Loot boxes: are they gambling?

I've seen a lot of discussion about this and thought it was an interesting topic.

Personally I don't think they are in their current state but they could be, loot boxes with a random chance of getting a cosmetic item are fine, it would only be gambling if you had a random chance of getting nothing. But at what point does something become nothing?
If you had a loot box with a low chance to get a really good weapon that makes you better at the game and a high chance of getting nothing that would be gambling right? But what if you replace that high chance of nothing with cosmetic items, is that fine? how many times do you need to get the same cosmetic item instead of a good weapon before you count it as nothing? what if the cosmetic items were just the same plain hats in different colours? is that nothing? what if it was just stickers, like plain coloured dots you could put on your profile? what's stopping people from making loot boxes like that?
I don't think they need to start counting loot boxes as gambling but they need to define when they stop being loot boxes and start being gambling because it just seems far to easy to take advantage of

Muss and I have talked about this a lot when it comes to Overwatch as to me they are gambling in a way but the contents of the box are cosmetic and my Witch Mercy won't be any better then Muss using Mercy in standard costume, so I've not really got problem with them but I would like to be able to buy costumes etc outside of a random loot box.

Same goes for FIFA Ultimate Team or Free 2 Play titles as you know that's part of the game.

The problem with loot boxes and the lots of talk about them at the moment is because Battlefront 2 you can pay to win, Forza 7 feels like a free 2 play game but you have to pay £50 for it and the worst of them all is Shadow of War as the true ending is basically behind a paywall.

I know it's not loot boxes but GameStop have just have done this advert:


I've said before game development is costing more and more but games have never been so cheap in comparison to years gone bye and I'd would sooner pay £80 or whatever the true value should be for a Forza 7 and have a complete game.

I would agree with Mas' assessment that loot boxes are gambling. They are slot machines, psychologically engineered to "pay out" at a certain, non-deterministic but nonetheless quite consistent, rates, in order to manufacture a sense that the next one could be the big one by catering to confirmation bias. While yes, every loot box gives you stuff, most of them aren't going to be what you want or, crucially, not quite enough of what you want.

I completely disagree with this being an ethical practice. Gambling institutions are notoriously bad at helping those with gambling addictions, but at the very least there are certain mechanisms in place to help people who cannot manage a compulsive need to throw money at the slot machines or whatever. I would never be in favour of banning gambling, but I am strongly in favour of rigorous regulations which seek to protect the most vulnerable.

This is precisely why I abhor any videos games that think loot boxes are ok. Not only is there an ethical concern in terms of there being no age check on the people potentially gambling. But there is absolutely no support for people who become ensnared by an addiction to loot boxes. That is completely unacceptable in my view. I do not care what arguments anyone levies with regards to video game production costs or whatever, I cannot ever stand by a system that can freely exploit the vulnerable without any recourse nor any support for those in need.

Just do what Riot Games does with LOL. Offer a load of cosmetics but have fixed prices with the occasional sale. Create a market so that consumers can make informed decisions as to the costs of an item. Because ultimately the whole point of loot boxes is to obfuscate the "value" of a thing such that one ends up spending more for it on average. Nobody might think a certain skin is worth a tenner, but make it a gamble and suddenly, because other tat is thrown in, it becomes that much more tempting to piss your money away on the chance that you get a cool thing along the way. And that's the key. One might get a bunch more "stuff" in addition to the intended item as a result of loot boxes, but what value does the other stuff actually have? On average a very dubious amount of value I'd wager. Take Overwatch, whoopdy-fuckin-do I've got more crap for a character I don't play, or I've got crap for a character I do play but which isn't as cool as the stuff I already have so I won't use it. That's the typical scenario for me in that game anyhow.

I wrote all of this with "premium" games in mind, the £50ers like Shadow of War. In a free to play game like Hearthstone buying booster packs of cards makes much more sense, and having a market wherein the best cards cost the most is only going to exacerbate pay-to-win concerns. Even so I think Blizzard suck for not trying to partner with gambling charities or psychologists in order to try and create a system that can detect people who might be vulnerable. I've played Hearthstone, I liked it, I bought a few card packs once, and presumably that is how the majority play. But my personal satisfaction in a toy isn't as important to me as the potential damages any sort of addiction can do to somebody's life. As much as you can grind in Hearthstone, like mobile free-to-play counterparts, the business model preys upon "whales" without a shred of concern beyond the customary Blizzard forum post stating that they look out for their players. Obviously you cannot mitigate every gambling based problem in a Hearthstone style system, but the fact that there's no interaction or integration with contemporary academia, psychology, or charities ultimately shows nothing but contempt from Blizzard, and any company which partakes in a similar system.

People get addicted to video games and I'm not advocating that we ban all video games. But if a publisher feels happy to take money from the vulnerable without bothering to engage with mechanisms which seek to assist the needy, then loot boxes can go the hell because a portion of its revenue is blood money.

The argument that "it ain't gambling because you get a guaranteed prize" is guff to be honest, total guff. You are risking money in the hope that you'll get a good return, this isn't some investment in stocks and shares, it's literally playing roulette with a random number generator. I mean, imagine a machine which costs £1 to play and always pays out at least 1p. There's a 1/100 chance you get the jackpot, £5, and a 99/100 chance you get something less than a quid back. That's clearly a gamble, a very stupid gamble dependant upon how likely it is you only get a few pennies, but a gamble nonetheless. Except by the logic of, well at least you get something, it wouldn't be. In the case of loot boxes all that's different is the guaranteed monetary returns are replaced by dubiously valued cosmetics/gameplay aids/ whatever.

That's my stance even before things like - how are they balancing these loot box items - how will the game be balanced for players who do not partake in loot boxing? I've saved this until last because concerns about gameplay pale in comparison to people's well being. But clearly from the perspective of a videos games enthusiast there is a very real design problem in this regard in a game like Shadow of War.

I'll still play the odd free-to-play Hearthstone style game, and I will play Shadow of War. I know I'm not going to binge on loot boxes, and I really enjoyed the previous game, Shadow of Mordor. But the system is rotten.

Muss said it all, didn't he? The only thing I can add is that I work in insurance, in pricing specifically, and my boss and colleagues are perpetually making sure that our pricing doesn't disadvantage 'vulnerable customers', as the regulator defines them. If games had to do the same, loot boxes and their ilk would be out on their arse inside a week.

I'd say it is - I've felt the lure of these loot box based systems before in the past, typically either through Overwatch or gacha games like Fire Emblem Heroes where I've spent actual money on these games for the chance to get an item or character I wanted. I know that's inherently bad, but the thrill of seeing those loot boxes spring open was exciting to me. That's where I got my fun from and I know had I not realised how stupid it was spending money on it I'd have likely fallen deeper into the hole.

That's why I never roll my eyes at whales or snigger when I see how much money people have spent on these loot box systems in games - I know first hand how easy it is to fall down the well to try and get the things you want in these games. I'd point the finger fully at the publishers for enabling their customers to fall down said well. I know why they do it as well - AAA games are ludicrously expensive to make and it's to try and recoup some costs. The silly thing is though that even with the loot boxes in place and likely making mega bucks for the publishers, I doubt the actual hard working programmers, artists, voice actors, composers and everybody at the figurative front-lines making the games see any of the rewards when these loot box systems take off.

Balladeer wrote:

Muss said it all, didn't he? The only thing I can add is that I work in insurance, in pricing specifically, and my boss and colleagues are perpetually making sure that our pricing doesn't disadvantage 'vulnerable customers', as the regulator defines them. If games had to do the same, loot boxes and their ilk would be out on their arse inside a week.

That would be a shame as some good games use them and might rather different with out them , like Muss said like gambling in real life it needs regulation or something on the systems where you can set a limit like with online gambling.

All this also might be a fad as we've had horse armour dlc, multiplayer passes and even season passes to some extent come and go.

Two more things, to defences Mas mentioned:

masofdas wrote:

the contents of the box are cosmetic

...and? The visuals and sound of a game are a huge part of the enjoyment! Putting that stuff behind a paywall or, even worse, a gambling system is still as rubbish as if mechanical things were.

Quote :

I've said before game development is costing more and more but games have never been so cheap in comparison to years gone bye and I'd would sooner pay £80 or whatever the true value should be for a Forza 7 and have a complete game.

I'd sooner developers just chill the fuck out. I don't need individually defined stubble hairs, famous voice actors, 4K super HD, yadda yadda yadda. Nintendo and indies have proven that visually simpler games can still be better than any of the ludicrously expensive AAA stuff. If costs are too high for a sensible price tag, that's just dumb. Minecraft and PUBG look like dogshit and they're making all the bank.

Its not a defence but what I'm more understanding about then some things behind loot boxes.

I've said before with a game like Overwatch which has cosmetics behind loot boxes, I wouldn't have had them but gold instead for everything. So you level up and earn gold, which you can then use buy what you want and when you want when you earn enough gold or you could buy gold with real money if you want.

On the next bit, I even tweeted I'm glad I'm playing Switch at the moment with what's going on in the AAA space. The thing is the AAA space is what it is and you bring up sensible price tag.

What is a sensible price tag for a AAA game though, you bring up costs for development and just from looking Mortal Kombat 3 on the Mega Drive/SNES was $69.99 and Mortal Kombat X on PS4/ONE is $59.99.

Even at the most basic level for a game at AAA the costs have to be more then 20 years ago just on salaries, bills etc but games are cheaper now then ever. Sure now games are more mainstream and maybe they sell more but the difference between those two MK games is only around 1 million units and one was less to buy & higher costs to make, so we get a season pass.

Anyway the ESRB say loot boxes aren't gambling and compare them to trading cards which I can see but like Scullion points out though if I get no Pokemon cards I want I can sell or trade and you can do this with FIFA Ultimate Team but hardly any let you do this.

I don't know, I think you only have to look as far as Valve and CS:GO to see how messed up trading systems can get. I wouldn't trust a publisher, whose objective is profit maximization, to make and enforce a fair trading system.

Also even if, and most academics would disagree with this, but even if you don't count lot boxes as gambling. The ease with which they're purchased combined with the instant gratification (or specifically tuned partial gratification on average) is more problematic than packs of cards in my opinion although I've not read into the psychology of trading cards.

Sneaky edit: Also Drunks is bang on about costs. There's an arms race amongst certain developers to make the most realistic (not necessarily prettiest!) toys. Video game development, at the entry level, is actually more affordable and easier than ever, it's just that the Hollywood Studios of veedo gamz have embarked upon a stuido system esque method of production, no doubt encouraged by an aspect of vido gums critique, graphical prowess. It's a category both easily translated to adverts and very easy to critique. Is it really any surprise that graphical power has evolved so much more rapidly than gameplay mechanics or level design? I'm not saying that the latter hasn't improved over time, but I will fight a man who claims the WWE games are better designed today from any standpoint other than graphics and sounds than they were back on the N64.

How many games can actually boast clever innovations, like a nemesis system or a perfectly intertwined story told through gameplay mechanics more so than cut-scene exposition? The more interesting question is, to what extent are publishers culpable for engendering an environment that thrusts fidelity in your face at every turn, and to what extent is it symptomatic of consumer tendencies? People will always make the case that, "people vote with their wallets," but how many innovative AAA games are there to vote for with my wallet in reality? If loot boxes are merely a system to encourage gilded development then, yeah, no!

I can only tell you where I stand and I would sooner have a game with no loot boxes, season passes etc and pay more money for it in the first place.

But I don't really care about those sort of games anyway anymore.

mas wrote:

I've said before with a game like Overwatch which has cosmetics behind loot boxes, I wouldn't have had them but gold instead for everything. So you level up and earn gold, which you can then use buy what you want and when you want when you earn enough gold or you could buy gold with real money if you want.

R6 Siege basically has that system for it's cosmetic items, they even recently added alpha packs (basically loot boxes) but these can only be earned after winning a game or with renown (the in-game currency) in various pack bundles, it does have other cosmetic items that can be bought with real money so there's always a balance of some items that can be earned though playing but others where you can only pay with real money.

It's a decent system mostly but I fear it's a slippy slope for a dev to be on as there'd be nothing stopping them from allowing players to buy these alpha packs with real money later on down the road. Oh you also mentioned that this could turn out to be a developer fad and it'd be good if you were right but I see players validate purchases like this by saying that they are helping fund future DLC's so I don't see this disappearing any time soon.

masofdas wrote:

That would be a shame as some good games use them and might rather different with out them , like Muss said like gambling in real life it needs regulation or something on the systems where you can set a limit like with online gambling.

masofdas wrote:

I've said before with a game like Overwatch which has cosmetics behind loot boxes, I wouldn't have had them but gold instead for everything. So you level up and earn gold, which you can then use buy what you want and when you want when you earn enough gold or you could buy gold with real money if you want.

Mas, you say it's a shame how good games use them, and then suggest an infinitely better system that a good game could use. I think the point you yourself have made is if games changed without them, they'd change on the whole for the better. You also mention season passes as something that have come and gone in an era where they're worse than ever, and even Nintendo have got in on the act.

Also completely agreed about the uses of money for games. If publishers and the devs. they have influence over stopped trying to render every last bollock-hair, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't need to use every known avenue to squeeze cash out of their 'whales'.

Can't believe we've got this far in this thread and there's not been/I've not seen a mention of Jim Sterling... oh.

That's it close the thread.

It feels to me like this loot crate business - and I've never bought one, though I have microtransacted for very definite things (ruddy Pokémon Picross / ) - is devs seeing how far they can push it. It sounds like a crate can give you an item or items that you already have? That's not on, if so.

We talked about this briefly in work and the Siege model was brought up as the one to do or what I said Overwatch should have done but most did think Overwatch at the moemnt was okay but Battlefront 2 a big .

Yeah Nintendo have gotten in on the season pass act as well at the moment along with other games still doing it, with some being good like MK8. Even with random DLC things in games, I don't know what a Hearthstone would be like without them for instance. It is hard one to get the right balance, between all these different things and some work and some don't.

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288
That sounds like they are sacrificing everyone's enjoyment of the games by deliberately having poor matchmaking in order to manipulate people into buying stuff with real money
While not exactly about loot boxes, imagine how much worse that would be if it was combined with loot boxes I really do not like where loot boxes and micro transactions in general are going, it isn't going to end well for anybody.

Someone wanted Jim, well he talks about EA and them killing Visceral and you all know what's going to happen, microtransactions in a open world online game.

I think we can all be in agreement it's a horrible practice in the wrong hands and even some of the more innocent looking ones like Rocket League's can be exploitive in the wrong hands. Much like CS:GO fiasco the other year you can feasibly sell the contents of boxes and whilst that takes away the gambling side it means you can profit from hugely from someone's obsession to get a certain item. For me that makes trading items almost as bad as the loot boxes themselves when paired with all the YouTube videos of loot box openings.

If you've got a spare 40 minutes here's Total Biscuit's rant on the situation where you can see just how messed up Battlefront 2 is gonna be https://youtu.be/YMDGPSWWA18

As much as I love Star Wars I for one plan to boycott Battlefront 2 and hope many will follow suit but sadly I don't see it happening because of how more casual players won't have a clue what's happening. There's also ones that'll say "well it won't bother me because I won't spend money on it" but it's still going to affect them much like the Activision patent, you won't be able to avoid those that have paid to win and all that will do is either encourage you to do the same or take enjoyment out of the game for you. I've seen it in action, the My Club mode on PES isn't kind to me when you it comes to dishing out star strikers which has tempted me to pay for a blind box (blind ball in this case) and it's horrible, you just feel even worse when you don't get what you want.

Anyone I don't know what more I can say that hasn't already been said, I'd like to have an effect on people and encourage them to avoid these kind of games but they already seem too popular as it is and there's still so many people making the practice seem exciting and fun.

Sent from Topic'it App

With loot boxes or what not and YouTube you bring up about exciting and fun.

Now if the ESRB are comparing them to trading cards then I get it from experience of playing Magic the Gathering. When a new game out, a event would take place locally and someone at least with by a booster box.

Then we would gather round and see what they've got along with seeing what new cards are in this set. Of course afterwards we could trade with them.

Same goes for the likes of these games with loot boxes, with Overwatch I've watched the likes of IGNs video showing what all the new stuff in the Halloween event.

Would I watch a FUT packet video, no as I no who Messi is but I would think the person who got him would be excited and I guess the people would be for him.

On EA even have a old Wii U thread about boycotting them and I even posted in it this year after the whole Titanfall 2 Switch fiasco. I really shouldn't have bought FIFA 18 be it on PS4 or Switch as I don't really care for any of there games to show hey we buy EA games on Nintendo systems or showing we want football games which would mean Konami take notice as I wouldn't buy PES either.

Balladeer wrote:

Can't believe we've got this far in this thread and there's not been/I've not seen a mention of Jim Sterling... oh.

Only because I was mostly just ripping off his points without crediting him

According to Belgium who is putting it to the EU and some States it is, I think some states have even started banning Star Wars Battlefront 2 (even though Need for Speed Payback has a worse model, yet know one is talking about that because ones Star Wars) as it has gambling in something for kids (I think it's a T for Teen and not all games are for kids but you know what the mass-media is like).

Seems things might be changing, the only thing is now is what happens to games that do micro-transactions well and what will be the next thing companies will come up with. Someone from EA (I think) said the same as me about games never being so cheap and went on about cost to make, along with gamers being undercharged but if they went up to $80 or 100 there would also be this "outrage".

Were does also leave the likes of the ESRB and PEGI with the whole it's like trading cards which it is on paper and vice-versa as surely they are aimed at kids as well? Will we just see on the back of the box where it says things has cartoon violence, has gambling or something along those lines.