Twist - disclose the odds, but keep the actual odds completely different.
Once masses complain - blame RNG.
Profit.
Didn't this happen before? I don't remember who did it, either Blizzard or Ubisoft (or someone else?) got caught decreasing the drop rates. I think it was Blizzard but i could be wrong.
If you don't want kids to buy them, don't link your CC to their account and don't allow them to make the purchase - that's on the parent, not the distributor of the game.
You can buy game cards at the corner store/candy shop. You don't need a CC, you can get around your parents. What will the games industry do to combat this?
Ok, don't give your unsupervised child money to spend as they choose if you don't trust them to be responsible with it.
I don't see how people being irresponsible with their money is the gaming industries problem.
That being said, I hate loot boxes. I'm trying to convince myself to not purchase any games that have loot boxes/ MTX available even though I don't purchase loot boxes personally.
The problem is that most people don't know how odds work escpeially depending on how odds are listed: ( ie. 1:2 vs 50%) People think that if I have 1:2 odds if I buy 2 I get it but in reality the odds never change. you could buy a hundred and still never get the items.
It's worth noting that in some mobile games (Gachas), the rate of getting what you want literally does go up the more times you fail. They have pity rates that slowly increase the odds.
Ie: in my personal vice (FEH), pity rates increase summon chances by about 0.25% for focus characters and 0.25% for off focus characters for every 5 "failed" summons. This is clearly communicated to the player.
If anything, this is more insidious, as it places a time pressure to not waste that pity rate you've built before it goes away.
You can disclose the odds, but gambling is still gambling.
Yes its 100% true but I do think some may stop if they see that mount they want has a 0.00023% drop rate.
I don't think it'll stop that many. Those who most care about the odds are likely already doing their best to avoid gambling items.
But it's still important because: -It prevents the devs from automatically adjusting the odds so that you'd buy more -It prevents the devs from stealth-nerfing the odds of popular items -It allows people to compare between different games
I agree with you. IMO if this move stops one person from dumping all they own into a RNG. It will have marret.
I hit PICK 4 Straight a few days ago, $2700 bucks.
For any of you kids out there reading this, Gambling is pretty fun and sometimes pays, just make sure you don't go overboard and become a degenerate gambler spending all your school lunch money on Pokemon cards and virtual skins.
Forget these prudes on MMORPG, Live it up you little Brats !
The problem is that most people don't know how odds work escpeially depending on how odds are listed: ( ie. 1:2 vs 50%) People think that if I have 1:2 odds if I buy 2 I get it but in reality the odds never change. you could buy a hundred and still never get the items.
That is not how probability works.
@Seldin is 100% correct. Thats how odds work. More times you try, each try has the same odds.
are committing to new platform policies that will require paid loot boxes in games developed for their platforms to disclose information on the relative rarity or probability of obtaining randomized virtual items
This could just as easily be accomplished by defining items as common, uncommon, and rare. There is no clear commitment for 100% odds disclosure.
are committing to new platform policies that will require paid loot boxes in games developed for their platforms to disclose information on the relative rarity or probability of obtaining randomized virtual items
This could just as easily be accomplished by defining items as common, uncommon, and rare. There is no clear commitment for 100% odds disclosure.
Game 1. Rare is 10% drop rate Game 2. Rare is 2% drop rate Game 3. Rare is 0.00000023% drop rate
No, every game should have to give the odds on all items in an RNG box. If it costs RL money.
The problem is that most people don't know how odds work escpeially depending on how odds are listed: ( ie. 1:2 vs 50%) People think that if I have 1:2 odds if I buy 2 I get it but in reality the odds never change. you could buy a hundred and still never get the items.
That is not how probability works.
@Seldin is 100% correct. Thats how odds work. More times you try, each try has the same odds.
When you throw a coin, there's 50% chance of getting tails. If you don't succeed and decide to try again, you have again 50% chance of getting tails. If you still don't succeed and decide to try third time, again 50% chance.
No matter how many times you try, your chance of getting tails is always 50%. The probability doesn't change.
The problem is that most people don't know how odds work escpeially depending on how odds are listed: ( ie. 1:2 vs 50%) People think that if I have 1:2 odds if I buy 2 I get it but in reality the odds never change. you could buy a hundred and still never get the items.
That is not how probability works.
@Seldin is 100% correct. Thats how odds work. More times you try, each try has the same odds.
When you throw a coin, there's 50% chance of getting tails. If you don't succeed and decide to try again, you have again 50% chance of getting tails. If you still don't succeed and decide to try third time, again 50% chance.
No matter how many times you try, your chance of getting tails is always 50%. The probability doesn't change.
Yes, every turn has the same odds, but he lept to a conclusion his premise didn't support by implying that would happen over a long streak when probability logic is proven to be the exact opposite. The more turns taken the less streaks will affect the overall success rate.
It absolutely could happen the way they describe, but it's more likely to NEVER happen that way and more likely (so much more likely that other likelihoods pale in comparison) to end up arriving closer to 1:2 than not. The likelihood of this resulting in 1:2 increases the more turns taken as well.
Just to be clear. The more times tried doesn't speak to the likelihood of the next event, but to the success/failure rate of previous events. So to say that you can fail every time out of 100 is true, but it's just as true and likely that you would succeed that many times in a row too. Over time the success/failure history will show a trend towards 1:2 not further away.
Exactly. In 100 tries I would expect heads in the range of 40-60%. Zero heads is possible but the probability of that happening is infinitesimally small... 7*10^-31 to be exact
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The problem is that most people don't know how odds work escpeially depending on how odds are listed: ( ie. 1:2 vs 50%) People think that if I have 1:2 odds if I buy 2 I get it but in reality the odds never change. you could buy a hundred and still never get the items.
That is not how probability works.
@Seldin is 100% correct. Thats how odds work. More times you try, each try has the same odds.
When you throw a coin, there's 50% chance of getting tails. If you don't succeed and decide to try again, you have again 50% chance of getting tails. If you still don't succeed and decide to try third time, again 50% chance.
No matter how many times you try, your chance of getting tails is always 50%. The probability doesn't change.
Yes, every turn has the same odds, but he lept to a conclusion his premise didn't support by implying that would happen over a long streak when probability logic is proven to be the exact opposite. The more turns taken the less streaks will affect the overall success rate.
It absolutely could happen the way they describe, but it's more likely to NEVER happen that way and more likely (so much more likely that other likelihoods pale in comparison) to end up arriving closer to 1:2 than not. The likelihood of this resulting in 1:2 increases the more turns taken as well.
Just to be clear. The more times tried doesn't speak to the likelihood of the next event, but to the success/failure rate of previous events. So to say that you can fail every time out of 100 is true, but it's just as true and likely that you would succeed that many times in a row too. Over time the success/failure history will show a trend towards 1:2 not further away.
I think we're just thinking at different situations.
If you were to buy 100 boxes at a time with 1:2 chance, then you'd likely arrive close to 50 items.
But if you were to buy those boxes one at time until you get your item, then seldin's example is better because at first purchase your expected gain is 0.5 items per lootbox, at second purchase it's 0.25 items per lootbox (since you only make second purchase if the first didn't give you anything ), at third purchase it's 0.1667 items per lootbox (since you only do third purchase if you didn't get anything on 1st and 2nd), etc.
A streak only evens out to equal chance if you don't let your results affect the streak's length.
If you don't want kids to buy them, don't link your CC to their account and don't allow them to make the purchase - that's on the parent, not the distributor of the game.
You can buy game cards at the corner store/candy shop. You don't need a CC, you can get around your parents. What will the games industry do to combat this?
Ok, don't give your unsupervised child money to spend as they choose if you don't trust them to be responsible with it.
I don't see how people being irresponsible with their money is the gaming industries problem.
That being said, I hate loot boxes. I'm trying to convince myself to not purchase any games that havemoshra said:
If you don't want kids to buy them, don't link your CC to their account and don't allow them to make the purchase - that's on the parent, not the distributor of the game.
You can buy game cards at the corner store/candy shop. You don't need a CC, you can get around your parents. What will the games industry do to combat this?
Ok, don't give your unsupervised child money to spend as they choose if you don't trust them to be responsible with it.
I don't see how people being irresponsible with their money is the gaming industries problem.
That being said, I hate loot boxes. I'm trying to convince myself to not purchase any games that have loot boxes/ MTX available even though I don't purchase loot boxes personally.
loot boxes/ MTX available even though I don't purchase loot boxes personally.
And where does the gaming industries responsibility lie? I don't see how the gaming industry being irresponsible with their monetization practices is the tax payers problem. As always its the tax payer that is left holding the bag. Tax the shit out of this type of monetization. Gambling styled monitization should be taxed accordingly.
I'd bet the taxation collected doesn't come close to covering the social cost's caused.
Addicts lie cheat and steal or worse to get their fix, it would be nice if kids had a fighting chance to grow up first before they are subjected to that kind of crap.
Doesn't seem like the gaming industry really gives two fucks now does it. As long as them billions keep rolling in its all good.
Simply requiring transparency on loot crate rates isn't enough, but it's a good start. Alone, it's completely inadequate and shows the industry isn't trying to police itself. The industry is trying to make the problem go away with a quick sweep under the rug.
I think those streamers should be handled more by general advertisement rules than game industry's rules.
Advertisement laws outdated, and they should be updated to include some kind of mandatory warning box about sponsored content when you reach sponsored content. Not just on video game streams, but also for places like Instagram.
Why is it that people don't use their own experiences to better calculate and temper their own expectations and not rely on the influencers/streamers to be the gauge they use for what is clearly an attempt to mislead them.
The only way to determine if the odds are true is to have a huge sample size. If you opened 100 boxes and didnt get a 1% chance item, that truly could be bad luck. But if you opened, say, 100,000 boxes, you should see something closer to the projected odds. (Yes, obviously no one has the money to do this.)
The only way to determine if the odds are true is to have a huge sample size. If you opened 100 boxes and didnt get a 1% chance item, that truly could be bad luck. But if you opened, say, 100,000 boxes, you should see something closer to the projected odds. (Yes, obviously no one has the money to do this.)
If 1000 people on social media (lets put that awful thing to some good use) reported the results of their 100 box openings you would have the sample you are looking for.
Agreed, but barely any progress in this area. F2P and their various mechanics is a plague on my beloved hobby. And we all know that telling people that smoking causes cancer doesnt prevent people from smoking. So this will have little to no effect.
Comments
Ok, don't give your unsupervised child money to spend as they choose if you don't trust them to be responsible with it.
I don't see how people being irresponsible with their money is the gaming industries problem.
That being said, I hate loot boxes. I'm trying to convince myself to not purchase any games that have loot boxes/ MTX available even though I don't purchase loot boxes personally.
Ie: in my personal vice (FEH), pity rates increase summon chances by about 0.25% for focus characters and 0.25% for off focus characters for every 5 "failed" summons. This is clearly communicated to the player.
If anything, this is more insidious, as it places a time pressure to not waste that pity rate you've built before it goes away.
For any of you kids out there reading this, Gambling is pretty fun and sometimes pays, just make sure you don't go overboard and become a degenerate gambler spending all your school lunch money on Pokemon cards and virtual skins.
Forget these prudes on MMORPG, Live it up you little Brats !
Aloha Mr Hand !
Game 2. Rare is 2% drop rate
Game 3. Rare is 0.00000023% drop rate
No, every game should have to give the odds on all items in an RNG box. If it costs RL money.
You can think of it like throwing coins.
When you throw a coin, there's 50% chance of getting tails. If you don't succeed and decide to try again, you have again 50% chance of getting tails. If you still don't succeed and decide to try third time, again 50% chance.
No matter how many times you try, your chance of getting tails is always 50%. The probability doesn't change.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If you were to buy 100 boxes at a time with 1:2 chance, then you'd likely arrive close to 50 items.
But if you were to buy those boxes one at time until you get your item, then seldin's example is better because at first purchase your expected gain is 0.5 items per lootbox, at second purchase it's 0.25 items per lootbox (since you only make second purchase if the first didn't give you anything ), at third purchase it's 0.1667 items per lootbox (since you only do third purchase if you didn't get anything on 1st and 2nd), etc.
A streak only evens out to equal chance if you don't let your results affect the streak's length.
I'd bet the taxation collected doesn't come close to covering the social cost's caused.
Addicts lie cheat and steal or worse to get their fix, it would be nice if kids had a fighting chance to grow up first before they are subjected to that kind of crap.
Doesn't seem like the gaming industry really gives two fucks now does it. As long as them billions keep rolling in its all good.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Advertisement laws outdated, and they should be updated to include some kind of mandatory warning box about sponsored content when you reach sponsored content. Not just on video game streams, but also for places like Instagram.