Topic: Gambling in Gaming

I think the difference here is that Game Devs are specifically and deliberately targeting that same 'addictive' buzz that gambling has. They know full well that you would never spend £50 on a single item and if they can split up a 'cosmetic set' into multiple pieces, they know that it will drive people to spend more and more to get the full set. I see NO problem with random loot crates as an in-game reward but I also think that if they are going to sell anything via micro-transactions, they should only sell these items - not the random box with such small odds you will actually get the item you wanted. If you want a specific item, you can buy it individually or keep playing and hope you get lucky.

Its no different though from Scratch Cards which are governed by laws. Panini stickers also had some laws too - like the odds of getting a 'foil' sticker and you also had the opportunity to trade with friends - swap your duplicates with others. You also could buy the last 25/50 (or whatever it was) directly from Panini to complete your book.

The same goes for any collectable cards. If you had multiples of something, you could swap with friends to get the missing items in your collection.

@Dichotomy I have ignored you for the plain and simple reason is that I think you are wrong in your views, which is fine and what I would say won't change your mind as what you say won't change mine, in all honesty this is why I avoided conversations like this.

Yes people have problems be it mental, physical, social or whatever is fine but to use them as an excuse for every little thing isn't. On top of that, expecting others to inconvenience or take away something they like just because you have a problem is wrong.

And that's all I am saying about that.

@themcnoisy Ok so what about carnivale games? Should an arm security guard be station at those so kids don't play them? They are a gamble to win anything at. What about those claw machines at supermarkets? I don't see no one stopping kids from those?

@TomKongPhooey You don't have to buy the loot crates to enjoy the game As I stated before. It's not like the items in loot crates give you an edge. It's like a pack of cards that you keep buying in hopes of that foiled rookie card.

@Tasuki To be fair, that was not the only point I called you out on, we shouldn't forget that you stated things like lootboxes are not gambling and microtransactions are required so delopers don't starve...

But you are correct in your assumption you won't change my mind because I will take the evidence of the hundreds of acredited papers you can find online written by people who've spent years researching the subject over your gut feeling any day. Also many things in society are regulated to protect the vulnerable such as alcohol, drugs and, of course, gambling. Are you suggesting this is wrong as it might inconvenience people from having fun? I like how you finish up by showing how unreasonable I am in asking for regulation by basically saying I'm personally responsible in trying to take people's toys away. That's quite cute

I wouldn't have prompted you for an answer though, but for the fact I found it extremely callous, especially from a moderator, that you would call people who have genuine problems dumb*****. I'm sure that is the type of comment you are supposed to moderate.

I just want to see some form of legislation, just because I want to it to be fair. There's no way of knowing now, because these lootboxes all are happening behind closed doors. So something like an obligation of being transparent in the odds, would be a step in the right direction.

Just an example of where I think this is needed. The stand-alone Gwent offers booster packs that contain cards (ranging from the common bronze to rare gold). You hardly ever get silver or bronze cards in a random pack and that's no problem. As long as I, as a potential buyer, am aware of these odds.

Now CD Project Red introduced a Starter Pack a few weeks a go; for a discounted price you can get a one-time bundle of booster packs. Thing is: the odds of having gold and silver cards in the starter pack is way higher than in the regular booster packs, you'll buy afterwards. In other words; people are being deceived in thinking the odds of getting gold/silver cards are better than they actually are based on the starter pack.

And that is a situation in which I think more transparency from the developers towards consumers is needed to guarantee fair play.

@Kidfried bang on, this is on point. Exactly the right conversation that should be started.

@Tasuki funny you mention carnival games. The games at Alton Towers were on Watchdog as they were letting people win early doors to carry around the big teddys and making the games impossible as the people flocked around. I will try and grab a link. Carnival games are regulated....

@Kidfried You have a point, but I think the reason starter packs would do that is so you have something decent enough to work with when you first play. Booster packs I expect to get lesser cards, but for something meant to get you started, it wouldn't be fair to just give you junk.

That said, starter packs/decks should have a fixed amount of cards with a certain rarity, so that someone doesn't get too many or too little good cards starting off.

@Dichotomy I never said that developers would starve if they don't have microtransactions so there's no need to put words in my mouth. What I said was they are a business first and foremost and that they look to get as much money out of a product that they can so they can pay their staff and other expenses as well.

Also I wasn't calling people with problems are dumb*****. That's why I didn't responded to you because you obviously didn't read my post and just jumped to a conclusion. Before reacting read my post again.

@glitchesystem Thank you and I must say love your avatar pic.

While I will say maybe in the 80s/90's consoles and games were aimed at kids but from the PS One era on I would say they are aimed equally at adults and children. I don't see GTA or CoD games advertised on Nickelodeon or in McDonald's Happy Meal toys. But that's a different topic.

Everyone keeps mentioning that games are geared towards these lootboxes but honestly Overwatch and CoD aren't what games are geared towards needing the lootboxes.

I agree it needs to be regulated. Games targeted at teenagers are using behavioural science techniques used in casinos to get people hooked. The random content drops in loot boxes mean that the player never knows when the reward is coming. It's like playing a slot machine. If rewards are given at known points, like an extra life after collecting 100 rings, it's less addictive. But if the rewards come more randomly then you don't get bored and it is more addictive. The quality of the content is less important. It's the anticipation of the reward that produces the dopamine hit that you get when a reward drops. It's all to keep the player engaged so they will drop money on dlc.

The difference with ALL kiddie options, whether its Panini stickers or Pokemon Cards, even Kinder eggs, they always have something that can be used to 'trade' with their friends to get the items they wanted. Kinder eggs may have a 'mystery' toy inside but you always get the Chocolate too. Pokemon was a 'trading' card game so if you did get a 2nd Pikachu, you could trade with someone who may want Pikachu and have Charizard (or other Pokemon you need) to offer in return. Even if you don't get the exact items you really wanted, you do get 'something' that can be used to trade. Same with Panini stickers - I have 3 years worth (86-89) fully completed albums and most of those were filled with 'swapsies' with friends at school. Most of my friends and I, when we completed, would give any remaining stickers to those fiends still collecting to give them more chance at filling in the rest of theirs and/or a bigger hand to barter with. Even if these had little/no value to you personally, didn't mean they had no value at all - they had value to someone who may have a card that had no value to them but value to you. You always had something 'physical' to trade, sell on, swap etc.

The loot boxes have no intrinsic value and cannot be swapped/traded/sold on etc. The devs etc use the same basic principals that 'gambling' uses and the same addictive design principal to prey on the vulnerable. Hoping that you forget about the £60 you spent on loot crates when you get one of the elusive items you wanted and that 'rush' makes you spend another £60 to buy more etc. Its like buying £100 of Scratch Cards and that 1 or 2 that gave you £5-£10 back or a 'free' scratch card - is such a rush that you buy another £100 worth. Its the same principal as Slot machines too, give out a few little rewards that make you feel good, knowing full well you are likely to spend that 'reward' and more chasing te elusive 'Jackpot'. However even these can actually give you 'something' of value back - often nowhere near the amount you spent but that £10 or so you won is still £10.

As I said, I have no issue with Random Loot as a 'reward' for in game play - encourage you to play another match or two to earn enough points for another random loot drop - BUT I have issues with these Devs selling you Random Loot drops - especially as they have no intrinsic value, no trade/swap/sell-on value and some 'BS' status like Exotic, Legendary, Rare etc. I bet the devs didn't spend a lot more on creating that Exotic item. Its not like the '£100k' top prize on a Scratch Card that only 1 winner can find.

I know games maybe more 'expensive' to make but how many games a year do Activision or EA publish? How much net Profit do they make a quarter? How many copies of CoD or Overwatch do they need to sell to recoup any investment and turn profitable? Its corporate greed. If they made games people wanted to buy and play, then there is sufficient gamers to buy enough copies of games for any to be successful without the need to resort to cheap tactics to maximise profits and create disharmony and distrust.

My view is that a form of gambling is creeping into gaming and using the same tactics as the gambling industry use to attract people to it.

I have nothing against gambling BUT I want it to be called gambling in gaming media and I want it to be regulated. First to establish consumer friendly transparency like odds etc. Secondly to provide some protection for those most vulnerable.

This is not needed to fund games, it is a cash grab. Pure as.

@BAMozzy How much do they lose by people buying used games?

@Tasuki Who knows - nut if they made games that people wanted to hold on to, then they wouldn't have a second hand market flooded with their games in the first place. You could say the same about books and th authors 'losing' out because of the 2nd hand market. Same with anything. They are still making billions a year for the publishers with the 2nd hand market as it is. The whole reason a 'game ends up on the 2nd hand market is because the devs have not put enough in their game for the person to warrant keeping hold of it.

Don't get me started on the 'entitlement' that I have to trade my game if I want - not that I do because I am more of a collector but its still my right to trade them in as I wish or the 'entitlement' that 'devs/publishers' have over ANY other media that their 'products' are exempt from 2nd hand trade or that they 'deserve' more. They do a job, they get paid and if they do a 'great' job, their game will be successful and make them (or their publishers and investors) money. Activision had a revenue of $6.61bn in 2016 and recorded a 42% increase in earnings over the year before. Its Q1 2017 figures are the highest its ever recorded making $1.73bn.

Figures so high they are unimaginable! CoD is profitable within the first 'week' if not on the first day - let alone with DLC or Micro-transactional sales - so don't give me that BS that the 2nd hand market really affects them. If people want to keep hold of games for the year, then there is no 2nd hand market. Digital sales of games also has no 2nd hand users affecting sales either and that is also seeing 'growth' year on year. 10 years ago, I bet nearly all sales of AAA games were physical copies and there was more 2nd hand users too. I wouldn't be surprised if, in general, pre-owned sales were down year on year whilst 'new' games were increasing. I know Publishers etc often use 'digital' bonuses to encourage more to buy 'new' so there are better ways of combating the 'small' loss they may have due to the 2nd hand market without resorting to micro-transactions as a pure profit making exercise.

As far as I am concerned ,if the 2nd hand market is flooded with their game, that's a reflection on them and they don't deserve to be supplemented by BS profit making policies. I personally think they should have a window where 'retailers' cannot sell their games 2nd hand - like Game for example not being able to sell a 2nd hand 'CoD' for 2months rom the release date and I think Devs etc should probably reward those who buy 'new' with digital bonuses to encourage 'new' sales BUT I do not agree that they should use underhand tactics to make up for any minor losses due to the 2nd hand market when 9 times out of 10, its their fault the game wasn't enticing enough for people to keep hold of their game.

They tried the same with books and that over-entitlement that Publishers and Authors think they have. They tried to close down 2nd hand bookshops etc but that failed too. If anything, books have less reason to keep hold of them, in most cases anyway.

Incidentally, I can't remember the last time I bought a second hand game OR sold/traded in one of my games. I still have my entire gaming library for the past 10yrs plus and I believe ALL were bought new - so don't assume that I am one of those who doesn't support the industry etc BUT its my 'right' to trade in my 'licence' to play the game if I so choose. Its the 'job' of the developer to make their games so good that people don't want to trade it in. If they fail to do that, then that's on them!!

@BAMozzy First of all I wasn't assuming anything I was just saying in general. Are you ok man? You have seem lately quick to anger in your responses.

@Tasuki You said in defense of microtransactions/lootboxes
"People have to remember gaming is a business. Companies and developers make money to pay their employees so their employees can feed their familes."
I agreed that companies are there to make money, but to use the above as a direct defense for shady business practices led me to point out how ridiculous that defense is. Either you are saying microtransaction are required to make a profit to pay employees and thus allow developers to put food on the table (and hence not starve) or you are just making the statement "businesses aim to make money" with no context to the discussion.

As for the second point, I did read that section a few times, I'll quote it here with commentary for clarity:

"Game companies should have a safe guard and children should not be exposed."
Sounds good to me, this is the regulation part people who are against lootboxes are asking for.

"That's fine and dandy but why should game companies be in charge of that?"
OK, you just said companies should have a safe guard, but now they should not be in charge of that safeguard? That's a bit strange.

"Since when did they become parents to the children of the world? It's a parents responsibility to educate and see to it that there children are taught right from wrong not the game companies."
This is true too, but if a company releases something that could be potentially harmful to a child's mental health they should have a responsibility to ensure they take every measure to highlight this issue.

"I didn't let my son play GTA, CoD or any game along those lines till I knew he was ready and I made sure of it. That's what a parent does."
Funnily enough it wasn't that long ago that games were not age restricted and had no indication that they contained adult material. Call it bad parenting if you like that kids got to play these games, but the fact is there were no guidelines to indicate any problems to unwitting parents and a lot of these games were still advertised to kids. Having legislation in place to show these games are for a certain age category and up allows parents to make informed decisions even if some of them still let their kids play unsuitable games.

"This day and age everyone wants everything to parent their child but them. Yes it's a thankless job, yes maybe you weren't ready, but no where is it a company's responsibility to make sure your child doesn't grow up to be a dumb***."
But this is the crux of what you have said, if a child grows up and has a personality disorder such as a gambling addiction it is the parent's sole responsibility. Further, all said people who grow up with these issues are dumb*****. It is a statement that completely glosses over a very real problem in society and I don't see how I could read it any other way, unless you are not talking about the topic that this forum post is about.

All anyone is asking here as far as I'm aware is that things like lootboxes be regulated in the same way as any other form of fixed odds gambling, that is transparent odds, high visibility that they exist (such as a prominent advisory notice on the case/store page), no credit betting, age restriction and the option to exclude yourself from them if they are an issue to you. Apart from the credit betting part, I doubt it would have much of an impact on people who, for some reason, enjoy them. It would also stop tactics like tweaking odds of certain drops to maximise microsales.

While I was actually looking for a different (and more damning) article, I did come across this story from a developer talking about working in the freemium market. It's worth a look as it should give you an idea of what the people behind the decisions are truly like and help illustrate the direction the industry is heading if people remain so apathetic towards things like lootboxes:
http://toucharcade.com/2015/09/16/we-own-you-confessions-of-a...

@Dichotomy Ok take it for how who want cause that's what you are doing. Games do not create gambling problems if the child is raised right but sadly you are one of those people who think no one is responsible for thier actions as I said earlier you aren't going to change my mind I am not going to change yours. We are done here as we are just going to go in circles.

No disrespect to you but we're done. As I am not going to further subject myself and possiblely hurt someone's feelings because I tell it as it is and sadly this society in this day and age can't handle it.

@Tasuki I think you are misinterpreting what I've been saying, it isn't games causing gambling problems, but instead it is the fact people develop gambling problems for a variety of reasons and the games prey upon these people. For instance there is a strong link between people with depression and gambling which shouldn't be a shock since we often link depression with addictions such as alcoholism. To put it another way a kid could grow up in the most caring and sensible family, but still have issues in their adult life despite their parents never putting a foot wrong.

It is sad you seem to have such a closed mind though and will not even consider all the research that has been done on the subject of mental health over the past few decades. Your stance kind of reminds me of Victorian Britain, leave anyone who exhibits mental problems in the asylum to rot and damn those liberals who say it's wrong. I grew up mainly in the 80s when things like racism and homophobia were still rampant and people who were against changes in the general perception of the public would say it was sad that society could not put up with a bit of name calling any more (of course there was more than this going on, but by the 80s words were usually the worst of the hate). I feel that perception to mental health is going through a similar change now with a push to remove the stigma attached to it so people who suffer with mental issues don't feel embarased and shamed and seek out help. It is a shame these days some people can't accept society changing towards a more compassionate direction.