Game publishers will start disclosing loot box odds

[Tiviana.2650]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

tl;dr I would hope the chickens would be very nervous hearing the foxes talk about what a good job they are doing guarding the hen-houses.

No kidding, self regulation has almost always been corrupt. Time and again we see the results.

@Lilyanna.9361 said:Does common, uncommon, rare, and super rare not give you enough of a hint on the odds? Do people REALLY need numbers to put two and two together about rates?

Come on now, that's just extra work. Y'all should be smart to determine that the commons are more than not always show up.

Honestly yes, take another game for instance, its odds of rare may be 100 to 1, gw2 odds on rare is prob 1 million to 1 so its all dependent on what rare is considered in each game. Either way you have about the same chance as winning the lottery. I guess you can consider loot boxes a lottery in many ways.

[Pifil.5193]

@Tiviana.2650 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

tl;dr I would hope the chickens would be very nervous hearing the foxes talk about what a good job they are doing guarding the hen-houses.

No kidding, self regulation has almost always been corrupt. Time and again we see the results.

@"Lilyanna.9361" said:Does common, uncommon, rare, and super rare not give you enough of a hint on the odds? Do people REALLY need numbers to put two and two together about rates?

Come on now, that's just extra work. Y'all should be smart to determine that the commons are more than not always show up.

Honestly yes, take another game for instance, its odds of rare may be 100 to 1, gw2 odds on rare is prob 1 million to 1 so its all dependent on what rare is considered in each game. Either way you have about the same chance as winning the lottery. I guess you can consider loot boxes a lottery in many ways.

Yeah, in Magic the Gathering you used to get, what, 1 "Rare" and 3 "Uncommon" cards in every pack of 15. The terms they've chosen are deliberately left vague and undefined because "Rare" sounds a lot better than, for example, "1 in 10,000" chance and probably sells a lot better too.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Lilyanna.9361" said:Does common, uncommon, rare, and super rare not give you enough of a hint on the odds? Do people REALLY need numbers to put two and two together about rates?In fact, no, those terms are meaningless in any practical sense. As I've noted above, humans have terrible intuitions when it comes to probabilities, even if they have the numbers. If they don't have the numbers, it's far, far worse.

Come on now, that's just extra work. Y'all should be smart to determine that the commons are more than not always show up.While it's true that people who open small amounts of boxes should expect commons, that's not how most people see it, if for no other reason than they think "a lot" means "100 BL chests" or "1000 champ bags." In terms of our experience, sure; those are a ton. In terms of probability, no, not nearly.

[Josiah.2967]

There was one huge update in the FTC investigation.

High end streamers/youtubers admitted that companies payed them and offered to increase their odds for rewards on their stream. This makes it look like your odds of the rewards you want are much higher than they are. This is going to be a huge win to those that hate loot boxes.

On a side note. Epics games made an update to all of there games. Any game that has loot box rewards will show you what you would get before you use the item (in our case key). If you did not like what you would get. It will reset once a day without spending a dime.

Way to go Epic. One huge step forward.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Astralporing.1957 said:This ESA statement seems like exactly that - making it seem like the industry conceded to the wishes of the community and self-regulated, while actually nothing like that happened.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. I apologize that my rhetoric didn't convey that as simply as you did here.

[sorudo.9054]

adding a new thing in the chest already adds new resources so that clarifies within the new rules.

when i look at the rarity thing, having several chests with a sort of guarantee helps players decide their chances.have 3 chests, one normal one, one golden one with a guarantee of a uncommon or better drop and a platinum with a rare or better drop.normal chests drop as often as it does now, the other ones have a much lower drop rate with the platinum being a precursor rarity.

now not only do you show in a way your chances, the chests are now made so you have a better guarantee on what drops, you could even make it that platinum chests can only be opened with golden keys.

[calb.3128]

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:Doesn't it only apply to new games or games that add 'loot boxes'?

The disclosure will apply to all new games and updates to games that add such in-game purchases...

Guild Wars 2 isn't new, nor are Black Lion Chests.No, but it would certainly be jarring if there is widespread adoption of the policy in 2020 and some games (read: GW2) deliberately choose to be outliers. It also says it applies in the case of 'new loot box features' which, depending on how widely you construe it, could include any additions or changes to BLCs. The details have yet to be decided so I'd still take the statement with a large pinch of salt, at least for the time being..

@Josiah.2967 said:On a side note. Epics games made an update to all of there games. Any game that has loot box rewards will show you what you would get before you use the item (in our case key). If you did not like what you would get. It will reset once a day without spending a dime.

Way to go Epic. One huge step forward.

This is good. Even if the refresh was a week, this is good. I'm not sure it'll catch on though.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

And how is this making it better. The house usually always win. Thats the only stat you need to know.

[Torzini.1523]

As long as the boxes continue to contain only vanity and convenience-related items, I couldn't give less of a kitten about them. No one is being forced to buy them. They're not needed for gameplay.

Besides, I'm sure most people already know they're a bad deal yet go in for them anyway. 'The house always wins' is a common adage.

As someone else already pointed out, the relative rarity of all the outcomes can already be seen, just by hitting the 'Preview' button.

[Khisanth.2948]

@Magnus Godrik.5841 said:And how is this making it better. The house usually always win. Thats the only stat you need to know.

It does nothing for the players.

It makes it better for the game companies as it is obviously enough to fool some people into thinking the companies are doing something positive.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Watch a lot of those numbers be drop chances, tucked under a layer of drop chance, under another layer. And each one at less than a thousandth of a chance.

[Dawdler.8521]

Yeah...

Except, how do we know the disclosed odds are actually true and correct?

Who validates that? Who regulates that? Who enforce that?

Oh the game publishers... right...

Well they've earned our trust, for sure.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Except, how do we know the disclosed odds are actually true and correct?On the whole, this isn't usually that big a problem.

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:Watch a lot of those numbers be drop chances, tucked under a layer of drop chance, under another layer.And this is even less of an issue.

---

If actual numbers are published (and keep in mind: the policy statement doesn't even call for that), then no matter how convoluted they are, the mathematically inclined among us will calculate the odds. (If nothing else, it's trivial to run simulations and show the resulting rates from those.)

And once we have that, it's possible to collect data from the community that can be compared. In some cases, it's unlikely we'll have enough data to provide conclusive proof. In most cases, though, there could be enough to test the hypothesis of the published odds being likely or unlikely.

More to the point: the bigger studios (including even ones as "small" as ANet) don't need to fudge the odds. Some people still are going to choose to roll the dice.

---

tl;dr the least of the issues surrounding the industry proposal are whether the publication of odds is simple|convoluted or accurate|misleading.

[AgentMoore.9453]

Sadly, the animal brain doesn't care about numbers. Some people will always feel ripped off when they lose; the lottery system is a good example of this despite the odds being printed on every card.

No one should be surprised by a system of chance only offering chances.

[Zaklex.6308]

@Josiah.2967 said:~snip~On a side note. Epics games made an update to all of there games. Any game that has loot box rewards will show you what you would get before you use the item (in our case key). If you did not like what you would get. It will reset once a day without spending a dime.

Way to go Epic. One huge step forward.

I guarantee you that Epic is counting on the human trait of patience not being present in many of the people opening their loot boxes...i.e.. people will get tired of waiting for the item then want and just take what comes next at some point in time, as most people do not have patience at all(instant gratification syndrome).

@calb.3128 said:

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:Doesn't it only apply to new games or games that add 'loot boxes'?

The disclosure will apply to all new games and updates to games that add such in-game purchases...

Guild Wars 2 isn't new, nor are Black Lion Chests.No, but it would certainly be jarring if there is widespread adoption of the policy in 2020 and some games (read: GW2) deliberately choose to be outliers. It also says it applies in the case of 'new loot box features' which, depending on how widely you construe it, could include any additions or changes to BLCs. The details have yet to be decided so I'd still take the statement with a large pinch of salt, at least for the time being..

~snip~

Again, exactly what reason would any gaming company have to provide this information to an existing game that already includes loot boxes...because newer games coming out do? That's hardly a valid or even impressive reason to do so, as it's currently written any game that is being played today and released throughout the year 2019 will not be covered by this proposal, if that game already includes loot boxes there's absolutely no incentive to make the change to provide this information what so ever.

It also specifically states adding in such purchases to a game that is already out...well, BLTC have been in the game and loot boxes have been in many games already released, changing the contents of said loot boxes is not introducing them into the game, they already exist, all you're doing is changing the content of an existing item...doesn't qualify.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Dawdler.8521 said:Except, how do we know the disclosed odds are actually true and correct?Because in most countries, while no developer is obligated to supply this kind of info, once they do, they can be held to it. Businesses can be silent about things, can give us halftruths, but an outright lie is something they cannot do. And if they do, government agencies and courts can get involved.

Who validates that?Community. And it's not that hard as you may think, because the difference between announced and real drop rates would not be small (there would be no point otherwise)

Who regulates that? Who enforce that?Government (see above why).

[Dawdler.8521]

@Astralporing.1957 said:Government (see above why).Except they dont. Because lootboxes surprise mechanics isnt gambling.

Isnt this the entire ongoing argument? You seem to live in a world that doesnt exist yet.

Saying that the community validates it may be accurate, but its also hilarious. Do the community of casinos also validate the odds of slot machines by sitting in the casinos and gambling on them?

[Astralporing.1957]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:Government (see above why).Except they dont. Because

lootboxes

surprise mechanics isnt gambling.You might want to actually

read

my post above.

I never mentioned gambling. I never said that government is going to enforce that developers should give us drop info. I said, that, if we do get that info, they will enforce that this info will be true and correct. Because businesses are not allowed to outright lie to their customers about their products, and that is enforced by law.

So, if the developers will disclose odds, we will be able to trust those odds. I just don't believe in developers revealing that information unless someone will hold a knife to their throat.