arguments are applicable.
im sure they understand the lootboxes of cash they get here and there on a nudge nudge wink wink basis
Thank goodness. I was genuinely worried they'd make Pokemon card booster packs illegal next.
Let kids live a little and learn the perils of gambling play money early. They can safely learn the disappointment of throwing 20 bucks into a box with no reward during a time when it's relatively consequence free, instead of throwing 20 grand into stock options and being shocked when it goes to 0.
Loot boxes are not really gambling anyway, because there's not even monetary payout. It's the most tame form of "money pit" there is, and I'm glad we're not continuing this trip down "make things I don't like illegal" lane.
Let kids live a little and learn the perils of gambling play money early. They can safely learn the disappointment of throwing 20 bucks into a box with no reward during a time when it's relatively consequence free, instead of throwing 20 grand into stock options and being shocked when it goes to 0.
Loot boxes are not really gambling anyway, because there's not even monetary payout. It's the most tame form of "money pit" there is, and I'm glad we're not continuing this trip down "make things I don't like illegal" lane.
[deleted]
> the packages are part of a game of skill, not a separate game of chance in itself.
hahahhahahahaha lolwut! that's hilarious, is that what EA actually argued too or did the judges reach that conclusion on their own from a reading of the statute!
Either way that is hilarious and obviously not the intention of the parliament, but I'll leave it up to them to figure that out if they actually care as much as the executive branch did.
hahahhahahahaha lolwut! that's hilarious, is that what EA actually argued too or did the judges reach that conclusion on their own from a reading of the statute!
Either way that is hilarious and obviously not the intention of the parliament, but I'll leave it up to them to figure that out if they actually care as much as the executive branch did.
The linked article is an English translation from this article in the Dutch newspaper NRC: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/03/09/gedurfde-uitspraak-loot...
Authority (parents or otherwise) has a responsibility to protect people (particularly children) from vice and vultures. Children are particularly vulnerable because they are inexperienced in life, lacking will, consciousness, and wisdom.
This is irresponsible. This is a failure of authority to protect children.
This is irresponsible. This is a failure of authority to protect children.
It's interesting how we've gone from heavily regulating content in shows and games made for children to putting kids in digital Skinner boxes that extract the wealth of their parents in exchange for conceptual things of which there is no shortage.
On the other hand, how different are loot boxes and DLC from the days where we played games at an arcade and had to insert 6 more quarters to complete a level, sometimes even if the player still has health? I guess the difference is that you leave behind an arcade, whereas modern video games stay with kids at all times and are designed to addict kids to an even greater degree than anything I ever played at TILT! arcades.
On the other hand, how different are loot boxes and DLC from the days where we played games at an arcade and had to insert 6 more quarters to complete a level, sometimes even if the player still has health? I guess the difference is that you leave behind an arcade, whereas modern video games stay with kids at all times and are designed to addict kids to an even greater degree than anything I ever played at TILT! arcades.
> "Lootboxes" .. "highest Dutch court"
This is either high sci-fi parody or I want another hitech future, because it continually feels that all the technology in the world is only ever useful, successful for the most petty and meaningless ends. There needs to be a law that humanity's ignorance grows quadratically with scientific achievement. Ignorance of course is a proportional quality; when all the information in the world is at your fingertips you are doubly ignorant not to make expedient use of it. Oh, there are government rogue agents with all their noise and misinformation campaigns, sure. But there are also millions of programmers workings on clickbait ads for a living. Clearly some choice and free will is thrown in at some point in the learning curve. An isolated pre-discovery south american native is as wise or ignorant as his means (culture) allow. Our means are the most luxuriant humankind has seen yet. Great responsibilities and all that.. so that we're devolving into incoherent grunts. Yes I'd like a rant.
Maybe TFA is about revisionist high medieval history and FIFAs are kinds of fiefs.
This is either high sci-fi parody or I want another hitech future, because it continually feels that all the technology in the world is only ever useful, successful for the most petty and meaningless ends. There needs to be a law that humanity's ignorance grows quadratically with scientific achievement. Ignorance of course is a proportional quality; when all the information in the world is at your fingertips you are doubly ignorant not to make expedient use of it. Oh, there are government rogue agents with all their noise and misinformation campaigns, sure. But there are also millions of programmers workings on clickbait ads for a living. Clearly some choice and free will is thrown in at some point in the learning curve. An isolated pre-discovery south american native is as wise or ignorant as his means (culture) allow. Our means are the most luxuriant humankind has seen yet. Great responsibilities and all that.. so that we're devolving into incoherent grunts. Yes I'd like a rant.
Maybe TFA is about revisionist high medieval history and FIFAs are kinds of fiefs.
They should make the loot boxes brown envelopes just like the real FIFA.
I haven't played a FIFA game in probably 20 years so please excuse my potentially uninformed question. Do loot boxes improve the play experience of the game in any meaningful way?
They made a mode where you assemble a team of players from past and present called Fifa Ultimate Team (FUT). You start with a team of players who each of a rating of about 70.
EA will release packs that contain star players with much higher ratings. In order to get these higher rated players on your team, you can either grind the game for several hours a day or pay to open some packs that might have the high rated players inside.
EA will release packs that contain star players with much higher ratings. In order to get these higher rated players on your team, you can either grind the game for several hours a day or pay to open some packs that might have the high rated players inside.
Grinding the game to open the boxes sounds fine to me, but how is it not a game of chance if you're just paying money to open a box? That's literally a lottery. Even if only 8% of boxes are opened that way, they should just not allow it flat-out.
> how is it not a game of chance if you're just paying money to open a box
The player(s) you receive when you open the box is random and not known before you open the box.
The player(s) you receive when you open the box is random and not known before you open the box.
that's funny considering that gambling is so restricted in the Netherlands: only state owned casinos are allowed and online gambling is not allowed
I don't think I've ever seen so many ads in an article. To the point I stopped reading. Wow
State endorsed gambling laundering.
I'm not sure "endorsed" is quite correct, as I read this it's a court saying it's "not-yet-forbidden" gambling laundering.
I’d have upvoted if you just omitted the last word. I’m not sure where the money laundering obviously comes in (I’m sure it’s possible, I just don’t see how it’s particularly applicable here).
I'm not sure why this is down voted. This is exactly what I feel this is.
Is this somehow much worse than the football (soccer) sticker albums I used to buy in little foil-wrapped packets when I was a kid? Or Pokemon cards etc.
I don't like such thing, but I don't think it should be banned by law.
Good. The government does not have a right to restrict trade between citizens and companies. On the other hand, it's the parents' job to decide what their children can and can't do.
> The government does not have a right to restrict trade between citizens and companies.
Of course it does, as a matter of category.
The government makes it illegal for you to buy grenades, for instance.
Of course it does, as a matter of category.
The government makes it illegal for you to buy grenades, for instance.
[deleted]
Part of me, though, wonders if this is just me getting older and becoming one of those "grumps." It's painfully obvious that as a whole society is moving to becoming more and more accepting of things like this (for instance, the huge push towards gambling in organized sports in the US), that it has the feel of inevitability. My sense is this will be a net social negative, but perhaps experience will prove it to be not so bad.