FTC Will Investigate Loot Boxes

[Kardonxt]

I think loot boxes are fine when they truly have no value. (ie. you can't buy them, you can't buy keys to unlock them, and you can buy \ sell the contents.)

In their current, most common, implementations however, they generate revenue and clearly have value.

 

[rudy]

NOBODY FUCKING WANTS THEM

Actually tons of people want them that's why some games can fund everything off of them and other games it has become the majority of income. I know its hard to believe but the desire for unpredictable events in a persons life is a pretty core desire in humans. Very few people will actually be happy, even if they think they will, if they get really consistent and reproducible results in life. I can go off on many examples of this in gaming and real life where people made statements like yours but then the market or they themselves proved it wasn't the case. The market has responded with an overwhelming love for loot boxes the proof is in all the games where they are purely cosmetic and people are still forking out money for them.

 

[tetris42]

Actually tons of people want them that's why some games can fund everything off of them and other games it has become the majority of income. I know its hard to believe but the desire for unpredictable events in a persons life is a pretty core desire in humans. Very few people will actually be happy, even if they think they will, if they get really consistent and reproducible results in life. I can go off on many examples of this in gaming and real life where people made statements like yours but then the market or they themselves proved it wasn't the case. The market has responded with an overwhelming love for loot boxes the proof is in all the games where they are purely cosmetic and people are still forking out money for them.

Did you read the rest of my post? I'll repeat the relevant parts again:

1. We're very likely looking at a MINORITY of players influencing this. One whale is worth thousands of non-buying players, this skews the entire dynamics. So you're right in that "the market" has spoken on this. In this instance, "the market" is NOT the majority of paying players, only the ones with the deepest pockets and / or worst impulse control.

2. It sounds like you're misinterpreting people BUYING them with WANTING them. There's a difference. What people WANT is the item they're looking for. If offered the item they want at the EXACT SAME PRICE as the lootbox, it's unlikely they would buy the lootboxes. The only way the manipulation works is if the higher-priced item is hidden behind RNG of possibly getting it for less, making it a psychological manipulation or ONLY being able to buy said item through lootboxes, also making it a manipulation. In EITHER scenario, they're NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE of simply buying the item they want at the same price. They don't WANT the lootbox, that's simply being used as a wall to extract money from the player for what they ACTUALLY want.

3. I didn't mention this in the earlier post, but you brought it up. You're mixing up the element of chance with PAYING MONEY for it. Of course players like an element in chance in gaming. What they don't like is tagged on real world money with it. You're trying to make it sound like people WANT to pay $5 for this:

Of course people like the random element of it. What players DON'T like is paying $5 every time that happens. That experience was FREE in every game prior to lootboxes. Now some do it anyway because they're invested in the game, again, because of manipulation. Are you honestly trying to argue that people PREFER paying EXTRA money for the above experience v. having it for free as a normal part of the game?

In short, don't confuse what a minority of players will shell out money for v. what the majority of players actually want.

 

[mope54]

People are going after the gambling concept and my thought is that isn't going to fix anything. So instead of spending money on booster packs, they spend money on the items. The problem is the same. The addictive nature of having to have the newest thing.

The problem is not the same because "having to have the newest thing" is not an addiction whereas gambling is addictive because of how the process operates on specific areas of our human brains.

Incidentally, the (legal) definition of gambling is: 1. consideration (giving money for something), 2. chance (vs. skill), and 3. prize (doesn't matter if it's worth 1 cent or 100 dollars)

The whole argument that digital goods are "worthless" is not an adequate defense, which is why sweepstakes don't use that excuse. For example, you don't see "the key in this mailer is technically worthless, but it can be traded for a real key to a real car" but you will see, "this key might win a new car, *anyone* can come and try this key and you don't have to make a purchase of any kind to try this key" (no consideration). Every sweepstakes on every cereal box or in any magazine will have a fine print with instructions on how one can submit a postcard for entry if they opt not to purchase anything (again, no consideration).

State run lotteries are questionable...but they're run by the state so whatcha gonna do...
Baseball/trading cards *are* the same conceptually but the courts have so far dismissed legal challenges to them largely based on lack of standing. One of the principles of US law is the concept of harm. If one isn't harmed, or if the harm is negligible, the courts are reluctant to weigh in on the subject.

Lastly, gambling is a highly regulated activity in the United States and it's bizarre to see people in this thread, presumably from the United States, arguing that it isn't. The position of people against these types of activities embedded in video games are being misconstrued. The concern over underage gambling in video games is completely separate from "pay to win" concerns.

As mentioned already, the ESRB could have slapped an AO label on loot boxed content (and juveniles would have still happily consumed all the content their parents' credit cards could handle) and this would be a non-issue (legally).

 

[Advil]

The issue has nothing to do with whether anyone wants loot boxes. As stated, I hate nanny government.

The issue is whether we are going to be consistent about not bombarding our kids with gambling.

You want to make the argument to let teenagers (or a lot younger) gamble on slot machines in casinos then ok, but be straight up about your position.

 

[rudy]

Did you read the rest of my post? I'll repeat the relevant parts again:

1. We're very likely looking at a MINORITY of players influencing this. One whale is worth thousands of non-buying players, this skews the entire dynamics. So you're right in that "the market" has spoken on this. In this instance, "the market" is NOT the majority of paying players, only the ones with the deepest pockets and / or worst impulse control.

2. It sounds like you're misinterpreting people BUYING them with WANTING them. There's a difference. What people WANT is the item they're looking for. If offered the item they want at the EXACT SAME PRICE as the lootbox, it's unlikely they would buy the lootboxes. The only way the manipulation works is if the higher-priced item is hidden behind RNG of possibly getting it for less, making it a psychological manipulation or ONLY being able to buy said item through lootboxes, also making it a manipulation. In EITHER scenario, they're NOT GIVEN THE CHOICE of simply buying the item they want at the same price. They don't WANT the lootbox, that's simply being used as a wall to extract money from the player for what they ACTUALLY want.

3. I didn't mention this in the earlier post, but you brought it up. You're mixing up the element of chance with PAYING MONEY for it. Of course players like an element in chance in gaming. What they don't like is tagged on real world money with it. You're trying to make it sound like people WANT to pay $5 for this:

View attachment 123806

Of course people like the random element of it. What players DON'T like is paying $5 every time that happens. That experience was FREE in every game prior to lootboxes. Now some do it anyway because they're invested in the game, again, because of manipulation. Are you honestly trying to argue that people PREFER paying EXTRA money for the above experience v. having it for free as a normal part of the game?

In short, don't confuse what a minority of players will shell out money for v. what the majority of players actually want.

I think you just want to see it the way you believe. Lots of people just spend like 5-50 bucks I am sure whales exist but I don't think its anywhere near as skewed as you are making it out to be I personally know many people whom have spent as little as $5 and as much as $80 on lootboxes I don't know any whales that spent enough to make up for hundreds or thousands of players. Also I may be misinterpreting people buying and wanting things but to me I don't see the difference. matter of fact is if you paid for something that was completely voluntary as in cosmetic only skins it means you wanted it bad enough to pay for it. Now like all things in life that people purchase there will always be a ton of people who don't like some aspect of it. At the very least they probably don't want it to cost as much as it does or they wish it was easier or something but simply disagreeing with a business model in no way means people don't want something. I measure how much people want something by what they are willing to invest in it, and by investment I mean, time, money, work. So lets recap to me if anyone spends $5 on cosmetic only lootboxes yes in fact I believe they want to do that. If they didn't want to do it, all they have to do is sit on their hands and not purchase it. And no I am not trying to argue that people prefer to pay for something vs get it free, of course most people would rather have something for free. But at the end of the day if they don't invest anything into getting it then I would actually question how bad they actually want it. For instance I own fortnite the game cause its free and it cost me almost nothing to boot it up and play it, however I have not put any money in it, and I feel zero attachement to it in part cause it cost me nothing. So do I really want it? I wouldn't have paid for the game most likely and I appreciate that a bunch of kids bought passes and vbucks to keep the game alive and free. to me that's the great thing about these new models. In your world the game was great cause you bought it, then it came with all this free stuff, but to me its just as good that there are many games I can play for free and only have to pay if I want events or lootboxes.

Just as a final point if you go to youtube or twitch you can see people who run streams of them opening lootboxes. Now personally I cant understand the appeal, in fact it was so weird to me I watched a few just to see what they were. But guess what, lots of people actually sit and watch this just for the pure pleasure of seeing random events happen and getting their emotions going. So to me this is more evidence that people like this. Here they are investing their time to watch it.

 

[tetris42]

I think you just want to see it the way you believe. Lots of people just spend like 5-50 bucks I am sure whales exist but I don't think its anywhere near as skewed as you are making it out to be I personally know many people whom have spent as little as $5 and as much as $80 on lootboxes I don't know any whales that spent enough to make up for hundreds or thousands of players. Also I may be misinterpreting people buying and wanting things but to me I don't see the difference. matter of fact is if you paid for something that was completely voluntary as in cosmetic only skins it means you wanted it bad enough to pay for it. Now like all things in life that people purchase there will always be a ton of people who don't like some aspect of it. At the very least they probably don't want it to cost as much as it does or they wish it was easier or something but simply disagreeing with a business model in no way means people don't want something. I measure how much people want something by what they are willing to invest in it, and by investment I mean, time, money, work. So lets recap to me if anyone spends $5 on cosmetic only lootboxes yes in fact I believe they want to do that. If they didn't want to do it, all they have to do is sit on their hands and not purchase it. And no I am not trying to argue that people prefer to pay for something vs get it free, of course most people would rather have something for free. But at the end of the day if they don't invest anything into getting it then I would actually question how bad they actually want it. For instance I own fortnite the game cause its free and it cost me almost nothing to boot it up and play it, however I have not put any money in it, and I feel zero attachement to it in part cause it cost me nothing. So do I really want it? I wouldn't have paid for the game most likely and I appreciate that a bunch of kids bought passes and vbucks to keep the game alive and free. to me that's the great thing about these new models. In your world the game was great cause you bought it, then it came with all this free stuff, but to me its just as good that there are many games I can play for free and only have to pay if I want events or lootboxes.

Just as a final point if you go to youtube or twitch you can see people who run streams of them opening lootboxes. Now personally I cant understand the appeal, in fact it was so weird to me I watched a few just to see what they were. But guess what, lots of people actually sit and watch this just for the pure pleasure of seeing random events happen and getting their emotions going. So to me this is more evidence that people like this. Here they are investing their time to watch it.

Okay, a couple things:

-First, you've stated most people would rather have the lootbox for free, so logically, that means they do not PREFER paid lootboxes. So I think we've established that, so let's focus on the paid ones.

-You talk about investment and funding, but now you're conflating lootboxes with microtransactions and the free to play model. Those aren't the same thing. Microtransactions can fund a free game honestly, since there's no deception involved, but those aren't as profitable. My point is lootboxes are manipulative and if they didn't artificially present an obstacle and had to compete fairly, almost NO ONE would prefer them. If you still don't get it, I'll spell it out. Right now, if you want a skin, the lootbox formula is one of these two models:

Model 1:
You buy the skin for $10 (arbitrary price, but you get the idea).
OR
You buy a lootbox for $2 with a chance of winning your $10 skin (say 30 to 1).

Model 2:
The ONLY way you can buy the skin is by buying x $2 skins until you eventually come across the one you want. A slot machine, essentially.


To say people actually WANT lootboxes, the following model would have to exist:


Model 3: (doesn't exist, best of my knowledge)
You buy any skin you want for $10.
OR
You buy a lootbox for $10 where you randomly receive a skin worth $10.


Do you see the difference now? If people bought lootboxes under THAT model, then I'd agree and say you're right and I'm wrong, people want lootboxes. Because THAT model would take the manipulation out of it, and prove that people truly are buying the lootboxes for the randomness and there is no exploitation involved, since it's competing on fair ground with honest purchases. I don't think any game does that, because it's FAR more manipulative and profitable to tie slot machine mechanics to it. It's a psychological trick. I don't play Fortnite, but the fact that it's one of the most profitable games in the world says something. It's doing more than JUST being a good game.