Have I talked about Microtransactions yet? It seems like such a prominent issue plaguing the video game market that it's impossible to avoid in the modern day, and yet it's taken me this long to sit down and actually have a crack at it. Every other week it seems that discourse over microtransactions and deceptive practises grows more and more bitter. People aren't just upset, they're fed up with feeling upset. I've heard so many people say that they have grown sick of playing games altogether because of the blatant anti-consumer practises that the AAA market seems embroiled in.With all that in mind it seems positively astounding that I'm only getting to this topic today. Oh well, I'm here now. Might as well catch everyone up to speed.
'Microtransactions' is a term used to describe a small purchase that is made by the player in exchange for small pieces of digital content on top of the game that they are playing. We're talking buying skins, exp boosts, Finishers, things like that. 'Microtransctions' differ from 'DLC' in that they offer much less content for, ideally, a much smaller price tag. Almost every AAA game company has a hand in the Microtransaction pie in this day and age, making use of them as a clever ploy to rake in the case. What is the ploy, you ask? Well, those small price tags are designed to devalue the purchase in the mind of the buyer, psychologically making them believe that the content they have bought is less significant than full blown DLC. This fabricated lesser value can fool people into buying several of these 'little DLC's' and end up totalling costs that exceed the value of the original game. All for little chunks of digital content.
That is all, of course, just the outwards face of Microtransaction. Companies indulge in many other insidious psychological tactics to fleece their customers. Just take a look at the 'digital currency' issue. Everyone has fallen for this one at least once. Video games make their Microtransactions purchasable only through in-game currency that one needs to purchase with real money to obtain. Then they set the amount that one can buy to odd increments that skirt just below the price of desired objects, forcing players to buy more currency then they need. 'Digital currency' also plays a part in that psychological devaluing I mentioned. When the product itself isn't affixed with a price tag, it's easier not to think about how much it actually costs. I remember back in The Elder Scrolls online when a brand new 'estate' was added to the buyable properties list. I was slightly interested until I read a comment which pointed out what I had missed; with the digital cost being what it is, the digital home was priced at £100. Now, I don't think I'll meet much resistance if I just come out and say, that is inexcusably overpriced. I stopped playing ESO not long after.
That's only the tip of the iceberg, however. In the past year, another term has become very much synonymous with Microtransactions: Lootboxes. A more contentious term I cannot envision. Or perhaps I just don't want to... Lootboxes are Microtransactions pushed to a whole other level. Lootboxes hold the same low-value low-effort digital goods, only tied to a randomized Lootbox. I use the term 'randomise' loosely. Oftentimes the most sought after rewards are tipped to be less common. This means that players are forced to pay money in order to receive an item that they didn't even want in the first place. Many have compared this with the way that gambling is handled when one comes to the 'One armed bandits', and the comparison does seem somewhat apt.
Just like many of the computerised gambling machines of today like slot machines and Pachinko, Lootboxes use psychological techniques in order to hook their players. They tie the opening of boxes to pretty flashy animations and pleasing fanfare in order to get the dopamine levels in our brains going, building up that addiction. It's a simple trick that mobile games have been utilising forever, but it's sadly effective. Those with gambling problems and those who are more susceptible to gambling issues can find something unsettlingly familiar in these sorts of mechanics. The big AAA companies don't care, though, their margins are kept afloat by people who fall into their money grinding machines, so they have no intention of slowing down on the casino tactics. But that doesn't mean gamers just shut up and accept it.
A couple years back a certain game called 'Star Wars: Battlefront 2' (Dice's version) took the concept of Lootboxes to a level so low that no one could stand by and ignore them. They imbued their Lootboxes with gameplay altering items. Most Microtransactions are regulated to items that are purely cosmetic, but not Battlefront, oh no, they wanted to do something special. In come the effect cards and out goes fair competition. Effect cards were awarded randomly and drastically buffed key stats for certain characters, through health boosts, damage boosts and speed boasts. None of this sounds too awful until you remember that these cards could only be earned through a box that one must buy with real world money. This meant that people who forked out on these Microtransactions would have a greater chance of having better cards than those who grinded for each of their cards. This disparity between player and payer is what we gamers like to call 'Pay-to-win'. And we hate pay-to-win.
What followed was months of constant fan derision over the whole 'Lootbox fiasco', whole interviews worth of bad PR statements, and the walking back of Lootboxes from the game. A win for the gaming community but, predictably, just the start of something bigger. Fans never let go of the Lootbox incident and they stirred upon enough trouble to get mainstream media involved. And when the media start parroting the message boards claims of 'gambling mechanics in kids games', people begin noticing. For my part I find the whole Lootbox movement that the game industry tried to push to be very distasteful but I don't believe it quite matches the legal definition of gambling. At least not yet. As recently as last month, EA, Activision and Epic have been answering for their hubris by way of impending government regulations.
I want to take this time to argue that Lootboxes actually aren't particularly moral or even really all that fun, (Scandalous. I know!) Using the example that inspired me to write this blog. Last Monday the BBC put out a story about a family who's kids had managed to empty out their bank account playing Fifa. The Father had recently bought his children Fifa 19 for Nintendo Switch and had purchased them a single Lootbox as a gift. Unfortunately, he didn't realise that his children had watched him buy the pack and remembered how he did it. (Everyone underestimates the children.) For the next week the children bought Lootbox after Lootbox in hopes of acquiring their dream player: Lionel Messi, who has a probability of less-than-1% of showing up. £550 later and the children didn't have their player and the parents only became aware when their credit card bounced the next week. The parents reached out to Nintendo and EA for help in refunding the purchase and received two polar opposite responses. EA directed them to a poorly laid out page instructing them how to turn on parental options (Little late for that, no?) and Nintendo actually refunded them. Not too ethical of EA there, to do literally nothing to help. Couldn't have been very fun either, considering the family had momentarily lost all of their savings. But it was most definitely a surprise, I'll give Kerry that.Microtransactions and Lootboxes are reflections of some of worst and most greedy tendencies of the gaming market. Extra purchases tacked on top of your £50 game in some desperate attempt to beat yet-more money out of you. Avarice inspired these companies to push the envelope in all the worst ways and innovate in the fields of monetisation instead of- literally anything else. Now, their shortsightedness has the threat of government regulation blaring down on all the industry and I don't think it's for the best. Sure, they may eradicate Lootboxes for us if pushed hard enough, but what will happen after they're done? Will they then point the magnifying glass on video game violence or sexual themes and content? Yesterday I was discussing the lengths that the gaming industry went through in order to prevent Government oversight, now they've just gone and welcomed them in with open arms. And just like a vampire, the government bodies are looking about, hungry for what they can drain of life. I fear that if these companies fail to self regulate enough to force the hand of government bodies, the gaming industry could end of reaping much more than they sowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment