• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Lootboxes Gambling?

Jetboogieman

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,178
Reaction score
44,136
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So obviously we've recently seen the controversy over Star Wars Battlefront II, and EAs egregious lootbox system and the question is starting to be raised by regulatory bodies all over the world.

But does the system actually constitute gambling?

I'm just throwing ideas out there right now from all the videos I've seen...

But on the one hand despite using real money to obtain in game items, the items one gains from using real money are confined in the game ecosystem and doesn't offer any real world monetary reward back.

On the other hand it uses many of gamblings core mechanics, you spend real money for a blind reward, you're disappointed when you don't get one and it can for some people recreat the high of say a slot machine when you get an item you really do want, but ultimately both ways, it encourages you to spend more real world money on what is essentially, useless virtual items.

In the case of Star Wars Battlefront II, you can see in every way the game was designed, it was designed with surgical precision to encourage... Heavily, people to spend more money on these lootboxes in order to gain a gameplay advantage, but it was so egregious and obvious in it's approach that it caused this backlash and ultimately has opened up the discussion to all lootboxes and whether or not they are a massively predatory business practice that's largely aimed at kids.

I have to say after seeing quite a few iterations of these things I have to conclude that in their own way, yes they are in essence gambling, they use almost identical systems of frustration and reward to encourage more and more spending and worst of all, they actually provide 0 value to the game or the player beyond in the vast majority of cases, cosmetic appearance and their implementation and format is extremely predatory to those with a predisposition to gamble.

Whats your thoughts?
 
I think it's a form of gambling. I wont't buy the loot box type games. I hate buying EA anyway, they ruin most things they touch.

Some of the best games of the decade were indie games that were not just relatively low priced, but they insanely developed content for them for years, so that you invested basically in a rough game, and years later it was still playable and had 3x+ the original content. (Minecraft, Terraria, etc.) I don't think that's fair to smaller competitors in the reverse, but wow, talk about polar opposites.

Imagine reading a new novel, and having it stop mid-way to ask if you want to continue and pay for the surprise ending or the normal ending for free. It 100% ruins the art IMO.
Same with in-game purchase type games, lootbox, hell, even non-mutlipayer games that require full time internet login, etc. (steam has thankfully hidden that from me and I never have to enter anything).

So anyway, yes it has predatory aspects. The old Magic the Gathering type card games had booster packs with rares, etc., it was a money sink that I avoided, but some love it.
I think it corrupts the game/art personally, in addition to having at least some qualities of gambling.
 
Mach said:
I think it's a form of gambling. I wont't buy the loot box type games. I hate buying EA anyway, they ruin most things they touch.

Some of the best games of the decade were indie games that were not just relatively low priced, but they insanely developed content for them for years, so that you invested basically in a rough game, and years later it was still playable and had 3x+ the original content. (Minecraft, Terraria, etc.) I don't think that's fair to smaller competitors in the reverse, but wow, talk about polar opposites.

Imagine reading a new novel, and having it stop mid-way to ask if you want to continue and pay for the surprise ending or the normal ending for free. It 100% ruins the art IMO.
Same with in-game purchase type games, lootbox, hell, even non-mutlipayer games that require full time internet login, etc. (steam has thankfully hidden that from me and I never have to enter anything).
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe what I saw in Assassins Creed Origins today, they don't have lootboxes sure, but I had a look at their microtransaction menu, dude, like you can spend real money to get more in-game gold, crafting resources, XP, skill points... It's unreal in a single player game that these micro-transactions are even available and it's a shame cause it's actually a great game and the amount of money and resources it provides you with is actually more than enough.

This stuff is becoming so endemic that I do actually think we may see a gaming collapse because the consumer will become tapped out, these massive multi-billion dollar businesses will eventually see a flatline of the profits these kinds of microtransactions produce, leading to lack of investment, selling off of shares and perhaps even their collapse, and we'll see indie developers hopefully pick up the slack, what that'll do to the big consoles and their lineups I'm not sure.
 
At the most barebones, technical definition of the word "gambling" we can conclude that the "lootbox" concept is gambling. Game developers put in-game items at varying scales of "rarity" that one can only obtain by pure chance. Where in most games (like Overwatch for example) the only way to obtain those rare items is by buying lootboxes in bulk or seriously grinding those boxes out through playing various game modes or leveling up (which could take considerable time depending on how high your level is.) The concept preys upon the "whales" as the developers call them to continue throwing money at mystery box prizes in order to obtain the vaunted, sought after items the developers intentionally eliminate or make it so difficult to obtain it makes purchasing far easier. Lets look at Destiny 2 for example. The loot system for better equipment in order to make your character more viable in end-game material is entirely RNG. You either get a rare exotic item that increases your stats, color shaders for equipment, or equipment that's lower than you. However at the very same place you go to claim the items you obtain from RNG is an area where you can purchase more chances to gain better gear with real world money. That's not a matter of "convenience" that's predatory behavior.

Lootboxes are ****, and after how Destiny 2 treated me, I'm never buying another game that attempts to lock away content behind predatory marketing practices like Lootboxes ever again.
 
CMPancake said:
At the most barebones, technical definition of the word "gambling" we can conclude that the "lootbox" concept is gambling. Game developers put in-game items at varying scales of "rarity" that one can only obtain by pure chance. Where in most games (like Overwatch for example) the only way to obtain those rare items is by buying lootboxes in bulk or seriously grinding those boxes out through playing various game modes or leveling up (which could take considerable time depending on how high your level is.) The concept preys upon the "whales" as the developers call them to continue throwing money at mystery box prizes in order to obtain the vaunted, sought after items the developers intentionally eliminate or make it so difficult to obtain it makes purchasing far easier. Lets look at Destiny 2 for example. The loot system for better equipment in order to make your character more viable in end-game material is entirely RNG. You either get a rare exotic item that increases your stats, color shaders for equipment, or equipment that's lower than you. However at the very same place you go to claim the items you obtain from RNG is an area where you can purchase more chances to gain better gear with real world money. That's not a matter of "convenience" that's predatory behavior.

Lootboxes are ****, and after how Destiny 2 treated me, I'm never buying another game that attempts to lock away content behind predatory marketing practices like Lootboxes ever again.
Click to expand...

I was planning on getting Battlefront II, but with the all the crap concerning the lootboxes, I have decided against it. EA ruins everything.
 
TheGoverness said:
I was planning on getting Battlefront II, but with the all the crap concerning the lootboxes, I have decided against it. EA ruins everything.
Click to expand...

EA fell to the Dark side a long time ago in a wallet far far away.
 
I stay away from games where cash buys in-game advantages.

Definitely predator. I want to pay my money for the game or the subscription, and have everything else be down to some combination of skill, time, and luck.
 
CMPancake said:
after how Destiny 2 treated me.
Click to expand...

And Bungie... Bungie of all Devs to get into this, I know alot of this is down to the publisher(in this case Activision) but still, if Bungie can't hold their own against the publishers whims... Who can?

TheGoverness said:
I was planning on getting Battlefront II, but with the all the crap concerning the lootboxes, I have decided against it. EA ruins everything.
Click to expand...

The last time Battlefront 1 was on sale, the ultimate edition was $13, I'll buy Battlefront II when it's dirt cheap just to play some of the single player stuff and enjoy some of the content, even just playing against bots as there's now 18 planets instead of 4 in the original game will have some value.

I know at that point though online play will be worthless because the only people left will be those that have all the top rate star cards and just dominate everyone else.
 
I don’t know what to make of it, but, if it’s a great game and extra purchases are just for things like cosmetics, I can just ignore it. If extra purchases actually give you in-game advantages, **** that game, I want nothing to do with it.
 
If the loot in the lootbox has impact on "winning" in the game, then yes.

If the loot in the lootbox has a non impact on "winning in the game, then no.

So if you get a cool look gun that can shoot faster than others, then yes, but if the gun is just visual and does the same as other guns.. then no.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So obviously we've recently seen the controversy over Star Wars Battlefront II, and EAs egregious lootbox system and the question is starting to be raised by regulatory bodies all over the world.

But does the system actually constitute gambling?

I'm just throwing ideas out there right now from all the videos I've seen...

But on the one hand despite using real money to obtain in game items, the items one gains from using real money are confined in the game ecosystem and doesn't offer any real world monetary reward back.

On the other hand it uses many of gamblings core mechanics, you spend real money for a blind reward, you're disappointed when you don't get one and it can for some people recreat the high of say a slot machine when you get an item you really do want, but ultimately both ways, it encourages you to spend more real world money on what is essentially, useless virtual items.

In the case of Star Wars Battlefront II, you can see in every way the game was designed, it was designed with surgical precision to encourage... Heavily, people to spend more money on these lootboxes in order to gain a gameplay advantage, but it was so egregious and obvious in it's approach that it caused this backlash and ultimately has opened up the discussion to all lootboxes and whether or not they are a massively predatory business practice that's largely aimed at kids.

I have to say after seeing quite a few iterations of these things I have to conclude that in their own way, yes they are in essence gambling, they use almost identical systems of frustration and reward to encourage more and more spending and worst of all, they actually provide 0 value to the game or the player beyond in the vast majority of cases, cosmetic appearance and their implementation and format is extremely predatory to those with a predisposition to gamble.

Whats your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is gambling. No, it isn't illegal. I don't complain much about how others choose to play a game(well, any more anyway, I used to). If they want to spend a bunch of money, go for it.

Oh, and a current anime has a take on them(to understand, the guy with the blue hair is a character played by the brown haired woman):

 
I think it's gross the extent to which the gaming industry is trying to extract funds through micro-transactions. Especially when the "base" game is full price. I can see charging a small fee for expansions, but even there, if there is more DLC than original content (ahem, EA PGA Tour, for example).

I don't think it should be illegal, I think this is one example where the market can work itself out - if you want to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to win a game, knock yourself out. But if the only way to win is pay to win, and the people who don't get sick of it and go play something else, the only ones left are going to be the pay to win crowd, in which case your "advantage" is significantly diminished. Doesn't sound like a sustainable model to me....
 
Redress said:
I don't complain much about how others choose to play a game(well, any more anyway, I used to). If they want to spend a bunch of money, go for it.
Click to expand...

But the problem is, is that in the case of say Star Wars Battlefront II, yes I do to a certain extent agree that complaining about how other people play or how they spend their money is pointless, but on the publisher and dev side, the fact that because of what the industry calls "whales', people who will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars each on these kinds of micro transactions, is coming to dominate the way in which the entire game is built to prey on what is in some cases their addiction is massively problematic don't you think?

On the one hand their entire game design and micro transaction system could definitely be described as predatory.

And on the other hand even though people have already paid full price for their game, these kinds of micro transactions basically tell them all to **** off unless they shell out more $$$.

Nobodies really winning there and it's not much of a fair choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom