please end mystery boxes (loot boxes, glorified gambling)

"

Xtorma wrote:

Spoiler

"

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.

You make some good points, but you also dance on the edge of a slippery-slope argument.

If Amazon made the lion's share of its profit off of those who are addicted to shopping, then people would surely sit up and go "hmm?"

If video games as an industry were sustainable primarily due to the behavior of people addicted to video games, then the result would be similar.

The fact is that neither of those industries requires those phenomena to be sustainable, let alone highly profitable, and so you don't hear about that much. Video games per se are not considered predatory. The retail industry per se is not considered predatory.

Gambling boxes are. I think it's worth taking the time to consider why.

Seems like you are saying that its not a moral issue if Amazon only makes 10-15% of their revenue from exploiting human psychology. or are you saying that its still morally wrong, but because the vast majority of people are unaffected, that we should just ignore it?


I mean , at what point does something become predatory, and who makes that distinction?

"

Sickness wrote:

"

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.

That portion is debatable. Any game that is hack and slash has RNG in it, the fact it has MTX to support itself is totally fine, since they don't charge us for new leagues, aka new content nor for the updates.

As for people being high risk? I play poe but haven't bought a lottery ticket in 11 years, nor did I got tempted by their lootboxes. Do I buy sometimes to support ? Once in a blue moon, I prefer things that are useful (tabs).

"

Xtorma wrote:

Seems like you are saying that its not a moral issue if Amazon only makes 10-15% of their revenue from exploiting human psychology. or are you saying that its still morally wrong, but because the vast majority of people are unaffected, that we should just ignore it?


I mean , at what point does something become predatory, and who makes that distinction?

No, I am saying that it's a moral issue when predatory behavior is not a side effect but a deliberate business practice. The science of how best to milk whales is hardly a new one.

And that distinction? It's made in board meetings, I'm sure. Who makes it? The people who run the business and look at the numbers. Who else?

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Xtorma wrote:

Seems like you are saying that its not a moral issue if Amazon only makes 10-15% of their revenue from exploiting human psychology. or are you saying that its still morally wrong, but because the vast majority of people are unaffected, that we should just ignore it?


I mean , at what point does something become predatory, and who makes that distinction?

No, I am saying that it's a moral issue when predatory behavior is not a side effect but a deliberate business practice. The science of how best to milk whales is hardly a new one.

And that distinction? It's made in board meetings, I'm sure. Who makes it? The people who run the business and look at the numbers. Who else?

Ok so the 10-15% are collateral damage, and that's ok. It would only be an issue morally, if a company specifically targeted their particular phycological profile to make more profit. And every company does. They do so because it not only exploits those with that particular phycological profile, but it also effects many more who would be perceived as normal by most people.

You don't have to have a disorder to be physiologically manipulated. My example of placing candy and toys by the check out is a prime example. End caps, going out of business sales, under new management, etc. All of these , and thousands more are specifically designed to set off triggers. The same can be said for rng loot. there is a reason why games force players to pick up loot, and not just throw it in their inventory. You think the fact that your loot in this game ends up on the ground after a kill is by accident? it is designed specifically to either get the ol endorphins flowing, or to manipulate the player into playing longer to get that feeling when an exalt drops. By it's very nature, this game feeds the monkey, some folks are just less susceptible.


Every game, every store, every advertisement is designed specifically to manipulate customer psychology.


So to me , it isn't really an issue of morality in general. It's just an issue about where each person sits on the scale. If you convinced GGG to remove loot boxes, would that make this a morally acceptable piece of entertainment for everyone? which phycological triggers are acceptable morally?


I am actually struggling with this. I mean do we aim for the middle of the scale? do we go a little left?, or a little right? Do we do what the majority says is moral? When we judge a companies practice, what weights do we put on the scale? which way should it be balanced. I am not saying anyone here is right or wrong, but it's a lot to think about.


The very hardest thing I am struggling with here is when to we use force to subject others to adhere to our morals.

I think it's not so radical to say that there are good ways to do business, and that those "good" ways involve full consent between buyer and seller. No deception, and no deliberate emotional exploitation.

Nor to say that deliberately exploiting human weaknesses to make an extra buck is not 100% compatible with that concept of consent.

Sure, there are always gray areas. But is this really one of them? Are gambling boxes "mostly" ethical and non-predatory? There is plenty of research on this subject. Shall we pay attention to it, or ignore it?

"

Xtorma wrote:

The very hardest thing I am struggling with here is when to we use force to subject others to adhere to our morals.

If I do something that you think is morally wrong, and you call me out on it, are you using force to subject me to your morals?

"

Sickness wrote:

. But loot boxes in an RNG-based game is to me too much like selling drugs at the rehab centre.

Who you trying to kid? It’s more like selling drugs in a meth lab. RNG based games are a petri dish full gambling bacteria. Every use at a currency orb beside blacksmith whetstones, armourers scraps, chisels, and gcps is gambling.


So since people were arguing about pixels having value to the people who own them, and everybody I think agrees that time has a value, how is this game where you gamble with the currency of time for the chance to get something of value to you not morally wrong? I don’t hear calls to get game companies to pull their games off the market. There’s a line where offering something that people can get addicted to is only reprehensible in some cases but not others? There are psychological studies about video game addictions, no?

Seems like the research basically concludes the following, when it comes to micro transactions , and loot boxes.

Loot boxes are specifically designed to exploit the same 5 triggers that gambling does. micro transactions exploit different personality traits, but there is some overlap. Both target a wide variety of personality types, not just the gambling addicted. It's just as easy to overspend in a vanity shop, if you possess the personality traits they target.

So here is the disturbing part

The games that rely on micro transactions and loot boxes are purposely designed to mold as many players as possible into the types that will be susceptible to micro transaction and loot box triggers. What that means is for some people, the longer they play , the more likely they will be to cross the line to where they can be exploited.

what game companies try to do is slowly progress you from one seemingly harmless skinner box that gives infrequent highs, into one that costs money with the chance to gain that same feeling more often the more money you spend.


Granted , I only spent a couple hours reading research papers, so I may be totally wrong, that is just a summary of my comprehension of the studies I read.

Your summary is largely accurate, Xtorma. It paints a bleak picture of the gaming industry, but the rise of the loot boxes is not a coincidence, it's research put into practice for rather obvious reasons.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Who you trying to kid? It’s more like selling drugs in a meth lab. RNG based games are a petri dish full gambling bacteria. Every use at a currency orb beside blacksmith whetstones, armourers scraps, chisels, and gcps is gambling.

I think you missed the point.

"

mark1030 wrote:

So since people were arguing about pixels having value to the people who own them, and everybody I think agrees that time has a value, how is this game where you gamble with the currency of time for the chance to get something of value to you not morally wrong? I don’t hear calls to get game companies to pull their games off the market. There’s a line where offering something that people can get addicted to is only reprehensible in some cases but not others? There are psychological studies about video game addictions, no?

What exactly do you propose should be done about that? Gaming addiction is a complex issue and any soultions are even more complex.

On the other hand, not selling loot boxes to people who are in the high risk group to be prone to gambling problems is very straight forward.