Gov't Regulation for Games Discussion- DLC related

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

Dis

Confirmed Male
748
45
So just got off the phone with my congressman's office, they called me back from my submitted comments. They sent an inquiry today to the ESRB and the CTA about the inclusion of using real money to gamble for outcomes in gaming and on electronic devices. They also sent e-mails to several ranking house committee members to bring it to their attention and asked that I leave a comment for the oversight and government reform committee to show my concern for this growing issue.

Good job Hillary!
 

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Good thing you aren't a kid between the age of 10-15 or you'd spend 4-6 figures to get it on your credit card, according to Vaclav.

The risk shouldn't be there. And there's plenty of examples, I realize with your history with meth and being unable to properly budget for stuff like toothpaste you may have missed it but there's tons of cases that have been levied as complaints against such practices all over.

12 year old spends nearly $1400 on Farmville - Geek.com for one of dozens of examples.
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,846
30,786
Didn't wan't to clutter up the game thread with this so I started this one:
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe | PC Gamer

Hawaiian State Representative Chris Lee announces action to combat predatory practices in gaming, singles out EA | PowerUp!

Obviously this is just all talk so far, no action yet.

However, If we know anything about anything is government in general's ability and desire to regulate something. Especially if they see possible tax dollar signs. Imagine every DLC taxed every micro transaction taxed.

Now of course right now it's for predatory practices because game makers are probably taking DLC too far. Like a .02% chance for an in game item for every pack or crate opened when they're like 10 bucks a piece etc. That's thousands and thousands of dollars for an random chance for an in game item. For those that say this isn't gambling, consider now it's involving lawyers/lawmakers and they are saying you need to be 18/21 to do this.

How will this change the dynamic of games in general from just a mobile game to stuff like BF2 loot crate type stuff.

So several items come to mind:
1) Taxes - if you think that isn't behind this you're kidding yourself.
2) Microtransactions - Do they use real case like mobile phone transactions for mobile games? Do they use fake cash like in game cash you can buy with real currency (Everquest , daybreak cash, ISK in EVE and their in game stores) Each game has it's own stuff.
3) If a state or country gets this going, this will spread and each state / gov't will determine their own rules.
4) Will the games need to be rated 18/21 because of gambling from a gov't prespective? The store is baked into the games after all and if they consider this gambling and it's essential to the game as a whole....


This opens a whole can of worms, especially when you get down to lawyer type definitions of what is DLC and is it gambling?

Discuss....

I do these things for a living. I deal with games of skill vs. chance on an every day thing, and deal with multiple lawyers on the issue. I'm no lawyer here, but I believe there are two issues at large here:

1. Loot Boxes are Gambling

If the account or item can be sold via a 3rd party, or is otherwise tradeable in game in some capacity, then yes, I can see it being gambling but probably not enforced really, since the end user is (presumably) using skill to obtain said things. Loot boxes are different. They are sanctioned by the publisher/game creator to "pay money to get unknown items". The player cannot use skill. There is no predictableness in the outcome, and the players skill has no bearing on the outcome. It's a pure chance play, a pull of a slot machine. Again, this isn't a problem, so long as the item has absolutely zero value to anyone whatsoever. But if its tradeable, or otherwise can be used to the benefit of others, gambling could be at play. Entropia Universe, who invented the strongbox concept years and years ago, has been doing this exact thing for years and will be hardest hit if this happens. People spend tens of thousands of dollars on strong boxes in EU to get single pieces of gear. The rings that you can get sell for over $10,000 USD on the ped market in some cases.

Gambling laws in almost every country in the world are very broad. They generally involve "a thing of value". This is an extremely broad definition that many people wrongly associate with "value means money". Value means "ANYTHING of ANY benefit to ANYONE". A really really good piece of loot is most certainly valuable to another player of the game, even though it was obtained for free and would be "a thing of value". You saw with skin gambling the same issue - you're gambling things of value, even though it wasn't money, it was still something of value to another.

2. Predatory Practices in Gaming

I suspect this is more geared toward the carrot concept that king.com CEO talked about years ago. To create artificial "walls" to entice players to buy things to get stronger to pass them, only to have another wall in front of them later. The entire game design and concept being designed to play on emotions of players. Think like an aggressive solicitor. And make this a continual process, while charging more and more, making the game artificially harder or easier based on purchasing history of the player. But I need to read more into this specifically.

I personally don't have a problem with #2, but I can see government wanting to get involved at some level here (though I don't overly agree with it).

edit: some clarification added, and most important changed "narrow" to "broad".
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
People are pissed at DLC and loot crates because, the "conservative" "traditional" games did not like them and said they were problems but the "progressive" new gamers were like "Its the future, thats how games are now- it only ADDS TO THE GAME"
latest
 

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
I know the likely hood of this happening is pretty much non existent but I really hope this gets regulated just to watch EA/Activation collapse under their own weight.
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,846
30,786
I know the likely hood of this happening is pretty much non existent but I really hope this gets regulated just to watch EA/Activation collapse under their own weight.

Strongbox crackdowns are most likely to happen if anything does happen. Predatory practices in gaming not so likely. But strong boxes almost certainly. It's really hard, with the extremely broad definition of a "thing of value", to be considered anything but gambling. But obviously, they probably wont really want to enforce it in the cases where you're buying something for your own use in game. But the moment any of these things are tradeable, especially on a platform that actively encourages it or provides the means to do so (eg: a real money auction house), that's likely to be much more enforced.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
AladainAF AladainAF Amen - I was talking more about #2 and that seems like a great summary of my feelings on it. I could care less about it when it's limited to adult products though, but predatory shit like that in products that kids play is just awful. On a personal level I hate seeing anything other than "expansions" showing up as DLC/MTX and I'd love the benefit of such being tamped down as a side benefit.

#1 I'm a bit ignorant on since I don't deal with aftermarket side but it's an interesting read.
 

yamikazo

Trakanon Raider
1,361
546
I recently bought Shadow of War, which has its own lootbox controversy. The RPG elements of the game have been turned into RNG elements - I don't grind for better orcs or gain exp for better gears because instead I run around to get in-game currency so I can buy a lootbox which hopefully contains a useful thing (but most things are trash, so the cycle continues). Instead of meaningful power progression, I have a gambler's chance to improve my character at any given time.

This isn't good gameplay, this isn't fun. The only thing it does is give money to the game maker because they rig the deck so I throw my hands up out of frustration until the "best option" to improve my character is tossing dollar after dollar at the in-game shop.

Designing for a cash shop is surely more profitable, but it makes the game suck.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

zombiewizardhawk

Potato del Grande
9,315
11,900
You say it's not good gameplay and not fun. That's true for you. There are plenty of people who do enjoy that kind of thing (and all the other cash shop shenanigans in games). You know what I do with games that I don't find fun? I choose not to buy them. I don't run around screaming that the government needs to step in and force companies to stop making games that I don't like.

There are a million games out there that suck that have absolutely no cash shop design elements to them in the slightest. Shit games are shit, whether the company tries to make extra money off mtx or not.

Edit: I spent around $1000 on Black Desert. Then they completely changed massive elements of the game relating to open world pvp/etc. Maybe we need the government to step in and regulate whether or not game patches are OK or not!

Vaclav Vaclav so you link a story where a kid steals his mom's credit card (and the mom fully agrees it's the childs fault) as evidence that game companies are robbing children? The literal only thing relating to the company the mom says is "do more to prevent this type of thing" which I take to mean better authorization processes. There's not much you can do other than requiring all the CC info for purchases. What do you want, timestamped photos of a person holding their photo ID to be faxed in and scrutinized by security experts any time someone spends money online?
 
Last edited:
  • 3Picard
  • 1Like
Reactions: 3 users

zombiewizardhawk

Potato del Grande
9,315
11,900
Let me pose some questions: What do you guys think is magically going to happen if the government starts regulating what game companies can and can't do with their games? Are they going to magically stop trying to make money through dlc shenanigans or expansions or anything else? Is every game that comes out suddenly going to become a masterpiece that you fall in love with and reminisce about 20 years later? Are the companies that are massively pushing for this stuff to increase their profits (all business' try to make as much money as possible) going to suddenly start caring about the customer instead of profits, or are they going to look for other ways to make whatever they end up losing out on maybe by raising prices?

If a company wants to sell a game aimed at children for $999.99 should they be allowed to or not?
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,145
32,710
lol I feel like you think we're suggesting this to have some sort of happy reconciliation, rather than because fuck EA that's why.
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

slippery

<Bronze Donator>
7,886
7,701
Nothing that comes of anything like this will be good for the consumer. The end result is you will pay more for shit
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user

goishen

Macho Ma'am
3,547
14,537
Right, but for them to be making bank off'a shitheads like this is just cancer.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,145
32,710
Nothing that comes of anything like this will be good for the consumer. The end result is you will pay more for shit

OK and? I would still much rather pay $80 up front for a title than F2P you have to dump $2100 in.
 
  • 2Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users

goishen

Macho Ma'am
3,547
14,537
Plus, I hate this entire idea of gambling and video games (not just for kids) in the first place. Because where does it stop? This time it's, "Oh, you'll get the basic gun." Next time it's, "Oh, we'll give you a shitty gun that we used 100 years ago." Time after? "Let's see if you get a gun."

It just never stops with these shitheads. You give them an inch and they take a mile.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,846
30,786
Let me pose some questions: What do you guys think is magically going to happen if the government starts regulating what game companies can and can't do with their games? Are they going to magically stop trying to make money through dlc shenanigans or expansions or anything else? Is every game that comes out suddenly going to become a masterpiece that you fall in love with and reminisce about 20 years later? Are the companies that are massively pushing for this stuff to increase their profits (all business' try to make as much money as possible) going to suddenly start caring about the customer instead of profits, or are they going to look for other ways to make whatever they end up losing out on maybe by raising prices?

If a company wants to sell a game aimed at children for $999.99 should they be allowed to or not?

I think that this is a bit disingenuous here, and I'm the first type of person to be anti-government when it comes to these things.

First off, this has nothing to do with what game companies can and cannot do with the content in the games. The issues are centered around how purchase affect hidden gaming mechanics and the social engineering that occurs underneath the game as a result of these purchases that the player knows nothing about, nor is ever disclosed to the player.

Let's say I have a game where you fight enemies to defeat them to get to the next level. The game is $50. You pay $50 for the game. Now, I also have content in the game that allows you to spend to buy upgrades to make accomplishing tasks easier, such as round extension packs, damage boosters, etc. Unknown to you, and I never ever tell you this or disclose this, I track who pays for additional packages and content, and make the game harder for you, knowing that you will spend money to get over challenges I present to you in the game. I track which parts of the game you spend for and which you don't. I artificially change the game FOR YOU based on your spending habits. So the more you spend, the harder the game is for you, so that you spend more to get further. For example, if you buy that ultra mega extreme $999.99 pack, your enemies will all have an inate bonus to their attack and defense, unknown to you. But to those that bought no packs at all, the enemy will have no bonus to their attack and defense. In the end, you will advance further than the person that doesn't pay - simply because you can "buy" your way to better content - but one day if you decide to stop spending money, the next wall you hit, you'll never pass because I've made the game so difficult for you now that you have no choice but to spend or quit to get past (or if the game is balanced very very well, you would require a ton of luck and skill to get past it where a free player can require just a little luck and little skill -- even though you would have gotten to that enemy well before the free player did).

Read this, it's a really good write up on the issue. Not the same as my example, but yet another issue that explains things well.

When Games Pretend to Be Games They Aren't - Overthinking It

One part of Article said:
Candy Crush is a scam. You all know Candy Crush, right? Of course you do. You’re playing it right now. Anyway, it’s a scam. The whole play experience is designed to trick you into spending money on in-game content.

I don’t mean that it just seems like it would be more enjoyable if you spent a few bucks. Offering goods and services in exchange for money is not, in itself, fraudulent. What makes Candy Crush sinister is its attempts at social engineering. For instance, there’s a rumor going around that if you spend a single dollar in Candy Crush, the difficulty of future levels suddenly ramps up dramatically. The developer denies this… but true or not, the business model makes a lot of sense. You’ve just identified yourself to the developers as the kind of person who, when faced with a level he/she can’t beat, will spend money on power-ups. It is therefore to their benefit to ensure that you are faced with levels you can’t beat all the time, right?

And why not just make the game impossible to beat without buying powerups? Well, most casual gamers will never spend money on in-game content, no matter what. If you have to spend money to even play the game beyond a certain point, they will simply stop playing the game. And although these people aren’t going to make the developers a cent directly, they function as a kind of free advertising, roping in potential paying customers through word of mouth. So it’s to the developer’s benefit to keep the cheapskates playing too.

More articles on the topic (And of course, these tricks are not just F2P anymore):

The Top F2P Monetization Tricks
The Ethics of the Candy Crush Pusher
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions: 4 users

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
BTW @Utnayan has been AWOL from this topic for a bit... hopefully he's OK, weird for him to not be involved.
 

Daezuel

Potato del Grande
22,811
48,065
I think that this is a bit disingenuous here, and I'm the first type of person to be anti-government when it comes to these things.

First off, this has nothing to do with what game companies can and cannot do with the content in the games. The issues are centered around how purchase affect hidden gaming mechanics and the social engineering that occurs underneath the game as a result of these purchases that the player knows nothing about, nor is ever disclosed to the player.

Let's say I have a game where you fight enemies to defeat them to get to the next level. The game is $50. You pay $50 for the game. Now, I also have content in the game that allows you to spend to buy upgrades to make accomplishing tasks easier, such as round extension packs, damage boosters, etc. Unknown to you, and I never ever tell you this or disclose this, I track who pays for additional packages and content, and make the game harder for you, knowing that you will spend money to get over challenges I present to you in the game. I track which parts of the game you spend for and which you don't. I artificially change the game FOR YOU based on your spending habits. So the more you spend, the harder the game is for you, so that you spend more to get further. For example, if you buy that ultra mega extreme $999.99 pack, your enemies will all have an inate bonus to their attack and defense, unknown to you. But to those that bought no packs at all, the enemy will have no bonus to their attack and defense. In the end, you will advance further than the person that doesn't pay - simply because you can "buy" your way to better content - but one day if you decide to stop spending money, the next wall you hit, you'll never pass because I've made the game so difficult for you now that you have no choice but to spend or quit to get past (or if the game is balanced very very well, you would require a ton of luck and skill to get past it where a free player can require just a little luck and little skill -- even though you would have gotten to that enemy well before the free player did).

Read this, it's a really good write up on the issue. Not the same as my example, but yet another issue that explains things well.

When Games Pretend to Be Games They Aren't - Overthinking It

giphy.gif
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user