Industry Leaders and Experts Join Forces to Fight Against Loot Crates

[Chino]

As a result of the increasing external pressure for reform and regulation on the games industry, a group of industry leaders and experts has agreed to come together in a more permanent way, forming the National Committee for Games Policy (NCGP). We made this decision in response to the current crisis regarding the expansion of loot crate economies and concerns about unregulated online gambling, but also as an acceptance of a long in coming decision that we knew would eventually become necessary. Games are not represented or understood in the modern political and judicial world, and that needs to change.

Unlike the IGDA, we are not an association of game developers. We are a coalition of high level industry experts and influencers. Membership in the NCGP is by invite only. We will work on the behalf of games industry professionals of all political leanings. In order to do this, the NCGP has appointed a steering committee with significant political experience on both ends of the spectrum. Where video games, politics, and law intersect, you will be sure to find the NCGP.


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 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 overtime pay.

As part of our work as an SRO, we will release a quarterly list of companies who we have cited and the reason for citation. While we do hope to help as many people as possible, a complaint doesn't become a citation without further investigation and action by the NCGP.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[the54thvoid]

With power comes great responsibility.

They are privately funded - thats a concern. Funded commissions tend to be self preservational. Their third action has to be the transparency of their funding sources. i.e. if EA gives them lots of cash we can expect loot boxes to be A-OK.

 

[efikkan]

"Loot crates" are just the tip of the iceberg; the whole concept of in-game purchases, DLC and pay to win is a disease.

Earning money on games is fine, but becomes dishonest when people are tricked to pay more and more to unlock the game they've already purchased.
Edit: typo

 

[EarthDog]

Decease = dead. I assume you meant disease?

 

[_JP_]

How about just not buying said games?
Follow a simple rational before handing the cash:
Q1 - Does the additional content fall in your views as something that actually improves the original gameplay?
If yes:
Q2 - Do you feel it's worth the cash amount asked?
If yes, oh please do buy. If both or any of the answers are no, please find some sort of restraint and don't spend the money for fucks sake!

"Oh, but somebody think of the children!!"
Right, because parents aren't, so it seems. Or in the worse case, actually endorse the no self-restraint movement because they are no better. Be a parent, say "no".
The "but all my friends are playing it too" excuse is old by now. It wasn't the best when we were young and sure as hell doesn't hold ground today, with all the variety of stuff you can do to spend time.

Money is hard to get and spending it on a digital commodity doesn't entitle anyone to buyers remorse for the simple fact that 8h after a game release you can totally tell if it is any good and form an opinion.

This is assuming people can still form an opinion.

IMO, this "Joint forces" is just silly and unnecessary. It will just dwell down to something corrupt because money is involved and/or at stake.

 

[hat]

^^vote with your wallet is a very simple and powerful concept, yet far too many people have voted that running games in this way is fine, so it continues and gets worse. Maybe the people who aren't okay with it are the vocal minority. Maybe they have been until now and it's gotten bad enough for enough people to give a shit. Funny how just now there's some sort of oversight committee that's there to "protect consumers" from this garbage. Nobody needs to protect consumers in this case, we need to protect ourselves by not buying the game we don't agree with. This NCGP seems like yet another organization that's susceptible to corruption.

 

[RejZoR]

If loot crates don't interfere with the gameplay I'm fine with them. It's 100% optional and could provide in-game parental control which allows locking the feature away from children which solves the legal issues of it. If they are integral part of the game's gameplay, then we have a problem since you can't ignore it or disable it without making the game unplayable.

 

[Freez]

It need to be done long time ago.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't mind buying games at higher prices. 100+ bucks is ok for me IF the game condones the hours. Fallout 4 as an example gave me 200+ hours and not a single loot box in sight. I did however pay 120 bucks for it and the DLC and I would do it again.

Honestly gamers are partly to blame for the lootbox fiasco. Publishers are forced to keep the stale 59.99 pricing and yet the cost of gaming as skyrocked since the 1980's. 49.99 to 59.99 from 1986 to 2017 is hardly an adjustment for inflation. In fact they would be losing their asses at this point. Sprinkle in mass piracy and you have publishers paying gamers to buy their product. This is not fair to anyone.

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I don't mind buying games at higher prices. 100+ bucks is ok for me IF the game condones the hours. Fallout 4 as an example gave me 200+ hours and not a single loot box in sight. I did however pay 120 bucks for it and the DLC and I would do it again.

Honestly gamers are partly to blame for the lootbox fiasco. Publishers are forced to keep the stale 59.99 pricing and yet the cost of gaming as skyrocked since the 1980's. 49.99 to 59.99 from 1986 to 2017 is hardly an adjustment for inflation. In fact they would be losing their asses at this point. Sprinkle in mass piracy and you have publishers paying gamers to buy their product. This is not fair to anyone.

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

I disagree that its the gamers fault, loot boxes are plain and simple a cash grab. They are also a pay2win tool when high end gear is being rolled on in a randomly generated box, its been proven in some games that you have better odds at winning the jackpot playing video poker in Las Vegas. The gamers dont set the odds, the developers do. Sure the gamers can choose not to purchase a loot box, thats like telling gambling addict to stand the roulette table with a hand full of chips and never place a bet. Honestly flawed thinking blaming the gamers.

I further disagree that games should cost $100 or more. If you buy a shit game you cant get a refund, or its extremely difficult to get one. Even Steam has a duration on game refunds so short that if you sneeze it becomes too late to try. Now if you buy 5-10 games, at $100 a pop, and dont like any of them, it now becomes a major hassle. And, TBH, there are no games worth the $100 price tag, that does not include special edition versions. IMHO game development is shit, so many games launch with shit ton of bugs and obvious incomplete content that they require a patch within the next 60 - 90 days, this isnt the games developer fault but the publishers (like EA) that do the pushing to pump out games left and right. Like that one developer that was determined to develop 100 games, he did it but every game I saw was pure shit, that Atari Pong was better than anything he made.

Yep if games cost $100 or more, I'd blow up my PC just to spite, because I would be extremely stupid to pay that.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I don't mind buying games at higher prices. 100+ bucks is ok for me IF the game condones the hours. Fallout 4 as an example gave me 200+ hours and not a single loot box in sight. I did however pay 120 bucks for it and the DLC and I would do it again.

Honestly gamers are partly to blame for the lootbox fiasco. Publishers are forced to keep the stale 59.99 pricing and yet the cost of gaming as skyrocked since the 1980's. 49.99 to 59.99 from 1986 to 2017 is hardly an adjustment for inflation. In fact they would be losing their asses at this point. Sprinkle in mass piracy and you have publishers paying gamers to buy their product. This is not fair to anyone.

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

I would devote my life to cracking games if they became $100+

 

[Totally]

I don't mind buying games at higher prices. 100+ bucks is ok for me IF the game condones the hours. Fallout 4 as an example gave me 200+ hours and not a single loot box in sight. I did however pay 120 bucks for it and the DLC and I would do it again.

Honestly gamers are partly to blame for the lootbox fiasco. Publishers are forced to keep the stale 59.99 pricing and yet the cost of gaming as skyrocked since the 1980's. 49.99 to 59.99 from 1986 to 2017 is hardly an adjustment for inflation. In fact they would be losing their asses at this point. Sprinkle in mass piracy and you have publishers paying gamers to buy their product. This is not fair to anyone.

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

skip to 3:15

 

[Devastator0]

Yep if games cost $100 or more, I'd blow up my PC just to spite, because I would be extremely stupid to pay that.

Mate, I live in Australia where the average price for a PC game is either $89.95 or $99.95 AUD and the average price for a console game is either $99.95, $109.95 or $119.95 AUD. We in Australia are already there.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Mate, I live in Australia where the average price for a PC game is either $89.95 or $99.95 AUD and the average price for a console game is either $99.95, $109.95 or $119.95 AUD. We in Australia are already there.

Yes, but Aus$ are not equal to US$. Our $1 is, as of typing this, equal to $1.31Aus. So you are paying about the same, even if it adds up to a higher number.

 

[Devastator0]

Yes, but Aus$ are not equal to US$. Our $1 is, as of typing this, equal to $1.31Aus. So you are paying about the same, even if it adds up to a higher number.

A straight currency conversion doesn't agree. $60 USD = ~$78-$79 AUD. Believe me, we are paying the Australia Tax for games.

 

[SkullFox]

"Loot crates" are just the tip of the iceberg; the whole concept of in-game purchases, DLC (...) is a disease.

......

Actually no. DLC is a fantastic thing if done right. DLC if used like expansion packs of old (Simcity 4 Rush Hour, C&C Generals Zero Hour, GTA IV EFLC, etc...) is fantastic and a nice way to make a game great and to enlarge the current universe of a game...

But, if done wrong, like all EA games at the moment that sell Zero day DLC. It is a shitty way to make money, and, people buy half of a game....

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

How will you define AAA games?

For me the only AAA game that should charge 100 Bucks is GTA V. There is no other game that comes near it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It still boggles my mind how the Steam Market is allowed to exist. Valve is practically printing money. I think the only tax on it is sales tax to the state of Washington. Still, every game that offers something on there, they're effectively creating a new unregulated market asking money for a digital product that has a real, one time value, of no more than $1000 (time to create the asset). Then they give away 1000s of them randomly and (here's the trouble spot): allow people to trade them for money. This effectively makes them securities (like stocks) but they're not being regulated as such . Valve needs to declare the tangible worth of the good and it can never be exceeded.

And it doesn't stop there either: music, movies, games, everything that is strictly digital. It can be copied ad infinitum but it still needs a declared value. Why is this important? It goes straight into piracy. If someone has a copy of something they're not supposed to, that's how much money was "stolen." Declaring a value of a digital good then becomes a two sided coin: If they declare the value of something too high and they sue a pirate asking for 1000 times that much, the judge will ask what are they smoking. If they declare the value too low and someone is selling the product for less than that, the publisher can use that in court against the seller because they're technically selling at a loss, therefore, the item must be stolen or second hand (these are not-transferrable by nature).

Problem is, there's only two parties involved here: 1) lawmakers that don't understand it enough to regulate it and 2) the game publishers profiting hugely from it. I don't see a path to a good, permanent solution for everyone.


It's good they're cracking down on loot crates because it turns the above problem into gambling. It needs to be labeled as such. But to get at the heart of the problem.......not going to happen any time soon.

 

[hat]

I disagree with you there ford. The software, although digital, has value. Are you saying this wouldn't be a problem if games were still stored on optical media? Why was metal gear solid worth 50 bucks or better when new then, when I could have used that money to buy a whole stack of blank cd-r's? Because the software has value.

 

[rob49152]

This is a pathetic attempt at self-policing before the government steps in. Unless actual laws pass that govern loot-boxes and gacha type games the companies will create the minimum efforts to change what generates hundreds of millions of dollars. But they will wave the banner of responsibility and hide behind it.

Never let the convicts run the prisons!!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are you saying this wouldn't be a problem if games were still stored on optical media?

Physical media means it follows the laws of supply and demand. Digital goods, there's unlimited supply.

 

[Prince Valiant]

I don't mind buying games at higher prices. 100+ bucks is ok for me IF the game condones the hours. Fallout 4 as an example gave me 200+ hours and not a single loot box in sight. I did however pay 120 bucks for it and the DLC and I would do it again.

Honestly gamers are partly to blame for the lootbox fiasco. Publishers are forced to keep the stale 59.99 pricing and yet the cost of gaming as skyrocked since the 1980's. 49.99 to 59.99 from 1986 to 2017 is hardly an adjustment for inflation. In fact they would be losing their asses at this point. Sprinkle in mass piracy and you have publishers paying gamers to buy their product. This is not fair to anyone.

IMO publishers should be charging a minimum of 100 bucks for a AAA game with EVERYTHING included at launch. No more DLC. No more loot crates and IMO that would be an amazing compromise between the supply and the demand. We have come a long way from 8-bit side scrollers. The price needs to reflect that.

Publishers wouldn't be worth billions of dollars if the price of games was an issue.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I disagree with you there ford. The software, although digital, has value. Are you saying this wouldn't be a problem if games were still stored on optical media? Why was metal gear solid worth 50 bucks or better when new then, when I could have used that money to buy a whole stack of blank cd-r's? Because the software has value.

That's interesting point. Some people take their digital games and record them to blank dvdr or bdr instead of storing on hdd to save space. And it's not very inconvenient ti install from said discs.

 

[lexluthermiester]

With power comes great responsibility.

They are privately funded - thats a concern. Funded commissions tend to be self preservational. Their third action has to be the transparency of their funding sources. i.e. if EA gives them lots of cash we can expect loot boxes to be A-OK.

The Belgian government has already concluded that this kind of thing is gambling. And a number of other EU governments are joining in investigating. There are even rumblings of the US Senate looking into things. And I hope they impose very strict regulations on this kind of thing. It will discourage devs/publishers from including it in games.

 

[hat]

Physical media means it follows the laws of supply and demand. Digital goods, there's unlimited supply.

For the media itself yes, for the actual product no. That would be similar to me being able to produce infinite amounts of graphics cards for nothing other then the initial cost of creating the first one. I already handled that and now I can make them indefinitely, my only hangup being the number of cardboard boxes (installation media) I have to pack them in. I'm not here to argue the laws they may or may not follow, just sharing my own thoughts on it.

That's interesting point. Some people take their digital games and record them to blank dvdr or bdr instead of storing on hdd to save space. And it's not very inconvenient ti install from said discs.

Sure, like steam backups. Those are locked to your account though, or at least if you got the copy from somebody else you would have to actually own the game on your account to be able to use it. Something like that might work in the old days but not today.

 

[Eric3988]

Sounds like an ill omen. I'm with crowd that says if you don't like games with loot boxes then don't buy them. Seriously it's not that hard.