Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loot boxes are obviously gambling

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#141

Post by cannonedhamster »

sundvor wrote: post #14
lathiat wrote: post #11

I much prefer how Epic Games have done this with Fortnite. And by all accounts their method is raking in a LOT of cash. All cosmetic items only, but you purchase the exact item you want directly. The items are a little more expensive than you might expect (I think on average $4-10 each) and it includes skins, different "axes" to break objects, different dances and different "gliders" that you fly into the game on. It…

Fwiw, PUBG loot boxes are not game play impacting; they are cosmetic only. If you don't want that "chance", you could just buy the specific item you'd like on the Steam store from other players. You may even sell unopened boxes (which require a key) there. Sauce: https://www.finder.com.au/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-will-...

So what you're saying is that there's a variable real world amount of monetary value that you could win determined solely on the random outcome of a loot box. Sounds exactly like gambling. If someone spent $5 on a chance to win either a marmot, a squirrel, a fancy coat, or a golden banjo and the rarity of winning those depended upon their real world value, it would still be gambling. The only difference with loot boxes is that their real world value is determined by their rarity.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#142

Post by tialaramex »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #128
tialaramex wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The psych people I've talked to explain it as a rule of thumb "If it's not a problem, it's not a problem". Say you feel you need to wear a hat made of marshmallow. Is that a problem? Well, is it? For example if you lost your job because of the hat, that's a problem. If you spend so much on marshmallow hats that you can't afford your rent, that's a problem. If you killed somebody's dog because it tried to eat your hat…

I think that's what people (used to?) call "ego-dystonic" situations (?). I like the zen of the particular wording you give.

I think the idea is that in an ego-dystonic illness _you_ know this is a problem, and in other mental illnesses other people have spotted it's a problem but you can't/ won't.

For example starving yourself to death is definitely a problem, but body-image mental health illness that causes it usually leave the sufferer unable to recognise this consequence of their actions.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#143

Post by GhostVII »

Jedd wrote: post #63

> There will definitely be economic harm, and games companies will have to figure something out to fill the monetary gap. Regulation painted as 'economic harm' is hard to defend in an industry that's been around a long time without these kinds of practices being so widespread, and so user-hostile, that regulators are actually starting to care. Games companies long ago figured out how to fill the monetary gap -- sell…

I think the difference with games now is that the expectations are much higher - games cost far more to produce than they used to, and are much more complex and have better graphics, so it is harder to recoupe development costs by selling a game at an upfront cost, especially when the expectation is that a game should cost $60 or less. Maybe we need to change our expectations of how much a good game should be worth.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#144

Post by [deleted] »

ramblerman wrote: post #83
kossTKR wrote: post #65

Seems to me like we are in a race to to the bottom in all parts of the software and entertainment industry. When behavioural economics and data mining became all encompassing we lost all that was positive and good in this field. This modeling of the human psyche has existed in PR and the commercial industry for a century, but the incredible multiplier that lies in the constant connection and the advancement of fast a…

Or as with most new things it gets a bit out of hand and it takes a generation or two to find a balance. But don't let me deny you the pleasure of your apocalyptic rantings :)

[deleted]

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#145

Post by aethertron »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #131
saintPirelli wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but feel like this will divide society. Like fast food and eating healthy. Everybody knows eating healthy is better for you, but a lot just can't be bothered. Consuming media on the most addictive feeds will be the same. Only this time we won't have an obesity epidemic, but an epidemic of retardation and uselessness.

Those that define "healthy" are usually ones you don't want to listen to. Greg Egan wrote quite a lot about the power dynamics of the word 'healthy'.

Where did Greg Egan write about that? I'd be interested to read it. I've only read one of his novels, plus some supplementary writing on his site. I plan to read more.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#146

Post by usrusr »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90
usrusr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But card packs are random at least. The very rarest card will be equally rare for every buyer, any time. Loot boxes can be much worse than gambling on a random number generator: game servers know the inventory of a player and can tailor box contents to always keep the inventory close to one of the many thresholds that are usually designed into game rules. Maybe some operators are voluntarily staying away from these d…

Couldn't you prove operators were doing it by running a large number of accounts, checking the distribution of inventory and figuring out what the likelihood of distributions?

How many non-free transactions would you be willing to pay for?

Ps: Also, a manipulative pretend-random drop function could easily be made to adhere to defined overall droprates without sacrificing any individual manipulation. Detecting "bad luck" that only strikes when the system detects willingness to keep rolling the dice until some local goal is achieved would not be easy even with a complete dataset.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#147

Post by crankylinuxuser »

aethertron wrote: post #145
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those that define "healthy" are usually ones you don't want to listen to. Greg Egan wrote quite a lot about the power dynamics of the word 'healthy'.

Where did Greg Egan write about that? I'd be interested to read it. I've only read one of his novels, plus some supplementary writing on his site. I plan to read more.

Egan mentions "health" in Distress, primarily surrounding those that define the word and set the bar what "healthy" is. Alongside that idea, lies the ultrarich who have rearranged their DNA to a point they are invulnerable to every known disease, most chemical toxins, and more. They're also physically a different species, as they are incapable of making young with other humans.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#148

Post by usrusr »

d0lph wrote: post #140
usrusr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But card packs are random at least. The very rarest card will be equally rare for every buyer, any time. Loot boxes can be much worse than gambling on a random number generator: game servers know the inventory of a player and can tailor box contents to always keep the inventory close to one of the many thresholds that are usually designed into game rules. Maybe some operators are voluntarily staying away from these d…

I am not aware of any loot boxes that aren't random? Are you just saying this is possible, or do you know of an instance of this?

How would we know that they are truly random?

I have vague memories of reading about this kind of dark pattern when I first heard about loot boxes, but I failed to google any references now so maybe my memories are diluted with imagination.

But why wouldn't it happen? How would the public find out? Tipping the scales just a little bit, at the right times, for the right victims, could be very effective at "increasing engagement". The whole thing would even be a/b-testable, so any internal arguments against would be futile. (You'd want to keep the "a" implementation around anyways, in case you need to present source to someone who should not see how the sausage is made)

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#150

Post by d0lph »

usrusr wrote: post #148
d0lph wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not aware of any loot boxes that aren't random? Are you just saying this is possible, or do you know of an instance of this?

How would we know that they are truly random? I have vague memories of reading about this kind of dark pattern when I first heard about loot boxes, but I failed to google any references now so maybe my memories are diluted with imagination. But why wouldn't it happen? How would the public find out? Tipping the scales just a little bit, at the right times, for the right victims, could be very effective at "increasing…

How do we know casinos and such are truly random?
Post reply on HN