Lootboxes court ruling in the Netherlands

[sorudo.9054]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Shadowmoon.7986 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Shadowmoon.7986 said:Like i've said, i wish there were a sub fee alternative that put loot box rewards into actually playing the game. Unfortunately, after 8 years there are very few rewards left to pursue that are not either direct gemstore sales or in the rng lootboxes. Only excitement i get now is rolling a guarantee reward unlock from my weekly key farm, because at least then i might get something cool.

A sub fee alternative would not necessarily put loot box rewards into actually playing the game. That's wishful thinking at best. As a matter of fact, I can't think of ANY MMO with a sub and a GS where 'loot box' rewards are also obtainable from playing.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amp/free-to-play-mmo-rift-is-adding-a-new-subscription-server-free-of-loot-boxes/

Rift did this, anet could easily implement something similar with guarantee reward unlocks added to a wvw/pvp reward tracks, the fractal and raid weekly rewards, and/or replace the black lion goods on the daily login. I would have no problem paying a sub fee to support the game for a better reward structure.

Didn't that get shut down after less than a year live?

that game is still alive and kicking......

and even while rift does it's shop tons better with much better pricing and "gem" worth, i don't like the sub part ether.

[Lawtider.9024]

Do not worry (or hope) that the ruling of EA applies to GW2 in the Netherlands. Basically, EA was so egregiously with the gambling part, it was truly constructed to be addictive, and for prices that could be sold for real money, with items that affect the game in such a way that if you have said item, you have an advantage. That's like 3 strikes.GW2 is pretty much only cosmetics, with ways to get the items for free. Dutch law is a bit more specific than the STUPID laws in Belgium (there are many stupid laws in Belgium, it is a laughing stock for a reason here in the Netherlands).For instance, under Belgian law, Magic the Gathering would be illegal. (Although I would like to see that shitstorm)

[Ashen.2907]

@"sorudo.9054" said:

Didn't that get shut down after less than a year live?

that game is still alive and kicking......

and even while rift does it's shop tons better with much better pricing and "gem" worth, i don't like the sub part ether.

Rift is alive, but when I googled the Rift Prime version, a separate version with the sub fee, I got results indicating that it had been shut down. Is this correct? I am not arguing, just going off of what I saw, perhaps I misunderstood as I do not know the game in question.

[Astralporing.1957]

@DoggySpew.4529 said:Do not worry (or hope) that the ruling of EA applies to GW2 in the Netherlands. Basically, EA was so egregiously with the gambling part, it was truly constructed to be addictive, and for prices that could be sold for real money, with items that affect the game in such a way that if you have said item, you have an advantage. That's like 3 strikes.GW2 is pretty much only cosmetics, with ways to get the items for free. Dutch law is a bit more specific than the STUPID laws in Belgium (there are many stupid laws in Belgium, it is a laughing stock for a reason here in the Netherlands).For instance, under Belgian law, Magic the Gathering would be illegal. (Although I would like to see that kitten)M:tG would be considered gambling under laws of many european countries. It's just nobody tried to apply those laws to collectible card games. Yet.

[DeanBB.4268]

I recently watched a you-tuber reviewing another mmo out there. Outfits cost upwards of $50. So be careful what you wish for.

[Fuchslein.8639]

@"DeanBB.4268" said:I recently watched a you-tuber reviewing another mmo out there. Outfits cost upwards of $50. So be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would even pay for it and the usual people here in the forum would defend it with "you don't have to buy it, it's only cosmetic", hehe.

[Ashen.2907]

@Fuchslein.8639 said:

@"DeanBB.4268" said:I recently watched a you-tuber reviewing another mmo out there. Outfits cost upwards of $50. So be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would even pay for it and the usual people here in the forum would defend it with "you don't have to buy it, it's only cosmetic", hehe.

It wouldn't need to be defended. Someone deciding to sell something that they have created at a price they think is appropriate while someone else decides that the price is worth paying is ideal.

[Fuchslein.8639]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Fuchslein.8639 said:

@"DeanBB.4268" said:I recently watched a you-tuber reviewing another mmo out there. Outfits cost upwards of $50. So be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would even pay for it and the usual people here in the forum would defend it with "you don't have to buy it, it's only cosmetic", hehe.

It wouldn't need to be defended. Someone deciding to sell something that they have created at a price they think is appropriate while someone else decides that the price is worth paying is ideal.

So what's the problem with deleting BLK and selling the items overpriced in the Gemstore instead?Someone will acknowledge their value.They would take the rng-factor and in the end maybe even more people would buy it, because they can be 100% sure to get the item.

Or would something completely different happen in the end? mhh

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Fuchslein.8639" said:So what's the problem with deleting BLK and selling the items overpriced in the Gemstore instead?Someone will acknowledge their value.They would take the rng-factor and in the end maybe even more people would buy it, because they can be 100% sure to get the item.

Or would something completely different happen in the end? mhhThey already answered that in the discussion about the Mountgate, and the first (completely RNG, without non-rng option) mount skin license. They flat out said that they did it that way, because otherwise they would not be able to sell some of the skins for the same amount of money.

Basically, if they were to post the items people are aiming for, as a direct purchase, for the "average" price you'd end up spending when buying boxes to get them, they would never get as much money as with the RNG model. A lot of people would look at the value, and decide it's way too much for them and that they don;t need it after all.

Remember, like with any lottery, there's a ton of people that buy the keys, but do not get the result they want. In fact, i'm quite sure that most of the players buying keys end up in that category. And a lot of them will continue to buy, hoping that "this time it will be different". Except, again, for most of them it won't be any different. Ever.

that's where most of the lootbox income comes from. From people spending a ton of money and getting stuff they didn't want and wouldn't buy if they could choose.

[Fuchslein.8639]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Fuchslein.8639" said:So what's the problem with deleting BLK and selling the items overpriced in the Gemstore instead?Someone will acknowledge their value.They would take the rng-factor and in the end maybe even more people would buy it, because they can be 100% sure to get the item.

Or would something completely different happen in the end? mhhThey already answered that in the discussion about the Mountgate, and the first (completely RNG, without non-rng option) mount skin license. They flat out said that they did it that way, because otherwise they would

not

be able to sell some of the skins for the same amount of money.

Basically, if they were to post the items people are aiming for, as a direct purchase, for the "average" price you'd end up spending when buying boxes to get them, they would never get as much money as with the RNG model. A lot of people would look at the value, and decide it's way too much for them and that they don;t need it after all.

Remember, like with any lottery, there's a ton of people that buy the keys, but do

not

get the result they want. In fact, i'm quite sure that

most

of the players buying keys end up in that category. And a lot of them will continue to buy, hoping that "this time it will be different". Except, again, for most of them it won't be any different. Ever.

that's

where most of the lootbox income comes from. From people spending a ton of money and getting stuff they didn't want and wouldn't buy if they could choose.

You don't say.

I could swear I wrote something like that on the first few pages. But everyone says that the blk are completely legit :). And that it's okay to have something like that and that anet is so nice and not like any other company that wants to make money in the first place and relies on the weakest of us instead of bringing proper content that don't make people run away, mhhh.

[kharmin.7683]

Not everyone agrees that BLK are "completely legit". However, I will argue that they are not, not legit. And yes, Anet needs to make money and if this is the most profitable method for them, then I have no problem with it. It's still legal. Moral? That's a completely different argument and can be made about a lot of business practices.

"instead of bringing proper content that don't make people run away" By whose definition? Who determines "proper" content? Where is the evidence that the current content is making people run away?

[Obtena.7952]

@"Fuchslein.8639" said:I could swear I wrote something like that on the first few pages. But everyone says that the blk are completely legit :). And that it's okay to have something like that and that anet is so nice and not like any other company that wants to make money in the first place and relies on the weakest of us instead of bringing proper content that don't make people run away, mhhh.

This really doesn't make sense. "EVERYONE" is not saying BLK are 'COMPLETELY LEGIT' ... but they are definitely not illegitimate. Furthermore, the fact that BLK are in the game has NOTHING to do with Anet making 'proper content that don't make people run away' ... whatever that means. Again, this idea that Anet preys on the weak for it's revenue ... that's a very disingenuous/dishonest thing to say when you don't have to use RL money to buy ANYTHING in this game. If someone is too 'weak' to not spend RL money on this game, it's not Anet's responsibility to 'parent up' for them and take away things that are a problem for those people at the expense of the rest of the family. Time for people to own up to their own problems and not blame Anet.

I mean ... another way to think of it is if Anet takes out BLK because of people that can't control their spending ... then why does Anet want that kind of customer in the first place? That's nonsense. What business wants a customer they have to cater to if the pool of customers is so large that that segment of the market is one they can safely AVOID?

The real solution is that Anet offer a 'special' GW2 edition ... one where you can't buy GS items. Of course, that would come at an increased price or sub ... whatever works. But it would be available to the irresponsible lot of folks that need Anet to parent for them.

[Ashen.2907]

@Fuchslein.8639 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Fuchslein.8639 said:

@"DeanBB.4268" said:I recently watched a you-tuber reviewing another mmo out there. Outfits cost upwards of $50. So be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would even pay for it and the usual people here in the forum would defend it with "you don't have to buy it, it's only cosmetic", hehe.

It wouldn't need to be defended. Someone deciding to sell something that they have created at a price they think is appropriate while someone else decides that the price is worth paying is ideal.

So what's the problem with deleting BLK and selling the items overpriced in the Gemstore instead?Someone will acknowledge their value.They would take the rng-factor and in the end maybe even more people would buy it, because they can be 100% sure to get the item.

Or would something completely different happen in the end? mhh

Because the method you mention would not generate sufficient revenue.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Ashen.2907" said:Because the method you mention would not generate sufficient revenue.It's actually not about "sufficient" revenue. GW1 for example was doing perfectly fine without any RNG in its cashshop. It is about "moar money". The allure of significantly more income is irresistible to any business.Or, you could say that for any business no revenue is "sufficient" if you could earn more.

[Ashen.2907]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Ashen.2907" said:Because the method you mention would not generate sufficient revenue.It's actually not about "sufficient" revenue. GW1 for example was doing perfectly fine without any RNG in its cashshop. It is about "moar money". The allure of significantly more income is irresistible to any business.Or, you could say that for any business no revenue is "sufficient" if you could earn more.

The owner of the product gets to decide what is, "sufficient revenue." Anet have stated that the method mentioned did not meet that internal metric.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Ashen.2907" said:The owner of the product gets to decide what is, "sufficient revenue." Anet have stated that the method mentioned did not meet that internal metric.Sure, and like i said, for a business no revenue is sufficient if you have means to earn more. No business will ever willingly pass on an opportunity to earn more money (unless, of course, that would cost them even more in the long run).

[kharmin.7683]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Ashen.2907" said:The owner of the product gets to decide what is, "sufficient revenue." Anet have stated that the method mentioned did not meet that internal metric.Sure, and like i said, for a business no revenue is sufficient if you have means to earn more. No business will ever willingly pass on an opportunity to earn more money (unless, of course, that would cost them even more in the long run).

There is a science to it.

Sufficient revenue would most likely be the amount that is required to keep the company running and to make enough net profit to please the shareholders. Whatever that target budget number is, Anet knows and wouldn't tell us anyway. However, if they try to make too much of a profit or increase that target budget number too high, then they would lose sales and revenue. Their finance and marketing teams would be in the best position to know what "sufficient revenue" means to the company.

[Ashen.2907]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Ashen.2907" said:The owner of the product gets to decide what is, "sufficient revenue." Anet have stated that the method mentioned did not meet that internal metric.Sure, and like i said, for a business no revenue is sufficient if you have means to earn more. No business will ever willingly pass on an opportunity to earn more money (unless, of course, that would cost them even more in the long run).

A business sets revenue targets for its products. Perhaps some don't, but we are not speaking of a mom and pop hot dog stand here. Sufficient revenue means a return that meets projections. Now, of course a company will be delighted to exceed those numbers, who wouldn't, and might even recalculate future expectations if they discover that they massively underestimated demand for their product initially.

[sorudo.9054]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@"sorudo.9054" said:

Didn't that get shut down after less than a year live?

that game is still alive and kicking......

and even while rift does it's shop tons better with much better pricing and "gem" worth, i don't like the sub part ether.

Rift is alive, but when I googled the Rift Prime version, a separate version with the sub fee, I got results indicating that it had been shut down. Is this correct? I am not arguing, just going off of what I saw, perhaps I misunderstood as I do not know the game in question.

i never looked at prime so it's not really something i focus on, i do have to say it's a game worth playing since the dynamic events are kinda better than GW2 does it, IMO ofcouse but still.