Controversy Clocking Episode 11: The onset of loot boxes and gambling

While 2017 has been a mostly strong year for gaming, there is one trend that has risen above all the rest to become the most controversial. I previously talked about microtransactions in CC episode 4 but now that problem has mutated into something much worse; the intrusion of loot boxes and the subsequent entrance of gambling into video games.

The first loot box systems debuted in Bioware’s Mass Effect 3 and Valve’s Counter Strike Global Offensive in 2012 which created an entire market of crates containing textures for weapons and other items; the latter sowed the seeds for the problem we have five years later; CSGO’s crates were already playing on expectations and luck; either you get the adrenaline rush of a rare item or get disappointed by a common one, which psychologically compels you to shell out more cash to keep spinning the wheel. It’s an internal need for a reward that lies at the centre of gambling, which creates a compulsive need to keep on spending money. Add to this the intentional efforts from developers to make game progression an endless grind and you have a toxic manipulation effect in place.

From here, microtransactions would only become more irksome; rather than listening to player feedback, publishers instructed developers to make them worse and give us more of them. The Mass Effect series went from charging a maximum amount of £3.99 a pack in 3 to an outrageous £69.99 in Andromeda. At first, players dismissed these changes, again seeing the microtransactions as optional but as time went on, they became a greater part of larger AAA titles. This boiled over in 2017 in which a collection of games adopted loot boxes and worse still, made them a pivotal part of gameplay.

This year, three of the biggest games to take on the nasty trend of loot box gambling included Middle Earth: Shadow of War, Star Wars Battlefront II and Assassin’s Creed Origins. Shadow of War featured a rather insulting store page with an orc rubbing his hands together (they literally aren’t even trying to hide their greed…) to buy orc followers for your army, something which also carried over into the online multiplayer mode. Star Wars Battlefront II buried a lot of good-will by making a blatantly pay-to-win system with upgradeable star cards and while Assassin’s Creed Origins isn’t quite as intrusive with its loot boxes, the methods it uses to manipulate consumers are still egregious. The most disappointing part of all this is that each of these games are still genuinely fun to play, but all of them are soured by the onset of awful business ethics designed to squeeze every penny out of players.

Not only are loot boxes making their way into more and more titles; they’re also directly impacting game development and decisions made by publishers. Recently EA shut down Visceral Games and cancelled their linear single player Star Wars game; many believe this is because this type of game can’t be riddled with microtransactions the same way other genres can. The most egregious aspect of loot boxes is that they seem far more impervious than any other rotten business practice in the industry. The lazy movie licenced games of previous generations were struck down by low review scores which reduced their sales drastically, causing publishers to almost completely drop their development. Online passes (which required an additional fee to access multiplayer features) were canned after a heap of negative feedback and season passes, while still present in some titles, are fewer and further between than they were before.

But loot boxes are different; they’re placed into a game, framed as entirely optional extras before developers and publishers start to push their luck and gradually make them a more pivotal aspect of the game; in turn, they slowly twist the more manipulative aspects of microtransactions to get people to pay more. The problem has become so bad that companies have sprung up with the sole intention of getting players to pay more for small insignificant digital items. Moreover, the controversies surrounding the gambling invading video games are having little to no impact on game sales, something that is sure to compel companies to keep putting loot boxes in.

The aftermath

It appears that the gaming industry has finally found a business practice that can be exploited to the max without any fear of losing sales or reputation; both Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II are sure to sell millions regardless of their intrusive loot-box systems. How can the community push back against this problem? It will take a widely concerted effort…

1. Now that they are starting to take note, game reviewers and critics (both mainstream and third party) must begin factoring pay-to-win systems into their review scores. If a system like the one in Battlefront II exists, that game should automatically be docked a point or two; despite the criticism levelled at mainstream reviewers, they still have the power to affect sales and once these figures change, publishers will take note. On top of that, they must also ask more questions to hold companies accountable over their practices.

2. Any gambling commissions and regulators need to classify loot boxes not as optional content but gambling; by automatically upping the age rating and making consumers aware of sinister practices, this will also put a dent in sales and punish companies for bad corporate behaviour. There have been a couple of petitions to make this happen, including one in the UK which has made it government discussion. China has also made a law requiring companies to disclose the exact odds of loot box contents.

3. Any video makers, streamers or YouTubers showing off the opening of loot boxes on their channels should either limit or stop making these videos entirely, thus reducing the incentive and encouragement for others to visit the in-game stores.

(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)