D3M1G0D:

Companies like EA have gotten a lot of flak for loot crates, but the trend didn't start with them, nor do I think they are to blame (like any other company, they are trying to make as much money as possible for their shareholders, which is their stated duty). I place the blame squarely on the whales - they are the ones who allowed IAPs to succeed in the mobile market, and they are who PC game developers are trying to appeal to now. Simply put, if rich idiots didn't spend boatloads of money on loot crates then we wouldn't have this problem.

Actually it did start with them. With FIFA Ultimate team in 2011. This is the exact model they use in Battlefront 2 and the new Need for Speed. They even closed Visceral's Star Wars game because it basically didn't have the ultimate team model in it. (See: https://kotaku.com/the-collapse-of-viscerals-ambitious-star-wars-game-1819916152) ''At EA, however, things were different. “She was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes,” said one person who worked on Ragtag. “EA executives are like, ‘FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year.’ Where’s your version of that?” ''

People who say “its ok to have gambling, its morons who suffer” should think way bigger. Its not only gambling issues, but games being balanced around gambling. You want get good in game? Spend around $1000 to get character that doesnt get insta killed. Or play for 3000 hours to unlock it... by the time nobody will the game anymore and move on to new game. You just giving an excuse to EA to promote pay2win strategy

sverek:

People who say “its ok to have gambling, its morons who suffer” should think way bigger. Its not only gambling issues, but games being balanced around gambling. You want get good in game? Spend around $1000 to get character that doesnt get insta killed. Or play for 3000 hours to unlock it... by the time nobody will the game anymore and move on to new game. You just giving an excuse to EA to promote pay2win strategy

Except people who aren't morons don't waste their time in the first place playing a game that should be based on skill but instead depends on gambling. There are plenty of good alternatives out there - nobody is forcing you to play these games. Sure, they may be pretty, but so are a lot of games that I know you (not specifically you) passed up because it didn't fit your interest. What's so different here? The only reason for anyone should get bothered is the fact that EA is ruining good franchises and developer studios.

sverek:

NCGP aka: FCC. NCGP : "Gambling in game is BAD!" EA: "Here is $10k, don't tell anybody" NCGP : "Gambling is OK" Nothing mentioned regarding transparency.... this need to be killed before it grown and fed by EA and other major game publishers.

Not 10k lol, even some twitch streamers make twice or more to play something new. They hand out millions, for example they gave Slightly mad studios 1 million dollars just to not engage other publishers for a year.

schmidtbag:

Except people who aren't morons don't waste their time in the first place playing a game that should be based on skill but instead depends on gambling. There are plenty of good alternatives out there - nobody is forcing you to play these games.

Stop. You either endorse this trend or not. IT WILL affect how other publishers and developers look into it. By the time you keep ignoring this issue, Witcher 4 might as well have pub where you can bet real money to play poker to get in-game gold. Just stop sticking your head in sand and saying "nobody is forcing you". It's like saying "nobody forcing you to use internet" once providers start to charge you $100 to access specific sites. Or "nobody forcing you to use a car" once government triple car taxes.

sverek:

Stop. You either endorse this trend or not. IT WILL affect how other publishers and developers look into it. By the time you keep ignoring this issue, Witcher 4 might as well have pub where you can bet real money to play poker to get in-game gold.

Just because I don't endorse it that doesn't mean there is anything to worry about or that I need to do anything about it. If people buy into this crap and enjoy it, good for them. Not my loss.

Just stop sticking your head in sand and saying "nobody is forcing you". It's like saying "nobody forcing you to use internet" once providers start to charge you $100 to access specific sites. Or "nobody forcing you to use a car" once government triple car taxes.

That is comparing apples to oranges. There are alternative games that are just as fun (if not more fun) than the pay-to-win crap that's out there. Eliminate the financing and many of these games still aren't that fun. Also, video games aren't that important. If every major published followed the ways of EA, I would have plenty of other things I could do to fill my time and enjoy my life. I tend to buy indie games most of the time anyway. The fact of the matter is, these companies are in it for the money and they're making something that nobody needs. If nobody is buying their crap, they're not making money. Since they can't depend on you to buy it, they will do what it takes to get the most profit. As for the Internet, that is something many people do actually depend on, and when something like net neutrality fails, everyone loses. That even includes people who aren't in the same country, and it can even affect people who don't use the internet. For most of the affected people, they don't have an alternative. As for car taxes, the only ones I know of are either based on emissions (which is done in the best interest of the entire planet) or they're based on excise when you buy something new. When it comes to the latter, vehicle manufacturers are either going to lobby to get their product sold, or, the citizens will get annoyed enough to fight it; it won't last. The better analogy would be fast food restaurants. They're basically feeding you addictive garbage. If you want to slowly kill yourself eating that crap on a regular basis, have it - I don't care. The companies have no obligation to change their methods as long as people willingly support them. There are healthier alternatives that aren't more expensive; the saying comes back - nobody is forcing you to go. If you're smart enough to avoid it, great. The only regulation that should be done is on parents who feed their children fast food on a regular basis, since it's basically child abuse. But even though this comparison is more akin to this discussion, video games aren't as extreme as this. EDIT: When it comes to products that people don't need to survive and aren't designed to exploit human psychology, I don't care what companies do. It's a vicious market and if they piss off their customers, they will suffer the consequences. The customers win in the end.

Denial:

Normally I would agree but a large portion of these people are kids. Kids don't have any sense of the value of money and lack self-control. I've personally watched my 14 year old cousin spend $80 in steam gift cards in 10 minutes on CS skins despite me attempting to talk him out of it, all because "I want an awp dragon lore". He's a moron, but he's also 14, everyone is a moron at 14 and I think companies should have some level of responsibility preventing this - parents as well obviously.

Sorry to hear that. But yeah, "Pride and Accomplishment" that EA staff mentioned regarding gambling is exactly targeted for kids. People in age doesn't give a crap about pride and accomplishment with skins or characters. Default skin is best skin to me for CS:GO.

schmidtbag:

Just because I don't endorse it that doesn't mean there is anything to worry about or that I need to do anything about it. If people buy into this crap and enjoy it, good for them. Not my loss. That is comparing apples to oranges. There are alternative games that are just as fun (if not more fun) than the pay-to-win crap that's out there. Eliminate the financing and many of these games still aren't that fun. Also, video games aren't that important. If every major published followed the ways of EA, I would have plenty of other things I could do to fill my time and enjoy my life. The fact of the matter is, these companies are in it for the money and they're making something that nobody needs. If nobody is buying their crap, they're not making money. They will do what it takes to get the most profit. As for the Internet, that is something many people do actually depend on, and when something like net neutrality fails, everyone loses. That even includes people who aren't in the same country, and it can even affect people who don't use the internet. For most of the affected people, they don't have an alternative. As for car taxes, the only ones I know of are either based on emissions (which is done in the best interest of the entire planet) or they're based on excise when you buy something new. When it comes to the latter, vehicle manufacturers are either going to lobby to get their product sold, or, the citizens will get annoyed enough to fight it; it won't last. The better analogy would be fast food restaurants. They're basically feeding you addictive garbage. If you want to slowly kill yourself eating that crap on a regular basis, have it - I don't care. The companies have no obligation to change their methods as long as people willingly support them. There are healthier alternatives that aren't more expensive; the saying comes back - nobody is forcing you to go. If you're smart enough to avoid it, great. The only regulation that should be done is on parents who feed their children fast food on a regular basis, since it's basically child abuse. But even though this comparison is more akin to this discussion, video games aren't as extreme as this.

Yes, you right with your analogy and my comparison wasn't accurate. The point was, we still can do something about it.

If every major published followed the ways of EA, I would have plenty of other things I could do to fill my time and enjoy my life.

This is exactly why I brought cars example. You might not have a car, so you don't care about people who has a car and how much they have to spend on it. But still they depended on it for commute, etc... Games are part of our culture. Just because I might not be a gamer, I don't want to allow publishers ruin gaming experience. (Example with internet limitations was targeted toward you.) So this brings us back to the topic, gambling in gaming is hot issue right now and public opinion will have effect on it (hopefully as net neutrality). It's our chance to oppose it. If we don't say "NO" NOW, there no time frame to say "NO" in FUTURE. Gambling in games will become common and people spending money to be good in games will be common practice. This is the sad state of free social games. I don't want all games to suffer it. Silence is endorsement. I wish we could say fast food restaurant for your kids is bad, but there already crapton of laws protecting it. Because people back in a day just let it happen.

sverek:

The point was, we still can do something about it.

Agreed - you can speak with your wallet. Or Tweet about it and gripe on Metacritic I guess, as has been also been done before. Might sound kinda stupid, but apparently it works.

This is exactly why I brought cars example. You might not have a car, so you don't care about people who has a car and how much they have to spend on it. But still they depended on it for commute, etc... Games are part of our culture. Just because I might not be a gamer, I don't want to allow publishers ruin gaming experience.

I have a car from 2016, and I live in an area where I am taxed based on the car's age and MSRP. This is my sole form of transportation, and I find the tax irritating because I don't even know what it goes toward. Unless I registered my car in a different state (which would add a whole other layer of headaches), I don't have an alternative - I'm stuck with this crappy situation; I am forced to deal with it if I want to keep my job. Sure, I could maybe buy a 10-year-old car where the tax is minimal, but then I have to deal with the burdens of an old car. The difference with games is there are still plenty of great options out there where devs/publishers won't blatantly screw you over. I haven't bought a game from from companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc anywhere from 4 to 10 years and I don't feel like I'm missing out one bit. There are plenty of huge publishers out there who could easily abuse their power, but for the most part they don't.

So this brings us back to the topic, gambling in gaming is hot issue right now and public opinion will have effect on it (hopefully as net neutrality). It's our chance to oppose it. If we don't say "NO" NOW, there no time frame to say "NO" in FUTURE. Gambling in games will become common and people spending money to be good in games will be common practice. This is the sad state of free social games. I don't want all games to suffer it.

I assure you, not all games will suffer this - only some AAA titles will. I respect your concern, but I'm telling you, this isn't going to last. It will naturally die on its own. People are getting more and more angry after every major game that pulls these gambling and pay-to-win stunts. Games will lose popularity when people are called stupid for buying into them. Peer pressure is a powerful tool. Since the vast majority of these games are online multiplayer, they're going to be pretty unappealing when there's nobody left online.

Silence is endorsement.

I disagree, because silent protesting is very much a thing. But I'm not going to argue beyond this. Anyway, if I am presented with a method beyond boycotting and picketing to stop this nonsense, sure, I'll join in. But until that happens, I'm just going to watch the fire burn itself out and laugh as these millionaires start blaming their misery on millennials.

schmidtbag:

Just because I don't endorse it that doesn't mean there is anything to worry about or that I need to do anything about it. If people buy into this crap and enjoy it, good for them. Not my loss.

I dunno. My thinking is that with every micro-transaction, the more the game companies will glom onto it as a source of revenue. And as these companies become richer and richer, other companies will follow their example and implement their own micro-transaction. Investors will then take notice and pour their money into these companies (and out of competing companies) and we will have a micro-transaction arms race. In early days of smartphones, there were plenty of pay-to-play games and I can still remember buying some during sales. Nowadays, those games are all but extinct and freemium games have become the accepted standard. Unless this trend is halted, I fear the same will happen to PC gaming* The only problem is that I'm not sure if it can stopped. Although there is fierce resistance to micro-transactions among the PC gaming community today, this won't always be the case. In particular, those who grew up playing freemium games on smartphones may be more accepting of micro-transactions in PC games. The rich only seem to be getting richer (especially if Trump's tax plan passes) so in the future, games may only be enjoyably played by the 1%. *I hate freemium games with a passion, and refuse to pay a single cent out of principle (it's the same reason why I will never buy a Titan GPU)

D3M1G0D:

I dunno. My thinking is that with every micro-transaction, the more the game companies will glom onto it as a source of revenue. And as these companies become richer and richer, other companies will follow their example and implement their own micro-transaction. Investors will then take notice and pour their money into these companies (and out of competing companies) and we will have a micro-transaction arms race.

I see what you mean, but the fact of the matter is, the reason it is becoming a successful business model is because people like it and are ok with the pricing. But that behavior isn't universal. Companies like EA and Ubisoft make games that stick to a formula that appeals to the widest audience possible, for obvious reasons. The average person sucks at playing games, so paying a little extra to give them that rush of winning is also appealing. But when you buy a game that's more complex or competitive, the demographics of players change. Because of this, the devs can't get far with pay-to-win micro-transactions without pissing off their entire userbase, especially if the developer traditionally never did it. So yes, on the surface, the future may look grim for just about any game worth caring about. But if gaming is important to you as it is to millions of other people, I honestly don't think it will get much worse than it is now.

In early days of smartphones, there were plenty of pay-to-play games and I can still remember buying some during sales. Nowadays, those games are all but extinct and freemium games have become the accepted standard. Unless this trend is halted, I fear the same will happen to PC gaming*

I noticed this trend with smartphones, but I don't think it will happen to PC. For one thing, most people who play a game on a smartphone are really just doing it to kill time when they're waiting in line or taking a dump; there's a reason phone/tablet games are associated with casual gamers. It's hard to justify paying good money on something you only play for a few minutes at a time. But, devs need money, so they design the games around the same psychologically addictive principles as casino games. These games are way beyond what even EA would attempt.

In particular, those who grew up playing freemium games on smartphones may be more accepting of micro-transactions in PC games. The rich only seem to be getting richer (especially if Trump's tax plan passes) so in the future, games may only be enjoyably played by the 1%.

You have a valid point there.

schmidtbag:

I see what you mean, but the fact of the matter is, the reason it is becoming a successful business model is because people like it and are ok with the pricing. But that behavior isn't universal. Companies like EA and Ubisoft make games that stick to a formula that appeals to the widest audience possible, for obvious reasons. The average person sucks at playing games, so paying a little extra to give them that rush of winning is also appealing. But when you buy a game that's more complex or competitive, the demographics of players change. Because of this, the devs can't get far with pay-to-win micro-transactions without pissing off their entire userbase, especially if the developer traditionally never did it. So yes, on the surface, the future may look grim for just about any game worth caring about. But if gaming is important to you as it is to millions of other people, I honestly don't think it will get much worse than it is now.

This analysis assuming that companies like EA and Ubisoft will stick to the pay-to-play model, which needs to appeal to the widest audience possible. The thing is, the pay-to-win model does not need to appeal to a wide audience, they just need to attract enough whales to kept the game profitable (it's a very different model from pay-to-play). It doesn't matter if 99% of the player base is unhappy, just as long as the paying 1% is happy. That being said, I do think that PC game developers will stick with pay-to-play for the foreseeable future. However, I think they will try to sneak in in-app bribes as much as possible (that whale meat is too tasty to ignore). In all, I see the mobile market is a warning, and so I don't take these micro-transactions lightly - I see them as a serious threat.

Looks like this faux lobby group was setup by a self-professed 17yr old internet troll. Thinks of himself as an entrepreneur according the digging done by Forbes.