110°

ESRB Loot Box Labeling Doesn't Solve the Problem

The ESRB has agreed to label games with in-game purchases, but this ESRB loot box labeling is a long way from solving the problem of aggressive mechanics.

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
UCForce2976d ago

ESRB just make a dumb solution.

JackBNimble2975d ago

And what you and a ton of gamers are asking for is essentially censorship.
Does that not go against your laws of freedom of speech? So you're ok with a 3rd party or the government to tell developers what they can and cannot put in their games?

Hate to say it but you guys are crazy, just willing to give up your rights and freedoms because of something you disagree with.

You don't like it, don't buy it.

XiNatsuDragnel2976d ago

No it doesn't it's trying to forget the issue at hand

strayanalog2976d ago

ESRB, you had one job... and somehow you managed to still clock-in without being present. This is unbelievably stupid and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Where's your backbone and code of ethics now?‎

_-EDMIX-_2975d ago (Edited 2975d ago )

Except ESRBs job is to not tell Developers or publishers about what content they could have in their game ,simply the rating.

Trust me ESRB is never going to be the entity that somehow does something about loot boxes because their job is to not govern what's going on in gaming it is simply to label the games in regards content.

I think labeling loot boxes are microtransactions is the right step as it allows parents to know what's going on in their children's games.

I actually think some of you guys are getting angry at this company for something they can't even control in the first place is not saying they're okay with loot boxes simply that they can't actually tell a developer what to do.

Labeling them is the right step for this specific company it does not mean that is the only solution for loot box as in all of gaming, as I just think it's a little bit ridiculous to try to believe this is going to come down to a single company.

This is likely going to come down to customers pressuring Publishers even governments in regards to legislation in a bunch of other things.

I think people are just mad because of how their labeling microtransactions in regards to post launch content but to be quite honest the broad term of microtransaction or post-launch concept applies to so many things that it does not just exclusively loot boxes you would have to consider you could just call it something else and it's still doing the same exact thing, imagine if Electronic Arts doesn't call it loot box or Loot Crate.. it just calls it something else it doesn't really change what's being done it's actually why the term microtransaction or post-launch content is more fitting.

So the second they start using the exact term loot box watch Activision Ubisoft Electronic Arts and many others simply just start changing how they are classifying the content....

2975d ago
strayanalog2975d ago

I do agree with you, because labeling them was the right step, but they did it wrong, in my opinion, by making it too broad (as you pointed out).

"This label, or the interactive element, will appear on boxes for all games that offer the ability to purchase digital goods of premiums with real world currency. This includes features like bonus levels, skins, surprise items (such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes, upgrades (e.g., to disable ads) and more."‎

That catchall is far too broad. ESRB has managed to walk around the problem without confronting it. Almost every game has digital content, so this label means nothing.
Loot boxes and microtransactions need to be singled out (a red sticker maybe), which should, in theory, prompt someone to ask what a loot box or microtransaction is, in particular parents.
If a developer wants to skirt the issue by calling that loot box something else (like mystery box), then they should pay for the "exclusive font" that would be on their box.‎

Dirtnapstor2975d ago (Edited 2975d ago )

Making new identifying labels will not change anything. It’s just as dumb as creating new gun laws to curb mass shootings. This is a silly notion on behalf of the gaming community that suddenly is attempting to grasp a moral high ground. Rated M for mature. And we have 9 year olds playing GTA V....smh. NOW everyone is concerned about the poor child who can not control him/herself, making in game decisions?!?! Give me a break. How about parents be a parent and pay attention? Wow, new concept or what?!
I get the loot box controversy, but it’s built upon the “it’s not fair” mentality vs the supposed “we need to protect our children and irresponsible adults who cannot control themselves”. If you think about it, this is a bad move in general, never mind the ESRB.
“Let us allow the government make regulations to protect us from ourselves because we’re too stupid to use common sense.” That’s today’s motto...now bleeding into the gaming theatre.
Like EDMIX said, don’t buy the freakin loot boxes to begin with. YOU the individual needs to make this decision, not a federal regulator.

_-EDMIX-_2975d ago

I over all agree with what you are saying, but I don't think ESRB sees this as a means to an end type thing, simply a way to label for parents and users. Of course folks will buy what they want, but this is still a smart step to have people more informed on what they buy. We all know the M rating won't stop a kid from playing GTA V as that was not why it was made for, simply to have more educated parents and I think it did a good job with that goal tbh.

"How about parents be a parent and pay attention?"

I 100% agree with that, but I think ESRB is simply saying, why not both? Have parents pay attention more yes, that is a must, but also help by labeling those games with MT, loot boxes etc to help. Put it this way, you and I get it, we are not going to be having our children play such games, we our selves can determine what we play without ESRB, but this was not made for people like you and me, it was made for parents that might not be gamers and might not know that their kids games have something similar to gambling. I'm 100% all for what you are saying ,trust me, but what ESRB is doing will only help what we both actually want.

_-EDMIX-_2976d ago

Easy don't like it don't buy it

can't have a problem if you don't give them your money...

Razzer2975d ago

Exactly. It really is that simple.

UKmilitia2976d ago (Edited 2975d ago )

anything with a lootbox should automatically be a 18/21 as it is gambling and its as simple as that!!!
add to that it should be consmetic loot and not to give you an advantage a person who buys the game and plays normal can not recieve.

FORTNITE has it nailed and thats free to play,the season pass is a great idea

Show all comments (17)
40°

The Epic Games Store's Weekly Free Game is Doomed

The Epic Games Store's weekly free game is dark and drear, and definitely doomed.

Read Full Story >>
terminalgamer.com
40°

Hello Kitty Creator Sanrio to Self-publish Games, ‘Sanrio Party Land’ Coming Fall 2026

Sanrio announced the launch of iSanrio Games, with inaugural title Sanrio Party Land slated for a fall 2026 release and 10 more games to come in the next three years.

Read Full Story >>
powerupgaming.co.uk
160°

Xbox Game Pass Ultimate Price Update

Starting today, Game Pass Ultimate drops from $29.99 to $22.99 a month. PC Game Pass will also drop from $16.49 to $13.99 a month. Prices may vary by region.

Beginning this year, future Call of Duty titles won’t join Game Pass Ultimate or PC Game Pass at launch. New Call of Duty games will be added to Game Pass Ultimate and PC Game Pass during the following holiday season (about a year later), while existing Call of Duty titles already in the library will continue to be available.

Read Full Story >>
news.xbox.com
Neonridr3d ago

can't wait to hear how this is spun negatively.

darthv723d ago

Its nice there is some kind of drop... but is that all they really value CoD to be, a lousy $7 a month?

I was hoping it would drop by $10.

MisterBoots3d ago

That $7 equates to $84 per year - which is more than COD new ($69.99 + tax).

So - you can get the exact same thing - and save a few bucks - or you can skip COD and pocket the savings or use toward another game - or games if on sale.

That’s how I’m taking it - and is enough for me to sign back up after canceling the day it went to $29.99.

fr0sty3d ago

It's unlikely that COD is going to be the only title they stop offering day one, but we'll see how they play their hand.

VenomUK2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Including Call of Duty in Game Pass is just leaving money on the table. When the Elder Scrolls VI releases hopefully Microsoft doesn’t launch it into Game Pass. Then it can make more profits and use it give more value to Xbox console owners!

1Victor3d ago

Can’t wait to hear how this will be spun extremely positive. 🤣
I wonder why knowing Microsoft thick head something must has happened in the background in the levels of Xbox one and Kinect 🤷🏿

fr0sty3d ago

Any price cut is a good thing in this day and age, but it also reveals a flaw in GamePass' design that we've all been calling out for years... it's unsustainable, especially with day and date releases on new games. COD won't be the only game they exclude, they're setting a precedent with it that they'll likely expand upon in the future.

At least they're being realistic about it now. I bet in the future we're going to start seeing them try to subsidize the high price of new consoles by making you buy 2-3 years of gamepass with it to get the console cheaper. I'm still not sure that'll be enough to save either the hardware or gamepass, but we'll see.

Neonridr3d ago

price cuts are good, the removal of Call of Duty is clearly something they are planning to leverage. But considering everyone around N4G claims Call of Duty sucks, it's not a big loss now is it?

LucasRuinedChildhood3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Well, they're removing their biggest game from being Day 1 on the service so GamePass users can buy it instead. That's the intention.

They increased the price to $30, then removed COD and dropped it to still be above the old price.

It's an understandable compromise but the consumer Ultimately is getting less.

Think the calculation is that *most* COD users don't play that many games and aren't interested in GamePass. The GamePass users who do like COD would just buy it anyway. MS reportedly lost out a lot of money last year putting COD on GamePass.

Bathyj3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Well Call of duty could just be the beginning. What other games can they trim from the service to get the price down? How long before it's just the Xbox core first party studio games and not the one to everquired?

Create an interesting scenario with Call of duty as well. Will people wait a year to play it? Does that split the fan base? Will it hurt to Call of duty more than a benefits Game pass? These are all legitimate questions which we will find the answers to in the coming years

And I don't consider my post negative spin just realistic observation. At the very least this backtracking can be seen as an admittance that the previous strategy of gamepass was not sustainable as most of us said.

darthv723d ago

I'd get rid of the EA and Ubisoft+ too. That should bring the price down more. The only game from either of those parts of the service i played was jedi Fallen order / survivor. both of which i also bought on disc so it was more of a convenience i didnt have to put the disc in to play when i was playing them via remote play. And really that is why i still use GPU and PS+. its the convenience of having the games ready to play from a remote location. I havent picked up my consoles controllers in at least a few years. I guess that makes me a bad gamer, but so what. i'm still playing the games, just not physically on the machines themselves. GCloud and Portal are my go to now.

GhostScholar3d ago

They’ll say no one is buying game pass so they had to drop the price , even though it’s been extremely profitable.

Outside_ofthe_Box3d ago

Why remove CoD if it's *extremely* profitable then? Why even increase it to begin with?

Outside_ofthe_Box3d ago

Always funny seeing those that defended the price hike go "how you gonna spin this now!" after the price drops.

You should be thanking those that called it out. Obviously this is a good thing especially with everything increasing nowadays.

Also, what happened to the reason why that the Activision acquisition was good for gaming was that CoD would be day one on GamePass? Another backtrack on that I guess...

What removing CoD on GamePass shows, is that it's not sustainable for for the more popular and/or bigger budget games because of the sales you lose out on like people have been saying since inception. It never made sense to put CoD on there unless you thought it's popularity would draw in a lot of subscribers which it obviously didn't. And if it was as sustainable as people claim they wouldn't have increased the price while putting it on there in the first place.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
3d ago
KicksnSnares3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

New Xbox Boss the 🐐?

3d ago
Vits3d ago

In my region, it’s still more expensive than it was before the last price hike, but it’s a far more viable price point.

Losing Call of Duty from the service, honestly, has zero effect on me, and given they chose to make it so, it’s probably not the big seller they originally thought. Overall, it’s really good news, but I still think they have work to do on the tier structure, having Premium and PC at the same price point with different features feels odd.

Lightning773d ago

Yep take COD out. Them waiting a year is interesting but it make sense. They don't want certain ppl waiting 4 to 6 months they want fomo and maximum sales. Wait a year while the new one releases.

Ok so far so good.

Show all comments (46)