Microtransactions and loot boxes have become an increasingly hot topic over the last... Well, for what feels like a very, very long time. Governments have had their say, gambling commissions have weighed in on the situation, and the internet's obviously been going ballistic. There's been a lot of noise, then, but has anything actually changed?
Eh, kind of. The ESRB -- North America's video games rating board -- has announced that it'll be adding "in-game purchases" labels to the retail boxes of games that feature microtransactions. That sounds like something of a step forward, but then you realise that these labels will cover "bonus levels, skins, surprise items (such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes and upgrades (e.g., to disable ads)."
In other words, this applies to any game with downloadable content that's purchasable through in-game menus, not just loot boxes.
While this may seems like a rather halfhearted approach, ESRB president Patricia Vance says that the organisation has to keep things simple. "Parents need simple information. We can’t overwhelm them with a lot of detail... We have not found that parents are differentiating between these different mechanics,” Vance states in a press release.
"We’ve done a lot of research over the past several weeks and months, particularly among parents. What we’ve learned is that a large majority of parents don’t know what a loot box is. Even those who claim they do, don’t really understand what a loot box is. So it’s very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, to make sure that we’re capturing loot boxes, but also other in-game transactions," Vance explains.
Do you think more should be done to single out games that feature microtransactions? Or is this a step in the right direction? Keep that wallet closed in the comments section below.
[source kotaku.com]
Comments 23
I mean any labelling is good, because people should be aware that they players can purchase more content so not going to complain. However, this is a little too vague. There is a difference between being able to buy a skin and being able to gamble on the chance of getting a skin. I want odds shown on packaging where chance is shown. It feels like the minimum effort to me to be doing something.
Well that'll fix everything 🙄 they'll just add that stuff post launch.
I don't think anyone pays even the slightest bit of attention to those labels anyway and if it encompasses so much it'll be rather meaningless.
Let's not forget we already have a great system for labelling games with microtransactions which affect gameplay, they simply say EA on the cover
Not enough, but certainly better than nothing. May the controversy continue!
I have witnessed some epic salt because of this lootboxes may it continue.
I think microtransations should be singles out. Put both on in way they that those who get will understand and those who are ignorant will still understand even though two ratings are on the list.
@carlos82 my parents used them a lot as I grew up. I had to tell them what games rating was and what the list of why it was rated that whenever I got something. I still use them as a help in knowing what’s in a game even though they often lack enough detail.
Its a small step in the right direction but its not that meaningful either. As we have seen from the ESRB 'ratings' of games and the amount of underage gamers playing these, the box labels are pretty meaningless. Of course the ESRB have to do 'something' but this is more a 'token' effort - are they funded by publishers??
The biggest impact though can be from the press/journalists. The reviewers should make a point of mentioning whether games have micro-transactional content, what that entails - whether RNG or not, whether Cosmetic or Not, whether impactful to the game-play or not etc. Even if 'cosmetic only', if the main game is very limited on choice, then that also has to be mentioned too. If anything, the addition of Micro-transactions, even DLC if the game feels 'light' on release should reduce the overall score of the game. If you are paying 'full price' for a game, you expect a full game!!
I know games like CoD and Battlefield offer a season of DLC but in their case, you can look at the 'average' amount of content that these games launched with. If CoD for example launched with just 8 maps, you would see that it is a drop from the 12-14maps that past games offered - essentially a DLC bundle less than expected.
If the gaming press were more open and reflected the gamers rather than almost neglecting the issues that are of major concern, then they have the most power to make a difference. I know we as gamers ourselves also make a difference by voting with our wallets, the fact that the journalists are providing better information as well as reflecting these 'negatives' in their scoring (after all, how many use reviews in their advertising of games), they have the opportunity to help eradicate bad practices.
I would hope that Parents, like myself, would read reviews before buying for kids. I am in a different position than most being a gamer myself and therefore fully aware of what most games offer before release and read/watch reviews etc of games that I have little/no interest in too. Its obvious though that a lot of parents don't bother to look at age ratings so I can't see them bothering too much about another ESRB sticker or what that actual means in context...
@YummyHappyPills doesn't apply to things bought strictly with in game currency. If the game you're referring to doesn't have a way to spend real money, it won't get the designation.
@Jaz007 I wish more parents would pay attention to them, I have an 11 year old step son who sees many of the games I have and wonders why I won't let him play them. Yet almost all of his friends play these same games as their parents either don't look at them or simply dont care what their children are playing.
Well, that's basically every single game, then.
MTX should have their own designation. Standard dlc can have it's own.
I'd actually like to see a MTX warning on games, just so I don't accidentally buy them. It's a pain to have to search around any time I want to buy a game I'm not familiar with.
Also, man, that "upgrade" stipulation, that sends chills down my spine. Can you imagine if freaking ads start popping up in our AAA games? It's bad enough what FFXV did with it's stupid product placement, but can you be so sure commercials won't make an appearance in our games?
Five years ago I'd say no way. But now? EA and Activision and Konami and the like know no bounds and consumers are mostly idiots with no self control. It can definitely happen.
@RogerRoger The thing is, the Shop Keeper probably doesn't know what to do in that situation. They can't exactly not sell the game as the person buying is clearly over age. I think if I was in that situation, I would make a point of asking the parent were they aware that the game is for adults - as indicated by the age rating and that the game contains scenes of violence and of a sexual nature. I don't know if they can refuse to sell to an adult though and for a lot of stores, they are more interested in the sale than what's morally right. They aren't going to be fined for example by selling that to the parent.
Short of putting games in a cardboard sleeve with 'Adults Only' emblazoned over it, as well as the sticker about in game purchases, you aren't going to get a LOT of parents to pay much attention.
That also doesn't help digital sales. I bet a LOT of parents have no idea about setting up their kids consoles and employing some parental control. Those 10yr old kids can buy 18 rated games just by asking for some 'credit' top-up for birthday/Christmas. With an increase in digital sales, there is likely to be more and more kids buying games that they couldn't and shouldn't be accessing.
This is fine.
Can't see that making any real difference but at least their heart is in the right place.
wishy washy act try sweep all controversy under the carpet. Me thinks they have allready gone pass the stage where this would have worked.
Sounds like they're trying to sidestep the entire issue.
@RogerRoger Whilst digital store fronts are there to sell - just like Physical retailers - they obviously cannot 'see' the person buying to know whether they are if a suitable age. However they can still stop underage gamers buying adult rated games if their profiles are set up properly. There is NOTHING to stop a kid setting up their console/profile to indicate they are over 18. As I alluded to, if their parents haven't set up their console and profile then these kids can say they are adults and buy adult games.
As far as Games being held in the same esteem as film, TV and literature, they already have the biggest media releases of the year. I don't agree with some of the classification of games - the age ratings. Having seen what's acceptable in a 15 rated movie and comparing that to some games that are classified as 18, I do think there is a big miss-match - which I would like to see addressed. My 15yr old can watch scenes of violence, sex and 'mild nudity', hear bad language etc in a 15 rated movie but can't buy a game that is nowhere near as bad because it has an 18 rating. Obviously I am not talking about GTA here but some 15 rated movies make GTA look very tame by comparison. Somehow, watching a sex scene in Mass Effect, which is far less explicit, is worse than seeing it in a film. I would like to see some better and more consistent ratings across all media. I think that would also help parents because if they think games, like CoD are no worse than Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers then why not think that all 18 rated games are equivalent to 15 rated movies/TV?
If there was more consistency, you could at least say to the parent would they allow their 10yr old to watch some 18 rated movie with similar scenes/content.
Anyway that's getting off topic.
@RogerRoger @carlos82 I know, I’ve heard of kids playing a bunch of M rated games but not being allowed to watch a PG-13 movie. It’s honestly really sad. Especially with something like CoD. The games are full of swearing and gore, but it feels no parent ever bats their eyes at a kid playing CoD. It’s like them watching the Avengers or something, but it’s definitely not. I’m glad my parents did. Did I ever feel they went a little overboard yes? Yes, but would I rather than that then them not caring? Yes again.
Don't love this as it's a very vague descriptor. Essentially a game like Horizon: Zero Dawn or The Witcher 3, which has post launch content that was actually very well crafted and not put in there to screw over the consumer, gets bunched in with something like Star Wars Battlefront 2 which had some appalling DLC practices. In the end I stand by what I've always said, educate yourself, look at the content and then decide if it's something you want to support or not. For parents, I'm sick of hearing about putting measures in place because most of them don't want to educate themselves anyway. I worked in Gamestop for years, can't tell you how many times I saw kids who probably shouldn't be playing a GTA or God of War walk out of the store with a copy.
absolutely a good step in the right direction
Very stupid decision. This clearly doesn't solve the problem.
This seems like a very vague reaction from a group that had to do something to try and keep the government out of their business. I think its too vague, doesnt solve the problem and is too little too late.
I still say to this day that the MAIN issue is that you can spend money and not even get what you wanted which is just wrong. There are other issues but the random/gambling aspect is the worst offender.
Yeah sure... "Parents don't know what loot boxes are, so we'll make sure that everything stay that way. They do not have to know. We totally do not have to inform them. So game compagnies can continue to screw parents by using their kids".
Seriously... And these people are "specialists" ? They are paid for this kind of study, and for this kind of plan ?
Off course, micro-transactions and DLCs have to be notified - the fact that we are used to them do not diminush the fact that this is scandalous to pay "something more" over a full-priced paid title. But I guess this is the way, now.
But loot boxes are differents, this is an all new kind of game, here. They introduce the chance factor and make it commune directly to your wallet. It is f.... gambling. There's no way to deny that.
And franckly, this has to stop. We already agreed to pay more for things that SHOULD HAVE BEEN integrated in the base game (those god damned Season Passes !!!), but we just cannot agree to let gamble becoming a game mechanic.
If I seem angry, yeah I am, cause like the good sheep that I am, I just gave Bandai Namco 35 more bucks to be sure that I'll get all the characters of Dragon Ball Fighter Z. I'm a DB Fanboy, and I'm weak, and I'm now a part of the problem.
But the fact is : that game was offered to me, as a birthday present. And I had to spend money to COMPLETE the present. Althought, I know for a fact that the lovely person who gave me this present bought it for a regular full price.
I belive there's clear difference between horizon zero dawn dlc vs starwars battlefront 2 lootbox system, to include them in the same description is dishonest.
If esrb want to "keep things simple", just add "This Game has Gambling" rating on all games that has lootbox.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...