A few days ago, the ESRB made a blog post detailing a new descriptor it will be adding to many game ratings going forward, which essentially is going to be a loot box warning. Many have praised this move, as the prevalence of loot boxes in modern games is something that’s met with casual indifference at best and substantial ire at worst. Nobody hopes an upcoming new game will feature loot boxes prominently.
However, this new announcement raises questions about how this will affect the industry as it moves into a new generation of gaming. Like it or not, loot boxes aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, and publishers have become quite adept at utilizing devious tactics to minimize or obscure their application of them. The hope is that this new rating will curb the usage of such tactics and make it easier to see what publishers are doing in their in-game economies, but the reality may not be nearly as optimistic.
So, what does the new change entail? According to that blog post:
This new Interactive Element, In-Game Purchases (Includes Random Items), will be assigned to any game that contains in-game offers to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency (or with virtual coins or other forms of in-game currency that can be purchased with real world currency) for which the player doesn’t know prior to purchase the specific digital goods or premiums they will be receiving (e.g., loot boxes, item packs, mystery awards).
Notably, this does not cover conventional DLC purchases or even microtransactions, as those are already covered under the “In-Game Purchases” descriptor that will continue to be used. This new descriptor was brought about in the wake of substantial pressure from gaming enthusiasts demanding that the ESRB enforce a means of greater transparency as to what kind of DLC some games have. Loot boxes are seen as a more predatory form of DLC compared to the more conventional kind, thus the gaming community called for a clear distinction to be made. In the ideal situation now, companies using loot boxes in their games won’t be able to hide that fact as easily, and people will be able to easily see right there on the rating what the marketing materials might have ‘conveniently’ left out. However, real life often has a way of complicating such matters, and as a recent example of this, let’s take a look at the recent example of Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled.
In the lead up to release, the developers of Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled explicitly stated that there would be no microtransactions in the game and this statement was naturally met with plenty of praise from fans. However, barely one month after release, the developer pulled a complete one-eighty and introduced a microtransaction economy to the game. Indeed, this is a particularly heinous example, as it arguably indicates a cunning and predatory mindset on the part of Activision. The company was able to have its cake and eat it, too. Ahead of launch, the game benefitted from all the good press that comes along with “no microtransactions” and at launch it benefitted from positive reviews across the board as the reviewers focused solely on the high quality of the game content. Then, a month later, after the reviews were out and the initial big wave of sales passed, the company was able to throw in the microtransactions and benefit directly from the extra profits, regardless of the havoc and imbalance it brought to the in-game economy.
Ahead of launch, the game benefitted from all the good press that comes along with “no microtransactions” ... a month later, after the reviews were out and the initial big wave of sales passed, the company was able to throw in the microtransactions
What should be raising more red flags, however, is the fact that Activision got away with it. When asked about their stance on this, the ESRB simply stated that all future copies of the game would be updated with an amended rating to reflect the change, and it didn’t mention anything about fines or consequences. Now, this could perhaps be seen as an acceptable response if the microtransactions were added long after launch and well past the game’s initial sell-by date, but the fact that these microtransactions were added only a month post-launch indicates that this was the plan all along. The design of the in-game Pit Stop store at launch already seemed suspiciously similar to one that would require real currency and that combined with the speed at which microtransactions were added make it naïve to assume that Activision introduced them purely on a whim. This was a direct example of a company deliberately obscuring its intent to include a much-maligned element of modern games so it could minimize the bad press that would inevitably follow and circumvent an undesirable rating from the ESRB, both of which would likely contribute to a drop in sales numbers. That’s unacceptable.
Granted, this matter with Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled was relating only to microtransactions, not loot boxes, but the ESRB’s reaction to it nonetheless sets a precedent. If a publisher doesn’t want to get that ugly 'In-Game Purchases' moniker affixed to their family-friendly “E” rating, they can simply wait a bit past launch and then add the offending content at a later update. Subsequent copies will be updated with the new descriptor, but the bulk of the game sales and good press will already be in hand. Activision has demonstrated that this works quite well, so why shouldn’t other developers follow suit? This new rating will certainly give more developers pause before throwing in loot boxes, but there’s already a clear path to sidestepping any potential obstacles that it poses to a game’s success. If the ESRB continues to allow this loophole to exist, it will effectively invalidate the point of the rating to begin with.
The next question, then, is whether this rating has any real teeth to it to begin with. Let’s say that the ESRB does close that loophole and makes it so that adding loot boxes in a post-launch update within a certain window after launch incurs fines and penalties on the publisher. Loot boxes are an extremely lucrative practice, so if the publisher could just ‘eat’ the cost of a fine in favor of the extra profits there wouldn’t be any point to the fine existing. Take a look at the ESRB’s website, and you’ll find that it does have some safeguards in place for non-compliant developers:
The display of rating information on physical games is far more difficult to modify after a game ships. As a result, our enforcement system includes sanctions and fines (up to $1 million) that may be imposed on publishers who don’t fully disclose content to us during the rating process.
$1 million dollars already doesn’t sound like a whole lot to lose for most big companies relative to the gains they’d stand to make, but that “up to” makes things worse. If you take a look at the Enforcement System Summary, you’ll see that any loot box related shenanigans would likely be considered a Class A Violation, meaning that the publishers would get a warning for the first offense, a $5,000 fine for the second, and a $10,000 fine for the third and on. Also, each instance would accrue a ‘point’ against that publisher’s record. If it were to get five points for the same class of infractions, an additional $10,000 fine would be added to any new infractions. If it were to get seven points across multiple classes of infractions, another $10,000 would be added to that. Also, there’s no risk of the ESRB revoking it rating services—temporarily or permanently—for a publisher, as long as they comply with any ESRB sanctions or investigations. Bearing all this in mind, if the Crash Team Racing Nitro Fueled scenario were to play out in a timeline where the ESRB did take action, Activision would be paying out $30,000 at worst for its actions. Not a tough fee for the fastest selling game in a multi-million selling franchise, eh?
The key thing to take away from all this is that while this new loot box descriptor signals a promising step forward towards cutting back on predatory practices in games, it doesn’t carry enough consequences to keep most publishers in check. Until the ESRB tightens up its loopholes and drastically steps up the amount it demands with its fines, publishers don’t have much to worry about regarding potential blowback for sneaking in loot boxes. As we move on into a new generation of gaming, rising development costs will all but ensure that more publishers turn to alternative means of generating revenue. Hopefully, this new descriptor only represents the first step in the ongoing campaign against predatory practices and not the end of the road, as there’s still much more work to be done on this front.
Let us know your thoughts on the ESRB's new rating and the potential effect it will have below.
Comments (42)
Probably not a jot, but it's nice to have advance warnings beyond the EA and Activison logo's on the boxes.
People are begging for loot boxes to enter Animal Crossing. I think would be smart of Nintendo to sell random Amiibo cards in the game instead of releasing physical packs. The physical cards are selling for insane prices.
Same with the Amiibo, let us buy digital Amiibo, stop being so greedy Nintendo. Arrrrr
i hope that this means EA learns their lesson but probably not. still, its nice to have an advance warning. if apps have to do it then so should console games
@mesome713 The problem with the physical card packs is how they were all made for Happy Home Designer. They just need to produce new ones.
@mesome713 Agree. I understand someone wanting the physical figurine but if someone likes the digital content the figurine offers more then the figurine itself, we should have the option of obtaining it digitally for a fair price.
@JayJ New physical loot boxes would be cool too. Would love physical and digital loot boxes for Animal Crossing. That way the physical loot packs won't be so high priced.
Now 8s perfect time to do it too. The game is already out, so all the gamers whining about new Animal Crossing loot packs won't matter, it'll just help the game sell more.
Also, Animal Crossing already had physical loot packs before critics reviewed the game, so they can't whine anyways. It's a win win for everybody.
Interesting article. Instead of fines, they should just ban loot boxes after launch. I think it wouldn't hurt to ban them altogether like some countries have done already. They should be illegal because video games gambling doesn't occur in a casino but at anyone's home and potentially affects anyone.
worse thing is when a duplicate item pops up from a loot box
@Pirlo_ze_sniper Agreed, I always hated that in my baseball card packs.
Simple, it just means the same companies behind "surprise mechanics" had their way.
@KitsuneNight
Damn, you won the entire comment section in a single sentence. I'm honestly impressed.
@AlexSora89 Have to admit though, it was pretty genius. They were like, suckers!
"suprise mechanics" like when Link opens a chest right?
Keep loot boxes out of all games. Its a garbage mechanic that usually leaves people disappointed. Make better games with items you can purchase with in game currency, not real world money
@ummyeahnintendo People love them. Mystery toys, baseball cards, Pokémon cards etc. Just go look in any store, they have whole isles of random loot stuff.
@mesome713 Pokemon cards, Baseball cards, Mystery toys... Do you have to pay $60 before purchasing those?
@ummyeahnintendo You would if those loot things came with anything...like, duh. Soccer cards can come with a soccer game. Any it's really fun, it's called Fifa. And Fifa has an amazing card game built into it. It's like a game itself.
@mesome713
If people love them so much, why do Activision and EA both make a lot of hoopla whenever a game from them doesn't have lootboxes? (Battlefield V, COD, etc.)
@Toy_Link Cause the vocal minority like to cry and whine a lot. Usually people who love stuff don't spend so much effort making noise like a crybaby would.
@mesome713 Its not like you have the ability to resell loot boxes in any do you? With any physical object you can allways sell it if you get something you don't want, or trade.
@tobibra Yeah, which is why they are usually a lot cheaper. But companies should do both. Would make more money. Only reason I don't like physical is cause it pollutes the earth a lot more.
@mesome713
Please take a look in the mirror if you're going to call anyone else a crybaby. You are one of the biggest complainers on this site especially when it comes to complaining about the most pointless things.
@Toy_Link It's all in fun though.
@mesome713
OK, gloomer.
Overwatch probably has the least-worthwhile lootboxes since you get them for literally playing the game and leveling up, playing Tank/Support, and every week in the Arcade. I'm to the point where I have a vast majority of the cosmetics and I'm getting dupes which yield in-game currency that you can use to unlock even more cosmetics directly. Say what you want, but Blizzard probably has the least intrusive system of lootboxes because I don't have to spend a real world dime to get what I want.
I have spend over 100€ to get one Star Wars character in lootbox miniature game and I didn't got it. That was useless, I hate lootboxes, but I am still buying Kinder Supprise eggs every easter, just for random useless toys, because it is fun, I also understand it can be like gambling.
This is a gambling mechanic, plain and simple. As such I actually think it is unethical to couple it with entertainment that is designed to direct attention to shape experiences and then package it as interaction.
I know not everyone might agree with that opinion and that's fair. However, as long as a purchase with anything of value is not clearly coupled with the product that you'll get for it, I don't think we should risk that addictive behavior to touch minors, still in the process of learning how to navigate impulses.
A warning, label, indicator... It seems like it's not enough. At least, in my perception...
I'd say it's still pretty poor. I think one of the biggest problems is that lootboxes aren't actually rated as simulated gambling.
I think there's something wrong about how on 3DS Virtual Console Pokémon Red/Blue are rated 12+ due to the game corner(simulated gambling but with no real money stake). But Lootbox games like FIFA or NBA 2k where people can wager tens, hundreds or thousands of real money for a random chance at a player get a 3+ rating.
I think any game that has the ability for limitless spending (microtransactions/currency/lootboxes) needs an automatic 18+ rating.
All means is that, all developers/publishers have to do now is slap this sticker on their games and they can legally continue doing this scummy practice, that they’ve been doing the whole time.
This is stupid. Loot boxes should’ve been banned, not passively given a finger wagging.
I’m of the opinion that if they choose to add microtransactions or lootboxes after ratings they should be forced to release a new SKU and game. I think rating agencies should block the game from being sold if changed in this way.
Movies that have new, previously censored, scenes added to DVD releases need to do it. I don’t see why standards should be more lax with games.
Personally I can’t stand them. Stricter policy would keep publishers from engaging in Activision-like shenanigans and protect us gamers who can’t return a game we bought that was fundamentally altered.
It is because of loot boxes that I said screw it to Star Wars BF 2. I get it is for those that don't have the time, but have the money to "level" to make up for it. Glad it will be more transparent up front...developer changes it afterwards, then they are exposed for putting profit over players...which a lot of "suits" do now and days.
@RPGamer Of course they dont, they can block me.
It's just conveniently vague enough for unsuspecting parents not know what it is
Should be something like 'gambling elements', or 'luck-based', or lootboxes straight up
@mesome713
Can't you also block those "crybabies" that you like complaining about?
@Toy_Link Yes, but I like them. I love to watch the river flow, it's transcending.
@mesome713 "People are begging for loot boxes to enter Animal Crossing."
Literally who?
@HeroponRiki Survey stated 55% would like loot packs to be made available. Majority wins mate.
@mesome713
This is a very dishonest comment, MATE
The question you're referring to from yesterday says: "Do you think Nintendo should make villagers available via DLC, given that the cards are so expensive?"
It makes no mention of it being randomized, in packs, or even being paid packs. And before you say "OMG bro, everyone knows that NL meant loot boxes when asking the questions, MATE"
You don't know what other people were thinking when they answered yes and please (language warning):
https://youtu.be/oGUQLrkX4AE?t=36
@RPGamer
Since when do fanboys have anything to do with logic ?
@Toy_Link Yeah, I'd certainly support letting players download specific Villagers for either free or a low price if they want them. I absolutely, 100% would NOT support lootboxes of any kind though.
@RPGamer
Though honestly, I am half convinced he is a troll and loving all the attention.
Tap here to load 42 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...