[beezischillin]

Video game publishers have been trying consistently to implement a "less for more" attitude when it comes to their products. The whole lootbox trend on a whole was the peak of having their cake and eating it (wanting to "chase whales" like the free to play model but charging full price for the product). The only surprising thing about this is that there hasn't been a lot more push-back a way earlier.

[RobLach]

That’s not true at all.

Video Games have been growing with such a strong trajectory that what consumers expect at a bare minimum in a new release is a large increase in risk for a game publisher.

For example Super Mario World was made by less than 20 people and sold for $69.99 at launch in 1990. That’s nearly $140 in today’s dollars.

Now take into account that a modern AAA game has at a minimum a 150 person staff, with the more content heavy games breaching 500 people; if your game is a flop your studio is dead despite having years of successes before. The margins at $60 don’t provide enough cushion so publishers are continuously scrambling for extra revenue they can get away with before consumer backlash.

The current model is very fragile and not entirely sustainable. It exploits the passions of recent graduates by giving them salaries 30-40% below market only because they’re working on games, with the work being not at all different than working on spreadsheet software except for having serious crunch-heavy deadlines. The attrition rate over 5 years is over 70%, which also leads to those who merely didn’t leave instead of the most qualified being in leadership positions which makes any changes to processes very difficult.

[falcolas]

Something that's not brought up often with this argument - the sales scope for modern games. Super Mario World was doing well if it broke 10,000 or 100,000 sales. In contrast a major game these days will break 100,000,000 sales.

$60 is also a bit of a red herring, since $60 is the base price for a game - when you start throwing in all of the special features, the price of a game climbs to over twice that amount. And that doesn't even cover the microtransactions not included in the gambling category - 4-5 expansion packs each the price of an indie game, skins, poses, voice lines, etc.

Let's not forget that EA have openly stated to their shareholders that not having loot boxes in their games doesn't affect their revenue. Either they're lying to their shareholders, or to us. I wonder which one it is.

These companies are raking in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. That's not the sign of a fragile market.

[GVIrish]

> Something that's not brought up often with this argument - the sales scope for modern games. Super Mario World was doing well if it broke 10,000 or 100,000 sales. In contrast a major game these days will break 100,000,000 sales.

Your numbers are way off. Super Mario World sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Every full Super Mario release has sold millions of copies.

Conversely, even the most popular franchises sell in the tens of millions range. GTA V is one of the few approaching the 100 million mark.

Back in the day games were in fact more expensive, but a lot of the cost was in the cartridge. Games were certainly much less expensive in development costs. Modern console game prices have been locked at around $60 for well over a decade. These games are hideously expensive to develop so publishers have resorted to gaining revenue via DLC, microtransactions and loot boxes.

Naturally, publishers have become greedy in this environment and are using these deceptive revenue streams to pad their profits. And really, these practices probably would've arisen even if the price of games kept pace with inflation.

[falcolas]

You're right, I should have worded it differently. Companies went from a market of a few million of potential customers to hundreds of millions (more if you count mobile gamers who are subjected to even more microtransactions) of potential customers.

[jpambrun]

This argument is missing the average amount of unit sold now versus then. Without it these numbers are meaningless.

Edit: As an illustrative example, if we neglect economies of scale we should be paying 5,000-10,000$ for our personal computers.

[mbel]

> Video game publishers have been trying consistently to implement a "less for more" attitude when it comes to their products.

Isn't maximizing profits just a natural consequence of having a for-profit business? It's not just evil video game publishers, everybody wants to sell less for more.

[daemin]

The problem is that in their pursuit of profit they are creating slot machines with the actual game on the side. Then they are crippling the game so that you have to use the slot machine to have any sense of fun while playing the game.

Therefore there are two choices:

Either they get regulated as other slot machine makers around the world, including being taxed as both a slot machine maker and as a slot machine operator.

Or alternatively just make a video game and sell that and not have to deal with all the regulation.

[mbel]

Yeah, I'm absolutely aware what is happening here.

Of course if they are creating slot machines they should follow the related regulations. However there is nothing that forces them to make actual games. If they can make business by selling virtual slot machines let them do so as long as it's legal. After all they are not the only game publisher out there and if there is an actual need for quality games it will be fulfilled by other publishers.

[Spooky23]

The culture has changed and is ok with gambling being inserted everywhere, especially in tech circles.

Look at the threads about daily fantasy sports in HN. Many impassioned comments about how the ability to bet on sports is freedom, etc..

[efdee]

Having the ability to bet is freedom. Being seduced (avoiding the word 'forced' here) into betting under the guise of a game... not so much.

[Spooky23]

I don’t see the nuance between a loot box and a slot machine designed to extract $50-$100/hr from a bettor.

[efdee]

There is not much of a difference. The question is, did your $60 buy you a game, or a program that is designed to just make you buy as many loot boxes as possible?

If the games are no more than glorified casinos, they should be regulated as such.

[vertex-four]

A slot machine is clearly a slot machine, and is additionally labelled as such, with mandated warnings. A video game is not - a video game which is actually a slot machine looks very similar to an actual video game.

[falcolas]

With a slot machine, you have the chance to win money back. With loot boxes, you don't (any "rewards" are forever locked up in the game).

[simion314]

Not OP, not everyone wants to make gambling illegal just regulate it so some categories of people don't get abused. If the game is gambling then the existing rules for gambling need to apply, if you don't like the existing rules then you need to try to change them.

[pixl97]

A very strong lobby exist to prevent gambling rules from applying to games. This discussion is just one battle over it.

[dx87]

Which games are you talking about that require you to open loot boxes in order to have fun in the game? The most popular games that I can think of with loot boxes, Hearthstone, Dota 2, Overwatch, CS:GO, PUBG, all either have strictly cosmetic items in the loot boxes, or have ways of getting the loot boxes free through gameplay. Saying that major developers are creating games that require you to buy loot boxes in order to have any fun in the game sounds like unnecessary hyperbole.

[totony]

I feel like Hearthstone is the outlier in your list

Card games are gambling. True, you can get gambling credits by grinding a lot in Hearthstone, but I feel this is despicable especially for a card game catering to mostly underage or very young people.

This applies to non-virtual card games too (e.g. Magic, Pokemon, Yugiho). Pack-opening is kid's gambling. They are made to encourage people to open more packs/make a deck/etc. At least in real-life card games you can trade cards (EDIT: hearthstone has dust - which acts the same).

[honkycat]

This is false. Hearthstone is a huge money pit and the items that drop in Hearthstone are not cosmetic, they are cards you use in the core game, just like Magic the Gathering but with no real money market.

[ThrowawayR2]

> ...have ways of getting the loot boxes free through gameplay...

That's actually rather reprehensible as well since the free loot boxes involve spending extensive time in the game grinding. These children are essentially Judas goats; living enticements to other children to join their friend in the game and possibly spend money.

[seppoastian]

"Middle-earth: Shadow of War" comes to mind. To beat the endgame you either had to grind really hard, or just buy loot boxes (to get best Orcs, Equipment and Buffs). They said that the lootboxes didn't have an influence on the game "difficulty", but after they removed the lootboxes the endgame was also patched to adjust for normal play.

They also had a PvP element where you could attack other peoples strongholds, but with the lootboxes it was also pay to win.

[falcolas]

Just look at the games listed in this article: FIFA. The output from these loot boxes directly impacts your ability to play the game. It's not just cosmetic.

[daemin]

The classic one is Star Wars Battlefront 2 where they altered the progression system so that you either grind for an incredibly long time (much longer than reviewers had to) to get the better characters. There was an uproar about it - and the most negatively voted reddit comment in history - and then they changed the game and removed the loot boxes.

[gaius]

including being taxed as both a slot machine maker and as a slot machine operator.

In France so presumably Belgium too, gambling companies are taxed on turnover.

[daemin]

In Australia I'm not sure how much a poker machine (slot machine) maker is taxed over and above the regular company tax, but I know operators of such machines are taxed more (and I think that's a state based tax).

Somehow though if EA, Activision, etc were taxed like slot machine operators then they would not be as inclined to include this stuff in their games.

[menzoic]

>Isn't maximizing profits just a natural consequence of having a for-profit business? It's not just evil video game publishers, everybody wants to sell less for more.

I think less for more naturally would come with inflation across the board but the less for more approach isn't the only way to increase profits or even the most popular one. The computer industry for example is known for scaling by giving more for less. Beverage companies add more drinks for the same price. Less for more requires a monopoly or something close to it, otherwise competitors rush in.

[kazagistar]

That is a good point. Since every IP is a state sponsored monopoly, this leads to the state of the game industry. You don't add loot boxes to a new franchise, but to existing ones that people are emotionally invested in. For example, you might have competition in the genre of action RPG set in space, but Star Wars is a monopoly, and another company cannot legally make an alternative, so the people who want a Star Wars game are a more captive audience that can be maximally exploited.

[xg15]

Indeed it is. Doesn't make it a good thing.

However, I think the entertainment industry is particularly fond of this.

My guess is because its products are both luxury items (so moral arguments against the same practices in housing or pharma don't necessarily apply) and items that consumers potentially have enormous emotional investment in. So once you've managed to build a fanbase, you can get away with a lot before the fans will seriously consider quitting.

[s73v3r_]

The way one goes about doing it, however, can be quite evil.