Loot boxes discussion - Loot boxes are a good thing, now open up that wallet

KingofNothing

Wahoo!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Oh no, how unfortunate. Sports game could have a harder time shaking down whales. Almost makes you want to cry. :(

But on a serious note, I didn't see a thread about shitty loot box practices, so I'm thinking we can also use this thread for loot box related news in general.


Anti-loot box bill poses a real threat to sports video games
91
How else are those billion-dollar licenses paid?
By Owen S. Good Jun 1, 2019, 7:32pm EDT
NBA 2K19’s MyCareer begins with a narrative journey through the NBA G League |Visual Concepts/2K Sports
If passed in anything close to its proposed form, Sen. Josh Hawley’s anti-microtransaction legislation will punish, if not obliterate, a staple genre of video gaming for offenses it never really committed.

That may be fine with you. You may not like sports or their games, you may hate Electronic Arts because everyone else does. But this is the feeling I get when I read the text of the proposed “Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act,” because it goes well beyond what actually got everyone angry — Star Wars Battlefront 2’s original loot boxes. The list of no-nos the bill proscribes cover all the ways in which licensed team sports video games now make a lot, if not most of their money.

That’s not just FIFA Ultimate Team, which everyone loves to complain about while playing it endlessly. It’s the similarly positioned MyCareer of NBA 2K, which may have a bigger pay-to-win format but still is one mode in a suite of offerings. And it’s also Diamond Dynasty for MLB The Show, a series that I might remind folks is the last full-service baseball title, period.
So it may be discussed as a thought exercise for now, but Hawley’s legislation matters more to sports video gamers, and it matters in more concrete ways, than any other player constituency.
RELATED
UFC 3 controversy exists because of Star Wars, not a pay-to-win scam

Hawley’s bill has a broad reach and broadly defined terms, but it isn’t ignorant of the video games marketplace. It has carve-outs for widely accepted things like MMO subscription fees or premium cosmetics (provided they aren’t awarded at random in a loot box, I guess). It goes so far as to exclude charging for extra difficulty modes. And none of these things should be prohibited, in law or practice.
So Hawley probably thinks he’s leaving publishers DLC or microtransaction options; that’s probably why he so glibly dismissed hypotheticals about outlawing loot boxes and pay-to-win transactions, declaring they wouldn’t kill an industry that “can design games that don’t rely on gambling directed at children.”

But for sports video games so reliant on ultimate team modes, that is easier said than done, if it can be done. FIFA Ultimate Team, which Hawley acknowledges is square in his bill’s crosshairs, delivers an estimated $800 million (as of 2017, probably more today) to EA’s “live services” revenue, which in its most recent fiscal year was $2.2 billion. You don’t get those kinds of dollar figures selling extra soccer kits and ball designs.
FIFA 19’s Ultimate Team offers long odds at landing big stars, but it’s still an optional mode of a larger game. |EA Vancouver/Electronic Arts
NBA 2K’s MyCareer, more reliant on player-improving, pay-to-win transactions than other modes, is believed to generate similar numbers for parent Take-Two Interactive. Nobody publicizes exactly how much their cash cows bring in, of course, but it’s instructive that Take-Two agreed to a deal paying the NBA $1.1 billion over the next seven years. That’s double the value of the last deal, which was inked in 2011, well before Virtual Currency was introduced to MyCareer. I don’t think Visual Concepts replaces that dough by reselling NBA’s Greatest DLC or the Sprite Slam Dunk contest, as much as those things were enjoyed in past editions.

I don’t point this out to cheerlead for someone’s P&L sheet or consider it the civic duty of gamers to do so, either. And if billion-with-a-B figures are involved, these companies will bring in their lobbyists-with-an-L, who outrank voters when it comes to really getting a senator’s attention. My guess is these publishers will also lean on their sports league partners to twist arms, if the viability of a $1.1 billion deal hinges so much on outlawed MTXes.
Lawmakers’ first attempt to regulate loot box mictrotransactions, in the Hawaii state legislature, died in committee, after all. So let’s also consider that something with bipartisan support might also attract bipartisan opposition. I’d be interested to know how Rand Paul, for example, feels about this regulation of a free market. Or what the Republican senators of Texas and Florida, Republican states with Republican legislatures that give tax breaks to EA studios developing Ultimate Team features, might say as well.

But for sports video game consumers, unless they’re perfectly satisfied with the likes of RBI Baseball and NBA Playgrounds, I do expect a concern more sophisticated than a hearty message-board “fuck EA” whenever a politician is talking about the money one makes and how. These modes, if they don’t directly pay for the games we enjoy, at least justify the workforces and development costs that make them worth playing. That oily MTX money — hard as it is to defend, even in the abstract — helps those women and men deliver something that meets the unrelenting it’s-in-the-game standard we’ve taken for granted for a couple of decades.

Hawley, in last week’s interview with Kotaku, lumped in “pay-to-win transactions” with the gambling bogeyman because he says they condition or exploit addictive behavior in kids, too. To me it’s more revealing that he justified banning them as “a microtransaction that’s not necessarily expected,” and describes hearing from constituents who are more upset at their children using their credit cards, not loot boxes or the gambling behavior alleged.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with a flummoxed parent whose kid wanted to spend money on virtual crap in a video game — the video game he made. The guy was a developer for NBA 2K and this was right around the time Virtual Currency’s tendrils were first reaching into the game. His children were no different than anyone else’s, they wanted to pay money so their players were great immediately, even if their dad designed the very same game. At the time, 2K Sports’ ownership was starting to reckon with what it had on its hands; Grand Theft Auto Online wasn’t even a year old.

This guy was trying to be a good parent; he was also trying to do a good job, knowing how much it depended on beancounters’ happiness with the bottom line NBA 2K generated. But once willing sellers became aware of willing buyers, there was no putting this genie back in the bottle.
“Given that they control the money, and they spend a lot of it,” he said, “you think we can change the medium?”
And “they” didn’t mean his bosses. “They” meant the kids.
Roster File is Polygon’s column on sports video games.
 
FIFA Ultimate Team, which Hawley acknowledges is square in his bill’s crosshairs, delivers an estimated $800 million (as of 2017, probably more today) to EA’s “live services” revenue, which in its most recent fiscal year was $2.2 billion.

whats cheaper, including microtransactions, losing some sales and getting screeched at on metacritic and youtube for a couple weeks with autistic 6 hour long video essays, or removing them and losing millions of dollars in revenue annually depending on the game?



i dont even play multiplayer i dont care
 
whats cheaper, including microtransactions, losing some sales and getting screeched at on metacritic and youtube for a couple weeks with autistic 6 hour long video essays, or removing them and losing millions of dollars in revenue annually depending on the game?
I like your rhetorical question.
In fact, nothing except legislation can stop this trend. Neckbeards and journos can reeeee how much they want, but as long as it prints money and is legal, it will be done.
 
fucking hell, how goddamn exceptional are those fifa playing whales?
this is worse than weebs who pay thousands of dollars to get granblue waifus
Incredibly retarded. $10K dude. 10 fucking K on one game. A whales worth should never be underestimated if you're one of these companies.

A FIFA player used GDPR to find out everything publisher EA had on him - and realised he'd spent an incredible $10,000 on the game in just two years.

3
GDPR is designed to help EU citizens understand how their data is being used.
Michael, 32, from the UK (Michael asked we not publish his second name) told Eurogamer he made the request of EA on 25th May - the day General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in Europe - and was motivated by a belief in "momentum" in the FIFA games, as well as the ongoing controversy surrounding loot boxes.

We've covered both of these topics as they relate to FIFA extensively. Momentum is the belief among some FIFA players that the game cheats. The idea is under the hood, FIFA creates "dramatic moments" by giving the losing team a helping hand or making life harder for the winning team. (EA has always denied this is the case.)

Loot boxes as they relate to FIFA have to do with FIFA Ultimate Team card packs. These virtual football sticker packs can be bought with a virtual currency bought with real world money (FIFA Points) or a virtual currency earned through playing FUT (FIFA Coins). Like a standard loot box, FUT packs contain a random assortment of cards, which players use to build their FIFA Ultimate Team squads.

"I was intrigued to see if any of the data related to any of these topics," Michael told Eurogamer.

Michael submitted the GDPR request through EA's customer service telephone number.

"The advisor seemed a tad confused but after liaising with other departments, he was able to start the process," Michael said. EA asked Michael for some personal information (name, address, email etc) as well as a photograph of his government-issued identification. The 30-day countdown - stipulated by GDPR - began when this information was processed.

Sure enough, 30 days later, Michael was sent a data dump by EA via two PDF files each over 100 pages long. This amounted to a huge number of files, which include engagement data, FIFA 18 stats, device information and more than 10 audio files (these are recordings of his calls to EA support). It also included details of every player Michael bought and sold over the past two years in FUT.

1
EA tracks various in-game statistics for its players.
After running through the data, Michael published some files to Imgur and took to reddit to discuss using an alternative account. Redacted content in black (for example internal IDs) was done by EA, while redacted content in red (personal information) was done by Michael himself.

"I would play Ultimate Team more or less everyday," Michael said. "I used it as my downtime and my hobby. Depending on the time I have free, I can spend anything from 30 minutes to six hours playing.

"I play Weekend League every week and this is obviously time consuming." (For more on Weekend League, check out our feature on FIFA's most gruelling mode.)

EA also provided data relating to how much real world money (in dollars) Michael had spent on FIFA Points, and he told Eurogamer he was "gobsmacked" to discover he'd spent over $10,000 in just two years.

"Upon reflection, the figure EA stated would be correct," he told Eurogamer. "Special events such as Black Friday, TOTY, FUT Birthday, TOTS, Futties, etc, I would have thrown in thousands upon thousands of FIFA Points without even a second thought.

"Myself and my fiancee are fortunate to have a healthy disposable income, so this kind of amount wouldn't have caused a strain on us financially. I do however, have the utmost sympathy for those in a position of low income who may also be or become addicted to buying loot boxes."

4
EA knows your platform friends list and keeps that data. This is the friends list EA sent to Michael, who redacted the names of his friends.
While the data provided to Michael lists FIFA 16, 17 and 18, he bought FIFA 16 just a few days before FIFA 17 came out, and so did not spend any money with that game. This means his purchase history is reserved for two games: FIFA 17 and FIFA 18 - and spread across two years.

Michael may have even spent more money on FUT than he thinks. EA's spending data for Michael, which he has not published to Imgur but has shown Eurogamer, shows two figures for the amount spent, each relating to two different periods. One figure is $6144 spent between 2nd November 2016 and 29th August 2017, the other $10,010, spent between 25th September 2017 and 21st May 2018. In total, this would mean Michael has spent $16,154 over two years, not just over $10,010 as Michael first thought.

"That could be correct," Michael told Eurogamer after we pointed this out. "I'm not entirely sure as I was assuming the $6k was over FIFA 17 and the remainder up to $10k was FIFA 18. Looking at the stats again, it is possible the amounts are for separate titles."

Whether it's $16,000 or $10,000, Michael was so shocked at seeing the amount he'd spent on FUT in black and white that he spoke with his partner to discuss his spending - and it sounds like he will try and calm it down for FIFA 19.

"I took the time to talk to my other half about this," Michael said. "We have a healthy disposable income but you can imagine my shock that over the past two years, I had given EA just over $10,000.

"If anything, the data EA has provided me has made me realise that FIFA Points are just not worth it and $10,000 will be better spent over the next two years."

2
Michael says he's spent just over $10,000 on FUT in just a couple of years.
Perhaps most noteworthy about the data provided is, while there is a huge list of FUT transfers and purchases on the list, EA failed to supply pack pulls. That is, EA did not tell Michael which cards he received from packs.

"What surprised me was EA could tell me every player I bought and sold, but could not tell me what players I packed when purchasing loot boxes," Michael said.

"The data did not even tell me what pack I had purchased, just the amount of FIFA Points the pack cost. Another surprise was the audio files attached to the data. I understand that organisations record calls but I did not expect EA to retain those calls for two years."

EA's decision to not supply information relating to packed players or which packs were purchased may have to do with protecting trade secrets and its anti-cheat methods.

5
EA remembers all the FIFA Coins transactions you've made, as this data sent to Michael shows.
In its correspondence with Michael, EA used legalese to explain why it had withheld certain data:

"We have also withheld data impacting the security and integrity of EA products and services, data that, if disclosed, would affect the rights and freedoms of others, including EA, and any other EA or third-party trade secrets."

And:

"Automated decision making, including profiling, and information about the logic involved and the significance of and envisaged consequences: We do not consider any automated decision making by EA Inc. to have any legal or other significant effect on data subjects. For more information on our anti-cheat please see section 3D of the Privacy & Cookie Policy."

Michael said he's far from satisfied with the data EA supplied, and criticised the company's decision to leave out pack information.

"To me, this is EA using loopholes to avoid providing full disclosure to their customers," he said. "This is the kind of data I was wanting to see."

When we put Michael's case to EA, the company said it was working to improve its responses to players who make GDPR requests, and promised to help Michael get the data he wanted.

"We take our responsibility to protect player's data privacy very seriously, and it is absolutely our intent to provide choice and control over their information. EA takes great care to respond to data access requests like these in a timely manner and consistent with each players' requests.

"Also, in full disclosure, we're working on the responses that players will see to GDPR requests like this. The quotes below are from some of our legal language, and obviously not all that helpful to a lot of players. Going forward, players requesting info will see a response that is clearer."
 
This article does a terrible job of explaining the legalese (which isn't surprising, it's Polygon), so I have many questions.

  • How do you target children specifically for monetary exploitation when they don't have jobs, money or a credit card? These aren't cigarettes; they don't sell skins and lootboxes at the corner store. You can buy cards for Steam currency, for example, but that can be used for actual video games as well as various lootbox equivalents.
  • What constitutes "pay-to-win", legally-speaking? If the paid lootbox rewards are purely cosmetic in nature and don't give you any actual leg up in the game, does it still qualify?
  • In fact, what constitutes a "lootbox" legally? Are they referring to V-Bucks, a direct money-to-Krusty Dollars style of transfer? What about crates in Team Fortress 2, which are random drops, that require a separate individual (paid) key to open? Keys that have their own worth in that game's trading scene, mind you, and are most often use for collateral than actual crate opening.
  • The article claims this scandal began with Star Wars Battlefront 2 or some UFC sequel, both of which are rated "T", which suggests you can't purchase them if you aren't over the age of 13 and up. Can you still sell lootboxes in M-rated games? Or does everyone have to suffer for the sake of the children?
  • How does this solve children gambling? Presently, you can use the items themselves (from CS:GO, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, PUBG, etc.) to gamble on third-party websites. These items exist indefinitely and have market value; to truly stop this gambling, you'd have to make these items untradable, effectively killing those games' individual economies (and, probably, their playerbase.)
782713
 
I don’t care about minor cosmetic DLCs like the ones in RE2 or MHW, but lootboxes and MTXs that give online players an edge can die in a fire. DMC5 technically lets you buy orbs, but according to people who’ve played it, version 1.00 and and all of the subsequent patches are balanced with orb drops, so if Capcom ever gets greedy, I can just play it unpatched
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[*]How do you target children specifically for monetary exploitation when they don't have jobs, money or a credit card? These aren't cigarettes; they don't sell skins and lootboxes at the corner store. You can buy cards for Steam currency, for example, but that can be used for actual video games as well as various lootbox equivalents.
Cards are generally attached to the account and can make a direct purchase in the shop. Plus kids can memorize the dates and that number thing what name escapes me. I haven't used parental controls, but I believe they've made it impossible to purchase with parent account's approval. That said I don't know how many parents are savvy enough or responsible enough, as much as I hate government raising the kid I genuinely don't trust parents with electronic entertainment.

Not sure how to get companies to hassle them into educating said parents either.
[*]What constitutes "pay-to-win", legally-speaking? If the paid lootbox rewards are purely cosmetic in nature and don't give you any actual leg up in the game, does it still qualify?
So long as the effects stimulate the same chemicals as slot machines and casinos do with their lights and sound... I don't honestly know. I feel we should shut down Chuck E. Cheese to be safe. That menace is the gateway casino for kids.
[*]In fact, what constitutes a "lootbox" legally? Are they referring to V-Bucks, a direct money-to-Krusty Dollars style of transfer? What about crates in Team Fortress 2, which are random drops, that require a separate individual (paid) key to open? Keys that have their own worth in that game's trading scene, mind you, and are most often use for collateral than actual crate opening.
So long as a box requires any amount of currency be it exchanged or otherwise with no alternative free means would make it qualify I imagine.
[*]The article claims this scandal began with Star Wars Battlefront 2 or some UFC sequel, both of which are rated "T", which suggests you can't purchase them if you aren't over the age of 13 and up. Can you still sell lootboxes in M-rated games? Or does everyone have to suffer for the sake of the children?
I question what suffering occurs from lack of lootboxes, they promote lazy development in my honest opinion, but I think Hawley mentioned any gambling would make it AO.
[*]How does this solve children gambling? Presently, you can use the items themselves (from CS:GO, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, PUBG, etc.) to gamble on third-party websites. These items exist indefinitely and have market value; to truly stop this gambling, you'd have to make these items untradable, effectively killing those games' individual economies (and, probably, their playerbase.)
Those are already illegal I think, but I think that falls more into copyright? I don't honestly know. It's a good question.
 
When legislation does get through on the greedy tactics these companies have exploited for their investors, it will only do so much good. It won't magically fix the industry or force gonorrhea turds like EA to grow their heart 3 sizes and make actual games that involve real gameplay.

They will find other ways to scam people into monetization, they've had a lot of time to plan this out and yes, I mean plan this out. Why else would they hire monetization experts who collect data on everything you do in games?
 
When legislation does get through on the greedy tactics these companies have exploited for their investors, it will only do so much good. It won't magically fix the industry or force gonorrhea turds like EA to grow their heart 3 sizes and make actual games that involve real gameplay.

They will find other ways to scam people into monetization, they've had a lot of time to plan this out and yes, I mean plan this out. Why else would they hire monetization experts who collect data on everything you do in games?
I can easily see EA and Activision going episodic with their games if this bill went through. And while this bill is nice, blowhard ChapoTrapHouse faggots like Angry Joe and Jim Sterling almost feel like they’re intentionally acting cringy towards MTXs in order to help the AAAs make anti-lootbox gamers look bad.

Then again, Joe and Sterling are both whores who’ll drop their “ethics” the moment a man in a nice suit slips a few Benjamin in their pockets
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can easily see EA and Activision going episodic with their games if this bill went through. And while this bill is nice, blowhard ChapoTrapHouse faggots like Angry Joe and Jim Sterling almost feel like they’re intentionally acting cringy towards MTXs in order to help the AAAs make anti-lootbox gamers look bad
It's a stupid argument. Publishers have had over a decade of sperging monetization and bringing the half-assed mentality of we'll finish the game later method into popularity. I personally see this as a step in the right direction, but these people are so deeply set in their ways that it could be a long time (if ever) before they try and fix the shit they started.

While Sterling is a cow all himself, I do agree with the notion that sacrificing integrity and development competency by trying to maintain and exceed unsustainable growth in terms of profit is what's killing the game industry all over again.
 
Back