As much as we don’t have any figures for player numbers I’d say having to pull out of EU countries would be bad news, that’s gotta be several thousand players at the very least.
I’d frankly be shocked if a developer or publisher was so utterly stubborn they’d rather loose half their players than move to alternate revenue streams, for a game like STO it could be a suicide move.
But I don’t think STO is in that boat yet, Overwatch, TF; now those guys should be more worried.
Frankly STO has been out in the open for almost 7 years, it hasn't really been upgraded and Cryptic has been in no hurry to make substanital changes either. It's very possible Cryptic or PWI would suck the cash cow dry, kill it and work on another Trek game completely rather than get into the guts of this game to make it work with new alternative means that could be just as costly.
So long as no one is policiing the grey area gambling devices seriously around the world including the US and it's states, then there is little reason to change this ever growing disease building up in game makers to want to put microtransactions in them. What can any of us do to get them to stop and see what they are doing is wrong and that quick easy profits by such means is a lazy way of ripping off their customers. Why should they care? Apart from Japan and Germany and to a limited degree in Australia, most of the rest of us have little rights as customers in the computer gaming world to demand change.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The only thing we can do is to vote with our wallets really, at least for these big A-list games that are $60 for the main game then have the cheek to put in micro transaction bs to draw an extra $100-200 out of the players for stuff that should be in the original release.
The only thing we can do is to vote with our wallets really, at least for these big A-list games that are $60 for the main game then have the cheek to put in micro transaction bs to draw an extra $100-200 out of the players for stuff that should be in the original release.
Actually according to one article on the BF2 front, it was closer to 2 grand to unlock everything.
STO CBT Player - 400 day+ Vet, Currently Silver
Cryptic, would you actulaly like me to spend actual Money? It's Simple:
Full, Story-driven, select from start 1-50 Klingon Side
Scrap current Lock Box & Lobi system for something more reasonable
Expand Dil and Rep/Fleet Marks to regular story content
This has been discussed to death so many times I'm surprised it's not on the FCT list, but lockboxes are no more "gambling" than are the bubblegum-card packs of my youth, or booster packs for CCGs today. You're going to get something every time the box is opened; whether it's of value to you isn't the important part, it's that there's always something there that has a value.
Even more importantly, if you don't want to spend real money on keys for these boxes (I don't), you have two different ways to grind them up in-game - you can either collect EC and buy keys on the Exchange, or you can collect Dilithium, trade it for Zen, and buy keys from the C-store. No capital investment is required in either case. (I used to boast I'd never spent a penny on this game; since those days I've purchased the big Temporal Pack, back when it was new, because I really wanted all those TOS-looking ships, and I was gifted a 2000 Zen card. Other than that, everything I have is still something that I either ground (grinded?) for myself in-game, or collected from one or another giveaway.)
Found this interesting conversation on Twitter from a former SWTOR dev that was in charge of microtransactions.
The number one mistake that I’ve seen in F2P games is devs who don’t understand that NOT SPENDING IS NORMAL PLAY. Most of your customers will NEVER give you a dime.
The Zynga Facebook games that used to spam your feed were a success if they had a conversion rate of 2%. That’s right – a successful business model if 98% of your population never drops a dime.
What this means, though is that the non-spendy version of the game is the NORM. The game that you see as a non-spender is what 90%+ of your customers will see.
Dungeon Keepers on mobile failed because what those people saw was a game where spending was absolutely mandatory. That view of the game killed the game.
Because that 90%+ of the population is your game’s virality (also known as “word of mouth”). If your free players (or in the case of Battlefront, box spenders) have a negative reax it can kill word of mouth, tank reviews, etc.
Some ppl think that game devs don’t care about keeping that 90%+, but that’s not true. Most of these games NEED those non-spendy players because they’re multiplayer games.
In MMOs, you need ppl so that dungeon queues will fire. In PvP games, you need enough people to make a match – and matchmake them with appropriate enemies.
This is much more true in AAA games where the PvP is synchronous than in mobile games where the PvP is against offline opponents frequently (see the core Clash of Clans game)
So what Battlefront got wrong was to put content that people consider core behind a hugely long grind path. They missed that this would be seen as the ‘normal’ game.
And one more thing: once you go into microtransactions, players start suspecting they are your motives for everything. (13)
So even in the scenario was a game designer that (for example) accidentally put an unlock behind an 80 hour grind because he fat fingered it, or because he just likes grinds or hard games, players will assume the company is making a money grab. (14)
That’s because in a lot of cases, the players are correct. Bringing microtransactions into things erases the benefit of the doubt.
I still am a huge proponent of Free to Play because I’m a big hippy. I *like* the idea that 98% of my population can play for free.
And a lot of research has been done to find that most heavy spenders (‘whales’) are people who like spending and don’t feel manipulated into it. Think high-powered lawyers with too much spare cash lying around. (17)
I’m pretty fine with those guys paying a lot of money so that a whole bunch of kids w/o money or credit cards can play my games for free.
In talks in the past, I’ve compared it to the old Patron system in Renaissance times, where kings and rich dudes would subsidize art so everyone could enjoy it.
But still, good MTX design is an art. It requires designers to be equal partners with Product Managers to come up with something that is perceived as fair and is celebrated.
People like @JimSterling would disagree, but the difference between Overwatch & Battlefront is stark. People CELEBRATE new skins being added to the former.
When a new Magic or Hearthstone set comes out, people CELEBRATE the opportunity to spend more. Same for a new FIFA season.
This is important. MTX will fail if it *doesn’t feel good to spend*. It will fail if it creates a poisonous environment around the game instead of excitement.
I am not sure if it is this dev or EA to blame for SWTOR's F2P system due to how restrictive it is to F2P players.
Found this interesting conversation on Twitter from a former SWTOR dev that was in charge of microtransactions.
The number one mistake that I’ve seen in F2P games is devs who don’t understand that NOT SPENDING IS NORMAL PLAY. Most of your customers will NEVER give you a dime.
The Zynga Facebook games that used to spam your feed were a success if they had a conversion rate of 2%. That’s right – a successful business model if 98% of your population never drops a dime.
What this means, though is that the non-spendy version of the game is the NORM. The game that you see as a non-spender is what 90%+ of your customers will see.
Dungeon Keepers on mobile failed because what those people saw was a game where spending was absolutely mandatory. That view of the game killed the game.
Because that 90%+ of the population is your game’s virality (also known as “word of mouth”). If your free players (or in the case of Battlefront, box spenders) have a negative reax it can kill word of mouth, tank reviews, etc.
Some ppl think that game devs don’t care about keeping that 90%+, but that’s not true. Most of these games NEED those non-spendy players because they’re multiplayer games.
In MMOs, you need ppl so that dungeon queues will fire. In PvP games, you need enough people to make a match – and matchmake them with appropriate enemies.
This is much more true in AAA games where the PvP is synchronous than in mobile games where the PvP is against offline opponents frequently (see the core Clash of Clans game)
So what Battlefront got wrong was to put content that people consider core behind a hugely long grind path. They missed that this would be seen as the ‘normal’ game.
And one more thing: once you go into microtransactions, players start suspecting they are your motives for everything. (13)
So even in the scenario was a game designer that (for example) accidentally put an unlock behind an 80 hour grind because he fat fingered it, or because he just likes grinds or hard games, players will assume the company is making a money grab. (14)
That’s because in a lot of cases, the players are correct. Bringing microtransactions into things erases the benefit of the doubt.
I still am a huge proponent of Free to Play because I’m a big hippy. I *like* the idea that 98% of my population can play for free.
And a lot of research has been done to find that most heavy spenders (‘whales’) are people who like spending and don’t feel manipulated into it. Think high-powered lawyers with too much spare cash lying around. (17)
I’m pretty fine with those guys paying a lot of money so that a whole bunch of kids w/o money or credit cards can play my games for free.
In talks in the past, I’ve compared it to the old Patron system in Renaissance times, where kings and rich dudes would subsidize art so everyone could enjoy it.
But still, good MTX design is an art. It requires designers to be equal partners with Product Managers to come up with something that is perceived as fair and is celebrated.
People like @JimSterling would disagree, but the difference between Overwatch & Battlefront is stark. People CELEBRATE new skins being added to the former.
When a new Magic or Hearthstone set comes out, people CELEBRATE the opportunity to spend more. Same for a new FIFA season.
This is important. MTX will fail if it *doesn’t feel good to spend*. It will fail if it creates a poisonous environment around the game instead of excitement.
I am not sure if it is this dev or EA to blame for SWTOR's F2P system due to how restrictive it is to F2P players.
You can pretty much blame EA for SWTOR F2P being so terrible.
Very likely - this guy seems too rational, too grounded to spearhead something like the SWTOR F2P model.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Found this interesting conversation on Twitter from a former SWTOR dev that was in charge of microtransactions.
The number one mistake that I’ve seen in F2P games is devs who don’t understand that NOT SPENDING IS NORMAL PLAY. Most of your customers will NEVER give you a dime.
The Zynga Facebook games that used to spam your feed were a success if they had a conversion rate of 2%. That’s right – a successful business model if 98% of your population never drops a dime.
What this means, though is that the non-spendy version of the game is the NORM. The game that you see as a non-spender is what 90%+ of your customers will see.
Dungeon Keepers on mobile failed because what those people saw was a game where spending was absolutely mandatory. That view of the game killed the game.
Because that 90%+ of the population is your game’s virality (also known as “word of mouth”). If your free players (or in the case of Battlefront, box spenders) have a negative reax it can kill word of mouth, tank reviews, etc.
Some ppl think that game devs don’t care about keeping that 90%+, but that’s not true. Most of these games NEED those non-spendy players because they’re multiplayer games.
In MMOs, you need ppl so that dungeon queues will fire. In PvP games, you need enough people to make a match – and matchmake them with appropriate enemies.
This is much more true in AAA games where the PvP is synchronous than in mobile games where the PvP is against offline opponents frequently (see the core Clash of Clans game)
So what Battlefront got wrong was to put content that people consider core behind a hugely long grind path. They missed that this would be seen as the ‘normal’ game.
And one more thing: once you go into microtransactions, players start suspecting they are your motives for everything. (13)
So even in the scenario was a game designer that (for example) accidentally put an unlock behind an 80 hour grind because he fat fingered it, or because he just likes grinds or hard games, players will assume the company is making a money grab. (14)
That’s because in a lot of cases, the players are correct. Bringing microtransactions into things erases the benefit of the doubt.
I still am a huge proponent of Free to Play because I’m a big hippy. I *like* the idea that 98% of my population can play for free.
And a lot of research has been done to find that most heavy spenders (‘whales’) are people who like spending and don’t feel manipulated into it. Think high-powered lawyers with too much spare cash lying around. (17)
I’m pretty fine with those guys paying a lot of money so that a whole bunch of kids w/o money or credit cards can play my games for free.
In talks in the past, I’ve compared it to the old Patron system in Renaissance times, where kings and rich dudes would subsidize art so everyone could enjoy it.
But still, good MTX design is an art. It requires designers to be equal partners with Product Managers to come up with something that is perceived as fair and is celebrated.
People like @JimSterling would disagree, but the difference between Overwatch & Battlefront is stark. People CELEBRATE new skins being added to the former.
When a new Magic or Hearthstone set comes out, people CELEBRATE the opportunity to spend more. Same for a new FIFA season.
This is important. MTX will fail if it *doesn’t feel good to spend*. It will fail if it creates a poisonous environment around the game instead of excitement.
I am not sure if it is this dev or EA to blame for SWTOR's F2P system due to how restrictive it is to F2P players.
You can pretty much blame EA for SWTOR F2P being so terrible.
Very likely - this guy seems too rational, too grounded to spearhead something like the SWTOR F2P model.
Except that he was one of the people responsible for microtransactions at SWTOR which is what makes what he posted on Twitter uncharacteristic.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Damion Schubert was the Senior Designer/Lead Designer/Director of Microtransactions Design at SWTOR (May 2006 – October 2014). He was responsible for initial conception and design of key new F2P, monetization features, including random pack design, dye mods, minipets, player vehicles and animal mounts, and player housing.
Of course, it is possible that he was only a Senior Designer of Microtransactions when SWTOR's F2P was implemented so hated features like having to buy an Operations Pass to play raids, Credits Escrow, or buy Artifact Authorization to equip endgame gear was due to his boss. At least with STO, you can earn up to 10 million EC and have the option to increase the credit cap to 1 Billion EC for 500 Zen instead of dealing with the pain of Escrow.
Each of the expansions should be free or at least subscribers or people that purchase the expansion should get a headstart. SWTOR's new endgame requires being a subscriber which might be the reason why this dev no longer works for SWTOR.
I think the issue with loot-crates and the whole idea of them is really more of a problem when they start to replace actual content.
STO falls into this trap very badly imo, because most new seasons simply add a new lockbox and items you feel pressured into buying/grinding out. It's not real content and it does (as the article @starkaos linked says) make people feel like the company is more interested in a cash grab than actual decent content.
I've no real issue with loot crates added for fun to give you something to splurge on just for fun or if you feel lucky, but once they start being considered a "big event" when they release, or are replacing real content updates i think things have gone badly wrong.
EA went totally wrong with BF2 as they put something that should have been normal content, albeit unlocked with a bit of effort from players, behind a massive paywall. Then they had the cheek to tell players it would make them feel better to access said items, as if that would pass for a decent content infusion.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,698Community Moderator
I've got no problem with STO's Lockboxes either. Usually they are connected with the current story arc in some form or another, but not mandatory to get.
STO is perfectly playable with even a free Tier 5 starship and standard weapons. Lockbox ships and weapons add flavor. While I love Kelvin phasers, they are not an absolute must have. While the Vaadwaur Astika is a nice ship with a great trait, it is not an absolute must have.
I admit I'm a bit of a weapons collector, but that is by choice, and I usually buy the weapons off the Exchange for ECs. I really can't afford to spend Zen on lockbox keys. If other people choose to do that, that's fine. It suppliments Cryptic's C-Store income which in turn brings us feature episodes, Trek actors, and new ships. In this way, I feel that STO did something right, unlike EA which has proven to be rather greedy in the past with their blackmail F2P model in TOR. I mean... you don't even get a BANK until you pay them $5. The only game I can think of that is slightly worse in the Bank department is actually Defiance, which, unless one was implimented while I've been away, didn't even HAVE one to begin with. I'm not slamming Defiance, its a decent game, but still... no bank period?
Also EA tends to try and milk things for all they're worth, and when they don't "meet expectations" they shelf a whole franchise. Command and Conquer 3 was pretty good. It still felt like a C&C game. C&C Red Alert 3 was also pretty decent IMO. Was a bit campy, but still felt like a C&C Red Alert game. Where they frakked up... was C&C 4. They took a well respected RTS game... tried to turn it into a MOBA with a campaign, and totally failed. C&C 4 flopped, and EA shelved the whole franchise, canceling development on C&C Generals 2. Mass Effect was another franchise EA screwed up. Bioware doesn't skimp out on story. They're good at story. But they had no choice but to cave to pressure from EA with ME3 and Andromeda... and the franchise suffered for it and was shelved.
So I kinda hope EA gets bashed a bit on this. Might teach them to lighten up on the greed a bit and actually think more about a quality product rather than how much cash they can milk from a franchise. Blizzard, on the other hand... I think they may be on the fence in this one. On one side they have Heroes of the Storm, which is perfectly playable without spending a dime and a player can still earn the gold to buy heroes. I actually saved enough to get Nova. While slightly squishy, I like her Ambush style as an Assassin class hero. Spike damage. On the other hand, it sounds like Overwatch kinda pushed the loot crates a bit too far. They could probably learn a bit from TF2's crates maybe. At least in TF2 players can still get the crate weapons as random drops, even though they aren't Strange quality or have special cosmetics.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
I've got no problem with STO's Lockboxes either. Usually they are connected with the current story arc in some form or another, but not mandatory to get.
STO is perfectly playable with even a free Tier 5 starship and standard weapons. Lockbox ships and weapons add flavor. While I love Kelvin phasers, they are not an absolute must have. While the Vaadwaur Astika is a nice ship with a great trait, it is not an absolute must have.
I admit I'm a bit of a weapons collector, but that is by choice, and I usually buy the weapons off the Exchange for ECs. I really can't afford to spend Zen on lockbox keys. If other people choose to do that, that's fine. It suppliments Cryptic's C-Store income which in turn brings us feature episodes, Trek actors, and new ships. In this way, I feel that STO did something right, unlike EA which has proven to be rather greedy in the past with their blackmail F2P model in TOR. I mean... you don't even get a BANK until you pay them $5. The only game I can think of that is slightly worse in the Bank department is actually Defiance, which, unless one was implimented while I've been away, didn't even HAVE one to begin with. I'm not slamming Defiance, its a decent game, but still... no bank period?
Also EA tends to try and milk things for all they're worth, and when they don't "meet expectations" they shelf a whole franchise. Command and Conquer 3 was pretty good. It still felt like a C&C game. C&C Red Alert 3 was also pretty decent IMO. Was a bit campy, but still felt like a C&C Red Alert game. Where they frakked up... was C&C 4. They took a well respected RTS game... tried to turn it into a MOBA with a campaign, and totally failed. C&C 4 flopped, and EA shelved the whole franchise, canceling development on C&C Generals 2. Mass Effect was another franchise EA screwed up. Bioware doesn't skimp out on story. They're good at story. But they had no choice but to cave to pressure from EA with ME3 and Andromeda... and the franchise suffered for it and was shelved.
So I kinda hope EA gets bashed a bit on this. Might teach them to lighten up on the greed a bit and actually think more about a quality product rather than how much cash they can milk from a franchise. Blizzard, on the other hand... I think they may be on the fence in this one. On one side they have Heroes of the Storm, which is perfectly playable without spending a dime and a player can still earn the gold to buy heroes. I actually saved enough to get Nova. While slightly squishy, I like her Ambush style as an Assassin class hero. Spike damage. On the other hand, it sounds like Overwatch kinda pushed the loot crates a bit too far. They could probably learn a bit from TF2's crates maybe. At least in TF2 players can still get the crate weapons as random drops, even though they aren't Strange quality or have special cosmetics.
overwatch is poor choice far saying they pushed lootcreates too hard, since overwatch's lootcrates are all extras. a person with nothing is in the same place gameplay wise as someone with all of it.
and the ME stuff is straight up not an example of EA messing things up but more of a why the fandom can't have nice things. ME 3 was never gonna go well, to much hype and stuff built up in the hans head that were never gonna be, and Andromeda had the time, it was bioware who didn't use it well. the stuff people flipped out over were never a strong point with bioware, and are a nearly a feature in Bethesda games. the non subjective issues have actually mostly been fixed. the hate really had more to do with ME 3 baggage then anything else, people decided Andromeda was gonna fail long before release and they bashed it at every chance tell it did. EA mostly got the point with the reaction to DA 2 which was their fault.
and I doubt any investgation into lootbo/lockbox is gonna amount to much.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
There's a bunch of machines in my local supermarket that sell little plastic eggs with toys in them. They take pound coins, they're positioned at just the right height for little kiddies to put their pocket money in them. You put your money in, turn the lever, an egg drops out at random with a toy inside it. It may or may not be a toy that a particular little kiddy wants - and some toys are rarer than others. The law is not concerned with this. You put your money in, the machine gives you what it says it will give you. Every time, you get a little plastic egg with a toy.
This isn't gambling, in English law. Lockboxes in STO are even less like gambling in English law - because the little plastic eggs are at least physical objects, and you could envisage the right little plastic egg being sold for actual money. In STO, you pay your money for a random selection of entirely virtual objects, with no in-game mechanism for converting them back into real cash. (A virtual environment like Second Life, where the virtual currency is freely convertible with the real stuff, has to jump through a lot more legislative hoops to handle all this stuff safely.) You pay your money and you get a random set of Star Trek themed pixels delivered to your screen. Some sets of pixels have higher prestige value for the players. Actual gambling legislation is not influenced by this. You paid for a random virtual object with no real-world cash value, and that's what you got.
Whether little plastic eggs, or sets of pixels licensed by the IP holders (and subject to removal or modification at any moment, if you remember that agreement that we all read and virtually signed), these things don't amount to gambling in the eyes of English law. And since English law is (at least for the moment) still in harmony with EU law, they won't be gambling in the EU's eyes either. I'm sure some subcommittee in the Hague or Brussels will be happy to examine the issue - they have to justify their existence somehow, this is as good a way as any to keep the expenses claims rolling in, perhaps some Eurocrats will buy lifetime subs and charge it to the taxpayers - but they're not going to reach any different conclusion.
It's also not gambling under US law, for the exact same reason - you cannot come out of the transaction without something, and the law isn't concerned about whether it's what you wanted.
> @evilmark444 said: > I had thought gambling age was a federal law, but after checking Google even that varies by state which I had no idea.
Yeah, the amount of control the US leaves to the states is pretty incredible by the standards of most of the world. Even with the federal government's authority having been expanded after the Civil War, one still kind of needs to think of us as less a single country than as a union of semi-autonomous republics. Hell, we even let the states have their own militaries (the National Guard in each state technically answers to the governor, though they can be called up by the Defense Department).
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
> @evilmark444 said:
> I had thought gambling age was a federal law, but after checking Google even that varies by state which I had no idea.
Yeah, the amount of control the US leaves to the states is pretty incredible by the standards of most of the world. Even with the federal government's authority having been expanded after the Civil War, one still kind of needs to think of us as less a single country than as a union of semi-autonomous republics. Hell, we even let the states have their own militaries (the National Guard in each state technically answers to the governor, though they can be called up by the Defense Department).
It is called the United States of America for a reason. It is also the reason why the Electoral College won't be replaced by a popular vote. Most issues should be left up to the State level since what works in Texas doesn't work in California.
I don't know how Loot Boxes operate, but with Lock Boxes, they always deliver at least, 3 Lobi Crystals... So while the outcome is indeed randomized, it always returns a minimum output, therefore, it's not gambling. Could someone with whatever cognitive dysfunction which leaves them vulnerable to gambling and other addictive behaviours, 'get caught up' in the rush of opening boxes? Sure.
But that's where responsibility and personal accountability comes in.
It's up to them to moderate their own behaviour, not up to external forces to mold their environment so they can't indulge in any 'harmful' behaviours. Stuff shouldn't be witheld from the majority by external forces, just because a few can't enjoy it responsibly...
#StopTheWorldIWantToGetOff
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
A case could be made that all Lockboxes require the prizes inside to be worth the same. So if I open a $5 Lockbox, then I would get $5 worth of prizes instead of one Lockbox that is worth $0.50 and another that is worth $75. SWTOR has their regular Lockboxes and created Grand Pet/Armor/Mount/Decoration Packs with a corresponding cost so the Grand Pet Pack costs less than the Grand Mount Pack.
A case could be made that all Lockboxes require the prizes inside to be worth the same. So if I open a $5 Lockbox, then I would get $5 worth of prizes instead of one Lockbox that is worth $0.50 and another that is worth $75. SWTOR has their regular Lockboxes and created Grand Pet/Armor/Mount/Decoration Packs with a corresponding cost so the Grand Pet Pack costs less than the Grand Mount Pack.
The issue with that, is Lock Boxes are free (unless purchased off the exchange) and they all have a fixed value: 3 Lobi Crystals (or is it four? I forget, but for the sake of discussion, we'll say 3) 125 Z = 3 Lobi Crystals. That's a loss-less conversion of Zen to Lobi. Lobi, can be saved, and used to buy Nice Shinies. Ergo, each box, Does Have an intrinisic value: 3 Lobi Crystals. Anything else received from opening said box, is just a bonus, and where the opportunity of chance comes in, but it's still not a gamble, because there is that base conversion of Zen to Lobi.
Now could they implement a tiered box system? Sure. Let's say Normal, Rare and Very Rare. Normal box opportunity requires one Master Key to open. Its properties are as existing, with 3 being the base amount of Lobi Crystals. Rare box opportunity requires one medium Master Key to open. It has double the base amount of Lobi crystals, and a better odds with the RNG of getting the T6 Ship. Very Rare box opportunity requires one large Master Key to open. It has tripple the base amount of Lobi crystals and an even better odds with the RNG of getting the T6 Ship. The thing which would make the variable here, is potentially two-fold. Either, Option A: Each box is simply A Box, and the opportunity varies dependant upon the Master Key used to open it, or, each box is tiered, as per current loot drops are tiered, and would simply require the corresponding Master Key to unlock it. In either instance, there is no gambling involved, because each box, Will Deliver, at least three, six or nine, Lobi Crystals, and other potential supplementary rewards, in accordance with either the rarity of the box/the size of Master Key used to unlock...
While the possibility of the element of chance still exists to receive Nice Shinies, it's not gambling, because there would always be a fixed amount Lobi Crystals received, which is a loss-less exchange of Zen to Lobi at 125 Z to 3 Lobi
A gamble, in STO-terms, would be the situation where someone could potentially open a Lock Box, and get Absolutely Nothing, beyond a 'better luck next time...' message. That, the possibility of actually losing and getting nothing, that would be a gamble, and that's not how Lock Boxes work
*SuckItEditMonster
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Found this interesting conversation on Twitter from a former SWTOR dev that was in charge of microtransactions.
The number one mistake that I’ve seen in F2P games is devs who don’t understand that NOT SPENDING IS NORMAL PLAY. Most of your customers will NEVER give you a dime.
The Zynga Facebook games that used to spam your feed were a success if they had a conversion rate of 2%. That’s right – a successful business model if 98% of your population never drops a dime.
What this means, though is that the non-spendy version of the game is the NORM. The game that you see as a non-spender is what 90%+ of your customers will see.
Dungeon Keepers on mobile failed because what those people saw was a game where spending was absolutely mandatory. That view of the game killed the game.
Because that 90%+ of the population is your game’s virality (also known as “word of mouth”). If your free players (or in the case of Battlefront, box spenders) have a negative reax it can kill word of mouth, tank reviews, etc.
Some ppl think that game devs don’t care about keeping that 90%+, but that’s not true. Most of these games NEED those non-spendy players because they’re multiplayer games.
In MMOs, you need ppl so that dungeon queues will fire. In PvP games, you need enough people to make a match – and matchmake them with appropriate enemies.
This is much more true in AAA games where the PvP is synchronous than in mobile games where the PvP is against offline opponents frequently (see the core Clash of Clans game)
So what Battlefront got wrong was to put content that people consider core behind a hugely long grind path. They missed that this would be seen as the ‘normal’ game.
And one more thing: once you go into microtransactions, players start suspecting they are your motives for everything. (13)
So even in the scenario was a game designer that (for example) accidentally put an unlock behind an 80 hour grind because he fat fingered it, or because he just likes grinds or hard games, players will assume the company is making a money grab. (14)
That’s because in a lot of cases, the players are correct. Bringing microtransactions into things erases the benefit of the doubt.
I still am a huge proponent of Free to Play because I’m a big hippy. I *like* the idea that 98% of my population can play for free.
And a lot of research has been done to find that most heavy spenders (‘whales’) are people who like spending and don’t feel manipulated into it. Think high-powered lawyers with too much spare cash lying around. (17)
I’m pretty fine with those guys paying a lot of money so that a whole bunch of kids w/o money or credit cards can play my games for free.
In talks in the past, I’ve compared it to the old Patron system in Renaissance times, where kings and rich dudes would subsidize art so everyone could enjoy it.
But still, good MTX design is an art. It requires designers to be equal partners with Product Managers to come up with something that is perceived as fair and is celebrated.
People like @JimSterling would disagree, but the difference between Overwatch & Battlefront is stark. People CELEBRATE new skins being added to the former.
When a new Magic or Hearthstone set comes out, people CELEBRATE the opportunity to spend more. Same for a new FIFA season.
This is important. MTX will fail if it *doesn’t feel good to spend*. It will fail if it creates a poisonous environment around the game instead of excitement.
I am not sure if it is this dev or EA to blame for SWTOR's F2P system due to how restrictive it is to F2P players.
He might be a former SWTOR dev because I don't think TOR actually applied those lessons, or least not well.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
Most, if not all, states / countries have an age restriction on gambling. In most US states, that's 21. The only legislation I feel we need is for this age restriction to also apply to any video game that incorporates loot / lock boxes.
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
Most, if not all, states / countries have an age restriction on gambling. In most US states, that's 21. The only legislation I feel we need is for this age restriction to also apply to any video game that incorporates loot / lock boxes.
And how is that then enforced in a foolproof manner, in an online-environment? I read about an American businessman, who wound up in trouble with the law, because the girl he met through an online dating website (catering to SugarDaddies) had lied about her age not only when speaking to him, but also when she signed up for the website, which required an age-verification tickbox.
To be effective, things like this need a tie in to a person's DigitalPassport which can't be lied about by the user, just by selecting a DoB within the permitted range. Many things will say 'Sign in with Facebook', but even that is not actually enforced or verified as to the age of the user.
Systems like that to actually verify an individual's age, will Cost Money to implement, and are, again, an imposition against the freedoms of the many, to protect against the misbehaviours of the few. And, even an age restriction system, won't prevent the adult gambling addict from signing up.
No, what's needed (about 30 years ago) is for parents to instill a sense of social responsibility and personal accountability in their children. To teach them right from wrong, and for the inherent value of resources.
Clamping down on the entertainments and freedoms of Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, Person E, Person F, Person G, Person H, Person I, Person J, Person K, Person L, Person M, Person N, Person O, Person P, Person Q, Person R, Person S, Person T, Person U, and Person V, because Person W, Person X, Person Y and Person Z can't exercise restraint, is not, IMO an acceptable situation, nor actually addressing the issue itself.
Lock Boxes have an element of chance in them, but they are not gambling, so shouldn't be being looked at by a commission as if they were gambling, nor legislated as if they were gambling
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
Yeah, why do we need legislation to prevent companies from exploiting psychological backdoors when the individual should be perfectly capable of judging whether a company is lying to or manipulating them? Why mandate warnings on or regulate access to addictive things like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling and lockboxes when simple research will easily show that they're harmful? Why mandate truth in advertising when the individual should be able to do the research and see the tells that the company they want to buy from is lying to them?
Who cares if some random person you'll never meet is sucked into a bottomless pit of debt so you can keep playing your video game? Making sure you don't get screwed by businesses is your own responsibility and only your own responsibility! #CaveatEmptor!
*cough*
Ahem. Yes. We should absolutely be teaching people self-control and rational analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that lockboxes are a predatory business model. Even if a full ban would just drive it underground (I'm not sure that it would--video games live and die on their playerbase, and nobody started STO for the lockboxes), regulation is necessary.
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
Yeah, why do we need legislation to prevent companies from exploiting psychological backdoors when the individual should be perfectly capable of judging whether a company is lying to or manipulating them? Why mandate warnings on or regulate access to addictive things like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling and lockboxes when simple research will easily show that they're harmful? Why mandate truth in advertising when the individual should be able to do the research and see the tells that the company they want to buy from is lying to them?
Who cares if some random person you'll never meet is sucked into a bottomless pit of debt so you can keep playing your video game? Making sure you don't get screwed by businesses is your own responsibility and only your own responsibility! #CaveatEmptor!
*cough*
Ahem. Yes. We should absolutely be teaching people self-control and rational analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that lockboxes are a predatory business model. Even if a full ban would just drive it underground (I'm not sure that it would--video games live and die on their playerbase, and nobody started STO for the lockboxes), regulation is necessary.
Well, sarcasm or otherwise (I couldn't really tell) you stated my thoughts perfectly. My only real disagreement, is your statement that Lock Boxes are 'predatory'. In what way are they 'predatory'? People aren't forced to acquire them, or open them. Are they?
Many, if not most, of the boxes dropped in-game, are of no interest to me whatsoever beyond Lobi Crystals. I fail to see any true incentive to actually open them, unless someone is really interested in that theme (or just wants the Lobi, and whatever else is inside as exchange fodder)
As I posed above: How would this type of activity, realistically be regulated? (given the ease with which people can lie about their ages online) Maybe a time-code could be inserted, preventing more than one box being unlocked every hour, and thus removing that potential dopamine flood, which people get from such activities (like chat roulette, for example) but in the flipside of that proposal, why should someone who is not dopamine-sensitive, be prevented from opening all their boxes in one go, if they want to? Afterall, folks do (allegedly ;p ) have lives outside the game, they may only be logging on for an hour or so a day, so why should they be restricted from opening the boxes, during the online time their schedule allows?
Maybe boxes could be tiered, as I also suggested above, so base-rewards would scale with the value of the box/key needed to open it, to give more of a feel of 'value for money'.
Ultimately, you haven't even offered a token refutation to the point, as to why the majority of players, need to be hampered by 'safeguards', imposed to control those who can't control themselves. Merely repeated the need for regulation, but failing to give reasons why such regulation is actually needed, or even desirable.
At the end of the day, Cryptic (and other companies) need the income which things like the boxes deliver, to keep running. Looking around the forum lately, I've seen a number of long-time players, openly admitting they grind almost everything, very rarely putting actual money into the game. If no one was to ever pay out for such things, there goes the game which we all enjoy playing... The premise that 'someone paid for it initially', fails to acknowledge that Cryptic's financial needs are ongoing, and simply subscribes to that socialist trend of 'spending other people's money'...
If someone lacks the common-sense to not go broke over their addiction, why should that impact everyone else who can enjoy the activity responsibly?
Just because your neighbour across the street is, say, an alcoholic; Why should that mean that every store in town can no longer serve alcohol?
There're rules in place which say who can and can't buy alcohol, which are actually enforceable.
What I fail to see here, is the ability for any potential regulation to actually Be Enforced, because there's no enforced, or even enforcable subscription method, which can definitively prove the age or capacity of said player... It would be coming down hard on everyone, for the hypothetical 'protection', of those who should know better. Control at the cost of freedoms, is not a good thing, IMO
*SuckItEditMonster
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Hmm, so if I open a casino but guarantee a tiny little cash back or small toy or something from every play of the slot machines it won't be gambling, yay good to know! No, It's not really any different in my eyes, and the spirit of the matter is the loot box system in so many games is a psychological manipulation tactic that is still identical to what gambling services provide. The house always wins in the end. The only difference is a sliding scale of the severity of the gambling stakes, virtual prizes or not, the effect on people and manipulation is the same.
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Why do we need 'legislation'?
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
Yeah, why do we need legislation to prevent companies from exploiting psychological backdoors when the individual should be perfectly capable of judging whether a company is lying to or manipulating them? Why mandate warnings on or regulate access to addictive things like cigarettes, alcohol, gambling and lockboxes when simple research will easily show that they're harmful? Why mandate truth in advertising when the individual should be able to do the research and see the tells that the company they want to buy from is lying to them?
Who cares if some random person you'll never meet is sucked into a bottomless pit of debt so you can keep playing your video game? Making sure you don't get screwed by businesses is your own responsibility and only your own responsibility! #CaveatEmptor!
*cough*
Ahem. Yes. We should absolutely be teaching people self-control and rational analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that lockboxes are a predatory business model. Even if a full ban would just drive it underground (I'm not sure that it would--video games live and die on their playerbase, and nobody started STO for the lockboxes), regulation is necessary.
Well, sarcasm or otherwise (I couldn't really tell) you stated my thoughts perfectly. My only real disagreement, is your statement that Lock Boxes are 'predatory'. In what way are they 'predatory'? People aren't forced to acquire them, or open them. Are they?
Many, if not most, of the boxes dropped in-game, are of no interest to me whatsoever beyond Lobi Crystals. I fail to see any true incentive to actually open them, unless someone is really interested in that theme (or just wants the Lobi, and whatever else is inside as exchange fodder)
As I posed above: How would this type of activity, realistically be regulated? (given the ease with which people can lie about their ages online) Maybe a time-code could be inserted, preventing more than one box being unlocked every hour, and thus removing that potential dopamine flood, which people get from such activities (like chat roulette, for example) but in the flipside of that proposal, why should someone who is not dopamine-sensitive, be prevented from opening all their boxes in one go, if they want to? Afterall, folks do (allegedly ;p ) have lives outside the game, they may only be logging on for an hour or so a day, so why should they be restricted from opening the boxes, during the online time their schedule allows?
Maybe boxes could be tiered, as I also suggested above, so base-rewards would scale with the value of the box/key needed to open it, to give more of a feel of 'value for money'.
Ultimately, you haven't even offered a token refutation to the point, as to why the majority of players, need to be hampered by 'safeguards', imposed to control those who can't control themselves. Merely repeated the need for regulation, but failing to give reasons why such regulation is actually needed, or even desirable.
At the end of the day, Cryptic (and other companies) need the income which things like the boxes deliver, to keep running. Looking around the forum lately, I've seen a number of long-time players, openly admitting they grind almost everything, very rarely putting actual money into the game. If no one was to ever pay out for such things, there goes the game which we all enjoy playing... The premise that 'someone paid for it initially', fails to acknowledge that Cryptic's financial needs are ongoing, and simply subscribes to that socialist trend of 'spending other people's money'...
If someone lacks the common-sense to not go broke over their addiction, why should that impact everyone else who can enjoy the activity responsibly?
Just because your neighbour across the street is, say, an alcoholic; Why should that mean that every store in town can no longer serve alcohol?
There're rules in place which say who can and can't buy alcohol, which are actually enforceable.
What I fail to see here, is the ability for any potential regulation to actually Be Enforced, because there's no enforced, or even enforcable subscription method, which can definitively prove the age or capacity of said player... It would be coming down hard on everyone, for the hypothetical 'protection', of those who should know better. Control at the cost of freedoms, is not a good thing, IMO
*SuckItEditMonster
Yes, that was sarcasm. Let me take your argument to its logical conclusion: The idea that a person is entirely responsible for avoiding manipulation in business interactions rests on the premise that a person is entirely responsible for their own well-being, and that nobody else has any responsibility to watch out for them. In other words, if you're stupid or weak enough to be exploited, you deserve to be exploited. If someone is able to exploit you, they deserve to be able to exploit you. The core of this argument is might makes right, and if might makes right is true then that gives me the right to grab a weapon and come rob you for everything you own, and the police would have no obligation to stop me.
Obviously selling lockboxes isn't anywhere near as bad as armed robbery. The comparison is meant to show that your augment rests on an assertion that our society rejects: might does not make right, so we have created laws against theft, violence, and deceptive business practices. We accept an obligation to watch out for each other, either directly by avoiding actions that would do harm or through contributing to the function of institutions like the police, hospitals, churches, and the FTC which prevent people from doing harm. We accept that people deserve to be protected from things they cannot protect themselves from.
Lockboxes are predatory because they're designed to exploit people who can't control their spending. The target demographic is not people with disposable income, it's anybody they can rope into paying for lockboxes over and over and over, whether they can afford it or not. People like you and me are not the people lockboxes target--we're the bycatch that companies put up with for the sake of casting their net wide until they hook whales. The people they want are people who spend a lot, either because they can afford to spend a lot or because they can't stop themselves. The companies don't care which, and as a result they're causing harm. They are causing harm to fund a video game.
Obviously the best course of action would be to teach people how to get out of these psychological traps, but actually accomplishing that has proven difficult. Until we find a way to make that happen, a more immediate if less desirable solution is to go after the things that exploit these psychological traps.
Game developers do need to make money just like everybody else, but that doesn't give them the right to use a predatory system. There are lots of other business models game developers can follow other than the lockbox model, and if lockoxes are the only way to fund MMOs I'd rather go without MMOs. MMOs are trivial--you can't justify exploiting people just to play a video game. If the game devs wants to dev games, they can go dev a different kind of game. The world's not going to end
As for enforcing an age limit on MMOs, I don't have a solution. I'm not a legal expert, and creating laws isn't something I'm good at. All I see is a problem that needs fixed, and I'll leave it to more law-savvy people than me to come up with an effective nuanced solution. But I'd support a blanket ban on lockbox games if that's the only way to work it. Games would either have to remove lockboxes or lose their customers.
As for enforcing an age limit on MMOs, I don't have a solution. I'm not a legal expert, and creating laws isn't something I'm good at. All I see is a problem that needs fixed, and I'll leave it to more law-savvy people than me to come up with an effective nuanced solution. But I'd support a blanket ban on lockbox games if that's the only way to work it. Games would either have to remove lockboxes or lose their customers.
You literally can't enforce an age limit on F2P MMOs. Just like you can't really permaban anyone because they can make throwaway accounts. Going back to a subscription system might mitigate it, but then we'd loose a LOT of players and STO isn't as big as say WoW. It would kill STO.
Technically STO's Lockboxes are a seperate entity as we get them as drops for free. Only thing we're buying is keys for about $1.25. We don't actually buy the lockboxes seperately. Unlike EA and Blizzard who push the limits.
In STO's case, lockboxes are probably the equivelent of a TCG booster pack. You always get something.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Comments
Frankly STO has been out in the open for almost 7 years, it hasn't really been upgraded and Cryptic has been in no hurry to make substanital changes either. It's very possible Cryptic or PWI would suck the cash cow dry, kill it and work on another Trek game completely rather than get into the guts of this game to make it work with new alternative means that could be just as costly.
So long as no one is policiing the grey area gambling devices seriously around the world including the US and it's states, then there is little reason to change this ever growing disease building up in game makers to want to put microtransactions in them. What can any of us do to get them to stop and see what they are doing is wrong and that quick easy profits by such means is a lazy way of ripping off their customers. Why should they care? Apart from Japan and Germany and to a limited degree in Australia, most of the rest of us have little rights as customers in the computer gaming world to demand change.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Actually according to one article on the BF2 front, it was closer to 2 grand to unlock everything.
Cryptic, would you actulaly like me to spend actual Money? It's Simple:
Even more importantly, if you don't want to spend real money on keys for these boxes (I don't), you have two different ways to grind them up in-game - you can either collect EC and buy keys on the Exchange, or you can collect Dilithium, trade it for Zen, and buy keys from the C-store. No capital investment is required in either case. (I used to boast I'd never spent a penny on this game; since those days I've purchased the big Temporal Pack, back when it was new, because I really wanted all those TOS-looking ships, and I was gifted a 2000 Zen card. Other than that, everything I have is still something that I either ground (grinded?) for myself in-game, or collected from one or another giveaway.)
Very likely - this guy seems too rational, too grounded to spearhead something like the SWTOR F2P model.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Except that he was one of the people responsible for microtransactions at SWTOR which is what makes what he posted on Twitter uncharacteristic.
Of course, it is possible that he was only a Senior Designer of Microtransactions when SWTOR's F2P was implemented so hated features like having to buy an Operations Pass to play raids, Credits Escrow, or buy Artifact Authorization to equip endgame gear was due to his boss. At least with STO, you can earn up to 10 million EC and have the option to increase the credit cap to 1 Billion EC for 500 Zen instead of dealing with the pain of Escrow.
Each of the expansions should be free or at least subscribers or people that purchase the expansion should get a headstart. SWTOR's new endgame requires being a subscriber which might be the reason why this dev no longer works for SWTOR.
STO falls into this trap very badly imo, because most new seasons simply add a new lockbox and items you feel pressured into buying/grinding out. It's not real content and it does (as the article @starkaos linked says) make people feel like the company is more interested in a cash grab than actual decent content.
I've no real issue with loot crates added for fun to give you something to splurge on just for fun or if you feel lucky, but once they start being considered a "big event" when they release, or are replacing real content updates i think things have gone badly wrong.
EA went totally wrong with BF2 as they put something that should have been normal content, albeit unlocked with a bit of effort from players, behind a massive paywall. Then they had the cheek to tell players it would make them feel better to access said items, as if that would pass for a decent content infusion.
STO is perfectly playable with even a free Tier 5 starship and standard weapons. Lockbox ships and weapons add flavor. While I love Kelvin phasers, they are not an absolute must have. While the Vaadwaur Astika is a nice ship with a great trait, it is not an absolute must have.
I admit I'm a bit of a weapons collector, but that is by choice, and I usually buy the weapons off the Exchange for ECs. I really can't afford to spend Zen on lockbox keys. If other people choose to do that, that's fine. It suppliments Cryptic's C-Store income which in turn brings us feature episodes, Trek actors, and new ships. In this way, I feel that STO did something right, unlike EA which has proven to be rather greedy in the past with their blackmail F2P model in TOR. I mean... you don't even get a BANK until you pay them $5. The only game I can think of that is slightly worse in the Bank department is actually Defiance, which, unless one was implimented while I've been away, didn't even HAVE one to begin with. I'm not slamming Defiance, its a decent game, but still... no bank period?
Also EA tends to try and milk things for all they're worth, and when they don't "meet expectations" they shelf a whole franchise. Command and Conquer 3 was pretty good. It still felt like a C&C game. C&C Red Alert 3 was also pretty decent IMO. Was a bit campy, but still felt like a C&C Red Alert game. Where they frakked up... was C&C 4. They took a well respected RTS game... tried to turn it into a MOBA with a campaign, and totally failed. C&C 4 flopped, and EA shelved the whole franchise, canceling development on C&C Generals 2. Mass Effect was another franchise EA screwed up. Bioware doesn't skimp out on story. They're good at story. But they had no choice but to cave to pressure from EA with ME3 and Andromeda... and the franchise suffered for it and was shelved.
So I kinda hope EA gets bashed a bit on this. Might teach them to lighten up on the greed a bit and actually think more about a quality product rather than how much cash they can milk from a franchise. Blizzard, on the other hand... I think they may be on the fence in this one. On one side they have Heroes of the Storm, which is perfectly playable without spending a dime and a player can still earn the gold to buy heroes. I actually saved enough to get Nova. While slightly squishy, I like her Ambush style as an Assassin class hero. Spike damage. On the other hand, it sounds like Overwatch kinda pushed the loot crates a bit too far. They could probably learn a bit from TF2's crates maybe. At least in TF2 players can still get the crate weapons as random drops, even though they aren't Strange quality or have special cosmetics.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
overwatch is poor choice far saying they pushed lootcreates too hard, since overwatch's lootcrates are all extras. a person with nothing is in the same place gameplay wise as someone with all of it.
and the ME stuff is straight up not an example of EA messing things up but more of a why the fandom can't have nice things. ME 3 was never gonna go well, to much hype and stuff built up in the hans head that were never gonna be, and Andromeda had the time, it was bioware who didn't use it well. the stuff people flipped out over were never a strong point with bioware, and are a nearly a feature in Bethesda games. the non subjective issues have actually mostly been fixed. the hate really had more to do with ME 3 baggage then anything else, people decided Andromeda was gonna fail long before release and they bashed it at every chance tell it did. EA mostly got the point with the reaction to DA 2 which was their fault.
and I doubt any investgation into lootbo/lockbox is gonna amount to much.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
This isn't gambling, in English law. Lockboxes in STO are even less like gambling in English law - because the little plastic eggs are at least physical objects, and you could envisage the right little plastic egg being sold for actual money. In STO, you pay your money for a random selection of entirely virtual objects, with no in-game mechanism for converting them back into real cash. (A virtual environment like Second Life, where the virtual currency is freely convertible with the real stuff, has to jump through a lot more legislative hoops to handle all this stuff safely.) You pay your money and you get a random set of Star Trek themed pixels delivered to your screen. Some sets of pixels have higher prestige value for the players. Actual gambling legislation is not influenced by this. You paid for a random virtual object with no real-world cash value, and that's what you got.
Whether little plastic eggs, or sets of pixels licensed by the IP holders (and subject to removal or modification at any moment, if you remember that agreement that we all read and virtually signed), these things don't amount to gambling in the eyes of English law. And since English law is (at least for the moment) still in harmony with EU law, they won't be gambling in the EU's eyes either. I'm sure some subcommittee in the Hague or Brussels will be happy to examine the issue - they have to justify their existence somehow, this is as good a way as any to keep the expenses claims rolling in, perhaps some Eurocrats will buy lifetime subs and charge it to the taxpayers - but they're not going to reach any different conclusion.
> I had thought gambling age was a federal law, but after checking Google even that varies by state which I had no idea.
Yeah, the amount of control the US leaves to the states is pretty incredible by the standards of most of the world. Even with the federal government's authority having been expanded after the Civil War, one still kind of needs to think of us as less a single country than as a union of semi-autonomous republics. Hell, we even let the states have their own militaries (the National Guard in each state technically answers to the governor, though they can be called up by the Defense Department).
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
It is called the United States of America for a reason. It is also the reason why the Electoral College won't be replaced by a popular vote. Most issues should be left up to the State level since what works in Texas doesn't work in California.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7dwufx/why_loot_boxes_are_in_fact_actually_a_form_of/?st=ja6cy4cp&sh=1dd46b01
But that's where responsibility and personal accountability comes in.
It's up to them to moderate their own behaviour, not up to external forces to mold their environment so they can't indulge in any 'harmful' behaviours. Stuff shouldn't be witheld from the majority by external forces, just because a few can't enjoy it responsibly...
#StopTheWorldIWantToGetOff
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The difficult part is deciding where to draw a line as I do understand the definition can get murky as some games do have a somewhat fair way of doing this (Hearthstone so far being one that I've recently started playing with a friend without paying any money, but it's early for me to judge that one so far). But either way, I'd be happy if some more fear was put into companies taking this matter too far as it's becoming toxic to the future of online gaming, and even if it means some games closing the doors and turning off the lights, so be it, a worthwhile sacrifice for REAL gaming companies to come and fill the void with different business models and practices that are less exploitive and outrageously expensive.
YOUCAN'THAVEACASINOSOMEONEMIGHTGETADDICTED!!!
Is Big Brother's stance...
If you want to run the risk of THIS GAME shutting down, by all means, continue preaching the evils of 'gambling' and the sophistry that 'real' gaming companies will miraculously appear to fill the void.
#ItsNotGambling #FtheEU
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Now could they implement a tiered box system? Sure. Let's say Normal, Rare and Very Rare. Normal box opportunity requires one Master Key to open. Its properties are as existing, with 3 being the base amount of Lobi Crystals. Rare box opportunity requires one medium Master Key to open. It has double the base amount of Lobi crystals, and a better odds with the RNG of getting the T6 Ship. Very Rare box opportunity requires one large Master Key to open. It has tripple the base amount of Lobi crystals and an even better odds with the RNG of getting the T6 Ship. The thing which would make the variable here, is potentially two-fold. Either, Option A: Each box is simply A Box, and the opportunity varies dependant upon the Master Key used to open it, or, each box is tiered, as per current loot drops are tiered, and would simply require the corresponding Master Key to unlock it. In either instance, there is no gambling involved, because each box, Will Deliver, at least three, six or nine, Lobi Crystals, and other potential supplementary rewards, in accordance with either the rarity of the box/the size of Master Key used to unlock...
While the possibility of the element of chance still exists to receive Nice Shinies, it's not gambling, because there would always be a fixed amount Lobi Crystals received, which is a loss-less exchange of Zen to Lobi at 125 Z to 3 Lobi
A gamble, in STO-terms, would be the situation where someone could potentially open a Lock Box, and get Absolutely Nothing, beyond a 'better luck next time...' message. That, the possibility of actually losing and getting nothing, that would be a gamble, and that's not how Lock Boxes work
*SuckItEditMonster
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
He might be a former SWTOR dev because I don't think TOR actually applied those lessons, or least not well.
It doesn't fit the current legal definition of gambling, but it works very similar and has an identical effect on the brain. If it was restricted to adults that would be one thing, but these games are frequently played by kids as well. We have an entire generation of kids that is being encouraged to develop a gambling addiction, and that just ain't right imo. We need legislation on this now.
Legislation that parents teach their kids self-restraint, personal accountability, the value of money and the consequences of their actions, perhaps?
Or maybe just the idea that it's up to the person to moderate their own behaviour, and not need external boundaries enforced upon them (and thus on everyone else as well) to ensure they can't 'get addicted'? Look back over the last hundred years of American History: Prohibition, war on drugs, prostitution and gambling kept illegal, etc. At what point, has prohibition (as a concept) actually been successful in keeping those determined to engage in an activity, from engaging in it? Think of Roper, in Enter the Dragon: A Gambler, will gamble on anything, just to gamble.
Yes, the dopamine effect on the brain is the same, but so what?? Why should Person A's entertainments be imposed upon and restricted, because Person B can't control themself and behave responsibly?
#SomeoneWhoRarelyOpensLockBoxes
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Most, if not all, states / countries have an age restriction on gambling. In most US states, that's 21. The only legislation I feel we need is for this age restriction to also apply to any video game that incorporates loot / lock boxes.
To be effective, things like this need a tie in to a person's DigitalPassport which can't be lied about by the user, just by selecting a DoB within the permitted range. Many things will say 'Sign in with Facebook', but even that is not actually enforced or verified as to the age of the user.
Systems like that to actually verify an individual's age, will Cost Money to implement, and are, again, an imposition against the freedoms of the many, to protect against the misbehaviours of the few. And, even an age restriction system, won't prevent the adult gambling addict from signing up.
No, what's needed (about 30 years ago) is for parents to instill a sense of social responsibility and personal accountability in their children. To teach them right from wrong, and for the inherent value of resources.
Clamping down on the entertainments and freedoms of Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, Person E, Person F, Person G, Person H, Person I, Person J, Person K, Person L, Person M, Person N, Person O, Person P, Person Q, Person R, Person S, Person T, Person U, and Person V, because Person W, Person X, Person Y and Person Z can't exercise restraint, is not, IMO an acceptable situation, nor actually addressing the issue itself.
Lock Boxes have an element of chance in them, but they are not gambling, so shouldn't be being looked at by a commission as if they were gambling, nor legislated as if they were gambling
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Who cares if some random person you'll never meet is sucked into a bottomless pit of debt so you can keep playing your video game? Making sure you don't get screwed by businesses is your own responsibility and only your own responsibility! #CaveatEmptor!
*cough*
Ahem. Yes. We should absolutely be teaching people self-control and rational analysis, but it doesn't change the fact that lockboxes are a predatory business model. Even if a full ban would just drive it underground (I'm not sure that it would--video games live and die on their playerbase, and nobody started STO for the lockboxes), regulation is necessary.
Many, if not most, of the boxes dropped in-game, are of no interest to me whatsoever beyond Lobi Crystals. I fail to see any true incentive to actually open them, unless someone is really interested in that theme (or just wants the Lobi, and whatever else is inside as exchange fodder)
As I posed above: How would this type of activity, realistically be regulated? (given the ease with which people can lie about their ages online) Maybe a time-code could be inserted, preventing more than one box being unlocked every hour, and thus removing that potential dopamine flood, which people get from such activities (like chat roulette, for example) but in the flipside of that proposal, why should someone who is not dopamine-sensitive, be prevented from opening all their boxes in one go, if they want to? Afterall, folks do (allegedly ;p ) have lives outside the game, they may only be logging on for an hour or so a day, so why should they be restricted from opening the boxes, during the online time their schedule allows?
Maybe boxes could be tiered, as I also suggested above, so base-rewards would scale with the value of the box/key needed to open it, to give more of a feel of 'value for money'.
Ultimately, you haven't even offered a token refutation to the point, as to why the majority of players, need to be hampered by 'safeguards', imposed to control those who can't control themselves. Merely repeated the need for regulation, but failing to give reasons why such regulation is actually needed, or even desirable.
At the end of the day, Cryptic (and other companies) need the income which things like the boxes deliver, to keep running. Looking around the forum lately, I've seen a number of long-time players, openly admitting they grind almost everything, very rarely putting actual money into the game. If no one was to ever pay out for such things, there goes the game which we all enjoy playing... The premise that 'someone paid for it initially', fails to acknowledge that Cryptic's financial needs are ongoing, and simply subscribes to that socialist trend of 'spending other people's money'...
If someone lacks the common-sense to not go broke over their addiction, why should that impact everyone else who can enjoy the activity responsibly?
Just because your neighbour across the street is, say, an alcoholic; Why should that mean that every store in town can no longer serve alcohol?
There're rules in place which say who can and can't buy alcohol, which are actually enforceable.
What I fail to see here, is the ability for any potential regulation to actually Be Enforced, because there's no enforced, or even enforcable subscription method, which can definitively prove the age or capacity of said player... It would be coming down hard on everyone, for the hypothetical 'protection', of those who should know better. Control at the cost of freedoms, is not a good thing, IMO
*SuckItEditMonster
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, that was sarcasm. Let me take your argument to its logical conclusion: The idea that a person is entirely responsible for avoiding manipulation in business interactions rests on the premise that a person is entirely responsible for their own well-being, and that nobody else has any responsibility to watch out for them. In other words, if you're stupid or weak enough to be exploited, you deserve to be exploited. If someone is able to exploit you, they deserve to be able to exploit you. The core of this argument is might makes right, and if might makes right is true then that gives me the right to grab a weapon and come rob you for everything you own, and the police would have no obligation to stop me.
Obviously selling lockboxes isn't anywhere near as bad as armed robbery. The comparison is meant to show that your augment rests on an assertion that our society rejects: might does not make right, so we have created laws against theft, violence, and deceptive business practices. We accept an obligation to watch out for each other, either directly by avoiding actions that would do harm or through contributing to the function of institutions like the police, hospitals, churches, and the FTC which prevent people from doing harm. We accept that people deserve to be protected from things they cannot protect themselves from.
Lockboxes are predatory because they're designed to exploit people who can't control their spending. The target demographic is not people with disposable income, it's anybody they can rope into paying for lockboxes over and over and over, whether they can afford it or not. People like you and me are not the people lockboxes target--we're the bycatch that companies put up with for the sake of casting their net wide until they hook whales. The people they want are people who spend a lot, either because they can afford to spend a lot or because they can't stop themselves. The companies don't care which, and as a result they're causing harm. They are causing harm to fund a video game.
Obviously the best course of action would be to teach people how to get out of these psychological traps, but actually accomplishing that has proven difficult. Until we find a way to make that happen, a more immediate if less desirable solution is to go after the things that exploit these psychological traps.
Game developers do need to make money just like everybody else, but that doesn't give them the right to use a predatory system. There are lots of other business models game developers can follow other than the lockbox model, and if lockoxes are the only way to fund MMOs I'd rather go without MMOs. MMOs are trivial--you can't justify exploiting people just to play a video game. If the game devs wants to dev games, they can go dev a different kind of game. The world's not going to end
As for enforcing an age limit on MMOs, I don't have a solution. I'm not a legal expert, and creating laws isn't something I'm good at. All I see is a problem that needs fixed, and I'll leave it to more law-savvy people than me to come up with an effective nuanced solution. But I'd support a blanket ban on lockbox games if that's the only way to work it. Games would either have to remove lockboxes or lose their customers.
You literally can't enforce an age limit on F2P MMOs. Just like you can't really permaban anyone because they can make throwaway accounts. Going back to a subscription system might mitigate it, but then we'd loose a LOT of players and STO isn't as big as say WoW. It would kill STO.
Technically STO's Lockboxes are a seperate entity as we get them as drops for free. Only thing we're buying is keys for about $1.25. We don't actually buy the lockboxes seperately. Unlike EA and Blizzard who push the limits.
In STO's case, lockboxes are probably the equivelent of a TCG booster pack. You always get something.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode