Thursday, 20 June 2019

Move over loot boxes, surprise mechanics are the ethical and fun new way to monetize gambling addicts

quote [ Representatives from EA and Epic Games spoke in front of a UK parliamentary panel. They were there to defend the game industry against charges of addictive game mechanics and encouragement of gambling via loot boxes. One of those representatives took issue with the basic premise that randomized item purchases should be labeled as "loot boxes" in the first place.

"That is what we look at as 'surprise mechanics,'" EA Legal and Government Affairs VP Kerry Hopkins told the panel. These surprise mechanics are "quite ethical and fun [and] enjoyable to people... We think it is like many other products that people enjoy in a very healthy way. They like the element of surprise." ]

A rose by any other name would still cost you 200 EA Fun Bucks™

[SFW] [games] [+6 Funny]
[by Ankylosaur@9:02pmGMT]

Comments

mechavolt said @ 12:25am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Also "addiction" is really just "passion" and "competitiveness."
arrowhen said @ 2:45am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Is it really heroin if it only sometimes gets you high?
Ankylosaur said @ 3:03am GMT on 21st Jun
Heroin is a sometime drug.
rylex said @ 4:21am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Funny]
if heroin is a sometime drug, how come I want it all the time?
spazm said @ 6:35am GMT on 21st Jun
Don’t worry, you’re just very, very passionate about it.
steele said @ 12:27am GMT on 21st Jun
Does anybody else smell burnt toast?
Ankylosaur said @ 2:00am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:3]
steele said @ 2:29am GMT on 21st Jun
mechavolt said @ 12:31am GMT on 21st Jun
I'm really digging the FFVII designs, all of them, but Tifa looks especially on point. Come at me.
biblebeltdrunk said[1] @ 12:34am GMT on 21st Jun
EA will force a ban on mtg cards and Hatchimals before it gives up loot boxes with how short sighted the video game industry profit expectations have become.
Paracetamol said @ 5:22am GMT on 21st Jun
+1 thumb source
snowfox said[2] @ 5:32am GMT on 21st Jun
I think it is a form of gambling, unfortunately, they have broad precedent in the form of things like KinderEggs, My Little Pony blind bags, Hatchimals and all the toys preceding them of that nature, all of those trading card games where the packets have X number of cards but no assurance which cards, those dogs/cats that had some unknown number of puppies/kittens inside of them...

Kids have been getting toys that have a gambling element for more than two decades. If we finally recognize that here, what does it mean for stuff like LOL Surprise? How is a $300 playset whose contents are a surprise different from a digital lootbox? Particularly if there are guarantees about what general sort and count of things they will get (outfits, weapons, dolls - but no idea which ones and what the additional slots will contain).

*Edited for spelling and because I remembered the card thing with games like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, ad infinitum.
spazm said @ 6:38am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Well, for some LOL surprise stuff you’d have to go out to fulfill that instant gratification, which gives you some time to contemplate your decision. Loot boxes are accessible instantly, and especially with kids I’d imagine this removing a few necessary barriers.
snowfox said @ 7:12am GMT on 21st Jun
Good point. Is that the only thing that ethically separates the two concepts? Ease of access? What if the kid orders LOL Surprise off of Amazon with their parents' stored credit card info and it's same day delivery? Even if they had to wait two days, people still get a high from compulsive online purchases, so there's still an element of gratification.

Those loot boxes can only be ordered if there's a stored card that the account is linked to... or the kids go and swipe their parents' credit card. Past the age of reason, they know what they're doing, that they are taking and spending their parents' money; I am not sure if the timeframe in which they do it makes a huge difference, kids have been stealing from mom's purse to buy toys since before video games even existed. Very young children tend to make accidental purchases because they don't understand there's real money or that they are taking something from their family without permission.
spazm said @ 10:36pm GMT on 21st Jun
I don’t know if it’s the only one, but it definitely is a major factor I believe. Even if you’d order online and receive it let’s say 5 minutes later, that prime yearn is long gone. That moment where you reward your itch by scratching it right there, right now is what makes the itch pleasurable.

When I stopped smoking I’d have those moments where I went all “fuck it, I’m going out to get a pack of cigarettes”. There were only a few times where I made it out of the door, let alone to the store, and even then I’d turn around because the initial itch was gone. I don’t live exactly rural so the store was pretty much around the corner. I believe it’s the instant gratification that keeps you going.

As to access to payment methods, it really baffles me how kids get to spend thousands of dollars on that shit. My kid accidentally bought a ps4 game once (when she was two! What have I created!), and the console went straight to lock down with two step verification and what have you. That’s down to common sense I suppose.
the circus said @ 12:23am GMT on 22nd Jun
That's why we don't call them surprise mechanics anymore. They're imaginary collectibles now. And they're more ethical than Mr Rogers.
the circus said @ 12:25am GMT on 22nd Jun
And we don't call them imaginary collectibles anymore. Now they're variable services. And they're more ethical than Jesus.
the circus said @ 12:28am GMT on 22nd Jun
And we don't call them variable services anymore. Now they're mystery events. And they're more ethical than Keanu Reeves.
snowfox said @ 12:51am GMT on 22nd Jun
You jest, but that is another point I wanted to look at. What really differentiates a virtual doll that children play pretend with from a physical doll that children play pretend with? They are both still toys. We can say the digital thing isn't physically real, but is this necessarily a bad thing? We make toys from plastic, which comes from oil, and which only seems to break down into smaller molecules of plastic that get into the ocean. They create clutter. They can be part of a hoard, and hoarding is another one of those conditions that, like a gambling addiction, is a disorder of impulse and impulse control. A digital hoard might be better. I think that's pretty much what Pinterest is, a hoarding support group.

At a very young age, physical objects are really important for early motor coordination. Older children have fine motor skills a toddler does not, which are developed through writing, arts and crafts, sports, and video games/devices. Is there a point where the harms on our resources outweigh the benefits of physical objects to children?

But let's skip past all of that and say we do recognize that surprise mechanics are a form of gambling (they are). We are now obligated to regulate them. At what age can someone take part in surprise mechanics? Can you allow your child to do it or is it like a casino where parental discretion is not a factor? When it comes to legislating and enforcing against this, it's a mess. We also have the precedent that fantasy sports managed to buy in the US where they aren't considered gambling despite obviously being gambling. Would other competitive digital games be seen as legally related? Could they use the same loophole?

It's a very interesting problem if you take the time to think about how we would define this sort of gambling, to whom we would restrict it, how we might enforce that, and how legal loopholes may already exist that complicate doing so.
the circus said @ 12:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Gambling may just be a side benefit. The real big fish is getting video games to only have to follow the rules of being a service and not follow the rules for selling a product.
"Games as a service" is fraud.
snowfox said @ 8:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Oof… that ship sailed with World of Warcraft. Whether the game itself is a service, there's no reason you can't be charged a fee for accessing the servers, which do require continued maintenance, housing, power, etc. The game itself may be a service if it's continually adding new content.

The other easy precedent for this would be cable tv and every streaming service out there. You're paying for access, not buying the programming itself. Some video games are single installment, single player affairs, but that is getting less common, making it less like buying a copy of a movie and more like subscribing to a streaming service.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur