Console – Dumitrescu Andrei

The Loot Box Problem Will Be Solved Using Laws, Self-Regulation and Developer Innovation

Loot boxes have been the “next big thing” in gaming for quite a while and the backlash seems to be hitting in waves now, with many developers renouncing their use, gamers clamoring for their removal and authorities investigating whether they amount to gambling and how they should be regulated.

A loot box can be implemented in many ways, ranging from a simple mechanism to deliver already known items/powers, characters (or anything else related to a video game) to a complex package that offers something guaranteed for the player who opens one while enticing them to buy more until they pick up one of the items that has a very small chance to appear. There are loot boxes that can be picked up for free, based on in-game actions, those that are linked to currency that can be gained inside a game and others that are only offered to those willing to spend real-world money.

With the FTC saying that it is aiming to investigate how they are implemented, following in the footsteps of countries like Belgium and the UK, the reactions from video game industry bodies have been somewhat predictable, designed to protect developers and to slow down any kind of direct regulation.

That’s understandable but the industry fails to see that their best bet is not to clamor for full freedom (there are some really exploitative practices, especially in the mobile space) or for self-regulation (after all the industry has so far shown little appetite for clear rules that bind all creators who use loot boxes). The best bet for industry representatives, like the ESA and IGDA, is to work directly with governments in order to create simple and clear laws while also finding ways to innovate so that loot boxes serve the needs of their titles rather than simply their bottom line.

I play a lot of Star Trek: Timelines, a title that was first offered only on mobiles and is also now available on the PC, which has loot boxes. They do not feel exploitative to someone like me, who has good control over his desire to acquire characters and boosts and sees the game experience as a long term one. The same is surely not applicable to a gamer who wants instant gratification and is ready to spend money in order to get his hands on that super-rare Picard version.

Developers, industry representatives and lawmakers should work to find the worst practices linked to loot boxes and ban them outright, forcing everyone to make sure that gamers, especially the more vulnerable ones, are not directly targeted and exploited.

Then the industry needs to work within itself to further make sure that loot boxes are somewhat standardized and that there’s little chance for someone to be fooled when moving from one title to another or from one store ecosystem to another.

Finally, developers themselves need to find interesting ways to use the concept and make sure that it enhances a game experience rather than detract from it. There are plenty of ways to do this, ranging from making sure that there are limits on the rarity of stuff associated with them to introducing new ways to earn the currency linked to the loot box system.

It’s normal for the video game industry to feel somewhat targeted when it comes to regulation, especially given the rapid pace of change and the fact that many regulators do not fully understand the medium. But a combination of laws, regulation and innovation is the best way to solve the loot box conundrum and to make sure that it does not become another long-term fruitless discussion like the one linked to video game violence.

Violence Associated with Violence or What a Meta-Study Cannot Tell Us

A recent meta-study from Dartmouth College shows a association between real world violent behavior and violent videogames when played by people between the ages of 9 and 19, based on information drawn from more than 17,000 adolescents from all over the world.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and USA Today has a good summary and some statements from those involved in the process. And, although they state that even such a major study can only show a correlation and not a causation, I believe that they are pushing their findings a little too far.

When boiled down to its essence the meta-study (based on 24 previously pushed investigations) shows that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior, which is surely a non-controversial statements regardless of whether it is linked to videogames, movies, music, the behavior of others or philosophy.

The authors state that the effect is relatively small and that there’s a doubling of the risk of a kid who plays violent games to be sent to the principal’s office during a eight month period. They state that they have controlled for other factors.

But the study has not done the most important work: a comparison between the effects of violent video games (which are relatively poorly defined) with other video game types, other kinds of media and maybe even exposure to violent speech or violent behavior by other people. If the risk associated with the video games remains higher then we need to have a conversation about the way we can limit exposure or the way sale can be curbed to make sure that the most vulnerable people are not affected by violence.

If the link between violent videogames and violent behavior is similar to that between violent movies and violent behavior then we need to have an even wider analysis of how violence permeates society and what are the ways to eliminate it when it comes to those that can be influenced (what ages? what backgrounds? which kinds of exposures?).

E3 2018: The Elders Scrolls VI and Cyberpunk 2077

Electronic Arts, Microsoft and Bethesda have already held their press conferences at the 2018 edition of the E3 video game focused event, with a relatively high number of interesting announcements delivered by the three companies and some interesting choices when it comes to short versus long term planning of reveals .

In an industry that has recently focused on quickly delivering announced titles to gamers, preferably in less than 9 months after the official announcement, both Cyberpunk 2077 and The Elder Scrolls VI are bucking the trend and yet both were the most commented on and appreciated games at their press events. Is this a sign that we, as gamers and humans, are more attracted to things that exist in the future, because they offer more possibilities and the potential for more excitement down the line, or that players want to see entirely new mechanics and that is only possible with video games that will probably only arrive on an entirely new hardware generation?

Cyberpunk 2077 was first revealed to the public way back in 2012 and a first trailer arrived in 2013. It only took until E3 2018 for the team at CD Projekt RED to deliver a full trailer, with some hints of gameplay but still mostly cinematic driven, but there was no hint of a release date. There are plenty of rumors about the title, including that it underwent a soft reboot around two years ago, and there are also hints that Microsoft, which used its press event to debut the trailer, has a deal to make it a showcase for its coming hardware, yet announced but widely rumored to be 3 to 4 years away.

For The Elder Scrolls VI Bethesda has delivered a very short teaser that reveals nothing but still closed down their press conference. The company has explicitly talked about next gen in relation to the game, although it is unclear whether they are talking about hardware or only about the engine they are planning to use. Except to see more details before the end of the year, possibly via leaks, and maybe a full trailer at next year’s E3 press conference.

The fact that this two titles are currently getting a lot of attention could be linked entirely history, franchise loyalty or developer renown. My personal take is that The Elder Scrolls VI and Cyberpunk 2077 are currently so popular because they embody the hopes of their fans (and some unaffiliated gamers) that video games can deliver something very different. We have an industry, as seen during the initial three press events, that’s segmented between big budged sameness and low budget surprise (there are exceptions) and love for big titles that are far from their launch date is a way to project that this situation can change and we might get something that’s both high quality and innovative.

PS4 Goes Pro, Sony and Microsoft Struggle to Move to Smartphone Model

Sony might be leading the current console generation sales race with the PlayStation 4 but the company is uninterested in resting on its laurels and is launching a two pronged effort to keep its advantage in the face of a resurgent Xbox One.

Wednesday, September 7th was supposed to be all about the new Slim version of the home console and the coming virtual reality solution for it but instead Andrew House, the leader of the gaming division, chose to focus on the newly revealed Pro version, which is an incremental upgrade aimed at both those who already own a PS4 and those who have not bought into the current generation of devices.

Sony is aiming to get the PlayStation 4 in its Pro form on the market on November 10, just in time to take advantage of the coming holiday shopping season, for the price of 399 dollars in the United States and, presumably, somewhere around 399 Euro in European countries.

Not too many reasons to get a Pro or, for that matter, a Xbox One S — PS4 is going Pro in November

The main selling points for the new device are support for 4K resolution and HDR for gaming, which are designed to deliver an improved visual experience for those who have the necessary television sets, and smoother frame rates created by more powerful CPU and GPU.

Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End, one of the most popular games for the PS4, is getting a special patch that will arrive when the Pro is on the market and improved performance is also promised for big fall titles that include: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, Horizon: Zero Dawn and Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Sony is very clear that it has no plans to introduce game features that are exclusive to the PlayStation 4 Pro and that both versions of its home console will be offering full support for the PlayStation VR headset when it arrives in November.

Clear data about UHD and 4K display devices is relatively hard to come by but most estimates put it under 10% in both Europe and the United States, which means that a relatively small subset of gamers will potentially benefit from the arrival of the Pro.

Sony is clearly interested in future proofing its home console, given that it will continue to sell the Pro for at least 3 years and probably more and 4K presence in the home is expected to grow to 30 or even 40 percent by 2019.

For those who use the PlayStation 4 as a media machine Sony is saying that partnerships with Netflix for a new 4K app and YouTube is apparently working on something similar, with Amazon rumored to also be interested in delivering its content in higher resolution.

Interestingly there’s no support for Blu-ray for 4K action in the new console and it’s unclear whether there are plans to introduce it later via software update.

The Slim version of the PS4 is set to be offered later in the month for 299 dollars and it still represents the best way to get into the current home console generation, with Sony clearly aiming to make it as attractive as possible from both a financial and a technology standpoint.

HDR for video games and support for 4K when it comes to video are already offered by the Xbox One S, which Microsoft recently introduced to the market, and the new device also has a smaller form factor and an integrated power source.

The coming Pro and the S are the two versions which will be involved in sales competition associated with the Christmas season and Microsoft is planning to deliver a more powerful Xbox One, codenamed Scorpio, at some point in late 2017.

Despite the improvements delivered by the new consoles from both Sony and Microsoft it is unclear whether those who already own a launch version will be tempted to upgrade, especially if they do not own one of the new television sets that support 4K or HDR.

Basically both companies are moving towards a model that treats the gaming market like big smartphone manufacturers have been doing for years with their own and it is unclear whether veteran gamers are interested or able to invest 300 or 400 dollars or Euro every few years for relatively minor improvements.

The new Pro version of the PlayStation 4 might not be a revolution but it will be interesting to see what it can deliver in conjunction with the coming VR solution from Sony and how long it will take for the Slim to disappear completely and to be replaced by the new version.