Important message for the community

[Ghesthar]

41 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Because of that, I do not take a relaxed attitude to WGs business practices and monetisation. They are quite obviously trying to scam their customers out of money in unethical ways. They are skirting the edges of woefully inadequate legislation. This is something every sensible adult should be concerned about.

I agree with this completely - but that means when they are scamming people or being dishonest, it needs to be brought to light, and if there are relevant legislations, they should be fined or stopped from operating.

 

However, when they ARE NOT scamming people, and the odds just suck, people shouldn't be running around shouting about how they're being dishonest and scamming people.

 

The latter is what I have objected to. I have pushed back on their timelines and emphasised how much I think clearly stated honest odds are one of the most important aspects of me being their customer going forward. I just do not accept 'consumer protection trumps absolutely everything' or moral panic-style 'think of the children' arguments - I do not like where they lead.

[Camperdown]

2 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

I agree with this completely - but that means when they are scamming people or being dishonest, it needs to be brought to light, and if there are relevant legislations, they should be fined or stopped from operating.

 

However, when they ARE NOT scamming people, and the odds just suck, people shouldn't be running around shouting about how they're being dishonest and scamming people.

 

The latter is what I have objected to. I have pushed back on their timelines and emphasised how much I think clearly stated honest odds are one of the most important aspects of me being their customer going forward. I just do not accept 'consumer protection trumps absolutely everything' or moral panic-style 'think of the children' arguments - I do not like where they lead.

Fair enough, with just one caveat: behavioural science shows that transparency alone is not enough to prevent undesirable outcomes. Your entire design of the customer journey can be such that you are technically transparent, while the customer will still be tricked into behaviour he or she would not choose for if the decision was consciously made.

This is exactly what WG is doing, what I object to and which you seem to accept. Am I correct in that last assumption?

[WWDragon]

34 minutes ago, MrConway said:

Like I said, we need to find a compromise, which is what we are working on at the moment.

No, you weathering the storm waiting for it to pass ... nothing will change because nothing have changed.

 

Reason why Puerto Rico Dockyard model was altered was because it failed to meet financial expectations, in fact several models were altered at the same time so it wasnt just the Dockyard that was a "mistake", in some cases it was just the presentation but we have moved from when early access tier 9 ships could be gotten in random bundles to being put in sequential bundles that will require spending doubloons on.

 

Also now that Missouri main problem is "fixed" the fact the ship wasnt just added back to the game and made available for resources is rather telling and there was no comprise on that, I have seen no effort from WG to "compromise", I am not asking complete surrender like people that scream REMOVE CVS! and similar demands, I ams simply pointing out there been no attempts at compromise from WG outside a nerf to ship that in my opinion is already weak compared with her tech tree direct counterpart, and I would even call that a compromise.

[Ghesthar]

30 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Lol... that's what you are arguing for in this whole thread....top to bottom .....so ...

No.

 

I'm repeatedly saying that parents should not let their children play in traffic.

 

I have been arguing against someone who is saying "well, parents can't stop their children from playing in traffic, so cars need to be banned."

 

31 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

You mean...PR, Satan Crates, Kong, Summer "Sale", Missouri ....? those were all examples of exemplary conduct of Weegee.....

Only the santa crates are dishonest in this list. PR was an extreme grind - worth complaining about, but just an extreme grind. Kong is disappointing, but it actually does exactly what it says on the box: overpriced and seriously disappointing, but not a scam. Missouri - again, not a scam. The odds SUCK. the price SUCKS. But, it is all completely honestly stated.

 

Buyer's remorse and bad products do not make things dishonest or scams. They should make people wary of buying future products. They are worth complaining about. They are not dishonest. People are free to make bad decisions. That is part of life.

[Ghesthar]

3 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Fair enough, with just one caveat: behavioural science shows that transparency alone is not enough to prevent undesirable outcomes. Your entire design of the customer journey can be such that you are technically transparent, while the customer will still be tricked into behaviour he or she would not choose for if the decision was consciously made.

This is exactly what WG is doing, what I object to and which you seem to accept. Am I correct in that last assumption?

Yes, I think that is correct: I come down on the 'personal responsibility' end when it comes to customer journey. If you don't like the price of something or the odds, do not buy it, there is no compulsion involved.

 

I can accept a difference of opinion here, but I think it is just that: opinion.

 

I would not object to changes (even regulated changes) in customer journey - they do not impact the availability of the choice.

[Camperdown]

5 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

Yes, I think that is correct: I come down on the 'personal responsibility' end when it comes to customer journey. If you don't like the price of something or the odds, do not buy it, there is no compulsion involved.

 

I can accept a difference of opinion here, but I think it is just that: opinion.

 

I would not object to changes (even regulated changes) in customer journey - they do not impact the availability of the choice.

Thanks for your replies. We indeed have different preferences. 

[UnderDuress]

1 hour ago, Ghesthar said:

Banning something to protect some group justifies banning just about anything to protect any group.

No it doesn’t. The banning of say, selling cigarettes to under 18s, hasn’t yet lead to banning cigarettes to over 18s let alone whatever totalitarianism you are envisioning.

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Ghesthar said:

No.

 

I'm repeatedly saying that parents should not let their children play in traffic.

 

I have been arguing against someone who is saying "well, parents can't stop their children from playing in traffic, so cars need to be banned."

 

No offense buddy  but you really suck at this. The age rating of this game is 7 ( I know but not yet). Which means that it literally has a sign on it which says children can play here. Yet as you said, "we have traffic" here. So who tf is to blame? The parent? Really??.....sigh

 

4 hours ago, Ghesthar said:

Only the santa crates are dishonest in this list. PR was an extreme grind - worth complaining about, but just an extreme grind. Kong is disappointing, but it actually does exactly what it says on the box: overpriced and seriously disappointing, but not a scam. Missouri - again, not a scam. The odds SUCK. the price SUCKS. But, it is all completely honestly stated.

Buddy.... you really don't know what you are talking about. i already told you that all you gonna accomplish is giving me talking points.

 

PR was deceitfully advertised as a free to get ship for which the missions would be not to grindy. It was a scam.

Before Kong, the long lasting policy was that if a ship played one battle no refund will be issued. I wonder why that had to be changed. It was again deceitful advertising.

Missouri was intended as a scam. And actually it was a scam WG repeatedly said that they didn't wanted to clone the ship because  people wanted THAT ship. Of course if people who'd have seen a different name would have been asking  question.

The only reason why didn't succeeded was because of the giant scandal and shitstorm.

 

Removed*

[Ghesthar]

43 minutes ago, UnderDuress said:

No it doesn’t. The banning of say, selling cigarettes to under 18s, hasn’t yet lead to banning cigarettes to over 18s let alone whatever totalitarianism you are envisioning.

And yet, it does: restrictions creep. Vapes are better, vapes are restricted, vapes are regulated like cigarettes, some groups push for vapes to be banned. Don't cell cigarettes to under 18s, don't smoke in private businesses, don't smoke in public.

 

The same justification creeps inevitably forward. It isn't a quick switch, but it is always there.

 

You say it in your answer: yet.

 

Also, I don't think the guy I was arguing about was talking about restricting sale to under 18s: he was arguing that restrictions didn't matter because children were already committing fraud (stealing their parents credit cards and PINs) to buy lootboxes, so they couldn't be stopped without banning lootboxes entirely. So, kind of missing the middle 'it isn't banned yet' steps.

 

 

[Ghesthar]

5 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

No offense buddy  but you really suck at this. The age rating of this game is 7 ( I know but not yet). Which means that it literally has a sign on it which says children can play here. Yet as you said, "we have traffic" here. So who tf is to blame? The parent? Really??.....sigh

To engage in the objectionable activity, you need a means of payment. That means being 18+ or having direct parental involvement. Otherwise, you are stuck in pure free to play, and can accumulate dubs slowly and eventually buy a boat or a box. If a parent is directly involved, or if some kid steals their parent's credit card to buy stuff, I think there are bigger problems than 'loot boxes are present'. It is like a playground beside a busy road with a locking gate. A parent dropping their kid off, leaving the gate swinging open, and paying not attention is being negligent. The child of a responsible parent is not at risk here.

 

7 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

PR was deceitfully advertised as a free to get ship for which the missions would be not to grindy. It was a scam.

Eh. It was advertised as being gettable for free. It technically was. The level of grind warrants the outrage. 'Scam' is questionable: it isn't far off advertising a harrier jet in exchange for a theoretically unobtainable amount of pepsi points. In that case, however, they have measurably improved: all of the followon dockyards have been entirely doable, and up front about the requirements. So, going back and pointing to it as evidence of WG never changing doesn't work for me: it is a clear example where they HAVE changed their behaviour for the better.

 

10 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Missouri was intended as a scam. And actually it was a scam WG repeatedly said that they didn't wanted to clone the ship because  people wanted THAT ship. Of course if people who'd have seen a different name would have been asking  question.

So it isn't a scam, you just think it was SUPPOSED to be, like how you KNOW the guy isn't an activist. Ok.

 

[Benser33]

4 hours ago, Ghesthar said:

My examples are actually real - Doom was blamed for the Columbine shooting, which lead to 'famed' lawyer Jack Thompson suing everyone in the video game industry for years. Dungeons and Dragons was 'linked' to satanic cults and suicide pacts. Tipper Gore banning rock and roll, and the Comics Code Authority. They're all easy to look back on and dismiss as nonsense, because they seem like nonsense. At the time, they weren't. "Kids are committing serious crimes to buy online lootboxes" kind of feels like that to me.

Yes, these are great examples of how fictional behaviour can be accused of affecting real world behaviour. I gave you two such examples myself. As "moral panics" they are, by definition, irrational, or as you describe them nonsense. As a big DnD and Doom fan myself I am familiar.

 

Now, realise that we are talking about real world behaviour affecting real world behaviour. We are not saying that WoWS will lead to more people joining the navy or trying to torpedo others on a family holiday. The risk of gambling addiction by taking part in gambling is not a "moral panic" it is a real risk that many people fall victim to, and in some examples tactics can be predatory enough that they offer no safeguard to the vulnerable (the potential to spend endlessly), normalise it to an inappropriate audience (masking it as something else and marketing it to a PEGI 7 audience) and not only promoting it but make real money gambling a necessity (random bundles* and exclusively random drops available for real money with no alternative).

 

*and when I say random bundles I am referring to things like the current Missouri bundles with it's "guarantee". Because even when they are guaranteed after 40 or so, so you could argue there is no risk there, there is still that chance you won't need all 40. A lot of people using this same example here have gotten caught up on assuming that the Missouri bundles are specifically weighted to make Missouri less likely to drop to make that set of random bundles more profitable. But the thing is, if you do get Missouri early, that probably feels great, you feel "lucky", you "made a profit" and this creates a mindset for the future, investing money in other random bundle series. And because they are certainly weighted in WGs favor, you will always lose in the end, but you fell for it anyway because that's how the human mind works. You don't win at it by getting lucky with the bundles, you lose by simply taking part.

[Ghesthar]

35 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

The risk of gambling addiction by taking part in gambling is not a "moral panic" it is a real risk that many people fall victim to, and in some examples tactics can be predatory enough that they offer no safeguard to the vulnerable (the potential to spend endlessly), normalise it to an inappropriate audience (masking it as something else and marketing it to a PEGI 7 audience) and not only promoting it but make real money gambling a necessity (random bundles* and exclusively random drops available for real money with no alternative).

I've said at other points in this thread that I would actively support measures to intervene with problem gambling: opt-in account restrictions on spending or on 'lootbox' spending, automated or semi-automated check-in emails/messages in an 'are you okay' tone with gambling addiction signposting, or even automated spending restrictions on those buying large numbers of boxes.

 

I would also be very supportive of increased identity checks, though I think 18+ requirements for all (i think? nobody has claimed or pointed out otherwise) payment methods kind of starts down that road - children CANNOT make purchases without parental involvement. However, the guy who started this 'children' argument started off with: children will steal their parents credit cards and PINs. To me, if a child is stealing and committing fraud to buy lootboxes, there are bigger problems than the lootbox. Also, it calls into question whether any other ID checks are useful: gambling sites need pictures of some photo ID. If a kid is already stealing the credit card from dad's wallet, taking a picture of the driving license doesn't seem like much of a barrier.

 

I'm very up for safeguarding. If the conversation you want to have is one about safeguarding options that leave freedom for the responsible adults in the room while mitigating harms, I'm all ears.

 

As for gambling gateways, I'm unsold. Are all dice games gateway gambling? Card games? Poker with chips? Penny-ante poker? Ingame-funds casinos/slot machines/etc in games? The little reward fruit machines at the end of lots of otherwise f2p games without 'lootboxes'? Is it the dopamine 'hit' from the win that is the problem, or the activity? Is gambling in and of itself a harm? Societally, we say no - it is legal throughout most of the west. We have chosen to not ban it, overall, despite the harm to a few. I can accept the view that it SHOULD be banned and IS a societal harm, even if I don't agree with it. I think this area of discussion is far more complicated than it is being presented, and gets into the 'banning things that do harm to SOMEONE even if they do not do harm to most people' area.

 

edit: I think I agree with you about the random bundles - they are TERRIBLE value, and I would advise anyone to not buy them. The extent to which they are gambling or not is kind of strange - if I just straight up buy 41 bundles, I have a fixed cost and outcome - fairly clearly not gambling, even if the deal sucks. If I intend to buy boxes until I hit missouri and accept the probably cost of 41 boxes, is this gambling, as it may cost less? If I buy five bundles as a punt, it is obviously gambling.

 

I do not agree with the word 'necessity' - there is no compulsion or even pay to win element here. Reddit and these forums have gone out of their way to tell us all how mediocre Missouri is as a ship.

[Andrewbassg]

46 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

To engage in the objectionable activity, you need a means of payment. That means being 18+ or having direct parental involvement. Otherwise, you are stuck in pure free to play, and can accumulate dubs slowly and eventually buy a boat or a box. If a parent is directly involved, or if some kid steals their parent's credit card to buy stuff, I think there are bigger problems than 'loot boxes are present'. It is like a playground beside a busy road with a locking gate. A parent dropping their kid off, leaving the gate swinging open, and paying not attention is being negligent. The child of a responsible parent is not at risk here.

 

 

 

You mean... like this?

 

https://www.paysafecard.com/en/

 

I never really understood this credit card fetishism ......

 

46 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

Eh. It was advertised as being gettable for free. It technically was. The level of grind warrants the outrage. 'Scam' is questionable: it isn't far off advertising a harrier jet in exchange for a theoretically unobtainable amount of pepsi points. In that case, however, they have measurably improved: all of the followon dockyards have been entirely doable, and up front about the requirements. So, going back and pointing to it as evidence of WG never changing doesn't work for me: it is a clear example where they HAVE changed their behaviour for the better.

 But they didn't said a word nor corrected nor attempted to intervene. Granted, they are not responsible for other people's actions. However they are responsible for the reputation of their company and their product.

Ah da irony...

 

And like I said before a singular event is passable. But we talk about a recognizable pattern,  a repeated behavior. There is a reason why juvenile sex offenders are registered, because they are known to engage in repeated, pattern like, predatory activities, which are very dangerous.

While the comparison seems really far fetched  its  actually not. Because of the "repeated, pattern like, predatory" behaviors. even if those behaviors are incomparably different.

 

46 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

So it isn't a scam, you just think it was SUPPOSED to be,....

Like I said, repeated, pattern like, predatory" behaviors. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

,.... like how you KNOW the guy isn't an activist. Ok.

Being an activist is not defined by "holding hands and singing Kumbalaya". However those are recognizable.

[Ghesthar]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

You mean... like this?

 

https://www.paysafecard.com/en/

 

I never really understood this credit card fetishism ......

https://www.paysafecard.com/fileadmin/content/website_statisch/footer/agb/paysafecard/TC_UK-paysafecard-_10_2013.pdf

 

3.2 You must be 18 years old or older to purchase a classic paysafecard.

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

https://www.paysafecard.com/fileadmin/content/website_statisch/footer/agb/paysafecard/TC_UK-paysafecard-_10_2013.pdf

 

3.2 You must be 18 years old or older to purchase a classic paysafecard.

 

 

 

 

Like I said you really suck at this.....

 I mean, you know that they are like vending machines, right?

 

 

[Ghesthar]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Like I said you really suck at this.....

 I mean, you know that they are like vending machines, right?

So other vendors selling things inappropriately to under 18s that should flag them as over18 is the fault of WG? How many people have to breach laws, regulations, restrictions, and terms of service before enough intervening bad acts have piled up for WG to be off the hook? Frankly, this sounds like a good reason for a regulator to ban paysafecard.

 

What safeguarding measures would you propose?

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

So other vendors selling things inappropriately to under 18s that should flag them as over18 is the fault of WG? How many people have to breach laws, regulations, restrictions, and terms of service before enough intervening bad acts have piled up for WG to be off the hook?

Look, the problem isn't that a company wants to make money. From my part, the more they make, the merrier. But they are using excessive, predatory type monetization tactics, sacrificing the reputation of the company and their product on the altar of greed, destroying  their relation with the player base, the community and the game itself.  

 

2 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

What safeguarding measures would you propose?

First of all, given the niche nature of this game it should be run as a hobby company, not as a game company. And the switch should have happened years ago. Meaning that maintaining the player's numbers should have been paramount. Healthy, friendly relations with the community. Stuff like that.

 

But instead somebody made the decision "to go after the cheese" no matter what and now they are the "victims" of their own "success" 

[Ghesthar]

2 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Look, the problem isn't that a company wants to make money. From my part, the more they make, the merrier. But they are using excessive, predatory type monetization tactics, sacrificing the reputation of the company and their product on the altar of greed, destroying  their relation with the player base, the community and the game itself.  

 

First of all, given the niche nature of this game it should be run as a hobby company, not as a game company. And the switch should have happened years ago. Meaning that maintaining the player's numbers should have been paramount. Healthy, friendly relations with the community. Stuff like that.

 

But instead somebody made the decision "to go after the cheese" no matter what and now they are the "victims" of their own "success" 

Okay.

 

So, you have no safeguarding suggestions.

[Benser33]

1 hour ago, Ghesthar said:

I've said at other points in this thread that I would actively support measures to intervene with problem gambling: opt-in account restrictions on spending or on 'lootbox' spending, automated or semi-automated check-in emails/messages in an 'are you okay' tone with gambling addiction signposting, or even automated spending restrictions on those buying large numbers of boxes.

 

I'm very up for safeguarding. If the conversation you want to have is one about safeguarding options that leave freedom for the responsible adults in the room while mitigating harms, I'm all ears.

I would agree that these things would be reasonable, although I would prefer that a game about warships veers further away from strategising like a casino, rather than closer.

 

Quote

I would also be very supportive of increased identity checks... ...taking a picture of the driving license doesn't seem like much of a barrier.

We are agreed here, there are even examples of using payments as a form of ID, because surely only the card holder could use the card, right? This is why some "free subscriptions" require users to enter card details anyway, because it verifies who they are. But this is again focusing on the actor and not the enabler, and the enabler we are concerned with here is WG. Even without gambling, a child or teen could use a parents funds without permission to buy a £30-50 ship straight up, this is not healthy behaviour but it's also not the behaviour that WG seem to want to actively encourage that is the cause for concern for most. I have not read what everyone elses arguments have been so far, but while I agree that authentication is an important security measure for making purchases online it is not the act of spending that is as much of a concern as the long term patterns and behaviours, from my perspective.

 

Quote

As for gambling gateways, I'm unsold. Are all dice games gateway gambling? Card games? Poker with chips? Penny-ante poker? Ingame-funds casinos/slot machines/etc in games? The little reward fruit machines at the end of lots of otherwise f2p games without 'lootboxes'? Is it the dopamine 'hit' from the win that is the problem, or the activity? Is gambling in and of itself a harm? Societally, we say no - it is legal throughout most of the west. We have chosen to not ban it, overall, despite the harm to a few. I can accept the view that it SHOULD be banned and IS a societal harm, even if I don't agree with it. I think this area of discussion is far more complicated than it is being presented, and gets into the 'banning things that do harm to SOMEONE even if they do not do harm to most people' area.

I agree, it is a complicated topic. And the "harm" being done is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. But does that impossibility to truly measure the harm that could be done not cause enough for concern? As general games and such they are not appreciatively harmful, but as something to be marketed it can be. Commercial casinos are subject to strict regulations on that matter. The "few" who are harmed does not account for the survivor syndrome of those who did not participate in the first place, because we as a society acknowledge the risks and require regulation.

 

But rather than ponder the nature of gambling in the grand scheme of things we can make some objective observations here. How aggresive the monetization is varies by situation, as does the audience, the price, the scope and scale of the betting. Are daily wows containers gambling? Are future generations going to be mindlessly attached to one-armed bandits because of Try Your Luck daily containers? I don't think so. But this is not real world money at cost, getting 3 small containers from TYL does not have real world implications, spending money on premium containers for an exclusive ship or trying to get a rare drop can lead to overspending and then people can suffer more material problems. And yes, this can be attributed to the judgement, willpower and negligence of the person, but at the same time, WG does not offer alternatives and demands a high price. At the same time, they are not subject to regulationlike commerical gambling vendors are, and they present their distribution methods and strategies as if they are just fine and normal ways that people might obtain things, without acknowledging the potential consequences.

 

I consider WGs monetization strategy as gambling-like. With examples of ships being available only through random drops at least once they have certainly tested the waters of whether they can repeatedly commit to making things available only by chance and I consider the changes in their methods of distributing ships, both premium and standard, and the prices they demand for these things as increasingly aggressive. And I have an issue with that and believe everyone should. Generally speaking, it does not need to be banned (i.e daily containers?) but aspects of the overall strategy are crossing the line of what we as a community should consider acceptable in this situation.

 

1 hour ago, Ghesthar said:

edit: I think I agree with you about the random bundles - they are TERRIBLE value, and I would advise anyone to not buy them. The extent to which they are gambling or not is kind of strange - if I just straight up buy 41 bundles, I have a fixed cost and outcome - fairly clearly not gambling, even if the deal sucks. If I intend to buy boxes until I hit missouri and accept the probably cost of 41 boxes, is this gambling, as it may cost less? If I buy five bundles as a punt, it is obviously gambling.

While I am glad you agree, I would like to reiterate the point I was trying to make. Even if you do commit to the cost of 41 boxes and get your prize at box #20 do you think that would disuade or encourage future participation? And if future instances of similar methods of distribution become more aggressive, then you are just falling victim to a strategy of exploitation.

[Andrewbassg]

6 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

Okay.

 

So, you have no safeguarding suggestions.

........

Of course I "don't" have. its like a wife asking his husband "honey I want to go...f.a.q.  around a bit, what "safeguards" you recommend"?? Just ...lolz...

[Ghesthar]

31 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

But this is not real world money at cost, getting 3 small containers from TYL does not have real world implications, spending money on premium containers for an exclusive ship or trying to get a rare drop can lead to overspending and then people can suffer more material problems. And yes, this can be attributed to the judgement, willpower and negligence of the person, but at the same time, WG does not offer alternatives and demands a high price. At the same time, they are not subject to regulationlike commerical gambling vendors are, and they present their distribution methods and strategies as if they are just fine and normal ways that people might obtain things, without acknowledging the potential consequences.

 

31 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

I consider WGs monetization strategy as gambling-like. With examples of ships being available only through random drops at least once they have certainly tested the waters of whether they can repeatedly commit to making things available only by chance and I consider the changes in their methods of distributing ships, both premium and standard, and the prices they demand for these things as increasingly aggressive. And I have an issue with that and believe everyone should. Generally speaking, it does not need to be banned (i.e daily containers?) but aspects of the overall strategy are crossing the line of what we as a community should consider acceptable in this situation.

 

I think I agree with you here, too (and I think on most things I've skipped over): I would prefer the monetization to be less random/lootbox-oriented. However, I think we disagree on how much weight individual choice should play.

 

I am a horrible person, I like playing carriers. I would like an Enterprise. The only source of those has, traditionally, been christmas crates. Because I am reasonable, I think: the odds of me getting that are catastrophically small, so I will not try to get it. I may buy a few crates if I have money to spare and will derive enjoyment from them regardless of the outcome, but it will be measured. I am not trying to 'collect them all.' Despite the ship being exclusive, I can exercise reason and restraint and not throw money at something hoping for the incredibly improbable outcome that I want. This is why, to me, clearly stated fair odds are important: people can more easily make this sort of decision. While I agree that the exclusivity increases the appeal, that isn't really unique: the same is said for luxury cars, brands, phones, whatever. Some people run up debt buying that crap. We don't look at banning brands, we look at financial education and personal restraint.

 

I would prefer things to not be exclusive to lootboxes. However, I'm not sure I care about the 'testing the waters' methods - things like the dutch cruiser boxes are nothing but time preference, for instance. I think the initial pushback on Missouri is probably reasonable - getting a direct purchase option IS better, and IS a win. I do not appreciate the petulance about 'well, we want it in the shop NOW, we don't want to do trivial missions' or claims that WG is lying about it because at some point in some stream someone said that if they brought it back it would be in the armoury for dubs... because it is - I can click on the armoury and buy it for doubloons right now if my time and cost preferences match the horrible deal awaiting me.

 

At the end of the day, though, people work and earn their money, and it is just that: their money. If spending a ridiculous amount on a pixel boat makes them happy, or buying some stupidly expensive new phone, or putting it in a giant swimming pool and playing around scrooge mcduck style, that is their business, as long as they can reasonably afford what they are doing.

 

I feel like some of WG's practices have been driven by the community. Repeated calls for people to spend nothing, refund everything, wg is pure evil, etc. probably mean the 'average' player spends less, so WG has to chase the whales. If more people were willing to spend something, maybe reasonably priced offerings would be common. This is pure speculation, and obviously a bit of a chicken/egg situation, but there you go.

 

31 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

While I am glad you agree, I would like to reiterate the point I was trying to make. Even if you do commit to the cost of 41 boxes and get your prize at box #20 do you think that would disuade or encourage future participation? And if future instances of similar methods of distribution become more aggressive, then you are just falling victim to a strategy of exploitation.

I'm not sure.

 

In my mind, frankly, someone committing to buy 41 boxes probably values their money a lot less than I value mine, so I doubt their participation would vary whether they got it on box 2 or box 41. Box 20 is better than the mean, but still 1.5x the price of Missouri in armoury. I would say that, with the knowledge of it being available for direct purchase, it would dissuade. Without it, probably about neutral. I guess I just think these 'time preference trap' sets should only appeal to whales - players without the willingness to buy the whole set have no reason to buy any, apart from the outlier where it is in the first box, and the player sees a cheap win.

 

Missouri is, though, less aggressive than the previous iteration of the same: down from 72? lootboxes, for something that is at least only available through a 'purchase' method rather than rapid free to play accumulation. It is clearly a test, and whether it is 'good' or not kind of depends: what if instead of pure random, the black friday containers were a 20-box set with 4 seasonal premiums? Is that better or worse than an indefinite lot?

[Ghesthar]

@Crysantos @MrConway

Would WG be open to considering some sort of gambling addiction safeguarding measures? For instance, the ability for users to opt-in to blocking themselves from making purchases, or specifically 'lootbox' type purchases without adding some friction (e.g contacting support to have the block removed), having an automated but monitored system that messages users making a high volume of lootbox purchases to see if they are alright and possibly blocking their payments and signposting gambling addiction helplines and similar if needed?

 

I recognise that you wouldn't be able to commit to anything being done, and that lootboxes are very much part of WG's profit model and therefore probably here to stay, but given the concerns regarding gambling addiction in the community, would WG be willing to at least investigate some steps like these, or with this intent?

 

Further, some people seem concerned about the age of people accessing lootboxes and similar. I see that the EULA states 18+ or with a parent, and that most if not all of the payment methods SHOULD limit purchasers to being at least 16 (with a debit card) or 18 with other methods. Do you think WG might be open to investigating some other form of age verification to allow either all purchases, or certain sorts of purchases?

[Profilus]

On 9/2/2021 at 5:00 PM, Crysantos said:

Communications quality. There have been a lot of communication mistakes and incidents on our side recently. While mistakes always happen and we're all human, we acknowledge that we need to improve in this area. We've already launched a full internal review of all related processes. We want fewer mistakes and translation errors,

Just wanting something does not work. Must at least try!

[MrConway]

2 hours ago, Ghesthar said:

@Crysantos @MrConway

Would WG be open to considering some sort of gambling addiction safeguarding measures? For instance, the ability for users to opt-in to blocking themselves from making purchases, or specifically 'lootbox' type purchases without adding some friction (e.g contacting support to have the block removed), having an automated but monitored system that messages users making a high volume of lootbox purchases to see if they are alright and possibly blocking their payments and signposting gambling addiction helplines and similar if needed?

  

I recognise that you wouldn't be able to commit to anything being done, and that lootboxes are very much part of WG's profit model and therefore probably here to stay, but given the concerns regarding gambling addiction in the community, would WG be willing to at least investigate some steps like these, or with this intent?

  

 Further, some people seem concerned about the age of people accessing lootboxes and similar. I see that the EULA states 18+ or with a parent, and that most if not all of the payment methods SHOULD limit purchasers to being at least 16 (with a debit card) or 18 with other methods. Do you think WG might be open to investigating some other form of age verification to allow either all purchases, or certain sorts of purchases?

 

We are looking into what is possible for us to do in this regard. Once we have details what it could look like, we will let you know!

[Ghesthar]

9 minutes ago, MrConway said:

 

We are looking into what is possible for us to do in this regard. Once we have details what it could look like, we will let you know!

Fantastic, thank you.

 

Are there any ideas or timelines you can share, or is this quite early on?