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

Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

ruetir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#111

Post by Lascaille »

nemothekid wrote: post #106
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day, with no indication of whether they'll return, so that you feel you have to buy things now in case you never have the chance again.

> Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day, They're skins . They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-r…

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect.

This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#112

Post by tragictrash »

Lascaille wrote: post #111
nemothekid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day, They're skins . They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-r…

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect. This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

There's a huge difference between the two. Shoes and shoe culture can matter a huge amount to some people. Skins aren't really in the same category. Skins literally do nothing, and don't have the same value or impact on a person's identity or social standing. Shoes do. Not to me, but some people do care.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#113

Post by nemothekid »

Lascaille wrote: post #111
nemothekid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day, They're skins . They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-r…

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect. This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

This is a "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" take. Ok, both Nike and Epic are evil; Nike & every other luxury brand should now be banned from any artificial scarcity.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#114

Post by frumper »

stodor89 wrote: post #110
falcolas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing FIFA has that MTG never did: it effectively destroys you collection of cards every year. You can’t carry over cards between their yearly releases, and you can’t get updated rosters without getting the latest release. It is, at least for sports games, incomparable to MTG or Pokémon.

Hmm, aren't MTG releasing new sets every year? And don't they only allow cards from the last few years in tournaments?

I can still pull out my 20+ year old cards and play with friends. Some cards are reprinted and remain legal. Either way you aren’t playing your old fifa ones vs new ones

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#115

Post by ayngg »

stodor89 wrote: post #110
falcolas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing FIFA has that MTG never did: it effectively destroys you collection of cards every year. You can’t carry over cards between their yearly releases, and you can’t get updated rosters without getting the latest release. It is, at least for sports games, incomparable to MTG or Pokémon.

Hmm, aren't MTG releasing new sets every year? And don't they only allow cards from the last few years in tournaments?

They have different formats that people play with varying amounts of sets being legal, one of the most popular formats is a casual format where almost every card printed is legal. Sure a lot of it becomes chaff, but it is not unusual for cards you buy to appreciate in value, or even gain a substantial amount of value when they become viable and popularized in decks or are enabled by new cards that are released.

The cards I played with decades ago when I was a kid in school have appreciated in value many multiples of times over.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#116

Post by Lascaille »

nemothekid wrote: post #113
Lascaille wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect. This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

This is a "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" take. Ok, both Nike and Epic are evil; Nike & every other luxury brand should now be banned from any artificial scarcity.

That wasn't really the point I was making.

I was making the point that goods which practically affect one's appearance in reality affect more than just one's appearance due to the nature of human personality.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#117

Post by Lascaille »

tragictrash wrote: post #112
Lascaille wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect. This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

There's a huge difference between the two. Shoes and shoe culture can matter a huge amount to some people. Skins aren't really in the same category. Skins literally do nothing, and don't have the same value or impact on a person's identity or social standing. Shoes do. Not to me, but some people do care.

It may surprise you to know that there's a similar culture that revolves around skins. That's why people buy them and trade them.

I don't know a lot about it and it isn't as clearly visible as sneaker culture but I know it exists, because I used to play that game and there were people in various discords and steam chats who were obsessed with skins to the point it was all they could talk about.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#118

Post by krageon »

mFixman wrote: post #80
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely isn't a universal experience and there are definitely a lot of trading card horror stories, but for me + friends growing up the purchase of trading cards had a different place in life. They were like one of life's small rewards you had a chance of rolling whenever going into a shop with a parent/guardian. Being at the checkout, putting on the little kid puppy-dog 'pleaseeeeeee' and the adult deciding…

Did we have different childhoods, or do you not really forget yours? Children used to steal trading cards and have violent fights over them. Only a few dedicated nerds played the game; the rest just collected the cards and showed them as a proxy of self-worth. This is perfectly normal child behaviour, and I'm sure it was much worse than whatever's happening right now with lootboxes. The main difference between them i…

> Children used to steal trading cards and have violent fights over them.

This is messed up - is this real or overstated?

> This is perfectly normal child behaviour

Stealing and fighting? Where would this be the case?

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#119

Post by q-big »

SkyBelow wrote: post #58
mFixman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure my parents would disagree that Pokémon trading cards weren't a giant money sink designed to take their money. I can see a lot of problems with giving children access to credit cards, but I honestly fail to see how loot boxes are different from trading cards marketed to children. My high school enacted and enforced a ban on all card and board games because some parents were worried about child gambling; I'm s…

I feel they are very similar, but do have a few key differences. If these differences matter enough to make a moral difference is something we can discuss. A few of the key differences, in no particular order: 1. Trading card games come with base sets that have guaranteed cards and are useful for playing the game. This makes it TCGs better. 2. CCGs can be traded to others or sold. This one I'm unsure about. 3. Loot b…

> 5. Loot boxes are often purchased through currency systems made to separate the buyers understanding of how much they are paying. This is why games often make you buy some currency and then use that currency to buy loot boxes, with some games have layers of currency in between. Compare this to TCG boosters which are sold in stores for specific dollar amounts. This make loot boxes worse.

Converting between currencies is easy "rule of three" - you learn that very early in school. Also, before the introduction of the Euro (and for some border frontiers in Europe even after), children who lived near borders of neighboring countries very often had to become accustomed to two (multiple) currencies from very early on and better were able to convert them in their heads.

> 7. Loot boxes are often built into games on ones phone and use tactics to encourage worse spending habits. This make loot boxes worse.

Encourage bad spending habits: sounds like classical advertising.

Re: Lootboxes in FIFA now allowed by highest Dutch court

#120

Post by austhrow743 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #31
oneoff786 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any interest in fortnite but I don’t follow why this is bad. These are just skins right? Like no differentiation besides personal aesthetic preference? Couldn’t these be sold with no ambiguity, never ever coming back, and have literally no impact on your desire to buy? Have you ever felt a desire to buy a shirt because it won’t be available to purchase again? Is there really a world where they say “this…

Introducing artificial scarcity on digital goods seems incredibly anti-consumer. Consider a different scenario where someone wants the skin both now and later (for whatever reason - value is driven by the desire of the purchaser), but doesn't have the financial wherewithal to purchase frivolous things at a whim. In that scenario the consumer has to make a choice between purchasing an artificially scarce good or makin…

What if scarcity is where the value is derived?
Post reply on HN