>>331196 Possible backfires: As we know- GG never listed terms or goals to prevent them being half-heartedly fulfilled, so that GG was "answered" and attempts to further fix shit would be accused as "changing the goal posts" or an excuse to harass, etc. As such, demanding real-world money gambling in vidya be removed can lead to unexpected consequences including (but not limited to): > All fictional acts of "gambling" are banned- even if there is no way real money can become digital money. Like DOA Extreme's casino or the Pokemon Game Corner (though these have been removed as gambling elements give the game a 12 rating). > Depicting a casino is treated the same- gambling or not. Like depicting a whore-house or a strip club. Even if you can't see sex or anything lewd, it boosts the age rating by it's "context". > Minigames that you can "gamble"- even if the game is not a casino game- get the same treatment. Currently this is the inverse- gambling with a non-casino like game is not seen as gambling. > One of the US states tried to outlaw "any device that is capable of gambling"- meaning (though not enforced) they had basically banned the internet- since you can access gambling websites. As such, pushing against gambling could include online spying/blocking based on gambling- rather that porn or fake-news. I.e. Internet Passports for anyone 18 or over to access gambling websites- and then applied elsewhere. > Further pushing the ideal that "fictional acts create real desires". I.e. we have to remove any form of gambling (even those where no real money is lost) from games because it makes people gamble with real money > Further pushing the ideal that digital items are worth something- this isn't true, but is kind of the crux of our argument against lootboxes, etc. This means what we exactly drive for/spread info on needs to be carefully considered, and make sure no co-opting can occur. In short (and this is free to be discussed/altered), the goal is: > Any videogame which offers a service in which real-world money can be exchanged for the opportunity to acquire the chance of obtaining digital goods should fall under gambling laws within the US, EU, and all other nations to prevent the videogame and smartphone application industry from adopting or encouraging predatory tactics used by gambling websites, apps, etc. This also includes in-game services where real-world money is exchanged for in-game currency/tokens/etc- and those are exchanged for the chance of obtaining digital goods. This does not include games where no real-world money can ever be exchanged for in-game currency/tokens/etc that can be exchanged for the chance of obtaining digital goods, nor does it include games where real-world money has no ability to manipulate the odds of the chance to obtain digital goods. Hardly rolls of the tongue does is? And full of holes. For example if it does not "include games where real-world money has no ability to manipulate the odds of the chance to obtain digital goods"- does that mean DLC that gives you an item that increases loot drops from enemies in an RPG falls under that category? It is entirely possible that the best solution is to not offer a goal or terms, and instead operate as we always have. This pisses us off, and we're gonna keep being pissed off until they come up with a solution that won't piss us off. And we won't tell them what that solution could be to prevent it being half-assed. Likely tactics of pushback (((They))) will push for outcry when its in their favor, but expect them to say "Why shouldn't they do as they see fit? It's their money!" Which in turn means we might be able to push on other angles at the same time ("Why shouldn't they buy a game with bouncing tits in it? It's their money!")- to make a little ground, and further expose the useful idiots for hypocrisy. > The vice of gambling, which causes loss of money and a direct decline in quality of life is fine. > The vice of porn, which stops people getting stressed isn't. Also, being we're taking that sweet, sweet gambling money, expect shit to get crazy. Real gambling places don't like the idea of people remembering gambling is a vice.

>>331197 Initial ideas & tactics Spread information about crooked gambling practices. The CS:GO lottery skin debacle is still in people's minds. If this report is true, 5 billion dollary-doos of profit was made https://techraptor.net/content/5-billion-spent-on-csgo-skin-gambling-in-2016 The jewtubers ran for the shadows and got a slap on the wrist (nothing gets normalfags angrier than someone making a lot of money by being a jerk- especially when that guy isn't big enough to ignore any attempts to bring them down a peg), and Valve is "scrambling to move against that shit". Embed related is also a good idea. https://www.twitter.com/PrettyBadTweets/status/910937185880346624 Even normalfag youtubers seem to be against it. Albeit- some might come at it from angles that encourage a backfires. The newest Shadow of Mordor is shaping up to be a fucking disaster with its lootboxes & jewery. This is the only real tactic on the docket so far. Politicians can half-ass it and be bought off by AAA or big vidya bodies like UBM to let it slide. IMO we can't use soccer moms as they'll push for full blown removal of anything resembling gambling- including overreaching as mentioned in the backfire section (Useful idiots are idiots first and foremost- and half the reason we made so much ground against SJWs). The ESRB/PEGI sure aren't our friends, is it even worth asking them to properly categorize games like that as gambling? (and the 18 or AO rating to go with it. Sure harder sell it to tweens & brats then!) I can't even see how we can use DisNod for it (unless we enmasse ask the FTC to look into it, but again, it's politicians) It might be a case of just stoking a fire and trying to control how it burns with the fuel we throw on it.

Another 2 cents that could redpill some. However, I'd argue he's not normalfag material. Prefers oldschool and hates new stuff to such a degree it makes /v/ look casual, utter loathing of consoles (Even hates controllers), and especially the children that came into the hobby (thanks to the consoles, and their attitude of doing something that sounds impressive but is mechanically shallow) etc. He speaks about those opposed to his viewpoint in a condescending manner (even down to a whiny voiced impersonation)- which is fine, mockery helps drive the point home. IMO he provides good ammo for arguments against gambling games which you can use when talking to others (once you pick through his raging and hollering), but his work can't be used for normalfags directly. Nothing he says is wrong (especially the "why do you want to rush through a game, it can take months if you enjoy it), but to some he might come across as "you're stupid for not agreeing with my opinion." Then again, not treating normalfags with kid gloves sometimes works in our favor. Maybe I'm underestimating normalfags and some will find his sheer bile & anger hammers the point home. And if some don't listen to this video, they may listen to others. If nothing else it might work well to condemn the games he speaks about specifically- Shadows of War especially- even for normalfags He doesn't post his vids on Twitter, but you can include his handle if you tweet it out, or shill for him when he complains about youtube's demonetization: https://www.twitter.com/worthabuygames

/gbfg/ here, let us contribute by introducing you all to MonkiiGate (also spelled MonkeyGate).

>>331206 More information (warning: reddit) from /r/games: http://archive.is/h1hoG (Funnily enough the "official" GBF sub pretends this scandal never happened.) Also of interest, the Bloomberg article on the scandal is now on a paywall, though it previously wasn't when it was archived: http://archive.is/u9P60 The fallout for this is that all forms of RNG microtransactions ("gatcha" which is the Japanese equivalent to lootboxes) is now regulated, and mobage (mobile gaming) companies are obligated to reveal the contents and odds for getting them, a sort of stopgap measure. Feel free to drop by the Granblue Fantasy (and other Cygames' games) thread in /v/ if you're interested in knowing more.

>>331207 Bonus: AlphaOmegaSin's take on Monkeygate.

>>331206 >>331207 Punishing unfair odds is certainly a start- but when has bad odds ever put someone off gambling? IMO, use it as a foothold, but still drive for total removal of lootbox system. Yes we fuck over mobileshit nips are pushing (a big market since everyone uses smartphones out there)- but at least they can fall back on boosters and the like.

(Crosspost form gamergate general since people agreed, but the main argument changed) Alright so I looked over this and I don't really like that this could derail the movement. In a way, this OP has already found many problems with itself (See >>331197 ), but I think the biggest is that it has the potential to derail the movement. The main focus is a fucking video game mechanic. Let us put away that this could potentially end gambling for a second and look at what happens past that: People coming to gamergate because they don't like certain games for not being to their liking(I initially didn't want to make this point, but it would not be new if someone was trying to hijack our movement for their purposes, see most of the e-celebs we lost as this went on), or other petty shit like asking to make a game harder. So, really, even if crates get shot down, is it worth it? Bonus rounds: >>331196 >If the flames of a good old fashioned moral panic could be fanned up, Sounds like a bad thing to raise up. But it gets worse when you go back to the OP. >(((They))) will push for outcry when its in their favor, but expect them to say What if they don't? In that case, you have given them more ammo, while also giving them another opportunity to champion a cause against game devs. Or if they ignore it, it'll still be a boost to moralization. tl;dr Did we think this through as much as we like to think we did?

>>331220 These are all fantastic points- which can be boiled down to key questions. - How do we prevent GG from becoming a "mechanic remover"? - Can GG clearly say the issue is gambling with real money for digital items (cosmetic or offering in-game bonuses) while not being subject to gambling laws & codes? I think if it was derailed- it'd attack IRL money based mechanics first (Gambling -> Crack down on 3rd party services that let you buy digital goods for IRL money under the guise of users trading -> Reassessing MMO pricing plans & subscriptions, etc) but probably being stopped/diluted into uselessness & infighting when it got to something worth-while again (cutting content specifically for DLC, overpriced DLC, etc). Is simply informing consumers enough? Bad localization and games journos are becoming a dirty word, even among the normalfags. Unless it develops a cancerous fan-base (Undertale, Overwatch, etc) eventually shit /v/ mocks is mocked by a few normalfags and those who sit between /v/ and normalfags. (Memes trickle down into mainstream). And even if it doesn't- said cancerous fan base does half the work of driving people away. Informing users of unfair gambling/loot boxes/barbaric DLC could simply be enough to act as "anti-Advertising" to drive sales away from those games. And if those games don't sell- other studios won't try to imitate. At least in theory. > tl;dr Did we think this through as much as we like to think we did? Heck no. This is all still at the discussion stage. And more discussion (and archiving sources) is needed. I suppose the least harm that could be done is simply mocking lootboxes and their shitty odds?

https://archive.is/G08VG Review Aggregate OpenCritic Takes Stance Against Loot Boxes > thus review aggregate OpenCritic is taking a stance against the scheme. > “We’re going to take a stand against loot boxes. We’re looking into ways to add business model information to OpenCritic,” the company said on Twitter. https://archive.is/LVIUN https://www.twitter.com/Open_Critic/status/917392653720854528 > They went a bit further in asking their fanbase to help them decide on a fair and appropriate way to display a game has these mechanics, to display “business model intrusiveness.” > OpenCritic didn’t stop there, however, as they’re looking to specify whether or not a game has random / loot boxes versus “sure-thing” or buying things direct, as well as straight up cosmetic in-game purchases and how much buying power you have. They also want to specify if something is exclusively paid or if it can also be acquired in-game. > Finally, they noted a need to focus on whether or not a game has in-game prompts for purchasable content or simply a dedicated in-game store instead, as well as how long it would take to get 100% completion in the game with absolutely no extra payment. > OpenCritic has been presenting itself as a direct alternative to Metacritic, where the former presents objective aggregates of all the review scores to a game – while the latter weighs the various scores against their own formula (which factors in things outside the score itself). OpenCritic is going a step further now in trying to present further details to more empower the consumer. Informing never hurts- at least not like this. Is this an avenue worth RTing/supporting? Open Critic informs, and GG directs/makes sure those making arguments for something else are shot down? If nothing else, maybe send them some of the info we have here?

>>331206 >Fate/Grand Order hot mess was just server incompetence Shit shouldn't be condoned but that is fundamentally different from the rest of that garbage.

PEGI agrees that loot crates are not gambling https://archive.fo/ERte7 Yet, the org felt fictional gambling games with no real money would boost the age rating of games to a 12- hence their removal of the Game Corners from Pokemon (though several other countries are also cracking down on gambling). If it even looks like a casino, it's evil will encourage gambling. But if it's gambling disguised as a game, or for something with no physical or monetary reward other than a digital object or a different texture on an existing object- then it's fine. No matter how young the person is.

>>331231 On top of this, both the ESRB and UKIE (who deal with UK gambling laws) claim it's A-OK. ESRB claim that since you get something it's not gambling. https://archive.is/v7zxv https://archive.is/XQdYf

>>331197 >but is kind of the crux of our argument against lootboxes No it isn't. >does that mean DLC that gives you an item that increases loot drops from enemies in an RPG falls under that category? Is it consumable? Is it permanent? Can you buy it in infinite quantities and/or until your inventory is maxed, or can you only get one or a very limited number? Does it stack? >>331234 >Since you get something it's not gambling. Don't some casinos enforce minimum payout rules to avoid being fucked harder by the law?

>>331234 Aren't there forms of regulated gambling that enforce minimum payout rules to avoid being fucked by the law even harder?

Activision got a patent for lootboxes recently. Holy shit if you thought they were bad before… https://archive.is/fM3z3 https://archive.is/sk6Jk > Activision back in 2015 filed for a microtransaction loot box matchmaking patent that would be approved just this week. The patent encourages players to purchase microtransactions by manipulating matchmaking multiplayer algorithms to heighten the chance of a player buying loot boxes. > Did you catch any of that? In layman terms, the patent explains how some low level noob who just hit puberty wants to become a Dorito, Mountain Dew, no-scope 720 sniper who smokes dank blunts, but he’s matched up with a wannabe MLG pro and gets mopped. The noob feels bad and is constantly matched up with similar high caliber players along with matchmaking screens filled with loot box/microtransaction purchases that claim to increase the noob’s skill. All of this bombardment leads to a purchase or multiple loot box purchase by both the noob and MLG pro. > So this microtransaction engine is literally rigging matches based on loot box purchases and pairing people up with other people who are far beyond their skill level to purposefully encourage the loser to buy “enhancements” via loot box microtransactions? That is more than poisonous… that’s insidious! Spread it like wildfire- because the idea certainly will amongst AAA.

>>331255 Vee (aka Veeh_Ro on Twitter- he doesn't link to his videos on Twitter however) also covered this. Original story source: http://archive.fo/sWrUK

Not to distract from >>331255 , but it seems the CSGO Lotto skins guys (advertized the service on their youtube, pretending it was not owned by them) only got a warning from the FTC https://archive.is/QoViR So unless the sheer scale of lotto boxes changes their minds, the FTC might not be the best people to rely on.

https://archive.is/WSOg3 https://twitter.com/OneAngryGamerHD/status/920913787946917888 UK Gambling association says "We'll look into it eventually. Honest." > “The Gambling Commission have a range of regulatory powers to take action where illegal gambling is taking place. Earlier this year the Gambling Commission successfully prosecuted the operators of a website providing illegal gambling facilities for in-game items which was accessible to children – the first regulator in the world to bring such an action. > “The government recognise the risks that come from increasing convergence between gambling and computer games. The Gambling Commission is keeping this matter under review and will continue to monitor developments in the market.”

>EA releases Star Wars Battlefront 2 >All Heroes are now locked behind a paywall you need to grind in-game currency for, or swipe your creditcard >redditors calculate that it takes up to 40 hours to unlock a single hero just by playing the game and earning the in-game currency (http://archive.is/8l1ID) >you don't gain more credits for performing better, credit gain entirely depends on time spent >60 dollaroos >some guy asks why the hell he spent eighty bucks on a Star Wars game without being able to play as Darth Vader >EA PR spaghetti drops >nearly 500k downvotes >EA gave in and lowered the cost of heroes to 15k (Luke & Vader), 10k (Palpatine, Chewbacca, Leia) and 5k (Iden) >Reddit starts a boycott, nearly 150k upvotes It's good to keep fueling this boycott. It's on the "front page" of Reddit and Imgur right now and the Battlefront Star Wars Twitter page has plenty of angry comments. This also leads to two key points to stopping Lootboxes in other games. 1. Explain how many hours it'd take playing for free to unlock it. If things can only be unlocked by lootbox, then calculate how many attempts it'd take to get. I.e. if it's 5000 to 1, then it'd take 5000 purchases. 2. Encourage the Streisand effect. This is hard to do, but it goes without saying if you see the developer or fanboys saying stupid shit- mock them. Keep the discussion alive with mockery.

>>331368 EA dropped prices by 75%. As well as the money earned for completing matches as well. They also removed the refund button from GOG by the looks off it. It could help condemn loot boxes, and IMO easy pickings for GG to push against EA. Scare AAA by aiding in the take down of the worse of them.

It's not one of us, but some normies (Read: Concerned Parents/Christians are passing anti-gambling/lootbox PSAs on Facebook

>>331378 Cut out the Jew shit if you want to take this off the chans.

>>331379 You literal negro, which of these two images is a PSA and which is clearly not?

>>331378 Well someone noticed, > Belgium's gambling commission is officially investigating Star Wars: Battlefront II, which may lead to a huge fine or a ban https://archive.is/X9VHZ https://archive.is/uWYDf This is an incredibly double edged sword. The lootbox rule was originally an exploit around existing gambling laws. Making them stricter could have unintended side-effects (government over-reach for power,and companies still do work-around). In a perfect world, the system would be abandoned because it's a PR nightmare not worth the sheckles or the law would be something minor that cuts massively into impulse buying/profit from whales (i.e. payment info must be manually re-entered on every purchase). But we can't rule out nanny-state bullshit like "all depictions of gambling are banned"- even casino themed levels you can't gamble in.

> EA allegedly considering two ways of re-introducing microtransactions into Star Wars Battlefront 2; Details https://archive.fo/T1xnh > Update on the Belgium Gambling Commission: > According to RTBF, the Belgian Gambling Commission has not made a final decision or statement on gambling in regards to loot boxes in Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Overwatch. Their investigation is still ongoing. The confusion seems to have arisen from translation issues. As of now, the commission has not made its final decision but Belgium’s Minister of Justice has made his thoughts public. https://archive.fo/DC5r8 > Hawaii Pursuing Legislation To Ban Star Wars: Battlefront 2-Style Loot Boxes https://archive.is/YA7d0 > Several European Gambling Regulators Investigate Star Wars Battlefront II Loot Boxes > The Netherlands, and possibly France are also looking into it. https://archive.fo/KhshC > Alex Walker - "Loot boxes in video games 'constitute gambling', regulator says" (this is in Victoria, Australia) https://archive.is/boi1N https://archive.fo/qiT76 http://archive.is/xOptq >Paul Meekin - "Say Goodbye To Hearthstone!? Belgium’s Loot Box Banning, Explored." http://archive.is/kkLbQ The Dark Side Of Letting Politicians Regulate Games Like Star Wars Battlefront 2 - TechRaptor https://archive.fo/jfBSw >EA is one tough disease to still be kicking. https://archive.is/kKx8A If nothing else, share around infographs of EA's past sins while it's popular to hate/meme them.

This guy is preaching to the choir (his own audience), but it could help convert others. He's very old school. https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=c2gKbE9RbeM Telling the monster he's doing wrong won't help. Starving him works better. Imagine if everyone who made memes and jokes about EA did the same about people who bought Lootcrates? That they were children who were so poorly skilled and had such a tantrum when they lost- they'd play to win. I bet lootboxes would dry up in a month. Or if you're playing one of these games (christ knows why) and you've clearly been hammered by someone who bought something, just put in the chat: > [Player] pays to win. That's all you need to say, and once. Because you've undermined their victories without using harsh language or insulting any other elements about his character. Just the fact that he wins because he pays- not because he's good. He'll taunt you and insult you and try to get you to argue back. Don't. Just ignore him and carry on. Every message he posts in a temper tantrum makes other players see it and think "Christ- people who buy lootboxes are dickheads." It's the same as SJW and Marxism. Why tell the politician he's doing something wrong? He knows he is- he's banking on it! But when all his supporters are mocked, and they start having a tantrum, he has to distance himself or be dragged under. Mock supporters of Lootboxes, they'll have tantrums (and a few bots will join in making them seem even less human and sane), so EA has to distance themselves. Still doesn't deal with whales though. That might need full blown gambling laws, but as we've discussed, we need to be crystal clear on what we want, and not a single deviation in phrasing will do.

EA Loses $3 Billion in Stock Value after Battlefront 2 Debacle >EA is feeling the burn after the gaming community as a whole rebelled against the microtransaction model in Star Wars Battlefront 2. EA debuted an aggressive loot box system in Battlefront 2, a gashapon machine with shooter elements, which tied in-game progression to premium currency transactions that cost real money. Electronic Arts' stock is down 8.5 percent month-to-date, which equates to around $3.1 billion in losses. http://archive.is/hOSio

From Honkius: twitter.com/Maximus_Honkmus/status/935315172855398400 https://archive.is/c1Wj5 <Oh no. The government is planning on putting in regulations. What do we do? <Implement a think tank to influence policy makers in the government <Make an SRO to go after gaming companies that "hurt" the public image of gaming > Notice how it doesn't mention removing loot boxes. Can't find the original article on Gamasutra. I did find a similar press release on their own website: https://archive.is/VRpHP Seems like the NCGP (National Committee for Games Policy) are shaping up to be another lobbying body to protect EA and the like, but they're making big promises about protecting developers with stuff like supporting whistleblowers. https://archive.is/moVkf (Homepage) From their own information page: https://archive.is/KGREy > What is the NCGP? > The National Committee for Games Policy is the world’s first public policy think tank associated with the video games and interactive entertainment industry. The NCGP is part of a larger movement dealing specifically with laws pertaining to video games. The objective of the NCGP is to help government policy regarding video games develop appropriately with guidance and input from industry leaders. The NCGP is not a traditional special interest group, since we have no stated position on any issue, and instead seek to collate the information provided by the public and games professionals into a unified political position. We take the stance of adopting the opinions and views of our industry expert members and evidence found through our research efforts. The NCGP is independently funded and does not receive grants from the federal government or donations from any political parties. Individual members of the NCGP, however, are free to associate with whatever special interest groups or political parties they wish. > The ITK > The first action of the NCGP is its creation; a privately funded think tank known as the ITK. The work of the NCGP ITK is to represent itself as a group of consummate professionals from every part of the video game community. We seek to represent the entire industry, and as such will not release opinions on differences within the industry except as they relate to public policy. Members names will only be released if they give permission, and their writing reflects their own opinions. The NCGP will never take a position on policy; we will give policy makers the information the information they need to make informed decision. Our political connections will get this information to them. > The SRO > The second and much more important arm of the NCGP is our establishment of the video game industry’s first, and de facto, self regulatory organization. Independent of the think tank is the NCGP SRO. As an SRO, our purpose is to protect consumers from unscrupulous video game companies by investigating and bringing legal action against those companies that have damaged the public consciousness in some way, whether mental or physical. To do this we’ve enlisted the aid of game developer’s employees as well. By establishing the first video game industry whistleblower center, we’re able to help the video game industry fight things such as withheld overtime pay. Here's their member list: http://thencgp.com/directory/ Each account takes you into their personal page- which may have a Twitter link. Dig into the people (for example Kenneth- the director- don't exist until early November- when the Lootbox scandal started). They are accepting members according to their Information page (https://archive.is/KGREy): > We are actively accepting new membership applications. Please email the director at kenneth@gamemanagement.us (required) / cc: contact@thencgp.com (optional) Might be worth applying to have a man on the inside, or even help steer them away from anything bad for the industry. They claim they want to help solve the problem, so let's keep an eye on them.

>>331196 You want to start a moral panic to encourage the government to censor video games? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?

>>331196 Also, FFS, use some line breaks occasionally!