# The best E.A. pitting, Greedy! **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 27, 2017, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855 "2017-11-27T06:48:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/22 "2017-11-28T18:21:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because tricks like this will make them more money. You seem to neglect that these strategies are based on psychological manipulation. All sales and marketing is based on psychological manipulation. “Psychological manipulation” is a meaninglessly broad term. If I ask for something in a nice voice and say “please,” that is an attempt to manipulate someone psychologically. If you were to take some sort of state action against all manipulative sales and marketing efforts there would be very little for sale. > [@](#): > > The free market didn’t stop gambling. It’s a rationally stupid thing to do, outside of bets by friends and lotteries and stuff. Because it’s always designed with a house edge, meaning you will wind up losing. Any pleasure you get from winning will be offset by feeling bad from losing, which happens in roughly equal amounts. This is a remarkably, amazingly silly paragraph; of course everything you are saying here is plainly ridiculous. Your statement that gambling is “rationally stupid” is predicated on the assumption that losses cause the same level of bad feeling as wins; that is patently not the case. All evidence suggest gamblers 1. Get more from wins than they lose from losses in terms of net pleasure, and 2. Expect to generally lose, which is why the wins are so thrilling. The claim that “gambling is stupid” because people lose money at it is just as preposterous as saying “movies are stupid” or “books are stupid” or “skiing is stupid” because people lose money at those things. I’ve never made a cent from going to the movies, I lose every time. That doesn’t make it stupid to enjoy movies. I have no sympathy whatsoever for someone “addicted” to buying loot boxes in “Call of Duty Battlefield Modern Gears of War XVI” or whatever. It’s their choice. There are a bazillion high quality games you can play that don’t require this. There is no sign of a lack of good games to play. You know what really fucking sucks? Comic book movies. There are odd exceptions, like Iron Man, Spider-Man, or The Dark Knight, but the fact is that most of them are absolutely shitty, formulaic CGI wankfests. And yet people seem to be addicted to them - even the bad ones pull in half a billion dollars, and so Marvel and DC are going to continue churning out putrid movies that cost more and more to see every year, and in all likelihood the quality will keep declining. I have solved this problem by not going to the theatre to see them. I’m not going to whine that someone should stop Marvel from making another terrible Avengers movie. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/23 "2017-11-28T19:46:41Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I am another gamer who has a hard time sympathizing with the OP. I don’t like microtransactions so I don’t play games that have microtransactions. I have not found that I am lacking for interesting and fun games to play. It’s most maddening to me because EA is messing with Star Wars, we used to get great LucasArts games and now we get beautiful games with arcade tokens and microtransaction loot boxes. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/24 "2017-11-28T20:05:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **RickJay** : > > This is a remarkably, amazingly silly paragraph; of course everything you are saying here is plainly ridiculous. Your statement that gambling is “rationally stupid” is predicated on the assumption that losses cause the same level of bad feeling as wins; that is patently not the case. All evidence suggest gamblers > > 1. Get more from wins than they lose from losses in terms of net pleasure, and > 2. Expect to generally lose, which is why the wins are so thrilling. Some gamblers, maybe. But there are a lot for which that’s demonstrably not true. There are people who suffer a **lot** from their losses, because they’re continually sure that they’re about to win The Big One that will solve all of their problems. Which is, of course, why gambling is so heavily regulated, and why a lot of places don’t allow it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/25 "2017-11-28T20:15:24Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because tricks like this will make them more money. You seem to neglect that these strategies are based on psychological manipulation. The entire concept of this sort of thing is to try and bring in “whales” that will become completely addicted to your game and spend orders of magnitude more money than others. > > If this strategy works, then other AAA games will follow suit, and thus games that are games and not Skinner boxes become rare. Why make a real game if you can get more money making games that deliberately try to addict your players? And lo, I beheld the apocalypse: a world **devastated by no video games except those with microtransactions**. This vision, I was warned, was but one path: surely we had another! So began the revolution. * * * This apocalyptic vision isn’t very scary even if it were plausible. But it’s not. Here’s how it works. 1. Games that perfectly prey on “whales” are made. 2. Whales flock to them. 3. AAA studios stop making games for other gamers. 4. THE MARKET FOR GAMES FOR THE REST OF US STILL EXISTS. 5. Either AAA studios make other games that we’ll buy (because lots of money from whales isn’t as good as lots of money from whales plus more money from us), or other studios will form to make other games that we’ll buy. There is the “think of the children” argument, which is somewhat legitimate. There’s the “no gambling” argument, which is somewhat legitimate. But the “this sucks, and I hate it, and I don’t want games like this to be made” argument is not legitimate. Nobody is forcing you to spend a single second of your life playing video games. They’re not a necessity. Plenty of people happily go their entire lives without playing a game. If someone makes a game that you think is unfair or crappy or manipulative, and you choose not to play it, your life is exactly the same as it would be if they didn’t make the game. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/26 "2017-11-28T20:22:10Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because tricks like this will make them more money. You seem to neglect that these strategies are based on psychological manipulation. The entire concept of this sort of thing is to try and bring in “whales” that will become completely addicted to your game and spend orders of magnitude more money than others. > > If this strategy works, then other AAA games will follow suit, and thus games that are games and not Skinner boxes become rare. Why make a real game if you can get more money making games that deliberately try to addict your players? > > Yes, ideally the market will stop this shit. But we thought that about Free to Play, too. It’s still going strong. Those whales keep them in business, and the entire gaming industry suffers from time being spend developing this shit rather than games that aren’t just addiction machines. > > The free market didn’t stop gambling. It’s a rationally stupid thing to do, outside of bets by friends and lotteries and stuff. Because it’s always designed with a house edge, meaning you will wind up losing. Any pleasure you get from winning will be offset by feeling bad from losing, which happens in roughly equal amounts. > > It’s stupid, but people do it anyways. And loot boxes are stupid, but people play these games anyways. Free to play is stupid, but enough people pay to play to make it work. > > Gaming has a problem of using psychology to manipulate people, and there has to be a line drawn. For once we’re finally getting momentum to try and stop these predatory practices. Something finally seems like it might be too far, and maybe we can finally draw a line that they can’t cross. But, instead, people want to fall back on the free market that keeps letting this shit happen. > > Fuck that shit. If it works it’s because the consumer has spoke with their wallet. If it works its because the buyers think its ok. And honestly I have yet to hear a single reason why it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/27 "2017-11-28T23:32:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t understand why it “cannot be allowed to continue.” Do you believe that 15 year-olds should be allowed to enter a casino and gamble? Or do you think that when it comes to gambling, the government has a valid interest in protecting it’s more vulnerable citizens, especially it’s children? Loot boxes are gambling. The rewards being virtual goods does not mean that they doesn’t have real world value. They light up the human brain the same way a roulette wheel does. The fact that they are part of an interactive process means that they are not even in the same league as traditional marketing. You can’t habituate someone with marketing, but you sure can with a video game. Has anyone ever starved to death because they just couldn’t stop watching commercials? They are then placed in games that are primarily marketed at teenagers, one of the most vulnerable (and dumbest) members of society. That is why it cannot be allowed to continue. Not because of all the rational adults who can see this for the bullshit it is, but for impressionable youth who are too young and dumb to see it for what it is, while simultaneously being the most vulnerable to the psychological tricks they use. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/28 "2017-11-29T01:41:53Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > Do you believe that 15 year-olds should be allowed to enter a casino and gamble? Or do you think that when it comes to gambling, the government has a valid interest in protecting it’s more vulnerable citizens, especially it’s children? > > Loot boxes are gambling. The rewards being virtual goods does not mean that they doesn’t have real world value. They light up the human brain the same way a roulette wheel does. The fact that they are part of an interactive process means that they are not even in the same league as traditional marketing. You can’t habituate someone with marketing, but you sure can with a video game. Has anyone ever starved to death because they just couldn’t stop watching commercials? > > They are then placed in games that are primarily marketed at teenagers, one of the most vulnerable (and dumbest) members of society. That is why it cannot be allowed to continue. Not because of all the rational adults who can see this for the bullshit it is, but for impressionable youth who are too young and dumb to see it for what it is, while simultaneously being the most vulnerable to the psychological tricks they use. You can’t just buy loot boxes any more than you can just walk into a casino if you are underage. The same things that keep teenagers outside casinos keep them from buying loot boxes. What people are suggesting is the equivalent of completely banning casinos as a solution. The mentality that videogames are for kids should have died off with our parents generation. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/29 "2017-11-29T01:45:49Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > Do you believe that 15 year-olds should be allowed to enter a casino and gamble? Or do you think that when it comes to gambling, the government has a valid interest in protecting it’s more vulnerable citizens, especially it’s children? So pass a law: Parents, you are not allowed to let your kid buy loot boxes. Or pass a law: gambling within a game must be validated through a proof-of-age agency. > [@](#): > > Loot boxes are gambling. The rewards being virtual goods does not mean that they doesn’t have real world value. They light up the human brain the same way a roulette wheel does. So do many things in many games. Pokemon Go is an incredible Skinner box. I find it highly dubious that these loot boxes are more like slot machines than they are like Pokemon Go–and even if they are, the lack of material rewards absolutely means they lack real-world value in the same way cash has real-world value. > [@](#): > > Has anyone ever starved to death because they just couldn’t stop watching commercials? No, and in this respect, commercials are a lot like loot boxes. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/30 "2017-11-29T01:52:28Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > If it works it’s because the consumer has spoke with their wallet. If it works its because the buyers think its ok. And honestly I have yet to hear a single reason why it isn’t. Yeah, well, this is the thread for buyers who don’t think it’s ok (and I provided the reason upthread: There’s no way to be competitive in the multiplayer without paying the EA slot machine; with the EA Slot Machine on hold for the moment, there’s no way for newcomers to catch up with the people who’ve been catassing all weekend.) I am happy to report that the EA Wallet is, indeed, taking it in the shorts. **EA’s day of reckoning is here after ‘Star Wars’ game uproar, $3 billion in stock value wiped out** > **[EA's day of reckoning is here after 'Star Wars' game uproar, $3 billion in...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html)** > > Leading gaming YouTube personalities believe EA will be forced to change its practices after the "Star Wars Battlefront II" controversy. > [@that link right there](#): > > Electronic Arts’ shareholders are running for the hills this month and for good reason. > > The company’s profitable business model is now at risk after angry gamers revolted over its aggressive in-game moneymaking strategy in “Star Wars Battlefront II.” > > EA’s stock is down 8.5 percent month to date through Tuesday compared with the S&P 500’s 2 percent gain, wiping out $3.1 billion of shareholder value. Its competitors Take-Two and Activision Blizzard shares are up 5 percent and 0.7 percent respectively during the same time period. ---
**Author:** ![anomalous1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e56c9b/32.png) [@anomalous1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anomalous1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/31 "2017-11-29T02:15:29Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Gaming has a problem of using psychology to manipulate people, and there has to be a line drawn. For once we’re finally getting momentum to try and stop these predatory practices. Something finally seems like it might be too far, and maybe we can finally draw a line that they can’t cross. But, instead, people want to fall back on the free market that keeps letting this shit happen. > > Fuck that shit. Thank you! My point exactly. Not buying the game is not enough, because it doesn’t directly challenge the problem. If the issue isn’t corrected, other developers will do the same, thinking its okay. The whole “vote with your wallet” thing barely works, especially by itself. That method of thinking does not apply to the digital generation(s). **Merneith** I typically don’t smile at others misfortunes, but in this case… I am glad. This was done mostly by people voicing their opinions about it and media coverage… It hits them where it hurts, in potential future sales… Because people will not trust their games. FAN-TASTIC! Other companies will definitely be looking at this and second guessing whether or not the try the same crap… this is exactly what needs to happen. ---
**Author:** ![anomalous1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e56c9b/32.png) [@anomalous1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anomalous1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/32 "2017-11-29T02:17:41Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > Didn’t you [just do this?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=841256) I suppose my answer hasn’t changed either. > > I doubt it. > > [Provably untrue.](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22battlefront+2%22+loot+boxes&client=firefox-b-1-ab&biw=1920&bih=1067&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F1%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F15%2F2017&tbm=nws) Yes, I did post about it, speculating under suspicion that EA would do this. This post is confirming it and the outrage surrounding it. As for those things being Untrue? Nope, they are very true. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/33 "2017-11-29T08:30:05Z")
> [@Crazy\_Canuck](#): > > Do you believe that 15 year-olds should be allowed to enter a casino and gamble? Do teenagers have credit cards? ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/34 "2017-11-29T08:36:49Z")
So going by the rationale people are using if anyone under 21 buys coins in a game gardenscape for a second chance at the daily prize wheel that’s gambling also? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/35 "2017-11-29T12:04:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s one thing to choose for oneself to not pay for the microtransactions. But people also want to play against others online, on a level playing field. And even if you don’t buy the power-ups, that guy you’re playing against might. It might be OK if their matchmaking system put people together who’d spent the same amount (including, possibly, none). Anyone want to lay bets on whether they do that? Actually it’s the opposite of that. Someone uncovered a patent claim they made which essentially was for matchmaking techniques that psychologically reward pay2winners. In other words, it likely deliberately puts people who have recently paid for upgrades into games with people they outclass so that they get the thrill of beating up on worse players for a while and pay again when they start to slump because the matchmaking gets manipulated the other way. It’s quite elaborate and disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/36 "2017-11-29T12:22:22Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I am another gamer who has a hard time sympathizing with the OP. I don’t like microtransactions so I don’t play games that have microtransactions. I have not found that I am lacking for interesting and fun games to play. Let’s look at mobile gaming. During the infancy of mobile gaming, people generally sold full games for $1-5. But everyone scoffed at the idea of paying a few bucks for something they enjoy (no idea why that is, since mobile gaming was incredibly cheap) and so we started the f2p mobile trend. And it spread like wildfire and now the vast majority of popular games on mobile are utter f2p shitfests. The problem is that the games are designed to put roadblocks towards fun in your way. They want you to spend money on them, so they make it painful for you not to spend money on them. Which means that the average quality of game suffers dramatically. Every game is time-gated and grind-gated and put-your-balls-in-a-vice-gated to make sure you can’t have too much fun without paying them, with constant reminders that you pay them. But here’s the thing - the vast majority of profits in these games comes from less than 2% of the players. In some games, less than 1% of players ever pay any money at all. So in these cases 98%+ of players are refusing to pay for the games, voting with their wallets… but all that ends up happening is that they get a shittier version of the game (with all of the various gates to stop you from having fun) versus just having people design games to be whole games. So even if 98% of the people who bought battlefront II never touch microtransactions, the addicts they manage to catch who spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it - and they are literally addicts - not sort of similar to addicts - but addicts in the same way someone addicted to gambling is a real addict - even with the vast, vast majority of people refusing to indulge in the system, they’re still incentivized to milk that system and design more games with that system. So just like with mobile gaming, there may come a day when you’ll have a hard time saying “oh I’ll just play games without microtransactions” because you may find that this monetization model has spread to most games. There’s a real danger that in a few years it’s going to look like mobile gaming except they’ll expect $60 upfront before they do everything they can to prod you into buying extra gambling microtransactions to get a leg up on non-paying-players, including making the game experience painful for regular players to play so that they can sell the cure to the limitations they create. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/37 "2017-11-29T12:51:17Z")
The way EA have implemented this, it is gambling. No sane person would think otherwise. Therefore it should be restricted in the same way as gambling (age-restrited, odds clearly stated or calculable for a given outcome). Paying a specific amount for a specific item is not an issue. Paying a specific amount for an additional benefit to use in a multi-player game is a bit more problematic and an areshole-ish mechanism (it should be a level playing field) -for single player modes though, not a problem. Paying real money for the mere _chance_ of an item is gambling (and probably rigged…because if it is not legally considered gambling then what is stopping them from rigging it?) I do hope that E.A. suffer so badly from this that their business model is discarded and replaced with something far more transparent and better implemented. If they go under as a result I don’t think that would be too much of an issue. It would be an excellent example to the others. I’d hold up Nintendo as a good example of how to do this properly. I paid £45 for BOTW and did not need to shell out a single penny to experience the full game. Splatoon2 and MK8 have online experiences that don’t require micro-transactions or pay-to-win. Any DLC for these are reasonably priced and provide additional new content rather than unlocking hidden parts of the games. So clearly it is possible to create huge and impressive gaming experiences that sell for a reasonable price, do not seek to rip-off the player and yet still allow the developers to make a profit. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/38 "2017-11-29T14:34:07Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > So just like with mobile gaming, there may come a day when you’ll have a hard time saying “oh I’ll just play games without microtransactions” because you may find that this monetization model has spread to most games. _shrug_ Then I’ll have more time for reading. Gaming companies don’t _owe_ me a game without microtransactions and I don’t _owe_ gaming companies my money. I watched Freemium Isn’t Free, too. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/39 "2017-11-29T14:37:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Or pass a law: gambling within a game must be validated through a proof-of-age agency This is actually what’s being proposed. However, the expectation is that, since games rely on teens/kids for a good part of their audience (especially a game like Battlefront II), locking them out of the loot crate system will kill the mechanic. – If kids manage to circumvent it, the publisher could be held criminally liable. And parents can’t just give permission any more than they can just let their kids play the roulette wheel at Harrah’s. – If the kids are successfully locked out, they’re not going to want to play the game thus lowering the game population by a significant degree (and, of course, lowering initial sales) – It only takes one one state or region to start regulating this to make this a real headache. So the feeling is that regulating the ability of under-21s to use the loot crate system would have the practical effect of causing developers to abandon the system. Or at least make sure that the rewards hold no real value: they don’t have a mechanical effect in game and can’t be traded/sold. As I said above, I think another good option is to force publishers to make clear, at the time of purchase, what the odds are for receiving a reward and what the estimated play time would be to grind it if it’s available through game play. That way consumers could make informed decisions about if a 0.125% chance is worth $2.95 or if “You could have this in approximately 45 hours” is an adequate definition of “But you can earn it in game”. China is already requiring (or going to require) odds for crates but let’s make this universal. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/40 "2017-11-29T15:00:56Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Let’s look at mobile gaming. During the infancy of mobile gaming, people generally sold full games for $1-5. But everyone scoffed at the idea of paying a few bucks for something they enjoy (no idea why that is, since mobile gaming was incredibly cheap) and so we started the f2p mobile trend. And it spread like wildfire and now the vast majority of popular games on mobile are utter f2p shitfests. > > The problem is that the games are designed to put roadblocks towards fun in your way. They want you to spend money on them, so they make it painful for you not to spend money on them. Which means that the average quality of game suffers dramatically. Every game is time-gated and grind-gated and put-your-balls-in-a-vice-gated to make sure you can’t have too much fun without paying them, with constant reminders that you pay them. > > But here’s the thing - the vast majority of profits in these games comes from less than 2% of the players. In some games, less than 1% of players ever pay any money at all. So in these cases 98%+ of players are refusing to pay for the games, voting with their wallets… but all that ends up happening is that they get a shittier version of the game (with all of the various gates to stop you from having fun) versus just having people design games to be whole games. > > So even if 98% of the people who bought battlefront II never touch microtransactions, the addicts they manage to catch who spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it - and they are literally addicts - not sort of similar to addicts - but addicts in the same way someone addicted to gambling is a real addict - even with the vast, vast majority of people refusing to indulge in the system, they’re still incentivized to milk that system and design more games with that system. > > So just like with mobile gaming, there may come a day when you’ll have a hard time saying “oh I’ll just play games without microtransactions” because you may find that this monetization model has spread to most games. > > There’s a real danger that in a few years it’s going to look like mobile gaming except they’ll expect $60 upfront before they do everything they can to prod you into buying extra gambling microtransactions to get a leg up on non-paying-players, including making the game experience painful for regular players to play so that they can sell the cure to the limitations they create. And this happened why? according to your own post it’s because they refused to pay even the piddly amount the developers were asking in the first place. This is nothing more than gamers getting what they deserve, game companies don’t work for free. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855/41 "2017-11-29T15:23:24Z")
Yeah, except in this case SWBF2 costs $60. They’re trying to apply some things from that model to fully priced games, and if there’s not a huge backlash and instead success, it’ll spread and become the norm. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-best-e-a-pitting-greedy/802855.md?page=3)