Main thing that will prevent spending on offers

2

Comments

  • ButtehrsButtehrs Posts: 2,632 ★★★★★
    Odd, I've never spent a dime and I'm always full on 30% boosts. Granted I take break between big content pushes but thats my choice.
  • Eb0ny-O-M4wEb0ny-O-M4w Posts: 12,646 ★★★★★
    Stop making comparisons between paid items and farmable items. They shouldn't be treated any different in this scenario.

    These shouldn't last longer or suffer any change just because they are "paid". You're just using that as an excuse at this point
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    I won’t stop doing anything just because you tell me too

    Paid for items are very much different to normal farmed items. Just because you don’t see the difference it doesn’t make it not so
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,146 Guardian

    I don’t see any issue with posting on the forum with a hope that a mod will comment and pass the discussion onto a developer sorry if it is messing with your statistics

    I don't see anything wrong with that either, nor did I say there was anything wrong with that.


    I only posted to see what Kabams thoughts on the matter was, didn’t expect to attract forums trolls comparing food and mobile gaming


    That's what's wrong. You're not allowed to imply that only Kabam's statements or rerplies to a post are appropriate. If your only motivation for posting something is to get a reply from Kabam, that is not an appropriate post to make. All posts made here are subject to discussion by the players as the *primary* or *only* purpose. If you don't feel player responses are appropriate, this is not the appropriate venue for your post.

    If you post, everyone else is allowed to read it and respond to it. They can agree with you, they can disagree with you. You can disagree back if you wish. But you have no right or reasonable expectation for anything else.

    Everyone has the same right you do to post, including to post disagreement. That does not make them trolls. This is not a support group. No one is required to agree with you.

  • Captain_obvious1Captain_obvious1 Posts: 145
    I used to spend money on 5 and 6* shards deals. O quit because I would consistently pull useless champs. Useless to me anyway as in I wouldn't rank up or use.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    Ok DNA3000 great post as always
  • SCP1504SCP1504 Posts: 337 ★★★

    Just because I buy a bottle of milk, doesn't mean i can leave the in the fridge are 2 months and expect it not.to expire. Tell the cow or the supermarket straight, stop my milk expiring, I paid money for that.

    Except it isn't milk and this isn't a perishable good, this is a video game and i hate having to use resources just because they will expire
    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,146 Guardian

    Ok DNA3000 great post as always

    No problem. Happy to help, in these particular kinds of situations especially. Will definitely try to continue to be consistent with this assistance whenever the opportunity arises.

    You can count on it me.
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Posts: 5,233 ★★★★★
    SCP1504 said:

    Just because I buy a bottle of milk, doesn't mean i can leave the in the fridge are 2 months and expect it not.to expire. Tell the cow or the supermarket straight, stop my milk expiring, I paid money for that.

    Except it isn't milk and this isn't a perishable good, this is a video game and i hate having to use resources just because they will expire
    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources
    By the nature of it having a limit use, in addition to an expiry time, makes it a perishable good. While perishable is most commonly associated with food, it is not limited to only food. We usually call non-food perishables as “consumables” which is exactly what a boost is, when used the boost is consumed and that item itself is gone.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,146 Guardian
    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    @kabaJa
    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
  • LordSmasherLordSmasher Posts: 655 ★★★
    Items you buy should just go straight to your inventory, even if that goes over the limit. You bought them, with real money, they should be treated differently.

    At the very least it may stop Kabam adding stuff you don't want to deal to increase the "perceived" value.
  • frodo2377frodo2377 Posts: 187 ★★
    Having boosts/high level pots expire is fine with me. It can push you do actually complete content if you need to since things are "Expiring". I just wish I had meaningful content to use them on atm. No Act 8 just yet and war this season is kinda meaningless. I view them as a minor added bonus if I'm running low or I know I'll use them during the war season. They don't make or break my decision to buy a pre-release bundle or other cash offer.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103

    Items you buy should just go straight to your inventory, even if that goes over the limit. You bought them, with real money, they should be treated differently.

    At the very least it may stop Kabam adding stuff you don't want to deal to increase the "perceived" value.

    100% agree
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Posts: 5,233 ★★★★★

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,065 ★★★★★
    I hope the vegetables and meat I bought have no expiry too.

    An item is an item, regardless of whether you purchased it with units or cash or vouchers. Segregating them means a further clutterfest of the already clutterful item screen.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    xNig said:

    I hope the vegetables and meat I bought have no expiry too.

    An item is an item, regardless of whether you purchased it with units or cash or vouchers. Segregating them means a further clutterfest of the already clutterful item screen.

    Ridiculous analogy. Bringing food into a conversation about a digital item

    I was warned the forum was toxic and full of trolls
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Posts: 5,233 ★★★★★

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    Don’t need to argue with you, it’s not constructive and you bring nothing to this thread other than conflict

    Just because for now the UK government don’t class loot crates as gambling it does not mean that is the end of the discussion. If you look into it further you will find gaming companies have been warned to take action to clean up the industry or face the threat of legislation. There is a 90 page document on it, you may want to read it
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Posts: 5,233 ★★★★★

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    Don’t need to argue with you, it’s not constructive and you bring nothing to this thread other than conflict

    Just because for now the UK government don’t class loot crates as gambling it does not mean that is the end of the discussion. If you look into it further you will find gaming companies have been warned to take action to clean up the industry or face the threat of legislation. There is a 90 page document on it, you may want to read it
    You may want to read the gov.uk response and see that they’re asking for more protections but also aren’t enforcing that either. When they are enforced by law then you have an argument but until then, you do not. And again, BOOSTS are not random nor subject to any loot box law, whether you purchased them or not. The loot box argument has nothing to do with you having the right to keep them indefinitely until used just because you paid for them.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    Don’t need to argue with you, it’s not constructive and you bring nothing to this thread other than conflict

    Just because for now the UK government don’t class loot crates as gambling it does not mean that is the end of the discussion. If you look into it further you will find gaming companies have been warned to take action to clean up the industry or face the threat of legislation. There is a 90 page document on it, you may want to read it
    You may want to read the gov.uk response and see that they’re asking for more protections but also aren’t enforcing that either. When they are enforced by law then you have an argument but until then, you do not. And again, BOOSTS are not random nor subject to any loot box law, whether you purchased them or not. The loot box argument has nothing to do with you having the right to keep them indefinitely until used just because you paid for them.
    So them telling gaming companies that consumer rights must be upheld means nothing to you.

    @Kabam Miike any chance that the recommendation that paid for items offered in bundles have no expiry or be greatly increased be taken to the dev team please?

    Then maybe this thread can be close and the derailment squad are all over it
  • ItsDamienItsDamien Posts: 5,233 ★★★★★

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    Don’t need to argue with you, it’s not constructive and you bring nothing to this thread other than conflict

    Just because for now the UK government don’t class loot crates as gambling it does not mean that is the end of the discussion. If you look into it further you will find gaming companies have been warned to take action to clean up the industry or face the threat of legislation. There is a 90 page document on it, you may want to read it
    You may want to read the gov.uk response and see that they’re asking for more protections but also aren’t enforcing that either. When they are enforced by law then you have an argument but until then, you do not. And again, BOOSTS are not random nor subject to any loot box law, whether you purchased them or not. The loot box argument has nothing to do with you having the right to keep them indefinitely until used just because you paid for them.
    So them telling gaming companies that consumer rights must be upheld means nothing to you.

    @Kabam Miike any chance that the recommendation that paid for items offered in bundles have no expiry or be greatly increased be taken to the dev team please?

    Then maybe this thread can be close and the derailment squad are all over it
    But your consumer rights are covered. You should probably check those when it comes to in app purchases as well. Maybe instead of clutching those straws, you can clutch your phone and read up a little more on your rights.
  • rwanders1978rwanders1978 Posts: 103
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    ItsDamien said:

    ItsDamien said:

    @kabaJa

    DNA3000 said:

    SCP1504 said:

    The motion is stupid and i assume the mechanic is only implemented to give people a sense of urgency when managing resources

    You say this like Kabam is the only game company to have thought up limited inventory and expiring items and just made up a reason to do it.

    There are well established game design reasons to implement limited inventory and expiring items. One of them is to encourage players to use them, but that is not the only reason: there are a set of reasons that act together, that are fundamental game design principles. Most importantly, limited and expiring resources can be balanced based on shorter time windows. You don't have to worry about a player stocking up unlimited resources to use later. Which means the resources you *need* in the future can be balanced on the assumption that players can only carry forward a limited amount of them. If players are allowed to carry forward unlimited resources, all future content and progression requirements would have to be designed on the assumption that players were carrying forward unlimited resources. You'd then have to figure out how balance between the long term veterans that can swamp any resource requirement instantly and the newer players that cannot accommodate those high costs without being completely roadblocked. This is an intractable design problem that limited inventory and expiring resources avoids.

    Limited inventory and expiring resources allow a game designer to give *more* than players need to help with sporadic imbalances, without having to worry about the future impact of those excesses. This is better for the players who get more than they would otherwise get, even if some of it cannot be efficiently used, and this is better for long term playerbase health where veterans cannot overwhelm future game requirements to such a high degree that it forces the developers to inadvertently penalize future newer players. As a side effect, this creates an automatic encouragement to use resources sooner than later, which indirectly helps limit the impact of progression stalling through an over-reliance on resource efficiency.

    That's why things expire (or just immediately cap out and disappear), here, there, and in most other online games with similar kinds of resources.
    Inventory caps are not the issue

    Developers have a responsibility to customers to treat loot boxes that people pay money for differently. As I said earlier in Europe larger companies than Kabam are under investigation for loot boxes and there fairness to customers

    If there is a monetary transaction attached to the items then they should not expire
    You can’t conflate the loot box argument to the idea of purchasing something that can expire. One is to do with the legality of gambling, the other is to do with managing both your resources and finances better. They are not the same and are not under the same scrutiny at all. That’s some next level straw clutching.
    I assure you I am not clutching any straws but whatever floats your boat. You must be an expert on all loot box discussions going on in the UK at the moment? And wether they are value for money?

    All I know is that it’s going to cost Kabam money. I for one won’t be dropping £100 next month on the pre release bundles only to have the items purchased expire, this is also true for the monthly paragon daily cards

    I am saying that if the item issue is discouraging people from spending on the game it could be of interest to Kabam
    You mean talks that the UK government will not regulate loot boxes under the gambling laws as updated by the Gov.Uk website that was updated on July 18th? Yeah I’m pretty familiar with them since I also live there.

    Boosts would not be considered under any loot box law in any country as they are not randomised in any capacity when buying the offers. They are not subject to drop rates or any other aspect that both Google and Apple require companies to disclose when they sell them. So again, you are clutching at straws. The only thing that would be considered is any crystal that has a random chance. Boosts are not that, whether you paid for them or not.

    Wanna try another argument?
    Don’t need to argue with you, it’s not constructive and you bring nothing to this thread other than conflict

    Just because for now the UK government don’t class loot crates as gambling it does not mean that is the end of the discussion. If you look into it further you will find gaming companies have been warned to take action to clean up the industry or face the threat of legislation. There is a 90 page document on it, you may want to read it
    You may want to read the gov.uk response and see that they’re asking for more protections but also aren’t enforcing that either. When they are enforced by law then you have an argument but until then, you do not. And again, BOOSTS are not random nor subject to any loot box law, whether you purchased them or not. The loot box argument has nothing to do with you having the right to keep them indefinitely until used just because you paid for them.
    So them telling gaming companies that consumer rights must be upheld means nothing to you.

    @Kabam Miike any chance that the recommendation that paid for items offered in bundles have no expiry or be greatly increased be taken to the dev team please?

    Then maybe this thread can be close and the derailment squad are all over it
    But your consumer rights are covered. You should probably check those when it comes to in app purchases as well. Maybe instead of clutching those straws, you can clutch your phone and read up a little more on your rights.
    Wrong again but I am sure you can Google what all the consumer rights are

    Again there is no need to derail the thread it was not about your opinions on me and how I hold straws
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,146 Guardian

    So them telling gaming companies that consumer rights must be upheld means nothing to you.

    It means nothing to me when those rights are being invented out of nothing. As far as I'm aware, all jurisdictions, even China, distinguish between tangible and intangible products for the purposes of product liability, warranty, and consumer rights, and furthermore, all of them make the additional distinction between products of both kinds and services. And while there's a claim floating around that Australia has laws that would prevent this sort of thing, my research into that claim when it first came up about a year and a half ago suggests that this would not apply either, because that law governs products, not elements of a service.

    You are not buying anything with your money. You are paying for the use of the service in a particular way. "Buying" a champion is not the purchase of an item with an individual legal status. It is a part of a service. In no sense do you take possession of it, and in no sense do you gain any ownership rights for it, nor any expectations beyond what is explicitly stated in the description of the service.

    Your rights are about the same as someone who rents a house under a lease that says the owner reserves the right to paint it a different color and change the windows at will. You don't own anything. You have certain legal rights as a renter, but those rights do not supersede the rights of the owner to exercise the rights granted under the lease unless those rights grant something specific the lease contradicts, and there's no legal right to preservation of house color. Similarly there's no explicit right to having champion abilities in a game preserved. You could argue that changing the color of the house makes it less appealing, you could argue that paving the front yard removes the ability to use it as originally desired as an herb garden, but if these changes are specified as rights the owner has, and there's no specific right to herb gardens in the legal code, there's no generic right for people to get what they want out of every transaction in their lives.

    Legally, this is all pretty straight forward. But of course, the legal requirements on the game are not the whole picture. Here's the other half. I do not want the operators of any game I play to cater to the made-up expectations of a minority of its players if this would negatively impact the game in irreparable ways. And telling people they have rights they don't have, and allowing them to exercise those fictitious rights irreparably harms the game. It sets the precedent that the game must work around such demands to the detriment of the majority of players. And allowing players to keep unlimited amounts of consumables just because the purchasers believe they have rights they do not have will unavoidably cause everyone else to get less stuff to compensate.

    I'd rather lose those players than incur the damage they would cause. So while they have no legal standing, even if this were not true I wouldn't want them steering the game into walls regardless. If they want those made up rights, they can go find another game willing to extend those rights to them, so that the calamity that unavoidably occurs affects only people volunteering to sign up for them.

    Anyone who thinks they have a case and I'm just wrong, prove it. Go make that case. I've been making this challenge for about twenty years now, including here in this game. And I've even had people *claim* to be going off to do it. Exactly zero have actually done that, or they were unable to find legal representation willing to take the case, because they never show up in court filings.
  • Qwerty12345Qwerty12345 Posts: 439 ★★★
    you wouldn't be able to claim any damages per se to directly sue over, however if kabam wants to keep selling things in the google play and itunes store, they need to appease those vendors, and demonstrating any form of bait and switch practice or other deceiptful acts would in turn eventually lead to the app being pull from the stores and the end of the game, so it is in Kabam's business interest to be on the "up and up".
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,146 Guardian

    you wouldn't be able to claim any damages per se to directly sue over, however if kabam wants to keep selling things in the google play and itunes store, they need to appease those vendors, and demonstrating any form of bait and switch practice or other deceiptful acts would in turn eventually lead to the app being pull from the stores and the end of the game, so it is in Kabam's business interest to be on the "up and up".

    It is not in Kabam or any other businesses best interests to appease their most marginal extreme players. It is only in a businesses best interests to tackle material risks. Having Apple pull the game from the app store because boosts expire is an immaterial risk.

    Every game operator is accused of bait and switch or other deceitful practices by a marginal fringe of their playerbase. If every such game was pulled from the app stores we'd all be playing checkers now.

    I was prepared to, and am still open to the idea, of having purchased consumables handled differently from other in-game farmed resources. Right up to that line, that's a reasonable request. However, the line of argument that leads to expiring items being illegal, actionable, or unethical, is a line I won't cross. If I have to choose, I would sooner maintain the status quo than give an inch to such nonsense. Giving in to nonsense has a cost, and it is a cost I am unwilling to pay for any benefit.
  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Posts: 1,954 ★★★★
    Man, can't there be a middle? Like, they still expire, but not as quickly? That isn't so unreasonable if you're spending actual $$ on something and would make it more appealing .

    Personally, I wouldn't buy the deals if I couldn't use the resources in time. Or I'd certainly buy less of them as you've clearly over purchased if you only need the boosts and are now going to lose them.

    That's the downside of trying to he at the top. You're really buying the deals to get the AW rewards, not the items in the deals - they're just the means to the end. So spend less and don't lose them to expiration.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 7,065 ★★★★★

    xNig said:

    I hope the vegetables and meat I bought have no expiry too.

    An item is an item, regardless of whether you purchased it with units or cash or vouchers. Segregating them means a further clutterfest of the already clutterful item screen.

    Ridiculous analogy. Bringing food into a conversation about a digital item

    I was warned the forum was toxic and full of trolls
    You just refuse to accept views that are different from yours.
Sign In or Register to comment.