Gaming – 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?).

Steam Needs to Balance Freedom with Responsibility

It is pretty clear that Valve, the company in charge of the dominating PC video game retail and distribution system that is Steam, is aiming to keep as far as possible from being responsible about it and plans to allow almost any developer to deliver almost any title on it.

The new policy, announced in a rather long and somewhat confused blog post just before the start of the week of E3 2018, explains that a recent controversy over mature material has convinced the company that is should allow developers to offer video games without any restrictions (other than legal ones linked to the territory where they are made and sold) while relying on the users to vote with their money and to make sure that those who do not deliver any value will be left behind.

The new Valve policy is a boon from a freedom of expression perspective and will allow more niche audiences to get cool content from Steam, a good thing, while also increasing the number of titles available, which is both great and a problem for gamers, given the limited tools for curation that are available.

The decision to tweak what is allowed to arrive on the digital distribution service will also make it easier for the company to defend its decisions, because it can rely on freedom as the core concept, giving it space to dispense largely with moderation and curation. Gamers will have to pick up this responsibility and itțs unclear whether Valve has any new aids for them.

Steam is dominant at the moment but it will be interesting to see whether rivals, from GOG to publisher driven services to itch to others, will make curation one of their own selling points and can use it to eat into the market share of the Valve product.

Until them I am happy that more potentially cool games will be launched but I think that Valve should carry more of the curation and moderation burden, which is possible even while remaining faithful to the idea of free expression in the video game medium.

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.

Lack of Clarity from Microsoft Will Hurt New Offensive Language Policy for Xbox One

Microsoft has revealed, buried inside a longer statement about updates to its terms of service, that the company actively prohibiting the use of offensive terms when it comes to Xbox based services on both the One console and the PC. Those who violate the new terms can be suspended and banned from their accounts and can lose access to licenses and devices.

The section of the wider update that’s most relevant for gamers reads: “In the Code of Conduct section, we’ve clarified that use of offensive language and fraudulent activity is prohibited. We’ve also clarified that violation of the Code of Conduct through Xbox Services may result in suspensions or bans from participation in Xbox Services, including forfeiture of content licences, Xbox Gold Membership time and Microsoft account balances associated with the account.”

It is commendable that Microsoft is working to limit the impact of offensive language on the gaming platforms that it manages but the company is doing a very poor job communicating about its efforts. The above statement is vague enough that the community has taken it both to mean that bans and moderation will be increased and to say that nothing will change in the actual policy and that the company is only updating the terms to make them clearer for those who might have misinterpreted before.

Toxicity, mostly related to voice and text chat and the deluge of offensive terms that some use, is a major issue for the gaming industry and many gamers claim that multiplayer experiences cannot improve it moderation, including suspensions and bans, is not improved significantly.

But before it can act Microsoft needs to become much better at communicating with those who bought and use the Xbox One or associated services on the PC. This means offering clear statements about their intentions, a list of terms that can trigger moderation and a clear goal that it wants to reach when it comes to creating a welcoming platforms for gamers to express themselves without offending others.

Videogames Can Educate About Violence, Public Needs to Be Educated About Them

Violence is an inescapable element of human existence. Violent crimes, especially those involving firearms, are an inescapable fact of modern life. Videogames are becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment of those who life this modern life. And there are plenty of people who see a direct link between titles like Call of Duty or The Evil Within and people who pick up a gun and decide to kill.

We can and we should work to reduce their impact and the incidence of violent acts in our societies but we cannot do that by finding scapegoats or by working against entire industries because of links that have not been conclusively proven by science.

The so called Videogame Summit that president Donald J. Trump conducted last week was, as reported by the Washington Post, a solid if limited attempt to see how video games developers and the people who represent their interests can interact with the political establishment in order to maybe reduce the propensity towards violence that exists in society. The meeting might have kicked off with a montage of context free shocking moments from modern titles but it’s a good sign that there was no tone of incrimination that emerged from the main participants.

There are no solid studies that show causation between violence videogames and violence in the real world but there are some, disputed but used by certain groups, showing some correlation between the two. Banning sales of titles and limiting access has already been tried and seems like a non-starter on legal grounds but the ESA, the ESRB and governments can work in order to find a way to make it easier to educate individuals about what they play, how they approach their experiences and monitor how their understanding of the world and even behavior is affected.

Panic and recrimination are not the responses that can solve a crisis but they can help stakeholders find ways to reconcile positions and find new ways to work together. In the case of violent videogames and violent acts the best idea is to educate those who create them, those who market them and those who consume them.

On its own Call of Duty (to use a name that means something even to non-gamers) will not drive someone to acquire a weapon and do something criminal. But the game coupled with conspiracy theories, limited support networks, ideologies that degrade fellow humans, unrestricted access to firepower and other factors can lead to very different and violent outcomes.

The videogame industry cannot on its own work to make sure that every player is grounded and understands that virtual violence should not be translated to the real world. But it can share information and data with the government and other groups to try and make sure that information and education is available to players and that they can make a clear distinction between what they do in Call of Duty and how they go about their lives once their exit their favorite shooter or horror title.

The Loot Box Issue Needs More Information, Not Regulation

I hate the concept of loot boxes, even if they have so far failed to make their way to the kinds of video games that I enjoy (grand strategy, role-playing and sports simulations) but I still believe that they are a valid concept to use for the industry. This is why the ESRB and other regulatory bodies should move as quickly as possible to make sure that gamers are better informed about them, so that the video games universe is not targeted for further regulation by various governments.

Maggie Hassan, a Democratic Senator, is the most recent elected official to question the way loot boxes are presented to players, in a letter to the ESRB that Forbes quotes in full, and it comes after a number of other governments have expressed their interest in introducing regulation, including banning sale of video games powered by loot boxes to those under 21.

The argument, a solid if not perfect one, is that the mechanic is almost impossible to distinguish from gambling and should be treated as such. There are bans on the mechanic in China, which companies like Blizzard have worked around (the regulatory landscape might change and developers might be required to once again tweak the way “loot boxes” are delivered to players).

The easy response from the video game industry is to simply push back against the idea that politicians or bureaucracies have the power to regulate mechanics in their titles (some gamers might also join in, saying that how they use their money inside various titles is their own choice and should not be restricted).

But the more coherent long term position would be to accept that players (and parents, when it comes to users who are under the age of 18) should have information about loot boxes (and other microtransactions associated with video games) to inform their choice. Self-regulation, driven by the ESRB and other associated bodies, is the best way to make sure that the government stays away and that there’s a solid collaboration between developers, publishers and players for the good of the video game ecosystem.

Deadly Premonition – The Weird and the Downright Bad

Deadly Premonition: The Director’s Cut was cheap on Steam. I bought it, even though I know that the game is supposed to be very glitchy, limited in terms of gameplay and, according to most people, weird (in a mostly bad way). I am now playing it and I have questions and observations, mostly about the weird and the bad things I am dealing with. Some weird things might turn out to be just bad going forward and I will be delighted if some bad things become weird (the interesting kind of). In no particular order, here comes.

Weird stuff

– cutscene with a car that’s much too small for the road it is moving on, the one when you first meet the sheriff;

– the constant talking to Zach, complete with touching the ear gesture;

– the weird proportions of stuff in the hotel room, mainly the bed, and the cafeteria;

– the smoking and the Police brand of cigarettes;

– the intros used for the characters and the absolutely weird movements on their faces;

Bad stuff

– the movement and the shooting feel clumsy to the extreme;

– the game crashes, even after fiddling with compatibility modes and other stuff, about once every hour or when driving or when loading;

– the graphics look much worse than I expected for a game that initially came out in 2013.

Jucatul nu e boală, jucatul definește umanitatea

Organizația Mondială a Sănătății (WHO) a hotărât că “gaming”-ul trebuie clasificat ca afecțiune mentală și o să apară ca atare în noua ediție a ICD, o clasificare a bolilor folosită ca referință de cele mai multe țări.

Pe scurt, joaca pe calculator (mai complex: joaca, de mai multe feluri, pe calculatoare, console, mobile și alte tipuri de platforme), poate să aibă efecte negative asupra individului. WHO o să specifice în ICD simptome, care sună destul de vag din descrierea oferită de BBC, dar nu e clar dacă va exista și un tratament recomendat sau alte măsuri de limitare a impactului.

Ca orice altă activitate umană, de la somn la alergat la mâncat la muncă, jucatul (fie că e în spațiul fizic sau în cel virtual) poate să fie abuzat iar abuzul poate să ducă la consecințe serioase pentru cel implicat. Sunt destule relatări despre oameni morți după prea mult World of Warcraft și există deja clinici care declară că pot trata astfel de probleme.

Problema cu listarea de simptome ambigue și fără o metodă clară de tratament sau intervenție medicală de către WHO e că stigmatizează o activitate absolut normală pentru majoritatea oamenilor și care nu e deloc nouă sau ne-studiată. De la zarurile antice și șah până la cele mai complicate MMO-uri sau experiențe virtuale umanitatea a folosit jocul ca un mijloc de a se distra (în sensul de separare de lumea nesatisfăcătoare) pentru a putea să facă mai mult sau mai bine în viitor.

E nevoie să avem doctori care pot să vadă când o activitate, oricare e ea, afectează capacitatea individului de a funcționa. Nu e nevoie să atacăm unul dintre cele mai populare hobby-uri ale momentului, mai ales când e clar că WHO nu are datele necesare ca să ofere informație clară în noul ICD.

Cred că fiecare gamer poate să vorbească despre momentele când un joc i-a dominat viața într-un mod nu foarte sănătos. Dar fiecare dintre ei poate și să vorbească despre un moment de exaltare, înțelegere, fericire legat de jocuri. E cazul să explorăm cum putem să avem parte de mai multe experințe bune legate de jocuri decât să explorăm steril potențialul rău pe care îl pot face.

Category: Gaming