Micro-transactions in Video Gaming: Gambling?

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Again, I think the market addresses this kind of thing pretty well.  Games are too expensive, well, there are a thousand other games.  Sorry if someone got excited for a particular game and it wasn't what they were expecting.  Nobody is entitled to a game that is exactly what they were hoping for.  Let your feeling be known, don't buy from that developer anymore, or wait until there is some market feedback on how good a game is before you purchase.   

 

While I agree that there is a personal responsibility component here, I do think the game developer's practice deserve close scrutiny.  Whether it be right or wrong, we've recognized in this country that market forces are inadequate to control gambling impulses.  One would think that people would stop before it gets out of hand (especially after insane amounts of money), but that obviously isn't the case, so we have anti-gambling laws to save people from themselves.  If game developers are violating these laws, then we've crossed the threshold from those stupid kids and their wasteful ways to corporations preying on the public through illegal means.  It may not feel like gambling as we know it, but I think it checks all the boxes.  Whether the legislature wants to enshrine video game related gambling as a permissible form like state lottery, horse racing, etc is another matter, I suppose.

[Kosher Ham]

I view it as similar to what McDonald's does with Monopoly. 

[PleaseBlitz]

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The in game output on progression was intentionally lying to players on how much they were earning through playing.

 

I don’t think we can expect the market to correct this. Microtransactions and lootboxes are the holy cash cow of gaming at the moment. 

 

There may be pushback against some games but for the most part, major developers are pushing forward with microtransactions. 

 

They are even listing it as a requirement on hiring ads for senior game developers. They specifically want people who engineer addictive lootbox chasing mechanisms into games.

 

I see this ending in a scenario where a huge chunk of the gaming industry is propped up through the exploitation of addictive behavior. And companies will use increasingly sophisticated ways of doing this. 

 

Well, I see your point, I just don't have a lot of sympathy.  These are obviously known issues.  If a game or developer is known to try to cheat people, and you still play the game and purchase whatever it is in the game, they you've assumed the risk.  If you continue to purchase games from those developers and continue to make microtransactions, then you've assumed the risk.  I'm not sure I've ever played a console game with microtransactions, there are plenty of games out there that don't have them.  Protest with your wallet. 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

While I agree that there is a personal responsibility component here, I do think the game developer's practice deserve close scrutiny.  Whether it be right or wrong, we've recognized in this country that market forces are inadequate to control gambling impulses.  One would think that people would stop before it gets out of hand (especially after insane amounts of money), but that obviously isn't the case, so we have anti-gambling laws to save people from themselves.  If game developers are violating these laws, then we've crossed the threshold from those stupid kids and their wasteful ways to corporations preying on the public through illegal means.  It may not feel like gambling as we know it, but I think it checks all the boxes.  Whether the legislature wants to enshrine video game related gambling as a permissible form like state lottery, horse racing, etc is another matter, I suppose.

 

Also a fair point, and I agree that I think video game developers should be scrutinized under UDAP laws.  No issues whatsoever there.  Those laws are vital consumer protections and I agree that the video gaming industry should be looked at.  I disagree that we've recognized that market forces are inadequate to control gambling impulses.  I think we've recognized that gambling creates a lot of revenue for states to tax. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Gambling only by definition of paying for a loot box and "taking a gamble" on what the contents are (high level items/gear or low level crap).  But since it's in a video game and a micro-transaction, it's not the same as gambling money for money.  It's money for potential in game loot, digital items.  And if you can grind the game to get the same items, then it's a short cut geared towards those that have no problem paying extra money to get the items without having to do all the work.  

 

People want to blame EA and other developers, sure, they have run away with the micro-transactions and pay to play model, however, this **** has been going on for years, starting with MMORPGs on PC.  The only difference was it was actual players selling in game items for those games.  I remember back in 1999 (and it was probably even earlier than that) when I started playing Ultima Online, people would grind the game and get the best weapons, best housing spots, etc. then get on ebay and sell them for hundreds and hundreds of dollars.  People paying ridiculous amounts, talking like $200 for an indestructible, sword of vanquish that was blessed (this was a full loot game, you killed someone, could take all their ****- almost, but not blessed items).  

 

This bled into other popular mmorpgs like Everquest, DAoC, WoW, etc. with people selling **** and loaded accounts, etc.  Developers took notice that people were willing to just take the easy way out and pay real money for an advantage or short cuts.  Now the PC mmorpg market is flooded with those models.  What sucks is I'd rather pay a monthly subscription and have no micro-transactions in game (only have a player based market to sell items for in game currency) than the game be free to play with micro-transactions where people can pay to win.  

 

As for console games, I don't like it, but it doesn't bother me, I'm not going to pay for something unless I feel like it.  I play a lot of MUT in Madden, haven't spent a dime and just grinded out my teams.  I can still compete with other players that have better rated teams than mine. 

 

Whether we like it or not, micro-transactions have become the norm and aren't going anywhere.  Especially when there are plenty of people out there willing to continue to pay money for in game items.

[bearrock]

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Yea, but you get a prize no matter what.  It may just not be the prize you want, and, unlike money, different prizes have different value to different people. 

 

I think it's an interesting discussion and exercise in statutory interpretation and certainly appreciate your well learned input PB.  But I respectfully view it still as gambling.  If I operate a casino where you get either an Ipad, a dried cranberry, or a plastic bag, for a dollar slot pull, is that not gambling?  Because everyone gets at least a dried cranberry or a plastic bag?  What if a Casino said you win at least a penny from every game in the house.  Is that no longer gambling?  You may not have won your desired jackpot, but you got something.

 

Read it this way.  What is prohibited is receiving anything of value in exchange for a chance to win a prize dependent on uncertain outcome.  Suppose a loot box has chance of granting one of prize A, B, or C.  I want prize A.  My chance of winning prize A is still dependent on the uncertain outcome of a random number generator.  They can't say that since you are guaranteed to win a prize that your chance of winning prize A is not dependent upon uncertainty.  It most certainly is.

 

9 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

I view it as similar to what McDonald's does with Monopoly. 

 

But you can write to McDonalds to get those play piece for free.  You would probably have to build a new post office next to EA HQ if they handed loot boxes for free by mail 

 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I disagree that we've recognized that market forces are inadequate to control gambling impulses.  I think we've recognized that gambling creates a lot of revenue for states to tax. 

 

You are right that I can't say for certain why certain gambling is prohibited and why certain are allowed.  It could very well be to monopolize gambling and pad the state coffers and not because legislature thought that people can't control their gambling impulses.  But, I do think it is clear that the statutory scheme prohibits any gambling that meets the definition but does not fall under an enumerated exception.

[Kosher Ham]

@bearrock, free postage ? Nope. You still have to pay. 

[Going Commando]

19 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Well, I see your point, I just don't have a lot of sympathy.  These are obviously known issues.  If a game or developer is known to try to cheat people, and you still play the game and purchase whatever it is in the game, they you've assumed the risk.  If you continue to purchase games from those developers and continue to make microtransactions, then you've assumed the risk.  I'm not sure I've ever played a console game with microtransactions, there are plenty of games out there that don't have them.  Protest with your wallet. 

 

True.  Kids are well known for their ability to assess risks and consequences and make rational purchasing choices.  Adults too.  As a people we are pretty good about resisting addiction and gambling and recognizing when we are being psychologically manipulated.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think it's an interesting discussion and exercise in statutory interpretation and certainly appreciate your well learned input PB.  But I respectfully view it still as gambling.  If I operate a casino where you get either an Ipad, a dried cranberry, or a plastic bag, for a dollar slot pull, is that not gambling?  Because everyone gets at least a dried cranberry or a plastic bag?  What if a Casino said you win at least a penny from every game in the house.  Is that no longer gambling?  You may not have won your desired jackpot, but you got something.

 

 

Do the random prizes in the loot boxes range from $800 (an iPad) to 1 cent (1 dried cranberry?)  Or are you just using an extreme example that is not actually in accord with the actual facts?

[Gamebreaker]

3 hours ago, codeorama said:

It is gambling IMO.  I don't like it.  One of the reasons I've turned sour on Destiny 2 is because there is so much focus on the "Bright Engrams" which you can earn in game, but also are for sale.  

 

I completely understand that games cost more to make and companies are trying to make money. But, for me, the result is I'm definitely buying fewer games and will be much more careful.  I did not buy SW Battlefront II because of the pay to win loot boxes and I realize they have made changes, but I still won't buy.

 

I'm not opposed to being able to purchase in game cosmetic stuff, but its just way to prevalent.  I wish it would go away.  

 

And here is what is really grinding my gears about microtransactions in gaming. I agree, it is gambling, and it isn't as nearly as fair as you would think. Take Destiny 2 for instance, Bungie/Activision got caught lying to the gamers about how much experience they were earning towards the Bright Engrams, all so that they would eventually BUY them. Then after getting caught, they secretly double the EXP needed for each activity, essentially making it no different than when they were lying to the gamers. Of course, they got caught doing that just one day after a very weak apology and claiming their previous system "was a bug". Now people who didn't buy the DLC or season pass are pissed because parts of the base game have been locked away until they pony up another $20 for the DLC. 

 

I'm glad Battlefront 2 has bombed. I'm glad EA has lost 6 billion dollars since it launched. I hope it becomes a shining example of what not to do in gaming for the future. But deep down I know it doesn't matter. Bungie is hiring people specifically to implement a pay-to-win progression system. UFC 3 beta has been exposed for literally being the exact same game as UFC 2, just with an updated roster and you guessed, loot boxes. You'd think EA would know better at this point, but the unfortunate truth is they simply don't care about what the average gamer wants. They know 5% of the people who buy their games will spend a ****load of money on these microtransactions, and that 5% will make them more than the other 95% will off the price tag of the game. 

 

 

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

@bearrock, free postage ? Nope. You still have to pay. 

 

To the USPS, not McDonalds.  Thus, McDonalds didn't receive any money in exchange for those game tokens.

[Gamebreaker]

2 hours ago, codeorama said:

I don't even mind paying for DLC after a certain point.  Destiny did it well IMO, but Destiny 2 is trash in the way they are doing it.  I already have the DLC, but they literally locked out people who don't, from content that they had a week ago.  

 

I've actually gone back to the Division since they have fixed it. I loved the game when it came out and quit when it broke with all the cheating and glitches.  The recent 1.8 update was free and its wonderful.  

 

Me too. The Division 1.8 update was huge. Added two new modes, new guns, soon to be upgraded gear sets with the Global Event starting next week, and all of that was free. 

[Kosher Ham]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

To the USPS, not McDonalds.  Thus, McDonalds didn't receive any money in exchange for those game tokens.

 

USPS...simply a middleman. The postal workers eat at Mickey D's for free. Geez man...stick with me here. haha. 

 

I realize that, but my point was that in both scenarios you might win instant cash, or a free small fries. 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

True.  Kids are well known for their ability to assess risks and consequences and make rational purchasing choices.  Adults too.  As a people we are pretty good about resisting addiction and gambling and recognizing when we are being psychologically manipulated.

 

 

 

Some are.  I don't think the people that are able to asses risk and make rational purchasing choices should lose because the stupidest among us cant.

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

You're probably right.  But that's their prerogative.  If someone can't pay rent because of Battlefield II, well, learn a lesson.  

 

 

 

Which is also why some gov't regulation needs to take place. Sorry, letting these companies off the hook because the consumer fell for it isn't my idea of how business should be ran. 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Do the random prizes in the loot boxes range from $800 (an iPad) to 1 cent (1 dried cranberry?)  Or are you just using an extreme example that is not actually in accord with the actual facts?

 

I don't play Battlefront 2 or Destiny, so let me use an example from a game I'm more familiar with.  There is a mobile game called Star Wars Galaxy of Heroes, also published by EA.  It's mainly a character collection game.

 

There are various ways the developer releases the characters and one way is via character packs, which hands out anywhere from 5 to 330 character shards.  You need 330 shards to max a character to 7 stars.  These character packs typically cost around a 1000 crystals.  1000 crystals roughly equal about 10 bucks (cheaper for bulk buy or sale, but that's the normal price).  Now, obviously most pulls are 5 to 10 shards, sometimes 15 if you are lucky.  The once in a blue moon reddit post shows a 330 shard pull.  So, let's say a 5 shard pull is equivalent to 10 dollars, 330 shard pull is equivalent to $660 or 66 times the value of the 5 shard.  These type of typically low reward but small chance and really high reward is pretty common of game loot boxes in my experience and is certainly the way they drag in impressionable young minds or people with impulse control issues.  

[PleaseBlitz]

It seems like EA is coming up a lot as an egregious abuser of this type of system.  I think I'll just not buy games from them.  

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It seems like EA is coming up a lot as an egregious abuser of this type of system.  I think I'll just not buy games from them.  

Sound advice for us all

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Some are.  I don't think the people that are able to asses risk and make rational purchasing choices should lose because the stupidest among us cant.

 

The stupidest among us being kids and addicts and people who didn't happen to read X journal article about the hidden psychological manipulation in gambling and consumer data-mining and individually targeted advertising?

 

Do you realize your reasoning extends to regulation of any form of gambling or addictive behavior?

 

Also, who is winning under the micro-transaction and pay-to-win model?  Greedy ass developers and gamers with a ton of disposable income that don't feel like playing the game to enjoy end game content.  Why should they get to win?

[Gamebreaker]

57 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I don't know how you would either, because I don't think it's deceptive.  You know you are buying a loot box, not a particular thing.  You pay your money, you get your loot box.  Nobody ever represented to the gamer that they anything in particular was going to be in the loot box.  For the article you posted about Destiny 2, I may not understand all of the issues or lingo, but it seems to me like they adjusted a game setting, they didn't try to trick anyone into buying anything?  

 

Again, I think the market addresses this kind of thing pretty well.  Games are too expensive, well, there are a thousand other games.  Sorry if someone got excited for a particular game and it wasn't what they were expecting.  Nobody is entitled to a game that is exactly what they were hoping for.  Let your feeling be known, don't buy from that developer anymore, or wait until there is some market feedback on how good a game is before you purchase.   

 

You are wrong. Bungie was caught showing the gamers they earned a certain amount of experience towards earning a Bright Engram(their version of lootboxes), only for the game to actually be giving them down to 5% of the actual amount the game claims they earned. Basically, the longer you played the less EXP you actually earned...despite the game telling you otherwise. It's deceptive as hell. 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The stupidest among us being kids and addicts and people who didn't happen to read X journal article about the hidden psychological manipulation in gambling and consumer data-mining and individually targeted advertising?

 

Well, yea.

 

Kids still have parents these days, right?

 

Quote

 

Do you realize your reasoning extends to regulation of any form of gambling or addictive behavior?

 

Yes.  Not sure if you are aware, but gambling isn't illegal in most places.  45 states allow slots (which is what loot boxes have been compared to). 

 

Quote

 

Also, who is winning under the micro-transaction and pay-to-win model?  Greedy ass developers and gamers with a ton of disposable income that don't feel like playing the game to enjoy end game content.  Why should they get to win?

 

LOL, video games are not a right that you are entitled to.  Developers make games so that they can make money.  If you feel like the game they made does not appeal to you because of the pricing (or quality of the game or whatever), then you don't have to participate.  

4 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

You are wrong. Bungie was caught showing the gamers they earned a certain amount of experience towards earning a Bright Engram(their version of lootboxes), only for the game to actually be giving them down to 5% of the actual amount the game claims they earned. Basically, the longer you played the less EXP you actually earned...despite the game telling you otherwise. It's deceptive as hell. 

 

Okay.  I'm on record several times in this thread stating that if they are actually being deceptive, they should be investigated under UDAP laws.  

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Yes.  Not sure if you are aware, but gambling isn't illegal in most places.  45 states allow slots (which is what loot boxes have been compared to). 

 

And in how many states is it legal for an 8 year old to sit down at a slot machine with their dad's credit card?

 

Every other form of gambling we've come across eventually gets regulated in some way.  This kind should be too.

 

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

LOL, video games are not a right that you are entitled to.  Developers make games so that they can make money.  If you feel like the game they made does not appeal to you because of the pricing (or quality of the game or whatever), then you don't have to participate.  

 

This sounds like a pretty good defense for casinos and drug dealers too.  "No need for regulation, if you don't like that our products prey upon people, then don't participate."

 

I never took you for an Ayn Rand type.  Or is this just something you're kicking around this morning because you took a bad initial position out of a lack of information on the subject and are digging in with it?

[Gamebreaker]

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It seems like EA is coming up a lot as an egregious abuser of this type of system.  I think I'll just not buy games from them.  

 

Too bad there is still Activision, Ubisoft, and now Sony, who are all presently doing or intending to do the same thing. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just curious, has Battlefront II bombed because of this?  Or is it just ****ty gameplay?  It looks cool and I thought about checking it out.

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

And in how many states is it legal for an 8 year old to sit down at a slot machine with their dad's credit card?

 

Every other form of gambling we've come across eventually gets regulated in some way.  This kind should be too.

 

Well that was my point with the "Kids still have parents, right?" comment.  Who the **** is giving their 8 year old a credit card?  

 

Quote

 

 

This sounds like a pretty good defense for casinos and drug dealers too.  "No need for regulation, if you don't like that our products prey upon people, then don't participate."

 

I never took you for an Ayn Rand type.  Or is this just something you're kicking around this morning because you took a bad initial position out of a lack of information on the subject and are digging in with it?

 

I'm extremely liberal socially, but I also have a degree in economics and believe in free market capitalism and a degree in law and don't think the law is the best solution to everyone's issues.  Casinos are only regulated to 1) collect taxes and 2) prevent money laundering.  Also, as a good liberal, I am totally in favor of the decriminalization of many drugs, like marijuana, will maintaining that particularly addictive and destructive drugs like meth and crack and stuff should be illegal (but not subject users to lengthy jail sentences).  Video games are like pot.

 

Finally, I think my initial position is perfectly valid and that you are just whining because you want the video games you MUST PLAY to be cheaper.  I want bourbon to be cheaper, sometimes you don't get what you want. 

[Gamebreaker]

Furthermore, the laws created against gambling and it's age requirements didn't have digital gambling or gambling through the internet in mind. Someone just compared lootboxes to slot machines. Well, only adults can use slot machines. Claiming laws designed with the expectation that a casino employee would be able to see a 12 year old sitting down at a slot machine, and escorting him out, it's good enough in 2017 where the virtual slot machine is Star Wars or some other sci-fi adventure. 

 

Some form of regulation is needed for this multi-billion dollar industry in this country. Because as the rest of the gamers around the world know, whatever laws we enact here will be emulated elsewhere.