General Gaming Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft to require loot box odds disclosure

[Pikachu]

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-08-07-nintendo-sony-microsoft-to-require-loot-box-odds-disclosure

 

Quote

The Entertainment Software Association has said that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are working on new policies to require loot box odds disclosure on their systems.

 

Entertainment Software Association chief counsel of tech policy Michael Warnecke announced the news this morning at the Federal Trade Commission's Inside the Game workshop on the loot box issue. The comments came after Warnecke recapped the industry's previous attempts to address loot box concerns: an in-game purchases label on retail titles and platform-level spending controls on consoles and the EA Origin PC storefront.

 

"That said, we are doing more," Warnecke said. "I'm pleased to announce this morning that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have indicated to ESA a commitment to new platform policies with respect to the use of paid loot boxes in games that are developed for their platform. Specifically, this would apply to new games and game updates that add loot box features. And it would require the disclosure of the relative rarity or probabilities of obtaining randomized virtual items in games that are available on their platforms.

 

"As well, many of the leading video game publishers of the Entertainment Software Association have decided that they are going to implement a similar approach at the publisher level to provide consumers this information and give them enhanced information to make purchase decisions."

 

Apple mandated lootbox odds disclosure for iOS games in 2017. Google followed suit with Google Play requirements earlier this year.

 

[crispy4000]

It's a start.  But feels oddly reactionary at this point.

It wouldn't put a stop to the legislation that's been introduced concerning minors.  Or change the trend away from blind boxes to battle passes.

[EternallDarkness]

Do they think knowing the odds somehow negates the addictive nature of such things?  

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, EternallDarkness said:

Do they think knowing the odds somehow negates the addictive nature of such things?  

 

Nudges work, like listing calorie counts in menus. It doesn’t solve the problem but it does help.

[XxEvil AshxX]

I was gonna say, you have no idea how many times I've wanted a milkshake, then saw that damn calorie count and was like, "well... nevermind."

[EternallDarkness]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Nudges work, like listing calorie counts in menus. It doesn’t solve the problem but it does help.

 

studies done indicate the calorie count thing on menus in general has zero effect

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EternallDarkness said:

 

studies done indicate the calorie count thing on menus in general has zero effect

False, they show that they have small effects. They don’t completely change habits.

[EternallDarkness]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

False, they show that they have small effects. They don’t completely change habits.

 

 

I'd have to go back and find the studies, but I recall them showing 'no statistically significant' change in eating habits. I'm not saying it doesn't stop the occasional person. I know I've seen the calorie count on things and reconsidered, but the truth is it doesn't change enough people's habits to have any real effect on society in general. 

[Keyser_Soze]

This works the best if there are escalating odds, like you'll get everything once and the chances for the rare items go up the more of the other items you get.

[Xbob42]

Should let you target the particular item you want and then calculate the average expected dollar amount spent to receive that item.

 

Oh, that nice firefighter skin you want with the 0.008% drop rate? That's gonna average about $4,250 to attain, but remember, it could easily be double that!

[Paperclyp]

I think it’d be helpful to show how much money you’ve spent in a month or something like that as well on any transaction page. 

 

Speaking as a dude who has literally never purchased any sort of cosmetic item or extra loot box. 

[Xbob42]

Frankly I think any intermediary currency at all should be strictly illegal on the internet. You want someone to buy a lootbox? You don't get to charge them for crystals or whatever dumb bullshit. You charge a sub fee, or a fee for items directly. Keep a wallet system in if you must (with dollars, not gems or cockbux) but all wallet systems must allow purchase of any specific amount of currency the user intends over a small minimum, like at least 50 cents or a dollar or whatever to keep the credit card fees on the seller's end from getting too out of hand.

 

This bullshit currency is a great way to make people not think of the shit they're spending as real money, they only have to make that exchange every once in a while, while all the charges they care about (buying the stuff they want) are done with fake currency, all keeping them quite happy (or addicted...) until the next time they have to visit the gem shop. Preventing people from spending exactly what they want to spend keeps small amounts of money in the system to prevent them from quitting outright, and I can't stand that kind of scummy shit. Like with gift cards, any amount of gems under $10 should be refundable without question within a set time period.

 

People don't like regulation, but regulation is what keeps these scum fuckers in check, at least to some small extent.