Legislators Take Aim At Star Wars Battlefront II, EA Over 'Gambling In Games' (polygon.com) 72
dryriver writes: A number of pay-to-win microtransaction FPS games, including Dirty Bomb and the $60 Star Wars Battlefront II, have drawn the ire of legislators in countries like Belgium and the United States. Not only are advanced characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader and various weapons and abilities in these games "locked" -- you pay for them in hard cash, or play for them for dozens and dozens of tedious hours -- the games also feature so called "Loot Boxes," which are boxes that contain a random item, weapon, character or ability. So like playing slot machines in Vegas, each time you can get something good, something mediocre or something totally crap. You cannot determine with any certainty what you will get for your real-world dollars or in-game achievements. Angry Reddit users recently downvoted a blundering statement by EA on the topic with a whopping 249,000 downvotes -- an all time downvote record on Reddit, shocking EA into retreating from its pay-to-win model and announcing unspecified "changes" now being made to Star Wars Battlefront II. Legislators in a number of countries have also sharply criticized "Loot Boxes" and "microtransactions" in games, with one legislator in Belgium vowing to have the sale of such games banned completely in the EU, because children are essentially being forced to "gamble with real money" in these games. Forbes has written a great piece about how EA is now essentially stuck with a $60 Star Wars game that cost a lot to make but probably cannot be monetized any further, because there is considerable risk of all games with loot boxes, microtransactions and "pay to win" monetization models being completely banned from sale in a number of different countries now. The morale of the story? Maybe people should not pay a game developer any more than the $40-60 they paid when they thought they "bought" the game in the first place.
The morale of the story (Score:4)
As long as the game I paid for has a lot of content included, I don't mind paying more later for additional maps. But the gambling/loot box thing is annoying. I know people who spend hundreds of dollars just to try and level their hockey or soccer team, one of whom is thinking of just walking away from the franchise as every year there's a new update which basically obsoletes all the effort and money they poured in. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Re: (Score:1)
The "morale" of the story? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Path of Exile has an interesting and truly fair approach: their "Mystery Boxes" guarantee a prize at least equal to the amount of credits entered, the average being much higher.
Each box grants you one random microtransaction themed as either Chaos or Order, with value equal to at least that of the box (30 points). The possible outcomes from your mystery box range in value from 30 points all the way up to 320 points! The average reward is worth 110 points, which is 366% of the cost of the box.
Source: https://www.pathofexile.com/fo... [pathofexile.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I actually like all three Star Wars movies.
Except the Ewoks. Have you ever noticed that the one scene where the Ewok gets killed from the Stormtrooper with another Ewok bawling takes LONGER than the whole explosion of the Death Star? Call me a speciesist , but when a few thousand people die it's somehow more of a tragedy than when a Furby stops working.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when it's a few thousand space Nazi's riding a massive holocaust weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... yeah, you are aware that we're technically speaking of one side being vastly superior in number and technology over the other who is desperately trying to succeed against all odds and against a crushing, overwhelming military power?
I don't know if too many people would cheer if an aircraft carrier got sunk.
Re: The best Linux distribution (Score:1)
That too (Score:1)
The morale of the story? Maybe people should not pay a game developer any more than the $40-60 they paid when they thought they "bought" the game in the first place.
While the closing remarks took care of one aspect, I feel another worthwhile moral point is "there is no need for government regulation in a market until avarice becomes the single driving force of progress". EA has overstepped and overstepped with more and more greedy business practices, game by game, until now it's finally gotten so bad that the games market has to be regulated for gambling. EA went ahead and peed in the communal soup bowl, and now everyone pays the price.
I cannot express the loathing I f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, tbh it was already a mess. The lootboxes in CS:GO are basically lottery tickets, because the loot is priced at a market and changed into real money. I've been wondering when they'd regulate that but apparently, PC games aren't a thing in the regulatory universe until newspapers pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
"there is no need for government regulation in a market until avarice becomes the single driving force of progress".
That is a very blurry line. Most game companies, and most other companies as well, are driven primarily by greed from the day they are founded. Greed is the engine of capitalism. If you let the government's nose into the tent to fix this one little peeve of yours, you have already surrendered your liberty to game as you like.
EA has overstepped and overstepped with more and more greedy business practices
Obvious solution: Stop buying their products.
Re: (Score:1)
That is a very blurry line. Most game companies, and most other companies as well, are driven primarily by greed from the day they are founded. Greed is the engine of capitalism. If you let the government's nose into the tent to fix this one little peeve of yours, you have already surrendered your liberty to game as you like.
Agreed, and that is why we have such back and forth problems with should they/shouldn't they. Most on /. seem to agree that government regulations such as NN are necessary since the companies against NN are so god-damn greedy as to beggar the mind, but other areas are far less clear-cut.
I would disagree on the first point though, I think most game companies are founded with a very different mindset - they have a dream of delivering a kick-ass game, but switch more and more towards greed as the founders are
Same Day Dupe (Score:1)
Barely 12 hours old and still on the front page [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That's the old Slashdot that won me over.
Re: (Score:2)
As annoying as it might be until you realize this, there is actually some value in the dupes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dart Vader"? (Score:2)
hahaha...imagine if he threw laser darts instead of wielding a lightsaber?
Amusing (Score:2)
That the outrage used to be: " $60 for a game ! F**k that ! "
to
" I'm ok with paying $60 for a game but micro-transactions ? F**k that ! "
All the while game developers are quietly giggling to themselves because they don't keep making these things at a loss . . . . .
Re: (Score:2)
$60 is not a bad price if you're going to get hundreds of hours out of the game. But it's an outrageous price for 10 hours of gameplay.
Re: (Score:2)
Terraria. Hours played: 1000. Price: lets say $14.99, except paid way less. That's $0.01/hour. One you realise that AAA titles are more like hollywood productions than games, you'll understand why they are a waste of money.
I have nearly the same amount of time in Rocket League and I think I paid $20 for it. Top notch graphics and game mechanics suitable for casual to international competition level play. They have regular updates and new game modes. There are microtransactions for lootboxes and new cars, but they are purely cosmetic items.
Re: (Score:1)
$60 is not a bad price if you're going to get hundreds of hours out of the game. But it's an outrageous price for 10 hours of gameplay.
The problem you have is that the liking of games is subjective and while I do agree that the best value for a game may be the number of enjoyable hours you can get from that game, other people may prefer the overall enjoyment of a particular game which may not translate to the number of hours you can possibly get from that game.
To give some examples. I have put in hundreds of enjoyable hours into Skyrim and have IMHO got my monies worth at a few cents per hour. Other people may have purchased a game like
Re: (Score:2)
That the outrage used to be: " $60 for a game ! F**k that ! "
When was that? Atari games regularly cost $80-100 in today's money. Gamers have always been willing to shell out sixty bucks for a quality game.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it's $100 for the platinum version - the other versions are missing bits.
And if you don't pre-order then they strip out more content for you.
And another $xx for the season pass.
And DLCs not covered by the season pass.
And cosmetic loot boxes.
And pay-to-win loot boxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Look up "Skinner boxes". They basically drop the loot quality rate until enough people buy them in bulk. This usually kills a game, though.
Re:Gambling in Mass Effect too. (Score:5, Interesting)
You apparently don't know what gambling is.
I posted on the MassEffect:Andromeda forum asking why they called the loot-chest dealer a "store" and not a casino.
It's a store if you can go in and put down money and buy a specific item, like I go to grocery store, and put down a few bucks and can buy milk.
That's not gambling. What is gambling is if the store gives some "unknown" reward for your few dollars. You may get milk (5% chance), or you may get a dead rat 90% chance, or a character card for a random character. You don't get to choose before hand. In ME:Andromeda, they score items and characters in 4 levels (common, uncommon, rare, very rare, or bronze, silver, gold and platinum). The platinum/very rare stuff is powerful, w/good attributes, bronze/common -- not so much.
You can't sell or give items or chars to others -- so once you have an item or character, you won't get it again. Items like special ammo, or power bonuses, etc, are "disposable", but it's random there as well -- if you don't pay, you don't get the item.
I don't get your casino option -- if you don't pay, you don't get chance to
win prizes -- same as in game. If you want to win top prizes, you need to
pay. Then you are dealt some number of cards -- and when you want to look at the cards, you hear something reminiscent of a slot machine sound.
You don't *HAVE* to pay real money to get items, but highest "chance" boxes cost $3 or 500,000 points. You get about 10K points for a bronze game that takes about 10-15 minutes to play. Silver can net you about 25K, gold... maybe 40-50K and platinum--don't know too tough to even try, but likely 60-75K. Most play @ bronze -- so 50 games or about 15-20 hours of play to get 1 of those top boxes --- OR $3.
No matter which way you pay for your "chance-tickets", the odds are against you getting ANYTHING @ very-rare, are maybe 1 in 25, or about
1 win/500K points (or $3).
If you want to win -- you have to to pay, or "work" at earning points -- about 15-20 hours for a $3 chance at a reward.
So how is that not "gambling"?
Note in the "solo play", a "store" is a store -- you buy things -- no random reward chances and you can sell your surplus. But in multiplayer... it's all setup to encourage shelling out real money.
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently don't know what gambling is.
I posted on the MassEffect:Andromeda forum asking why they called the loot-chest dealer a "store" and not a casino.
It's a store if you can go in and put down money and buy a specific item, like I go to grocery store, and put down a few bucks and can buy milk.
That's not gambling. What is gambling is if the store gives some "unknown" reward for your few dollars. You may get milk (5% chance), or you may get a dead rat 90% chance, or a character card for a random character. You don't get to choose before hand.
I suppose trading card games like Pokemon are a form of gambling too then. You're paying $x for a pack of 10 random cards. People keep buying them hoping to get that powerful or rare card, but end up with multiple duplicates of weak common cards.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. They are gambling. So are blind bags/boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I second that.
They Could be all Gambling (Score:2)
Depend on your definition. I posted my comment here [slashdot.org] before, stating that it is in fact just the code random().
Frankly, nearly every game since the first arcade game could have the game design consider as gambling. Here's part of my quote on gambling,
Should WoW monster drops now be considered gambling? Should PUBG random air drop and items found now be considered gambling? Should item box from Mario Kart now be considered gambling? Should Don't Stave random map generating now be considered gambling? Should the simplest game of snake with spawning food dot now be considered gambling?
All of those examples are events/ items that do give the players an advantage in game, each and every one of them. You might not think of them as gambling, but it's the same since you "did" pay for the game, right? Even most nostalgic arcade games have random enemies spawning and you have to pay to revive. They are all gambling in this respect.
I even stated that doing anything to it will be a can of worms. Seriously, look at how many existing games it could affected and still not really fix it, because the potential loopholes are uncountable.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dirty Bomb isn't "pay to win"
Really depends how you define 'win'. If by win you mean, effectively kill the players on the other team, then no, its not pay to win.
But what if you define 'winning' in terms of unlocking everything the game has to offer? Because after a short period of time, every match is much the same as the previous one... the players are different but they behave much the same. The matches are short... and winning a match is pretty meaningless; other than the enjoyment of playing the game.
Not sure I'd pay for Dart Vader (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
That was what you were looking for wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
We also need to ban Cracker Jack. I once bought 18 boxes just to get one decoder ring.
Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.... So we need to ban boxes of chocolate.
Re: (Score:1)
Can someone please explain to me the difference between this and buying a pack of CCG or Baseball cards.
There would little or no difference between loot boxes giving out cosmetic items and purchasing a pack of (using your example) "baseball cards" which like it or not are a form a gambling (ie. chance). Where the difference becomes significant is when those loot boxes give out statical buffs for items and even new items which can be construed "pay to win" thereby giving an unfair advantage (ie. cheats) to online players that are willing to pay. You won't see that in "baseball cards" although it may be possibl
Tedious (Score:2)
EA How I miss thee from the 80s (Score:4, Insightful)
they knew what they where doing (Score:2)
Want loot boxes? Gotta be 18. (Score:2)
Re: Want loot boxes? Gotta be 18. (Score:2)
The morale of the story? (Score:2)
The morale of the story? Employ editors who are actually literate.
Re: (Score:2)
kinder "surprises"
When it comes to the various items that you can get, are those significantly disparate in value?
Thank God for EA (Score:1)
Seems to be a pretty easy fix.. (Score:2)
Just make all the stuff available as a fixed purchase. It can be high enough above the price of a loot box to justify its rarity.
Yes, you could still gamble with a loot box if you wanted.. but that would no longer be your only option (and in particular if you knew exactly what you wanted, you would also know exactly how much it would cost you.) I would imagine that should satisfy most people (well, not counting those that thing in-game purchases should be banned completely of course.. but it should satis
Just a suspicion.. (Score:1)
Stop paying for games (Score:2)
I'm not much of a gamer, but I do play two games online.
One is a really boring game with only maybe a dozen players still hanging on after about 10 years. I'm the highest level. My rival has the highest stats and I'm convinced he bought them too, but that's what keeps this guy running his server. Some people even took pride in the fact that they never paid anything to achieve what they have, but others pay the bills.
The other is a tower defense game that I was grinding away at always ignoring the nags