Loot Box legislation and the future of RNG items in the BLM

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > People certainly don’t consider ecto gambling as an issue.

> Because no real money is involved.

>

>

 

Unless you considered real money being involved if they purchased gold with gems to ecto gamble. If the RNG aspect were removed to that level then perhaps there wouldn’t be any issues.

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I wish people would stop arguing about the definition of gambling — it's a distraction from whatever it is that people are actually worried about.

>

> * Do BL Keys encourage "kids" to spend more money than they should?

> * Do they take advantage of people with poor will power?

> * Are they a reasonable tool for funding a non-subscription game? What if it's a subscription game?

> * MMOs are full of RNG. What specifically makes BL keys different? How much does it matter that people can choose to convert in-game gold to gems? Would it be different if these were available in game for laurels plus gold?

> * How much does the BL Statuette system alleviate concerns?

> * Is this more of a problem with phone & browser games? Or is it something that MMOs should also worry about it?

> * If any of the above is true, is it something appropriate for government intervention? If so, is _regulating_ loot boxes the best way to go about preventing or reducing the issues?

> * Regardless of the merits, why is this such a hot button issue for some of us? And why do many of us not "get" the concern(s)?

 

 

That didn’t take long. My for the children remark was a joke and here you come taking it seriously. In the US because loot boxes arent hazardous to a child’s health any attempt to curtail loot boxes could be considered censorship. You are against government censorship aren’t you? Also Children can’t spend too much money because legally they can’t be given credit. Also with your reasoning why stop at loot boxes. All advertising is aimed at getting people to spend too much money. As an adult I would hate to see my hobby regulated due to children. Kitten the children. If the can’t behave then they shouldn’t be here

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> How far removed would the RNG aspect have to be from the Black Lion chests in order for it not to be considered gambling from a legal standpoint (if it is ever actually deemed as gambling)? People certainly don’t consider ecto gambling as an issue.

 

Loot boxes are not gambling from a legal standpoint. The RNG has nothing to do with it. Consider a pack of baseball cards. The concept is the same as a loot box yet buying them is not considered gambling. There is no difference between loot boxes and packs of baseball cards as far as gambling regulations are concerned.

 

Should we consider the sale of Kinder eggs as gambling also?

[Ashen.2907]

Please all powerful, all knowing, all wise, and supremely benevolent government...come take care of me. Dont let me make decisions for myself. Protect me from myself. As one who is merely an adult I should not be allowed to act on my own behalf.

 

Oh, and dont forget to prevent me from parenting my own children. You, in all your glory, alone can make every decision for each and every one of us, your citizens, no, your children.

 

 

/s.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > These changes are for the sake of protecting vulnerable individuals who may become exploited. However, it doesn't do anything of the sort. Those vulnerable individuals will still be exploited by micro transaction mobile games (which are growing far faster than any other loot box type of"gambling"), will still end up suffering from RNG and inflated prices that must be ramped up to counter the void created by removing loot boxes.

> If you haven't noticed, lawmakers _are_ starting to pay attention to microtransactions in mobile games. It may be slow, and each change may be small, but there were several of those in EU in the last years.

>

 

And apparently you don't get it.

 

Ultimately, playing legislative whack-a-mole with any and every avenue or manner to make a buck will just leave us all with Newground flash games. At some point, you have to stop treating people like children and let them burn for their spending mistakes. And for the legit children, let their parents feel the heat for their bad decisions in raising their kids.

 

You say it's a slow process, but what's the end game here? Bring the industry back to how it worked in the good old days? That's impossible. Technology has pushed to far forward.

 

 

 

 

[usnedward.9023]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"usnedward.9023" said:

> > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > > @"usnedward.9023" said:

> > > > You do realize that a Casino and ANET do not FORCE you to do anything. This is the point that keeps getting missed. Don't like the outcome don't play. Also the other point is real money does not need to be spent as you can trade gold for gems.

> > >

> > > Casino's don't force you to gamble, but there are still laws and legislation in place to stop people underage from gambling in them. The reason is simple, gambling can be addictive and subsequently destructive to the gambler, and allowing people underage to play and possibly develop addictive tendencies is regarded as irresponsible and unlawful (for the same reasons alcohol and cigarettes are only sold to people of age, despite also being optional consumables).

> > >

> > > In other words, if loot boxes are ruled as being a form of gambling through new legislation, then it doesn't matter whether it is optional or not, companies selling them might find themselves being restricted in some form, or may have to change the ratings for their games so they are only available to players above the age limit for gambling in their countries. I assume ANet's addition of a guaranteed, consistent reward in their new iteration for BL chests is an effort to circumvent their boxes being defined as gambling, but we still don't know what the parameters for any new laws, if they are introduced, might be and whether or not ANet has done enough to remain outside of those parameters.

> > >

> > > Of course, it all falls in the realm of speculation right now, but the reality of potential laws being passed is very real, and I think questioning ANet's stance on the subject, even if just as a matter of interest, is not necessarily a bad thing. I doubt we'd get an answer though, because ANet may not feel safe enough to give one at this point in time (right now is probably a "wait and see" period). Of course, it's fine for everyone to have their own opinion on Black Lion Chests, and everyone is free to like or dislike them as they please, but laws - or even just a general negative reception in the industry - can change trends, irrespective of whether we personally agree with them or not.

> >

> > How would you regulate GEM Cards in stores? How would you regulate little Johnny taking mom's CC? How would you regulate Mom and Dad giving in? How do you regulate junior opening a new account and "saying" he is 18? How do you regulate [Many Options Here]?

>

> I don't know, I am not the one deciding on such regulations. That being said, you could ask the same question for age restricted games being sold to minors, which happens all the time. It doesn't stop the games from getting the age restriction rating though, and the restriction can prevent sales in the cases where parents are attentive when it comes to the games they buy for their children.

>

> >

> > Well, ANET could regulate you can buy X amount of GEMS a month and then the player base who can afford and play responsibly would be upset. I understand the gambling aspect I truly do as gambling is horrible in my family. Thank God it didn't pass on to me but again there are bigger fish to fry.

>

> You can't reasonably be expected to stop all illegal behavior online, but again, setting age restrictions does create more of a bottleneck, which helps prevent sales to under-aged players from happening. Regardless, the mere possibility of having to change their game to an 18+ rating could be enough to make ANet abandon RNG loot boxes in favor of relying on direct sales of items. It really depends on what the pros and cons are for them, with regards to a more limited audience vs spending trends on loot boxes.

>

> >

> > I asked earlier in this post and never got an answer... HOW MUCH are you willing to pay out right for what's in the BOX? If BLC are found to be gambling many people will be right back here complaining "ANET now wants to charge me $25 for a skin... a wardrobe piece... $150 for a perma contract and so on". Guess what...people will pay it.

>

> For me personally, I'm fine with paying 600 - 800 gems for items I like. As long as it is within reason. Obviously it depends on the item. In fact, I think we wouldn't be having this debate in the industry to begin with if companies just gave players a choice between trying to get an item through RNG, or buying it directly. One game I think got a nice balance was Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm. They have loot boxes for cosmetics and such that you can buy or earn through playing, but every single item that you could possibly get from those boxes can also be bought directly, either through in-game currencies or with money. The choice to buy an item directly is often enough for someone to avoid the temptation of gambling for it. The issue for me or others is when such an option does not exist.

>

> Still, I personally think ANet's iteration is a lot less unpleasant than most, because you can still at least earn BL keys in game. However, I would still prefer it if I could just buy what I want directly and save myself the grief of RNG.

>

> >

> > As an example, Blizzard has monthly fees ON TOP of a cash shop selling $25 dollar mounts. Is that abusive? They sell a coin so you can sell for gold. Is that abusive? The economy is so wrecked in that game that if you start fresh you almost have to buy the coins to get anywhere in the game so you can get some gold. Is that abusive? The answer is NO. It is a business model and unfortunately people will go broke for these MMOs. It is not just one but many games that build success on our money. Either we pay up front or over time. IF YOU KEEP BUYING KEYS THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SELL THEM.

>

> I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. You are making a comparison between selling items for a premium price and the concept of RNG loot boxes. Those are two separate matters, that warrant separate discussions. Please note, that players are not arguing against gaming companies making money, and there are plenty of ways to make money through direct sales without relying on RNG loot boxes. But some people overlook that simple fact.

 

You make good points and I applaud you (YAY!) for furthering the conversation. I will say the comparison I was making with the mounts is spot on. I am not talking about the RNG mount pack skins sold but the individual ones ANET has sold for $20. You cannot get those from BLC. The other point that there is a monthly fee on top of a cash shop. We only have a cash shop plus game purchase.

 

As far as 600 - 800 gems for items if BLC was removed is a huge wish. Keys I am sure is a large income for them and I think you would see average of 1000 gems and more for most items ofc factoring in what item.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> People are heralding the intervention of government in matters that do not need government and cannot see that the help they will get will be insufficient, inefficient and just harms the industry trying to entertain you. It's baffling.

 

I agree with government staying out of it. However, with some exceptions, I believe game developers are only trying to entertain us as little as they can get away with while siphoning as much of our money as they can out of our accounts and into theirs. My take on ANet is that they're on the benign side of that equation.

 

So, what can consumers do if they don't want government parenting them and their kids, but dislike the way (some) games are monetized? Self control. Don't spend, and if necessary, don't play. In other words, consumers are doomed.

[Palador.2170]

I think that the real fix isn't to consider changing the BLTC, but to change the gemstore.

 

The real problem here isn't "you gamble to win things", but "the only way to get some specific things is by relying on luck". If everything in the BLTC was also available outside of it with no RNG, then the "must gamble to get" argument disappears.

 

Now, that's not to say that it needs to be cheap. OR that it needs to be for sale directly for gems. The Perma-contracts, for example, could be available for a high amount of Black Lion Statuettes. Because you get at least one statuette with each chest, that means that there is a set cap on how much it can cost. And, if you're REALLY lucky, you might even get it for less.

 

That's not to say that the BLTC can't be improved, however. I think that it would be a good idea for ALL loot boxes (digital and physical) to start listing the various degrees of rarity for everything, and the odds of each in every draw. If each level has a range of rarities within it (example: If it lands on a "Rare", but from the rares some items are weighted to be more likely for that spot), then that too needs to be listed.

 

If ANet (or any other game company) thinks that people will stop buying the loot boxes with these changes, then they also need to review the loot boxes and make them more appealing to players without breaking these rules. If ANet asked players to brainstorm on interesting but non-game damaging items to put into BLTCs, I'm sure we could come up with a few winners.

[Ohoni.6057]

Ideally ANet would remove the BL Chests _before_ they are legally required to do so, just because it's the right thing to do, but I imagine they'll hold out until someone delivers a warrant.

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Fremtid.3528" said:

> > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > > @"usnedward.9023" said:

>

> > It's possible that buying revive orbs with gems/money is worse than Black Lion Chests. You get a clear advantage in the game with them. You can almost force your group to beat 100cm Arkk with low skill if everybody has just enough revive orbs. It's not "cosmetic" (whatever that really means) and costs money.

>

>

> This is not only false its RIDICULOUSLY false. There's a cooldown for revive orbs and if you use them too many time in a row the cooldown ends up being like 2 days or something until you waypoint. So you can only "die" so may times and use a revive orb until you crap out. Beating a 100 CM Arkk with low skill on the premise that a gemstore stash of revive orbs will carry them through it is next to impossible.

>

>

 

Aren't you a bit hard on me with that? ^^

 

Not even the wiki states that there is a cool down on revive orbs, the item description doesn't tell it either. It's something only those who actually tried to grind through a fight using them learns. And those people don't bother updating the wiki with their knowledge.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

> @"usnedward.9023" said:

> You make good points and I applaud you (YAY!) for furthering the conversation.

 

Ah, thanks, it's good to have an objective conversation with someone where insults and accusations are not being thrown around. Even when people disagree on topics, if they can be civil with their points, it always makes the conversation pleasant.

 

> I will say the comparison I was making with the mounts is spot on. I am not talking about the RNG mount pack skins sold but the individual ones ANET has sold for $20. You cannot get those from BLC. The other point that there is a monthly fee on top of a cash shop. We only have a cash shop plus game purchase.

 

This is an interesting point to bring up. From what I've seen from player feedback, the general consensus is that the 2000 gem mount prices are way too high. If you compare that to, for example, the price of the latest expansion and the content you're getting for each purchase respectively, it's hard to justify the price of the mounts in that context. On the one hand, I am paying around 30 dollars for 5 new maps, a new guild hall, new living story content, hundreds of new pieces of gear, 9 new elite specializations, 5 mounts and their respective standard skins and masteries, etc. The other gives me one skin for a single mount for just 5 dollars less.

 

And this brings up another point, the pricing of digital micro-transactions (though, calling it Micro at 25 dollars is stretching the meaning of the term). This is my take on it:

 

1) Digital items, unlike physical consumables, only need to be made once, and can then be sold an infinite amount of times thereafter without extra production costs. Physical items, on the other hand, have to be continuously produced and have a cost to make each individual item, even after the initial design (for example, manufacturing pencils takes into account the cost of the wood, the lead, the rubber tip, metal framing and the labor cost to make each).

 

2) Bearing point 1 in mind, this means that while the pricing of physical goods is typically based on the cost to produce and distribute said goods, with an added margin for profit, the price for digital items is much more flexible, and can be based around market expectations, or priced in such a way so as to ensure as many sales as possible.

 

3) This means pricing is important. There's a balance you need to achieve based on the players' perceptions of value. Selling an item that costs 30 dollars to a small minority may not grant you more profit than selling it for 10 dollars to a much larger audience. It is not like physical goods where you have to take into account production costs, sometimes pricing cheaper can increase the threshold for profit. Likewise pricing too cheaply can also be detrimental, hence balance is key.

 

4) In my opinion, the 2000 gem mounts, if priced at a lower price point, say 1200 gems, might actually sell better and earn more for ANet. Alternatively, simply increasing the value of what you sell in the eyes of the consumer can help. For example, when the mount packs came out for 2000 gems, which included 5 themed mount skins, I saw WAY more players in LA running around with those, than I ever saw for the individually priced 2000 gem mounts (again, it's not a case where consumers are not willing to spend, rather it's a case of whether the consumer believes they are getting their money's worth).

 

5) Another interesting point is that as production methods for physical goods becomes more efficient and overheads are reduced, or as a product ages, it often becomes cheaper. 4K television sets at launch, for example, were priced significantly higher than they are today. Gem store items, on the other hand, don't see any such price drops over time. In fact, the expectation for some players is, for some inexplicable reason, that the price might or should go up over time. This is a trend we only observe in the gaming industry for some reason.

 

Perhaps we wouldn't be debating price if gem store items followed a similar life cycle as physical goods or even other digital goods (such as movies, initial game sales, etc), e.g. launch at a higher price, then the price comes down over time. That way, those who want it sooner and who have the cash can just spend premium dollars to get their 2000 gem mount right away, while those who feel it's too much can just wait for a price drop further down the line. Unfortunately, we see no such trends in GW2, and so that option is not available. The game is trying to cater to the high spenders, while leaving those with less disposable income at odds with the system.

 

> As far as 600 - 800 gems for items if BLC was removed is a huge wish. Keys I am sure is a large income for them and I think you would see average of 1000 gems and more for most items ofc factoring in what item.

 

Why do you think so though? I mean we don't exactly have the data ourselves, so it's hard to tell whether BL chests give more or less income than direct sales items. And then, even if items did go up in price for that reason, spending 1000 gems on an item may seem like a better alternative to many people, than spending even more than that trying to gamble for it with no success.

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> This is an interesting point to bring up. From what I've seen from player feedback, the general consensus is that the 2000 gem mount prices are way too high. If you compare that to, for example, the price of the latest expansion and the content you're getting for each purchase respectively, it's hard to justify the price of the mounts in that context.

 

I would like to add my thoughts on prices and player opinions, after having talked with some guild members about it recently. I have a few guild members who live in Hungary. The average monthly net income in Hungary is 635 Euros. That's fine if you look at costs for rent and food in the area because those are adjusted to the income level. You can drink a Cappuchino in a Café for 1,30 Euros or a beer for 1,40 Euros. I live in Germany (average net income per month is 2270 Euros) in an expensive area. A coffee here costs 3,50 Euro average.

 

Prices for items in the gem store don't care where you live though. I find 2k gems for a mount skin absurdly expensive, I can just imagine how it appears to players from Hungary and other countries with lower income levels. Would I pay 4% of my net income to purchase a mount skin? Certainly not. That is four times as much as the average German pays for it. Those who live in high income level countries should imagine to pay 8000 gems or 100€/USD122 for a mount skin. That is how ridiculous it is for a good part of the community.

 

If you asked people who live in Silicon Valley or Monaco what they think about the price levels for mount skins or other items, they might say it's fine. But that's simply because it's change for them. If you buy a mount skin while living and working in Hungary, you are either addicted and crazy, or rich.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > This is an interesting point to bring up. From what I've seen from player feedback, the general consensus is that the 2000 gem mount prices are way too high. If you compare that to, for example, the price of the latest expansion and the content you're getting for each purchase respectively, it's hard to justify the price of the mounts in that context.

>

> I would like to add my thoughts on prices and player opinions, after having talked with some guild members about it recently. I have a few guild members who live in Hungary. The average monthly net income in Hungary is 635 Euros. That's fine if you look at costs for rent and food in the area because those are adjusted to the income level. You can drink a Cappuchino in a Café for 1,30 Euros or a beer for 1,40 Euros. I live in Germany (average net income per month is 2270 Euros) in an expensive area. A coffee here costs 3,50 Euro average.

>

> Prices for items in the gem store don't care where you live though. I find 2k gems for a mount skin absurdly expensive, I can just imagine how it appears to players from Hungary and other countries with lower income levels. Would I pay 4% of my net income to purchase a mount skin? Certainly not. That is four times as much as the average German pays for it. Those who live in high income level countries should imagine to pay 8000 gems or 100€/USD122 for a mount skin. That is how ridiculous it is for a good part of the community.

>

> If you asked people who live in Silicon Valley or Monaco what they think about the price levels for mount skins or other items, they might say it's fine. But that's simply because it's change for them. If you buy a mount skin while living and working in Hungary, you are either addicted and crazy, or rich.

 

Yes, this is another good point. Depending on where you live, currency exchange can definitely throw a spanner in the works, so to speak. Because prices are not targeted for local prices for different regions, the posts can shift quite dramatically. Even then though, you can still compare one product to another from the same provider based on the same exchanges, and question the pricing purely based on that context (hence why I compared the expansion's price to the price of the premium mounts, as opposed to comparing it to other outside factors).

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Fremtid.3528" said:

> > > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > > > @"usnedward.9023" said:

> >

> > > It's possible that buying revive orbs with gems/money is worse than Black Lion Chests. You get a clear advantage in the game with them. You can almost force your group to beat 100cm Arkk with low skill if everybody has just enough revive orbs. It's not "cosmetic" (whatever that really means) and costs money.

> >

> >

> > This is not only false its RIDICULOUSLY false. There's a cooldown for revive orbs and if you use them too many time in a row the cooldown ends up being like 2 days or something until you waypoint. So you can only "die" so may times and use a revive orb until you crap out. Beating a 100 CM Arkk with low skill on the premise that a gemstore stash of revive orbs will carry them through it is next to impossible.

> >

> >

>

> Aren't you a bit hard on me with that? ^^

>

> Not even the wiki states that there is a cool down on revive orbs, the item description doesn't tell it either. It's something only those who actually tried to grind through a fight using them learns. And those people don't bother updating the wiki with their knowledge.

 

There's a debuff that you get when you use them good sir. Please play the game before going to spew the nonsense you did in the previousbpost.

 

The straw-reaching is very strong within these posts.

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> Please all powerful, all knowing, all wise, and supremely benevolent government...come take care of me. Dont let me make decisions for myself. Protect me from myself. As one who is merely an adult I should not be allowed to act on my own behalf.

>

> Oh, and dont forget to prevent me from parenting my own children. You, in all your glory, alone can make every decision for each and every one of us, your citizens, no, your children.

>

>

> /s.

 

Pretty much my thoughts to the folk who keep trying to put out like lootboxes are some sort national issue. I would LOVE to see you guys speak about actual issues that is going on within the world.

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> There's a debuff that you get when you use them good sir. Please play the game before going to spew the nonsense you did in the previousbpost.

 

What's wrong with you? I already replied to Fremtid and said that I didn't know about the cool down, it is not documented anywhere! The only thing I found was "Revive Sickness" but I couldn't find anything about it's duration, if it's stacking, how long it will be after additonal use of revive orbs or anything else. The "nonsense" I wrote was merely a wrong assumption on my side. So far, nobody could even tell me what the penalty is on revive orbs. When you use the first, how long until you can use another one? When you used the second one, how long does Revive Sickness last after that? Do you know?

 

I bet 90% of the players don't know that there is a cool down after you used a revive orb. It's not something you experience in normal gameplay. I almost never use any revive orbs, I'm pretty good at dodging. So please stop acting like my post was ridiculous.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > This is an interesting point to bring up. From what I've seen from player feedback, the general consensus is that the 2000 gem mount prices are way too high. If you compare that to, for example, the price of the latest expansion and the content you're getting for each purchase respectively, it's hard to justify the price of the mounts in that context.

> >

> > I would like to add my thoughts on prices and player opinions, after having talked with some guild members about it recently. I have a few guild members who live in Hungary. The average monthly net income in Hungary is 635 Euros. That's fine if you look at costs for rent and food in the area because those are adjusted to the income level. You can drink a Cappuchino in a Café for 1,30 Euros or a beer for 1,40 Euros. I live in Germany (average net income per month is 2270 Euros) in an expensive area. A coffee here costs 3,50 Euro average.

> >

> > Prices for items in the gem store don't care where you live though. I find 2k gems for a mount skin absurdly expensive, I can just imagine how it appears to players from Hungary and other countries with lower income levels. Would I pay 4% of my net income to purchase a mount skin? Certainly not. That is four times as much as the average German pays for it. Those who live in high income level countries should imagine to pay 8000 gems or 100€/USD122 for a mount skin. That is how ridiculous it is for a good part of the community.

> >

> > If you asked people who live in Silicon Valley or Monaco what they think about the price levels for mount skins or other items, they might say it's fine. But that's simply because it's change for them. If you buy a mount skin while living and working in Hungary, you are either addicted and crazy, or rich.

>

> Yes, this is another good point. Depending on where you live, currency exchange can definitely throw a spanner in the works, so to speak. Because prices are not targeted for local prices for different regions, the posts can shift quite dramatically. Even then though, you can still compare one product to another from the same provider based on the same exchanges, and question the pricing purely based on that context (hence why I compared the expansion's price to the price of the premium mounts, as opposed to comparing it to other outside factors).

 

How is that (exchange rates and income disparities) the fault of Anet, gaming companies or any producer selling good online?

 

At the very most, it's just a basic observation that's understood by anyone with common understanding of opportunity vs outcomes with regards to equality. It's one reason why people migrate to other countries or regions with higher average income.

[Tolmos.8395]

> @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> Pretty much my thoughts to the folk who keep trying to put out like lootboxes are some sort national issue. I would LOVE to see you guys speak about actual issues that is going on within the world.

 

It actually is a bit of an issue, due to how predatory it is. The practice of these in-game lottery boxes take advantage of certain vulnerable people by capitalizing on two big addictions that folks in this country are known to have: gambling and online gaming. Combined together, you have game companies unscrupulously raking in cash from people who are driven by impulse, with no mechanism in place to limit the damage they can do to themselves financially.

 

It’s not like the devs are unaware of this; they aren’t sheltered code goblins who have no idea of the darker aspects of their design choices. It’s simply more lucrative to look the other way.

 

Legislation around stuff like this is partly in place to protect the most vulnerable among us, and this would be no exception. There are people who already do enough damage to their lives with an inability to really step away from games like this. To add an infinite money-sink lottery box to the equation, without any mechanical limitation (like a bartender cutting off a drunkard after x number of drinks), is courting financial ruin for them.

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> How is that (exchange rates and income disparities) the fault of Anet, gaming companies or any producer selling good online?

>

> At the very most, it's just a basic observation that's understood by anyone with common understanding of opportunity vs outcomes with regards to equality. It's one reason why people migrate to other countries or regions with higher average income.

 

It's nobody's fault, but Anet do set the prices for their stuff. They know in which countries and areas their customers live and they know about the income disparities. They decided to sell mount skins that cost 4% of many players' total monthly income. For these players, trading gold for gems makes more sense than for the Silicon Valley folks, which is kind of balancing this out. It would not surprise me if players from countries with more purchasing power basically subsidize players from countries with less purchasing power. I guess everybody is happy with this. For me, it looked like "whales" pay for all the freeloaders and I didn't like that idea. Although there are always whales, it just hit me that the freeloaders are only freeloaders because for them, 25 Euros for a mount skin is even more overpriced as for me, and they cannot simply buy it and drink a cappuchino per day less this week instead. For them, it's more like: not buying groceries this week and buy a mount skin instead.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> You say it's a slow process, but what's the end game here? Bring the industry back to how it worked in the good old days? That's impossible. Technology has pushed to far forward.

>

So what, we should accept that the law will continue to be more and more obsolete, because it couldn't cover things that didn't yet exist when it was written? That the fact the technology evolves so fast it's near impossible for law to keep being 100% current should stop us from trying to make that law evolve alongside technological changes? If we followed that principle, we'd be agreeing on not being able to enforce larger and larger parts of legislation, due to more and more loopholes created by introduction of new things.

 

What you're saying is "the situation is bad, so it's pointless to try to improve it".

 

That's... not a good idea. In fact, to me it seems like a criminally bad idea.

 

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> > @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> > Pretty much my thoughts to the folk who keep trying to put out like lootboxes are some sort national issue. I would LOVE to see you guys speak about actual issues that is going on within the world.

>

> It actually is a bit of an issue, due to how predatory it is. The practice of these in-game lottery boxes take advantage of certain vulnerable people by capitalizing on two big addictions that folks in this country are known to have: gambling and online gaming. Combined together, you have game companies unscrupulously raking in cash from people who are driven by impulse, with no mechanism in place to limit the damage they can do to themselves financially.

>

> It’s not like the devs are unaware of this; they aren’t sheltered code goblins who have no idea of the darker aspects of their design choices. It’s simply more lucrative to look the other way.

>

> Legislation around stuff like this is partly in place to protect the most vulnerable among us, and this would be no exception. There are people who already do enough damage to their lives with an inability to really step away from games like this. To add an infinite money-sink lottery box to the equation, without any mechanical limitation (like a bartender cutting off a drunkard after x number of drinks), is courting financial ruin for them.

 

So you, somehow, unrealistically, want games that has this option of 'preying' lootboxes to be controlled by the government in some form or fashion.

 

What's next?

What else do you want them control next.

 

This is not a national issue.

At least, in NA, they have stated this is not on the same aspect as gambling.

For people that cannot control themselves, it their job and their loved ones job to be pulling them away from 'supposed', mandatory tactics, not Anet's and certaintly not the government.

 

That is like saying we should have a regulation for how much someone games because they may have an addiction.

 

Or a regulation on how much someone eats because they have an addiction.

 

Or a regulation on how much someone smokes because they have an addiction. To be fair, with smoking, they have an age limit, but once you hit of age, what's going to stop the 'addicts, from smoking one or two packs a day.

 

Or a regulation on how much coffee you drink.

 

It goes on and on, and our requests are only to get more and more ridiculous because people do not have self-control from the start or loved ones are not stepping in. Or all of the above. I don't know, I don't know everyone's situation and nor do I want to. Point is, we can't sit here and keep begging our governments to regulate our whole LIVES just because people don't know when to say no. I'm sure you people who are advocating for this don't want that, and neither do I.

 

It's been a topic that has been beaten into the ground more than enough times. And at this point the discussions are either being waved off, not even looked at, or already been discussed. Move on at this point because beating a dead horse is not changing the stances of the ESRB and the ones that finalized their stance.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > > > @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > > > This is an interesting point to bring up. From what I've seen from player feedback, the general consensus is that the 2000 gem mount prices are way too high. If you compare that to, for example, the price of the latest expansion and the content you're getting for each purchase respectively, it's hard to justify the price of the mounts in that context.

> > >

> > > I would like to add my thoughts on prices and player opinions, after having talked with some guild members about it recently. I have a few guild members who live in Hungary. The average monthly net income in Hungary is 635 Euros. That's fine if you look at costs for rent and food in the area because those are adjusted to the income level. You can drink a Cappuchino in a Café for 1,30 Euros or a beer for 1,40 Euros. I live in Germany (average net income per month is 2270 Euros) in an expensive area. A coffee here costs 3,50 Euro average.

> > >

> > > Prices for items in the gem store don't care where you live though. I find 2k gems for a mount skin absurdly expensive, I can just imagine how it appears to players from Hungary and other countries with lower income levels. Would I pay 4% of my net income to purchase a mount skin? Certainly not. That is four times as much as the average German pays for it. Those who live in high income level countries should imagine to pay 8000 gems or 100€/USD122 for a mount skin. That is how ridiculous it is for a good part of the community.

> > >

> > > If you asked people who live in Silicon Valley or Monaco what they think about the price levels for mount skins or other items, they might say it's fine. But that's simply because it's change for them. If you buy a mount skin while living and working in Hungary, you are either addicted and crazy, or rich.

> >

> > Yes, this is another good point. Depending on where you live, currency exchange can definitely throw a spanner in the works, so to speak. Because prices are not targeted for local prices for different regions, the posts can shift quite dramatically. Even then though, you can still compare one product to another from the same provider based on the same exchanges, and question the pricing purely based on that context (hence why I compared the expansion's price to the price of the premium mounts, as opposed to comparing it to other outside factors).

>

> How is that (exchange rates and income disparities) the fault of Anet, gaming companies or any producer selling good online?

>

> At the very most, it's just a basic observation that's understood by anyone with common understanding of opportunity vs outcomes with regards to equality. It's one reason why people migrate to other countries or regions with higher average income.

 

Wait, who said it was their fault exactly? It was simply a point a discussion regarding how it can affect purchasing decisions. ANet may not cause it, but they can observe it and learn from it and perhaps even factor it into their strategies. In any case, there are plenty of online platforms that sell digital goods at local prices for various regions, Steam is one of them.

[Jinn Galen.2468]

I too want some specific items in the BLC like the endless contracts. I'm willing to pay 1000 gems for each of those contracts (of course I won't be buying them in one go) but alas, I'm pretty sure that will forever be a dream. RNG is a good money maker. Just look at Warframe. That game literally thrives off RNG. I'm also of the opinion that you can't compare BLCs with casinos because BLCs actually give you things of value even if they aren't the ones you want. And by value, I mean it's worth the price of the key.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Tolmos.8395" said:

> > @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> > Pretty much my thoughts to the folk who keep trying to put out like lootboxes are some sort national issue. I would LOVE to see you guys speak about actual issues that is going on within the world.

>

> It actually is a bit of an issue, due to how predatory it is. The practice of these in-game lottery boxes take advantage of certain vulnerable people by capitalizing on two big addictions that folks in this country are known to have: gambling and online gaming. Combined together, you have game companies unscrupulously raking in cash from people who are driven by impulse, with no mechanism in place to limit the damage they can do to themselves financially.

>

> It’s not like the devs are unaware of this; they aren’t sheltered code goblins who have no idea of the darker aspects of their design choices. It’s simply more lucrative to look the other way.

>

> Legislation around stuff like this is partly in place to protect the most vulnerable among us, and this would be no exception. There are people who already do enough damage to their lives with an inability to really step away from games like this. To add an infinite money-sink lottery box to the equation, without any mechanical limitation (like a bartender cutting off a drunkard after x number of drinks), is courting financial ruin for them.

 

The best way to protect those most vulnerable is to give a window for a refund. So perhaps a 30 day window to refund purchases of $300 or more and then a ban on that account. This will help those that succumb to such addictions while also isolating them from making future mistakes. This also has less impact on other individuals that are not vulnerable while also disincentivizing those who simply have buyers remorse from taking advantage of the system.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > How is that (exchange rates and income disparities) the fault of Anet, gaming companies or any producer selling good online?

> >

> > At the very most, it's just a basic observation that's understood by anyone with common understanding of opportunity vs outcomes with regards to equality. It's one reason why people migrate to other countries or regions with higher average income.

>

> It's nobody's fault, but Anet do set the prices for their stuff. They know in which countries and areas their customers live and they know about the income disparities. They decided to sell mount skins that cost 4% of many players' total monthly income. For these players, trading gold for gems makes more sense than for the Silicon Valley folks, which is kind of balancing this out. It would not surprise me if players from countries with more purchasing power basically subsidize players from countries with less purchasing power. I guess everybody is happy with this. For me, it looked like "whales" pay for all the freeloaders and I didn't like that idea. Although there are always whales, it just hit me that the freeloaders are only freeloaders because for them, 25 Euros for a mount skin is even more overpriced as for me, and they cannot simply buy it and drink a cappuchino per day less this week instead. For them, it's more like: not buying groceries this week and buy a mount skin instead.

 

They also make the skins non mandatory. They are luxuries. Luxuries don't have to be affordable on the whole, just profitable.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > You say it's a slow process, but what's the end game here? Bring the industry back to how it worked in the good old days? That's impossible. Technology has pushed to far forward.

> >

> So what, we should accept that the law will continue to be more and more obsolete, because it couldn't cover things that didn't yet exist when it was written? That the fact the technology evolves so fast it's near impossible for law to keep being 100% current should stop us from trying to make that law evolve alongside technological changes? If we followed that principle, we'd be agreeing on not being able to enforce larger and larger parts of legislation, due to more and more loopholes created by introduction of new things.

>

> What you're saying is "the situation is bad, so it's pointless to try to improve it".

>

> That's... not a good idea. In fact, to me it seems like a criminally bad idea.

>

 

What I'm saying is, the solution being propose (lay back and give the government more power to control entertainment media) is bad. I mention tech advancing not because it moves too fast for law to regulate, but because of the expectations put on game has inflated their price and upkeep and player expectations have pushed closer and closer toward instant gratification and convenience. This creates games that move faster, complete sooner thus requires more content which speaks nothing about the elevated demands for better graphics, frame rates, lighting and physics...