Disclosure of Loot Box Odds Will Soon Be Required

[Moonface]

Thinking on it just now, I'd expect a work around on this requirement would be to have a system like Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled has. Every item is viewable, and is simply on a rotational system in the in-game store. Currency is earned through playing the game to buy those items, but the item you want may not necessarily be in the store at the time you have enough currency to buy it. So you have to wait. Then they throw in limited time items so now you're enticed to buy those instead of the regular items, and the regular items appear less in favour of the limited items. Low and behold, the ability to buy the currency outright so you don't need to grind for it, and also not wait for the item you want to come around again if you decide to buy that currency on the same day the item you want is available.

Essentially, no odds are involved, but you still have to wait for the thing you want to appear, and it may not even show up unless you buy some other items first to force it to show up. Rather than sifting through loot boxes, you just have to sift through a list until you get to the item you want, but when you do you may find your currency isn't high enough to get it. You can wait, but I can bet that if the system was attached to a bigger game that will still sell well regardless of controversy, i.e. CoD, that it would slap a bigger cap on how quickly you can get currency in-game so as to entice more people to buy the currency, and then waste it to get the thing they want to appear. Since it isn't a loot box system, odds disclosures won't apply.

Or you can take the Apex Legends route and charge $18 for a single skin, and make it limited for a certain period too. Although given the reception to that particular idea on a game that's free to play, I'd say that's just asking for a death sentence if the game was retailing for $60.

[Karo]

Honestly I still blame the companies they are purposely putting lootboxes in everything and making it as easy as possible to purchase them. People also sometimes underestimate their kids in one story their dad bought their son one Fifa pack and he was watching the numbers he was entering and literally remembered and empty their entire bank account. Some don't even require password verification and honesty they want to make it as easy as ever to exploit the shit out of people and even adults can be prey for their corporate leeches.

You got an addiction to gambling your probably going to be EA FAVORITE customer cause they can exploit the shit out of you even more than they can little Johnny and you have a paycheck. Overall I don't think this is enough and something should scare them away from SURPRISE MECHANICS entirely.


Edit: Going to reedit this to clarify originally I made it sound like I was blaming companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, but what I really meant to put is companies that put lootboxes in everything and make it as easy as possible to purchase a crap ton of them like EA, Blizzard, and so on.

[Kazan X. Lemuris]

I actually went looking for that news story. Found it. This is another instance of a parent being an idiot. We're told time and time again to keep your card details away from other people. My online banking app tells me not to enter my password whilst around others, the ATM in my workplace has stickers on it informing users to keep their PIN hidden, the physically-mailed letters from my bank tell me to dispose of them securely in order to keep my data safe.

The father in this story was an idiot for not hiding his card details, and the children are the ones at fault 100%. Even if your scenario came into play, and the console needed a verification of the card's data entry... The kids memorized the guy's card details. Verification wouldn't have helped in this instance whatsoever, as I'm sure the kids would've been able to memorize the password as well. Especially since it was done via the console, meaning there was an on-screen keyboard in view at all times. This is yet again an example of parents not enforcing their due diligence, and as a result suffering for it.

However, I disagree with your initial statement; companies aren't purposefully storing your card data; on Steam, PS4, and Switch (I can't speak for Xbox as I don't own one) you can opt to only enter your payment details for a single transaction, after which it is not attached to your account. You can of course choose to save your data and tie it to your account, but how on earth does that translate to them intentionally keeping it? It's your choice, nobody else's. Do you also blame your web browser for storing cookies when you haven't opted to disable that function?

It's fair to say that companies don't care if you go bankrupt; but let's not beat around the bush here. Do you really care if they go bankrupt? I'd hazard a guess at the answer being 'no'.

Blame the upbringing, not the company. This news story is literally an example of children committing fraud by taking information that wasn't theirs and using it without consent. How you can blame Nintendo for this I can't even fathom.

[Karo]

I wouldn't call the dad an idiot for this instance I mean honestly if you purchase something your kid wanted your kinda expecting them to get the THING THEY WANTED not a gamble mechanic all wrapped up in a pretty package. While you could say the dad should of practiced diligence I don't get why someone should be afraid of their kids taking their information and using it because they didn't get the character they wanted because of EA wanting to milk the money.

As for the whole thing about the credit card being saved is our choice and you are correct with that I'll give you that, but I would care if Nintendo went bankrupt I don't really blame Nintendo for this as far as I'm concerned they don't force lootboxes into their regular games and should be what the other companies strive to be. The company that I do blame though is of course Electronic Arts because they are the KING of stuffing lootboxes into every single thing and getting every little cent they can. If Electronic Arts went bankrupt I would be glad. Though in the end it would probably be meaningless because the highers up's would be fine and they'd move onto another gaming company and fill them with lootboxes.

[Kazan X. Lemuris]

Realistically, it's a case of wilful misuse in my opinion. A bit of digging led me to the instructions for Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Apple's various methods of 'child-proofing' the console. These instructions are (for the Switch at least, I'm still hunting down pdfs of the others) located on the instruction manual of the console. You know, the bit of paper that tells you how to set the console up in the first place. It's definitely negligent in my opinion to allow your children (all of whom are below ten years old according to the article) to access an adult account. This isn't Nintendo's fault, nor is it EA's fault. Say it with me now, the parent is at fault. Entering your card details where someone can watch you do so? Not Nintendo's fault, not EA's fault. Parents are at fault.

There's no 'you could say the parent should've practiced due diligence' about it. We live in the age of the information superhighway where if you don't know something, you can ask your phone, your laptop, your tablet, your watch, or your TV a question and it'll give you step-by-step instructions in moments. There's no excuse, no 'well I didn't know it'd do that!' I'm all for blaming companies for their idiotic faux pas, but I've worked with technology long enough to know that in 90% of all cases, the user did something wrong.

Similar parallel can be drawn from gun control; there's a lot of articles where parents have left firearms unattended, a child has gotten their hands on them and BAM! The kid shoots themselves, or a sibling, or a parent. Once again, the fault for this doesn't lie with the manufacturer of the firearm, nor does it lie with the manufacturer of the bullets. The fault lies squarely at the parents' feet, and this is exactly the same.

Lootbox culture has existed for a long time. I know the US doesn't really have them, but Kinder Eggs are basically chocolate lootboxes; you don't know what toy you're getting, you're just getting something. It might be what you want, or it might be garbage. You don't get a choice. Capsule arcade machines are another example, and are the originator of the name 'gacha' (the sound the crank makes when you turn it). People would spend a ton of money chasing that one particular model they wanted. Sometimes they'd be successful, but most times no. And you know what'd happen? They'd put more money into it. The only real difference was that in the case of lootboxes we're using 'digital' money, which is a bit harder to regulate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying, however.

I don't like lootboxes. I don't like the gacha functions that are permeating gaming. But I'm not so self-important as to claim the developers adding them are the problem. If there were no demand, there would be no supply. I'm all for treating them the same way gambling is treated now, regulated by independent watchdogs and enforced laws.

But in the end, consumers are given all the tools to prevent things like this from happening. They just don't make use of them.

And that's why I call them idiots.

[Karo]

Alright the dad is at fault for this by not securing and protecting his account, but I would argue there is a clear differences from say a Kinder Egg, Trading cards, or anything like that when comparing it say to lootbox mechanics.

When you purchase a kinder egg, gacha, or thing like that you are getting something, but their is no manipulative way that the company is trying to get you to purchase more of these packs and I would say if you enjoy trading cards or gacha it could actually be fun to see what you get, but unlike that in most of the lootbox type games I played I definitely do not get a feeling of fun I honestly get feelings of disappointment like let say in Overwatch here the only thing I got was just sprays and I can earn them for free, but I don't want to have to sit there and grind for HOURS just to get one item this is especially sucky during events where they release skins that go away for a year if you don't get them now and your just a casual player. This honestly makes me want to spend money on lootboxes and it designed that way on purpose they could also make money just by selling these skins, but they make way more money having this lootbox system.

Now obviously I don't think Blizzard is the worst offender of the lootbox mechanics, but the games are built in a way to get people to spend more on them as demonstrated at this lovely developer conference by Torulf Jernstrom.



I doubt that there was any gamer in their life that has said, "You know what the game industry really needs? Gacha mechanics!" Now are their people that enjoy the lootboxes? Their could be because anything is possible, but in general I get the impression that the gamers spending money on lootboxes are most likely like me and aren't buying them because their is a demand for them. They are put into the games because their is a demand for the companies to make more money and frankly I'd rather see companies make money with less exploitative ways than a surprise system.

Overall you yourself said you don't like them and aren't against them being regulated and that honestly what I am hoping for, but even though the parents shouldn't be so careless about their cards and stuff. I still place blame on the companies for getting so greedy that they have to have a manipulative system in their games, to entice children and adults alike.

[Dragon Lord]

When you purchase a kinder egg, gacha, or thing like that you are getting something, but their is no manipulative way that the company is trying to get you to purchase more of these packs and I would say if you enjoy trading cards or gacha it could actually be fun to see what you get

Extremely incorrect. Gacha games are very manipulative in the fact that they make all of the characters people are going to want the most with extremely low pull-rates. When a gacha game has a 5% chance to pull a Rainbow unit, and then that Rainbow has a 1% chance of being the character you want, that's 110% manipulating players into spending money to continue to pull until they have the character they are seeking.

'Whales' will drop thousands of dollars into a gacha game at one time chasing a character they want. There is absolutely, positively manipulation by the company there. If they weren't manipulating the players to get them to spend huge amounts of money, then the best characters would have the same pull rates as the worst characters to make getting whatever character you wanted a lot easier.

The only big difference between a gacha game and a loot box game is that gacha games are usually more generous in allowing you to earn points/currency/whatever in-game to use on pulls, albeit at a much, much slower pace than just spending money to gain said points/currency. Where as it seems most Loot Box systems just require you to spend from the start (although I do know there are some loot box games out there that let you earn them in-game).

Ask any gacha player if they've never been disappointed by doing multiple 10-pulls for a character they wanted and not getting them. You won't have one person say, "I didn't get the character I spent all of my currency on, but that's okay! I had fun pulling!"

[Kazan X. Lemuris]

Your distinction is a little bit flawed. I'll try to break it down.

• Kinder Egg - Poor-quality plastic toys usually run in sets; once a set runs it course it's often impossible to obtain the toys from it outside of private sellers such as eBay. Not obtaining the toy you want gives you two options; cut your losses or purchase more.
  
• Trading cards (for example, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokémon) - Pieces of cardboard usually run in sets; often includes a few 'chase cards' which are short-printed and fairly strong in their respective metas. This means limited supply and that obtaining them is usually only viable via private sellers such as eBay, Troll 'n' Toad, or TCGPlayer. Not obtaining the card/s you want gives you two options; cut your losses or purchase more.
  
• Gacha machines (capsule toys) - Usually plastic models, occasionally metal, usually run in sets; once a set runs it course it's often only viable to obtain from private sellers such as eBay, or if you're very lucky an old, defunct machine that was missed. Not obtaining the toy you want gives you two options; cut your losses or purchase more.
  
• Lootboxes and gacha mechanics in videogames - Digital content with varying degrees of usefulness within their respective games, usually run in sets; once a set runs its course it's usually impossible, or at least far more difficult, to obtain the items/skins/characters you desire. Lack of a second-hand market outside of account selling increases the difficulty further. Not obtaining the item/s you want gives you two options; cut your losses or purchase more.
  

Based on this, we can see that each of these provides one simple motivation to buy more of whichever particular thing you want. Your Overwatch example is actually perfect, because Overwatch's lootbox mechanics offer absolutely zero function in-game; your skill at the game, the way you play the game, it is not impacted by the ownership or non-ownership of this premium content. But as you yourself state, failing to obtain the items you desire pushes you to want to pull for more. If you fail to acquire what you want, you still have the desire to own it, thus making it more likely that you'll purchase more of whatever lootbox or chocolatey egg may hold what you want.

But this is exactly my point. The company creates a desirable item; it could be a cute model of Sailor Moon, it could be a meta-bending trading card like Mystic Mine, it could be a meta-defining unit like Surtr - Ruler of Flame, or it could even be a character skin like Devil Mercy. These are released into the wild, people see them, and they think 'Hmm, I kind of want that'. So they might toss a dollar or two into the pot and see what they get. In some cases, they get it first try and it's wonderful! Most of the time however, they don't. So they might give up and say 'well, good game guys.' Or, they'll throw another dollar into the pot and see where it takes them.

See, there's no more manipulation between a capsule toy and a leopard-print skin for your assault rifle in Call of Duty. In both cases it's something with a finite length of time in terms of availability. The only difference is that nowadays, lootboxes are at the forefront of the media eye... and the fact that lootboxes (and digital gachas) can be obtained without spending money, whereas the others cannot be.

I definitely believe that some form of regulation is the next step forward, though the issue is how exactly to implement it. I was, however, horrified by the recent Apex Legends update which introduced a cosmetic item that cost approximately $220 to obtain. Yikes.

[queenzelda]

EA calls lootboxes; 'surprise mechanics'. Much like surprise toys where a child is surprised by the toys they get when they open them up.

[Karo]

Well that is definitely my derp I wasn't really aware about the whole surprise mechanic issue with all these thing being about the same level as a loot box. Thank you for explaining to me the both of you. Though gachapon sound like the worst and I am honestly kinda surprised that kinder eggs fall into this category too....though it kinda the same with lootboxes the people that don't buy lootboxes aren't the people that they are targeting.

This really does bring up a question should any regulations just effect gaming type gachas or should it effect the whole thing? I'm also just curious if getting free lootboxes along with being able to pay for it create an effect where you are more likely willing to pay for it?

Honestly I'm kinda shocked that they would price a cosmetic item that high I honestly feel like League of Legends overprices their skins, but honestly some of them I would be willing to buy.

@queenzelda
The surprise is it all adds up!

[queenzelda]

Yea, boy does it add up & then some. xD

Anywho; I don't want to be the one defending the parents in the whole debate of they should watch their kids more; or know what their spending; etc. The thing is that parents don't have time for that; yes it's an excuse but it's a very valid one. I asked my sister in law with three young boys why she doesn't want to learn anything about video game consoles & games; & she told me that she 'Doesn't have time.' She's too busy trying to do what she needs to at work without trying to learn something new. Which is a huge problem; parents are too overwhealmed with work & trying to learn something new to them isn't in the cards because it's not expected of them. They have bills due, their kids to feed, little Jimmy has to go to the doctor for what ever; & not to mention school just started.

Most of the posts I've read all are BLAMING the parents; when maybe they should think about if they were a parent. Your busy with work; your busy with your kids; having to run them here; & there. Not to mention that you have to make sure that your kids are feed; & healthy. There's not much time for much else. I see not a lot of empathy towards parents & it's disturbing. I feel that maybe you should maybe walk a few days in their shoes?? I mean; in this world we live in learning something new to most parents is SCARY & takes time away from WHAT needs to be done. Which is getting the kids to school; going to work; paying the bills & all the status quo that goes with being a parent. Yet; most of what I read is anger directed at the parents for being human beings; who just don't have any extra time to put extra energy into something that our society isn't really accepting of; which is learning about gaming & how it works when your a parent. That's something that kids do; you're an adult; you should just know about your job & that's it.

Just because some of us who are adults don't give up gaming; doesn't mean that we have to listen to society. But; I think maybe some of you should look at this from the other side of the fence. Parents aren't the problem; & to say it is: impo is just ridiculous. The way I see it is that parents need to be educated about 'micro-transactions' & how to avoid allowing their children access to their credit card until the child is older. But the fact of the matter is that; it's not going to happen because there's no one out there teaching parents about this crap & until the government actually bans it outright; no one is safe.

[Monocle]

okay this is dumb. how about an actual parent comments?

if you're too busy to learn about your child's interests, don't be a parent because then you're too busy to handle raising them in general. There is no excuse for a parents negligence. And that's just a fact. Children do not have their own banking accounts with debit cards. That's a fact. If children have access to their parents accounts, that's negligence. that's a fact. You are trying to excuse negligence. That's a fact and it's inexcusable.

I have two children and guess what? I've seen so much fucking Ladybug and Cat Noir that I'm honestly sick of it, great voice actors though. Do i care for it? not at all but my children do and that's all the reason I need. If they're too busy, then they are too busy to be parents.

ignoring all of that, if they are too negligent to even invest in the tools that these consoles BUILD INTO THEIR SOFTWARE TO LIMIT THIS, then they shouldn't be parents. period. I'm not trying to be an ass but this is just stupid. It is, and always will be, the parents' fault if their children are doing reckless things behind their backs. The fact that that one kid memorized the numbers and did it without their knowledge means he knew he had access and that it was not okay.

getting back on point, does it need regulation? sure. it is getting excessive. is it gambling? no. it is spending money where you don't get money in return. that's called trading. just because you don't know what you're getting in return, doesn't make it gambling. it makes it stupid trading.

[Kazan X. Lemuris]

I won't speak too deeply on my own upbringing, but suffice it to say that as the youngest of four children, I was nonetheless able to spend a great deal of time with my parents, as well as my older siblings. My father was, at the time, serving in the army, whilst my mother worked in the sales industry. Despite both working fairly intensive jobs, my parents still had time to provide for me and my siblings, and to also take an interest in each of our respective interests, as well as supervising them where necessary. I was reading at somewhere around a seven-year-old level when I entered elementary school, purely because my mother followed my interest in storytelling and books, and my father often would play co-op video games like Streets of Rage with me.

Four kids, two full-time jobs, but still able to spend time with us all.

Now, I'm a mother myself; I have a wonderful, intelligent seven-year-old girl. I work usually 40+ hours a week, which sometimes goes as far as 60. My daughter loves the Harry Potter books, so I read them to her every evening. We watch cartoons together with my fiancée, whom recently began working in law. My daughter and I have been playing Pokémon Let's Go Eevee together as well. She's well-fed, loved, nurtured, and happy. And you know what? I know tons about the things that interest her. You know why that is? Because I actually bother to spend time with her. Because shaping her into a person is my job as a mother, and that's not going to be achieved by me just ignoring her while she sits in front of a console all day.

I honestly can't stand this concept that someone cannot blame parents for bringing their children up poorly. If my child were to steal money from me in order to buy things on a video game console, whose fault is that? Should I blame my bank for putting my information on a credit card? Should I blame the games company for not doing more to prevent this, even though they already provide child-proofing functions?

Nope. It's on me if that happens. Because acting out is a direct reflection upon a child's upbringing.

So you can talk all you want about the things your sister told you anecdotally about this, but if the tale you recite is true, then she's just as negligent as the rest. The functions put in place by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to prevent things like this happening are in the manual. If you're going to spend a few hundred bucks on a piece of technology and then just throw it to your kids without even understanding what it does? It's idiotic. People who do this deserve to have a new hole ripped into their pocketbook as a means to teach them the error of their ways. Children aren't idiots. If you treat them like they are, they'll turn around and surprise you.

However, in summation I'd like to say this; being a parent is one gigantic learning experience. Every single day I'm learning more and more about the nuances of being a mother, of how I can better interact with my child, her friends, how I can help her to be the best she can be. Sometimes it feels like there aren't enough hours in the day. But you know what? That doesn't matter. I'll make time for her because she's the most important person in my life. If I had to give up my job for her I'd do it in a second, and yet you think it's acceptable for parents to just wave their hands and say they've got no time to learn about things related to their child?

Sickening.

[Moonface]

While debating on how much responsibility parents should or should not take is fine, let's not devolve into being uncivil about it please. Pointing out that you think an idea is wrong is fine, but we don't need to try and attack/mock the person behind the idea while doing it, regardless of how much you may disagree with it. Please, keep things clean and civil going forward, whether it be in this thread or another. Thank you.

That aside, I do disagree that parents not having time to educate themselves on a matter relating to their children is an excuse. It may be something a parent isn't aware of to even go and read up about, as my parents certainly do not know of the existence of loot crate systems and until they did, wouldn't consider looking into the matter. However, if the parent is aware of something that their children are doing they do not understand, I think it should be part of being a parent to take the time to know what your child is doing. When the internet was new, I doubt any parent knew what could be on it or what their kids could be doing on it, but that didn't mean parents just let their kids do whatever every time. If a parent was to learn back then that porn was on the internet, they would take measures of some form to ensure their kid does not experience that, whether it be educating their child about it or finding ways to prevent access. A parent doesn't necessarily need to lock their stuff from their kids to stop it, they could also take the path of educating their child about wise spending and that it's unhealthy to be buying loot boxes en masse. Even if you don't understand the mechanics, seeing your child spending too much money on something with little control can still be dealt with without researching a thing. Whether it's loot crates or trading cards or clothes, spending more money than you should, especially when it isn't your own, all has the same conversational outcome of educating the child on being responsible. Loot crates are just another way a kid could empty a bank account, but before those existed I'm sure plenty of kids got a hold of daddies credit card and went apeshit on Amazon with it, and were either punished and/or educated as a result. If the parent doesn't respond to something their child is doing, time isn't the excuse at that point. If a child had a mental health issue a parent didn't understand, we wouldn't excuse them for ignoring it because of a lack of time; we'd question why they chose to neglect something that is of impact to their child.

No parent can be perfect and sure, they're going to make a mistake or overlook something. I wouldn't necessarily expect my child to memorise my credentials on a screen and go about using them, but once I found out they were I would make steps to ensure they a) don't do it again and b) explain to them why that is absolutely wrong to do. Even if something is new and you don't understand it, I think you can still find a way to educate your child about it in a way to kerb the behaviour and prevent them from developing unhealthy habits. Being a parent may be busy work, but it doesn't mean you can be excused for everything as a result. Perfection shouldn't be expected, but at the same time a lack of perfection shouldn't mean you can let things slide when it was clear something could be done. Would you allow a police officer to let something slide they know about just because they're busy or have kids? No. You would question why they didn't take the time to address something they knew was part of the territory they let themselves get into.