Current Events > 2K begs gamers to contact the government so their lootboxes can stay in games.

(+) Yeah! (+)

PMarth2002 posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Mostly junk

The thing about trading cards though is you can outright buy the piece you need whereas in lootcrates you have to keep pulling

Most of these games dont gave a third party market

Tyranthraxus posted...

Booster packs are physical items.

If I want a Serra Angel, I can go to Ebay and buy a Serra Angel.

I cannot just buy the item I want in games that are lootbox only.

Ah. Would you consider that a fair deal (or at least fairer than the current system) if you could buy the item you want, or take the chance of getting it in a lootbox at a discount price?

I play magic the gathering cuz they have limited formats - you buy your packs and play with what you have or draft with them

I can actually have a chance to play with even the shitty cards that come in a pack alongside anyone else who does the same

how are lootboxes different from playing a single player game where you need an item and the item only drops as a rare drop from monsters?

Evil_Evil_Evil_ posted...

how are lootboxes different from playing a single player game where you need an item and the item only drops as a rare drop from monsters?

Define need. If an item essential for progress in the story is a rare drop, thats bad game design and should be discouraged as well as loot boxes.

An unnecessary item that is a rare drop but provides a significant advantage is much more acceptable and a fair mechanic.

Loot boxes require that the player spends money in addition to purchasing the game. That is the most glaring difference.
---

PMarth2002 posted...

soulunison2 posted...

Mostly junk

The thing about trading cards though is you can outright buy the piece you need whereas in lootcrates you have to keep pulling

Most of these games dont gave a third party market

Tyranthraxus posted...

Booster packs are physical items.

If I want a Serra Angel, I can go to Ebay and buy a Serra Angel.

I cannot just buy the item I want in games that are lootbox only.

Ah. Would you consider that a fair deal (or at least fairer than the current system) if you could buy the item you want, or take the chance of getting it in a lootbox at a discount price?

Yes as long as it was priced reasonably and not so expensive that it's practically impossible to afford and drive you to loot boxes.
---

Evil_Evil_Evil_ posted...

how are lootboxes different from playing a single player game where you need an item and the item only drops as a rare drop from monsters?

One is free, the other is designed to typically cost an inordinate amount of money
---

Wow gee I wonder why there hasn't been a borderlands 3
---

They are literally doing this a month before Red Dead 2....how fucking dumb could they possibly be knowing this will make waves across the internet?
---

People bitch about DLC (and granted, not all DLC is created equal), but at least then you usually get what you pay for.

Lootboxes are a literal crapshoot. You might get what you want, you might not.

imo amiibo are lootboxes done right. You buy them once, then you can use them as many times as you want for random in-game stuff (depending on the game). They're also cool simply as collectables
---

Jagr_68 posted...

They are literally doing this a month before Red Dead 2....how fucking dumb could they possibly be knowing this will make waves across the internet?

I don't understand what RDR2 has to do with this. Are you mixing up 2K with Take Two?
---

HylianFox posted...

People bitch about DLC (and granted, not all DLC is created equal), but at least then you usually get what you pay for.

Lootboxes are a literal crapshoot. You might get what you want, you might not.

imo amiibo are lootboxes done right. You buy them once, then you can use them as many times as you want for random in-game stuff (depending on the game). They're also cool simply as collectables

What potentially makes amiibos a different shade of awful is that they are a limited supply. In theory Nintendo could lock something big behind them and one day that something will become permanently locked.
---

I think this cuts two different ways.

Lootboxes are bad, I think most of us agree. However, the premise that theyre being banned is through gambling laws. I think that if someone wants to gamble they should be allowed to make that choice.

With that being said I like that lootboxes are being forced out just as a narrow outlook, but this isnt going to solve the bigger issue of DLC in general. Companies will just go back to selling specific items instead of selling loot boxes.
---

Ban lootboxes.
---

Nomadic View posted...

I think this cuts two different ways.

Lootboxes are bad, I think most of us agree. However, the premise that theyre being banned is through gambling laws. I think that if someone wants to gamble they should be allowed to make that choice.

With that being said I like that lootboxes are being forced out just as a narrow outlook, but this isnt going to solve the bigger issue of DLC in general. Companies will just go back to selling specific items instead of selling loot boxes.

Problem is gambling is illegal for people under a specific age in most places.
---

Lootboxes suck but they should be allowed to sell them, it's their game. If you don't like them, don't buy them. Banning shit is a terrible solution.

CrestedTax posted...

Lootboxes suck but they should be allowed to sell them, it's their game. If you don't like them, don't buy them. Banning shit is a terrible solution.

This kind of complacency is why game companies are getting away with nickel and diming us and killing gaming.
---

Zikten posted...

If I am going to pay real money in a game, I want to literally just get the thing. "just a chance" at what I want literally IS gambling and that company is full of shit. I would love to hear how they think it's not gambling

Not really gambling though. You have a 100% chance of gaining something and a 0% chance of getting literally nothing.
---

gmanthebest posted...

Zikten posted...

If I am going to pay real money in a game, I want to literally just get the thing. "just a chance" at what I want literally IS gambling and that company is full of shit. I would love to hear how they think it's not gambling

Not really gambling though. You have a 100% chance of gaining something and a 0% chance of getting literally nothing.

Except when you already have what the lootbox contains. It's essentially the same as getting nothing.
---

this is the strangest timeline
---

l Dudeboy l posted...

Jagr_68 posted...

They are literally doing this a month before Red Dead 2....how fucking dumb could they possibly be knowing this will make waves across the internet?

I don't understand what RDR2 has to do with this. Are you mixing up 2K with Take Two?

2K is a subsidiary of Take Two, just like Rockstar is. So this is at least being done with Take Two's blessing, if not outright on their orders.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

gmanthebest posted...

Zikten posted...

If I am going to pay real money in a game, I want to literally just get the thing. "just a chance" at what I want literally IS gambling and that company is full of shit. I would love to hear how they think it's not gambling

Not really gambling though. You have a 100% chance of gaining something and a 0% chance of getting literally nothing.

Except when you already have what the lootbox contains. It's essentially the same as getting nothing.

Then you usually get in game currency instead. Still more than nothing.
---

Hope other countries do this.
---

This is basically like Jared Fogle saying "please, Americans, drop the age of consent to 12" - disgusting!
---

LightningAce11 posted...

This should happen all over the world, tbh. I await the time when there are no lootboxes or microtransactions, and all DLC is free to download.

Id be 100% okay w this, even if the full game would cost $70+
---

LastTomorrow posted...

Can someone tell me about lootboxes and why they are "important"

No kidding. It's like these shitheads think people can't remember life before them. The irony is everyone else is pretty much phasing the out of new products because lootboxes have become the next Hitler, metaphorically speaking.
---

Lordgold666 posted...

LightningAce11 posted...

This should happen all over the world, tbh. I await the time when there are no lootboxes or microtransactions, and all DLC is free to download.

Id be 100% okay w this, even if the full game would cost $70+

Likewise. I am okay with games costing more money as well.

the $60 model is unsustainable.

I mean a pint of beer used to cost 75 cents and that has increased significantly.
---

Lootboxes should stay in F2P games. They have no business in games you already have to pay to play.
---

geno_16 posted...

l Dudeboy l posted...

Jagr_68 posted...

They are literally doing this a month before Red Dead 2....how fucking dumb could they possibly be knowing this will make waves across the internet?

I don't understand what RDR2 has to do with this. Are you mixing up 2K with Take Two?

2K is a subsidiary of Take Two, just like Rockstar is. So this is at least being done with Take Two's blessing, if not outright on their orders.

Oh, OK, thanks. I thought 2K and Take Two were entirely separate.
---

Looks like people are happy with this. Who in their right mind would support a company over themselves?
---

LastTomorrow posted...

Can someone tell me about lootboxes and why they are "important"

The kids are buying something in hope to get a desired item. But they dont know the chances. Or if there's even a chance or just a rule that only drops the item after so much money has been made.

So as if cash shops back in the days werent bad enough. We now dont know what we are buying.

Or we are paying and hoping to get the thing we want. And will unlikely get.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

Lootboxes should stay in F2P games. They have no business in games you already have to pay to play.

Or even better, get rid of lootboxes altogether and just let F2P as a business model die
---