5th Miscellaneous Article

Fallout 76. Windows PC Version, Bethesda Softworks, 2018.

Makuch, Eddie. “Fallout 76 Has Microtransactions, But Bethesda Insists It's Not Pay-To-Win.” GameSpot, Gamespot, 30 Oct. 2018, www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-76-has-microtransactions-but-bethesda-insi/1100-6462850/.

To be honest NetherRealm studios is at least trying to reflect upon and improve their game, Bethesda is just letting it crash and burn. This game started out as trash and has gotten no better from the numerous "patches". Things supposed to be fix are still problems and the game is just bad but something irks me more than the state of the game, it's the microtransactions. In the past (release of the game) Bethesda's vice president Pete Hines said," All the content we ever put out for Fallout 76--all the DLC, all the post-launch stuff--is going to be free. That's important. And to say, the Atomic shop is cosmetic stuff. To make sure folks understand--look there's a line. There are people who have crossed it, but we're going to stay on the right side of it (This is the GameSpot citation)." Hines referring to the "right side of it" is concerning what previous developers had done to their games with pay-to-win micotranscations. Funny thing is and of course to no ones surprise they later did go back and begin putting non-cosmetic items within the atoms shop. This is a big problem because Fallout 76 is a online only game meaning these items have a tangible affect on everyone, the defention of pay-to-win. Their so called "right side" and "only cosmetic stuff'" was a downright lie, destroying the already fractured trust between them and their player base. Its as if they are kicking an already dead horse, what to they have to gain? Gamers optimism of a hopeful future especially as Skyrim 6 and Starfield were announced, were suddenly clouded with dread and sadness as the prospect of this could happen to all of their future releases. As constantly said throughout the Star Wars movies, I have a bad feeling about this.

4th Miscellaneous Article

Mortal Kombat 11. Windows PC Version, NetherRealm Studios, 2019.

Mortal Kombat 11 released on April 23rd, to both a wave of compliments but also a flood of mass criticism directed at one particular portion of the game. This criticism lies in within the Krypt and the challenge towers of time. On the PC version (Steam version) the player reviews are at a mixed rating. This means it is roughly half and half on negative and positive but this is because time passed allowing more reviews. On the first day of its release it was review bombed (large groups of people leave negative user reviews online in the hopes of getting attention) because of the massive grind wall. The Krypt is a place where players can open up chests that will RANDOMLY give items like artwork, skins , and consumables. At first glance this is not a problem but players soon realized the horrid flaws in the system. This is a fighting game which means it has a selection of characters to chose from, in this case 19 characters. Not every player will want to play all of these characters instead selecting a few like 2 to 3, can you image the frustration within the Krypt as they constantly open up chests that give them items for characters they will never play. Not to mention the different types of chest having up to three different currencies that are increasing harder to get (Coins, Souls, Hearts). But this is not the worse of it, these challenge towers leave a very sour mouth in players. They are straight up unfair giving the AI massive advantage on every difficulty. Mind you these towers are main method of a way in game to earn the different currencies, as broken as they are. If the intent is not clear then allow me to spill it out, NetherRealm studios seeks to frustrate players with the unbalanced towers and RNG Krypt to push players to go buy the currencies to unlock the stuff they actually want. Its sad that this studio has also fallen victim to the microtranscations trend but luckily they seem to generally care and are beginning to balance things out reducing the grind, a good start. While NetherRealm studios seem to care about the future of their game another studio called
Bethesda would rather see their game crash and burn from their lies.

4th Academic Article

Dufault, Jackson. "DUFAULT: Video game microtransactions unethical." UWIRE Text, 5 Dec. 2017, p. 1. Infotrac Newsstand, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A524310222/STND?u=auraria_main&sid=STND&xid=3cdc5fff. Accessed 24 Apr. 2019. -(Academic Article)

Potato, Hotter. “r/StarWarsBattlefront - It Takes 40 Hours to Unlock a Hero. Spreadsheet and Galactic Assault Statistics.” Reddit, 2018, www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7c6bjm/it_takes_40_hours_to_unlock_a_hero_spreadsheet/. -(Reddit post)

In the spirit of the idea that microtranscations are a central feature and not just a side option like said by the commenter's quote in my last post, we look back at the beginning of this mess. The only reason microtranscations began to get media attention and the governments intervention is because of one specific game and just how hideous its micotranscations were. It all began with Star Wars Battlefront 2, the company that made it are the ones we know and love EA (Electronic Arts). But why did this game get national attention and not say the sport games that came before as they also had microtranscations? Well that because of just how insidious they were implemented. They were the central feature of the whole progression system, they dictated how a player got their items and equipment (new characters like Darth Vader too) in the game. This academic article that I found in the Auraria Library's database describes perfectly how this system was seen by the gamers,"An EA developer's response on Reddit became the most down-voted comment in the history of the website. But it doesn't end there. It was reported that EA lost nearly $3 billion in stock value after the backlash." A $3 billion stock drop was the result of this system, in short a lot of money lost. This system stalled the progress of the entire game, paywalls behind every turn. Credits (the systems currency) was given out in small doses, nowhere near enough to pay for the all the lack luster cosmetic items let alone the ironic characters of the Star Wars name. A Reddit user by the name of HotterPotato calculated it would take a dedicated 40 hours straight to unlock a hero that was 60,000 credits. The progression system put it had the intention of slowing everything else down in order to encourage people to spend microtranscations. After all why play for 40 hours when you can just give them 5 bucks, a devious way to try and get even more money. Luckily the game tanked and did damage to EA as whole as well as spreading the message that microtranscations are a real problem. But what other games have problems like this? Recently as in today (April 23rd) a game released called Mortal Kombat 11, it is kicking up a serious storm because of its microtranscations.

Boolean Search

Alexandra, Heather. “Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions.” Kotaku, Kotaku, 17 Oct. 2017, kotaku.com/activision-patents-matchmaking-that-encourages-players-1819630937.

All the way back in 2015 Activision filed a patent in an effort to increase microtransactions revenue. I found this article by using a Boolean search typing in mircrotranscations and patents. To everyone's horror the patent  was approved in October 2017. This patent as stated by the Kotatku article written by Alexandra Heather says," A patent granted to Activision outlines a new matchmaking system that would pair players together in order to encourage microtransactions." Yet another underhanded attempt to try and swindle money from players wallets. The below picture is a simple way of understanding the system. It starts out by finding an interesting item that player 1 would value (is relevant to them), then it would find another player with this item paring them together in a game session. From this session the system would see if the first player would go and purchase this item. If they do it puts them in another game session where the item is "effective", another word for this is overpowered or broken. The system could put a player in lower skilled lobby enabling him to destroy the competition, this player might get the feeling that buying more stuff will continue this trend. If he doesn't buy this item it states his profile gets updated, probably thinking the item wasn't as enticing to the player keeping this data somewhere for future use. Its horrifying that this system occurs in the background with no knowledge given to the player. Every game can be artificially setup to encourage microtransactions, players with broken weapons and out of frustration that player might go and buy this weapon. Throwing them into another game where they have the broken weapon and again piss someone off enough to buy that weapon again. An endless cycle of misery and disgust. But I feel as if the best quote to summarize this was made by a commenter on the Kotaku article named  Taliesin Merlin," Just the latest reminder that microtransactions aren’t separate from the game. They can be central to the game itself, in mechanics designed to trigger further purchases."

3rd Academic Article

King, Daniel L., and Paul H. Delfabbro. “Predatory Monetization Schemes in Video Games (E.g. ‘Loot Boxes’) and Internet Gaming Disorder.” Addiction, vol. 113, no. 11, 2018, pp. 1967–1969., doi:10.1111/add.14286. -(Found in the Auraria Library database)

My search into the schemes of microtransactions led me to find this article in a addiction journal. Written by Daniel and Paul in 2018 they go over the predatory monetization schemes within video games like microtransactions. The quote that caught my eye was the first thing I saw saying," Predatory monetization schemes in video games are purchasing systems that disguise or withhold the long‐term cost of the activity until players are already financially and psychologically committed." This quote really sums up what loot boxes and the rest of microtransactions are. For a short term gain whether it would be a cosmetic or a game play changing item they withhold information regarding the long term cost. Once the player has become committed to the game, this leds to the concept of entrapment. Which the article sums up very well," The belief that one has invested too much to quit. In situations of this nature, players will often spend an escalating amount of money that begets further spending on the game." Companies seek to make players psychologically and financially addicted to their game in the hopes they spend even more increasing sums of money. Typically these people are called "whales" in the gaming community, spending vast sums of money on in game items. This is disastrous for the players and if it continues more and more people (including children) will become affected.  But this is not the end, as time goes on more and more time and effort is put into developing new ways to take money out of gamers wallets. One of the worse companies to try this is Activison trying to get a patent to further the schemes of psychologically manipulating players.

3rd Miscellaneous Article

Zendle, David, and Paul Cairns. “Video Game Loot Boxes Are Linked to Problem Gambling: Results of a Large-Scale Survey.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 21 Nov. 2018, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0206767.


This study came out in 2018 to establish whether or not there was a relationship between gambling and loot boxes. I came across this study when I had found the other one about Belgium banning loot boxes in its state, using this survey for a piece of evidence. This survey was conducted across Reddit and its many subreddits asking gamers (or just people in general). They managed to pull in over 7,422 responses. When it came to the conclusion they said,"This research provides empirical evidence of a relationship between loot box use and problem gambling. The relationship seen here was neither small, nor trivial. It was stronger than previously observed relationships between problem gambling and factors like alcohol abuse, drug use, and depression." With their responses they came to the conclusion that there was a link, a more casual relationship between the two. People who are already problem gamblers  tend to spend more on loot boxes because of the similarities, the lack of control and excess in spending may apply to loot boxes too just as it to regular gambling. Even in this study they said,"We believe that the strength and direction of this relationship indicates that regulation of loot boxes is appropriate and necessary." Many other people clearly agree with the regulation and even have this study to back it up. This and many other pieces of evidence including Belgium's own investigation into the matter ultimately led up to the decision to ban loot boxes in their country. Hopefully this trend will continue on as more and more people are beginning to see the extent of the problems caused by microtransacations.

2nd Academic Article

Baker, Kelly. "The problem with microtransactions." UWIRE Text, 22 Oct. 2018, p. 1. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A559278634/AONE?u=auraria_main&sid=AONE&xid=7cd4d6fc. Accessed 21 Apr. 2019.

To elaborate on the last post concerning the particular company which refused to comply with the new Belgium law about gambling and microtransactions is of course EA. I found this academic article by Kelly which gave more details about the matter,"Video game companies have had the gaul to try to refute these new laws by refusing to comply and even encouraging players to speak out in their defense to the Belgian government by saying that the microtransactions the companies are implementing are simply "not gambling." These video game companies Kelly refers to are EA and 2k Games. While 2k Games has complied with the decision made by Belgium, they tried to convince their customers that it wasn't gambling. On the start up of the loading screen of NBA 2K19 in the Belgium and Netherlands version it says,"We will be continuing conversations with BGC in order to explain our view on how NBA 2K…already [complies] with local laws. If you agree, we recommend that you contact your local government representative to communicate your opinion.” Its sad a multi million dollar company is pleading with its audience to try and reverse a decision that helps gamers because they want to stuff their pockets with that much more money. EA though is much worse because they outright refused to comply with the new law saying simply,"We don't believe that FIFA Ultimate Team or loot boxes are gambling." They claimed that its not gambling because players always receive a specified number of items in each pack. This arguments falls apart when people realize that because its a loot box you never know what you will receive (its random) and some items might be worth a lot more in-game. Luckily as of January 31st ,2019 EA has stopped accepting real money for in-game currency. This is a very good thing and shows if people truly don't want something and enough attention is given to it in the form of public backlash change can occur. But how did this fiasco all start? Well we can see it in studies that released back in 2018 that revolved around this relationship of gambling and microtransactions.

2nd Miscellaneous Article

Ali, Jawad. “Belgium Has Declared Loot Boxes As Gambling And Will Impose Huge Fine With Five Years In Prison.” SegmentNext, 25 Apr. 2018, segmentnext.com/2018/04/25/belgium-lootboxes-gambling/.

I came across this article when I began searching for a real world reaction to the increasing problem of microtransactions. It all started with a Hawaii state representative Chris Lee discussing the predatory behavior of loot boxes and calling for action. This call for action was responded by some European countries including Belgium and the Netherlands. Netherlands had declared loot boxes as gambling and now will require a gambling license into order to implement them in that country. Belgium took a more hard-line route enforcing more penalties saying," Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for mental health’, says Geens. ‘We have already taken numerous measures to protect minors and adults against the influence of gambling advertising. Then we also have to make sure that they are not confronted with games of chance when they are looking for fun in a video game." These measure includes a fine up to 1.6 million Euros for different games that Belgium has found to have microtranscations which they now consider gambling by law (Overwatch, Fifa 18, and Counter Strike: Global Offensive). Another measure is the removal of these microtransactions from existing games within Belgium, a measure that a particularly gaming company has refused to comply with (more discussed on this in next entry). Places like Belgium are an increasing trend in this world that are beginning to address the problem of microtransactions. Its  sad that governments are having to step in and deal with the gaming industries problems but when companies refuse to self regulate themselves a change must occur and this change so happens to come from the government.

2nd Physical Source

Seliukas Gvidenis."Microtransactions as a Business Model in the Video Game Industry". GRIN Publishing, 2015.

Microtransactions continue to show up time and time again, usually being a point of contention and a direct concern for fans. Being constantly implemented they clearly generate enough revenue for a publisher or developer to decide to put them into their game. Seliukas Gvidenis in his bachelor thesis wrote about microtransactions as a business model. He stated in regards to if they are a success or not,"The microtransactions business model has proved very successful in the past and it will likely continue to be successful in the next few years, as companies seem to be developing games with this model in mind and mobile gaming is continuing its fast growth." Throughout his thesis he describes the most successful mobile games like League of Legends which has "27 million daily players, 67 million monthly" calling it  "doing free to play right". But he also brings what seems like a reoccurring antagonist throughout this topic having a section of his thesis called "When big publishers can’t get the model right - the case of EA". In this case EA continues to amaze with the inclusion of a huge number pay-walls and not listening to their play base in the case of  Dungeon Keeper” for mobile platforms. Seliukas says,"Marketed as a free to play game with microtransactions, however the gameplay was so hindered by the pay walls that players felt like the game was essentially unplayable unless they made several in app purchases." Microtransactions as a business model if done right can bring in millions that enjoy the gameplay and don't mind spending a couple of bucks to support a well deserved game. But if done wrong whether its through pay walls, or ignoring of a game's player base can cause destruction in the form of a lower reputation or a decreased number of players. Luckily (maybe) something is becoming more and more common, governments are beginning to take notice and are taking action.

1st Miscellaneous Article

Yin-Poole, Wesley. “Now FIFA 19 Discloses Pack Odds, the True Horror of FUT Is Laid Bare.” Eurogamer.net, Eurogamer.net, 29 Sept. 2018, www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-29-now-fifa-19-discloses-pack-odds-the-true-horror-of-fut-is-laid-bare.

In regards to the actually percentages (chances) to receive the best players in the games (FIFA in this case) from these card packs is absolutely ridiculously. A new feature was implemented into the game called Show Pack Probabilities. The picture below which comes from the article shows percentages for a chance to get a  increasingly better player through the packs. Wesley Yin-Poole the author gives a really good point regarding that less than 1% in the picture," According to EA, there's less than one per cent chance of getting a Ones to Watch player from a pack in FIFA 19. Less than one per cent. This may be an even more dire situation than it looks at first glance. The wording of "less than one per cent" probability is clearly deliberate - it may be 0.01 per cent, for all players know." This may be one of the first times a game company let alone EA gave our the actually numbers regarding a players chances, which is a good thing but it ended up causing even more backlash. Those Ones to Watch Players include Cristiano Ronaldo,  and Riyad Mahrez very high profile players, yet then can't give specifics on them. Instead they leave it deliberately vague saying less than 1%, who knows how far down it can actually be, but from this chart its clear what EA's intention is from these packs. The chance to get these high profile players is so small and of course there are die hard fans out there who will spend a lot of money to get them. If the chances are lower then players will spend more and more trying to get them, draining the life force (money) from their wallets. But then comes the question what if EA needs the money? What is the business model behind microtransactions, is it actually worth it to implement them?

1st Academic Article

"Microtransactions take play and turn it into pay." UWIRE Text, 18 Oct. 2018, p. 1. Infotrac Newsstand, http://link.galegroup.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A559273893/STND?u=auraria_main&sid=STND&xid=40010b36. Accessed 17 Apr. 2019.

To delve further into the problems of the FIFA and NFL games in particularity like I mentioned in my last post, I found an academic article within the Auraria Library database. I simply went to the database and searched mircotransactions and FIFA, a couple down the list and I found this one titled  Microtransactions take play and turn it into pay. No where on the article it lists a author but nonetheless it brings up a good point,"Recently, Electronic Arts released their new games "FIFA 19", and "Madden 19" with microtransactions prohibiting the progress of the game itself. Their intentions and their greed are as clear as day. They simply do not care as long as consumers succumb to their bait and purchase overpriced in-game goods." To go more into detail about the in-game goods it mostly consist of card packs which represent every real world football or soccer players. Of course these card packs vary in rarity like in the case of Messi a very top level athlete is one of the rarest to unlock. Because of his rarity his stats are also one of the best within the game and he is very much available in online competitive play. What this does makes the online section essentially "pay to win", a concept no gamer likes to hear. Competitive games are supposed to be skills based and balanced but this card pack system introduces a pay to win mechanic. A player with little skill can fork over hundreds of dollars to receive the best available characters in these games and come to an online game with significant advantage over a player who don't pay for these loot packs. The question to ask now is what are the chances to get these high rarity characters? Maybe some might just say hey its likely to happen just spend a couple bucks and get them, however this is dead wrong.

1st Physical Source-Book

Griffiths, Mark. Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. BPS Blackwell, 2002.

In an effort to obtain more knowledge about microtransactions, I headed down to the Auraria Library to find a physical source. In my search throughout the databases of the Library I found a book which seemed to fit the bill. It was called Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence by Mark Griffiths. While it covers more of just the act of playing games in general, there was one quote that really stood out for me. Marks quotes a definition from Marlatt et al," defines addictive behavior as: a repetitive habit pattern that increases risk of diseases and/or associated personal and social problems. Addictive behaviors are often experienced subjectively as 'loss pf control. These habit patterns are typically characterized by immediate gratification (short term reward), often coupled with delay deleterious effects (long term costs)." I feel as if this quotes sums up what microtransactions are supposed to do. Micropayments generally range from 99 cents to 5 dollars. Companies purposely make the game more of a chore to play through as if a mud is slowing down the player. As it becomes more and more frustrating to try and get through anything, the player turns toward the microtransactions. "It's only 99 cents to get past this chore, that's not that much." This simple thought then begins to spiral out of control. For short term gratification, in this case getting past an object/level, the player spends 99 cents but soon enough he realizes that every level is a chore. As this occurs he is pushed to spend more and more passing everything he doesn't want to play and that 99 cents can become much more. Long term he spends much more then just 99 cents, not only wasting his own money but giving more incentives for companies to continue this practice, after all the more players that do this the more profit is made. This is just one example of that scenario, the biggest problem lies with card packs and loot boxes especially those with different rarity's like common through legendary (FIFA, NFL). 

Field Research Proposal

Surveys

My field research proposal is definitely focusing on the survey aspect. This could include surveying large amounts of people, certainly gamers but also seeing if the general people have any opinions on microtransactions in video games. The methods used for the survey can take on many different forms. These could include taking online surveys like google or even making a Reddit comment asking people for their opinion. Now of course these might be bias so in order to counter act this I can go to the video games themselves. By entering different lobbies and servers I can directly ask the gamers themselves, maybe even focusing on people who have brought microtransactions. Many different people exist in these lobbies from all over the world so the data can be varied, instead of just being Americans I can also get European opinions or even other countries. With these I can compare American views to European views of microtransactions, maybe to see if we see it differently or generally the same. Other data can include just your average joe, I could see if they have an opinion at all or maybe they don't but maybe they are concerned for their future child. Who knows if these predatory practices might have some kind of an affect now the line? With all of the different kinds of responses I might get, I can formulate all of the data into different forms. By creating graphs or pie charts I can show a visual representation of the opinions of not only gamers but your average joe. Another way is just to show the survey results, x number of people put they don't like microtransactions or visa versa including maybe a couple of comments on why or why not. In general I feel that the most effective field research I can do with my topic is surveying, gaining a large number of opinions and finding what people generally think. 

Background Info For Mircotranscations

Wikipedia contributors. "Microtransaction." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 20 Feb. 2019. Web. 4 Mar. 2019.

In order to obtain general information about microtransactions (MTX) I first did a Wikipedia search. This website gave some basic info the why companies do it, the general impact of microtransactions. It mainly focuses on mobile devices and free-to-play games with their in app purchases. I didn't really know the specific statistics in the mobile market so I was surprised to see that in June 2011 65% of total revenue came from these mobile games making free to play games the single most dominant business model. This business model can be seen as "milking their games for profit", as the company continues to push harder and harder seeing how far they can go to monetize their own games. It also went in detail about the ethics, in generally its considered to be unethical. It talks about how companies are selling the data from microtransactions purchases to other companies in order to turn an even larger profit, and to use this data in the future to continue to push microtransactions. Obviously the whole goal is to gain a higher revenue and growth for a company, but it comes at the expense of the games that are created. I was wondering why in the whole article there is nothing that talks the psychological effects,especially because studies are now coming out showing more and more people are looking at microtransactions (loot boxes) akin to gambling with slot machines. Why do companies continue to push these microtransactions even though most of the gaming community and audience at large consider them unethical, and a scummy business practice?

"Greed over game play" was a term I came across when I was watching a review by Angry Joe. Though I can't remember the review itself it did have one over arching theme to why that game was so bad. Mircotranscations are the cancer of gamers everywhere, they have hurt the gaming industry akin to a person hitting their toe against a table. Why are they here, why must they exist and who is to blame? Over the last couple years this cancer has been creeping every so slightly into full blown triple A releases, things like Assassins Creed and Call of duty. They began in mobile phone games, though no one really cared as those types of games like candy crusher and clash of clans were free and of course the company has to make some money to continue that game. But then triple A companies like EA and Activison see the money making potential.

This is my mind map- https://atlas.mindmup.com/2019/02/08e225c0395611e9a0033718cc2c5dab/_greed_over_game_play_microtransactions/index.html