It is great that EA uses the EA Downloader EA Launcher Origin these days. So it is easy to avoid EA games. Did they release any good games in the last few years which they didn't ruin on purpose with some cash grabbing mechanic?

bugI don't think people understand these statements as they should.

EA Money Maker 1: - You know how gamers collect items in order to finish a game? Let's give them the items at random and charge for that.
EA Money Maker 2: - While we're at it, let's make sure only a negligible amount of the items are actually useful.
EA C-level exec (a few months later): - The idiots are actually buying into that crap. What a surprise! Damn, this is fun!

And that is exactly why this kind of predatory crap needs regulation.

Razrback16Loot boxes are "surprise mechanics"
Ok...then
The piratebay copy of a game is just an "unrestricted demo"

Well played!

Look at #2 on console...

FordGT90ConceptLook at #2 on console...

That also highlights the absolute poverty on mobile.... Perfect World... what!?! And Candy Crush/Clash of Clans are how old now? Wow

AerpoweronIt is great that EA uses the EA Downloader EA Launcher Origin these days. So it is easy to avoid EA games. Did they release any good games in the last few years which they didn't ruin on purpose with some cash grabbing mechanic?

Apex isn't bad ,I still have not paid a penny.

Loads of people have better costume and gun skins then me I don't care but tbf done right they are just a minor inconvenience.

To be fair to EA.

FordGT90ConceptWhat about casinos in Fallout New Vegas and Yakuza? It's a game within a game and there's no material cost to participate other than time and initial purchase of the game. Another example is which toy you get in a kid's meal. It's generally not considered gambling because it's a gift rather than putting something of lesser value in on the hope you'll get something of greater value back. The purchase is the food, not the complementary toy.

I draw the line at inserting legal tender (hiding it behind tokens like you do at brick and mortar casinos doesn't belay that fact) for a chance in a game. The only difference from traditional gambling is that it's spending money on the hopes that you'll get more money back. Because the publisher owns the market for the loot box contents, they'll never let the value of the gambled item exceed the cash odds of getting it. I think that distinction is academic only.

Honestly, I don't know what the solution is other than the service banning children from participating. My hope is that consumers see it for what it is and simply don't partake but that's about as likely as snow in the Sahara. They don't get nothing from me, that's for damn sure.

Material cost is irrelevant if you can trade materials for currency. Lets not get into semantics here, its not the same as beating a boss/whoever and opening a reward chest from it. Even if these loot boxes came from that reward chest, if (yep here is the big IF) they are traded for anything (currency or other material), its gambling.

In the end, we all know it will come down to the lesser of the evils presented to us, as long as the developers can benefit right into their paychecks, its not that they dont deserve it, although many studios really dont.

The difference between this discussion and toy from a kids meal is a pretty poor example coming from you, you know its not that simple, that is not a computer game.

DeathtoGnomesMaterial cost is irrelevant if you can trade materials for currency.

You can't spend USD/EUR/<insert currency here> to accelerate your progress in Fallout New Vegas nor Yakuza (not as the game shipped anyway). Virtual casinos in both of those games is exclusive to its own sealed, artificial economy (caps in New Vegas, yen in Yakuza; real market value of 0).

There are lots of games like this that predate loot boxes. One that comes to mind is the original Fable. You could choose "feats" which are basically rules where you gamble on yourself completing them for bonus experience and game currency. Is it text book definition of gambling? Yes. Does it require regulation? No, because it's completely up to the player to participate and win or lose, it's just a game with no material stake on the outcome.

To argue that virtual, sealed casinos need regulation is like arguing racing games should enforce the laws of the road because a virtual car on a virtual road is analogous to a real car on a real road so the rules must match. I completely disagree with that notion because games are fundamentally art...

Which brings me back to the point: if publishers want to offer digital items for sale, I have no problem with that. Consumers are willing to pay for access to things and as long as they get exactly what they asked for and there was no false advertising in regards to it, there's nothing wrong with it (other than being an unregulated market/exchange but that's for a different thread). What I have a problem with is people trading material wealth for a chance (<100%) to get something you actually intended to get with the purchase. That is analogous to using a slot machine and the law should treat it as such.


I also strongly feel that if exchanges for digital goods aren't direct (e.g. legal tender -> tokens -> digital goods), the company handling the tokens should have to comply with exchange laws. This pseudo-banking publishers are using has gone unregulated far too long. An example that immediately comes to mind is Nintendo's Wii Points. Want to buy a 800 Wii Point SNES game? Too bad, you have to spend $10 to get 1000 Wii Points and those 200 points you didn't spend are basically a $2 Nintendo tax if you don't find a way to use them. It's so anti-consumer and anti-competition (Nintendo was price fixing too).

surprise mechanic sounds like another way of saying the hooker i was with turned out to be a lady boy

FordGT90ConceptAn example that immediately comes to mind is Nintendo's Wii Points. Want to buy a 800 Wii Point SNES game? Too bad, you have to spend $10 to get 1000 Wii Points and those 200 points you didn't spend are basically a $2 Nintendo tax if you don't find a way to use them. It's so anti-consumer and anti-competition (Nintendo was price fixing too).

That's a poor example as the Wii Points carried forward, the balance of which could be used on a future purchase, which I personally did frequently. Not even close to the same kind of scenario that EA and others are using to rip people off.

lexluthermiesterThat's a poor example as the Wii Points carried forward, the balance of which could be used on a future purchase, which I personally did frequently. Not even close to the same kind of scenario that EA and others are using to rip people off.

Except that those points on account are worth whatever Nintendo says they are. If they decided to jack the same point value of SNES games up to 1600 later, you're 200 points should be retroactively upgraded to 400 points. They don't do that even though the purchasing power of the initial legal tender value put in is roughly the same. They're basically acting like a bank, exchange, and store all at once without abiding by the laws of the former.

Think about it from a different perspective: what other context do you buy tokens with cash instead of products/services directly? Other than digital store fronts (Ubisoft/Assassin's Creed uses Helix points), the only one that comes to mind is carnivals and casinos. Carnivals do it to minimize how many people have to deal with money (reduces risk of theft). Casinos do it because chips are much faster to add, subtract, and multiply than legal tender. Carnival tickets are generally not refundable and they expire quick so people are compelled to only buy what they think they will use and to use it all before they leave. Casino chips are extremely convertible. What's Nintendo's excuse? What's Ubisoft's excuse? As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no excuse not to process everything as legal tender when the entire ecosystem is digital. Case in point: slot machines that accept credit cards forego the use of chips.

EA did similar with Bioware Points. Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 suffered from that plague. One could easily make a strong case against EA for price fixing there because EA forgot to discount them while they would discount the actual game on their store. They only went on sale...like...once. If you're like me and bought all of the things but you weren't like me and didn't plan out how to end up with no Points left over, any excess held by EA is forever there's with no refunds ever. How is that fair? The same argument can be used against Nintendo and Ubisoft.

The only reason why "points" on stores exist is expressly to "rip people off" and they all do it surprisingly equally. Anyway...that's off topic.

FordGT90ConceptExcept that those points on account are worth whatever Nintendo says they are. If they decided to jack the same point value of SNES games up to 1600 later, you're 200 points should be retroactively upgraded to 400 points. They don't do that even though the purchasing power of the initial legal tender value put in is roughly the same. They're basically acting like a bank, exchange, and store all at once without abiding by the laws of the former.

Think about it from a different perspective: what other context do you buy tokens with cash instead of products/services directly? Other than digital store fronts (Ubisoft/Assassin's Creed uses Helix points), the only one that comes to mind is carnivals and casinos. Carnivals do it to minimize how many people have to deal with money (reduces risk of theft). Casinos do it because chips are much faster to add, subtract, and multiply than legal tender. Carnival tickets are generally not refundable and they expire quick so people are compelled to only buy what they think they will use and to use it all before they leave. Casino chips are extremely convertible. What's Nintendo's excuse? What's Ubisoft's excuse? As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely no excuse not to process everything as legal tender when the entire ecosystem is digital. Case in point: slot machines that accept credit cards forego the use of chips.

EA did similar with Bioware Points. Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 suffered from that plague. One could easily make a strong case against EA for price fixing there because EA forgot to discount them while they would discount the actual game on their store. They only went on sale...like...once.

The only reason why "points" on stores exist is expressly to "rip people off" and they all do it surprisingly equally. Anyway...that's off topic.

Add onto all of that the fact that you tend to buy the token currency in fixed quantities and the items are handily positioned 'just out of reach'. So you're always left with some insignificant bit of spare tokens you can never use until you top up again.

EDIT; ah you gave that Wii points example already - yep that

For the record, Apple is getting sued right now for $#.99 pricing which is the same thing. ^ The plaintiff is arguing that 99% of prices are unavailable to publishers because Apple said so and it is proof of price fixing.

FordGT90ConceptExcept that those points on account are worth whatever Nintendo says they are. If they decided to jack the same point value of SNES games up to 1600 later,

Except that Nintendo didn't change prices during the entirety of the WiiShop run, saving for the occasional sale at which time the game prices dropped.

FordGT90Conceptyou're 200 points should be retroactively upgraded to 400 points.

There was no need and for the reason above.

The point you tried to make is understandable, just that the example given wasn't ideal and doesn't fit.

Comparing Nintendo(a company that generally goes out of it's way to be fair with is customer base) to EA(a company that is known for ripping off it's customer base and treating users like criminals) is a very bold statement, and IMHO, not at all fair to Nintendo.

FordGT90ConceptYou can't spend USD/EUR/<insert currency here> to accelerate your progress in Fallout New Vegas nor Yakuza (not as the game shipped anyway). Virtual casinos in both of those games is exclusive to its own sealed, artificial economy (caps in New Vegas, yen in Yakuza; real market value of 0).

There are lots of games like this that predate loot boxes. One that comes to mind is the original Fable. You could choose "feats" which are basically rules where you gamble on yourself completing them for bonus experience and game currency. Is it text book definition of gambling? Yes. Does it require regulation? No, because it's completely up to the player to participate and win or lose, it's just a game with no material stake on the outcome.

To argue that virtual, sealed casinos need regulation is like arguing racing games should enforce the laws of the road because a virtual car on a virtual road is analogous to a real car on a real road so the rules must match. I completely disagree with that notion because games are fundamentally art...

Which brings me back to the point: if publishers want to offer digital items for sale, I have no problem with that. Consumers are willing to pay for access to things and as long as they get exactly what they asked for and there was no false advertising in regards to it, there's nothing wrong with it (other than being an unregulated market/exchange but that's for a different thread). What I have a problem with is people trading material wealth for a chance (<100%) to get something you actually intended to get with the purchase. That is analogous to using a slot machine and the law should treat it as such.


I also strongly feel that if exchanges for digital goods aren't direct (e.g. legal tender -> tokens -> digital goods), the company handling the tokens should have to comply with exchange laws. This pseudo-banking publishers are using has gone unregulated far too long. An example that immediately comes to mind is Nintendo's Wii Points. Want to buy a 800 Wii Point SNES game? Too bad, you have to spend $10 to get 1000 Wii Points and those 200 points you didn't spend are basically a $2 Nintendo tax if you don't find a way to use them. It's so anti-consumer and anti-competition (Nintendo was price fixing too).

So is Fallout and Fable single player games? :rolleyes: Kinda pointless reply using those examples since I refer to MMO style games that actually have trading with other players. :facepalm:

AerpoweronIt is great that EA uses the EA Downloader EA Launcher Origin these days. So it is easy to avoid EA games. Did they release any good games in the last few years which they didn't ruin on purpose with some cash grabbing mechanic?

Yes. Titanfall2.

lexluthermiesterComparing Nintendo(a company that generally goes out of it's way to be fair with is customer base) to EA(a company that is known for ripping off it's customer base and treating users like criminals) is a very bold statement, and IMHO, not at all fair to Nintendo.

There's nothing fair about having an intermedium for exchange in an entirely digital setting.

DeathtoGnomesSo is Fallout and Fable single player games? :rolleyes: Kinda pointless reply using those examples since I refer to MMO style games that actually have trading with other players. :facepalm:

Assassin's Creed Origins doesn't have multiplayer but it has a "Helix" based store. Legal tests can't be so broad.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (Square Enix) also comes to mind.

FordGT90ConceptThere's nothing fair about having an intermedium for exchange in an entirely digital setting.

You could use a Credit/Debit card to make purchases as well. I did that frequently. Come on Ford, you're smart enough to know that example doesn't work out as well as you wanted it to.

When the Wii Store was a thing, there was no way to directly buy on it using legal tender. All legal transactions were for Wii Points which were then exchanged for licenses to games. They did not have any mechanism in place to bypass Wii Points.

FordGT90ConceptWhen the Wii Store was a thing, there was no way to directly buy on it using legal tender. All legal transactions were for Wii Points which were then exchanged for licenses to games. They did not have any mechanism in place to bypass Wii Points.

Um, ok. Did you actually have a Wii? I have two and remember very clearly using my CC to make purchases directly on both systems. Sorry mate, you're incorrect on this one.

FordGT90ConceptWhen the Wii Store was a thing, there was no way to directly buy on it using legal tender. All legal transactions were for Wii Points which were then exchanged for licenses to games. They did not have any mechanism in place to bypass Wii Points.

How is that even remotely related to the topic? Just drop it already.

bugHow is that even remotely related to the topic? Just drop it already.

He was trying to make an example. But you're right this is off-topic...

lexluthermiesterHe was trying to make an example. But you're right this is off-topic...

Imho he was pushing for a fallacy: since this thing Nintendo did very, very vaguely resembles gambling and people are ok with it, no regulation is needed for any other forms of gambling in games.
But maybe I just didn't get it.

bugImho he was pushing for a fallacy: since this thing Nintendo did very, very vaguely resembles gambling and people are ok with it, no regulation is needed for any other forms of gambling in games.
But maybe I just didn't get it.

No, you got what he was trying to say. My argument was that because the values of all things involved were known at all times, it wasn't a gamble at all because Nintendo declared exactly what was on offer, what the values of everything was and the customer always knew what they were getting at all times.

lexluthermiesterNo, you got what he was trying to say. My argument was that because the values of all things involved were known at all times, it wasn't a gamble at all because Nintendo declared exactly what was on offer, what the values of everything was and the customer always knew what they were getting at all times.

So you went for the red herring :D