Battlefront 2's Loot Boxes And Gambling: Exploring The Secret Psychology Behind It All

MadFrenchie

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefront-2s-loot-boxes-and-gambling-exploring-t/1100-6455184/

Gamespot interviews a psychology professor and psychologist, took the time to watch this one all the way through.  It brings up a lot of interesting points.

Both the professor and psychologist agreed that the mechanic of loot boxes utilize the exact same psychological "tricks" to get folks to act contrary to prudence.  The psychologist that disagreed it was gambling in the same manner as casinos distinguished loot boxes from things like physical trading cards or blind toyboxes because those systems don't use predatory tactics (i.e. Battlefront 2's upgrade system) to get the consumer to purchase.

It also expounds upon how video games use social proof.  For example, games that show you the guns or upgrades being used by a player that kills you to attempt to entice you into buying when you get killed by someone with a purchased item.

It also mentions the "scarcity principle," popularized in Overwatch as seasonal event skins/emotes/etc.  Rigio (psychology professor) immediately recognized these events as qualifying for the scarcity principle, and he further explains how such principles can trick consumers into acting against their own best judgement (the ole "Act now, while supplies last!" shtick).

The professor (Madigan), who apparently has done multiple studies on the psychology of video games, made the comparison and also the contrast to the physical trading cards and blind toyboxes.  He's the one who explains that those industries don't use the same kind of predatory methods as video games to entice their consumers into buying.  He explains how games can leverage situations (such as losing a match) to time their lootbox offerings to attempt to persuade the gamer to buy out of frustration and the feeling that they cannot be successful or keep up without purchasing.  This seems akin to the aforementioned showing of Star Cards when you're killed in Battlefront 2 or behind the scenes throttling of XP, for all-too-real instances.

Both psychologists urged caution and a close eye on these practices to ensure they don't progress further down the path of predatory marketing schemes, and Rigio indicated that the practices seemed to him to be more akin to casino gambling than things such as blind toyboxes.

The video seemed apropos to the current spirit of the forums, considering there's been ample discussion around the loot box issue.  Madigan makes an important distinction between other "blind reward" industries and video games.  Rigio explains the psychological tricks that publishers use to pressure players into spending more money.  Neither of these things are basic or apparent in any realistic manner to the consumer, of course, much less those who are minors.

An interesting watch.

MadFrenchie

Can't edit OP, but I meant to include: Madigan doesn't view the loot boxes as qualifying for gambling as Rigio does, but he does go into more detail about how producers need to be more transparent about the systems surrounding microtransaction loot boxes so that oversight can effectively prevent predatory systems from being created and marketed to consumers.

Scot

Good analysis, you should be able to edit using the cogwheel Icon though? For me, random items for cash is gambling.

MadFrenchie

Scot said:

Good analysis, you should be able to edit using the cogwheel Icon though? For me, random items for cash is gambling.

D'oh, I just didn't look hard enough, it was tucked away near the bold title font.  I don't make a lot of discussions.

I thought it was interesting to hear actual psychologists/professors analyze it, specifically Madigan, as he's done research on video game psychology before.

Distopia

MadFrenchie said:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefront-2s-loot-boxes-and-gambling-exploring-t/1100-6455184/


The professor (Madigan), who apparently has done multiple studies on the psychology of video games, made the comparison and also the contrast to the physical trading cards and blind toyboxes.  He's the one who explains that those industries don't use the same kind of predatory methods as video games to entice their consumers into buying.  He explains how games can leverage situations (such as losing a match) to time their lootbox offerings to attempt to persuade the gamer to buy out of frustration and the feeling that they cannot be successful or keep up without purchasing.  This seems akin to the aforementioned showing of Star Cards when you're killed in Battlefront 2 or behind the scenes throttling of XP, for all-too-real instances.

Interesting... I'd just like to point out something the good Dr, is wrong about, at least IMO. Some of those blind toyboxes have. A good example are those WOTC Star Wars minis from the late 90's early 00s. They certainly took that method as far as they could. As it was a constant push to get better and better troops for battle, it wasn't uncommon for them to all be totally useless figures. Meaning you needed another box essentially. And those things were not cheap. They certainly also hit the same type of receptors in the brain modern loot boxes do. 

You have to keep in mind as does he, they could only take it so far, because they weren't a part of a digital interface inside a game. That's the only thing at all different about them. 

Nilden

Funny thing is you could google, "why do people gamble" and answer the question pretty easy. Here's the a link...

https://www.healthyplace.com/addictions/gambling-addiction/psychology-of-gambling-reasons-for-gambling/

Octagon7711

Good article.  With all the bells and arcade style bonuses that feels pretty much like working a slot machine.  They've done article on cell phone addiction and how it rewards the brain.  
http://www.addictiontips.net/phone-addiction/phone-addiction-facts/

Octagon7711

I admit this did remind me of SC with periods of limited sales on certain types of ships.

btdt

Life is nothing but predatory practices...  you can find it anywhere.  It really comes down to the fact that people expect their ignorance to be rewarded instead of being a harsh reminder.  

The person who orders a hot coffee in a drive thru then sues the company that sold them the hot coffee because the consumer spilt hot coffee on themselves.

The person who buys a car as-is for what seems like a steal only to find out the car was a lemon.

The person who takes their paycheck and buys booze with it instead of paying the rent and then cries they are homeless.

People who buy loot boxes aren't so idiotic as to believe they will get the sword of a thousand truths on the very first try.  They just play ignorant when they don't get it.

If society needs someone to protect them from video games, they need someone to protect them from life as well.  Because if they are susceptible to one thing, they are susceptible to another.  They are susceptible to life.

MadFrenchie

Distopia said:

MadFrenchie said:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefront-2s-loot-boxes-and-gambling-exploring-t/1100-6455184/


The professor (Madigan), who apparently has done multiple studies on the psychology of video games, made the comparison and also the contrast to the physical trading cards and blind toyboxes.  He's the one who explains that those industries don't use the same kind of predatory methods as video games to entice their consumers into buying.  He explains how games can leverage situations (such as losing a match) to time their lootbox offerings to attempt to persuade the gamer to buy out of frustration and the feeling that they cannot be successful or keep up without purchasing.  This seems akin to the aforementioned showing of Star Cards when you're killed in Battlefront 2 or behind the scenes throttling of XP, for all-too-real instances.

Interesting... I'd just like to point out something the good Dr, is wrong about, at least IMO. Some of those blind toyboxes have. A good example are those WOTC Star Wars minis from the late 90's early 00s. They certainly took that method as far as they could. As it was a constant push to get better and better troops for battle, it wasn't uncommon for them to all be totally useless figures. Meaning you needed another box essentially. And those things were not cheap. They certainly also hit the same type of receptors in the brain modern loot boxes do. 

You have to keep in mind as does he, they could only take it so far, because they weren't a part of a digital interface inside a game. That's the only thing at all different about them. 




EDIT- quote messed up, my reply below:



I agree, and that's one of the unique issues with video game lootboxes that blind toyboxes don't have: video games are leveraging technology that's become omnipresent in our lives, but one we understand incredibly little about as a consumer base (as far as underlying code and behind the scenes gameplay systems).

There's way too much leeway for the developers to implement things like Bungie's XP scaling.  Those things will only become more sophisticated and more embedded into the underlying code in an attempt to push it by consumers.  Blind toyboxes and physical trading cards cannot leverage that kind of behind the scenes deck-stacking against the consumer.

That makes the video game version much more predatory.

Distopia

Just thought I'd share this since it's pertinent to the discussion...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/25/uk-gambling-commission-determines-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law


I wasn't aware our own ESRB has declared them not to be gambling as well...

SEANMCAD

OP:

this is what I have been trying to explain to people for days now.

Its not gambling that is the problem its how gambling is presented that is the problem.
gambling is not predatory, HOW its done can be

SEANMCAD

Distopia said:

Just thought I'd share this since it's pertinent to the discussion...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/25/uk-gambling-commission-determines-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law


I wasn't aware our own ESRB has declared them not to be gambling as well...

cant...because virtual items that never leave that virtual fictional world are considered real.

laxie

Interesting thread. It brings forwards the psychological practices linked to loot-boxes. The public discussion hasn't been covering those much.

When I was doing my Psychology degree, I took a class called "Persuasion and Influence". It was basically a guide on how to make people do what you want, especially in business. We read a book chapter detailing around 80 of these psychological tricks. Scarcity (making something seem rare) this thread mentions was one of them, but there are many many more.

Part of the module was taking apart adverts, understanding how they influence customers. Being a gamer, I wrote most of my work on video games. One of the papers was on Star Citizen's advert - the lecturer found the advert fascinating because it was put together brilliantly and had tons of tricks built in. This is not to say Star Citizen is exploitative (I picked SC because I enjoyed the game back then), but that these practices are extremely common in video games.

Going back to loot boxes, the classification as gambling is not that relevant. In my opinion, regulation should not happen on loot boxes as a whole, but on the specific mechanics they use. For example, I'm sure we could all design a loot box system that feels safe and fine (e.g. getting one of three random pets at level 10, one at level 20 and the last one at level 30 - perhaps in order to ensure a balanced pet population in a game). At the same time, Activision's patent on matchmaking seems very exploitative, even though it does not contain loot boxes at all.

There are two concepts in online services that I think are tricky (and will need to be discussed eventually). These are not exclusive to gaming, but are more viable in gaming than other areas.

1. The ability to purchase instantly
One issue about online purchases that you don't see in physical stores is the accessibility of making a purchase. Walking to a store and picking up a carton of milk requires effort. If you're craving a chocolate in the evening, you might hop in your car and drive over to a 24/7 store, but often times you would not. If your milk or chocolate magically appeared with the click of a button, you'll think about the purchase less.

This is not that big of a deal for one-time purchases. If you want a carton of milk for your bowl of cereal in the morning, getting it instantly may be a convenient benefit. Where this becomes a problem is when you have the ability to instantly re-purchase something that runs out. You might be snacking on a bar of chocolate in the evening and instead of stopping after one, you'll just summon another. There is no running out, there's an endless supply. This is a problem both in terms of moderation and in terms of spending more than you would.

2. Customised purchases
This is probably the big elephant in the room. The more data businesses have on you, the better they can recommend you something. I think this will be the biggest policy question of the next two decades, not just in gaming, but overall.

If a company can optimise your experience (be it a website, an e-mail or a game), based on your specific information, to sell you something with a high probability, is this ethical? You could imagine walking to a store and having a 20% chance of buying a chocolate (perhaps you buy a chocolate every 5th visit on average). What if the constructors could build a store specifically for you. Arrange the aisles, organize what products you see where and when, invite your friends to the front of the store and let them have free samples of chocolate. If this would increase your chance of buying a chocolate to 80% (you'd almost always buy one), would that be right? There is nothing illegal about it, in many ways, it's just smart marketing.

As more information on you becomes available, you can see how this smart marketing becomes an issue. The content you see online may shift to modify how you behave. Perhaps to encourage people to donate blood to have more in case of an emergency - great. Or to make you be more pro-social and helpful in the community - great. But it is an incredibly slippery slope. Without getting all illuminati and political, it is possible to optimise people's behavior along any dimension (you can fill in the best and worst case scenarios).

Several of my projects at university are related to this. One is a match-making system to reduce toxic behavior online, by matching potentially toxic people with those who diffuse that behavior. The other is related to language and publishing.

The unfortunate thing about Gaming is that it's one of the few sectors where data is abundant. It's not that easy to optimise someone's daily fitness schedule, because you simply don't know enough about what they do. In an online video game, the company knows 100% of what you are doing on their platform - this can be several hours worth of data daily. It's one of the few sectors where psychological exploitation of people is possible. The optimist in me likes to believe that's not what publishers are intentionally doing (that it's just smart marketing), but the truth may be a bit more gray.

SEANMCAD

laxie said:

Going back to loot boxes, the classification as gambling is not that relevant. In my opinion, regulation should not happen on loot boxes as a whole, but on the specific mechanics they use. 

agree 100% because if one is being manipulated its not possible for them to make a well informed choice

Gdemami

The beauty of pseudo-science is that you can claim whatever you want since there is no falsifiability...

MadFrenchie

Gdemami said:

The beauty of pseudo-science is that you can claim whatever you want since there is no falsifiability...

Of course!  Because psychology uses no statistical evidence or scientific methodology to arrive at conclusions based on observations of human behavior.

Why, it's revolting!!  What are you waiting for, gdemami???  Quick, go share this revelation with the world so we can do away with this charade!

Gdemami

MadFrenchie said:

Of course!  Because psychology uses no statistical evidence or scientific methodology to arrive at conclusions based on observations of human behavior.

You are a great example why this 'charade' works so well...

People are mostly either incapable or do not care about reason.

Phry

Personally i dislike the game because it encourages a gambling mentality, progression in the game is entirely centered around the concept of loot boxes being a necessary part of gameplay, as long as is not possible to buy them with real money, then the effects can be 'minimised' but doesn't really stop the game from being one that encourages gambling in others. I think personally that the focus being so much on SW:BF2 that games such as Destiny 2 have slipped below the radar to a degree, the game is pretty much garbage but has somehow managed to get on IGN's top 5 games of 2017 and while it may not be as bad as SW:BF2 it is not a game that is not also mired in controversy, whether its also because of loot boxes, or the incomplete nature of the game, it no more is deserving of GOTY than SW:BF2 is.

MadFrenchie

Gdemami said:

MadFrenchie said:

Of course!  Because psychology uses no statistical evidence or scientific methodology to arrive at conclusions based on observations of human behavior.

You are a great example why this 'charade' works so well...

People are mostly either incapable or do not care about reason.

So why are you ignoring the last part of my post?  You have an epiphany to share with the world, what are you waiting for??

Go share it!  Tell me how it works out for you.

MadFrenchie

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

laxie

MadFrenchie said:

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

By now it's obvious that the fiasco directly hurt the sales by a large margin.

I'm really curious what happens next. Will they reactivate micro-transactions after the movie goes live this week? That was the initial plan, but the loot box situation hasn't blown over yet. And if it does come back, in what form? If it is similarly pay-to-win, I can see another uproar. That would be the final nail to the coffin. Before they pulled the plug on it, Disney's reputation was getting smeared all over the media. They probably don't want to run the risk of that again.

If it is only cosmetics in the boxes, it leaves the game with a broken progression system. I don't think the long term progression in the game is salvageable without a major overhaul. It would also need development resources to create all the cosmetics, as they likely weren't in the game to begin with.

And if micro transactions don't come back, then it's a fairly big flop financially. They must be well below their targets by this point. With no significant micro transaction revenue, the game is pretty much a dead product.

There's probably no win situation for EA here. Or at least I don't see it. My hope is that this will make EA design better progression systems, at least for their Star Wars products. Disney will hopefully keep them in the safe zone. The EA Sports games are probably screwed though - people are eating up the card packs in those like crazy.

CrazKanuk

MadFrenchie said:

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

That's an interesting number, but I don't know where it came from. BF1 was estimated to have sold 12 million copies by the end of December 2015 (like a month and a half). So I'm not sure how BF2 sold 52% less, unless we're tracking as a percentage of the overall sales. However, copy-for-copy they appear to be the same or very similar. 

MadFrenchie

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

That's an interesting number, but I don't know where it came from. BF1 was estimated to have sold 12 million copies by the end of December 2015 (like a month and a half). So I'm not sure how BF2 sold 52% less, unless we're tracking as a percentage of the overall sales. However, copy-for-copy they appear to be the same or very similar. 

He states where the number is from in the quoted piece.  The NPD.  It's a report of physical box sales.

Unless digital sales as a share have increased enough over the past year to make up for it, then the overall sales are very much down compared to Battlefront 1.  The UK media was reporting the same kind of disappointing figures even earlier.

@laxie they will likely bring them back quietly once they feel the "new game" surge is exhausted.  It would be nice to see them make major changes to the progression system, but I wouldn't home my breath.  EA is all about full steam ahead on this games as a service idea and MTs in general.

CrazKanuk

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

That's an interesting number, but I don't know where it came from. BF1 was estimated to have sold 12 million copies by the end of December 2015 (like a month and a half). So I'm not sure how BF2 sold 52% less, unless we're tracking as a percentage of the overall sales. However, copy-for-copy they appear to be the same or very similar. 

He states where the number is from in the quoted piece.  The NPD.  It's a report of physical box sales.

Unless digital sales as a share have increased enough over the past year to make up for it, then the overall sales are very much down compared to Battlefront 1.  The UK media was reporting the same kind of disappointing figures even earlier.

@laxie they will likely bring them back quietly once they feel the "new game" surge is exhausted.  It would be nice to see them make major changes to the progression system, but I wouldn't home my breath.  EA is all about full steam ahead on this games as a service idea and MTs in general.

Ahhh, I missed the retail bit. 

I don't know what percentage the retail vs digital portion makes up for in overall sales, but it COULD be that significant. There was an article on here this morning which was talking about poor BF2 sales and that they had sold 12.5 million copies, which was short of the 14 million that they had anticipated. I don't know where that number came from, but it seems pretty exact to be pulling out of their asses. If that number is correct, then it could mean that the digital sales may have actually increased that much over last year. Of course, that's also accepting that the estimates from the analyst from last year indicating they had sold 12 million copies by end of December was correct. 

Whatever the case, it's no wonder that EA gets so much hate, considering we're sitting here talking about how shitty they did with their 12 million copies sold, lol. I wish I could have that kinda "bad year" 

laserit

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

Google news showed me this article based on my reading past Star Wars articles:


https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/12/11/analyst-cuts-ea-price-target-after-star-wars-game-sales-plunge.html

Of note: "He said November U.S. physical game unit sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 52 percent versus 2015's "Star Wars Battlefront" in its first month, according to NPD sell-through data"

52% is fairly significant.  Where was the guy flamboyantly professing he would be back to show us all how wrong we were?  I'd like to know what went wrong.

That's an interesting number, but I don't know where it came from. BF1 was estimated to have sold 12 million copies by the end of December 2015 (like a month and a half). So I'm not sure how BF2 sold 52% less, unless we're tracking as a percentage of the overall sales. However, copy-for-copy they appear to be the same or very similar. 

He states where the number is from in the quoted piece.  The NPD.  It's a report of physical box sales.

Unless digital sales as a share have increased enough over the past year to make up for it, then the overall sales are very much down compared to Battlefront 1.  The UK media was reporting the same kind of disappointing figures even earlier.

@laxie they will likely bring them back quietly once they feel the "new game" surge is exhausted.  It would be nice to see them make major changes to the progression system, but I wouldn't home my breath.  EA is all about full steam ahead on this games as a service idea and MTs in general.

Ahhh, I missed the retail bit. 

I don't know what percentage the retail vs digital portion makes up for in overall sales, but it COULD be that significant. There was an article on here this morning which was talking about poor BF2 sales and that they had sold 12.5 million copies, which was short of the 14 million that they had anticipated. I don't know where that number came from, but it seems pretty exact to be pulling out of their asses. If that number is correct, then it could mean that the digital sales may have actually increased that much over last year. Of course, that's also accepting that the estimates from the analyst from last year indicating they had sold 12 million copies by end of December was correct. 

Whatever the case, it's no wonder that EA gets so much hate, considering we're sitting here talking about how shitty they did with their 12 million copies sold, lol. I wish I could have that kinda "bad year" 

"Whatever the case, it's no wonder that EA gets so much hate, considering we're sitting here talking about how shitty they did with their 12 million copies sold, lol. I wish I could have that kinda "bad year""

 That really depends on what their targets were. Who knows, It may of took 12 million copies to cover Disney's end.