As anyone else been following this story?
www.theguardian.com/games/2017/nov/24/gambling-regulators-to-investigate-loot-boxes-in-video-games

I work in gaming (Poker machines not video games) and personally don’t think it’s gambling, nor do I think they will declare it gambling in Australia.

It seems pretty hypocritical for most Youtubers who rant about companies being greedy, then beg for Patreon donations on top of
their YouTube salary & sponsors, almost like it’s the same business model.

& people making such a big deal out of it, that they want laws passed, and the only conclusion that most governing bodies make is to make all games with lootboxes 18/21+. Despite every Youtuber claiming it’s to protect children, 99% of the people complaining are old enough to purchase anyway.

It would obviously hurt games like Battlefront 2, but CoD: WWII is R18+ anyway and has loot boxes so nothing would change.

I think Apple’s approach of making games disclose their chances of winning items is fair though. It’s obviously a greedy practice, but not one I think constitutes gambling, as you always get something ..
and none of the items have a real world value.

What’s next? Banning real world loot crates, card games and kinder surprises because there is a chance you might not get what you want?

I won't mind if they passed a law that allows only games classified as free-to-play to have loot boxes since they need some way to gain revenue. But currently too many games are using loot boxes. Yearly games (COD, sports titles, and etc) and AAA games shouldn't even need to use loot boxes that can be open with real world cash.

Dec 26, 2017 22:10:21 GMT System said:

It seems pretty hypocritical for most Youtubers who rant about companies being greedy, then beg for Patreon donations on top of
their YouTube salary & sponsors, almost like it’s the same business model.

It's not. At all. How much do you think YouTubers make? Sure, there are high end guys that make a decent living by doing it full-time, but the vast majority don't. A lot of them depend on that extra income to help run their channel, put out content consistently, pay any staff they have, and still be able to support themselves. Markiplier is a big YouTuber. He did a video recently where he revealed a recent series of videos cost him well over $100,000 to produce, blowing the minds of his viewers. Some of this shit costs A LOT more than people realize. He doesn't ask for donations like a lot of guys, but the ones that do are trying to survive in a very crowded market.

On the other hand, game companies charge full price, charge for DLC, charge for season passes, and still gauge people by locking game-changing stuff behind ridiculous paywalls. EA stated the lootbox fiasco wouldn't hurt their bottom line, meaning they did it purely to syphon money from people. Pure greed. They don't depend on it like free to play games that wouldn't exist otherwise. They do it because they can.

Jan 1, 2018 0:53:05 GMT Krimzon said:

Dec 26, 2017 22:10:21 GMT System said:

It seems pretty hypocritical for most Youtubers who rant about companies being greedy, then beg for Patreon donations on top of
their YouTube salary & sponsors, almost like it’s the same business model.

It's not. At all. How much do you think YouTubers make? Sure, there are high end guys that make a decent living by doing it full-time, but the vast majority don't. A lot of them depend on that extra income to help run their channel, put out content consistently, pay any staff they have, and still be able to support themselves. Markiplier is a big YouTuber. He did a video recently where he revealed a recent series of videos cost him well over $100,000 to produce, blowing the minds of his viewers. Some of this shit costs A LOT more than people realize. He doesn't ask for donations like a lot of guys, but the ones that do are trying to survive in a very crowded market.

On the other hand, game companies charge full price, charge for DLC, charge for season passes, and still gauge people by locking game-changing stuff behind ridiculous paywalls. EA stated the lootbox fiasco wouldn't hurt their bottom line, meaning they did it purely to syphon money from people. Pure greed. They don't depend on it like free to play games that wouldn't exist otherwise. They do it because they can.

So they want money on top of their base revenue for very little value?
Ads/Paid YouTube subscriptions. Most also have sponsors as well.

It’s the exact same business model. You don’t HAVE to pay, but you’ll be at a distinct advantage if you give them money. (Watch videos early etc)

Giving YongYea $100 a month to skype/pay EA for random digital items both seem like greedy practices to me. The DLC is free in BF2 as of writing as well, not sure if that plans to change with paid lootbox removal.

You can't seriously be comparing this. Giving money to a content creator doesn't actively screw other people. Buying lootboxes until you're unstoppable does. It completely destroys competitive balance and negatively affects people that don't buy them. Patreon is literally the only thing keeping some people from quitting. Their operation is unsustainable otherwise. In their case, it's vital and necessary. Lootboxes in full retail Triple A games aren't. In their case, it's a blatant cash grab.

Jan 1, 2018 9:12:50 GMT Krimzon said:

You can't seriously be comparing this. Giving money to a content creator doesn't actively screw other people. Buying lootboxes until you're unstoppable does. It completely destroys competitive balance and negatively affects people that don't buy them. Patreon is literally the only thing keeping some people from quitting. Their operation is unsustainable otherwise. In their case, it's vital and necessary. Lootboxes in full retail Triple A games aren't. In their case, it's a blatant cash grab.

Youtubers claim that Ad revenue doesn’t cover development costs.
Game developers claim that development costs are too high so they add microtransactions. Both are blatant cash grabs, regardless of the size of their operation. That’s like saying only big businesses can be greedy.

I didn’t argue whether they made games pay to win or not.

LOL reading the thread title I thought this was about loot CRATES... I really thought the gambling angle was retarded with that mindset. Nevermind me.

Jan 1, 2018 14:02:21 GMT System said:

Jan 1, 2018 9:12:50 GMT Krimzon said:

You can't seriously be comparing this. Giving money to a content creator doesn't actively screw other people. Buying lootboxes until you're unstoppable does. It completely destroys competitive balance and negatively affects people that don't buy them. Patreon is literally the only thing keeping some people from quitting. Their operation is unsustainable otherwise. In their case, it's vital and necessary. Lootboxes in full retail Triple A games aren't. In their case, it's a blatant cash grab.

Youtubers claim that Ad revenue doesn’t cover development costs.
Game developers claim that development costs are too high so they add microtransactions. Both are blatant cash grabs, regardless of the size of their operation. That’s like saying only big businesses can be greedy.

I didn’t argue whether they made games pay to win or not.

Patreon is essentially a paid subscription service. Those are everywhere. Hell, YouTube has a paid subscription service. Them wanting to get people to sign up for it doesn't make them greedy. As big as YouTube is and as much as they get from advertising, it bleeds money. It barely makes a profit, if it does at all. The operating costs are staggering, so they introduced a subscription service to gain additional revenue. It's the same for YouTubers. They make money, but the money they make might not necessarily be enough to cover operating costs. Patreon helps alleviate that by giving people an option to support them and gain additional content/bonuses. That is not greed.

Lootboxes in full price, Triple A games are outright predatory. A game like Battlefront and a company like EA don't need them. They already earn a nice profit. It's in the game purely to gauge people's money. Hell, EA introduced their own subscription service and still resorted to lootboxes. They can't help themselves. They aren't attempting to cover costs. They aren't worried about not making a profit. They know they will. The literal only reason is they want even more money when they don't need it. THAT is greed.

An issue arose recently with a popular mobile game, Marvel Future Fight. The game existed for 2 years with a modest subscription model. They introduced a different, more expensive subscription model, but it was still reasonable for players, as they were optional with only a few paywall characters and competitive balance was relatively unaffected. In the most recent update, they fucked up bad. Players gave them a few inches over 2 years, so the company took several miles. For the first time in the game's history, they had an update that was almost exclusively paywall characters in new lootboxes. These characters are unbelievably broken and threatened balance. The only way to get them is to spends hundreds or even thousands to max them out. Fans were fucking livid. The rating went down and a boycott was started. It got so bad, a Marvel higher-up had to assure fans that it was being looked into. The company said recently that they were removing the lootboxes amid the backlash. They overstepped their bounds for the sake of needlessly milking the playerbase. THAT was greed.

There are differences. Pointlessness and overstepping are among them.