That loot box legislation... let's talk about it

[Quadruplesword]

I'm sure most of you know about the beast that the lying, greedy scumbags our good friends at EA have awoken. I can tell you, in more than 20 years of being a gamer, I've never quite seen the amount of uproar over a single game as I have now, and I couldn't be happier . The fact that people are now taking EA to task over their morally bankrupt business practices after they've spent the past 10 years sinking their claws into people's wallets fills me with joy.

There's just one thing that bothers me about this situation... the fact that the uproar has gotten so big that governments have begun to take notice. Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to shill for the games industry whatsoever. I'm just trying to offer a balanced perspective.

I hate the fact that the industry has become so greedy and profit driven above all else that they'll gleefully grind innovation, creativity, and quality into the dirt just so they can make a quick buck on uninformed consumers. Heck, at this point it feels like they simply don't care how they're perceived by the public and will just spit in people's faces to spite them. This console generation has been so utterly devoid of innovative, standout titles that make a lasting impact on the medium. I honestly can't think of a single game from this generation that has had a genuine impact on the industry - you know, apart from some really shitty business tactic that every publisher copies and which results in worse games year after year.

That being said, I question whether getting governments involved in regulating the industry is the right choice. I want someone to clamp down on loot boxes and other predatory tactics - that shit has gotten WAY too out of hand at this point - but I fear that it won't stop there. I feel like it will lead down one of two paths - either regulation becomes so draconian that it becomes a massive hassle to even get a game released, or the industry starts buying politicians and skirting regulation, effectively meaning the regulations only affect the developers least likely to employ these kinds of tactics and don't even matter to the people they're supposed to control.

I have my fingers crossed that it won't get to that point and the industry will instead take measures to correct itself like it did in the 90s. That would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately, I don't think it's likely to happen. The face of the industry is very different now than it was 20 years ago. In the 90s the industry was lead by creatives and visionaries (who were often gamers themselves) that wanted to push the medium forward, but nowadays those people are pretty much all gone. They've all been replaced by suits and ties that couldn't give a flying pigeon's fart about the medium itself and are only here to loot and pillage as much as possible, even if they bring the entire industry down with them in the process.

I feel like none of these scenarios ends well for the end user.

[Rachael]

Regulation is desparately needed, sorry - don't believe all those right-wing conservative pundits who tell you that regulation destroys everything. It's horse shit. Corporations are out to make a big buck and the pundits who support that fuckery are the ones who think it's the end of the world when any legislation is drafted. Consumer protection is a bipartisan issue - or at least it was, before politicians found a way to be bought out by corporations.

As you have clearly noted here, EA is not your friend. Let's not forget what exactly EA is: It is a corporation. A multi-billion dollar industry that thrives off of whatever fuckery it can accomplish. It's slimy business tactics are no different than that of the climate change denials of Exxon Mobil, the pushing of "gun rights" by the NRA and gun manufacturers, as well as pushing for war in Iraq and Afghanistan by major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, or for another example, privatizing the gains and forcing the government to pay the cost of maintaining its workers, as Walmart does. Their only motive is to maximize profit - just like every other major company I listed. Do you see where I am going with this?

Let's take an example of one bit of regulation that was HUGELY beneficial to regular Joes and Jills was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That was created after the housing bubble burst in 2008, which caused a massive recession and resulting in a "corporate bail-out" that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. It was created to - well - protect consumers, financially, from predatory lending practices of banks who would often foreclose on home owners for even being a cent short and being 10 minutes late paying said cent. Long story short: Regulation was desperately NEEDED at that point - because banks were literally in the business of destroying people's lives, and making a huge profit off of doing so.

Regulation is put in place to protect YOU, not the games industry - and like it or not, it's needed with the unregulated loot box gambling system. Left unchecked, we are seeing now even patents being filed about how to be even more predatory, admissions that psychologists are hired to find ways to make games even more manipulative - all of this is documented and proven. Is it always perfect? No. But having imperfect regulation is FAR better than nothing at all - as this year has yet to show you, mark my words.

[Quadruplesword]

Regulation is desparately needed, sorry - don't believe all those right-wing conservative pundits who tell you that regulation destroys everything. It's horse shit. Corporations are out to make a big buck and the pundits who support that fuckery are the ones who think it's the end of the world when any legislation is drafted. Consumer protection is a bipartisan issue - or at least it was, before politicians found a way to be bought out by corporations.

As you have clearly noted here, EA is not your friend. Let's not forget what exactly EA is: It is a corporation. A multi-billion dollar industry that thrives off of whatever fuckery it can accomplish. It's slimy business tactics are no different than that of the climate change denials of Exxon Mobil, the pushing of "gun rights" by the NRA and gun manufacturers, as well as pushing for war in Iraq and Afghanistan by major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, or for another example, privatizing the gains and forcing the government to pay the cost of maintaining its workers, as Walmart does. Their only motive is to maximize profit - just like every other major company I listed. Do you see where I am going with this?

Let's take an example of one bit of regulation that was HUGELY beneficial to regular Joes and Jills was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That was created after the housing bubble burst in 2008, causing a massive recession and resulting in a "corporate bail-out" that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. It was created to - well - protect consumers, financially, from predatory lending practices of banks who would often foreclose on home owners for even being a cent short and being 10 minutes late paying said cent. Long story short: Regulation was desperately NEEDED at that point - because banks were literally in the business of destroying people's lives, and making a huge profit off of doing so.

Regulation is put in place to protect YOU, not the games industry - and like it or not, it's needed with the unregulated loot box gambling system. Left unchecked, we are seeing now even patents being filed about how to be even more predatory, admissions that psychologists are hired to find ways to make games even more manipulative - all of this is documented and proven. Is it always perfect? No. But having imperfect regulation is FAR better than nothing at all - as this year has yet to show you, mark my words.

Trust me, you'll never see me going around chanting "Regulations are bad! Long live the free market!" . I just think it's helpful to get a balanced perspective on things. I'd also add that I'm not hugely knowledgeable about this kind of stuff so I try to take any opportunities I can to have discussions about it.

Last year was the year of the loot box. With all the talk about "live services" (a.k.a microtransaction platforms) I have a feeling 2018 is going to be the year of the live service.

[Rachael]

You're probably right. Ubisoft already started using the phrase after EA coined it. The industry loves it.

They're trying to abolish the "game" as we know it and make it into something completely new. And they've been drooling to abolish single-player games completely for a long time now - forcing games to be multiplayer means they can force you to play on their servers - and if they can force you to play on their servers they can force you to pay out the ass for cosmetics and in some cases even items you need to even be successful in the game.

Worse yet, these games with "free-to-play" economies nowadays are almost never free-to-play - rather, they're gated behind a $60 asking price which at one point used to constitute a whole game. And worse yet, the $60 is just a shell price - you often have to pay $110 just to get the "full" game (before micro-transactions) or you'll have entire campaigns inaccessible to you.

I recommend following Jim Sterling, TotalBiscuit, and SidAlpha on Youtube. All of them frequently discuss this fuckery at length. Don't get all your information from a single source if you can avoid it - follow as many people as you can who discuss this stuff and make your own opinion about it.

[Kotti]

I hate the fact that the industry has become so greedy and profit driven above all else that they'll gleefully grind innovation, creativity, and quality into the dirt just so they can make a quick buck on uninformed consumers.

That's how a purely profit-driven market works, unfortunately. The good thing is that in most cases such exploitative tactics will always backfire because some smart competitor comes up with a more user-friendly approach.

The main problem here, though, is that all these marketing campaigns are targeted at minors which makes it a very fishy thing to begin with and for obvious reasons brings the lawmakers into the game.

Heck, at this point it feels like they simply don't care how they're perceived by the public and will just spit in people's faces to spite them.

That's how big corporations with inflated market control work. It's not just limited to game development. My brother works for the main local telecommunications corporation and according to him the rot sits to deep that they think about nearly everything, but customer satisfaction being the very last thing on the list. That's not necessary if you own a virtual monopoly people have to depend on. It seems to be the same with games.

This console generation has been so utterly devoid of innovative, standout titles that make a lasting impact on the medium. I honestly can't think of a single game from this generation that has had a genuine impact on the industry - you know, apart from some really shitty business tactic that every publisher copies and which results in worse games year after year.

Game development has become so expensive that a) you cannot take any risks, hence the lack of creativity and b) you try to ride any path to profits, no matter how despicable it is, hence those nasty business schemes. Trust me, it will only get worse, until the whole thing collapses and crumbles under its own weight because the business is no longer sustainable.

That being said, I question whether getting governments involved in regulating the industry is the right choice. I want someone to clamp down on loot boxes and other predatory tactics - that shit has gotten WAY too out of hand at this point - but I fear that it won't stop there.

Yes, that is a problem. Especially since most politicians are too old to have experienced computer gaming in their youth.
On the other hand, they cannot do much, aside from clamping down on the financial side. Selling a game will never be the problem, but what people are concerned with - and I mean really concerned - is, how all these ideas are targetting youths which constitute a large percentage of gamers out there.

I have my fingers crossed that it won't get to that point and the industry will instead take measures to correct itself like it did in the 90s. That would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately, I don't think it's likely to happen. The face of the industry is very different now than it was 20 years ago. In the 90s the industry was lead by creatives and visionaries (who were often gamers themselves) that wanted to push the medium forward, but nowadays those people are pretty much all gone. They've all been replaced by suits and ties that couldn't give a flying pigeon's fart about the medium itself and are only here to loot and pillage as much as possible, even if they bring the entire industry down with them in the process.

Good analysis, and I mostly agree. But look at it from the bright side: Suits with ties are utterly unsuitable for leading any creative business. They will always focus on the wrong thing, drain all creativity out of it and ultimate suck the business dry until it's no longer sustainable. The same may happen to the filmmaking industry, if it continues on the current path where a film like "Justice League" making $650m worldwide has to be considered a flop.

Meanwhile, many gamers will realize that those 20 year old classics from GOG may not look as shiny as the latest game but provide the same level of enjoyment for far less cost...

[Rachael]

Game development has become so expensive that a) you cannot take any risks, hence the lack of creativity and b) you try to ride any path to profits, no matter how despicable it is, hence those nasty business schemes. Trust me, it will only get worse, until the whole thing collapses and crumbles under its own weight because the business is no longer sustainable.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you on that. That's more industry drivel they want you to believe.

Other than making multi-million dollar unskippable cinematics that *NO ONE* asked for, the price of making games has actually gone down in the last 20 years with the rise of digital distribution. While an individual box likely costs pennies in materials, printing, packaging, and shipping it costs a whole lot more, especially when the costs of labor are added. Nowadays a "physical copy" of a game is nothing more than a game code anyway, possibly with a LITTLE bit of game data but not nearly enough to actually play the game - games are now digitally distributed which has saved in substantial costs in the distribution.

While it is no doubt that a game - especially a AAA game with 2,000 shaders per pixel and "her majesty" cinematics does indeed cost a lot of money to make - it's not enough to justify the $60 value, and even less so for the additional $50 for whatever "gold" or "deluxe" or "collector's" edition that comes with it.

The only time game companies are honest are when they are talking with their share holders - and trust me, they sing an entirely different tune at those meetings.

[Kotti]

I think you are focussing on the wrong costs - and more importantly completely forget the risk of producing a failure. While it is certainly possible to develop a game on a low budget, the results of this will normally show on the screen.

25 years ago a small upstart company like id was able to produce an AAA title and revolutionize gaming. But look where they ended up: Ultimately their financial reserves were too slim to survive and got bought out.

Today, in order to just start on a semi-competetive level you have to invest millions up-front. No small startup can get into there anymore and get to the top in an instant.
But anyway, the problem here simply is, that with today's infrastructure and expectations a big player has a decided advantage because they can far more easily stomach the up-front investment and/or write it off if some idea turns out to be a non-starter. Most startup will go bust if that happens. There's a reason why Hollywood has so few players with almost no chance of a smaller one getting close to the top, and the same is true in the gaming industry. And the reason with both is that you cannot calculate on a per-title basis. You have to do calculations across the board and make sure that the entire portfolio remains profitable as a whole.

If things were like you think the top-end of the gaming industy would be far more diverse because there'd be no barriers for entry. But the current situations clearly suggests that the barriers are so high that only the big ones playing it safe on one side and greedy on ther other have a chance to outlive the competition. That's a clear indicator that the financial risk is extremely high.

Ultimately game development is a "hits" business. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Some players may produce one hit but do not have the financial reserves to survive a dud, so they vanish or get bought out by one of the bigger players. So we are back to increased market concentration and all the downsides it brings. And the sole reason why this can happen is when developing the product costs too much that offsetting the risks is no longer possible if you do not have a shitload of money.

Of course, if you do have the shitload of money and some franchise that can be milked without investing too much creativity, then it becomes smooth sailing - and that's where the AAA-market is right now. The rest is just like Hollywood - it's the breadcrumbs for them...

BTW, the biggest cost driver these days, both in film and game making is not even development, but marketing. This can easily eat up all your profits. Any well known franchise again will help a lot here. If you cannot afford an expensive marketing campaign, prefer for your supposed AAA-title to be quickly forgotten and become a loss-maker.

[RiboNucleic Asshat]

I agree that this sort of thing is pretty despicable on the greedy devs' part, but do you really want corrupt politicians to have that much power over games? A "UK porn law"-style setup would be even worse than lootbox scumbaggery, if you ask me. I know I'm sorta toeing the line of a slippery slope fallacy here, but I'd wager that there's no slope in the first place, it's just a sheer dropoff. Sure, corrupt politicians might say that they're instituting regulations to protect the consumer, but you have to remember these are the same people arguing that encryption should be illegal so that they can spy on your data, also in the name of "protection". Now, maybe you live in a country where the government is very kind and honest (does such a place exist?) but it's much more likely that any government regulation of lootboxes is going to come with a whole slew of baggage attached. I don't want the government to have the power to decide which games are "acceptable" or not.

Before someone tries to tell me that game regulations wouldn't be abused, I would like to say that kind of shit already happens. Government regulation of videos games is never a good thing. Can you imagine if every game was forced to be censored German Half-Life style? Or if you were required to give a mobile phone number and personal ID every time you downloaded a game (some countries actually do this)? All in the name of "protecting the children" or other such excuses? Maybe in some perfect fantasy world government regulation of games would be a good thing, but this isn't rainbow-smile-town where the politicians work for the people (not in the US, at least). The current US government has already proven that it doesn't give a shit about the people (net neutrality, anyone?) and if any new laws are going to get put down, they can and will be used to their own gain.

Any savvy consumer already knows to avoid scummy lootbox tactics. Look, I understand empathy for your fellow man and all, but why do we care that people are spending huge amounts on this? It's not like lootboxes' existence suddenly erased every good game from being, and if somebody is getting duped into wasting their money, they'll just fall for something different once you protect them from this. Just like with overbearing DRM, the only ones who are going to get hurt are the normal people.

However, that's not to say that SOME form of regulation shouldn't be enacted. Look at agencies like the ESRB: a rating of AO is practically a death sentence for a game's profit, edgy teen sales boost aside. These groups have more than enough power to hit big publishers where it hurts. If every game containing microtransactions is forced to have a big scary warning on the front, that alone can cut down on a large number of sales to children.

[Rachael]

As I said, politicians aren't perfect, and you cited a very good example of that - but regulation over predatory business practices is never a bad thing, no matter where the politicians are coming from. Plus - even if they get it wrong the first time, it can always be rewritten later, if you can get enough of them to come together and do it in the first place.

In an ideal world politicians will be held accountable - but right now, the lack of accountability on game developers is the bigger issue.

[insightguy]

As I said, politicians aren't perfect, and you cited a very good example of that - but regulation over predatory business practices is never a bad thing, no matter where the politicians are coming from. Plus - even if they get it wrong the first time, it can always be rewritten later, if you can get enough of them to come together and do it in the first place.

In an ideal world politicians will be held accountable - but right now, the lack of accountability on game developers is the bigger issue.

Honestly, the reaction of the games market to EA battlefront 2's lootboxing SHOULD have been the deathknell to it (not selling copies on a BLACK FRIDAY SALE says a lot). I'm just wondering why the government has to get into this? The market was already vocal about it, and EA (sort of) admitted it was kind of a gaf, so why the extra regulation? Whales?

The fact that NO LOOTBOXES can be a marketing push is kinda telling.

And why the special need for lootboxes? Isin't there already anti-gambling laws that should cover this in the USA?

[Rachael]

Insightguy - I am going to answer your question with a reminder of what I PM'd you a few months back. That warning is still in full effect, so I advise you not to take my response here to a debate of any form. I am merely answering your question here for the purposes of clarification.

Much of what you are asking can easily be answered just by doing a little bit of research. First of all, if you know human nature at all, whatsoever, you know EA's "oh we fucked up" was half-assed and the bare minimum of what they could get away with to save face. In other words, it wasn't a real acknowledgement of a fuck-up, they're just trying to avoid the disaster that would have come from doubling down on their deception and pushing the envelope yet further. They're no different than a kid who got caught with his hand in the candy jar - people know you did it, there's no use in denying it.

The extra regulation is to prevent them from doing it again. Because they will. Like that same kid, when they think no one's looking they're going to grab a much bigger chunk and they're going to be much quieter about it this time. Do you not understand how corporations work? Any time there is an opportunity to maximize their gain with as little trouble as possible - that's their guaranteed route, every single time. And EA is no exception. Corporations are NOT the knight in shining armor. They are NOT the good guy. They are the evil guys - every single time. That is a requirement for their basic survival - a philanthropic corporation simply cannot survive - they would die. It's unfortunately the nature of the beast and one of the biggest flaws in our economy.

Also - understanding U.S. law is a bit complicated. The existence of anti-gambling laws does not imply that loot boxes are illegal. They found a way - a loophole (very common in corporate America) to shove them in and make them perfectly legal despite the text of the law being completely the opposite. This isn't the first time it's ever happened. It won't be the last time. That's why laws have to be enacted to cover specific cases - such as this.

[insightguy]

I'm not debating, Just asking.

Yeah, I remember EA's attitude of attempting to "outdate the outrage" and how that fucked up and got reddit and most of the internet to hate them (EXP CAPS!). Heh, I remember the days DLC were considered the devil, and how they were splitting up games, how quaint.

Though I am curious, what's a good way to do lootbox that both satisfies the consumer AND company, there has to be some sort of "compromise". (Skins only? Allow modders to make items? Make them unbelievably cheap? no lootboxes, but an in-game store of items? Lootbox only applies to free games?)

[Rachael]

If you must absolutely do loot boxes then remove the base price of the game. Either offer a free-to-play game, or offer a full game for $60. This grotesque practice of charging for both but offering very little absolutely needs to stop.

[Gez]

That being said, I question whether getting governments involved in regulating the industry is the right choice.

The idea that regulation is inherently harmful and bad, and therefore deregulation is inherently good, is deeply anchored in the American mindset in particular. And it's true that regulation can be inadequate, counterproductive, pointless, or otherwise unadapted to the situation.

However keep in mind that in a democratic representative system, regulations happen to attempt to solve problems that the population have. That's the entire point of people electing their representatives in Parliament. Creating and updating regulations is the entire purpose of the legislative branch.

When you have lobbies arguing that companies in a specific domain should be self-regulated because it would be more efficient, they may have convincing arguments, but do not forget that what they demand is to escape the oversight of democratically-elected representatives of the population. When an industry is self-regulating, they do not have to take into account the problems they cause for the population anymore.

Now I'm going to go on a slight tangent. First, read this about how corporations are "slow AI". Corporations are a form of artificial intelligence, they have a will and a mind of their own, independently from the people who staff it. And that hivemind is sociopathic. This is not true just for "evil corporations", this is true for all corporations, by their very nature. The important thing to remember here is that EA isn't worse than any other company. If you were EA's CEO, you'd do the same thing.

Sociopaths are the kind of people for whom fear of police is the only thing that deters them from harming others. You have to force corporations to be accountable to the public if you want them not to behave unethically, and the only way to make them accountable to the public is through regulation and their enforcement. That regulations may sometimes not be efficient, or adapted, is a secondary concern here; just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean it's not the only thing that can possibly work.

The gaming industry doesn't have the same potential as the finance, transport, or energy industries to generate massive disasters but that's their only saving grace.

I'll close with a few links about what happens when deregulation is pursued:
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi ... ext=facpub
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... o-disaster
http://www.epi.org/event/deregulatory-d ... ility-act/
https://www.tni.org/en/article/business ... regulation
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/07/09/P ... -Megantic/

[Arctangent]

I am going to be really sad if EA takes down digital card games down with it.