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

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

 

Well, we could say the same thing about the whole game, right? Online gaming certainly is a luxury, so it doesn't have to be affordable for everyone...

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

>

> Well, we could say the same thing about the whole game, right? Online gaming certainly is a luxury, so it doesn't have to be affordable for everyone...

 

It is a luxury as those in impoverished nations cannot afford it. Gaming is in no way mandatory to live. Just like skins are not mandatory to play the game. All they do is change the visual of your character but they have zero impact on anything else you do when playing the game. You’re don’t gated behind any content for not having a particular skin.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

>

> Well, we could say the same thing about the whole game, right? Online gaming certainly is a luxury, so it doesn't have to be affordable for everyone...

 

Playing the full game is not affordable for everyone.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

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

>

> Well, we could say the same thing about the whole game, right? Online gaming certainly is a luxury, so it doesn't have to be affordable for everyone...

 

True. What's your point? Are you saying the game is priced different in other companies to facilitate a non-luxurious status? Or that the price tends to carry the same price across borders thus the notion that exchange rates shouldn't matter? If the argument is that the skins are simply over-priced, I can agree with that but what does that have to do with the income of the people in Hungry or Silicone Valley?

[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.

 

I'm sure this is likely the confusion here.

 

AAnet doesn't set the prices, most likely NCSoft regulates that and they likely set those prices using data of the market of digital goods, not the income of the contries or its people living in those areas. If the market of a specific area/country won't facilitate the value set by that market, usually that area is just kitten out of luck and will either not be able to play or have to jump through hoops to play another region's version of the game.

 

And I honestly don't consider the players who won't or cannot purchase things from the game as "freeloaders", more like "power gamers", in that they will have to "brute force or not at all" most things in these types of games. Gamers like that add to the community by being warm bodies to fill the game with which I believe is getting harder and harder to do as the market for online games shift or if the market happens to be saturated with a specific type of game.

[Will Lucky.8703]

Due to the ESRB basically saying the only change they’ll make is to put a random sticker onto boxes saying may include additional optional transactions which can apply to any game with any form of add on content...

 

Yeah the government will probably come down on them, lesson has been regulate it properly or the government will come swinging at it far harder than self regulation would have (IE imagine if every game with micro transactions had to be rated M, EA would have to sell M rated Madden/FIFA.) States will go forward first, Federal might if there is a government change anytime soon.

 

Europe its near inevitable within the next two years leglsation goes forward within one body and potentially others. Here in the UK we have a similar situation in that this government won’t budge, but the opposition which has a reasonable chance of getting in within the next couple of years? They have a higher chance as a handful of the opposition would propose regulations themselves.

 

Seriously, if the regulators know their history I would seriously take a step to decrease the chances of government intervention. Many governments won’t create a finely detailed plan to solve the flaws they’ll drop a hammer on the problem. The major issue is the ESRB and ESA are funded by the gaming industry, they probably won’t take it seriously.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

Everyone here is still missing the main point ... you don't OWN anything in this game. You pay to ACCESS. The equivalent comparison is putting a token in a slot machine, press the button and it tells you the result, you get to hold whatever you win AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK. You do not OWN what you 'win' in GW2. You simply get access to what you won.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"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.

 

Oh, my bad then.

 

I'm not sure how much more they can learn from it though. Like I said before, it's a rather common understanding and those that set prices are the market itself, not the countries, so Anet/NCSoft have to set the prices so as to remain competative in the market or vanish in a cloud of vapor.

[Palador.2170]

A few expanded thoughts on the subject, from the folks at Extra Credit:

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Palador.2170" said:

> A few expanded thoughts on the subject, from the folks at Extra Credit:

>

>

 

They’ll probably go the route that the real world value for a particular item is for the access to it. Making bought items some intangible property that players could own seemed a bit of a stretch.

[usnedward.9023]

> @"Tenrai Senshi.2017" said:

> > @"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.

>

> 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.

 

This is something I never thought of but many times (not always) an item is introduced at a reduced cost then brought back later at the original intended price. Example: My thief I run P/P Staff in WvW and even in PvE. I tried Deadeye didn't care for it. Rifle skin comes out for 490 gems (I believe that was the introductory price) for a limited time and goes away. I like the skin but no use for it. Fast forward a month or so and I decide to try deadeye for real this time. I start with a meta build (good starting point but never do I follow meta) and build upon that and BAM! I am now in love with deadeye and found a build that works for me and even increases my kill ratio =) So what is the point? The rifle sin is for sale again at 700 gems for 7 days. POO! Well I pony up y gold for gems and now have a shiny new rifle and half the gold I used to have. SO would it be safe to say "Okay...we made some cash n this and maybe in a few months offer again at a lower gem cost". Well that may piss off the masses who paid 700 gems. but like you stated a movie sells for 25 bucks and 1 year down the road it sells for 15 and so on. Good point but don't know if that is economical is this type of game mode of F2P with cash shop.

>

> > 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.

 

How does Blizzard justify $25 dollar mounts when they already hacking into your wallet monthly? ANET depends on sales of game and gems to keep us with content. 20 for mount skin I do not think is all that expensive if you really really want it. I don't see a need because I am on my mount for traveling and that's about it and WvW no mounts. The mount pack gamble thingy was a huge debacle on ANETs part and they have learned from that I hope. Even though I did not purchase it was an interesting topic for a long while.

 

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> the thing with loot boxes in GW2 is that you always get more then what you payed for, purely looking at gem prices VS item gem prices it's always a win.

> keys are 125 gems, you can't buy anything for 125 gems you get from chests, there is always something more expensive coming out of it.

 

Not true at all you can buy 5 Transmute charges for 125 gems.

 

[sorudo.9054]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > the thing with loot boxes in GW2 is that you always get more then what you payed for, purely looking at gem prices VS item gem prices it's always a win.

> > keys are 125 gems, you can't buy anything for 125 gems you get from chests, there is always something more expensive coming out of it.

>

> Not true at all you can buy 5 Transmute charges for 125 gems.

>

 

but you still get more from the chest, that's my point.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Palador.2170" said:

> > A few expanded thoughts on the subject, from the folks at Extra Credit:

> >

> >

>

> They’ll probably go the route that the real world value for a particular item is for the access to it. Making bought items some intangible property that players could own seemed a bit of a stretch.

 

I wouldn't say probably .. I would say definitely. it's always been the line any MMO takes. When they ban accounts, they can do so because you don't own them, they do. Same here. You can buy all the keys and open all the chests you want, but you never own any of that loot, Anet does. You simply paid for a service to open chests and access what was inside.