EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes • Hacker News Board

Re: EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes

#161

Post by totony » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:13 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #118

totony wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more nuanced. You get in-game currency for skins/cards you already have in both Hearthstone and Overwatch, which is equivalent to being able to sell your cards

With hearthstone, can't you also "sell" any card you have for in-game currency, in addition to getting currency when you obtain a duplicate? In overwatch, you just get currency for duplicates (or randomly from a box).

You're right, Hearthstone basically normalize each card value on their rarity and the buy/sell price ration is 4:1

Re: EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes

#162

Post by smhost » Fri, Sep 14, 2018, 12:32 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #160

smhost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also pretty funny that the thing that is finally shifting the typical reddit/youtube hardcore gamer-atheist demographic away from their ancap ideology is lootcrates.

What's atheism got to do with any of this?

i don't know, you'll have to ask them.

Re: EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes

#163

Post by Shorel » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #160

smhost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also pretty funny that the thing that is finally shifting the typical reddit/youtube hardcore gamer-atheist demographic away from their ancap ideology is lootcrates.

What's atheism got to do with any of this?

I would say it is the rhetoric argument that all comments in Reddit are written by a single group of people with shared beliefs.

Taken to the extreme, all comments are written by a very dedicated Redditor.

Re: EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes

#164

Post by _ea1k » Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #120

_ea1k wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have been thinking this for a while as well. The issue isn't the microtransactions themselves, but the natural incentives associated with them. If you are old enough to remember coin operated arcades, they operated on the same principle. Just one more coin and you can beat this boss! It really hurt the game mechanic in a lot of cases, but I'm sure it improved profitability. I really hate seeing this trend come…

> If you are old enough to remember coin operated arcades, they operated on the same principle. Just one more coin and you can beat this boss! It really hurt the game mechanic in a lot of cases, but I'm sure it improved profitability. I beg to differ. Most of the arcade games of yore were gated on skill; you could avoid having to pop in another quarter if you played well enough, and that was where the fun came from.…

They were based on skill, but you could also note that the skill requirements varied in ways that were designed to encourage even unskilled players to feel like they could advance with "just one more".

I get your point about the addition of randomness, though. Its an interesting element and it does change things relative to the arcade scenario. Personally, I think that it is largely there to make the system not feel as much like pay-to-win as it actually is.