US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm • Hacker News Board

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#61

Post by fzeroracer » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 1:35 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #55

fzeroracer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. She mentioned lootboxes as a whole. When you view the greater picture of lootboxes, arguing that they're somehow more ethical because one game does it better than others isn't a particularly strong argument. Assuming that her attack on lootboxes is a focused attack on Overwatch would be categorically incorrect. Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes. You have various…

> First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow gaming news, but the whole reason that this is an issue on Hassan's radar is that there has been a lot of criticism recently targeted at Overwatch specifically over their use of lootboxes, even though other games use lootboxes too. So no, Hassan doesn't mention Overwatch by name, but in the current…

>...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does

I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding. I don't particularly care for League of Legends either, but their dynamic is not any more P2W than SFV, considering they both have very similar models.

>Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned - there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance and spending money.

The free boxes are given out for the sole purpose of getting you hooked. It's not out of good will. Every single Gacha game on the planet does similar things, they dole out small amounts of currency so that players can play the game without paying money, but the incentive is to pay to have a higher chance of getting something they want.

I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory, and that every aspect of it is carefully designed to appeal to you, the player. That's why loot is colorized by rarity with special sounds depending on how rare/awesome your loot is. It wants to induce a dopamine hit, then reinforce it through encouraging the player to pull. More and more and more.

That's Gacha Game Design 101.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#62

Post by chimeracoder » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #61

chimeracoder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow gaming news, but the whole reason that this is an issue on Hassan's radar is that there has been a lot of criticism recently targeted at Overwatch specifically over their use of lootboxes, even though other games use lootboxes too. So no, Hassan doesn't mention Overwatch by name, but in the current…

>...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly worse than what Overwatch does I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones…

> I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory

When there's no pay-to-win dynamic, it is literally the least predatory business model out of all games of that ilk. All of the alternatives for producing a recurring revenue stream, such as abandonware and direct PTW, are far more predatory.

I don't actually think it's predatory at all, but you're complaining about the weakest possible conception of the problem (and even the alternatives you named are worse), which implies that you don't think the alternative models like abandonware are a problem.

> I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in this case is to avoid grinding

You are literally paying money for the chance at something that will impact your chances of victory, as opposed to something that is entirely superfluous to the gameplay in every way. That is the definition of pay-to-win, even if it's a less extreme form than most King games.

If you don't see that as pressure to keep spending money, or if you don't see abandonware as a direct cash grab designed to exploit people's impulses, then I don't know how to continue this discussion.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#63

Post by mmirate » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 2:18 AM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #10

kevas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean you're also in favor of ending state sponsored lottories, raffles, etc...?

I am. Unless it's not-for-profit or single use (e.g. lottery revenue going to schools), then it's a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability.

> a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability

This is precisely why I support lotteries etc.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#64

Post by megaman22 » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #31

Drakim wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very least, all purchases should include info about the randomization. It shouldn't be legal to sell randomized products while keeping the randomization secret.

Yes. I hate the Lego minifig series, and Panini sticker albums, and Pokemon cards. They should all have to include how many packets you'd expect to buy to complete a collection.

At least with the Lego minifig series, if you buy them in a store, you can feel the polybag to get some kind of an idea what might be contained.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#65

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:12 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #34

Waterluvian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw that a ton as a teen. I always felt sick at the idea so I had a built deck at a set price. But friends would buy a pack. Then just one more. Just one more. Okay last one.

My friends son is constantly asking for more Pokémon cards. I’m not sure if there is any harm, but he’s in to it. I do wonder if regulation is the answer though. Shouldn’t we expect people (parents, here) to make their own choices?

I wonder about this because as a child I and my siblings were big into Pokémon cards. At the height of the hype my parents bought a 100 pack of booster packs and would periodically dangle them in front of us as rewards.

In the end we got a lot of new cards and my parents got a decent amount of chores done. I’m about to turn 28 and I’ve never had any sort of gambling problem (but I have had my own other non Pokémon related problems that were probably at least somewhat related to my parents)

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#66

Post by nkrisc » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #57

nkrisc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account banned. I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a grab bag.

You pay $x, with a chance to receive items worth between $0.1x and $10x. It's true that x might not be able to converted to fiat or resold. That makes it effectively equivalent to a raffle, which often put restrictions on reselling similar to these cases. Raffles are considered a form of gambling, and are heavily regulated, in the UK[0] and Australia [1]. [0] http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Fundra…

Fair point.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#67

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #57

nkrisc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account banned. I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a grab bag.

You pay $x, with a chance to receive items worth between $0.1x and $10x. It's true that x might not be able to converted to fiat or resold. That makes it effectively equivalent to a raffle, which often put restrictions on reselling similar to these cases. Raffles are considered a form of gambling, and are heavily regulated, in the UK[0] and Australia [1]. [0] http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Fundra…

Is Mario Kart regulated as a gambling game in the UK?

Sure, you can't convert its items into money, but you can convert them into wins in the game. And it has a "random" item drop system that's known to be rigged.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#68

Post by chimeracoder » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

woodfall wrote: post #59

nkrisc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account banned. I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a grab bag.

As an European, I can't understand this beancounting. Yes, technically it may not be gambling, but that does not heal the issue. The problem a predatory practices that ultimately harm the victim in any way e.g. money but also time spent unwisely on collecting lootboxes instead of exercizing for college.

> As an European, I can't understand this beancounting. Yes, technically it may not be gambling, but that does not heal the issue. The problem a predatory practices that ultimately harm the victim in any way e.g. money but also time spent unwisely on collecting lootboxes instead of exercizing for college.

To be clear, you're saying that lootboxes in a video game are a problem because they distract people from studying for college?

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#69

Post by chimeracoder » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:30 AM UTC

kakarot wrote: post #54

a_t48 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand corrected.

No, they are wrong because they are analyzing secondary market prices, while the discussion was about introductory market prices, which are indeed set by WotC and made to, on average, be higher than the payout for selling the cards within. I think there have been two, maaaaybe three expansion sets in the multi-decade history of the game where the average price for selling all cards in a booster pack exceeded the pric…

> I think there have been two, maaaaybe three expansion sets in the multi-decade history of the game where the average price for selling all cards in a booster pack exceeded the price of the booster pack itself.

Which sets are those? I would be shocked if that were true for unlimited-run sets during the time when they were still in print (the first few sets were limited to a fixed number of cards, but every normal set since has been printed to demand).

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#70

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 3:30 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #44

araes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, WotC and the community are quite good at predicting price and market forces on their game. They have ~20,000 cards and 25 years of sales, and numerous quick factors for determining approx. card value. Concepts like the "curve" (mana vs P/T), and the value of evergreen keywords greatly help. If there was ever a topic for big data. Naturally, there are surprises (ex: Standard deck that becomes overly popular…

This is completely backwards. Each card is assigned a rarity (common, uncommon, rare, mythic rare) based on its power. All cards of a given rarity have the exact same probability of showing up in a given booster pack. It's possible for a card to get reassigned during a reprint, but it's pretty unusual. Wizards doesn't set the secondary market prices; the secondary market prices are determined by the demand for that c…

Each card is assigned a rarity (common, uncommon, rare, mythic rare) based on its power

This is not really true. Rarity is a combination of power level, complexity and some other design principles. For example, cards which appear at common rarity can have powerful effects, but they must be simple and straightforward effects, easy for a newer player to understand (since commons will be the majority of the cards a new player sees). Uncommons are permitted to be slightly more complex, and rares and mythics more complex yet.

Several cards which even in recent years appeared at common in their respective sets are considered too powerful to reprint in the Standard format at any rarity. And of the seven cards currently banned in Standard (which is a massive failure on the part of the set design/development teams, and almost unprecedented in the game's history), one (Attune with Aether) is a common, and three (Felidar Guardian, Ramunap Ruins, Rogue Refiner) are uncommons.

All cards of a given rarity have the exact same probability of showing up in a given booster pack.

This is also not always true due to the logistics of the printing process.

A while back I posted a comment on reddit about how it can happen, sometimes, that not all cards of a given rarity are equally likely to appear in a booster pack:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgfinance/comments/2fblta/odds_of_...

The tl;dr is that the math of setting up the printing sheets doesn't always work out perfectly with the number of cards the set needs at a given rarity (commons are printed on one set of sheets, uncommons on another, and rares/mythics on a third set of sheets). Which sometimes -- though not always -- can lead to a card being slightly underprinted relative to other cards of the same rarity.