Read more.Quote:
The Hague recently ruled the Netherlands Gambling Authority can enforce its EA fine.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The Hague recently ruled the Netherlands Gambling Authority can enforce its EA fine.
Well anyone who put a loot box in any game is a sucker, so pay up suckers :whip:
Increase the fine, immensely. They could pay this fine several times over and STILL be into huge profits, it's obscene.
For what is essentially a DLC (almost always), to then be charged for this type of content too is a joke.
But to get on point, this is clearly gambling.
They love to make you pay extra
Actually I agree, the fine should be unlimited, just to give pause to companies like EA for including loot boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoyo69
They have other methods of providing the content, such as direct sales for the shinies, or release DLC "packs" containing specific content. Loot boxes are not a fun or exciting surprise mechanic to include and encourage gambling.
I'd add that direct sales should be for actually currency. A skin (or whatever,) should be £1 not 100 points/gems/gold/tokens which are then inevitably sold in packs of 90.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iota
I am happy, that loot boxes will disappear from games. It's like gambling and you buy more and more to get at least 1 great item
Loot boxes in football lol. Also sucker punch for anyone stupid enough to buy FIFA each year.
Not that FIFA, whether games or the real thing, interests me in the slightest, but I've said before I think loot boxes are obnoxious on several levels. Obviously, the gambling element, especially when mixed with gaming, which tends to be addictive in it's own right. It's double jeopardy.
But ultimately, doesn't at least some responsibility for this rest with people who, first, buy such games, and second, buy loot boxes in them?
I mean, just because I (and lots of you, it seems) think the practice sucks, evidently, lots of people buy into it. Literally.
Personally, I just put (or I suppose that should be 'don't put') my money where my mouth is. If I really object to some practice, I typically just don't put any of my money into things that do it. It needs a very convincing reason to get me to hold my nose and do it anyway.
Case in point - Steam. Without rehashing old arguments about why, I don't like the principle on which Steam relies. So I said, when it first came out "Not doing it. Will stop gaming first". And that's still the case, though people here have pointed me at ways of getting mygaming fix without Steam (thanks, Ferral, and several others).
Does that same responsibility not lie on those of us objecting to loot boxes?
I mean, don't like it? Don't buy games that use it. But presumably, those that buy both loot-equipped games, and then the loot boxes aren't doing so at gunpoint?
Should not consumers take some responsibility for their own choices, not relying on nanny-state to step in. After all, these games aren't central to living/working or modern life like, oh, utility companies, broadband, banking, etc.
This fine is nothing for them. They rake in £billions more on loot boxes, so are probably happy to pay the fine and carry on.
This doesn't affect me, but I know people with addictive personalities fall for this scam, including kids. And have seen some pay £1000+ on these. As long as they make money, the game companies will carry on with these practices. Loot boxes are gambling, no matter what name the call it (anyone remember "Surprise Mechanics"? :mad:). And I feel sorry for the people fall for it.
It uses the same mechanics as Panini football stickers, like those stickers it's aimed at children and like those stickers for some reason it's allowed to aim gambling products at kids if it involves football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
FIFA more than a lot of games has a high proportion of sales to people who are not buying it for their own use. Mums, dads, aunts, uncles aetc buying for little Johnny/Georgina so they can play football on their console.
Awareness is part of the issue.