It takes an estimated 720 loot boxes to unlock 12 guns...or pay for loot boxes (angry joe)

@qrowdyy: In my view you're being disingenuous by suggesting the advantages actually make a material difference when it comes to player performance. I've played the beta a tonne along with early access and it's exactly what I said it was: a shitfest where advantages aren't even noticeable if/whether you're on the receiving end. This has been confirmed also by players like Jackfrags etc. so your claim that it's "straight across the board" is patently false. We have two camps and they're in disagreement, contrary to what the vocal minority is saying. I have yet to see actual evidence of these advantages making a material difference (just some youtube videos showing players with lots of cards but they don't have a control showing how those players would have done without them). And also there's a fair point that needs to be raised here: you and others are suggesting that games should continue to favor people who are time rich. Basically you believe in the idea that people who have more time should do better in games. I disagree with this and think that offering customers the ability to level the playing field when they can only play 1 hour a day vs. someone else who can play many hours a day is a fair way to do that.

A single commission on a different continent in a country with pretty unique gambling laws (for example, Belgium only allows 9 casinos across all of its territories) saying they're investigating them...means barely anything. If I had put money (heh) on every investigation, hoping I'd get paid out if it turned into law...I'd be broke. The point is although it's important to note that some bodies are paying attention, it doesn't mean anything until they actually form legislation around it. Based on my reading of Belgian gambling laws, I suspect they won't be including loot boxes in those laws since they just don't meet their legal defintion.

Every CCG I've played entices and "manipulates" (I put this in quotes because I feel it's overuse has resulted in it losing all meaning) players into buying card packs. Hell, entire play formats are formed around opening packs and hoping you get good cards otherwise you're fucked. There's nothing different going on here that hasn't been going in the physical toy and game realm for ages. The difference is gamers are now experiencing it so it's become a case of e-NIMBYISM.

I'm stating the facts when it comes to those two youtubers specifically to suggest that they're potentially making themselves into walking stereotypes to take advantage of angry gamer types. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that to begin with. Both make a killing without actually adding any real value to the industry. Hence my disdain for, as I noted before, crass opportunists. Also, Sterling has done shit like this, which makes me laugh a bit in response to your accusations:

https://twitter.com/jimsterling/status/21440400866

If your issue is that I'm insulting these people, then I'd say your priorities are out of whack. I'm just treating two people who routinely insult community members here along with developers and publishers the way they deserve to be treated (I have friends at both who work their asses off, while honestly giving a shit about their work, and don't deserve that kind of harassment from do-nothings like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe. I would know, I've also worked at two of the large publishers in the past 10 years so it's not exactly a highlight watching a couple of blithering idiots gain massive audiences while insulting you and your work). And I'm certainly not the one making $120,000 USD off of people's indignation.

@wetracoon: I'm not sure your card pack analogy works. It would be like if the Pokemon TCG forced you to pay $60 (or even more) upfront for a board to play cards on and THEN you have to start paying in terms of packs as well.

Not to mention that with card packs, it's much more likely that you're getting something of value because the card packs do more to tell you what kind of cards you're likely to get than lootboxes do. At least card packs let you know "This is the Powerforce Pack! This is the Evolutions pack!" and people know what kinds of cards are likely to be included in each pack.

Lootboxes in many cases don't even do that much. You get a blank white box with "Epic" on it, and the most instruction you get is that the chance of getting something you want is higher if you pump more money into it, which I guess is like card games, but you don't even get to increase that chance like you do with them.

Heck, in games like Overwatch, you don't even get the "Epic" part!

I have a feeling card games would be a lot less popular if they had the asking price a AAA game does.

@wetracoon: This is from a forbes article:

• The Heavy trooper has an upgrade that increases the strength of his shield by 40% when fully maxed.
• The Specialist has an upgrade that reduces her mine’s cooldown from 30 seconds to 16.
• An interceptor has an upgrade that can increase its rate of fire by 20%.
• A bomber can get an upgrade that gives it 40% more health.
• Boba Fett has an upgrade that reduces his damage taken while using his rockets by 100%.

I've taken a look at other star cards and a lot of them fall in line with straight up survival or dps boosts. The fact that star cards make a material difference is not under question by anyone other than yourself. Indeed, what would be the point of them if they didn't make a difference?

Of course, there are people who will die on a hill defending this game because it's Star Wars. But, I haven't seen anything online from reputable sources claiming that BF2 is fair and balanced. Certainly we shouldn't be using youtubers/streamers to substantiate our opinions considering your earlier posts. Especially streamers whose primary focus is entertainment rather than games journalism. That makes me believe that the "other side" consists mostly of people who are not well informed or are rabid fanboys.

Time rich vs Money Rich: Allowing people with more money than time to level the playing field becomes an issue when you hamstring the progression of those not playing money. Which is what EA has done. Publishers often can't resist rebalancing their game around microtransactions in order to make more money. Would there be as many angry people if you could buy a "crate" after every two matches, instead of eight(that's for the cheapest crate). Probably not.

Governments looking into lootboxes aren't exclusive to Belgium. The Netherlands has recently opened a commission as well. There was some buzz in the UK parliament and China passed a law that requires that lootbox odds be disclosed to consumers. Will lootboxes be outlawed? Probably not. But, they could be regulated. The point is there are a lot of people who aren't just angry voices on the internet who a legitimately concerned.

Are lootboxes technically gambling? No. But, people with gambling addictions find themselves splurging on lootboxes anyways. Whether or not they are gambling, it's evident that they are problematic.

Irl, CCGs don't let you earn card packs by playing the game. The reason this is important is that it keeps you in the system. Similar to how everything in a Casino is designed to keep you in the building. While you're slogging through losing more games than you win to earn a card pack, there's a flashing neon sign that lets you know you don't have to suffer if you pay 10 dollars. This is why its manipulative and predatory. These games manufacture that feeling of frustration and offer relief with in your face advertising.

Not touching the youtuber issue with a ten foot pole.

I will say that this is a case of publisher malfeasance. The fact that you and your friends work/have worked at large publishers, is possibly a conflict of interest not conducive to having this discussion.

@nicksmi56:I've played TCG my entire life and trust me, you have a much bigger investment up front to even begin playing before you start buying booster packs (the analogous item to loot boxes). To play MTG, you'll end up spending a couple hundred before you have a deck you'll want to play with and then the several hundred you'll likely spend over the lifetime of a set until there's a rotation.

And no, the set that the cards belong to tell you nothing about what you're getting in the pack. You're confusing two things (odds and set). When you buy a pack from a specific set, all you know is you're going to get cards from that set (and the usual distribution/odds of card rarity). It's actually identical to when Overwatch releases their seasonal or even specific set of boxes, or when BF1 releases a series of boxes.

Card packs literally do exactly what you just described loot boxes as doing: you buy a pack and on the back it lists your odds. You open it up and hope you don't get garbage.

I think your posts exemplifies my earlier issue: the gaming community seem to be disconnected from the reality of how other industries sell to their customers. For whatever reason we've decided that we're being victimized when really we're just being brought into the fold. And frankly this is all because we've demanded games get cheaper while also providing ongoing service and content. This is silly. TCGs are popular still because people decided what amount of money they want to spend on having fun and apparently quite a few people are good with spending a few grand a year on their hobby of choice.

@qrowdyy: I've played the full game now (though I didn't buy it because the beta wasn't that fun - the same remains in the full version) and your claims just don't pan out. I didn't feel any different getting killed by player A vs B, C, D, E, F etc. This just isn't a game where advantages are easily picked out or on full display. And considering that statistically the vast majority of players are going to have very similar levels of advantages...well, that goes back to my original point that this issue is overblown.

I agree, but I was just giving you an example of what I've seen. Unless people have decided to up and doctor the content in their videos...well...I'm going to hazard and guess and say that what they showed was legitimate. Regardless, you're ignoring the fact that both sides are stakeholders and therefore neither side can be trusted to give you an accurate account of things. Saying, "Oh these advantages are absolutely material and make a difference," is the narrative that one of those sides is employing, and I'm not buying it anymore than EA saying, "We're going to balance the game so it gets better over time." Two stakeholders with an interest tied into their positions. As usual the truth sits somewhere in the middle. I think the truth is (as it usually has been with games with MTs) that the advantages are ones you won't even notice and that EA won't be able to do to much to rectify a poopy progression system.

CCGs do let you earn packs by playing the game. It's just way damn harder to do it. Every magic night at my local shop hands out packs depending on how well you do that night. They also hand out promotional cards a bit more liberally. And guess what? When you're losing game after game and just slogging through the night to earn that one pack at the end...the counter to buy cards is only a couple feet away...sounds a lot like loot boxes doesn't it? The fact that you're OK with gacahpon but not loot boxes is just strange. Those machines are strategically designed and placed to draw in little kids. There's no two ways about it. It's marketing directly to children and that's about as predatory as it gets. If you feel so strongly that loot boxes are gambling or are targetting people with addictions then there's no reasonable way to ignore TCGs, claw machines in your local walmart, the little quarter machines that spit out toys/gachapon etc. I know you claimed before that it's because games use "predatory practices" (all marketing is predatory in nature) but you ignore the fact that TCGs do the same thing. I've been playing MTG for 15 years and I'm constantly encouraged to buy packs, boxes, sets. Hell, they even have an entire play format built around buying boosters and drafting from them. The entire game itself is a game of chance and I don't see you rushing to regulate or ban that. These are inconsistencies that suggest your argument is weighted too heavily to one side. I've detailed a bit more about how much worse TCGs are, and how we have a habit of only suddenly noticing this kind of subtle trickery when it's in our own backyards in my comment below to nicksmi56.

You're not touching that argument after defending those people. That's a bit too convenient but fine. My original points on those individuals and how they take advantage of regular people still stand.

I don't believe this to be a case of publisher malfeasance at all, it's more a case of a consumer base that feels entitled and is disconnected from the reality of how other industries work. And my/my friend's work history may be a conflict of interest but more than anything it's provided me with a level of insight that suggest most of the gaming community could benefit from taking the time to learn a bit more about how the businesses that sell to them run.

Exactly my point. You know you're getting cards from that set. Whereas with plenty of loot box deals, you don't even get that much. You just know you're getting something in general.

Not to mention you're ignoring both the flexibility of the card industry and the extremely different expectations for both industries,

First off, yes, you have to build up a deck to compete, but that doesn't necessarily mean spending hundreds on packs. If you're just playing within a circle of friends or in your school cafeteria or at your local comic/card game shop, you don't necessarily need to have the best deck, just a functional one that fits how you play. I know when I played Yu-Gi-Oh back in the day, if I was buying card packs every week my parents would've gotten rid of my whole deck without a second thought. Yet my deck was still a good size with a lot of variety. How? Trading with and getting cards from friends who were also into the game, playing for cards, etc. Heck, some people will give their whole deck to others when they know they're getting out of the game. That's what I did for my little brother. Not to mention that if the game is balanced, you don't necessarily have to have the newest stuff to win. And there's less stakes when playing against friends anyhow. That need to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to have the best deck really only exists at higher levels of play. Others can and often will make do in their own communities.

Secondly, if you're a card game enthusiast that takes the game really seriously and spends hundreds on card packs, you pretty much knew what you were getting into to begin with. That's how that industry has always worked. Gaming, on the other hand, has only started to truly adopt this model fairly recently. Overwatch, the game most often credited for making this practice explode onto mainstream gaming, only came out last year. There's a reason that we get a new thread complaining about this seemingly every week: because it's not how this industry has always worked and it's still a new thing. There's a whole bunch of people, myself included, that are used to paying a price and getting a complete package, no strings attached. And many people, even developers, have a problem with the new direction. CD Projekt RED just put out a statement saying that they will NOT be doing this in the future and that they "leave greed to others." As of now, October's best-selling game, Super Mario Odyssey, doesn't require you to spend an extra dime to have maximum enjoyment. It's not "victimization," it's people seeing the gaming industry going into a radical new turn and going "What the hell, guys?!" as is their right.

And I'm really curious: which "fold" are you saying we're being brought into? Because most other industries don't work like this.

You know what I do if I need a new vacuum cleaner? I go to the store and I buy a dang vacuum cleaner. The guy at the counter doesn't stuff a bunch of different appliances into a box and have me pay for it hoping I got a vacuum cleaner amongst all the trash I don't need.

Same with books. I just used a Barnes and Noble coupon and ordered Volume 5 of the Smallville: Season 11 comic series. You know what I'm gonna do if that package shows up at my doorstep and it's full of random nonsense with the comic I bought nowhere in sight? Pick up the phone and demand they give me what I paid for.

And can you imagine if the movie industry worked like this?

Oh hey, welcome to Alamo Drafthouse, how can I help you?

Sorry, we no longer sell tickets individually. But you can buy our bundle with 5 tickets to random movies. What's that? You wanted to watch Last Jedi? Last Jedi tickets are actually epic rarity. There is like 2% of getting it or something like that. But hey, at least you got two common Justice League tickets. What's that? You don't want them? Don't worry you can "disenchant" them for 25% of their value. Get 15 more JL tickets and you will have enough crafting film dust for 1 Last Jedi ticket.

Too expensive? You can actually get Last Jedi ticket for free. All you have to do is to sit through at least 10 free showings of Attack of the Clones.

By the way, if you want to learn who Rey's parents are you gonna have to buy extra golden season pass.

Credit to a commenter named Michael from Birth.Movies.Death. Yeah, those theaters would be emptying real quick, I'll tell you that much.

@nicksmi56:

Exactly my point. You know you're getting cards from that set. Whereas with plenty of loot box deals, you don't even get that much. You just know you're getting something in general.

Not to mention you're ignoring both the flexibility of the card industry and the extremely different expectations for both industries,

I very clearly pointed out how this is no different to how OW or BF1 do sets of loot boxes. You know all the items available in that set (they do either series numbers or seasonal/event sets; most games I've played with loot boxes do this). It's literally identical to buying a pack for a set of cards. As for flexibility of the card industry (I'm assuming you're talking about the ability to buy and sell): you can buy and sell items on the Steam now also. Frankly I'm not sure you want this in games because it incentivizes cheating, but that's a discussion for another day. I'll address expectations below.

First off, yes, you have to build up a deck to compete, but that doesn't necessarily mean spending hundreds on packs. If you're just playing within a circle of friends or in your school cafeteria or at your local comic/card game shop, you don't necessarily need to have the best deck, just a functional one that fits how you play. I know when I played Yu-Gi-Oh back in the day, if I was buying card packs every week my parents would've gotten rid of my whole deck without a second thought. Yet my deck was still a good size with a lot of variety. How? Trading with and getting cards from friends who were also into the game, playing for cards, etc. Heck, some people will give their whole deck to others when they know they're getting out of the game. That's what I did for my little brother. Not to mention that if the game is balanced, you don't necessarily have to have the newest stuff to win. And there's less stakes when playing against friends anyhow. That need to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars to have the best deck really only exists at higher levels of play. Others can and often will make do in their own communities.

Secondly, if you're a card game enthusiast that takes the game really seriously and spends hundreds on card packs, you pretty much knew what you were getting into to begin with. That's how that industry has always worked. Gaming, on the other hand, has only started to truly adopt this model fairly recently. Overwatch, the game most often credited for making this practice explode onto mainstream gaming, only came out last year. There's a reason that we get a new thread complaining about this seemingly every week: because it's not how this industry has always worked and it's still a new thing. There's a whole bunch of people, myself included, that are used to paying a price and getting a complete package, no strings attached. And many people, even developers, have a problem with the new direction. CD Projekt RED just put out a statement saying that they will NOT be doing this in the future and that they "leave greed to others." As of now, October's best-selling game, Super Mario Odyssey, doesn't require you to spend an extra dime to have maximum enjoyment. It's not "victimization," it's people seeing the gaming industry going into a radical new turn and going "What the hell, guys?!" as is their right.

I'm using MTG as a specific example here, but this applies to Yu-Gi-Oh also (which is relatively speaking, low and nearly dead on the popular TCGs list). To be able to play and win at Friday Night Magic, you need to build a competitive deck and if you're new to the game you'll spend anywhere from $50-200. This is identical to buying your base game for $60 (but more expensive). And not only that...you have to buy MORE cards every time a set releases every four months just to stay competitive. In comparison, we're far and away from a place where you have to spend a couple hundred every four months to stay competitive in the same game. Trading offsets that cost (except nobody fucking trades their cards if they play MTG at their local game shop) and there are some less serious (and dramatically less popular) formats of play which also help.

And I know what you're going to say next: you're talking about playing with friends, not seriously in a game shop setting. Well I've yet to see a video game where microtransactions seriously affect your ability to play with your friends. In fact I can't name a single game I've ever played with friends where I need to open lootboxes or anything of the sort to play. Your argument isn't panning out here when comparing TCGs. If anything, TCGs are worse, because if you are going to play even a bit competitively, then you almost absolutely have to buy cards, and if you're playing draft...well you can't play draft at all if you don't buy boosters. It's part of the play format. Can you name a single game where you have to buy loot boxes to continue playing the game?

As for TCG players knowing what they're getting into...this is a cop-out argument. Again, if you want to play Magic with players in general, you will be buying boosters because you'll either play draft, or you'll buy packs because it's fun to buy them and open them (in MTG we literally call it cardboard crack; you can see this term pop up on MTG reddit and you can google it easily). Any general player that plays with the general Magic population will be exposed to this, no different than any player who goes online to play a game being exposed to microtransactions. If you're only playing with your friends, then you're doing the equivalent of couch gaming, a crowd that microtransactions don't even target. As it stands I have yet to buy a single loot box and I've played nearly every game that's had loot boxes in it; I've never even once felt the need to buy them. Hell I've never even thought about buying them because they're so immaterial to the games I've played. This is literally the opposite of MTG where I couldn't walk out of the fucking game store every time without at least some kind of booster product in my hand.

I'm sorry but your argument that TCGs somehow get a pass while loot boxes are the root of all evil just doesn't make any sense. Here's a good article by venture beat that at least admits to this: https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/14/yes-loot-boxes-and-card-packs-reek-of-gambling/. If video games go the way of TCGs where I need to buy cards continually to be able to play against the general population (or where I have to buy packs of cards to play) then I'll be playing a lot less of them. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing MTG 8 months ago after 15 years of that shit. I just got tired of a game that required my constant dollars.

And I'm really curious: which "fold" are you saying we're being brought into? Because most other industries don't work like this.

You know what I do if I need a new vacuum cleaner? I go to the store and I buy a dang vacuum cleaner. The guy at the counter doesn't stuff a bunch of different appliances into a box and have me pay for it hoping I got a vacuum cleaner amongst all the trash I don't need.

Same with books. I just used a Barnes and Noble coupon and ordered Volume 5 of the Smallville: Season 11 comic series. You know what I'm gonna do if that package shows up at my doorstep and it's full of random nonsense with the comic I bought nowhere in sight? Pick up the phone and demand they give me what I paid for.

And can you imagine if the movie industry worked like this?

My comments were in general applied to microtransactions. In terms of lootboxes, the reality is that McDonalds and Tim Horton's both employ a form of gambling to boost sales (Monopoly and the Roll up the Rim promotion). They see a healthy bump in sales of those items that offer those contests every year, it's why they keep doing them. They get more people to buy fries etc. by targetting people with the psychological make-up that predisposes them towards risky behaviour. Where's the outrage there? They're not the only ones that do it. Children's cereal boxes used to put random toys or items in them back in the day (now they have contests also because that's even cheaper than making a physical item) in order to get kids to push their parents to buy that cereal specifically; the chance of getting a specific toy. Outrage? Hell, how about marketing to kids in general? I didn't major in marketing but I have enough friends who did to know that I'll be keeping my kids away from advertising as much as possible. The world is inundated with fucking sketchy shit, and all of that get's ignored until it's in your backyard it seems. This is almost like e-NIMBYISM. Loot boxes aren't anything new, they're just new to gaming.

As for microtransactions in general, I can't remember buying a single thing in real life that doesn't ask for more money for more stuff. Add-ons for your cars and appliances, warranties, super-sized food items, the list goes on and on. And your movie example? Well you're talking about the base experience being thrown into a loot box like mechanic...which isn't even what happens with games. You buy the base game and you know what you get for it, the same as buying a movie ticket.

Not only that, but you're ignoring how hard the movie industry has worked to get you buying over-priced and bad-for-you foodstuffs everytime you walk through those doors. Then they buckle that down with promotions on combos which give you points to spend on watching more movies, but those points that are never really enough for the full experience so you spend a bit more to watch the movie in "UltraAVX" which earns you points, which makes you come to the theatre more where you buy more food and earn more points and...see what I mean? If we get caught up in the minutiae of the mechanics behind lootboxes vs. the moral issue of using subtle trickery to get people to buy more, then all of a sudden loot boxes just look soooo much worse. But the reality is that these tactics exist in all industries (which again, was my big point here). Just because you don't like the way they're being done in your industry of choice, that doesn't mean that you gain a sudden privilege to be immune to them. I mean if you're going to fight this shit, fight it all instead of pretending like every other industries version of this shit is fine. It's not. Hence my point about TCGs because they've been doing this shit for the last 30 years and the anti-lootbox crowd seems to think they're just fine. I don't think hypocrisy is a good look.

@wetracoon: First off, it's extremely ironic that you're calling people out for being ok with messed up things as long as it doesn't affect them and then go on to say:

As it stands I have yet to buy a single loot box and I've played nearly every game that's had loot boxes in it; I've never even once felt the need to buy them. Hell I've never even thought about buying them because they're so immaterial to the games I've played.

Just because you don't like the way they're being done in your industry of choice, that doesn't mean that you gain a sudden privilege to be immune to them.

Pot calling the kettle back here. Anyway:

Well I've yet to see a video game where microtransactions seriously affect your ability to play with your friends. In fact I can't name a single game I've ever played with friends where I need to open lootboxes or anything of the sort to play. Can you name a single game where you have to buy loot boxes to continue playing the game?

Candy Crush. That was easy.

On a serious note, no, no AAA game will literally charge you every time you turn the game on because that would spark a controversy 1000 times larger than this. But I find it interesting that you seem to completely ignore that your own argument can be used for CCGs as well. Needing to pay to stay competitive =/= continuing to play unless, like I said, you're going for a higher level of play. You can always play with a pal around your level. You have that choice. You don't have that choice in, say, CoD. If you get dropped into a match where people have bought a super-gun, well, tough. You're gonna be dying a lot. No, it's not actually impeding you playing the game, but neither is your card game example, and it is holding your enjoyment hostage, unlike your card game example.

And if Activision has their way, you're gonna be deliberately pushed into these matches until you pony up some cash, while the people that already have are groomed to breeze through matches. So....yeah, have fun with that.

the reality is that McDonalds and Tim Horton's both employ a form of gambling to boost sales (Monopoly and the Roll up the Rim promotion). They see a healthy bump in sales of those items that offer those contests every year, it's why they keep doing them. They get more people to buy fries etc. by targetting people with the psychological make-up that predisposes them towards risky behaviour.

But neither of those things are actively going to tarnish your experience if ignored, unlike this game and others of the same ilk. They're not going to give you a terrible burger if you don't buy the promotion. Same with your cereal example or the movies. They don't give you awfully made cereal or give you a screening with no sound if you don't pay extra. They're happy to let you eternally stare at the death screen or actively make your game terrible to play if you don't pony up though. There's a difference between "Ooo, that looks cool/I wanna pay for a better experience!" And "I HAVE to buy this or I'm gonna die all the time/I'm gonna be stuck grinding for like 60 hours."

If you're only playing with your friends, then you're doing the equivalent of couch gaming, a crowd that microtransactions don't even target.

Oh, and they took out couch gaming in most mainstream games to make sure you'd HAVE to engage. Thanks for reminding me. Pretty much the only ones who do couch gaming as a standard now are Nintendo.

@wetracoon: I'll preface this by saying that BF2 outrage is soooo last week. Its a bad game that deserves to be forgotten and I was already half way there. Now, on to the rebuttals!

We'll have to agree to disagree on star card balance issue. You're obviously not gonna be swayed, despite the fact that I'm providing objective evidence from third parties, while you're providing your own subjective opinion.

You're saying that both sides have incentives to obfuscate the facts. You're assuming that one side consists of consumers and the other side is the giant corporation. You're ignoring thatreputable game journalists(aka the third side that's supposed to mediate between consumers and companies) have come down on the consumer side of the issue en masse. That is where I'm getting my information. Not from a bunch of angry teenagers on the internet. You can't argue that the response from the press, regarding BF2 star cards/lootboxes, hasn't been overwhelmingly negative. Unless you're going to attack the credibility of the gaming press(aka 'Fake News).

----

Now for lootboxes vs gachapon.

Reason #1 that trying to equate gachapon/clawmachines and lootboxes is wrong: You make quite a lot of the fact that gachapon and clawmachines are targeted towards children. Ironically, this is one of the major reasons why they are mostly harmless. Children do not have disposable income. Children do not use gachapon machines to the point of financial ruin. Children have whatever money their parents allow them. Even if an irresponsible parent gives their child unlimited access to their bank account it doesn't matter, because.....

Reason #2: Gachapon/Claw machines require a physical payment method. Let's put aside the fact that most modern people don't carry around a bunch of coins, dollar bills or much physical money at all. Even if we're just talking credit cards(which gachapon machines in particular don't accept), it still takes the physical act of taking a credit card from your wallet/purse and swiping it/giving it to your child. You know what's psychologically easier? Giving in to a persistent pop up on a phone/console where your CC info is already linked. One and done. It doesn't even feel like you spent real money. How often do you hear stories about some child spending thousands of dollars of their parents money on a claw machine? Now how often do you hear about a similar story regarding a mobile game? Now lets introduce an element of random chance and compulsion to said mobile game.

Reason #3: A gachapon/claw machines sits in the corner of some dusty store and while it may have some flashy lights to attract children there's no feeling of obligation to put time in trying to win a prize. A videogame costs $60. . This is such an important element of the argument that it cannot be overstated. By spending that $60 most people are orders of magnitude more invested in that videogame than the flashy claw machine in the store corner. That investment turns into time spent trying to justify the purchase, which translates to time spent in the system. Time spent in the feedback loop of frustration, advertising, and eventually, giving in to try your luck.

-----

About earning card packs in MtG, I can only speak to my own experience back in the day. I don't know if exclusively playing with friends is representative of the average MtG player, but I didn't play in tournaments or weekly events. Not an environment where earning card packs is a thing.

As for CCGs in general, you're ignoring the fact that the videogames were a hugely profitable industry before we ever heard of lootboxes or microtransactions. After all, the various industry giants are always so keen to compare themselves favorably to the movie industry. Lootboxes are a new, intrusive element to the way games have always worked. The business model of CCGs, on the other hand, is entirely based on card packs. There's no other readily available way that CCGs can work as a business. Which is definitely not the case for gaming.

Are CCGs and Gachapon a minor form of gambling. Maybe. But, for the reasons I've outlined above, they're not as problematic as lootboxes. Problematic is the key word here. Lootboxes may not be gambling and all those government commissions I mentioned may amount to nothing. But, lootboxes are a problem.

---

I'm gonna sum up here and say that microtransactions aren't inherently a bad thing. They can be done tastefully and ethically. A lootbox is neither of those things. By all means, find ways to increase your revenue stream. Just do it without employing something that is so disturbingly adjacent to gambling that the difference is in the technicalities.

As for BF2....look man, you'll have to accept that the narrative has been written and the case of BF2 is closed. Even the GB staff has come down on the other side of the argument. Maybe this is a case where the majority opinion is wrong and you're one of the few rational voices in the room. But, right or wrong, when people look back 5 years from now they'll view BF2 as an example of lootboxes gone wrong and egregious publisher greed.

PS: I thought I made it pretty clear that I have no interest in those youtubers and any discussion about them. Its obviously a personal thing for you. I only mentioned them in my second post because I was taken aback by the hate in your reply. Its tangential to what we're actually talking about and I just don't really care.

As for the conflict of interest, if you say there's nothing there I believe you. I'm certainly not an outside party capable of making that judgement call.

@metal_mills: That is roughly 1.83 years of working a full time job. 49 weeks per year 5 days a week, of 8 hour work days.

@wetracoon: Sorry mate but if you work for a company that it selling a product then be prepared for it to be reviewed. If it wasn't for the youtubers/reddit etc pointing this out ad nauseum then EA would have released an anti consumer product without incident, made huge profit, had their stock prices go up and then when it came around for the third game pushed the boat out even further.

Don't go blaming the likes of Jim Sterling or Angry Joe for pointing this out. If they're do nothings then what do you think of the giantbomb staff?

@nicksmi56:

First off, it's extremely ironic that you're calling people out for being ok with messed up things as long as it doesn't affect them and then go on to say:

I'm fully justified in pointing that out because I'm not calling for every chance based game to be regulated. The reason is because people seem to be so caught up in lootboxes that they're ignoring the fact that nearly all consumer based marketing in nefarious and all uses the same psychological tactics and subtle manipulations in order to get people to buy stuff. This is my point and it seems to have gone over your head. You either take a stand against the whole thing (instead of taking a stance like NIMBY where you only give a shit when it affects you) or you don't take one at all. I've decided to take the latter because I'm not going to waste time looking like a hypocrite.

On a serious note, no, no AAA game will literally charge you every time you turn the game on because that would spark a controversy 1000 times larger than this. But I find it interesting that you seem to completely ignore that your own argument can be used for CCGs as well. Needing to pay to stay competitive =/= continuing to play unless, like I said, you're going for a higher level of play. You can always play with a pal around your level. You have that choice. You don't have that choice in, say, CoD. If you get dropped into a match where people have bought a super-gun, well, tough. You're gonna be dying a lot. No, it's not actually impeding you playing the game, but neither is your card game example, and it is holding your enjoyment hostage, unlike your card game example.

Obviously I'm talking about large AAA releases here on consoles that aren't free-to-play, not Candy Crush. You're still missing the point it seems. You can pal around at your level, but if you want to play with the general community you have to buy cards. Hence my comparison of couch gaming to playing TCG with your buddies and playing online to the general TCG community. You can draw as many hypotheticals regarding some unknown future where people pay for better guns in CoD, but that hasn't happened in at $60 game that I've ever heard of. If it does, then games will be on par with TCG. It's also when I'll likely stop playing online. If your entire argument is hinging on something that hasn't even happened...well, I mean that's my point exactly. Right now, lootboxes in video games are the lesser of two evils when comparing them to TCGs, something you're effectively admitting by talking about microtransactions in games that don't even exist yet, outside of an IP protecting art.

But neither of those things are actively going to tarnish your experience if ignored, unlike this game and others of the same ilk. They're not going to give you a terrible burger if you don't buy the promotion. Same with your cereal example or the movies. They don't give you awfully made cereal or give you a screening with no sound if you don't pay extra. They're happy to let you eternally stare at the death screen or actively make your game terrible to play if you don't pony up though. There's a difference between "Ooo, that looks cool/I wanna pay for a better experience!" And "I HAVE to buy this or I'm gonna die all the time/I'm gonna be stuck grinding for like 60 hours."

Except they DO actively tarnish your experience. Do you think these two fast food giants don't know what they're doing? Those games were designed to have people come into to buy those goods because they feel like they're missing out otherwise. Limited time etc etc. You're so stuck in the mode of, "Oh, it's only bad if it's literally lootboxes," that you can't get to the part where you realized that these people are psychologically manipulating millions of people into buying food that makes them fat and unhealthy. If you can't see that, then it only proves my point that so many people who are on this anti-lootbox train don't seem to understand how the rest of the world is running. Take a stand against the use of psychological manipulation in sales and marketing in general; only complaining about it when it affects your niche hobby is gross hypocrisy.

@qrowdyy:

We'll have to agree to disagree on star card balance issue. You're obviously not gonna be swayed, despite the fact that I'm providing objective evidence from third parties, while you're providing your own subjective opinion.

No. The only objective information you've provided are listed effects of the star cards; your third parties are subjective opinions on how those effects actually feel inside the game.

You're saying that both sides have incentives to obfuscate the facts. You're assuming that one side consists of consumers and the other side is the giant corporation. You're ignoring thatreputable game journalists(aka the third side that's supposed to mediate between consumers and companies) have come down on the consumer side of the issue en masse. That is where I'm getting my information. Not from a bunch of angry teenagers on the internet. You can't argue that the response from the press, regarding BF2 star cards/lootboxes, hasn't been overwhelmingly negative. Unless you're going to attack the credibility of the gaming press(aka 'Fake News).

Games journalists are consumers whose job hinges on feeding the zeitgeist information that it wants to read. I'm not sure how you figure this makes them somehow the gods of men on this issue, but there you go. If anything they're more beholden to writing things that line up with what people believe or what to hear than they are to actually report on facts, or hell, even how they feel. That's why I like Giant Bomb. The reality of this game is that the progression system fucking sucks with or without the lootboxes. If the progression system was better, no one would have batted an eye. Jeff and many others on the site have already pointed this out. You're acting like everyone's opinion was as deep as "ARRGGGHHH LOOTBOXES BAD". It wasn't. There's a more nuanced discussion here and frankly the GB staff have been bang on. The issue is the game, and less so the loot boxes. Whether or not the game was designed this way because of the loot boxes is material here, and the reality here is: who knows. Another sentiment echoed by the GB staff.

Now for lootboxes vs gachapon.

Reason #1 that trying to equate gachapon/clawmachines and lootboxes is wrong: You make quite a lot of the fact that gachapon and clawmachines are targeted towards children. Ironically, this is one of the major reasons why they are mostly harmless. Children do not have disposable income. Children do not use gachapon machines to the point of financial ruin. Children have whatever money their parents allow them. Even if an irresponsible parent gives their child unlimited access to their bank account it doesn't matter, because.....

Reason #2: Gachapon/Claw machines require a physical payment method. Let's put aside the fact that most modern people don't carry around a bunch of coins, dollar bills or much physical money at all. Even if we're just talking credit cards(which gachapon machines in particular don't accept), it still takes the physical act of taking a credit card from your wallet/purse and swiping it/giving it to your child. You know what's psychologically easier? Giving in to a persistent pop up on a phone/console where your CC info is already linked. One and done. It doesn't even feel like you spent real money. How often do you hear stories about some child spending thousands of dollars of their parents money on a claw machine? Now how often do you hear about a similar story regarding a mobile game? Now lets introduce an element of random chance and compulsion to said mobile game.

Reason #3: A gachapon/claw machines sits in the corner of some dusty store and while it may have some flashy lights to attract children there's no feeling of obligation to put time in trying to win a prize. A videogame costs $60. . This is such an important element of the argument that it cannot be overstated. By spending that $60 most people are orders of magnitude more invested in that videogame than the flashy claw machine in the store corner. That investment turns into time spent trying to justify the purchase, which translates to time spent in the system. Time spent in the feedback loop of frustration, advertising, and eventually, giving in to try your luck.

Again, some of the stuff written here makes me really believe what I said about the gaming community being out of touch with reality. These machines are designed and placed in a manner that will have them nag their parents to make the purchase. It doesn't matter if they don't have disposable income, their parents do; they're placed where parents are most likely to have physical cash, typically near store exits; they do not sit in corners of dusty stores, they're strategically placed to most effectively trigger the response that will drive a purchase. This is honestly probably the most underhanded and nefarious thing that marketers do nowadays, advertising to children,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pester_power

It's fucking mind boggling to me that you're railing at against lootboxes yet you're literally OK with advertising to children. I don't have data that shows how many people lead themselves to "financial ruin" through microtransactions or Gachapon. I suspect you do not either. You also seem to be driven by headlines here. Yes, I've seen probably a dozen articles about children spending thousand of dollars on a game on their parents phone. But what's the penetration rate of these games? 10x Gachapon? 100? 1000? If there's something to be said here, it's that lootboxes are the digitization and online proliferation of Gachapon. If you weren't against the idea of Gachapon, then this is a slippery slope that you helped create. Sure, it require a bit of foresight, but it looks to me like you're still defending them when they're literally the forefathers of this microtransaction and loot box system we're seeing. I just don't see how you have ground to stand on here.

About earning card packs in MtG, I can only speak to my own experience back in the day. I don't know if exclusively playing with friends is representative of the average MtG player, but I didn't play in tournaments or weekly events. Not an environment where earning card packs is a thing.

As for CCGs in general, you're ignoring the fact that the videogames were a hugely profitable industry before we ever heard of lootboxes or microtransactions. After all, the various industry giants are always so keen to compare themselves favorably to the movie industry. Lootboxes are a new, intrusive element to the way games have always worked. The business model of CCGs, on the other hand, is entirely based on card packs. There's no other readily available way that CCGs can work as a business. Which is definitely not the case for gaming.

Are CCGs and Gachapon a minor form of gambling. Maybe. But, for the reasons I've outlined above, they're not as problematic as lootboxes. Problematic is the key word here. Lootboxes may not be gambling and all those government commissions I mentioned may amount to nothing. But, lootboxes are a problem.

So you're saying that because video games were profitable already, or that because the industry can make money another way, that they're worse than TCGs? This argument makes no sense. TCGs can chance also. They can get rid of booster packs, boxes and other booster products. Wizards of the Coast can literally sell the cards individually so you know what you're getting. I don't see your point here at all. TCGs are worse than loot boxes when you actually sit down and lay down the facts, yet you're still insisting they aren't, even after presenting an oddly shaky last-resort-ish argument.

I'm gonna sum up here and say that microtransactions aren't inherently a bad thing. They can be done tastefully and ethically. A lootbox is neither of those things. By all means, find ways to increase your revenue stream. Just do it without employing something that is so disturbingly adjacent to gambling that the difference is in the technicalities.

As for BF2....look man, you'll have to accept that the narrative has been written and the case of BF2 is closed. Even the GB staff has come down on the other side of the argument. Maybe this is a case where the majority opinion is wrong and you're one of the few rational voices in the room. But, right or wrong, when people look back 5 years from now they'll view BF2 as an example of lootboxes gone wrong and egregious publisher greed.

PS: I thought I made it pretty clear that I have no interest in those youtubers and any discussion about them. Its obviously a personal thing for you. I only mentioned them in my second post because I was taken aback by the hate in your reply. Its tangential to what we're actually talking about and I just don't really care.

As for the conflict of interest, if you say there's nothing there I believe you. I'm certainly not an outside party capable of making that judgement call.

The fucked up part is I agree lootboxes aren't tasteful and I frankly I also find them to be kind of dumb. I don't really care about the narrative; I only care about how this falls into the context of the world at large. I'm seeing a form of NIMBYISM at play and I think even you're hard pressed to disagree with that. My comment in regards to those two Youtubers was mostly because I saw comments in this thread talking about them. I don't care for either of them, which pretty much summarizes my feelings. I'm not a fan of this era of online outrage, and these two kind of just perpetuate it.

@thegame983: I have no issue with Youtubers reviewing a game. I have an issue with two walking stereotypes drumming up anger and rage off of misinformation while themselves e-begging to the point of making $120,000 annually off of those people. It's akin to tabloids making money off of feeding people what they want to hear. It's gross.

GB staff =/= Jim Sterling or Angry Joe. I think that goes without saying. Intelligent discussion vs. nonsensical drivel.

@wetracoon:

unknown future where people pay for better guns in CoD

Unknown future? It's already happened, with more on the way. Did you really think Activision took out that patent just to hang it on their wall?

Hence my comparison of couch gaming to playing TCG with your buddies and playing online to the general TCG community.

Yeah, the couch gaming I've already pointed out doesn't exist anymore in most games. You wanna play Halo 5 with your buddy on the couch? Tough. Gotta go online and plug into the system. Btw, here's cards for you to buy!

Do you think these two fast food giants don't know what they're doing? Those games were designed to have people come into to buy those goods because they feel like they're missing out otherwise. Limited time etc etc. You're so stuck in the mode of, "Oh, it's only bad if it's literally lootboxes," that you can't get to the part where you realized that these people are psychologically manipulating millions of people into buying food that makes them fat and unhealthy.

And you're so stuck in "Please stop picking on loot boxes, everyone else is just as bad" that you're missing my point. I can walk into McDonald's right now, pick up a burger or fries, and walk out. Yes, there are promotions for contests and such on my fries, but they're not actively forcing me to engage. My fries and burger aren't rotting. Games like this do everything they can to force you to engage.

Wanna play with your buddy on the couch? Too bad, you can't. You have to engage in my ecosystem with all the people who paid extra. Either do that or just fight waves of brainless enemies over and over. And if you're on PC, screw you, you don't even get that.

Don't wanna pay extra? Then die, over and over again, until you cough up some bucks.

Oh, what's that, you just wanna play Shadow of War and not engage in multiplayer at all? Here, you can sit here and grind for hours after you've already beaten the game until you pay me, douchebag. And you don't get to see the real ending until you're done.

Yes, psychological manipulation has been an aspect of marketing for pretty much all of its existence, but the big difference here is that these guys will actively screw with your experience to make sure you line their pockets.

Once again, the difference between "This looks cool." and "I MUST do this."

It'd be like a restaurant going

That'll be $10 for your burger, sir.

Ok, thanks. Ew, what the?! There's mold on this and it's falling apart!

Oh, if you want a better burger, you gotta pay $5.99.

No way!

Well then, you can sit here in this special booth and watch everyone else who paid extra eat all that tasty food while you eat that rotten piece of crap.

But I wanted this to go!

Oh, then here.

This is only a piece of a burger! Where's the rest?

$8.99 for the full thing, prick.

But I paid for the full thing!

Did you really?

@wetracoon:

The only objective information you've provided are listed effects of the star cards.

Yes. That was what I meant by objective information.

Games journalists are consumers whose job hinges on feeding the zeitgeist information that it wants to read. I'm not sure how you figure this makes them somehow the gods of men on this issue, but there you go. If anything they're more beholden to writing things that line up with what people believe or what to hear than they are to actually report on facts, or hell, even how they feel.

Whatever your personal opinion is, the function of games journalists is report on industry news. Due to their many industry contacts they also fulfill a secondary function as mediators between the industry and the consumers. Now you can argue that some journalists are better at this role than others(some are more pro-industry others lean pro-consumer), but saying that games journalists are all without integrity is, once again, disingenuous. It also reeks of personal bias.

That's why I like Giant Bomb. The reality of this game is that the progression system fucking sucks with or without the lootboxes. If the progression system was better, no one would have batted an eye. Jeff and many others on the site have already pointed this out. You're acting like everyone's opinion was as deep as "ARRGGGHHH LOOTBOXES BAD". It wasn't. There's a more nuanced discussion here and frankly the GB staff have been bang on. The issue is the game, and less so the loot boxes. Whether or not the game was designed this way because of the loot boxes is material here, and the reality here is: who knows. Another sentiment echoed by the GB staff.

For someone who holds them in such high esteem, compared to other game journalists, you're either misrepresenting or have misunderstood the opinion of the GB staff. What Jeff actually said was

"The microtransaction/lootbox controversy stuff is a very real problem, but the problems with that game don't get solved by them tweaking number or doing whatever it is they're claiming they're gonna do." (Giant Bombcast 508: 30:58).

This is explicitly saying that lootboxes are a problem even though the game itself is bad even without them. This is what you've misunderstood. Here's another juicy quote.

"The options you get to tweak your loadouts...are rarely compelling and the pathway to unlock those is bad. So it's a situation where you're like okay well, I clearly need to level this stuff up because the people that have are like, objectively more resilient and better and have better options than I do....Its not even different options, its literally like this is a better option than this one."(Giant Bombcast 508: 32:13)

Here Jeff disagrees with you about starcards having no tangible benefits.

"Star cards are inherently tied to in-game abilities and effectiveness. Passive boosts improve health recovery and reduce incoming damage." (Battlefront II review)

Dan's opinion on starcard effectiveness.

"Building the system the way they did was, I was gonna say criminal but that's way too harsh...It's fucked up how about that."(Giant Bombcast 508: 34:43)

Jeff's opinion on whether EA did something wrong.

"I kept grinding away at multiplayer, hoping that I’d get cards for my favorite class, hero, or vehicle. After I played enough to buy a loot crate, I’d usually get a paltry amount of credits or an emote for a character or class I never played as. At no point did I feel like I was making any progress towards directly improving anything I use. I’d just grind and grind until I had enough to buy a loot box, then get disappointed by its contents and repeat the cycle again. It feels less like I’m improving my loadouts as I progress and more like I’m killing time between pulls of a bad slot machine that never really pays out."(Battlefront II review)

Dan's opinion on how lootboxes are bad even without being able to pay for them. He even makes an allusion to slot machines.

"Cause you know keep in mind, thats where a lot of the steam refund stuff came up first was because of consumer rights stuff in the EU and stuff around that...so along those lines maybe that might be something worth looking into." (Giant Bombcast 508 39:56)

Jeff's opinion on the possible effectiveness of the Belgian commission.

"I think the is this gambling yes no thing is more complicated...Ultimately I don't think it is but, I don't think blind boxes are good for videogames. (Brad)They don't have to be a literal one to one with gambling to be shitty"(Giant Bombcast 508: 40:45)

This echoes what I've been saying, lootboxes may not be gambling but they are a problem.

Again, some of the stuff written here makes me really believe what I said about the gaming community being out of touch with reality. These machines are designed and placed in a manner that will have them nag their parents to make the purchase. It doesn't matter if they don't have disposable income, their parents do; they're placed where parents are most likely to have physical cash, typically near store exits; they do not sit in corners of dusty stores, they're strategically placed to most effectively trigger the response that will drive a purchase. This is honestly probably the most underhanded and nefarious thing that marketers do nowadays, advertising to children,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pester_power

It's fucking mind boggling to me that you're railing at against lootboxes yet you're literally OK with advertising to children. I don't have data that shows how many people lead themselves to "financial ruin" through microtransactions or Gachapon. I suspect you do not either. You also seem to be driven by headlines here. Yes, I've seen probably a dozen articles about children spending thousand of dollars on a game on their parents phone. But what's the penetration rate of these games? 10x Gachapon? 100? 1000? If there's something to be said here, it's that lootboxes are the digitization and online proliferation of Gachapon. If you weren't against the idea of Gachapon, then this is a slippery slope that you helped create. Sure, it require a bit of foresight, but it looks to me like you're still defending them when they're literally the forefathers of this microtransaction and loot box system we're seeing. I just don't see how you have ground to stand on here.

Ugh, this out of touch argument is ridiculous. If anything you're the one who's out of touch for thinking that gachapon/claw machines are in any way relevant in modern society. Or for thinking that they are as interesting to modern children as mobile games. Kids spend their time on Ipads and phones. This isn't the 80s where arcade machines were hot fire. Arcades are dead.

Also have you considered that since the gaming community at large doesn't agree with you, that maybe you're the one out of touch? Everyone who disagrees with the general consensus likes to think of themselves as an iconoclast, but more often they're just wrong.

Advertising to children? Pleaase. By modern standards flashy lights hardly counts as advertising. Is it still a bad thing? Sure. But, the scale of the issue is what I'm talking about. Lootboxes are a big issue while gachapon is a minor one. This is what I was talking about in my previous post.

Somehow you're equating minimizing gachapon as being ok with advertising to children. Do you see commercials for gachapon machines on tv or ads on the internet? Gachapon is an anachronism hardly relevant in modern day society. At least, in the USA.

You're right that lootboxes are the digital version of gachapon. That is obviously one of the inspirations behind lootboxes. The arguments I laid out explained why gachapon aren't such a huge problem in modern society. I literally say this in my previous post "Are CCGs and Gachapon a minor form of gambling. Maybe. But, for the reasons I've outlined above, they're not as problematic as lootboxes. Problematic is the key word here. Lootboxes may not be gambling and all those government commissions I mentioned may amount to nothing. But, lootboxes are a problem."

Here's another thought I had. You seem to want to excuse lootboxes by pointing at gachapon and CCGs. This is a form of whataboutism. Acknowleding overlooked problems with gachapon and CCGs don't excuse the problems with lootboxes. If anything, all you're doing is highlighting problems that modern society has glossed over.

So you're saying that because video games were profitable already, or that because the industry can make money another way, that they're worse than TCGs? This argument makes no sense. TCGs can chance also. They can get rid of booster packs, boxes and other booster products. Wizards of the Coast can literally sell the cards individually so you know what you're getting. I don't see your point here at all. TCGs are worse than loot boxes when you actually sit down and lay down the facts, yet you're still insisting they aren't, even after presenting an oddly shaky last-resort-ish argument.

TCGs aren't worse than lootboxes for reasons I've already explained. The $60 investment. Playing in a casino like closed loop system of frustration and advertising. The feeling of obligation to get your money's worth because of that initial investment, further exposing oneself to the casino system.You seemed to counter those points with your own personal experience whereupon I said my personal experience differed. You seem to have no answer as to the experience of the average MtG player, but I suspect it aligns more closely with my experience than yours. I was just presenting another point in talking about how videogames don't need lootboxes, instead of reiterating points I've already made.

NIMBYISM

You keep bringing this up and I haven't addressed it. Being ignorant of issues is not NIMBYISM. Knowing and not caring unless you're personally affected is closer to the definition. I doubt the gaming community at large had in depth knowledge of gachapon or TCGs. They are niche interests, especially gachapon.

Furthermore, I'm not sure it matters even if it is NIMBYISM. You keep throwing that acronym out there as if it invalidates the entire argument against EA and lootboxes. It doesn't. It's an ad hominem attack against the entire gaming community and a logical fallacy. So what if people didn't care about issues when they should have? So what if the argument didn't reach its current heights until it started affecting people personally? These things have nothing to do with if the argument is right or wrong.

Its human nature to not care about something unless it affects you personally. Very few people rise above it, no matter what they say on the internet. In fact its impossible for a single person to care about every single issue worth caring about in the world. Most people pick the causes that are most important to them at the risk of spreading themselves too thin. I mean do you think less of people who help people with disabilities if they don't have the time to care about ethnic cleansing in Myanmar? Let me ask you a question. Do you know about the problems women have to face in the Indian subcontinent? About how ultra conservative religious people sometimes assault the woman and only the woman if they see any PDA among couples? Do you have time to truly care and maybe even take action to stop these things from happening? No? Does that make you less of a person or somehow reflect badly on you? The answer is no.

If you care about things like advertising to children and the problems of gachapon/TCGs you should be happy at the increased visibility these issues have now, instead of demeaning the game community's response as NIMBYISM. It feels like bitterness, "I cared about these issues before anyone else did." A sentiment that is ultimately meaningless in a practical sense.

Edit: Added a few lines. Fixed grammar.

@whatshisface: I am sorry that is untrue. I got to like level 150 in bf4 and you get loot boxes easily and for tons of different things.

@wetracoon: On another note, the holidays are here and I just don't have time to have this kind of long form discussion. We seem to be going in circles anyway. You seem staunchly pro-business while I view publishers and large corporations with a healthy dose of skepticism. These viewpoints probably can't be reconciled.

We got a little heated and ruffled each others feathers, but we were able to rise above and discuss this intelligently on the internet. I call that a win. At the very least we agreed that BF2 is a bad game and lootboxes aren't the ideal form of microtransaction.

Now, my good sir, I graciously leave the privilege of the last word to you.

After spending four days with this lousy game I've came to the conclusion the loot box outrage isn't all that necessary when you realize just about everything you're working towards is garbage. The gun upgrades awarded through normal skill progression are the only things that really matter, and the hero/villain characters can easily be attained after a few hours of initial play. The loot controversy, more than anything, has been a distraction from just how awful the perks are.

@qrowdyy: I disagree with most of what you said and feel that you've either missed my points entirely or that we're just not on the same page here. That's fine; as you said, what's important is we didn't turn into shit heads over this disagreement. However, I will say that coloring me as pro-business and yourself as someone with "healthy skepticism" isn't appreciated. Whether this was intentional or not, it makes me appear like a shill and you as one of the good guys. The reality is that I'm just as skeptical about the frothing masses and their typically ill-informed and irrational outrage.

@nicksmi56: Using Blops 3 supply crate guns as an example here is the equivalent of saying high octane gas makes your small engine vehicle run better. Those guns literally made zero difference in the game, in fact most of the community was upset that they were worthless. And WW2? The guns are just cosmetic variants, there are no gameplay affecting changes because the devs realized that players knew providing a small numerical bump to stats made no difference and ended up setting up those players for annoyance when their special loot box gun made no in game difference. My original point still stands here and that is that a future where people are paying for effective advantages over others is still hypothetical.

On that note I read the rest of your post but I'm going to have to do what qrowdyy did and bow out of this one. We're not on the same page here and that's totally fine. Thanks for the civil debate!

@wetracoon: I was actually about to tell you the same thing XD have a great Thanksgiving, man :)