Game publishers will start disclosing loot box odds

[Tic Tac Toe.1482]

Something I saw in the news today, the big console makers and several large game publishers are going to start publishing the odds of getting items for in-game loot boxes;

https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/7/20758617/ftc-loot-boxes-policy-ps4-xbox-one-nintendo-switch

https://www.theesa.com/perspectives/video-game-industry-commitments-to-further-inform-consumer-purchases/

 

This seems to be an effort to stave off legislation that would either force companies to do this or worse, like banning loot boxes.

 

It would be nice (hint hint:-) ) to get an Anet dev response on this - will we one day see this in GW2's Black Lion chests?

 

What do you guys think?

[Khisanth.2948]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

First, this is coming from the console manufacturers; it's not a "law;" it's just the usual foxes guarding the hen house. Second, what ~~the foxes~~ console trade group wrote was

> * Specifically, this would apply to new games and game updates that add loot box features

> * it would require the disclosure of the relative rarity or probabilities of obtaining randomized virtual items

 

The first wouldn't apply to GW2, unless ANet is _adding_ new sources to the game. And second, ANet already provides relative rarity on all RNG boxes. Unless the industry says "actual probabilities," there's not going to be a _substantive_ change in what we see in game.

[Obtena.7952]

If drop rates from loot boxes affected people's willingness to purchase them, I would think there is a case for sales to increase.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

I wish that would happen, if only to maybe put a stop to those "I bought a kittenload of keys but didn't get what I wanted" posts. Maybe seeing those abysmal odds would make these people understand they were never supposed to get what they wanted, no matter how much money they gambled away. Although I still doubt it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> I wish that would happen, if only to maybe put a stop to those "I bought a kittenload of keys but didn't get what I wanted" posts. Maybe seeing those abysmal odds would make these people understand they were never supposed to get what they wanted, no matter how much money they gambled away. Although I still doubt it.

 

Even if they posted exact odds (which this industry-sponsored initiative will not require), that's doubtful. Humans have generally poor intuition when it comes to probability. Typically, people think that if the odds are 1:10 (as they likely are for getting an uncommon/better drop from BL chests), then it means that opening 10 chests will give them _at least_ one coveted drop. It's unintuitive that over a third of people unlocking just 10 chests won't get that "average" result

 

Worse, we tend to remember sort of bad results for longer than we recall really good ones, and we don't usually remember when we get typical odds.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Doesn't sound like it would affect Guild Wars 2, and even if ArenaNet _did_ publish odds, I don't think it would make a difference to those who purchase BL Chest Keys.

It might engender more wailing and gnashing of teeth, though, as explained above over misunderstanding odds.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Tic Tac Toe.1482" said:

> Something I saw in the news today, the big console makers and several large game publishers are going to start publishing the odds of getting items for in-game loot boxes;

> https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/7/20758617/ftc-loot-boxes-policy-ps4-xbox-one-nintendo-switch

> https://www.theesa.com/perspectives/video-game-industry-commitments-to-further-inform-consumer-purchases/

>

> This seems to be an effort to stave off legislation that would either force companies to do this or worse, like banning loot boxes.

>

> It would be nice (hint hint:-) ) to get an Anet dev response on this - will we one day see this in GW2's Black Lion chests?

>

> What do you guys think?

 

As it's currently described won't apply to PC games, there fore it won't apply to GW2...and the minute they try to ban loot boxes without changing the legal definition of gambling as it's written in the Federal Register I'll be the first person to sue...it can't legally be done at the moment. Also take a look at the list of publishers/developers that have not signed on board yet(they haven't said they won't comply either but it's an interesting list).

[Tiviana.2650]

FTC..stands for Fark the consumers. They are bought and paid for, they did nothing at all to stem the flood of predatory loot box tactics. Corruption runs deep in this country.

[Knuckle Joe.7408]

Just tell me the drop rate of precursors cause in my 7 years of playing GW2 I haven't found one! And the crazy thing is... they can be dropped by almost ANY monster, lootbag and chest.

[Randulf.7614]

It’s a slow move to change. Even Rocket league is ditching its loot boxes altogether. Things will improve, it’ll just take time

[Linken.6345]

> @"Knuckle Joe.7408" said:

> Just tell me the drop rate of precursors cause in my 7 years of playing GW2 I haven't found one! And the crazy thing is... they can be dropped by almost ANY monster, lootbag and chest.

 

Got 1 from a green champ bag in ascalon catacombs and 10 from forging specific 4 of a kind and random exotics.

Funny enough never got one before 2200 hours playing the game.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Knuckle Joe.7408" said:

> Just tell me the drop rate of precursors cause in my 7 years of playing GW2 I haven't found one! And the crazy thing is... they can be dropped by almost ANY monster, lootbag and chest.

 

IIRC from the data collected by people doing a lot of forging it is around 0.7% when forging but keep in mind that even if the drop rate is the same, this is not the actual drop rate but the chance of rolling a precursor after you already rolled exotics rarity so it would need to factor in the exotic drop rate.

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Knuckle Joe.7408" said:

> > Just tell me the drop rate of precursors cause in my 7 years of playing GW2 I haven't found one! And the crazy thing is... they can be dropped by almost ANY monster, lootbag and chest.

>

> IIRC from the data collected by people doing a lot of forging it is around 0.7% when forging but keep in mind that even if the drop rate is the same, this is not the actual drop rate but the chance of rolling a precursor after you already rolled exotics rarity so it would need to factor in the exotic drop rate.

 

There's some data from people opening bags of unID gear, too. I haven't mentioned it here because it's kind of off-topic and there's a lot of caveats (magic find was used in the data and that's not applicable now; drops in the wild don't have a minimum rarity, whereas they do with unID gear; etc.).

 

For an order of magnitude speculation, I wouldn't be surprised if the rate was somewhere between 1 in 250 000 (250k) and 1 in 1 000 000 (1m), for drops from foes. Which means the vast majority of people haven't come close to even a 50-50 chance.

 

Finally, people should remember that years of playing aren't a significant factor, nor are hours played. What matters is how many "rolls" for precursor you've had. You can increase that by loot-bearing-foe rich content (like Halloween labyrinth) or decrease it with low-drop content (like raids or fractals or especially world boss trains).

 

On the whole, ANet's always intended that most people would need to spend resources to get the fanciest stuff, paid for by selling off the metric tons of low-value loot we do get.

[crepuscular.9047]

we are so behind, China written this into their law over 2 years ago

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> we are so behind, China written this into their law over 2 years ago

 

The law also has more useful requirements since it requires publishing the results of opening the boxes as well.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> And second, ANet already provides relative rarity on all RNG boxes.

That's not completely true. Yes, they do show now in preview which rarity category is each drop classified at. We've known for a long time however, that drops from the same rarity category can often have wildly different drop chances.

 

> Unless the industry says "actual probabilities," there's not going to be a _substantive_ change in what we see in game.

Agreed. The developers will fight tooth and nail to give us as little as they can possibly get away with. That obviously is going to include a lot of "concessions" that are marketed as big, but actually are minimal and change almost nothing.

 

In this case at least the concessions come from the console developers, that may have less reasons to be motivated into fighting to keep the status quo on lootboxes. Still, i'm pretty sure the game developers will try to skirt those new restrictions as much as possible. So, we're far more likely to see relative rarity GW2 style (basically, not much change compared to the situation right now), than developers showing us actual percentage numbers.

 

Notice, that not even that would have happened if not for the fact that the outrage levels got so high that the US FTC decided to pay attention. If FTC would decide in coming months that no actions are necessary, i'm quite sure any self-regulation attempts would again grind to a halt.

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > And second, ANet already provides relative rarity on all RNG boxes.

> That's not completely true. Yes, they do show now in preview which rarity category is each drop classified at. We've known for a long time however, that drops from the same rarity category can often have wildly different drop chances.

 

Where in the official statement by the industry trade group does it suggest that "relative rarity" isn't covered by the categories used by ANet?

 

While items in the same rarity category have different drop rates, the "super rare" are all less common than "rare" which are less common than "uncommon" and so on. (There can be confusion because sometimes the drop amounts in the upper rarities can be higher... and since we track total drops, not per roll, we sometimes miss that in the data posted on the wiki and other sources.)

 

It's easy to rephrase my statement to avoid the technical difference, specifically...

"ANet already provides rarity categories for nearly all purchased containers with randomized contents, whether they cost in-game currency or RL currency; as of yet, the industry trade group hasn't stated whether that would meet the requirements for _relative rarity_."

 

That's just a more convoluted way of saying: so far, there's nothing that would require ANet to change practices, even if the rules applied to them (which they don't, since these are being applied to console games).

 

****

I wasn't 100% sure of how vague the statement was until I re-read the industry statement. Full quote is below; here's a partial of the relevant points:

 

> The major console makers ... are committing to new ... policies that will require paid loot boxes ... to disclose information on the relative rarity or probability of obtaining randomized virtual items. ... the console makers are targeting 2020 for the implementation of the policy.

>

> ... several of ESA’s publisher members already disclose the relative rarity or probability of obtaining in-game virtual items from purchased loot boxes

 

* It's a commitment towards future policy; there's no actual policy in place yet.

* The actual policy won't exist for at least a year, presumably to give the gaming studios time to prepare, although... hard to see why ESA couldn't publish the policy now and allow 1-2 years for implementation.

* It's unclear if there are any penalties for non-compliance and, if so, what form those might take.

* The ESA already believes that "several...members" are already in compliance. I'd be curious to know which firms those are, because we could compare those practices to ANet's (or any other studio)

 

Even though I personally don't think randomized loot boxes are inherently bad, I sure wouldn't trust the owners of Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo to tell me whether I should be concerned or not.

 

tl;dr I would hope the chickens would be very nervous hearing the foxes talk about what a good job they are doing guarding the hen-houses.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Here's the official post by the _Entertainment Software Association_ ([membership list](https://www.theesa.com/about-esa))

https://www.theesa.com/perspectives/video-game-industry-commitments-to-further-inform-consumer-purchases/

 

> More than 165 million Americans now enjoy video games, and the number and types of games available continues to grow with our players. More than ever, people are playing video games to connect with family and friends, relieve stress, and enjoy entertaining and engaging experiences. Loot boxes – an optional in-game feature that allows players to obtain various virtual items to use in the game – have recently been the focus of a growing conversation among policymakers, parents, and players. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is hosting a workshop on loot boxes today, featuring a broad group of stakeholders, including the Entertainment Software Association (ESA).

>

> As an industry, we take our role in this conversation seriously. We plan to underscore to the FTC our industry’s deep connection to our community and shared desire to work with policymakers, parents, and players to provide the information they need for a positive game experience. This includes the important work the industry has done to create robust parental controls.

>

> The video game industry relies on creating and sustaining relationships with our players based on fun, but just as importantly on trust. One of the hallmarks of our industry is that we don’t just create entertainment value for our players, we listen to them.

>

> Last year, in response to growing concerns about in-game spending, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) expanded its ratings disclosures to include an “In-Game Purchases” label on packaging for video games that offer the ability to purchase additional in-game content. In addition to checking ratings, parents can also utilize password-protected controls available across video game consoles, computers, tablets, and mobile phones to limit or prevent children from making purchases within games, as well as managing screen time, age-appropriate game content, and other features. For more than 25 years, the ESRB rating system has been a pillar of our industry’s commitment to our players and parents. In fact, the FTC has repeatedly praised the industry’s self-regulatory practices.

>

> To further that effort, several video game industry leaders are announcing new initiatives to help consumers make informed choices about their purchases, including loot boxes. **The major console makers** – Sony Interactive Entertainment, operator of the PlayStation platform, Microsoft, operator of Xbox and Windows, and Nintendo, operator of the Nintendo Switch gaming platform – **are committing to new platform policies that will require paid loot boxes** in games developed for their platforms **to disclose information on the relative rarity or probability of obtaining randomized virtual items.** These required disclosures will also apply to game updates, if the update adds new loot box features. The precise timing of this disclosure requirement is still being worked out, but **the console makers are targeting 2020 for the implementation** of the policy.

>

> In addition, **several of ESA’s publisher members already disclose the relative rarity or probability of obtaining in-game virtual items from purchased loot boxes**, and other major publishers have agreed to do so no later than the end of 2020. Together, these publishers include Activision Blizzard, BANDAI NAMCO Entertainment, Bethesda, Bungie, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Take-Two Interactive, Ubisoft, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and Wizards of the Coast. Many other ESA members are considering a disclosure. The disclosure will apply to all new games and updates to games that add such in-game purchases and will be presented in a manner that is understandable and easily accessed.

>

> Taken together, these disclosures will help reach consumers playing across a variety of games, including PC games and other games delivered outside of the platforms.

>

> We commend our members for their continued efforts to listen to their customers and provide consumers with information to make more informed choices for their gameplay. As the video game industry evolves and new features appear, we welcome an open dialogue among our community. Video games spark camaraderie and build communities that we all enjoy being a part of. We will continue to innovate and work together so that every member of our community can enjoy video games as a fun and enriching experience.

 

**emphasis** added.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > And second, ANet already provides relative rarity on all RNG boxes.

> > That's not completely true. Yes, they do show now in preview which rarity category is each drop classified at. We've known for a long time however, that drops from the same rarity category can often have wildly different drop chances.

>

> Where in the official statement by the industry trade group does it suggest that "relative rarity" isn't covered by the categories used by ANet?

It's a matter of interpretation, i guess. We're being told about the "relative rarity" between rarity categories, but we _aren't_ informed about the relative rarity differences within those categories. And those differences do exist, and aren't small. Although i am sure that Anet is going to claim that what they do is enough to satisfy that requirement.

 

> That's just a more convoluted way of saying: so far, there's nothing that would require ANet to change practices, even if the rules applied to them (which they don't, since these are being applied to console games).

Oh, again, i agree - no game developer is going to change anything unless they will be forced to do so. And even then they will try to get away with as small changes as possible - preferably ones that actually change nothing.

 

This ESA statement seems like exactly that - making it seem like the industry conceded to the wishes of the community and self-regulated, while actually nothing like that happened.

[kharmin.7683]

Curious if publishing this information would have any substantial or significant impact on those who roll through RNG boxes anyway? Would it make a noticeable difference, I wonder?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Doesn't it only apply to new games or games that add 'loot boxes'?

_The disclosure will apply to all new games and updates to games that add such in-game purchases..._

 

Guild Wars 2 isn't new, nor are Black Lion Chests.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> tl;dr I would hope the chickens would be very nervous hearing the foxes talk about what a good job they are doing guarding the hen-houses.

 

Very true, that's a very accurate description of what ESA is.

 

But what if that's all we have to expect? The ones tasked with guarding the hen house seem unwilling to do so, only proposing bills that are expected to fail or even ignoring the matter all together. Gaming is the most profitable entertainment industry at the moment and I assume their lobbying power is proportionate. And while I see how this sentiment serves the _"foxes"_, sometimes a superficial band-aid is better than nothing.

 

At least this way, no chicken can claim ignorance when it's about to get eaten.

[Lilyanna.9361]

Does common, uncommon, rare, and super rare not give you enough of a hint on the odds? Do people REALLY need numbers to put two and two together about rates?

 

Come on now, that's just extra work. Y'all should be smart to determine that the commons are more than not always show up.

[DeanBB.4268]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Curious if publishing this information would have any substantial or significant impact on those who roll through RNG boxes anyway? Would it make a noticeable difference, I wonder?

 

It wouldn't matter to me.

 

And didn't I see the word "paid" in there re: lootboxes? Does the ability to open them via in-game gold invalidate all this?