EA killed for "Surprise Mechanics", TencentGGG slides on "Mystery Box". How?

"

MrMobius wrote:

"

Mythreindeer wrote:

"

ghamadvar wrote:

"The weak-minded". "we can be more generous". Yeah. Get off your high dragon, daenerys. addictions are a little bit more complex than "weak minded people get exploited".

Enlighten me...

Gambling excessively can lead to dramatic alterations in the way the brain sends chemical messages, and gamblers often have genetic or psychological dispositions that make them prone to gambling too much. These factors can initiate a person's downward spiral into addiction.

What happens to the brain?

snip

Does that explain it well enough for you?

The fact is that unscrupulous game devs and publishers have been exploiting the addictive nature of gambling for over a decade now. It is a morally and ethically bankrupt, and ultimately, predatory practice, that started on the mobile platform, and led to googleplay/Apple store regulating paywalls and gambling features somewhat. But it's still a continuing widespread problem.

If the game devs and publishers don't learn to regulate themselves, then eventually the law will do it for them.

Yes, I know the neurophysiology but it doesn't refute my post prior to the one you quoted. I am aware that my post could be taken in more than one sense including being condescending though it was not actually meant so. "Enlighten me" was meant for the poster who responded directly below me for the way in which he responded.

Your last point is well covered already in this thread but I will say again, specifically in relation to GGG, PoE is a game rated for adults and so I will assume you believe that those adults should be protected from themselves if they have a bent toward gambling. Should we then also stop the sale of alcohol and sugary snacks given they are liable to be abused by adults with addictive tendencies?

Tbh everything has been covered in this thread, and its not even a complex topic.

1. Loot boxes are bad. Real money loot boxes are worse. Real money loot boxes that have fail mechanics (dupes and rng weights) and prey on gambling urges, are about as bad as they get. The only way it could be worse is if they had direct P2W elements.

2. It doesn't excuse a company to implement less than ethical monetization simply becuase its core customers are adults. We should expect better.

3. GGG hasnt always operated like this. I understand it's a business, they are here to make money, but you dont have to stoop to this to generate a percentage more. (imo)

4. Some suggestions to meet them half-way include a buyout for the whole box (say $200-250), making the weights equal, or offering additional duplicate protection. Would this increase the cost of the box itself? Probably, but at least then players can feel a little better and more in control of the purchase.

5. Having Tencent as your main publisher/owner/whatever doesn't afford you the struggling indie company benefit of the doubt, or the likeable underdogs anymore. So maybe this is out of GGG's hands. It appears when they sold out, they REALLY sold out.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The only way it could be worse is if they had direct P2W elements.

Wrong; it's not the only way.

They could've made the odds/chances/probability a secret. They don't. You KNOW what you are buying and you KNOW your chances.

They could also have made "Mystery box" content exclusive. They don't; they release it after a few weeks.

So P2W is not the ONLY way they could've made it worse. But people fail to see this. Fail to see shades. I don't like "Mystery Boxes" as a principle. And even though GGG are doing it as mildly as possible, it's still a BS model - but I tolerate them. But people unable to see nuances/shades? That's even more BS.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

It appears when they sold out, they REALLY sold out.

Elaborate, please.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The only way it could be worse is if they had direct P2W elements.

Wrong; it's not the only way.

They could've made the odds/chances/probability a secret. They don't. You KNOW what you are buying and you KNOW your chances.

They could also have made "Mystery box" content exclusive. They don't; they release it after a few weeks.

So P2W is not the ONLY way they could've made it worse. But people fail to see this. Fail to see shades. I don't like "Mystery Boxes" as a principle. And even though GGG are doing it as mildly as possible, it's still a BS model - but I tolerate them. But people unable to see nuances/shades? That's even more BS.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

It appears when they sold out, they REALLY sold out.

Elaborate, please.

Knowing the odds only illustrates how its designed. THE BOXES ARE DESIGNED TO FAIL, and encourage you buy more. They are not getting any praise from me that they are "upfront " with their less than desirable mechanics. The design, weights, and duplicates are AWFUL.

*Also exclusivity and access dont mean anything, and if they did what's the point to begin with? They would just release them into the store. They know that people gambling and "losing" on cosmetics makes them money. Its fucked up.

Obviously I don't have specific inside info on thought process and financial discussions made by leadership. Its wholly my opinion that regarding the stock sale and majority ownership transfer to Tencent, it's clear that decision making and how GGG goes about monetization is not fully in their hands anymore. It's the sad reality of the business of gaming with the MASSIVE publishers dominating how developers operate.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

THE BOXES ARE DESIGNED TO FAIL

They may be designed to fail if you buy them hoping for a certain outcome. If you buy them thinking "oh, a three dollar MTX", it's completely different.

But we do agree that it is an unnecessary/bad model. I just view GGG's version a little bit better than some other (bad) examples.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

THE BOXES ARE DESIGNED TO FAIL

They may be designed to fail if you buy them hoping for a certain outcome. If you buy them thinking "oh, a three dollar MTX", it's completely different.

But we do agree that it is an unnecessary/bad model. I just view GGG's version a little bit better than some other (bad) examples.

I dont know what else you could call 16 pairs of sin gauntlets but a failure.

Saying we desire no duplicates in our outcomes is a no-brainer, but the boxes are specifically designed percentage wise to give you duplicates. (Unless you only buy one ever, in which case I guess you "win")