Funny how the good comments get all the down votes.
Khaisz
5 years ago
oh ffs, A Slot Machine is technically a “Surprise Mechanics”, but that doesn’t make it “Not a Gambling Machine”.
I seriously hope they doesn’t get a free pass to keep Loot Boxes in games just by saying it.
“The packs, the surprise—that’s fun for people,” she said. “They like earning the packs, opening the packs, building the teams, trading the teams.”
Replace Packs with Slots, Teams with money, Opening/Building/Trading with Spin/Win/Lose
“The slots, the surprise—that’s fun for people,” she said. “They like earning the slots, spinning the slots, winning the money, losing the money.”
Scortch
5 years ago
I think the thing for me lately is the level of greed they show, and how they sell it. This argument they are making just proves it. They won’t come out and say they are pushing for money, no no no, they are offering us opportunities for happiness. It’s gotten to be too much, I refuse to ever buy or play an EA game again, and I pray they lose their Star Wars deal in the future as well.
They’ve gone beyond the DLCs and content packs of the past. It’s now all about how much money they can make. Hell, Tim did a comic about that a few weeks ago! And if someone who can possibly afford to buy all the best stuff the moment the game comes out, and then make it completely unplayable for everyone else, EA doesn’t care! They already got their money! Just look at ever f2p or p2w game app out there! If you want to see real anger, check out Ludia’s forums on the new Warriors of Waterdeep game they just put… Read more »
Tumbleweed
5 years ago
Elon Musk: “It’s not a rocket failure, it’s just a rapid unscheduled disassembly” … all about how you reframe it.
“Poor people used to live in slums. Now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities. And they’re broke! They’re broke! They don’t have a negative cash-flow position. They’re fucking broke! Cause a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area, so many people are no longer viable members of the workforce.
Smug, greedy, well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins.” – George Carlin
I was literally thinking this while I read the comic
Pedro Silva
5 years ago
The main fallacy on the guys argument is when they mention “earning” and not “paying”. That is where the argument falls flat. If you play the game, beat by your skills X level or Y boss and you get a “surprise mechanics”, that is fair game. It’s not gambling or similar. It’s a random reward, for something that everyone could theoretically do, that is implemented in a visually appealing style and very similar to the monster drop on games like Diablo. The issue here is that you don’t earn them, you pay for them. And this makes the same surprise… Read more »
Oh boy. Time to play Devils advocate. Collectible card packs. For say Magic the Gathering? Baseball cards?
Gambling and should be outlawed? Yes or No.
And honestly. I like the system they put in over in SWtOR. You can buy items directly for money. And unlock them for all your characters for money. Or for cheaper you can buy the random packs. They never drop in game. And your decision to get them is entirely your own.
The difference is, if I buy a pack of MtG cards, I then OWN those cards. I can get a bunch of my unwanted cards and try to trade them to someone for a card I need. I have options.
With loot boxes, the only option is to drop in more cash, pull the slot lever and cross your fingers.
It seems rather silly to me to argue that the existence of a secondary market and ability to assign a value to something makes it NOT gambling. If anything, isn’t that CLOSER to gambling because now you’re opening it…you might not get what you want, but you might get something valuable! In any other context, it would be shouted down as Pay-to-Win.
I didn’t say it wasn’t like gambling. CCGs and things of that nature with randomized rewards rely on some of the same triggers in the brain as gambling does; that endorphin rush of thinking “If I pull just one more time, I might hit it big!”. The difference I’m pointing out is that with card games, or randomized collectibles, at least the purchaser has some agency. Whatever you’ve purchased, you OWN. It’s not locked on a server somewhere, controlled entirely by the manufacturer. Once you own them, you have some OPTIONS. You don’t have options with Loot Boxes. They don’t… Read more »
So how does that differ from buying a game on Steam? You don’t OWN the game, as we saw with the Star Control debacle for a while, or those who have had entire libraries locked due to a single credit card purchase problem.
You could say that with a digital game purchase, you know WHAT you’re getting, but a day 1 purchase is as much of a gamble as any casino slot machine.
That’s a really big stretch, dude. Like… laughably big. First of all, we’re not discussing the merits of digital purchases as a whole. We’re discussing BLIND digital purchases. A parallel Steam-based metaphor here would be saying “I want My Friend Pedro on Steam” and you fork over for a $15 loot box and get Deathgarden instead. Still want My Friend Pedro? Buy another loot box and cross your fingers. Suggesting that buying a game day one is a “gamble” just because you don’t know if it’s going to be good or not is a bit of a strawman argument. You… Read more »
“You could say that with a digital game purchase, you know WHAT you’re getting, but a day 1 purchase is as much of a gamble as any casino slot machine.” While I understand the point you’re trying to make, that’s not true. Even at Day 1, you know what you’re purchasing – what you don’t know is whether or not you’ll *enjoy* it. To say that it’s as much of a gamble as a casino or slot machine is to say that so is every movie you see on opening night, every product you purchase that you did not previously… Read more »
Another point worth mentioning is that “physical loot boxes” are at least something you can display, gain value and be sold to collectors, passed down generations of family; virtual loot boxes, As Tim mentions, they are not owned, just licensed. As a result, virtual loot boxes can’t enjoy the same advantages mentioned for physical; want partial proof of this, look to Diablo’s failed real money market. To play devil’s advocate for a second, not taking into account the previous paragraph, virtual loot boxes are remarkably similar to physical ones and i would agree on that point. Something to consider then,… Read more »
You do have options. Its still gambling and I’m more or less fine with it. My Killing Floor 2 account has TONS of unopened crates in it, because I’m not buying keys. I dont play games where the crates cause a problem. I quit playing PUBG when the real life sale value of the pink hot pants got so high that ever server was nothing but cheaters.
I don’t see why gambling for untradeable things is worse than gambling for collectible cards. Isn’t the problem that companies are taking advantage of kids and people with gambling addiction? Whether this is harmful has nothing to do with aftermarket value. I’ve defended lootboxes in the past because I’m able to ignore them, so the result for me is that “foolish” people subsidize my gaming experience. But that was extremely disrespectful of me, since a lot of the victims are kids and gambling addiction is a real thing. Now I think there should be warnings and links to assistance resources… Read more »
I think one thing to consider is that trading cards (at least when I played) had actual distribution, they weren’t purely blind packed the way loot boxes are. Each card pack guaranteed they would give you 1 rare, 3 uncommon and 4 common for example from whatever booster set you were buying from. Loot boxes really take things to one extreme by greatly reducing the odds, raising the prices and greatly increasing the accessibility. Should it be regulated? Probably, loot boxes and digital products for sure practically need it at this point. TCGs and other card collectibes? Well I honestly… Read more »
When I say worse, I mean by, like, DEGREES. Not “one is okay and one is not”.
This isn’t black and white, it’s an issue with lots of angles. And I think a spectrum between good and bad. All I’m saying is that if loot boxes are going to be a thing in games we can’t get rid of, there are BETTER ways to do them, ways that are less predatory.
I can agree with that, Tim! Gambling is gambling, but the resale value is a nice concession to gamers where it exists. I was just coming at this more from the harm angle, than the experience of an average gamer.
It’s interesting you mention the secondary market, when my impression is that games are forbidding trading to prevent secondary markets specifically to avoid the appearance of it being gambling. That is, if games allowed players to buy and sell the items they get, would that make loot box systems more acceptable?
It’s gambling either way (making a cash investment in a game of chance in hopes of a greater reward). What I’m saying is, IF you’re going to do it (and that is not me advocating FOR their use), I think it’s BETTER if the user then has some control and agency over the items they’ve purchased, whatever their perceived value.
So basically you are okay with the loot boxes in LoL? Since you can scrap extra stuff you get for ingredients to get new loot boxes, or buy characters? If the main complaint is just there is no options on what to do with duplicate or trash items, then LoL system allows options.
I have no clue, I have not played LoL in like five years.
But fine, yes, if it allows OPTIONS, than it is marginally higher on the scale between The Best Case Scenario (no loot boxes) and the Worst Case Scenario (super predatory PTW loot boxes).
But let’s be clear here, this IS a scale with shades of gray. So ON that scale, if games are GOING to have lootboxes one way or another, I think there are better ways to do it, and worse ways to do it.
Fair enough. But, policy used in SWtOR and STO. You can trade most of the loot box items. You gat an Ultra Rare ship unlock in STO it announces it and people may contact you to buy it for large in game sums. Does this mitigate the gamble since it is tradeable now? And ostensibly with people interested in the items themselves?
Gambling and should be outlawed no. The difference between a trading card game or any random prize pack for that matter, and digital loot rewards is physicality, you can buy, trade, and sell physical cards legally as once you buy them they are yours, you can’t so that with digital only goods that exist on a private companies servers. Also in say MtG packs you are always guaranteed to get a “rare” in any pack you buy, that is not true in loot boxes where most times to guarantee a rare you have to buy in multiplies of ten and… Read more »
Yeah, lootboxes aren’t similar to trading cards or kinder eggs since you don’t get anything physical and can’t actually trade them or sell them for something you want/need.
Here’s a perfect response for you.
The Game Corner in Pokemon was removed due to it being considered gambling. It involved no actual money, but it copied basic gambling mechanics (random chance of success).
Loot boxes also copies basic gambling mechanics (random chance of success), and also involve actual money, but are not considered gambling.
If you can explain to me why The Game Corner is not ok, and Lootboxes are, I will be greatly impressed.
Ewalker
5 years ago
I am surprised he didn’t just use the games are services, not products argument. I figured they would say that loot boxes aren’t gambling because you can’t actually win anything in a loot box. Anything you “win” is still property of the developer/publisher/copyright/license holder and you are merely being allowed to use it like a service.
They have already made that ridiculous argument for the game itself, why not the loot boxes inside the game.
Padraic
5 years ago
With how they keep trying to find some sort of a way to puss-… oops, soft step, around these issues to deny that they are selling a gambling (“Pay more for possibly better stuff!” is the same mechanic you see in slot machines and craps tables) product.
“I’m telling you, some of this language makes me want to vomit. Well, maybe not vomit. Makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill.” – George Carlin
Isn’t pussy-footing a reference to actual young cats, as their stature and timid nature result in a very light/soft step? I know it trips me up too, coming across some reference that actually isn’t sexual or sexist.
I was trying for a bit of irony and sarcasm. It was meant to showcase how changing language changes the idea. Didn’t mean to confuse you. Sorry for slowing you down.
Him.
5 years ago
They’ve been in this business so long that emotions (happiness, decency, grief) is “no longer a viable use of resources”
Daniel Kuehn
5 years ago
Well, i was interested in this game but because EA held off on pre-ordering when my wife gave me the go-ahead. Seems like a good decision now.
Leon
5 years ago
It’s not “flaming’, it’s “undesirable internet stress relief” Quite ethical.
Raven
5 years ago
“I don’t think we can agree to say that games are addictive,” said Hopkins.
No see The WHO says that gaming is a mental disorder not just an addiction, the main takeaway point is that you can get disability if it’s a disorder, but if it’s an addiction you just get to pay to go to therapy.
Yeah we have the World Health Organization (and the Obama Administration) to thank in the US for the massive explosion of Social Security Disability claims. Basically nearly anything that is classified as a “disability” get you on it now. You’re depressed? Free money. You “can’t stop playing games”? Free money.
I wonder how much it pays.. Does it cover payments for these “surprize mechanics”? xD What else could this be milked for, I wonder (to try and change the assinine logic of WHO, of course).
HonoredMule
5 years ago
My surprise mechanic is not buying any EA title for the last 15 years. I didn’t even know it was a surprise, that I would decline to be so mistreated.
FITCamaro
5 years ago
While I despise many forms of loot boxes, and won’t even argue that they aren’t gambling, they still shouldn’t be illegal or regulated. Why? Don’t want to spend the money, don’t. It’s really quite that simple. Someone with a problem with that kind of reward should stay away from it. The same as an alcoholic should avoid drinking.
And for the children argument, be better parents and either don’t let your kid play the game or don’t give them access to money to buy them. If you do, that’s on you.
Part of the problem is that unlike establishments like casinos or stores that sell lottery and scratch tickets is that the video game industry has little in the way of age verification and control. As it stands a parent can buy their kid a game they aren’t of-age for and everything checks out where other the previously mentioned establishments will literally turn you away if they think you’re allowing a child to gamble because it’s outright illegal. Doubled with the fact that most video games have no age verification beyond the ESRB rating it’s entirely too easy for children to… Read more »
FITCamaro
5 years ago
Also damn that dude must be packing if he’s inside her from that far away.
Kasaix
5 years ago
They get paid enough to ignore things like fact, integrity, and pride to spout complete nonsense.
“It’s not stealing, it’s surprise borrowing. It’s quite ethical.”
More and more lately it seems like companies are forgetting the fact that their entire industry is still supposed to be serving the consumers, not the companies. All too often I’m seeing companies doing things that are entirely within the rules but they aren’t taking the consumer’s wants or needs into account. They act like just because they aren’t breaking any laws that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Made worse by the fact that in spite of whatever publicity they may or may not be getting they’re still getting the money so they don’t think they should have to listen… Read more »
Lilitha
5 years ago
Honestly, if it was just gambling it isn’t really even an issue. Adults can gamble. The biggest problem is when they target children.
Helldemon
5 years ago
Probably the most pissed off I’ve seen Jim Sterling and that’s saying something.
-They make us a promise that Fallen Order will not have “loot boxes”. Yay! -They turn around and have some random representative tell us about these “Surprise Mechanics”.(no doubts so they can throw under the bus later.. she looked way more stressed out than one should for simply having to tell a lie whole denying the real truth) Sketchy AF… I’m *highly” interested in Fallen Order. More so than I was for either BF, and maybe even a bit more than Unleashed when it first came out. But if Fallen Order ends up having these “Surprise Mechanics”, I will be… Read more »
Johnny
5 years ago
OE Tim!!….the person who said this was a women, but you just can’t put a women as the “bad person”, can’t you?….you little twat.
Yes I’m aware it was a woman who said it. But male or female, I didn’t feel comfortable drawing an actual person into the comic, given its subject matter. No matter how much I disagree with their business practice or the bullshit they said, they’re still a person.
I don’t have to explain that to you though, right? You CLEARLY understand being respectful to people online.
24
Yes, there’s obviously no proof that climate change is happening…. Is this the right conference room for the propaganda bill?
Funny how the good comments get all the down votes.
oh ffs, A Slot Machine is technically a “Surprise Mechanics”, but that doesn’t make it “Not a Gambling Machine”.
I seriously hope they doesn’t get a free pass to keep Loot Boxes in games just by saying it.
“The packs, the surprise—that’s fun for people,” she said. “They like earning the packs, opening the packs, building the teams, trading the teams.”
Replace Packs with Slots, Teams with money, Opening/Building/Trading with Spin/Win/Lose
“The slots, the surprise—that’s fun for people,” she said. “They like earning the slots, spinning the slots, winning the money, losing the money.”
I think the thing for me lately is the level of greed they show, and how they sell it. This argument they are making just proves it. They won’t come out and say they are pushing for money, no no no, they are offering us opportunities for happiness. It’s gotten to be too much, I refuse to ever buy or play an EA game again, and I pray they lose their Star Wars deal in the future as well.
They’ve gone beyond the DLCs and content packs of the past. It’s now all about how much money they can make. Hell, Tim did a comic about that a few weeks ago! And if someone who can possibly afford to buy all the best stuff the moment the game comes out, and then make it completely unplayable for everyone else, EA doesn’t care! They already got their money! Just look at ever f2p or p2w game app out there! If you want to see real anger, check out Ludia’s forums on the new Warriors of Waterdeep game they just put… Read more »
Elon Musk: “It’s not a rocket failure, it’s just a rapid unscheduled disassembly” … all about how you reframe it.
“Poor people used to live in slums. Now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities. And they’re broke! They’re broke! They don’t have a negative cash-flow position. They’re fucking broke! Cause a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area, so many people are no longer viable members of the workforce.
Smug, greedy, well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins.” – George Carlin
I was literally thinking this while I read the comic
The main fallacy on the guys argument is when they mention “earning” and not “paying”. That is where the argument falls flat. If you play the game, beat by your skills X level or Y boss and you get a “surprise mechanics”, that is fair game. It’s not gambling or similar. It’s a random reward, for something that everyone could theoretically do, that is implemented in a visually appealing style and very similar to the monster drop on games like Diablo. The issue here is that you don’t earn them, you pay for them. And this makes the same surprise… Read more »
Well put.
Oh boy. Time to play Devils advocate. Collectible card packs. For say Magic the Gathering? Baseball cards?
Gambling and should be outlawed? Yes or No.
And honestly. I like the system they put in over in SWtOR. You can buy items directly for money. And unlock them for all your characters for money. Or for cheaper you can buy the random packs. They never drop in game. And your decision to get them is entirely your own.
Collectible card packs. For say Magic the Gathering? Baseball cards?
Gambling and should be outlawed?
Yes!
The difference is, if I buy a pack of MtG cards, I then OWN those cards. I can get a bunch of my unwanted cards and try to trade them to someone for a card I need. I have options.
With loot boxes, the only option is to drop in more cash, pull the slot lever and cross your fingers.
It seems rather silly to me to argue that the existence of a secondary market and ability to assign a value to something makes it NOT gambling. If anything, isn’t that CLOSER to gambling because now you’re opening it…you might not get what you want, but you might get something valuable! In any other context, it would be shouted down as Pay-to-Win.
I didn’t say it wasn’t like gambling. CCGs and things of that nature with randomized rewards rely on some of the same triggers in the brain as gambling does; that endorphin rush of thinking “If I pull just one more time, I might hit it big!”. The difference I’m pointing out is that with card games, or randomized collectibles, at least the purchaser has some agency. Whatever you’ve purchased, you OWN. It’s not locked on a server somewhere, controlled entirely by the manufacturer. Once you own them, you have some OPTIONS. You don’t have options with Loot Boxes. They don’t… Read more »
So how does that differ from buying a game on Steam? You don’t OWN the game, as we saw with the Star Control debacle for a while, or those who have had entire libraries locked due to a single credit card purchase problem.
You could say that with a digital game purchase, you know WHAT you’re getting, but a day 1 purchase is as much of a gamble as any casino slot machine.
That’s a really big stretch, dude. Like… laughably big. First of all, we’re not discussing the merits of digital purchases as a whole. We’re discussing BLIND digital purchases. A parallel Steam-based metaphor here would be saying “I want My Friend Pedro on Steam” and you fork over for a $15 loot box and get Deathgarden instead. Still want My Friend Pedro? Buy another loot box and cross your fingers. Suggesting that buying a game day one is a “gamble” just because you don’t know if it’s going to be good or not is a bit of a strawman argument. You… Read more »
“You could say that with a digital game purchase, you know WHAT you’re getting, but a day 1 purchase is as much of a gamble as any casino slot machine.” While I understand the point you’re trying to make, that’s not true. Even at Day 1, you know what you’re purchasing – what you don’t know is whether or not you’ll *enjoy* it. To say that it’s as much of a gamble as a casino or slot machine is to say that so is every movie you see on opening night, every product you purchase that you did not previously… Read more »
Another point worth mentioning is that “physical loot boxes” are at least something you can display, gain value and be sold to collectors, passed down generations of family; virtual loot boxes, As Tim mentions, they are not owned, just licensed. As a result, virtual loot boxes can’t enjoy the same advantages mentioned for physical; want partial proof of this, look to Diablo’s failed real money market. To play devil’s advocate for a second, not taking into account the previous paragraph, virtual loot boxes are remarkably similar to physical ones and i would agree on that point. Something to consider then,… Read more »
You do have options. Its still gambling and I’m more or less fine with it. My Killing Floor 2 account has TONS of unopened crates in it, because I’m not buying keys. I dont play games where the crates cause a problem. I quit playing PUBG when the real life sale value of the pink hot pants got so high that ever server was nothing but cheaters.
I don’t see why gambling for untradeable things is worse than gambling for collectible cards. Isn’t the problem that companies are taking advantage of kids and people with gambling addiction? Whether this is harmful has nothing to do with aftermarket value. I’ve defended lootboxes in the past because I’m able to ignore them, so the result for me is that “foolish” people subsidize my gaming experience. But that was extremely disrespectful of me, since a lot of the victims are kids and gambling addiction is a real thing. Now I think there should be warnings and links to assistance resources… Read more »
I think one thing to consider is that trading cards (at least when I played) had actual distribution, they weren’t purely blind packed the way loot boxes are. Each card pack guaranteed they would give you 1 rare, 3 uncommon and 4 common for example from whatever booster set you were buying from. Loot boxes really take things to one extreme by greatly reducing the odds, raising the prices and greatly increasing the accessibility. Should it be regulated? Probably, loot boxes and digital products for sure practically need it at this point. TCGs and other card collectibes? Well I honestly… Read more »
When I say worse, I mean by, like, DEGREES. Not “one is okay and one is not”.
This isn’t black and white, it’s an issue with lots of angles. And I think a spectrum between good and bad. All I’m saying is that if loot boxes are going to be a thing in games we can’t get rid of, there are BETTER ways to do them, ways that are less predatory.
I can agree with that, Tim! Gambling is gambling, but the resale value is a nice concession to gamers where it exists. I was just coming at this more from the harm angle, than the experience of an average gamer.
It’s interesting you mention the secondary market, when my impression is that games are forbidding trading to prevent secondary markets specifically to avoid the appearance of it being gambling. That is, if games allowed players to buy and sell the items they get, would that make loot box systems more acceptable?
It’s gambling either way (making a cash investment in a game of chance in hopes of a greater reward). What I’m saying is, IF you’re going to do it (and that is not me advocating FOR their use), I think it’s BETTER if the user then has some control and agency over the items they’ve purchased, whatever their perceived value.
So basically you are okay with the loot boxes in LoL? Since you can scrap extra stuff you get for ingredients to get new loot boxes, or buy characters? If the main complaint is just there is no options on what to do with duplicate or trash items, then LoL system allows options.
I have no clue, I have not played LoL in like five years.
But fine, yes, if it allows OPTIONS, than it is marginally higher on the scale between The Best Case Scenario (no loot boxes) and the Worst Case Scenario (super predatory PTW loot boxes).
But let’s be clear here, this IS a scale with shades of gray. So ON that scale, if games are GOING to have lootboxes one way or another, I think there are better ways to do it, and worse ways to do it.
Fair enough. But, policy used in SWtOR and STO. You can trade most of the loot box items. You gat an Ultra Rare ship unlock in STO it announces it and people may contact you to buy it for large in game sums. Does this mitigate the gamble since it is tradeable now? And ostensibly with people interested in the items themselves?
Gambling and should be outlawed no. The difference between a trading card game or any random prize pack for that matter, and digital loot rewards is physicality, you can buy, trade, and sell physical cards legally as once you buy them they are yours, you can’t so that with digital only goods that exist on a private companies servers. Also in say MtG packs you are always guaranteed to get a “rare” in any pack you buy, that is not true in loot boxes where most times to guarantee a rare you have to buy in multiplies of ten and… Read more »
Yeah, lootboxes aren’t similar to trading cards or kinder eggs since you don’t get anything physical and can’t actually trade them or sell them for something you want/need.
Here’s a perfect response for you.
The Game Corner in Pokemon was removed due to it being considered gambling. It involved no actual money, but it copied basic gambling mechanics (random chance of success).
Loot boxes also copies basic gambling mechanics (random chance of success), and also involve actual money, but are not considered gambling.
If you can explain to me why The Game Corner is not ok, and Lootboxes are, I will be greatly impressed.
I am surprised he didn’t just use the games are services, not products argument. I figured they would say that loot boxes aren’t gambling because you can’t actually win anything in a loot box. Anything you “win” is still property of the developer/publisher/copyright/license holder and you are merely being allowed to use it like a service.
They have already made that ridiculous argument for the game itself, why not the loot boxes inside the game.
With how they keep trying to find some sort of a way to puss-… oops, soft step, around these issues to deny that they are selling a gambling (“Pay more for possibly better stuff!” is the same mechanic you see in slot machines and craps tables) product.
“I’m telling you, some of this language makes me want to vomit. Well, maybe not vomit. Makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill.” – George Carlin
Isn’t pussy-footing a reference to actual young cats, as their stature and timid nature result in a very light/soft step? I know it trips me up too, coming across some reference that actually isn’t sexual or sexist.
I was trying for a bit of irony and sarcasm. It was meant to showcase how changing language changes the idea. Didn’t mean to confuse you. Sorry for slowing you down.
They’ve been in this business so long that emotions (happiness, decency, grief) is “no longer a viable use of resources”
Well, i was interested in this game but because EA held off on pre-ordering when my wife gave me the go-ahead. Seems like a good decision now.
It’s not “flaming’, it’s “undesirable internet stress relief” Quite ethical.
“I don’t think we can agree to say that games are addictive,” said Hopkins.
The WHO would beg to differ
https://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en/
No see The WHO says that gaming is a mental disorder not just an addiction, the main takeaway point is that you can get disability if it’s a disorder, but if it’s an addiction you just get to pay to go to therapy.
Yeah we have the World Health Organization (and the Obama Administration) to thank in the US for the massive explosion of Social Security Disability claims. Basically nearly anything that is classified as a “disability” get you on it now. You’re depressed? Free money. You “can’t stop playing games”? Free money.
I wonder how much it pays.. Does it cover payments for these “surprize mechanics”? xD What else could this be milked for, I wonder (to try and change the assinine logic of WHO, of course).
My surprise mechanic is not buying any EA title for the last 15 years. I didn’t even know it was a surprise, that I would decline to be so mistreated.
While I despise many forms of loot boxes, and won’t even argue that they aren’t gambling, they still shouldn’t be illegal or regulated. Why? Don’t want to spend the money, don’t. It’s really quite that simple. Someone with a problem with that kind of reward should stay away from it. The same as an alcoholic should avoid drinking.
And for the children argument, be better parents and either don’t let your kid play the game or don’t give them access to money to buy them. If you do, that’s on you.
Part of the problem is that unlike establishments like casinos or stores that sell lottery and scratch tickets is that the video game industry has little in the way of age verification and control. As it stands a parent can buy their kid a game they aren’t of-age for and everything checks out where other the previously mentioned establishments will literally turn you away if they think you’re allowing a child to gamble because it’s outright illegal. Doubled with the fact that most video games have no age verification beyond the ESRB rating it’s entirely too easy for children to… Read more »
Also damn that dude must be packing if he’s inside her from that far away.
They get paid enough to ignore things like fact, integrity, and pride to spout complete nonsense.
“It’s not stealing, it’s surprise borrowing. It’s quite ethical.”
More and more lately it seems like companies are forgetting the fact that their entire industry is still supposed to be serving the consumers, not the companies. All too often I’m seeing companies doing things that are entirely within the rules but they aren’t taking the consumer’s wants or needs into account. They act like just because they aren’t breaking any laws that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Made worse by the fact that in spite of whatever publicity they may or may not be getting they’re still getting the money so they don’t think they should have to listen… Read more »
Honestly, if it was just gambling it isn’t really even an issue. Adults can gamble. The biggest problem is when they target children.
Probably the most pissed off I’ve seen Jim Sterling and that’s saying something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7DFyrOeFeM
-They make us a promise that Fallen Order will not have “loot boxes”. Yay! -They turn around and have some random representative tell us about these “Surprise Mechanics”.(no doubts so they can throw under the bus later.. she looked way more stressed out than one should for simply having to tell a lie whole denying the real truth) Sketchy AF… I’m *highly” interested in Fallen Order. More so than I was for either BF, and maybe even a bit more than Unleashed when it first came out. But if Fallen Order ends up having these “Surprise Mechanics”, I will be… Read more »
OE Tim!!….the person who said this was a women, but you just can’t put a women as the “bad person”, can’t you?….you little twat.
Yes I’m aware it was a woman who said it. But male or female, I didn’t feel comfortable drawing an actual person into the comic, given its subject matter. No matter how much I disagree with their business practice or the bullshit they said, they’re still a person.
I don’t have to explain that to you though, right? You CLEARLY understand being respectful to people online.