3 ms·

I personally hate micro transactions and avoid games like these, especially mobile games, like the plague. But we have to be honest here, these micro transacti

I personally hate micro transactions and avoid games like these, especially mobile games, like the plague. But we have to be honest here, these micro transactions are what consumers want. There is a reason that gatcha games (and paid mechanics of those games are implemented in the games mentioned in the article) are so successful and so popular. Consumers of mobile games, unlike consumers of PC games, enjoy these mechanics, gatcha games are going so far, that the core system of the game is not the gameplay (which is often disregarded as an automated activity), but rather the gatch mechanics. Yes, these systems are stupid and insane. But they are giving consumers exactly what they want.

tokai 8mo ago
Consumers also want opioids and toxic childrens toys, among other harmful things.
- constantcrying 8mo ago
  An opioid addiction is no where close to dropping a hundred Euros a month on video games. I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games. And my comment is in response to the general sentiment that this represents some kind of "anti-consumer" behavior, when there is a large organic market for this and consumer actively want these features. Personally I am very paternalistic and would support a total ban on these mechanics, together with legal limits of how much money people are allowed to spend on activities like these. Of course making any of these activities available to kids, should be banned as well. This is obviously an extremely unpopular position, since, as I said, consumers really enjoy these mechanics.
  - swiftcoder 8mo ago
    > I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino. And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. But we surely shouldn't let kids in the casino, or let casinos advertise to kids, etc.
    - constantcrying 8mo ago
      >The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino. I do not think you understand how these games work or how they incentivize spending. Lootboxes and gachas work very different to a Casino and equating their reward structure just makes no sense at all. Psychologically they work in very different ways. I hate to be defending lootboxes and gachas, but the psychology behind those is very different to how a Casino works. Gambling addicts are at an especially high risk of suicide, because they expect some amount of returns on their gambling activity, if those returns fail to materialize the player can be in immense debt. This just can not happen with a gacha, where you know upfront that every euro you spend is a 100% loss. Again, this should not be a defense of lootboxes, but we have to be honest about these mechanics. And the psychological mechanisms are also different, gachas and lootboxes appeal very much to a collector mindset, where people play until they get a certain rare digital good, but playing after that would be pointless. This is a different mechanism to gambling in a casino. >And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. I see no reason why either should be legal, to be honest. We exclude kids from casinos, because their ability to make informed decisions is limited, but the same is true for a gambling addict. Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy.
      - swiftcoder 8mo ago
        > Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy We also have state-run lotteries, which are effectively a form of regressive taxation. Aligning regulations with well-being is an ongoing project
        constantcrying 8mo ago
        To be honst I think state run lotteries are a pretty good idea, if they would replace other forms of gambling, which apparently is becoming less and less true, especially with the rise of the completely under regulated prediction markets. Regarding the subject at hand, I think a very obvious and necessary first step is banning children from participation. Obviously this is easily circumventable, but at will at least be some form of harm reduction. I think another possibility as a first step is a forced limit on how much an account is allowed to spend in a given time, e.g. the company is only allowed to add digital goods not exceeding X euros to the owners account, together with restrictions on how these items are traded, this will make whaling impossible, which is apparently the most important demographic for developers. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 ]
  - behringer 8mo ago
    Yes it is, and we're not talking about a hundred euros. Some people waste their entire paychecks.
Loughla 8mo ago
Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling. Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck.
- Hamuko 8mo ago
  It's not named "gatcha" or "gotcha". It's "gacha", derived from ガチャポン.
- tokai 8mo ago
  Like having your bookie in your contacts as 'the scammer'.
- constantcrying 8mo ago
  >Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling. No. It is not just "gambling" it is a very specific form of gambling, which is unlike most other forms of gambling. E.g. for most other gambling activities, the expectation is that the reward is monetary (see e.g. sports betting, roulette). This should be clearly demarcated from micro transactions, where a predetermined reward is offered for a fixed amount of money. Lootboxes, where a digital reward (which may or may not be resellable) is given and gatcha mechanics, which are a very specific genre of gambling for digital rewards. I see no reason why all of these should be treated the same. >Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck. Pure coincidence. The name comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon

tokai 8mo ago

Consumers also want opioids and toxic childrens toys, among other harmful things.

constantcrying 8mo ago
An opioid addiction is no where close to dropping a hundred Euros a month on video games. I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games. And my comment is in response to the general sentiment that this represents some kind of "anti-consumer" behavior, when there is a large organic market for this and consumer actively want these features. Personally I am very paternalistic and would support a total ban on these mechanics, together with legal limits of how much money people are allowed to spend on activities like these. Of course making any of these activities available to kids, should be banned as well. This is obviously an extremely unpopular position, since, as I said, consumers really enjoy these mechanics.
- swiftcoder 8mo ago
  > I doubt that many people on here actually would want to ban adults from spending "too much" money on video games The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino. And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. But we surely shouldn't let kids in the casino, or let casinos advertise to kids, etc.
  - constantcrying 8mo ago
    >The problem is not "spending too much" on videos games. It's the reward structure designed to incentivise one to spend unbounded amounts - just like a casino. I do not think you understand how these games work or how they incentivize spending. Lootboxes and gachas work very different to a Casino and equating their reward structure just makes no sense at all. Psychologically they work in very different ways. I hate to be defending lootboxes and gachas, but the psychology behind those is very different to how a Casino works. Gambling addicts are at an especially high risk of suicide, because they expect some amount of returns on their gambling activity, if those returns fail to materialize the player can be in immense debt. This just can not happen with a gacha, where you know upfront that every euro you spend is a 100% loss. Again, this should not be a defense of lootboxes, but we have to be honest about these mechanics. And the psychological mechanisms are also different, gachas and lootboxes appeal very much to a collector mindset, where people play until they get a certain rare digital good, but playing after that would be pointless. This is a different mechanism to gambling in a casino. >And just like a casino, I don't know that making them fully illegal is the correct way to go. I see no reason why either should be legal, to be honest. We exclude kids from casinos, because their ability to make informed decisions is limited, but the same is true for a gambling addict. Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy.
    - swiftcoder 8mo ago
      > Letting people just ruin their lives for whatever reason seems a pretty insane policy We also have state-run lotteries, which are effectively a form of regressive taxation. Aligning regulations with well-being is an ongoing project
      - constantcrying 8mo ago
        To be honst I think state run lotteries are a pretty good idea, if they would replace other forms of gambling, which apparently is becoming less and less true, especially with the rise of the completely under regulated prediction markets. Regarding the subject at hand, I think a very obvious and necessary first step is banning children from participation. Obviously this is easily circumventable, but at will at least be some form of harm reduction. I think another possibility as a first step is a forced limit on how much an account is allowed to spend in a given time, e.g. the company is only allowed to add digital goods not exceeding X euros to the owners account, together with restrictions on how these items are traded, this will make whaling impossible, which is apparently the most important demographic for developers. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 ]
- behringer 8mo ago
  Yes it is, and we're not talking about a hundred euros. Some people waste their entire paychecks.

Loughla 8mo ago

Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling. Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck.

Hamuko 8mo ago
It's not named "gatcha" or "gotcha". It's "gacha", derived from ガチャポン.
tokai 8mo ago
Like having your bookie in your contacts as 'the scammer'.
constantcrying 8mo ago
>Can we agree to stop calling it anything but gambling? Because it's just gambling. No. It is not just "gambling" it is a very specific form of gambling, which is unlike most other forms of gambling. E.g. for most other gambling activities, the expectation is that the reward is monetary (see e.g. sports betting, roulette). This should be clearly demarcated from micro transactions, where a predetermined reward is offered for a fixed amount of money. Lootboxes, where a digital reward (which may or may not be resellable) is given and gatcha mechanics, which are a very specific genre of gambling for digital rewards. I see no reason why all of these should be treated the same. >Also, the fact that it's called gotcha (got ya) has always had the hair up on the back of my neck. Pure coincidence. The name comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon