With upcoming pay-to-win & lootbox bill, will credits/resources/affinity boosters be outlawed?

[IspanoLFW]

23 minutes ago, (PS4)thowed said:

This is kinda reaching, just saying.

If you consider what most people consider P2W? Sure. If you look at what the ACTUALL Bill says? Not reaching at all.

[(PSN)thowed]

6 hours ago, IspanoLFW said:

If you consider what most people consider P2W? Sure. If you look at what the ACTUALL Bill says? Not reaching at all.

You're right.  That bill is so vague anything non cosmetic can be applied.  So, not specifically WF, enjoy the $20 weapon skins that come with "free" boosters lol.

[Shiichibukai]

Am 28.5.2019 um 20:54 schrieb BrazilianJoe:

If you read the bill, boosters fall under its definition of "PAY2WIN MICROTRANSACTIONS", which aren't the same as loot boxes, but are regulated by the same bill, which also spells trouble. 

Not pointless.

Its pretty pointless, its a pve game you get no real advantage -.- you can buy them easily ingame with a bit of trading. Yes, pointless.

[Chaemyerelis]

Don't worry US bills never help the consumer just the corporation.

[IspanoLFW]

28 minutes ago, Shiichibukai said:

Its pretty pointless, its a pve game you get no real advantage -.- you can buy them easily ingame with a bit of trading. Yes, pointless.

It's not pointless. If we were working with what YOU consider P2W, sure it might be. But we're not. Boosters fit the wording used in the bill to a T. Advantage has ZERO bearing on it.

All I see if you not understanding what the point of the bill is, even if you disagree.

[Heiven]

On 2019-05-29 at 6:31 AM, IspanoLFW said:

If you consider what most people consider P2W? Sure. If you look at what the ACTUALL Bill says? Not reaching at all. 

The thing is that under the bills description(or the description showed by the people here) every f2p game,dlc,expansion,season pass,battle pass and hell even pre order bonuses could fall under the bills category of P2W!But here is the thing the bill isn't meant to make games better or should i say easier for gamers its about removing the !"Harmful to the players experience elements that Are strongly emphasized to get with real money"! Like with the Fifa series or the NFL or like with the battlefront 2 when it launched!

Does WF have elements that fall under the bills description as P2W:

(I) eases a user’s progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction;

(II) assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction;

(III) assists a user in receiving an award associated with the game that is otherwise available in association with the game without the purchase of such transaction; or...

  Yes but does that make those elements illegal or "harmful to the players" simply because that they fall in this category?I don't think so and its because the game doesn't emphasize on those things more than the simple player progression and as such cant be considered harmful to the users.Also IF the bill is passed do you all thing that all game studios would simply just agree with it and either go broke or start reworking there games,especially every f2p game?!And not argue that there product doesn't 100% fall in the category of "harmful to the players"!

Edited May 30, 2019 by Heiven

[Hypernaut1]

what irks me are gamers in favor of these bills against loot boxes. Do people REALLY think its a great idea to have the government get involved in deciding whats a lootbox or p2w in our games? Do you really think game developers wont simply find a work around thats probably even less consumer friendly? They definitely wont just start giving things away. 

I'd prefer for gamers to regulate themselves. 

[IspanoLFW]

21 minutes ago, Heiven said:

The thing is that under the bills description(or the description showed by the people here) every f2p game,dlc,expansion,season pass,battle pass and hell even pre order bonuses could fall under the bills category of P2W!But here is the thing the bill isn't meant to make games better or should i say easier for gamers its about removing the !"Harmful to the players experience elements that Are strongly emphasized to get with real money"! Like with the Fifa series or the NFL or like with the battlefront 2 when it launched!

Does WF have elements that fall under the bills description as P2W:

(I) eases a user’s progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction;

(II) assists a user in accomplishing an achievement within the game that can otherwise be accomplished without the purchase of such transaction;

(III) assists a user in receiving an award associated with the game that is otherwise available in association with the game without the purchase of such transaction; or...

  Yes but does that make those elements illegal or "harmful to the players" simply because that they fall in this category?I don't think so and its because the game doesn't emphasize on those things more than the simple player progression and as such cant be considered harmful to the users.Also IF the bill is passed do you all thing that all game studios would simply just agree with it and either go broke or start reworking there games,especially every f2p game?!And not argue that there product doesn't 100% fall in the category of "harmful to the players"!

Harmful to players? No, that's not at all what it's about. It's about KIDS. Kids are more prone to addiction, their minds don't work the same, they may not understand things. You have to look at it from that PoV. A kid can easily see these boosters as neccesary and always wanting to buy them. You can't just shrug it off as an impossibility.

Agian, this bill is not for US. It's for KIDS. Agree with it or not, whether it passes or not, that's what its about.

[IspanoLFW]

10 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:

what irks me are gamers in favor of these bills against loot boxes. Do people REALLY think its a great idea to have the government get involved in deciding whats a lootbox or p2w in our games? Do you really think game developers wont simply find a work around thats probably even less consumer friendly? They definitely wont just start giving things away. 

I'd prefer for gamers to regulate themselves. 

If you're an adult, and the game is only for adults? Sure. But if people would bother to read the whole thing, they would realize this is NOT for us. It's for Kids.

[TenStorms]

And yes they can declare every game to be for kids.

Why ?

Look here...our operators are non adults...thats enough if they want to regulate...the bill in its current state ignore ratings

Edit:

Go to 7:20 "the age of the characters or models in the product"

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by TenStorms
typo

[FlusteredFerret]

2 hours ago, Shiichibukai said:

Its pretty pointless, its a pve game you get no real advantage -.- you can buy them easily ingame with a bit of trading. Yes, pointless.

We understand that...but apparently US politicians don't.

I doubt many of them have even played a video game. Typical "LETS BAN EVERYTHING" knee-jerk reaction, from people who don't understand the subject matter. 

 

[BrazilianJoe]

I don`t think having Operators (kids) as playable characters is enough to call the game as "marketed for kids". 

The story, graphics and general form and shape of the game must be targeted towards children. 

The game is not candy-crush-lickable interface made of gummies.

It has a realistic scifi aesthetic, is gory, and has a complex narrative, all those are positive differentiators to argue that Warframe is not marketed for kids. 

You can compare Operators to a child protagonist in a Chucky horror movie. It has children and a toy, but is not for kids. 

More importantly though, is whether the Mature-17+ is enough, or if Warframe would have to upgrade its rating and restrictions to 18 - Adults Only - creative marketing can make this upgrade a Good Thing ^TM. Beyond that, it would still have to ramp up its age check and moderator team to weed out minors, so it can demonstrate its demographic is NOT composed of minors - then it would be able to dodge the bill entirely.

 

[BrazilianJoe]

I think the bill has 2 major flaws. 

1) It fails to differentiate P2W and P4T.

Pay2Win proper has stuff behind a paywall, and it just cannot be reached at all without money expenses.

Pay4Time is the kind of accelerator that lets you power through the game faster, but the entire content is always available via grinding.

2) It fails to classify P4T, P2W and Loot Boxes as different tiers of monetization, with different restriction to each. P4T is the lightest one, and IMO should still have some rules to moderate its existence in between PG-13 and AO. P2W and LootBoxes can die a fiery death IMO. 

 

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, IspanoLFW said:

Harmful to players? No, that's not at all what it's about. It's about KIDS. Kids are more prone to addiction, their minds don't work the same, they may not understand things. You have to look at it from that PoV. A kid can easily see these boosters as neccesary and always wanting to buy them. You can't just shrug it off as an impossibility.

Agian, this bill is not for US. It's for KIDS. Agree with it or not, whether it passes or not, that's what its about.

Kids shouldnt have credit cards to begin with. The root of the problem isnt in the game, it is in the system outside or lack of parenting skills.

Even if you say "well a kid can get hold of their parent's CC" well that is still a parental issue and not a game related one, it is also in reality a criminal act since the kid effectively steals the CC card, even if it is their parent's.

And since WF is rated M, laws specifically directed at kids should not apply, because again, letting a kid play an M rated game and allowing him access to any form of CC is a parental issue and not something the developers should suffer from.

[(XBOX)SilverSurferGuy]

I don’t really see how booster fit that description. Warframe’s boosters increases the amount of XP and resources you get. There’s not even a randomization factor when it comes to buying them; you just buy what booster you want. If anything warframe is pay to progress quicker. Even then you still have to put in the effort to level up and perfect the builds of your gear before it’s any good

[FlusteredFerret]

30 minutes ago, (XB1)SilverSurferGuy said:

I don’t really see how booster fit that description. Warframe’s boosters increases the amount of XP and resources you get. There’s not even a randomization factor when it comes to buying them; you just buy what booster you want. If anything warframe is pay to progress quicker. Even then you still have to put in the effort to level up and perfect the builds of your gear before it’s any good

Exactly - and in the case of Warframe, boosters are also given away as log in rewards...you don't always even need to buy or earn them.

The only issue, as far as I'm concerned, is with loot boxes, as they encourage gambling. Seems like the legislators can't tell the difference between those and stuff that just helps you progress quicker.

 

[Hyohakusha]

First off, it hasn't even passed yet, it's just been proposed.
Second, it's just another "think of the children, look at how much of a good guy I am" nonsense bill, a PR stunt like someone else said earlier in this thread.
Third, the only people it'll hurt if it does pass are consumers (as in us, the players) because you know the scumbag companies it's targeting (like EA) will just raise the prices of "DLC's" or jack up the initial cost of buying the game to make up the difference.
Fourth, said scumbag companies aren't going to let lootboxes go without a fight. They're a major source of income for them (obviously).
Fifth, DE isn't a scumbag company, and this game isn't pay to win. Cosmetics are the only things you can't grind. All this stupid speculation about what the bill entails is pointless because it hasn't even passed, and even if it does, actual enforcement will be a mess. There are still copyright warnings on movies and music, yet no one cares. There are still copyrights on videogames, yet emulators are still quite popular.
So relax Chicken Littles, despite how a lot of people are trying to play it off in this thread, it's not like it's directly targeting Warframe.
 

[IspanoLFW]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Kids shouldnt have credit cards to begin with. The root of the problem isnt in the game, it is in the system outside or lack of parenting skills.

Even if you say "well a kid can get hold of their parent's CC" well that is still a parental issue and not a game related one, it is also in reality a criminal act since the kid effectively steals the CC card, even if it is their parent's.

And since WF is rated M, laws specifically directed at kids should not apply, because again, letting a kid play an M rated game and allowing him access to any form of CC is a parental issue and not something the developers should suffer from.

M is still not 18. You should REALLY read the bill. It even addresses this. Even mentions things about the game being played/marketed towards kids, and nothing about the rating. The game companies want to leave it in the hands of the parents too, because they don't want to change their behavior. Hence why this bill is happening. Just because parents should parent, does NOT mean game companies should be able to prey on the weaknesses that kids and some non kids have.

[Ascarith]

19 minutes ago, FlusteredFerret said:

Exactly - and in the case of Warframe, boosters are also given away as log in rewards...you don't always even need to buy or earn them.

The only issue, as far as I'm concerned, is with loot boxes, as they encourage gambling. Seems like the legislators can't tell the difference between those and stuff that just helps you progress quicker.

 

It's fair that you don't think "pay to progress quicker" is a problem, but I don't think it's fair to claim legislators can't tell the difference between a lootbox and a booster.

I'm pretty sure the legislators can tell the difference between a lootbox and a "pay to progress quicker" booster. They specifically defined "pay to win microtransaction" to encompass things (e.g. boosters) that don't fall within the definition of a "lootbox." This suggests they do understand there is a difference, they just don't think it matters with respect to liability under the bill. 

[IspanoLFW]

3 minutes ago, Hyohakusha said:

First off, it hasn't even passed yet, it's just been proposed.
Second, it's just another "think of the children, look at how much of a good guy I am" nonsense bill, a PR stunt like someone else said earlier in this thread.
Third, the only people it'll hurt if it does pass are consumers (as in us, the players) because you know the scumbag companies it's targeting (like EA) will just raise the prices of "DLC's" or jack up the initial cost of buying the game to make up the difference.
Fourth, said scumbag companies aren't going to let lootboxes go without a fight. They're a major source of income for them (obviously).
Fifth, DE isn't a scumbag company, and this game isn't pay to win. Cosmetics are the only things you can't grind. All this stupid speculation about what the bill entails is pointless because it hasn't even passed, and even if it does, actual enforcement will be a mess. There are still copyright warnings on movies and music, yet no one cares. There are still copyrights on videogames, yet emulators are still quite popular.
So relax Chicken Littles, despite how a lot of people are trying to play it off in this thread, it's not like it's directly targeting Warframe.
 

No one said it's directly targetting WF. Hell, I and others have even said it likely will not pass, at least not like this. The point is that it's a discussion about if it DOES. So how about you not try to shut that down, hmm?

[SneakyErvin]

1 minute ago, IspanoLFW said:

M is still not 18. You should REALLY read the bill. It even addresses this. Even mentions things about the game being played/marketed towards kids, and nothing about the rating. The game companies want to leave it in the hands of the parents too, because they don't want to change their behavior. Hence why this bill is happening. Just because parents should parent, does NOT mean game companies should be able to prey on the weaknesses that kids and some non kids have.

But boosters arent exactly seeking "weaknesses" and in the end it still comes down to the parents if kids happen to impulse buy etc. The companies should not be the ones singled out as "bad guys" in this case because the ones to blame really are the parents. They are the ones that go to the bank or credit company and sign a paper so their kids get access to either their own CC/internet banking or a CC tied to a parent.

Others, in this case the companies, shouldnt have to play some nanny role because someone is a lousy parent.

There are far bigger issues in the gaming industry than cash shop items like boosts etc. The whole "early access" model is far more vile yet they dont care jack S#&$ about that.

And something that I think many miss is that it will be very hard to enforce the bill on international companies. Even if there would be an intent to lock out US players from buying boosters it simply wouldnt work. That is because we dont have an actual $:booster transaction in this game. Instead boosters have a plat:booster transaction ratio. They cant really restrict players within the game from using the market and buying those items from the US. And since we can actually earn plat through playing it becomes even harder to enforce the bill, because for all we know, that american fellow that buys the booster may have traded his way to that plat from a european, aussie, korean, swede, brit or russian.

America isnt the world, so whatever they have in their bill can really only apply to american companies aswell as those that sell lootboxes/boosts etc. at an actual cash:loot ratio. And then besides that there are so many loopholes that I'm not suprised this S#&$ bill comes from americans.

All a company really needs to do is come up with something very generic that you buy and then "reward" the players with a "free" lootbox/booster. Wham! You are no longer selling boosters or lootboxes.

Also, if boosters are such a bad thing according to the bill and classified as p2w (lol clueless politicians), then I assume forma, exilus, taters, lenses and even weapons would fall under that catergory too. Because you are buying items you can already obtain through playing the game.

[SneakyErvin]

Another thing that makes this bill proposition flawed is that it counts boosters etc. as pay to win but completely neglects DLCs that do the exact same thing in certain games.

Example: We have 2x drop boosters here, we pop them and farm for 3, 7, 14, 30 days or whatever. We get double the drops during that time. Then we have the second kind of boosters in another game, one that is so called a freemium model game. You more or less pay a subscription but what you get is litterally the same as we get in a booster here i.e double loot or double XP. Well, that is obviously OK because it is an optional "subcription" because they like to use that fancy word. In the end though, what is the actual #*!%ing difference between the two?

Then ok, then... then we have the third version of booster. This is the type seen in certain games like Inquisitor Martyr where you buy a small DLC pack for a few bucks that adds a map with massively increased loot rate compared to elsewhere in the game. This is practically the same exact thing, except that is is covered up as a "DLC" and you get a "new" map to play on. You are buying "content".

There really is no difference between the 3, because all 3 will give a far greater yield than that which someone would get by not paying. The only difference between the 3 is that they use different names, approaches and prices for their boosters.

So all that DE really needs to do is change it so that we dont buy boosters, we instead support the company by donations and they give us free boosters as a gratitude.

[Ascarith]

42 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And something that I think many miss is that it will be very hard to enforce the bill on international companies. Even if there would be an intent to lock out US players from buying boosters it simply wouldnt work. That is because we dont have an actual $:booster transaction in this game. Instead boosters have a plat:booster transaction ratio. They cant really restrict players within the game from using the market and buying those items from the US. And since we can actually earn plat through playing it becomes even harder to enforce the bill, because for all we know, that american fellow that buys the booster may have traded his way to that plat from a european, aussie, korean, swede, brit or russian.

America isnt the world, so whatever they have in their bill can really only apply to american companies aswell as those that sell lootboxes/boosts etc. at an actual cash:loot ratio. And then besides that there are so many loopholes that I'm not suprised this S#&$ bill comes from americans.

The bill covers purchases made via real currency or "an in-game proxy for money, such as virtual currency, that can be purchased with money." The existence of a platinum system probably isn't going to shield DE from liability in this case. Regardless of where the plat comes from, there's going to be a "sale" if a user spends plat for a booster. 

America is not the world, but (roughly speaking) if you're doing business in America, you're going to be subject to American laws. Just because you aren't an American company doesn't give you a free pass. 

26 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Another thing that makes this bill proposition flawed is that it counts boosters etc. as pay to win but completely neglects DLCs that do the exact same thing in certain games.

Example: We have 2x drop boosters here, we pop them and farm for 3, 7, 14, 30 days or whatever. We get double the drops during that time. Then we have the second kind of boosters in another game, one that is so called a freemium model game. You more or less pay a subscription but what you get is litterally the same as we get in a booster here i.e double loot or double XP. Well, that is obviously OK because it is an optional "subcription" because they like to use that fancy word. In the end though, what is the actual #*!%ing difference between the two?

Then ok, then... then we have the third version of booster. This is the type seen in certain games like Inquisitor Martyr where you buy a small DLC pack for a few bucks that adds a map with massively increased loot rate compared to elsewhere in the game. This is practically the same exact thing, except that is is covered up as a "DLC" and you get a "new" map to play on. You are buying "content".

There really is no difference between the 3, because all 3 will give a far greater yield than that which someone would get by not paying. The only difference between the 3 is that they use different names, approaches and prices for their boosters.

So all that DE really needs to do is change it so that we dont buy boosters, we instead support the company by donations and they give us free boosters as a gratitude.

I'm not sure I 100% understood what you meant by the freemium model. If you mean there are free players (gain exp/loot at the "normal" rate) and there are premium players (pay a sub fee, gain exp/loot at double the "normal" rate), then that probably does count as a "pay to win transaction." "Add-on transactions" (and thus "pay to win microtransactions") can be paid for by subscription fees. 

As for your third example (DLC map), it's going to depend heavily on additional facts. If the entire point of the DLC is to speed up leveling/resource gathering and that's the value that reasonable players perceive the DLC to have, it's "pay to win" under the bill. If it's more traditional DLC and it just so happens to have better exp and resources, then it might be exempted as "additional game content." It's going to be a matter of degree. It's entirely possible the FTC will just go for it and people will have to hash it out in court. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Ascarith

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

The goal of the bill is to be as open as possible. This forces standards to be made and things to be clearly defined. 

Online monitization has been fairly unregulated for a long time now which creates the fringe case issues that people talk about. 

The bill before us most certainly will NOT pass without revisions. This is because it's far too open for interpretation and can potentially cause more harm than good to the gaming industry. So while the worry is understandable it's not appropriate for the time being. 

If it were up to me free to play games would be exempt from the bill, pay shortcuts would be allowed as well as loot boxes. So long as direct purchases were possible for every time (and/or could be earned via in game currency or challenge unlocks) premium currency should also be earn able in more games and trade markets should be a thing. 

[IspanoLFW]

52 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

But boosters arent exactly seeking "weaknesses" and in the end it still comes down to the parents if kids happen to impulse buy etc. The companies should not be the ones singled out as "bad guys" in this case because the ones to blame really are the parents. They are the ones that go to the bank or credit company and sign a paper so their kids get access to either their own CC/internet banking or a CC tied to a parent.

Others, in this case the companies, shouldnt have to play some nanny role because someone is a lousy parent.

There are far bigger issues in the gaming industry than cash shop items like boosts etc. The whole "early access" model is far more vile yet they dont care jack S#&$ about that.

And something that I think many miss is that it will be very hard to enforce the bill on international companies. Even if there would be an intent to lock out US players from buying boosters it simply wouldnt work. That is because we dont have an actual $:booster transaction in this game. Instead boosters have a plat:booster transaction ratio. They cant really restrict players within the game from using the market and buying those items from the US. And since we can actually earn plat through playing it becomes even harder to enforce the bill, because for all we know, that american fellow that buys the booster may have traded his way to that plat from a european, aussie, korean, swede, brit or russian.

America isnt the world, so whatever they have in their bill can really only apply to american companies aswell as those that sell lootboxes/boosts etc. at an actual cash:loot ratio. And then besides that there are so many loopholes that I'm not suprised this S#&$ bill comes from americans.

All a company really needs to do is come up with something very generic that you buy and then "reward" the players with a "free" lootbox/booster. Wham! You are no longer selling boosters or lootboxes.

Also, if boosters are such a bad thing according to the bill and classified as p2w (lol clueless politicians), then I assume forma, exilus, taters, lenses and even weapons would fall under that catergory too. Because you are buying items you can already obtain through playing the game.

Nanny role? Excuse me? Who the hell said anything about that? No, they should not be predatory. There's a huge difference here. It's really a simple concept.

Also, yes, yes they are. Especially for newer players who want to "catch up." The resource grind, the affinity grind, the credit grind, is honestly, rather slow for new players. Boosters help that quite a bit.

Edited May 30, 2019 by IspanoLFW