Should microtransactions and loot boxes be banned?

[StaceyPowers]

In the latest VGR podcast (below), Matt Morgans and Jacob Smith discuss a bill which has just been introduced in an attempt to ban loot boxes and microtransactions. The idea is to protect kids from what can be considered a gambling-related product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmrlSCX1oh0

What does everyone here think about this issue? Should loot boxes and microtransactions be banned?

@UleTheVee @DylanC @Matt Morgans @The Blackangel @LadyDay @skyfire @xXInfectedXx @SpaceExplorer @Executor Akamia

Edited May 13, 2019 by StaceyPowers

[Matt Morgans]

As Jacob and I discussed, we felt that lootboxes probably should be banned. Banning microtransactions, on the other hand, is probably unnecessary, but there should certainly be more regulation of predatory practices involving them. The problem with this bill in particular is really the framing of it and the approach that it's taking in confronting the issue; by framing it as protecting children rather than addressing specific practices it calls to mind the moral panics in the US during the late 80s and 90s around violence in video games and so on, and it suggests that the senator doesn't understand the issue well enough to make a reasoned argument (admittedly, a common problem in US politics when it comes to technology, the internet, and games). I suspect that the bill probably won't get enough attention to progress, but if it does, I think this angle of approach makes it easy for publishers to make some small concessions and put up a facade of making changes while not really changing anything fundamental.

There needs to be a serious governmental debate around lootboxes and microtransactions, but I don't think that this bill is the right way to start it.

[The Blackangel]

I personally don't see a big problem with loot boxes. I get a box from skullsunlimited.com every month. But I'm also 37, so that's a moot point. Children need to be monitored by responsible, loving parents, who have their children's best interest at heart when it comes to things like this. I don't mean helicopter parents, but rather aware parents. When the child hits adulthood, the rules change a bit. But until then, they need their parents to keep them safe.

Edited May 14, 2019 by The Blackangel

[SpaceExplorer]

As long as the microtransactions don't give you an edge against another player and are purely cosmetic, I don't mind them. They should still be regulated, though, as a lot of companies are exposing people's gambling addictions or are building them. 

[StaceyPowers]

I think all of you have made some excellent points.

@Matt Morgans What you said both here and in the podcast about framing the issue around the children bothers me as well, for the exact reason you mention about the “moral panics” of the 80s and 90s. I remember those panics concerning not just video games, but RPGs, quite clearly. They were quite destructive, and ended up scapegoating entirely innocuous content and communities.

@The BlackangelI totally agree that ideally, parents should be the ones putting their foots down. When I was a kid I didn’t have a credit card. My parents were absurdly over-the-top about a lot of things, but on that point I don’t have any issue with what they did. I didn’t need a credit card.

@SpaceExplorer I don’t mind cosmetic microtransactions either. I despise those that give an edge though. It’s also tiring when devs release games that don’t provide “finished” value, and then keep charging for content.

I’m not big on government regulation of private activities in general, but in the case of gambling, I’d prefer regulation over an outright ban.

Even taking all of this into account, I do wish that non-cosmetic microtransactions would go away.

[SpaceExplorer]

The DLCs that finish the main story are annoying, yeah. If it adds something new, like a small spin-off story that's not crucial to the main story or required to get to max level, I don't mind it. 

Borderlands 2 does both of this. They have a DLC that allows you to get to higher levels which sucks, but they have smaller story DLCs that are not crucial to the main story which is nice. 

[StaceyPowers]

10 hours ago, SpaceExplorer said:

The DLCs that finish the main story are annoying, yeah. If it adds something new, like a small spin-off story that's not crucial to the main story or required to get to max level, I don't mind it. 

Borderlands 2 does both of this. They have a DLC that allows you to get to higher levels which sucks, but they have smaller story DLCs that are not crucial to the main story which is nice. 

I feel like Skyrim and Fallout do a pretty good job in this respect as well. 

I also don't mind if a DLC adds more than enough value to justify its price tag, even if I'd consider it essential. I would say that Left Behind is essential to The Last of Us, for example--at least in terms of understanding character motives and perhaps in terms of moral framing for the main story--but the amount of excellent content they packed in more than justifies paying for it. I tend to think of it almost as a full title in the series, just a really small one. If you didn't know it existed, you could complete TLOU and feel totally satisfied, but if you do play it, it enriches the story in huge ways.

[Bravosi]

It's up to the company, to be honest. I guess it wont do any harm?

[skyfire]

If the game has expansion and some of the needy levels where you have specific need for hero or his upgrades. I don't think there is issue with microtransaction in such case. If the game is free and upgrades cost some money, I don't mind pushing for microtransaction either. I think some games have to consider that chance for revenue, nothing wrong with that. 

[StaceyPowers]

1 hour ago, skyfire said:

If the game has expansion and some of the needy levels where you have specific need for hero or his upgrades. I don't think there is issue with microtransaction in such case. If the game is free and upgrades cost some money, I don't mind pushing for microtransaction either. I think some games have to consider that chance for revenue, nothing wrong with that. 

I don't think that companies shouldn't be allowed to make "freemium" games. As a player though, I can tell you that unless all buyable upgrades are cosmetic in nature, I tend to avoid "freemium" like the plague (based on bad experiences in the past).

[skyfire]

I agree on that part. I think just like how some mobile games add the powerful hero and the premium levels on microtransactions, it can be all good. I mean just pure elixir and gold purchase through microtransaction may not help them earn revenue from game. 

[Dragonborn]

Adding more loot boxes and microtransactions than needed harms the company's reputation. EA is seen as a joke now due to their habit of this. 

[skyfire]

18 hours ago, Dragonborn said:

Adding more loot boxes and microtransactions than needed harms the company's reputation. EA is seen as a joke now due to their habit of this. 

The balance is harder to achieve on how much microtransaction is a good amount. I think items can be made in the list but there should be no pay to play the round. 

[kingpotato]

I'm not bothered by microtransactions or lootboxes, I would never purchase them though, I take the phrase "free to play" very seriously 😆 the same goes if I already purchased the game, I'm not going to spend more money on it. But microtransactions and lootboxes will continue to go on as long as there are people buying them, that is the whole point of a business, if there is a market the practice will continue.

[skyfire]

I have seen on the android that some games are like, this round is free to play but if you lose in this round, next round is through microtransaction, buy gems, use them for another round unlocking. Which is bad practice.