gaming Should Lootboxes/microtransactions be banned?

[Bendy 1,821]

Should lootboxes and microtransactions be banned in games? If not outright banned, should every game that has them receive the adults only rating?

Or should they be not be banned at all?

Edited August 5, 2019 by Bendy

[They call me Loyalty 1,953]

It doesn't matter. People will find a way to entertain their particular needs either way. The inner conflict of the collective will surface either way.

[Megas 28,097]

Yes, at this point it's really obvious they're designed to be predatory and feed off of children and addicts

[Sunny Fox 5,961]

For me, it's not an issue of rating... I actually fail to see the logic in that. I mean, yes, grown people are probably more likely to have disposal income from a job, but there are also young people whose parents will buy them anything.

As long as there is a legitimate way to get the same content in-game, I see no harm in loot boxes (there are always people with more money than time on their hands). When they're your only option (either blocked off entirely without payment or to the point you'd need to grind 100+ hours to only possibly match someone simply buying their way to the top), then I say the developers are getting to the point of not giving you what you paid for by simply buying the base game, and that's a little bit shitty. Like releasing a broken game and then second-day patch, or something outright broken, or having content on the original release that you force people to pay for as "DLC".

tl;dr - If it's an honest attempt to include those with more money but less time and is attainable (for reasonable assessments of attainable) by simply playing the game, I'm fine with it. When it's forced on players purely to satisfy corporate greed, then I have an issue with it.

[Sepul-Coloratura 764]

It's a strategy for the game company to decide for themselves. But as far as I know, those things always ruined the game's quality. Only when the money is prioritized, they do loot boxes and microtransactions. If the users don't consume it, those things will be gone. But it seems to sell, so they do it. It's that the game companies are willing to sacrifice the gameplay for money, or the other way around, or rarely achieve both.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Sepul-Coloratura

[ExplosionMare 21,569]

To be fair you don’t have to buy anything from a game. Sure, it’s cruel (like how I had to spend $20 for tracks on Mario Kart 8 despite the game already being $40), but you could always just stop buying them or play something else. My only problem with transactions is when you can’t possibly complete the game without them or you get pop ups in your face all the time.

[Rikifive 24,671]

Lootboxes and MTX (microtransactions) are two different subjects and I have different opinions on them. Therefore, I am unable to vote in the poll.

---

If by lootboxes you mean the ones you pay for with real money, then it simply falls under MTX, as it's nothing else than a microtransaction done in the game.
Paid lootboxes = MTX (form of microtransaction)

Now the thing is, that there are games, in which you receive these by just playing it (daily/quest rewards, loot, etc.), so I believe that possibility was overlooked in this thread.

Assuming, that no money is involved, lootboxes themselves are absolutely fine in my opinion. There's always some RNG in games and I don't mind that. Besides, it's just looting, but with boxes, nothing special.

MTX is now what I truly dislike, so my opinion by default leans towards banning that. Most of the time it ruins balancing. Either the game is insanely hard (if you won't pay) or gets extremely easy (if you do). That's just a crime and I always avoid these games.

There are also MTX with only harmless skins and such and while it's okay for the most part, it is still designed to make you feel bad and encourage you to pay.

Personally I prefer purchasing the game (paying for it once) and being equal to all other players. Players should be rewarded for playing the game, not by amount of money they throw. Sadly it works, so it's an easy-money for the developers..... and even worse thing is, that the better it works, the more of that garbage we see nowadays. Gaming industry goes doooooooooooooooooown. I miss the times, where there weren't even DLC's. 

Honorable mention goes to Terraria, where you don't need to ... basically "buy updates". 

 

TL;DR
Lootboxes are fine, as long as no money is involved.
MTX is BLEH and should be banned.

 

Speaking of lootboxes...

Spoiler

My name appeared on everyone's screen, am I famous yet?

jk

 

[Photon Jet 5,493]

I reckon they should be banned as they involve gambling to players which leaves a bad taste in our video-gaming experience. They're nothing but cash grabs which sometimes hardly reward players for doing so. If micro-transactions are gone like what happened in Star Wars Battlefront 2, we won't fall victim under the deadly sin of gluttony. We want video-games to be enjoyable without these methods.

If they are like Splatoon 2 or the Yugioh World Championship series where you play games to get in-game money without the use of micro-transactions and boot boxes, it shouldn't be a problem. We want more games to be like that. That way, we can enjoy what makes them fun.

  

[EpicEnergy 23,245]

In my opinion, only the lootboxes should be banned, most of the other microtransactions are fine.

Edited August 22, 2019 by EpicEnergy

[Denim&Venöm 20,408]

Ban them both. They've only hurt the quality and reputation of video games since their inception.                

[The Historian 518]

I'm ambivalent about loot boxes. On one hand, they're of great benefit to the industry. With the continuing rise in production costs for larger budget titles, continual revenue streams versus the pay up front model gives back to the people who make games without requiring extra effort making content. However, the way they've been used is the main issue with them. They're treated as a cash grab instead of a fun extra. Many games make you feel as though you must spend extra money to keep up or to look cool. Very few iterations of loot boxes and the like have actually made anyone feel good about spending money on them, because they feel so forced. And they're usually too expensive so it really feels like you're getting fucked instead of rewarded for being a good customer.

While they have great potential benefit, their current implementation will inevitably lead to their ban instead of remaining a nice extra people can opt into.

Edited August 19, 2019 by The Historian

[Rainbow Dash 1,473]

Depending on the game, microtransactions arent that big of an issue. I play Warframe on the PC which has micro-transactions. I have bought a few premium packs of currency which only saved me time, and gave me more aesthetic choices. I didnt have to do this, nor was i pressured to do so. It didnt change anything about the game other than i had pretty stuff to look at. 

Loot boxes are different, as they actively promote gambling. Ive seen friends drop upwards of 200 dollars on loot box bundles that had worse odds than a state lottery. 

[Pentium100 2,296]

Normally I would be OK with microtransactions and even loot boxes, but there is a big problem - companies get too greedy. They then design the game around the microtransactions so that the player are "strongly encouraged" to spend real money. Loot boxes and premium currency are ways to trick people into spending more.

Premium currency decouples the prices of items from real money value, so you do not see that you are spending $10 for something. You spend 400 gems, which you buy for $10, but since the actions of buying the gems and buying the items are separate, it is easier to forget the "exchange rate".

Loot boxes trigger gambling addiction in people prone to them. It does not matter if you can win real money or not, the whole idea is exactly the same. Even if you do not get addicted, you still spend more money on the loot boxes as opposed to buying the item that you want outright. What is even worse is that the odds of getting good items can be changed at will (and can be different for different players - you buy a lot of loot boxes - lower chance for you) and are not mandated by any law. Unlike, say, a casino where the gambling machines have to have a certain percentage of winnings - it would be easy to rig a machine to never pay out anything, but if you get audited and that is found out, expect some large fines.

Children are more susceptible to getting addicted (probably not shocking) and, at least in my country, they are not even allowed in a casino (as a comparison, children are allowed in a bar, just not allowed to drink alcohol) even if it's just to watch the adults gamble.

Game companies know this and they count on it. They know that a lot of people won't spend any money (or very little) on the game, so they want to get the "whales" - people who spend thousands of dollars on in-game items. Games are optimized for microtransactions on purpose - playing the game without spending real money should be just fun enough for you to play and seriously consider spending money on the items that would make it more fun to play: if it's too fun, then you won't spend money and if it's not fun enough you won't play the game at all. 

 

I think that cosmetic microtransactions are kinda OK, but the game should be rated at least teen (no to getting little kids to empty the bank accounts of their parents). Pay-to-win is not and loot boxes are gambling. If you want to put loot boxes in your game, then it should be rated adult only and placed together with the porn games.

[The Historian 518]

On 8/27/2019 at 1:06 PM, Pentium100 said:

I think that cosmetic microtransactions are kinda OK, but the game should be rated at least teen (no to getting little kids to empty the bank accounts of their parents). Pay-to-win is not and loot boxes are gambling. If you want to put loot boxes in your game, then it should be rated adult only and placed together with the porn games.

That's probably overstating things a tad. It's not the concept that's the problem, it's the current implementation. It's a free for all cash grab at present and that makes them look worse than they are. At a basic level, they're a revenue generator, which is fine but treating them as they have been - solely about revenue - will lead to their downfall. Even though the game sucks, League of Legends does microtransactions and lootboxes quite well, as does Blizzard with Overwatch. Microtransactions need to be seen as a benefit to save you time rather than a cash grab. When used as a means to save you time or provide non-essential functionality, they're great. Unfortunately, that's not what we've ended up with.

To put it more simply, you should feel good about spending your money and actually want to do so, rather than feeling like you've been forced to do so. Either to keep up, or to placate the subconscious need to "look cool." Those are bad reasons.

Edited August 29, 2019 by The Historian

[RDDash 19,244]

Loot boxes had been a real problem in the past as a near scandalous gambling mechanics in video games. Ban them with no mercy.

Micro-transactions are okay, an entire Chinese video game industry is built on micro-transactions, and that is the only way they know how to play it.

Edited August 29, 2019 by R.D.Dash

[Pentium100 2,296]

16 minutes ago, The Historian said:

To put it more simply, you should feel good about spending your money and actually want to do so, rather than feeling like you've been forced to do so

Yea, too bad it is not possible to put thins into law. However, I still dislike loot boxes because they are essentially gambling (triggers the same parts of the brain as a slot machine). Non-essential non-random microtransactions can be OK, depending on implementation. Buy loot boxes for 0.1% chance of the thing you want - no.

[Brony Number 42 10,090]

It is not the job of the governmemt to keep you from making bad purchase decisions. Should collectible junk be banned? If that was the case then I would have a lot more money.

You are not entitled to games. This is not a necessity like food. We could debate laws against gouging during an emergency. But there is no way you can argue that the government needs to tell game companies that they need to be fair. If you don't like it then don't buy it. 

And don't say that it preys on children. Since when do children have credit cards? Parents meed to learn to say no.

[The Historian 518]

14 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Yea, too bad it is not possible to put thins into law. However, I still dislike loot boxes because they are essentially gambling (triggers the same parts of the brain as a slot machine). Non-essential non-random microtransactions can be OK, depending on implementation. Buy loot boxes for 0.1% chance of the thing you want - no.

You can't put that into a law. The only way to make the change is to stop buying the damn things. Unfortunately, it's harder to change consumer patterns than it is to legislate the practice out. Unfortunately, that's the direction we're heading. The game industry will lose a powerful revenue generator if they don't wise up.

[Jedishy 3,549]

Wanting to ban a type of sale because some people are unable to control themselves is as sensible as saying lets ban cars because drunk drivers or speeders kill people yearly. Or lets ban McDonalds because people cant put down the fork. Or lets ban hammers because people kill each other with them. 

In short its saying lets ban something because I dont like it or people make bad decisions. No the government is not there to wipe your bottom and clean up your mistakes. So either stop buying them and force the market to change or they deserve to be around so long as the consumer decides to pay for them 

[Brony Number 42 10,090]

First they banned loot boxes, but I didn't stand up because I didn't buy them.

Then they banned micro transactions, but I didn't stand up becuase I don't play those games.

Then they banned on line play, but I didn't stand up because I don't play on line.

Then they banned violent games, but I didn't stand up because I don't like violent games.

Then they banned all games and there was nobody left to stand up for me.

[Pentium100 2,296]

11 minutes ago, The Historian said:

Unfortunately, it's harder to change consumer patterns than it is to legislate the practice out.

Yes, because the companies have very smart people working for them, who know how to market things. If it's a game you really want you may get it despite the loot boxes etc and that's all they need.

1 minute ago, Jedishy said:

Or lets ban hammers because people kill each other with them.

And yet, a lot of things are banned. Devices have to pass certification for safety (if it has a metal case, it has to be grounded etc), there are various requirements on new cars (emissions, safety etc) and  even old cars (every car in my country has to pass inspection every two years - I cannot just drive it until parts a falling off - if they see a rust hole or bad brakes I have to fix them). It is forbidden to sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors and all cigarette packs have to have disgusting images of what my happen to you if you smoke. Minors are forbidden to even enter a casino to watch adults play (in comparison, minors can enter a bar, just they cannot drink alcohol). Smoking is forbidden in a lot of areas.

So, I do not see a problem with classifying loot boxes as gambling (since that's what they are) and placing the same restrictions on them as on a casino (online or physical). Adults only, same type of license, the ability of someone to ask to never be allowed in.

[Jedishy 3,549]

3 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

So, I do not see a problem with classifying loot boxes as gambling (since that's what they are) and placing the same restrictions on them as on a casino (online or physical). Adults only, same type of license, the ability of someone to ask to never be allowed in.

That argument makes as much sense as saying lets ban a sticker machine or prize machine you put a quarter into to get a randoms sticker/prize. All this is, is saying " we dont have self control so lets beg pappy gubbament to clean our bottoms " 

[Pentium100 2,296]

Well, yes, people do not have self control. Just look at the smokers, alcohol, drug and gambling addicts. Can you change the people  so that everyone has self control? No. So, I guess just sacrifice them to the corporations on the altar of profit then?

Your argument could also be extended to abolish all standards and requirements. Your new TV puts 220V on the case? Well, just don't buy it or use gloves when touching it. Your food contains lead acetate as a sweetener - well, you can just not buy that too (oh, but there are no requirements to put that on the label, so I guess you will have to do analysis on all of your food to find out if it has lead or not).

In my opinion, some protection from the government is needed, because the large companies are much stronger (because they have more money) than people. Addiction happens because people do not have self control and some people are more prone to addiction than others and companies are good at figuring out how to cause an addiction. Children have even less self control and are even more prone to addition than adults (they are children after all), so no company should be allowed to exploit them and get them addicted - whether it's smoking or loot boxes.

And I do not want to ban the loot boxes - just get them regulates the same way as other forms of gambling.

[Jedishy 3,549]

27 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

No. So, I guess just sacrifice them to the corporations on the altar of profit then?

Do you want to ban fast food? Why not all food? Cause you can make poor food choices even without fast food. So what do you want the government to tell you what to eat and ration your food for you? No? Oh well then I guess the answer is the same here. People need to control themselves or their kids or they suffer the consiquences of their failure to be responsible adults. 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Your argument could also be extended to abolish all standards and requirements. Your new TV puts 220V on the case? Well, just don't buy it or use gloves when touching it. Your food contains lead acetate as a sweetener - well, you can just not buy that too (oh, but there are no requirements to put that on the label, so I guess you will have to do analysis on all of your food to find out if it has lead or not).

No but that is a cute false equivalency. Expecting honest labeling and not allowing inherently unsafe products is not the same as a clear risk taken by those that either should know better or those that the adults should be monitoring. The two are so far removed legally and ethically its some amazing stretching for you to reach that far. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Children have even less self control and are even more prone to addition than adults (they are children after all), so no company should be allowed to exploit them and get them addicted - whether it's smoking or loot boxes.

No parents should be responsible and watch their kids and ensure they cant just buy random stuff. If parents suck so bad that they cant manage that then maybe we should consider taking their kids or locking them up for being neglectful? I mean why not if we want to punish companies why not punish the person with ya know the actual responsibility to control their lives or their kids? 

 

[Pentium100 2,296]

So, in your opinion, the operation of casinos should be less regulated than it is now?

 

As for your other arguments, I'll split my response in two parts:

1. Adults getting addicted: Certain people are more prone to getting addicted than others. While squeezing every cent from such a person is very profitable for the casino, it is bad for society. That person will start getting welfare and may turn to crime to get more money to gamble. So, it is bad for me, even though I may never step inside a casino my whole life, since now I'm more likely to get mugged and may have to pay more taxes to compensate for the loss of money from that person. Leaving him to starve to death is not an option, since then he will definitely turn to crime (and I'll either get mugged or will have to pay for his food in jail). Which means that even though I personally may not ever gamble, I would like the government try to protect that person from addiction. Same could be said for alcohol - I don't drink, I do not care if you drink in moderation, but I do not really want to support the career alcoholics. And yet, there is no other option.

2. Children: Children are more prone to addiction than adults on average, which is why alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are forbidden for them. Yes, some find a way to get drunk etc, but fewer than it would be otherwise. An addicted child will end up as an addicted adult (see point #1 for that) and may bankrupt his parents, resulting in more people to support with my tax money. While parents should look after their children and make sure they do not get addicted, not all parents are great. Some parents are addicted themselves, some are plain bad parents. However, if the state took the children from everyone who was less than an ideal parent, first there would be a huge uproar and whatever government proposed this would not be re-elected (assuming they would even survive until the end of the term). Second, it would put a huge load on the state to look after the children. Third, I do not think that growing up in an orphanage is that awesome for children compared to growing up with loving parents, even if those parents are a bit stupid.

 

What is wrong with my proposal that the loot boxes be regulated (that would include regulating the chance of winning) just like regular casinos? This would mean classifying the games as adult only, just like porn games. Adults would still be able to buy such games no problem, so your choice would not be reduced. Children would not be able to easily get them, which, IMO, is also good. Or do you really want the children to be exploited just so that some big company gets a bit more money?

 

By the way, in my country, there are strict requirements for food that is sold in schools. The child can go to a fast food place if one is nearby, but is not able to buy unhealthy food at the school.