Ubisoft, by way of a PR rep, has defended loot boxes after people found them distasteful in Trials Rising. They hammered through both usual and unusual excuses, and did so in a way that truly offended my senses.
AAA publishers are not just riding this gravy train into oblivion, they’re actively lying and insulting our intelligence to justify it. And as problem gambling is on the rise, the game industry needs to start admitting fault… or fault will find them.
Can’t wait for the congressional hearing and the CEOs desperately struggling to explain why it’s ”not gambling”
It’s going to lead to these kids having problems further down the line in their lives. Aiming thes gambling style games at kids is just morally wrong. They have their whole lives to be shafted left right and center. They deserve a few years before they have their wonder at the world and their spirits crushed. Don’t you guys think?
i long for the days when “gambling in games” was the game corner in pokemon
To the fan, who’s brother struggles with a gambling addiction, I feel for you. My own younger brother struggled with a heroin addiction. ? He’s been clean for a few years, but still.
I used to think the way of “If you don’t like them, stop buying them”, but your argument that it’s easy for me to say that because I’m not the prey with an addiction issue has convinced me otherwise; well done Mr. Sterling.
Every game with loot boxes should be rated M+, if kid aren’t allowed into a real casino they shouldn’t be allowed in a virtual one either
*DO YOU GUYS NOT HAVE A GAMBLING PROBLEM!?*
“If gamers didn’t buy lootboxes, we wouldn’t put them in out games.” Followed by: “Gamers aren’t buying our games enough! We aren’t making good enough first week sales! What do we do!?!?!? …. *LOOTBOXES!*”
Warlock and his overseers at Ubisoft and every other triple “ey!” game publisher can go tug it. When gamers don’t buy games because of microtransactions and bad shady business practises, their solution is ever more microtransactions. To then claim that they wouldn’t use lootboxes if people didn’t buy them, in the face of people not buying them (by not buying the games) is hysterically sad.
I can’t say AAA like a normal person anymore, thanks Jim.
If all these kids would stop buying cocaine I would for sure stop selling cocaine at the school. It’s been a huge boon for my bank account. I don’t think being addicted to cocaine is bad if it’s done right.
The lootbox/DLC paradox: The more you pay, the less games and content you get in the future.
That’s a fact!
Gamers have got to learn to STOP buying games that have loot boxes or micro transactions. Even if you don’t know until after purchased, immediately request a refund.
I get the sneaking suspicion that EA is fighting Belgium because its future as a AAA publisher depends on it. Because of their exploitative (yet lucrative) practices, EA is totally beholden to its shareholders; they’ve amassed so many investments and so many expenditures that should their current industry suffer change or regulation…
…EA could utterly collapse as a corporation. Hell, the legal fallout from pushing against regulation could result in further financial losses and bad PR, which would serve to put shareholders off and further expedite EA’s dissolution. EA has put itself in this position; if it doesn’t fight and win against regulation, they’ll lose everything. Should they submit to regulation, their shares are going to plummet, and with so many of EA’s assets requiring sustainable investments…
…The losses are going to hit. Hard. We may actually see EA claiming bankruptcy within the next decade if they lose the war against regulation. They grew too big on an immoral and unstable business model, and now that their business model has become a target for the ethically charged, EA could very well drown beneath their own empire of bullshit.
That’s the problem with the logical fallacy known as “argumentum ad nauseam” : one repeats an already addressed argument (in this case that would be the “it’s optional” excuse) again, and again, and again, always ignoring the rebuttal, until opposition gets sick and gives up. It can be used as a marketing strategy as much as a rhetorical one, and it’s heavily dishonest either way as it’s a way to appear as having a stronger and unchallenged argument without doing anything.
Why do i point this out ? When faced with an ad nauseam fallacy, it’s important to never give up to it. Can be tiring, but the alternative would be letting the argument win over listeners and the “it’s optional” excuse win over all hearts once more.
Sometimes it feels like the world is going crazy and all I have is a small corner for myself and other sensible people, but at the very least, we have a poglin british boy to properly convey how much bullshit the world is spewing. Thank God for Jim Sterling.
Also, yes times 1000 on that climate change statement.
How has Jim Sterling not been elected the president of Belgium.
If gamers want to gamble, they should turn to the stock market, at least you can get something for the money there.
Lootboxes are done right when they aren’t there.