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.
That, my man, is not 'the logical conclusion', it is sophistry of weapons-grade proportions It's not at all what I was saying, and still fails to provide a reason for why, people need to be cosseted and protected from their own choices. I know personal accountability is something many have a personal aversion to, and demand that the world provides them safety-nets for life, but please...
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.
This, goes back to my observation over the page, about parents failing to adequately prepare their children for the Rigours of Life.
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.
This is pure opinion on your part. I'm going to need to see some credible Industry-approved sources to accept that lockboxes deliberately target the vulnerable, before I can accept it as anything other than hysterical hyperbole. And to equate this to 'doing harm', again, laughable hyperbole...
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.
While I definitely agree that giving people the skills to avoid such psychological traps is a good thing, I disagree that lockboxes in any way come under such an exagerated catagory: They're an option in the game, nothing more.
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
Simply stating that the system is predatory, doesn't make it so. You're going to have to explain how and why this is a predatory practice, and with citable examples, beyond your own opinion. Because all I see, are an ignorable, non-mandatory optional extra for the game, which Cryptic (and other companies) use to bring in extra money. Money which they, as a company, need to function. No company, no Star Trek Online... For a game which has now run longer than any version of the franchise which spawned it, I would consider that to be a real shame and loss to said franchise.
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.
There isn't a solution. Not a feasible one. The closest to feasible, would be to make the game subscription-only, and requiring a credit card to subscribe (thus being either a subscription from a legit adult, or, an approved subscription from a parent/guardian) But. What about those who don't have credit cards (or Debt Cards, as I like to call them) I don't. I paid mine off years ago, and will never touch one again... So we then come down to using Government ID like driving licences or passports too validate our online identity... A system like that, is going to cost to implement, and is so 1984/Brave New World/Demolition Man in tone, it makes me shudder to think about. (That episode of The Orville with the society of up/down-voting, they're bringing that in in China...)
The game went F2P for a reason.
And I don't see people who grind for everything, being willing to pay Real Money, to pay a subscription to a game, which they can't even be bothered to pay to play now...
And losing the boxes and or the customers, again, not a great way to support a business, and again, playing into that trap of spending someone else's money, or, to quote the Dire Straits track, "Money for nothing, and your chicks for free..." Well, someone has to pay the piper...
"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
No, leave the lockboxes alone. No one is manipulating you to open them, you can decide to open them or not. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to open lockboxes. If you want to play STO lockbox-free or for the most part that way, go ahead. Thanks.
Were this to succeed, the EU would share something in common with the US - Kinder Eggs would be outlawed. Here, it's because there's a very broad law about putting toys inside food, in case some child is stupid enough to eat the whole thing and choke on the toy. (Personally, I'd invoke Darwin on such an event, but there you go.) In the EU, it would be because the reward from opening a Kinder Egg is random, and may not have value for an individual, just like a lockbox.
Never forget the second- and third-order results of a decision tree.
Yeah at this point it's about randomized loot systems than about actual gambling. Also what people forget is that in actual gambling you can exchange your winnings for real money. Random loot boxes like Kindereggs and those plastic capsule dispensers don't meet this criteria.
While they may not fit the current legal definition of gambling (I'm no legal expert so I can't say with certainty), there's no denying that the effect on the brain is identical to gambling.
This isn't kindergarten.... People with impulse control problems need to stop having impulse control problems. Restructuring society won't help.
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.
That's just it, it's the equivalent of a Zstore thing. You CAN grind to get the items instead of paying, but not via an in-game currency exchange. The game has an equivalent of dilithium you can collect to buy the big unlocks, it just takes a long time. Thus the real question is if it's TOO long... well, probably.
I don't see what's wrong with throwing a few bucks at lockboxes every once in a while. So long as it's done in moderation and without the expectation of winning the grand prize, it can be amusing.
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.
Opening the boxes with the sole purpose of trying to win the top prize is stupidity on the part of the player (regardless of age), not the system.
There is no real "encouragement" to open a lockbox. You are not prevented from playing the game if you do not open one.
Opening lockboxes does not require real money.
There is always something of value in the box. It may not be the top tier prize, but what you do receive does have in-game value. There is no risk of financial loss.
Just about all of the top tier prizes can be obtained without real money just by playing the game and earning enough in-game currency.
Bolded part is debatable. Somebody had to spend real money for the key (whether directly in buying zen, or by trading dil for somebody else's purchase of zen), and last time I looked they average 5 million or so EC on the exchange. That's a not-inconsiderable sum for most of us who have little free time to loot-grind.
"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"
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,696Community Moderator
Well... Disney stepped in and yelled at EA.
Bout time someone smacked them down! They already ruined Command & Conquer and Mass Effect. Now if only Petroglyph can get the rights to C&C as many of them were once with Westwood... we might see a successful return of C&C.
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
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,696Community Moderator
Druk can call me Space Poverty all he wants. The problem is he doesn't know what ASSETS I have and their value. I may not have all the ECs he's got... or claims to have, but what I do have is lots of things that I worked for. Also I doubt he's got a Command Assault Cruiser. So in my own way I am Space Rich.
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 don't see what's wrong with throwing a few bucks at lockboxes every once in a while. So long as it's done in moderation and without the expectation of winning the grand prize, it can be amusing.
I've heard of this form of thinking before, where people feel they don't deserve the wallet monies they receive and don't understand how when they've spend it, they've lost it - to them, they never really had it in the first place so spending it isn't a loss.
It makes less sense to me why they think this way than it does the fact that lock boxes are slowly siphoning away their wallet monies.
personally, I have played a few times. ovr the past 3-4 years i've dropped maybe 150 on keys to open boxes. for my trouble i got a Tarantula, a temproal D7 and 2 temporal Connies.. I'd say I was a head of the game.
My guess...next to no effect, and that conspiracy theory/rant/dissatisfaction about gambling is as old as the boxes. I've bought everything from the last 5-6 boxes at least, including both new ships, purely on ec made on the exchange. Plus, every 2 weeks or so, I farm the dil for another c-store purchase...no real money put in for years and no need to gamble to get stuff.
BF2, from what I understand, is in a different moral (perhaps legal) category because it's system was much more strictly pay-to-play, to the point of being pay-to-advance rather than pretty much every other game I've come across or played which is pay-to-go-faster.
So they successfully kill of lootboxes. Now what? Game goes back to subscription model? This may not be a bad thing, after all. Kill off the "gambling" and bring back pay to play and it ought to take out the trash, shouldn't it?
I suspect most of the people who are so loud about "gambling" around here and elsewhere bought one key and then did not get the Shiny they felt entitled to because reasons. Oh sure, they'll climb up on some moral high ground and claim it is all about keeping the kids safe but I call b.s.
Apparently it is okay to have children commit vitual genocide of thousands of innocents but we cannot allow them to gamble. Cuz gambling is EBIL but photonic murder isn't.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
Comments
Some past ones have been...meh
This, goes back to my observation over the page, about parents failing to adequately prepare their children for the Rigours of Life.
This is pure opinion on your part. I'm going to need to see some credible Industry-approved sources to accept that lockboxes deliberately target the vulnerable, before I can accept it as anything other than hysterical hyperbole. And to equate this to 'doing harm', again, laughable hyperbole...
While I definitely agree that giving people the skills to avoid such psychological traps is a good thing, I disagree that lockboxes in any way come under such an exagerated catagory: They're an option in the game, nothing more.
Simply stating that the system is predatory, doesn't make it so. You're going to have to explain how and why this is a predatory practice, and with citable examples, beyond your own opinion. Because all I see, are an ignorable, non-mandatory optional extra for the game, which Cryptic (and other companies) use to bring in extra money. Money which they, as a company, need to function. No company, no Star Trek Online... For a game which has now run longer than any version of the franchise which spawned it, I would consider that to be a real shame and loss to said franchise.
There isn't a solution. Not a feasible one. The closest to feasible, would be to make the game subscription-only, and requiring a credit card to subscribe (thus being either a subscription from a legit adult, or, an approved subscription from a parent/guardian) But. What about those who don't have credit cards (or Debt Cards, as I like to call them) I don't. I paid mine off years ago, and will never touch one again... So we then come down to using Government ID like driving licences or passports too validate our online identity... A system like that, is going to cost to implement, and is so 1984/Brave New World/Demolition Man in tone, it makes me shudder to think about. (That episode of The Orville with the society of up/down-voting, they're bringing that in in China...)
The game went F2P for a reason.
And I don't see people who grind for everything, being willing to pay Real Money, to pay a subscription to a game, which they can't even be bothered to pay to play now...
And losing the boxes and or the customers, again, not a great way to support a business, and again, playing into that trap of spending someone else's money, or, to quote the Dire Straits track, "Money for nothing, and your chicks for free..." Well, someone has to pay the piper...
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
My character Tsin'xing
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Bolded part is debatable. Somebody had to spend real money for the key (whether directly in buying zen, or by trading dil for somebody else's purchase of zen), and last time I looked they average 5 million or so EC on the exchange. That's a not-inconsiderable sum for most of us who have little free time to loot-grind.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Bout time someone smacked them down! They already ruined Command & Conquer and Mass Effect. Now if only Petroglyph can get the rights to C&C as many of them were once with Westwood... we might see a successful return of C&C.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
This is often how it all starts, yes.
It makes less sense to me why they think this way than it does the fact that lock boxes are slowly siphoning away their wallet monies.
YMMV
BF2, from what I understand, is in a different moral (perhaps legal) category because it's system was much more strictly pay-to-play, to the point of being pay-to-advance rather than pretty much every other game I've come across or played which is pay-to-go-faster.
in Europe.
And so does an hawaiian representative, who likens Battlefront II to star wars themed "online casino" for kids.
The loot box gaming industry (including PW/STO) has now to activate their lobbyists to fight down any legislative advance.
Holy Grail of Gamification is Addiction | 5 Ways to Accomplisch | and the Psychology of Freemium
I suspect most of the people who are so loud about "gambling" around here and elsewhere bought one key and then did not get the Shiny they felt entitled to because reasons. Oh sure, they'll climb up on some moral high ground and claim it is all about keeping the kids safe but I call b.s.
Apparently it is okay to have children commit vitual genocide of thousands of innocents but we cannot allow them to gamble. Cuz gambling is EBIL but photonic murder isn't.