![]() ![]() So ultimately, regardless of whatever you might call it a loot box, or a gatcha, or a lucky dip, or locked crates, or whatever, by the spirit of what loot boxes are, all of these systems are all absolutely examples of what we can consider a loot box. Now, I’ll grant you that maybe they’ve gone out of their way to design these systems in such a way that it doesn't meet a very precisely worded definition of a loot box as might be used by the iPadOS App Store or Google Play Store, or by countries like Belgium and The Netherlands, but that's just evidence of a non-standard design. ![]() But then he had to follow that up with the ludicrous claim that Pokémon GO doesn’t represent a “cynical F2P exploitation model”. John himself acknowledged this in his article, stating “Pokémon GO is a game made of random chances from the ground up”. The entire core gameplay loop of Pokémon GO is effectively built around the convergence of multiple random chance systems. Many loot box systems further complicate things by adding in an additional motivating factor with a fear-of-missing-out, with certain rewards only available on a limited time basis, and with no indication given of when, if ever, they will be available again in the future.Īs an aside, though the term “loot box” is typically only applied in a video gaming context, most commonly with so-called free-to-play (F2P) games, the exact same mechanics can also be observed in a range of physical products as well, including capsule toy (the gashapon that “gacha” mechanics get their name from, and which inspired Pokémon’s original name of Capsule Monsters) machines, lucky dips, and even things like Kinder Surprise Eggs and packets of TCG cards. ![]() Also similar to slot machines, receiving the reward is often also a sensory experience, with many games going out of their way to provide things like mini-cut scenes when players obtain rare items. Much as with slot machines, this is a variable-ratio reinforcement, where the individuals performing the behaviour know that they can eventually get the desired reward so long as they continue the behaviour, but have no idea how many times the behaviour must be performed in order to get the reward. Specifically, loot boxes are an example of positive reinforcement, whereby the behaviour (purchasing a loot box) is strengthened and reinforced by a reward (the loot box provides desirable items). Whereas classical conditioning (such as with Pavlov’s famous experiment with Dogs) results in involuntarily, simple responses, instrumentally conditioned behaviours can be deliberate, complex behaviours to obtain some goal. This is a form of conditioning whereby an individual learns to perform behaviours that produce positive outcomes and avoid those yielding negative outcomes. Loot boxes, and how these are doled out to players (including those players who only purchase them after collecting enough “free” in-game currency to do so), is an application of instrumental conditioning, also known as operant conditioning. These need not necessarily give the player any sort of in-game advantage, and several games do sustain themselves entirely on loot boxes containing only cosmetic items to change a player’s appearance. Depending on the game, the items found in loot boxes might include things such as characters, equipment, and consumables. One stereotypical example of this would be the Sync Pair Scout of Pokémon Masters EX, where players pay to recruit new characters using an in-game currency ( gems) that can be obtained by either paying money, or through gameplay (in limited quantities). The term “loot box” has been used as a loose, catch all term for a variety of monetization mechanics based around an individual paying, either directly or indirectly to receive a randomized item or set of items. So with that in mind, I think it’s time we all had a bit of a chat about Pokémon GO’s various forms of loot boxes, why John’s claim that they're not loot boxes is just flat out wrong, and why these being loot boxes is something we shouldn’t be in denial over. But what really concerns me is that John’s arguments also attracted a large defence force of people who, quite frankly, seemed to take personal offense at the idea that a mechanic they used in a game they enjoyed could possibly be a loot box. ![]() It didn’t take long until for the article to attract appropriate derision for its arguments, including from gaming luminaries like Jim Sterling. In this article, John in effect tried to convince readers that something that walks like a Psyduck, quacks like a Psyduck, and holds its head in pain like a Psyduck, is in fact not a Psyduck. Earlier this month, John Walker wrote an article for Kotaku entitled “ Pokemon Go's Eggs Aren't Lootboxes, They're Fun Presents”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |