ScLines
-
Content Count
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ScLines
-
-
Quotei’m gonna say you’re wrong on this one, i can’t find any f2p game that doesn’t have microtransactions
where do you think f2p revenue comes from with no microtransactions?
There are many games online you could say are free to play and they are not just limited to our smartphones stores on Android and Google Play. Go to miniclip.com and armorgames.com. Most of those have no microtransactions/lootboxes. You do not necessarily need microtransactions to make a profit if you have ads on a website etc. Speaking of which, I don't like unskippable ads in certain games that force you to watch just so they can make a profit but thankfully some let you remove that by paying a one-time fee for example in some apps/websites. Some games don't give you the option to remove ads when playing a game. Even with this, I still kind of disagree with those practices.
Quoteas much as you try to make this sound like a magnanimous compromise, it’s not a compromise at all - AO rated games not only have severely restricted sales (most distributors/publishers refuse to carry AO rates games), but in many countries AO rated games are subject to legal ramifications (up to and including outright bans)
saying microtransactions can stay in AO rates games is like telling someone they either do what you say or die, it’s not really a choice
Too bad. Because that's my opinion and stance on microtransactions/loot boxes. There's no option for those players that have shopping/gambling addictions to get hooked on these bad design/practices. Having them restricted to AO is not a bad choice in my opinion.
Quotebut what is the reasoning behind that opinion?
in both cases players are psychologically manipulated into spending money
in both cases the monetization model is intended to keep players paying over time
when it comes down to it the only difference is that most f2p microtransaction models never force the consumer to pay
Because microtransactions/loot boxes are still worse designs/practices in a video game compared to subscription or paying a certain price just to play the game at all. This is just my opinion and that's not going to change for me. And if that new US anti-loot box bill/microtransaction does come to law none of us even you can argue against it very much now can we? Even if it wouldn't go through my opinion on loot boxex/microtransactions is not going to change.
Quoteso different industries can have different levels of psychological manipulation, but within an industry all implementations are the same?
that seems kind of arbitrary
Again my opinion here but video games used to be much more simple until corporate greed came in and brainwashed some players thinking these new bad designs/practices are good sociable behavior when they are not. Not everybody will see it my way but that is my opinion and that will stay in my eyes.
Quotebut you don’t need to be over a legal age to use a coin pusher machine
just like there’s different levels of gambling with different regulations, there are different levels of microtransactions and they should have different regulations
Not talking coin pusher machines here. I'm talking Poker, Table games such as Roulette/Blackjack/Baccarat and Slot Machines. You need to be over legal age just play any of those and these are all common in most casinos. And I am still making the comparison of microtransactions/loot boxes to gambling/shopping addiction similar to those games you play in casinos because they are similar in a way no matter what people say. That is my opinion that will not change and I don't feel bad if these games with microtransaction/loot boxes will get restricted to Adults Only (ESRB rated). Makes some developers think twice before going for easy money that mainly benefits them but hurts people with addictions (especially minors/children).
-
Quoteso there's no place for f2p games in your opinion?
F2P games do exist and they work. But I do not agree seeing them have any microtransactions/loot boxes of any kind whatsoever. With the new legislation in the works in the US, I don't mind seeing the games with bad practices/designs in Adults Only rated games by ESRB. At least that way it is not exposed to minors even if I don't like seeing those practices.
Quoteyou're going to have to expand on this, as far as im concerned it could apply to any type of game
because in my opinion a player reaching level X in a subscription-based game and deciding they want to pay (forever) to continue playing is no different from a player reaching level X in a f2p game and deciding they want to buy a cool hat
and on the opposite side, is a player reaching level X in a subscription-based game and being forced to pay (forever) to continue playing all that different from a player reaching level X in say, candy crush, and being forced to pay to progress higher?
And in my opinion paying a monthly sum of money is a decent way of supporting the developers. I still think that is more fair than any in-game microtransactions/lootboxes of any kind. But as mentioned on my previous answer, if they won't get rid of these bad practices at least they should only be available in an Adults Only (ESRB rated) game which is something I don't mind seeing despite not liking those practices one bit.
Quote“There is a link between loot box spending and problem gambling. However, we’re not sure if this means that loot boxes literally cause problem gambling, or if it means that people who are already problem gamblers spend significantly more money on loot boxes. In either case, though, it doesn’t look socially beneficial.”
The studies are talking about opinions rather than conclusive decisions from what i am reading.
And even then , getting a random item that is worth more than 100 g1c is not an evil thing which is what these studies are about.
Not everything is evil , but how some things are used in one place is , while other places use it properly.
If you think because someone else killed someone that I am evil too then I'd put a boot up yer..... while defending myself for you attacking me unjustified.
if you don't like broccoli n cheese then don't eat it but leave my plate alone or ill stab you with my fork....AND I WOULD !!
if you like cars but not trucks then drive a car
if you like this but don't like that...fine
and so on
Then you disagree then. I still see the addictive nature of people spending money on microtransactions/loot boxes either way. Especially when minors are involved. Once again, I still don't like those bad designs in a video game but if they were to stay they should only belong in an Adults Only (ESRB rated) game. That is a not a bad compromise to me with what the legislation is proposing but I still disagree with those practices heavily. If they were confined to Adults Only games then that is something I can live with, but I still prefer not to see microtransactions/loot boxes in games in general.
Quotei was speaking of more every day "predatory" selling, like my previous example of supermarkets that are purposely set up to manipulate customers into purchases, or free trials for streaming services, or even arcade coin pusher machines
all of these employ psychological manipulation and yet video games are being singled out as a whole for some reason (note that i do understand that there are implementations of microtransactions and loot boxes that are harmful, but as ive made clear in this thread i do not believe all implementations are inherently bad)
I will stay on the disagree side of things then. In my opinion there is a big difference on these mechanics on a video game than a supermarket. You may not see them as all bad but I think they are bad designs also. Especially to minors and anyone with shopping/gambling addictions. And as I said in my previous answers, the only compromise with the new legislation I see is restricting these bad/predatory practices in an Adults Only (ESRB rated) game. I still dislike those bad practices but if they were put in an Adults Only game then it is a fair compromise. Just like how you need to be over a legal age to go to a casino. It is that simple.
QuoteYou can not have free to play without the " micro transaction " purchases because its either a subscription play or micro transactions that pay for the server. it is not free to run a server
You can have it without microtransactions. That is where I will continue to disagree. But as said already on my above answers, you can keep your F2P games with those bad designs/practices if the game was rated Adults Only (ESRB rated) if the new legislations will hammer down on these bad practices. At least adults know what they get into and can handle or suffer the consequences on these bad practices unlike minors/children.
Quotemost people play free to play games so .... see my first point
Sure. But I still disagree with the bad designs/monetizations on those F2P games. And to add what I said as before in this very same post, I still disagree with what I think is bad in F2P games in general but I don't mind seeing games with the bad monetizations rated Adults Only (ESRB rated). That way 'most' people are not as likely to be exposed to these practices. Children are easily duped into spending money with the shopping/gambling addiction which I despise of. I doubt they will remove these bad practices as mentioned already, but confining them to Adults Only games I can live with despite still not liking those practices.
-
3 hours ago, Glaciers said:that does make it clearer, and i definitely disagree
follow up questions:
- at what point does something stop being a normal consumer-marketed product and become a "predatory" product?
- why are subscription-based games (most of which allow players to play for free until a certain level/time) exempt from this?
- why should only video games have these special regulations against psychological manipulation of consumers?
1) When players are being turned to payers. I'm not talking of people paying the game before they get the chance to play it or any subscription-based games but I'm talking about anything that involves microtransactions/loot boxes of any kind. Doesn't matter if it is cosmetic but basically any in-game purchases to date have been bad designs overall as mentioned in previous posts.
2) Because in my opinion they seem to work. If you love the game and willing to spend time on it then it is fine, especially if there is absolutely no microtransactions/loot boxes of any kind.
3) In my opinion they should. Just like casinos have regulations against gambling. Monetizations to me is very much every microtransaction/loot boxes and they have gone out of control and in my eyes when it comes to gaming. It's been proven by several studies that loot boxes in particular are gambling no matter how you slice it, while microtransactions overall are bad design and can easily hook people with addictions. In my opinion those shouldn't belong in a video game. By the way, to clarify that I haven't said as of yet: I don't like these practices at all but I don't mind seeing these not belong in a video game for minors and instead be restricted to Adults Only (for ESRB ratings). Minors are not mature enough for any loot boxes and any microtransactions in general.
These are just my opinions and I don't expect everyone to agree with them.
-
Quoteso lets try this again, if both microtransactions and loot boxes are implemented on a spectrum - from "not predatory" (e.g. cosmetic options only) to "predatory" (e.g. content locked behind paywall) and everything in between - what is your reasoning for labeling all implementations as equal, regardless of their position on the spectrum?
Ah. You are making this sound more complicated that it already is, because that's what it sounds like. Unfortunately even just cosmetic options only that you can pay I believe is bad in my book because of its addictive nature that I see in bad light even if you don't think it is predatory. Even if I will not fall into these bad designs, somebody else will. It is still bad video game design to me in my eyes. So almost every implementation of microtransactions and loot boxes to me are seen in a negative light no matter how it is done. Does this make it anymore clear to you? Feel free to disagree because that's because where I will stand to pretty much any of them in general.
QuoteA dollar for an APB box where people who buy them have said multiple times they can get what they want in that amount , and other prizes which are still worth more than 100 g1c , is not a bad practice.
A fair statement but I still disagree with that design.
-
4 hours ago, Glaciers said:so you agree that different monetization schemes exist and yet you still think they should all be treated equally
why?
Two major monetization schemes we are the only ones focusing on here. Microtransactions and loot boxes, some people try to disguise it in a different form but the main function is the same with the similarities in place. That's exactly what we are focusing on and I am treating both of them negatively and equally. Both of which are unethical.
-
7 hours ago, Glaciers said:literal brick of text jesus christ
viewing monetization schemes as a whole is a mistake, imo despite repeated use of buzzwords like "predatory" and "psychological manipulation" not all monetization schemes are equal and they should not be treated equally
businesses tailor their product to be as enticing as possible, aside from any mechanic that forces a player to purchase loot boxes/microtransactions, this is standard practice - do you complain that supermarkets are laid out specifically to "psychologically manipulate" customers to buy more and buy things they don't need?
That is where I disagree, especially where I am agreeing with the same points as said in the video. It is simply bad video game design. Some of these video games now are purposely designed to be grindier and less convenient to make their 'time saving' in-game purchases more appealing. There is no option in avoiding these bad video game designs when we buy them or not (this has happenned in F2P for a long time but now has crept their way into games where you have to buy them before playing now). These games with this bad design some players don't have the option of going to without their shopping/gambling addiction making them go out of control with their destructive behavior.
QuoteIf you really want anything to be done about this whole gambling situation in the gaming industry, complain to the ESRB or ESA, because they're the only organizations that could do anything of significance in regards of combating underaged gambling or any predatory MTX.
People already have been doing that but so far has met resistance. The latest effort by a U.S Senator with his anti-loot box bill and microtransactions is finally showing some hope for those that don't like this practice.
https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-says-his-anti-loot-box-bill-has-the-video-1834905639
Belgium is the only other country that comes into mind that is banning loot boxes and has made some video game developers turn off loot boxes in their games etc.
QuoteBecause games should be for free?
I already said multiple times that you can make a profit on video games without the bad practices. Just look at Cuphead and other indie online games for example. Even one of the worst games ever made Superman 64 sold relatively well despite the huge negative press at the time. You can make a profit without microtransactions/loot boxes, it's that simple and the big corporations know it too. In my eyes, they don't belong in video games.
-
Implementing them in different ways doesn't change what they fundamentally are especially when the similarities are still there. I don't care if it 1 cent, you still pay for it regardless. And it wouldn't be paranoia especially if more legislatures will indeed move against these practices.
-
2 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:and that is why I keep asking
because I have no clue since OP is all over the place
Wasn't it obvious by the thread title already in the very first place? Avoid any predatory monetization whether at very first release or in future updates of a game. I'm surprised it didn't click in any of you. Surprised it triggered some of you by bringing up the mechanics this game has some in a predatory way. Sure, some of the mechanics in this game are similar to the bad type and still they shouldn't be there in my opinion. Matt has already said they will find different ways to monetize but let's hope it will not be the predatory type, there are many different types as explained in that 30 minute video and it isn't necessarily tied down to just only microtransactions or just only loot boxes. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as seperate and different implementations of these mechanics this game has when they have been similar one way or another in other games as well. This has happenned in Fortnite, Call of Duty, Overwatch etc. just to name a few. Cosmetics and weapons that you don't need to buy for example? There are those with addictions that will spend lots of money just to 'complete' their collection. Microtransactions in general that will help the gameplay one way or the other have been psychologically manipulative and not just tied down loot boxes. The problem is a lot bigger than you think and it seems to be a common formula in almost every F2P game sadly. There are those people that will continue to deny that this games monetization (even if it looks minor) or other games out there isn't that bad and come up with excuses that I have already mentioned. I'll take subscription over most microtransactions any day whenever possible but they aren't going away so quickly as I imagine. Not unless the upcoming legislation laws around the world will come down hard on these greedy developers. If you watched that video some people will continue to deny that this game doesn't have these particular type of mechanics when it is still similar to the examples explained in that video or even found on other F2P games (and now even full priced games). Even if the microtransactions/loot boxes are in the game in a very small way it doesn't change a thing of their predatory nature.
-
16 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:Anything permanent uses real money.
by your arguments they have no right to fund the server when its not gambling by the definition since we do get more than 100 g1c worth , as Glaciers did point out , and you didn't deny.
oh its random so its evil does not work.
Anything that requires to pay to get currency for those predatory monetization still doesn't change things at all. I don't pity for the developers that have to do this type of monetization to stay afloat either after seeing it game after game. And the microtransactions don't fare any better either if you watched that video, the CEO Torulf Jernstorm explains how they get players hooked and pay for stuff to 'help' the developers well-being. I do miss the old days of playing the game and getting rewarded for doing certain tasks etc. Now for some games it is all about how big your wallet is, except it is not subscription based but rather on monetization.
-
5 minutes ago, Glaciers said:as i understand it, since you always get something worth more than 100 g1c its technically not gambling as defined under the law
i just dont get how the loot box argument really applies to joker boxes, other than vaguely similar opening mechanics - everything available in joker boxes can be unlocked for free ingame iirc
If you used in-game currency that you earn while playing the game to get these boxes that could be a different story. But the fact that the option to pay real money for the random rewards to come up doesn't change anything, even if you can get the stuff in-game.
-
2 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:So its not just me who thought that way.
Ok thank you.
BTW for those who do not know , one JMB is only a dollar unlike other games where it is much more than that
Some people say they have bought 20 and got the weapon they wanted from it.
That is why I do not believe APB does that to people when it comes to boxes.
But that is just my opinion.
You still paid money on a loot box when you don't know exactly what you will get. Like going to a slot machine, you pay money and you don't know what you will get in return. Put more money in hopes you get what you want does come.. eventually or maybe never. It still has that gambling addictive nature no matter how cheap/expensive the loot box is.
-
QuoteWhat predatory monetization? They promised to get rid of JMBs if that's your problem. Enlightened me of other "predatory monetization" issues.
And no. Your post just keep rising my brow and further questions.
Also we run in circles -
Q:"What you see wrong with monetization?" A: "Little Orbit should avoid predatory monetization, if that wasn't obvious enough" - while I litteraly debunked that current monetization plans ain't predatory.
Any predatory monetization that is in any game in general and doesn't just have to be in APB alone. Simple as that.
QuoteYeah and whole narrative is about EA. Why? Because they fucking games are ENTIRELY based on lootboxes. You can't really progress without lootboxes.
Nope. EA isn't the only one at fault if you actually watched the video. It goes beyond them at this point.
QuoteReally? Use incognito mode and go to this page: https://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/113400/ and tell me what you exactly see. "Last you checked". Phi.
Oh and also.
ESRB rating on the store page on the right still says M for Mature. Other countries have their own ratings but I'm going by ESRB here. They have AO (Adults Only) rating but it isn't applied to this game.
QuoteYes. Censorship, golden pill of today far left part of society.
And APB is very poor example of how hostile monetization work.
If you really got addicted to spending money on JMBs, then that's really on you. Because you must be total moron. You benefit nothing from them and you can buy their rewards for in-game money. And it's not even that hard to collect 10 millions APB$ if you play regularly. First-hand experince.
Yep. Blame the addicts for not knowing any better, that excuse has been covered in the video as well. Not surprising to see someone use that one here now. The fact that the option is there is still psychologically manipulative and that can't be denied.
Subscription for an MMO I would rather do than monetization, if the game is worth my time.
QuoteDude, game was coming out in F2P model and nobody or nothing forced us to pay for loot boxes. Compare it to subscription based model of RTW.
What people should've protested against? Against way better model for us, customers?
Yep. I didn't know any better when these practices came out many years ago, but at least I opened my eyes and see how harmful it can be for those who don't know better. Because of that I strongly oppose it so that others don't get duped. Saying that loot boxes/microtransactions are optional and you don't have to pay them is again a poor excuse because of its addictive nature. You and I may not fall for the trap, but others are not so fortunate and I don't mind seeing them not belong in video games.
QuoteWas APB in control group? Yeah well. You failed to say it was about EA again, don't you?
You do realize that EA aren't the only ones at fault. Though I can certainly see in hindsight that the big companies made these bad practices look good when they aren't.
QuoteThen why attack current model of JMBs all of sudden and F2P when it's as far from predatory monetization I ever seen in any F2P game I played? This make very little sense from you. You contradict yourself in so many answers.
Don't take my word for it, there are many others that are opposing it. The voices on this issue has been slowly growing over the years. I doubt they will survive against the new pieces of legislation that some countries are thinking about already. And I don't think those people in the legislature will listen to your arguments of monetization/loot boxes. If the anti-loot box/monetization bills for example don't go through, the fight against them will not stop I imagine. Plus those Joker Mystery Boxes look like a different variation of a loot box even if you don't need it to progress in the game. You pay for money to get an unknown reward every time you decide to pay for them. That's gambling. It is still predatory. Saying Joker Mystery Boxes aren't loot boxes is like Electronic Arts saying they are not loot boxes but they are instead 'surprise mechanics'. That doesn't change a thing on what they are.
-
2 hours ago, Jazeker said:It's never going back OP. What's more, they will only find new ways to milk you. Let me say here that I will never touch an EA game ever again while I loved playing those on console when I was just a kid.
I got gifted around 100 of those 20 dollar mounts back in my WoW days. And I'm old. Can you imagine that? That's only mounts. My husband once spend hundreds of dollars on giftboxes in an EA game at once, and dominated for the next weeks, playing 100% legit.
It's all silly if you think about it, you buy a game, and today, you usually pay a subscription on top of that, for the privilege of being able to spend even more if you want to, much more if you can. But it is what it is today. If you still find a game that doesn't cash on p2w or vanity after you bought it and pay a subscription for it... try to love it
. Expansions and content is fine. I'd say even an engine update 
. Day one DLC is the same silliness.
It is possible to not let these developers try to find new predatory ways to get money from us unethically. I still remember nobody said anything much about these new scummy practices until many years later. Once enough people start screaming about these practices, it might be just enough to deter others from doing the same thing. You could say it is a 'protest', but there's no doubt these particular monetizations are unethical and I am not surprised legislation had to get involved to make the practices illegal and to avoid any loopholes the corporations will try to go to next.
-
36 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:As CookiePuss and others have mentioned in multiple threads this past year , APB has not made profit , so again..... are we talking about APB still?
Yep. I've seen one new game before release with the developers promising they won't add predatory monetization in future updates. That was a lie. Let's not see that happen to this game at any point in the future.
-
1 hour ago, Fortune Runner said:........... are we talking about APB still?
Because if not , then it doesn't belong here.
I already said before that APB should avoid predatory monetization.
1 hour ago, Alani said:apb was rereleased with the joker boxes
idk y u think this is new
but these things have been around for a while now and theyre not really intrusive lmao
Yeah, back when people didn't know better or make a strong protest. I still remember Mass Effect 3's multiplayer having loot boxes too but didn't say too much about it at the time, neither did many others. Only realizing how addictive these microtransactions/loot boxes are addictive after many years later with several studies done only then these are seen in a negative light.
-
2 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Nor is it in any way the problem of video game makers.
Much as the liquor store isn't responsible for alcoholism, nor the dispensary for drug abuse...
APB is not responsible for your behavioral health issues.
And it is just as easy not to have those mechanics that cause behavioral issues in the first place in a video game, especially in the current state where people get hooked on the bad monetization. No problem criticizing a bad game with no monetization.
-
35 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:It's the truth.
This is a game for adults.
APB is not your mommy.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for our own actions?
Last I checked the game was not rated Adults Only (AO), especially as shown on the Steam page. And I'd like for you to use that same logic to those players who easily get addicted to the predatory monetization. Addiction is not a switch you can easily turn on/off, it is not that simple.
-
8 minutes ago, Yood said:производитель игр имеет право зарабатывать деньги любым способом , если это не ограничено законодательством .
the game manufacturer has the right to make money in any way , if it is not limited by law .
Yeah, but definitely not with the predatory/addictive monetization. If companies can't make a good game without the monetization like the old days, maybe they shouldn't be in business.
Да, но определенно не с хищной / захватывающей монетизацией. Если компании не могут сделать хорошую игру без монетизации, как в старые времена, возможно, им не следует заниматься бизнесом.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Yood said:контингент игры + 18 . в 18 лет у тебя уже начинают работать мозги , это ваши проблемы и ответственность .
у компании есть одна проблема - законодательство некоторых стран .
меня все устраивает .
Google Translate says of your post:
"contingent of game + 18. at the age of 18 your brains are starting to work, these are your problems and responsibilities. The company has one problem - the legislation of some countries. Everything suits me."
That's because the game industry didn't fight back against loot boxes/microtransactions for years, knowing they are predatory. Only recently people have been fighting back against it, nothing wrong with gambling/microtransactions provided the game is rated Adults Only. And you know that having a game rated Adults Only isn't good for business.
Google Translate of my post to your language:
"Это потому, что игровая индустрия годами не боролась с лут-боксами / микротранзакциями, зная, что они хищные. Только недавно люди боролись против этого, ничего плохого в азартных играх / микротранзакциях, если игра оценена только для взрослых. И вы знаете, что игра с рейтингом «Только для взрослых» не подходит для бизнеса."
-
3 hours ago, CookiePuss said:You folks know you don't HAVE to buy JMBs, right?
Guns are meh at best anyways.
If you watched the video that whole thing of "you don't have to buy loot boxes/microtransactions" is a poor excuse. It's kind of like saying to a little kid when going to a casino saying you don't need to gamble etc. Most monetization nowadays is predatory as explained in that video, and there are those that will end up spending money that go out of control etc.
-
20 minutes ago, Mitne said:Honestly not fan of Jimquisiton, especially taking his hostile politcal views (and I wouldn't bring this up but well... this views heavily affect correct judgement of his on many cases of gaming), point is though valid for this issue - it's hard to be wrong with it, this practice is anti-capitalistic in my honest opinion (as it manipulate demand and supply of everyone involved, being similiar economy to that of which are drug dealers and drug users).
Lootboxes are (contrary to what you believe or lie about, EA) gambling and as we well know gambling can be addiction if certain person is vulnerable.
What is more scary is that, the more poor you are, the more vulnerable you are to hazards of gamblings. Idea of big gain with minimal effort is what is driving this addiction. To some it's thrill of winning but most of time it's big gain sight.
Rich won't get addicted to EA-like predatory tactics. They just shrug it off, charge they account with 1k$, get bored of mediocre game and leave - very likely treating all games like that... good or bad. Poor players on other way, get hooked up into game cause they paid for it so they can't just abandon it (entry level trap), then they will be either handicapped or make efforts of player not worth "the price" but doing it after hooking up player to game - mostly done by entry level "free starter packs stuff" etc. etc. (mid game trap), then they will charge for boxes with 0,5% or less or make it so the boxes drop chance will be extremely low but keys will be expensive and to top it off, still leaving 0,5% or less chance on this boxes to drop anything good (finale game trap).
Problem is what you consider "monetization". The only thing which is anything resembling gambling would be JMBs, everything else is "You get what you buy stuff" and this game can't fund itself from thin air.
So let's me ask you. What you see that is wrong with plans of monetization in this game? JMBs are planned to go away after all.
I already answered the question on the original post. Little Orbit should avoid predatory monetization, if that wasn't obvious enough.
-
Okay. This is not exactly a new subject as Matt has seen the current anti-loot box bill that is still in the works. But there are other things that cannot be ignored and no excuses should be made when it comes to monetization that is addictive. Not sure if any of you have seen this video, but I recommend you watch this video in its entirety before commenting as it is important. Took me a few times to watch this whole thing and I wholeheartedly agree that gaming has kind of taken a dark turn compared to simple old days of NES, SNES, Genesis etc. You get the idea.
I bet some people will try to defend or ignore some of the facts stated in this video, but I think it is important that some changes have to be made.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Basically, if APB doesn't remove its loot boxes or pay-to-win stuff, then this game will become an Adults Only (18+) game and no longer rated either rated M for Mature of T for Teens etc. If this game was sold only on retail that would be very bad etc. But it will prevent children or teens from easily playing APB.
Little Orbit, please avoid predatory videogame monetization
in General Discussion Archive
Posted
There have been many testimonials of people spending lots of money on these bad designs/practices which have caused people to take drastic actions to curb the bad habits. So it's not really an opinion anymore but more of facts. Just because you have things under control, doesn't mean everybody else is as fortunate.
Who makes profit on a game that is featured on the website is irrelevant. They are still games, no matter if they are AAA titles or not. They chose not to have mictrotransactions/loot boxes, their choice whether they make revenue or not. In-game advertising is not considered microtransactions/loot boxes, but they are still similar to microtransactions/loot boxes because of bad design/practice in my opinion. An NBA game recently released tried to make unskippable ingame-advertising during loading screens as a thing which most people disliked, it could make profits but to me they are still just as bad as microtransactions. Same bad design all over again in my opinion.
Ah. This one-time fee that could easily have been the same amount of money you could of paid to get the game in the first place has now been turned into a microtransaction. See how manipulative it is? Game is free but it isn't free when you have to pay for it in a microtransaction. That's why I still don't see them in the positive light of things.
Boils down to opinion again. Because this has been done way before the other bad designs came in. Subcriptions are payments you make to continue using or playing the products on a timely basis that is not similar to a microtransaction in any way. A big difference between the two but some people still like to nitpick on these two. I see it this way and you can disagree if you wish, it's not changing my viewpoint.
Your point is? What implementations are all the same? All psychological manipulations are all the same in an industry? If that is what you are asking then there are similarities but there are the bad ones I specifically covered many times on which ones I think don't belong. Microtransactions/loot boxes, with both having psychological manipulations in the gaming industry that I think shouldn't belong at all. And if they are not getting removed/banned then they should be regulated. It should be for Adults Only. Simple as that.
To me. Loot boxes are gambling because of the similarities on getting a random chance when you pay real money no matter who tries to deny this. Microtransactions are not gambling but they are still bad game designs, and can have people with shopping addictions hooked into spending lots of money similar to gambling even if they are two different types of addictions. In conclusion, they are still both bad designs/practices no matter what people will say in order to defend them. Two different types of addictions that are just bad in a videogame that I think should be regulated. Feel free to disagree as that is not going to change my mind and probably neither do you.