Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ScLines

Little Orbit, please avoid predatory videogame monetization

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ScLines said:

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.

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?

 

 

Edited by Glaciers
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk why so suddenly these armchair skeptics are rising out of no where, showing everyone and their mother these videos that expose insanely large publishers/developers for predatory MTX and comparing it to APB when it makes zero sense to compare MTX in a game that you pay for, and MTX in a game that's free to play. Especially when the F2P game in question doesn't even push predatory or anti-consumer monetization in their game, and is actually implementing ways to unlock some MTX items through in-game activities.

 

Fifa is a pay to win $60 sports game, marketed towards people of all ages.

The newer Star Wars games are marketed towards young teens and young adults. $60 with predatory MTX included.

APB:R is a F2P game marketed towards a mature audience. The only thing one could deem "predatory" are JMBs, and they do not grant any advantage over other players, so not only are they completely pointless to buy, but the rewards are harmless.

 

If 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ScLines said:

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.

Because games should be for free?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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. 

 

Quote

If 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.

 

Quote

Because 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.

 

Edited by ScLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when people confuse opinion with fact... leads to a less than productive conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Glaciers said:

not all monetization schemes are equal and they should not be treated equally

 

5 hours ago, ScLines said:

That is where I disagree

 

5 hours ago, ScLines said:

Some of these video games 

 

so you agree that different monetization schemes exist and yet you still think they should all be treated equally

 

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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.

its like talking to a badly coded chinese room bot

 

18 hours ago, Glaciers said:

not all monetization schemes are equal and they should not be treated equally

11 hours ago, ScLines said:

That is where I disagree

11 hours ago, ScLines said:

Some of these video games

ive expressed that i don't view all monetization/loot box implementation as the same (because they're not) and therefore they should be treated the same

you disagree 

you then go on to express that there are different monetization/loot box implementations 

 

so 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ScLines said:

I already said multiple times that you can make a profit on video games without the bad practices.

A 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

so 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.

 

Quote

A 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.

Edited by ScLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ScLines said:

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ScLines said:

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.

so there's no place for f2p games in your opinion?

 

3 minutes ago, ScLines said:

Because in my opinion they seem to work. If you love the game and willing to spend time on it then it is fine

you'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?

 

10 minutes ago, ScLines said:

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.

i 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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 1:56 PM, ScLines said:

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.

problem AVOID PREDATORY VIDEOGAME MONETIZATION began to parents which not can limit their children . game +18 . no money go work . if you're so smart, why are you so poor ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I have read the following things:

 

1. OP wants LO to avoid predatory practices that Gamersfirst had implemented a long time ago with the Joker Boxes.

2. People are arguing that paying a dollar for a Box isn't that bad, and there is no benefit to them.

3. People are making the OP sound more complicated than it is.

 

I think it's noble to want to see Little Orbit do things differently, and remind players that F2P doesn't mean you have to buy joker boxes. But the fact that they've released new ones says that they're not actually considering doing so.

 

And one cannot simply just pay for a one dollars worth of G1C, you actually have to pay a larger amount for buying the minimal amount of joker boxes. Even if you wanted a Box worth one dollar, you're going to be possibly paying four dollars or more. Which is a exploit in the system for Little Orbit to shamelessly make a profit one way or another.

 

Psychological aspects of this being that they make a new shiny legendary weapon. That weapon dropping is set to a certain percentile, so you could get it in one box or in a hundred dollars worth of boxes, or up to two hundred dollars worth of boxes. I have some friends that couldn't get any legendary weapons that they wanted, no matter how much money they spent. Which made them cautious of actually buying anymore in the future, resulting in a incrementally diminished investment into the development in this game. 

 

Thank you for the thoughts ScLines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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.

You 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

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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. 

most people play free to play games so .... see my first point

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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.

“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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zian said:

People are making the OP sound more complicated than it is

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

I'm talking about anything that involves microtransactions/loot boxes of any kind

seems pretty simple to me

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

so 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.

Quote

 

you'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.

Quote

 

i 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.

 

Quote

You 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.

 

Quote

most 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.

Edited by ScLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ScLines said:

F2P games do exist and they work. But I do not agree seeing them have any microtransactions/loot boxes of any kind whatsoever

 

3 minutes ago, ScLines said:

You can have it without microtransactions

i’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?

 

6 minutes ago, ScLines said:

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

as 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 

 

17 minutes ago, ScLines said:

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-gamemicrotransactions/lootboxes of any kind

but 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

 

25 minutes ago, ScLines said:

In my opinion there is a big difference on these mechanics on a video game than a supermarket

so different industries can have different levels of psychological manipulation, but within an industry all implementations are the same?

 

that seems kind of arbitrary

 

27 minutes ago, ScLines said:

Just like how you need to be over a legal age to go to a casino.

but 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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

 

i’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. 

Quote

 

as 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.

Quote

 

but 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.

Quote

 

so 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.

Quote

 

but 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). 

Edited by ScLines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ScLines said:

I still see the addictive nature of people spending money on microtransactions/loot boxes either way

you see what you want to see. that is an opinion not a fact.

you don't like greasy food because you abuse it then fine but i like my french fries and onion rings since i don't eat like a glutton then it isn't a sin

blaming others over your own problems isn't a righteous cause , its just you being an overbearing @##

 

APB does not have a gambling addiction for a box when you can get what you want easily ( which you agreed to in this thread ) yet you want to punish regardless?

StEP oFF of mY BROColli ANd chEEsE bEfORe I sTAb yOU wItH mY foRK !!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ScLines said:

You do not necessarily need microtransactions to make a profit if you have ads on a website etc

i have no experience with the backend of these games, do the creators of the games receive any profit or is it purely the owner of the site?

 

comparing simple flash games with AAA titles is a little disingenuous imo - taking apb as an example, do you truly think ad revenue alone would cover the $100 million development costs?

 

if ads are feasible as a sole revenue source (which i doubt), is intrusive advertising truly better than microtransactions?

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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

this is a microtransaction

 

so at this point a large part of your argument falls apart, because it appears you are in favor of some microtransactions while calling for all microtransactions to be regulated

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

This is just my opinion

i understand that its your opinion,

 

i gave the reasons i think subscriptions and microtransactions are similar and now im asking for the reasons why you think they are different

 

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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.

this has no bearing on the question i asked

 

"different industries can have different levels of psychological manipulation, but within an industry all implementations are the same?"

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

Not talking coin pusher machines here

the coin pusher is not the focus, its an example

 

the focus

  • there are different forms of gambling
  • you state that microtransactions are the same as gambling
  • therefore if there are different forms of gambling there should be different forms of microtransactions

 

Edited by Glaciers
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

you see what you want to see. that is an opinion not a fact.

you don't like greasy food because you abuse it then fine but i like my french fries and onion rings since i don't eat like a glutton then it isn't a sin

blaming others over your own problems isn't a righteous cause , its just you being an overbearing @##

 

APB does not have a gambling addiction for a box when you can get what you want easily ( which you agreed to in this thread ) yet you want to punish regardless?

StEP oFF of mY BROColli ANd chEEsE bEfORe I sTAb yOU wItH mY foRK

 

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.

Quote

 

i have no experience with the backend of these games, do the creators of the games receive any profit or is it purely the owner of the site?

 

comparing simple flash games with AAA titles is a little disingenuous imo - taking apb as an example, do you truly think ad revenue alone would cover the $100 million development costs?

 

if ads are feasible as a sole revenue source (which i doubt), is intrusive advertising truly better than microtransactions?

 

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.

Quote

 

this is a microtransaction

 

so at this point a large part of your argument falls apart, because it appears you are in favor of some microtransactions while calling for all microtransactions to be regulated

 

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.

Quote

 

i understand that its your opinion,

 

i gave the reasons i think subscriptions and microtransactions are similar and now im asking for the reasons why you think they are different

 

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.

Quote

 

this has no bearing on the question i asked

 

"different industries can have different levels of psychological manipulation, but within an industry all implementations are the same?"

 

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.

Quote

 

the coin pusher is not the focus, its an example

 

the focus

there are different forms of gambling

you state that microtransactions are the same as gambling

therefore if there are different forms of gambling there should be different forms of microtransactions

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ScLines said:

Who makes profit on a game that is featured on the website is irrelevant

of course it’s relevant, if the creators of the game don’t make any money then it’s effectively another non-choice

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

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.

perhaps this comes down to poor word choice, i assumed when you said thankfully that you supported the “pay to skip” advertising mechanic

 

1 hour ago, ScLines said:

Feel free to disagree as that is not going to change my mind and probably neither do you.

seems like the likely outcome here tbh

 

 i don’t see microtransactions as inherently harmful, although i do agree it can taken too far - but the free market will regulate itself, as shown by EAs recent losses

 

i also don’t think that regulating every microtransaction model the same way is a smart way to go about it, as i believe it will have several negative effects on the rest of the industry 

 

 

Edited by Glaciers
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...