please end mystery boxes (loot boxes, glorified gambling)

"

Fruz wrote:

Yet I refuted every point you made? Funny how that works, eh.

I'm not going to waste any more on my time on you, explaining anything to you has proven completely fruitless so far, I don't believe it will change.

It has been fruitful in exposing the weakness of your position.

Gambling is only regulated when the prices are highly liquid. FALSE
Belgium only declared loot boxes with prices that you can sell to be gambling. FALSE

That you can't simply acknowledge this shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. If your goal is just to score some internet points you are not doing so well there either.

"

Fruz wrote:

Anonymous1749704 might also have already given up, I wish him/her good luck if he/her hasn't yet lol.

He who called his own words for "unintelligible drivel"?
Are you sure you want to take your que from that guy?

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Right, I get it, you want to say that this argument is more nuanced than some people want to acknowledge. That some types of gambling are more exploitative than others. I think reasonable people can only agree with that.

But I think the fundamental objection being laid forth in the case of GGG's loot boxes is actually not really relevant to liquidity but rather to psychology.

And from there we get into questions of personal responsibility vs. the state(etc.)'s role in protecting people from making bad decisions. And the relationship between addiction and personal responsibility is SUPER relevant here, yes, but also we must consider how right it is to profit off of another's sickness, EVEN IF we are not responsible for it.

This is especially true if it is not a circumstantial thing but rather a knowing exploitation: i.e., we encourage this market practice because we know it is the most effective way to milk sick whales. (There's an image for you.)

Incidentally, my year-old underwear also has genuine value, but I guarantee you it has zero value on the second-hand market. :P

That is well said. The loot box defenders don't really seem to understand the objections that are made nor why gambling is contenscious in the first place (which can be seen in all the attempts of differentiating loot boxes from "other" gambling).
I personally don't think gambling is inherently evil and it certanly has it's place. But loot boxes in an RNG-based game is to me too much like selling drugs at the rehab centre.

"

Fruz wrote:

Anonymous1749704 might also have already given up, I wish him/her good luck if he/her hasn't yet lol.

If you can even call it giving up. It was more like amusement similar to playing with an angry dog who's behind a fence or in a cage :)

I find more value in exchanging thoughts with gibbousmoon (although i need some proper rest before writing another wall of text as a reply to him), so I'm going to leave the barking dog to its own devices now.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Right, I get it, you want to say that this argument is more nuanced than some people want to acknowledge. That some types of gambling are more exploitative than others. I think reasonable people can only agree with that.

But I think the fundamental objection being laid forth in the case of GGG's loot boxes is actually not really relevant to liquidity but rather to psychology.

If gambling as a concept was an absolute evil, PoE would not be a thing to begin with after all :).

I think that both are pretty relevant here still, as it does not give you any in-game advantage and remains pure luxury.
Sure, some will feel some kind of need to buy them I guess, there are such people, but the effect of non purely cosmetic elements would be magnitude worse I believe.
This is also linked to psychology, how much players are 'pushed' towards buying those boxes.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

And from there we get into questions of personal responsibility vs. the state(etc.)'s role in protecting people from making bad decisions. And the relationship between addiction and personal responsibility is SUPER relevant here, yes, but also we must consider how right it is to profit off of another's sickness, EVEN IF we are not responsible for it.

This is especially true if it is not a circumstantial thing but rather a knowing exploitation

Of course, the core of the debate is about responsibility, and there will never be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer there either.

I personally find that GGG has still some margin before crossing what I consider non-acceptable regarding ethics.
They are definitely exploiting that 'weakness' in many with the boxes, to some extent (several elements have been mentioned about that already).
However, at the same time it's also something (very) positive for everybody else, it's not like it's only about attracting gambling addicts, and it's not like it is the main source revenue for GGG (can't back that statement up though, I'm pretty sure that those boxes are really not much compared to all the stash tabs + supporter packs that GGG is selling).

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Incidentally, my year-old underwear also has genuine value, but I guarantee you it has zero value on the second-hand market. :P

I think that you could be surprised, how many strange people are looking for unexpected things on the internet !
This isn't really the standard second-hand market of course ...

Maybe I should have used 'genuine value' I guess, didn't think about that one.

They aren't gonna end them for two reasons, it's good income and they make them available later for purchase as a way to give players another way to obtain things other than through gambling - just have a bit of patience. Haven't even looked at contents for a long time, but last i don't think they had exclusives that would not be available later.

I personally am in favor of loot boxes the way it is done here. No advantage gained, all is cosmetics, so nothing that affects gameplay.

Is it predatory? Perhaps, but if you cannot be responsible enough to manage your own money, then you shouldn't have access to a credit card/paypal account, since those things are everywhere. Do you also DEMAND that every store removes lottery tickets because it's predatory?

"

andreicde wrote:

I personally am in favor of loot boxes the way it is done here. No advantage gained, all is cosmetics, so nothing that affects gameplay.

Is it predatory? Perhaps, but if you cannot be responsible enough to manage your own money, then you shouldn't have access to a credit card/paypal account, since those things are everywhere. Do you also DEMAND that every store removes lottery tickets because it's predatory?

You are free to approve predatory practices that has been proven to be detrimental to mental health and cause addiction in a place where people who are prone to just such behavior are very likely to be.

POE is based on gambling. From crafting to drops, it's all about RNG and have been from the start. That means that the target audience and the playerbase are "gamblers" and are definitely in the high risk group when it comes to gambling with real money.

"

Fruz wrote:

Of course, the core of the debate is about responsibility, and there will never be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer there either.

Here I (might) disagree.

My first post in this thread was very short. It was a simple statement:

1. People with a gambling sickness are responsible for their own behavior.
2. People who exploit people with a gambling sickness to achieve profit are responsible for their own behavior.

I still maintain that this is true.

"

I personally find that GGG has still some margin before crossing what I consider non-acceptable regarding ethics.
They are definitely exploiting that 'weakness' in many with the boxes, to some extent (several elements have been mentioned about that already).
However, at the same time it's also something (very) positive for everybody else, it's not like it's only about attracting gambling addicts, and it's not like it is the main source revenue for GGG (can't back that statement up though, I'm pretty sure that those boxes are really not much compared to all the stash tabs + supporter packs that GGG is selling).

This raises another interesting question: If this is indeed a huge source of income for GGG, then many people will of course consider it a bad thing, as that is prima facie evidence of exploitation.

On the other hand, if it is not a huge source of income, then why do it at all, in light of the moral implications and bad PR?

boom. and its that easy to start the conversation, folks.

also relevant:

GGG seems to know that it can cause addiction in those prone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NznC2sE6_0c

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Of course, the core of the debate is about responsibility, and there will never be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer there either.

Here I (might) disagree.

My first post in this thread was very short. It was a simple statement:

1. People with a gambling sickness are responsible for their own behavior.
2. People who exploit people with a gambling sickness to achieve profit are responsible for their own behavior.

I still maintain that this is true.

Spoiler

Utterly tangential, but: I try and live my life by this principle as well. If you say something rude to me and I get really mad and have a horrible day because of it, you are not responsible for my bad day. You are only responsible for saying something rude, no more and no less. The responsibility for my getting mad and having a horrible day rests entirely with me. This might seem a little weird at first, but I actually find it quite liberating: It means I too am not responsible for other people's reactions to my mistakes; I am only responsible for the mistakes themselves. In any case, the point is GGG is responsible for its own behavior, regardless of anyone else's.

"

I personally find that GGG has still some margin before crossing what I consider non-acceptable regarding ethics.
They are definitely exploiting that 'weakness' in many with the boxes, to some extent (several elements have been mentioned about that already).
However, at the same time it's also something (very) positive for everybody else, it's not like it's only about attracting gambling addicts, and it's not like it is the main source revenue for GGG (can't back that statement up though, I'm pretty sure that those boxes are really not much compared to all the stash tabs + supporter packs that GGG is selling).

This raises another interesting question: If this is indeed a huge source of income for GGG, then many people will of course consider it a bad thing, as that is prima facie evidence of exploitation.

On the other hand, if it is not a huge source of income, then why do it at all, in light of the moral implications and bad PR?

I understand the people who find loot boxes exploitation , but I also don't understand the selective outrage. Take the cash shop for instance


According to Ruth Engs from Indiana University, some people develop shopping addictions because they essentially get addicted to how their brain feels while shopping. As they shop, their brain releases endorphins and dopamine, and over time, these feelings become addictive. A professor in applied health sciences, Engs claims that 10 to 15 percent of the population may be predisposed to these feelings.

So the cash shop can evoke the same kinds of responses from an estimated 10-15% of the population.

What about the game itself?

Gaming addiction classified as disorder by WHO. Its 11th International Classification of Diseases (ICD) will include the condition "gaming disorder". The draft document describes it as a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour so severe that it takes "precedence over other life interests".

So what do we do? I mean according to the people who are preaching that morally, loot boxes are wrong because they exploit a disease for monetary gain, then the whole gaming industry is doing the same thing, on a much larger scale.

So what else falls into this morally repugnant area?

End caps in grocery stores?
Selling candy and toys at the checkout lane in stores?
Putting things on sale?

You think that the rabbit hole was deep in the matrix? Take a delve into human psychology, and try and protect everyone from themselves.