Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

[mercury ranique.2170]

It is the Belgium minister who wants to have a ban (and in the news it seems he is ill-informed about the matter). The next step is that the EU is going to take a stance. They do take advices serious. The most important one will likely be the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (the organisation that gives out the PEGI-rating, for those in NA, that is the EU Equivalent of the ESRB). They have said that lootboxes are not gambling but are more compared to e.g. pokemon cards. This is some time ago, and since then we had the BF2 situation. I imagine at best, they will draw a line for things that BF2 does, but GW2 shouldnt worry too much.

 

Having said that, be carefull with those BL-chests and adoption licenses. Never pay more then you can afford

[TexZero.7910]

Hawaii is also putting together legislation so that might move the ball along faster than anticipated.

[Danikat.8537]

> @Bartender.1674 said:

> > @Feanor.2358 said:

> >

> > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> >

> > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

>

> From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

 

It might depend on _where_ it raises the age rating.

 

In the USA there's 2 different 'adult' ratings - M (Mature) which is 17+ but not legally enforced, meaning kids can buy it but the store should check a parent is ok with it, and AO (Adults Only) which is 18+ and legally enforced. On top of that a lot of retailers will refuse to stock AO games because they want their store to be seen as 'family friendly'. (It's even more absurd with music where some places will refuse to stock anything with a Parental Advisory sticker.)

 

In the EU all age ratings are legally enforced (technically even 3+ but that's pretty pointless since 3 year olds don't have ID and very rarely buy games themselves) but 18+ games are widely available. Anywhere you can buy games you can buy 18 rated games and they'll be mixed in with all the others. So an 18+ rating is much less of an issue.

[Ardid.7203]

Loot Boxes in general ARE gambling, period. How they assign responsibilities around this is what can affect or not the game. Is the player equally responsible than the developer? Is there an intrinsic manipulation from the seller's side? Is gambling addiction a consequence the owners and players are able/ready to take? Etc.

IMO, RNG is bad "by nature", except when used to add unpredictability to actual actions from the characters in world. Any action destined to remove RNG from the player (off world) experience can only be seen as an improvement.

[Erasculio.2914]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> It is the Belgium minister who wants to have a ban

 

It's [not only him](http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/11/22/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behaviour-of-loot-boxes).

 

[Zedek.8932]

Yeah, so?

Any sort of symbolism of the stuff happened between 1939 and 1945 is bannd here (Germany) and do you see it being banned and punished in other countries?

Also, Belgium,... Just wait what Ireland will say since during their economical crisis, they pulled in all the gaming industry with their advantages (ridiculous low taxes, English-speaking, European territory and low taxes of course). Little Belgium will be the Chihuahua in a pen full with Pitbulls, German Shepherds and Huskies..

 

Yes, we talk about EU and European Union (the latter is a big pile of garbage and only helps officers that wouldn't get a job in the public labour market) but still, everything's tied together somehow.

Excelsior.

 

Edits: Having a hard time not to intefer with the politics forum rule, but the entire thread is about that matter.

[OGDeadHead.8326]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> We'll see how happy the players are when the prices rise. Which they will.

 

We'll see how happy Anet will be when even less people buy stuff because they raised prices too much.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> Yeah, so?

> Any sort of symbolism of the Third Reich regime is bannd here (Germany) and do you see it being banned and punished in other countries?

> Also, Belgium,... Just wait what Ireland will say since during their economical crisis, they pulled in all the gaming industry with their advantages (ridiculous low taxes, English-speaking, European territory and low taxes of course). Little Belgium will be the Chihuahua in a pen full with Pitbulls, German Shepherds and Huskies..

>

> Yes, we talk about EU and European Union (the latter is a big pile of garbage and only helps officers that wouldn't get a job in the public labour market) but still, everything's tied together somehow.

> Excelsior.

 

True, but it does mean that direct Nazi references are limited in International releases. Obviously they are used where necessary to the core product, like a WWII game or Wolfenstein, but in cases where direct reference to historical Nazis is less necessary, games tend to use vague stand-ins, people who look kinda like Nazis, but technically aren't.

 

Likewise, just because one country bans loot boxes, it doesn't mean that all games would instantly stop using them, but it does mean that other countries might follow suit, and it means that game companies would have reason to choose between making two different products, one with loot boxes and one without, or whether it's simpler to just develop a single product that can succeed in all markets without loot boxes.

 

Given that in games with P2W loot boxes, those aspects are fairly integral to core gameplay, if they were forced to remove them in a single country, the result would either be an unplayable game, or a game that is inherently much more *fair* than the default version, and if so, it's hard to justify to customers why that country gets a fair game while instead you're working *them* raw at both ends.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > >

> > > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> > >

> > > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

> >

> > From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

>

> It might depend on _where_ it raises the age rating.

>

> In the USA there's 2 different 'adult' ratings - M (Mature) which is 17+ but not legally enforced, meaning kids can buy it but the store should check a parent is ok with it, and AO (Adults Only) which is 18+ and legally enforced. On top of that a lot of retailers will refuse to stock AO games because they want their store to be seen as 'family friendly'. (It's even more absurd with music where some places will refuse to stock anything with a Parental Advisory sticker.)

>

> In the EU all age ratings are legally enforced (technically even 3+ but that's pretty pointless since 3 year olds don't have ID and very rarely buy games themselves) but 18+ games are widely available. Anywhere you can buy games you can buy 18 rated games and they'll be mixed in with all the others. So an 18+ rating is much less of an issue.

 

AO is not legally enforced. The government can't enforce it, it would be considered censorship.

[apharma.3741]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > >

> > > > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> > > >

> > > > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

> > >

> > > From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

> >

> > It might depend on _where_ it raises the age rating.

> >

> > In the USA there's 2 different 'adult' ratings - M (Mature) which is 17+ but not legally enforced, meaning kids can buy it but the store should check a parent is ok with it, and AO (Adults Only) which is 18+ and legally enforced. On top of that a lot of retailers will refuse to stock AO games because they want their store to be seen as 'family friendly'. (It's even more absurd with music where some places will refuse to stock anything with a Parental Advisory sticker.)

> >

> > In the EU all age ratings are legally enforced (technically even 3+ but that's pretty pointless since 3 year olds don't have ID and very rarely buy games themselves) but 18+ games are widely available. Anywhere you can buy games you can buy 18 rated games and they'll be mixed in with all the others. So an 18+ rating is much less of an issue.

>

> AO is not legally enforced. The government can't enforce it, it would be considered censorship.

 

It’s not censorship if the scenes and content are of an adult nature and so require a more developed mind.

 

Put it like this, you wouldn’t give alcohol to your kids till they were old enough not only to physically handle it but also be responsible about it, why would you give their brains the same thing in a non physical way, in this context gambling which has been shown to be addictive.

[MMAI.5892]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

>

> Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

>

> Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

>

> The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

 

My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

 

What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

 

I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

 

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > It is the Belgium minister who wants to have a ban

>

> It's [not only him](http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/11/22/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behaviour-of-loot-boxes).

>

 

Wow, the headline is misleading. Hawaii is not calling for a ban. Only one representative is.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> > > > >

> > > > > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

> > > >

> > > > From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

> > >

> > > It might depend on _where_ it raises the age rating.

> > >

> > > In the USA there's 2 different 'adult' ratings - M (Mature) which is 17+ but not legally enforced, meaning kids can buy it but the store should check a parent is ok with it, and AO (Adults Only) which is 18+ and legally enforced. On top of that a lot of retailers will refuse to stock AO games because they want their store to be seen as 'family friendly'. (It's even more absurd with music where some places will refuse to stock anything with a Parental Advisory sticker.)

> > >

> > > In the EU all age ratings are legally enforced (technically even 3+ but that's pretty pointless since 3 year olds don't have ID and very rarely buy games themselves) but 18+ games are widely available. Anywhere you can buy games you can buy 18 rated games and they'll be mixed in with all the others. So an 18+ rating is much less of an issue.

> >

> > AO is not legally enforced. The government can't enforce it, it would be considered censorship.

>

> It’s not censorship if the scenes and content are of an adult nature and so require a more developed mind.

>

> Put it like this, you wouldn’t give alcohol to your kids till they were old enough not only to physically handle it but also be responsible about it, why would you give their brains the same thing in a non physical way, in this context gambling which has been shown to be addictive.

 

Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > >

> > > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> > >

> > > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

> >

> > From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

 

 

Pretty sure there is a situation in one of the LW stories where the Inquest blow Scruffy up and are on the verge of murdering her horribly were it not for your PC showing up in the last second to save the day.

 

That's pretty savage as far as a child character is concerned.

[mazut.4296]

I never really thought about it because this has no effect on me, but it might trigger the gambling dependence in kids. Maybe they have good arguments there!?

[Rhiannon.1726]

> @Ardid.7203 said:

> .... Any action destined to remove RNG from the player (off world) experience can only be seen as an improvement.

 

In this case every kind of bag (and unid. gear) would have to be removed from the TP as well.

 

You can gamble 29 times with mount skins. With something like ToT bags you can gamble nearly indefinitely.

[apharma.3741]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @apharma.3741 said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > > > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Games don't make remotely enough profit to warrant a gambling license, so that's a no-go. My guess is, if they can slap 18+ and keep what's working, they'll just do that. I expect the average paying customer is a folk with a job, not a kid with access to dad's credit card anyway, so they likely won't be losing much by getting an 18+ rating.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The alternative would be to remove the chance element from sales and increase prices accordingly. I'd be reluctant to try that, it seems riskier.

> > > > >

> > > > > From what I remember Anet went through quite some length to ensure that Taimi as a child character wouldn't wind up in direct combat (the reason why she's always inside scruffy), because that would immediately raise their age rating to 18+. I don't know how much this would weigh in when RNG lootboxes would have to go as a consequence, but it does suggest that they value their current 12+ rating.

> > > >

> > > > It might depend on _where_ it raises the age rating.

> > > >

> > > > In the USA there's 2 different 'adult' ratings - M (Mature) which is 17+ but not legally enforced, meaning kids can buy it but the store should check a parent is ok with it, and AO (Adults Only) which is 18+ and legally enforced. On top of that a lot of retailers will refuse to stock AO games because they want their store to be seen as 'family friendly'. (It's even more absurd with music where some places will refuse to stock anything with a Parental Advisory sticker.)

> > > >

> > > > In the EU all age ratings are legally enforced (technically even 3+ but that's pretty pointless since 3 year olds don't have ID and very rarely buy games themselves) but 18+ games are widely available. Anywhere you can buy games you can buy 18 rated games and they'll be mixed in with all the others. So an 18+ rating is much less of an issue.

> > >

> > > AO is not legally enforced. The government can't enforce it, it would be considered censorship.

> >

> > It’s not censorship if the scenes and content are of an adult nature and so require a more developed mind.

> >

> > Put it like this, you wouldn’t give alcohol to your kids till they were old enough not only to physically handle it but also be responsible about it, why would you give their brains the same thing in a non physical way, in this context gambling which has been shown to be addictive.

>

> Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

 

This is about gambling not pornography, gambling has been known to cause as many problems as alcohol. Both are addictive and both are symptoms of addiction which is a psychological issue. Both are (sale of alcohol and use of gambling) restricted to adults because they require a more developed and responsible mind to avoid the harmful effects.

 

This thread and loot boxes is about gambling.

[Rhiannon.1726]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

 

Protecting children isn't censorship.

 

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Rhiannon.1726 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

>

> Protecting children isn't censorship.

>

>

It's Art. It's censorship. Even the ESRB says the government can't enforce the AO rating because of censorship issues. Stop pushing ignorance. The ESRB rating system is entirely voluntary. The government has nothing to do with it. It was created to keep the government out of video games. There will be no laws against loot boxes. The industry will prevent that by including loot boxes in their ESRB ratings.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @Rhiannon.1726 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

>

> Protecting children isn't censorship.

>

>

 

I seriously doubt that the loot boxes are really causing issues with children. People are just using that as an “appeal to emotion” argument to support banning the loot boxes. Children are not being targeted (how could companies single them out?) and they’re not the primary ones purchasing them solely based on their limited income.

 

This is just people that dislike loot boxes doing everything that they can to get them banned. Little do they know that companies will just find and alternative which will probably not be any more favorable.

[apharma.3741]

> @MMAI.5892 said:

> > @apharma.3741 said:

> > Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

> >

> > Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

> >

> > Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

> >

> > The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

>

> My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

>

> What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

>

> I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

>

>

 

Really good analysis though you missed out that the mount idea sort of blew up in their face and has probably cost them more (not just sales of mount skins but player approval) even if people did get twice as many skins as they normally would. Like you say though we will have to wait and see what’s next however I have categorically told them to kitten themselves if they think I will pay 2000 gems for a single mount skin.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @costepj.5120 said:

> Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

 

Yeah. it's like the Net Neutrality thing in the US. YAY FOR MORE CORPORATE CONTROL AND LESS GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!

 

Seriously, grow a brain. It should be obvious to anyone that RNG boxes for real money is an unethical and predatory gaming practice that needs to get shut down, or, at least, heavily regulated.

[Vagrant.7206]

> @costepj.5120 said:

> Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

 

Regulating gambling is not a nanny state function. Look at any state with gambling. The only difference is that this gamble happens to have gone unregulated for a significant period of time.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @apharma.3741 said:

> > > Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

> > >

> > > Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

> > >

> > > Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

> > >

> > > The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

> >

> > My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

> >

> > What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

> >

> > I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

> >

> >

>

> Really good analysis though you missed out that the mount idea sort of blew up in their face and has probably cost them more (not just sales of mount skins but player approval) even if people did get twice as many skins as they normally would. Like you say though we will have to wait and see what’s next however I have categorically told them to kitten themselves if they think I will pay 2000 gems for a single mount skin.

 

I've seen comments on youtube from people not related to GW2 that game earned a reputation of "yet another lootbox scam". That's good. Anet deserve this.

[Rhiannon.1726]

> @Ayrilana.1396 said:

>

> I seriously doubt that the loot boxes are really causing issues with children. People are just using that as an “appeal to emotion” argument to support banning the loot boxes. Children are not being targeted (how could companies single them out?) and they’re not the primary ones purchasing them solely based on their limited income.

>

> This is just people that dislike loot boxes doing everything that they can to get them banned. Little do they know that companies will just find and alternative which will probably not be any more favorable.

 

I don't mind loot boxes. My comment was only directed at the post from DarcShriek, which sounded like restricting age **in general** is censorship.