Take-Two Interactive president says he doesn't view loot boxes as gambling.

Yep looks like Take-Two Interactive is acting just like EA and the other game companies by defending loot boxes.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gta-red-dead-company-responds-to-loot-box-controve/1100-6455272/

Rich people who don't give a shit about you support thing that makes them lots of money.

More news soon.

thank god I never bought GTA. trash game.

Take-Two must be so concerned that you did not contribute to the 85+ million sold-in copies of GTAV

Doesn't bode well for future Take-Two games :(

Oh ffs. Just charge $70 for games and get it over with! This loot box shit needs to end. I’m tired of devs trying to find new ways to nickel and dime consumers and I’m tired of consumers bitching about it. Every other consumer product has seen a price adjustment due to costs and inflation other than video games. I think it’s time.

No company is going to say it's gambling

RDR2 is dead in the water.

Is he?

I haven't really been listening to the arguments for or against this, but at face value I'm not completely sold on the gambling argument. Are you saying loot boxes paid for with real money, or any kind of loot box?

Here's the kicker, they don't even need to charge $70 for games cause they are making money.

Given that you cannot win million dollars with loot boxes, I'd say he's right.

@KungfuKitten: Well the point of all of this is to make money. Do you think these companies actually care about you? The big picture issue is, the cost of game production and marketing have gone through the roof while game prices have stagnated. It wasn’t unheard of to pay $80+ for some games back in the 16-bit era. Yes, manufacturing costs were high back then because of cartridge costs, but development teams were also a couple dozen people at most. Now we have voice acting, motion capture work for elaborate cutscenes, long scripts, online functionality and upkeep etc. Even if game prices increased only to keep up with inflation, we would be paying over $100 today. It’s not hard to understand why publishers are looking for other ways to make money. But when it hurts the end product, that’s when I have a problem with it.

Does this apply to SP games or MP only?

RDR2 now with loot crates. :P

I really hope we get some regulations on Lootboxes.

^^^

Sorry CEO, but like with climate and smoking I think I'm going to listen to the science and studies over your opinions.

And like those other things, I wonder how much the video game industry will lobby to turn the science into a fake debate and keep away any regulation with bribes.

What? They don't want to talk negatively about something they can earn shitloads of cash on? What in the woooorld?

Worried about loot boxes, easy fix don't buy the game. If the game does not sell that will change the developers minds real fast. The real issue today is Net Neutrality that will effect EVERYONE!

It's not gambling...unless you can get absolutely nothing for a loot box.

I'm just more amazed Casinos don't use this obvious loophole.

Lets be honest.

Lootboxes is NOT gambling. I dont get why, in fact i get why, many think so amd media in purpose trying to equal lootboxes and various other microtransactions to gambling. . I pay for something that will get me something in return at all times.

The brainwashing started. We should focus more in shady practices behind lootboxes and pay to win items than lootboxes as an idea. I dont have problem at all with cosmetic only lootboxes and no i dont think is gambling.

I don't know man. It's not gambling because "you get something everytime"? What if you buy a regular lottery ticket, and you're always guaranteed to get something, for example a snickers bar that's way cheaper than the ticket itself, is this not gambling then because "you always get something"?

"You always get something" shouldn't be enough to make it "not gambling", in my opinion.

Yeah, seriously. If it's OK for game companies, why not casinos? They should make everyone always get "something" and make some kid friendly ads.

@Litchie: The definition of gambling is all or nothing lol. It's a shit practice...but not gambling

The problem is, gambling is fun :)

That isn't true at all.

His opinion isn't biased at all

Cause they're not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who even asked him the question -___-;

Whether the law will do something about them or not, they're not OK.

@KungfuKitten: Exactly. I really don't give a shit about what the law says. I care about morality. If the law is an asshole, **** the law.

What has the world come to when unisnpiredcup says something right? ?

This should be obvious, and yet... just look where we're at.

If they were purchased just through virtual currency earned through game play, then I would agree. But when we're talking about paying real money for randomized results, and especially with low odds of more favorable prizes... that's textbook gambling.

When it was just cosmetics it was generally mostly seen as harmless and where the mantra of "it's just optional" echoed among the community. But when we're talking about advantageous gear, what ever shifts the balance of power in competitive multiplayer games, that's when it goes into the pay-2-win territory. This shift in the gaming climate demands that we re-evaluate the loot box model; the current issue being how the system is made to exploit the competitive drive of players, leading to excessive purchasing to attain the advantage, and others feeling pressured to keep pace with the opposition. When competitive leverage is on the line, it hardly seems "optional" and becoming more "necessary", at least by perception.

Of course responsibility comes down to the individual, to regulate their own boundaries and exercise their own judgement and self control. But that doesn't excuse the corporations when they deliberately cultivate an environment that's more rewarding to spenders than players. And we've seen how games strategically shift the economy to stretch out the time needed to grind the virtual currency and halting the much needed progress without paying. This is especially relevant in products targeted to an audience too young to have developed a sense of economics and financial responsibility, which they can take advantage of. It's not unlike the tobacco industry trying to hook consumers in as young as possible (particularly teens), getting the habit ingrained.

It isn't about who's to blame, the consumer or the merchant; the blame lies with both parties, but really the merchant has the bigger responsibility, since they're the ones initiating the transactions in how they design their business model. Ultimately in a pay-2-win market, the only winner is the merchant.

No it's not

Gambling

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Related to gambling: Gambling addiction

gam·bling

(găm′blĭng)

n.

1. The activity of playing a game for stakes or betting on an uncertain outcome.

2. The business of operating facilities where such activities take place.

As you can see it's taking a chance on a certain outcome, whether that's a number on a roulette wheel or a skin for Mercy in an Overwatch loot crate, you pay your stake and hope to get what you want. Free loot boxes are not gambling as there is no stake involved, when you have to pay money to have a chance of getting what you want it very much is gambling.A gambling stake doesn't even need to be money, it could be a chocolate biscuit or the deed to your house.

@GarGx1: @PurpleMan5000: Paraphrasing peeps...

If you buy a loot box, you get something, right? It's not like you have a chance of getting nothing. It's not gambling.

Are you guaranteed to get exactly what you want or are taking a chance of getting what you want?

Chance isn't the same as gambling.

By how you're explaining it, buying a pack of cards is gambling.

Wrong again

Game of chance

game′ of chance′

n. a game, as roulette, in which the outcome is determined by chance rather than by skill.

Or is roulette not gambling either?

Dude, in roulette you win or lose. You don't get a portion of your money and you lose it all. That's gambling. I don't know where you're going with this.

And lol at bringing up chance and skill in this.

As I said, by your definition and reasoning, buying a pack of cards is gambling.

If you get an item you already have, you aren't really getting anything. Buying a pack of cards for a deck-building game absolutely is gambling.

Ok, so we just disagree on the core meaning. Is what it is then.

@Chutebox: Have you ever played Roulette? How much you win or lose totally depends on how you spread your stake, it's far from all or nothing. You can win and lose at the same time on a roulette wheel.

What exactly can you do to ensure you get exactly the item you are looking for from a loot box? The answer is nothing at all, therefore it's a game of chance and by definition that is gambling.

As I said, by your definition and reasoning, buying a pack of cards is gambling.

What a load of drivel. At least try and be coherent when you're debating.

Theres no IF in your example. Its like saying what if im playing blackjack or poker and i get something in return everytime ? Then its not gambling in its core sense.

If lootboxes are gamble to you then in the same way coca cola promotions ( and countless others ) of " find the X code " and win a trip ( which leading to people to keep buying colas ) or the more colas you getting the more chances to win a car etc ( since again pushing people to keep buying colas ) = gambling as well ?

Is it ?

I think we need to find all the shady shit happening behind lootboxes in order to keep people paying and not blame lootboxes themselves. There are games out there offering cosmetics only and this is optional as well ... why not ? It wont affect the core experience at all nor youll have any disadvantage. Where is the gambling about it ?

You dont want minors to keep using this system in the name of gambling ... make this lootbox service a 18+ or whatever and problem solved as it is the case for casinos etc ...

Enough with this brainwashing crap of gambling from media. Lets focus on other shady and crappy things EA did, or others, in order to push lootboxes to people that are unacceptable.

It's not, it's the same thing. If I buy a pack of cards looking for one or two specific cards, and I get nothing. I'm out of luck. It's, wait for it, chance!

Roulette is still all or nothing. If you put it on black and 35 and red 34 pops up, how much do you get back?

Do you get a pat on the back? Talk to me about being coherent...

It's not gambling. Have you heard people bitching about how buying packs of Pokemon or Magic the Gathering cards is gambling?

All the people thinking loot crates are gambling are the disgruntled angry children that didn't get the toy they wanted in their happy meals?

i.e. Idiots

Then lets shut down all big companies that numerous times thru the years doing promotion of " buy colas and win a car, the more colas you buy the more chances for the car " or " call at 4353456346 and you have a chance to win X prize , the more calls the more chances " and so many thousands of examples ... Lets name everything gambling and end all of this.

But no, lootboxes = gambling, everything else is ok which taking place for decades now just because video games = evil, we care for kids ( lol ). All kind of media offers is not gambling so its not for mobile, health and food industrys "lotterys" = gambling to you in chips, cheerios, colas etc ... Only lootboxes = gambling = bad.

Guys, wake up please. EA deserves all the hate and shit for the way they tried to push lootboxes to people. Thats where we should focus ... not that lootboxes suddenly became the gambling issue people need to get rid of. Wake up.

So when I put a quarter in the gumball machine and hope I get a blue one that's gambling?