EA, it's a trap! begining of the end for packs/loot boxes

Comments

  • TalentFG
    1558 posts Play-Off Hero
    Rutta wrote: »
    TalentFG wrote: »
    as said by others on here Disney and George lucas will not allow the star wars brand to be trashed so e.a have to make massive changes on top of what they have done already or risk losing the license which in the long term would be billions not millions in lost revenue and the share price[/quote

    Could FIFA not apply the same approach to the use of their license?

    I think FIFAs brand/name has been dragged through the mud enough these past few years for them to give a damn about EA tarnishing it anymore through digital packs.

    I do agree but "if" Disney pull the plug pressure may grow on FIFA

    It's at least a possibility
  • TOMMYxCOOPER
    4102 posts National Call-Up
    if this drags on all over the world it would seem likely Disney would pull the plug

    all about e.a now..how many changes are they willing to make...if the changes are huge you can see fifa being next on the hit list
  • illinifan
    8676 posts League Winner
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.
  • Tof33z
    7042 posts Big Money Move
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump
  • Knowlesdinho
    13341 posts Has That Special Something
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    This made me laugh.
  • LuckyStrikE
    3484 posts National Call-Up
    edited November 2017
    Blarix wrote: »
    Big difference between Fifa and BF.

    IF you want to play with Messi/Ronaldo you can do so in minutes by going single player/online seasons etc. You buy packs with FP not actual money. If you think EA didn't have serious lawyers look into this before than you're grossly underestimating their team. They have legally covered themselves air tight and any court would throw it out. It says on the pack exactly what you get in it, they never say certain player as that would be gambling if you don't get him.

    You underestimate how incompetent lawyers can be. I deal with some of the highest earning lawyers from corporations and you will be surprised how little they know and they can only protect you from laws that are in place. A change like this is something the Lawyers at EA will struggle to prepare for.

    It is a gamble btw. You cant just say go play another mode to play with Maradona 95 or Ronaldo 94. You advertise them and then say give me $3 and I'll give you a chance to get them and use them in the mode that I have heavily advertised and given pre-order content for to entice you into the mode. Hiding a gambling game inside a regular game is not the most amazing cover you can have.

    IF EA make a record amount of money this BF promotion they will give those lawmakers all the ammunition they need to start a battle.

    EA are in a very tight situation right now.
  • Eyeball
    281 posts Sunday League Hero
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.
    It's about legislation. Star Wars loot boxes appear to have started this process a lot sooner than expected.

    Maybe court action will come later like PPI and bank charges? :tongue:

    I still think FUT deserves the Nobel Prize for Entertainment. It's a genius invention. :grin:
  • TalentFG
    1558 posts Play-Off Hero
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    This made me laugh.

    It's the way they then call you dumb for not understanding that gets me.

    Stupidity knows no bounds
  • Painter753
    8824 posts League Winner
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.
    You don't always receive what you pay for. Plenty of times has EA included regular golds in TOTW packs and last year I got 11 regular golds instead of 11 Red Monthly IF's.
  • Whoever says buying packs isn't a form of gambling need help........specifically from google dictionary.

    Definition of gambling
    verb
    1.
    play games of chance for money; bet.
    "he gambles on football"
    synonyms: bet, wager, place a bet, lay a bet, stake money on something, back the horses, try one's luck on the horses; More
    bet (a sum of money).
    "they gambled their money on cards"
    2.
    take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
    "he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel"
    synonyms: take a chance, take a risk, take a leap in the dark, leave things to chance, speculate, venture, buy a pig in a poke; More



  • Blarix
    20845 posts Club Captain
    Painter753 wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.
    You don't always receive what you pay for. Plenty of times has EA included regular golds in TOTW packs and last year I got 11 regular golds instead of 11 Red Monthly IF's.

    You don't pay for those packs :joy:
  • illinifan
    8676 posts League Winner
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.
  • illinifan
    8676 posts League Winner
    Eyeball wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.
    It's about legislation. Star Wars loot boxes appear to have started this process a lot sooner than expected.

    Maybe court action will come later like PPI and bank charges? :tongue:

    I still think FUT deserves the Nobel Prize for Entertainment. It's a genius invention. :grin:

    That would be an interesting series of events. I don’t know if it would get anywhere, but if the legal definition of gambling is changed to include lootboxes or packs, I don’t see how FUT would continue. Maybe a direct EA to player marketplace in which a player can buy cards for a set price determined by EA would be instituted.
  • Tof33z
    7042 posts Big Money Move
    edited November 2017
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in
  • maymanpele
    14423 posts Has That Special Something
    Can't wait to watch this mother fuxker burn to the ground
  • illinifan
    8676 posts League Winner
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in

    I understand your argument, but technically all cards in FUT have no value. If I recall correctly, in the terms and conditions, you play FUT acknowledging that you have no legal ownership of anything you have in FUT. I understand how it could be perceived as morally wrong, but monetarily, Prime Ronaldo is worth no more than NIF Shelvey, he is only worth more “coins”, which have zero monetary value.
  • Tof33z
    7042 posts Big Money Move
    edited November 2017
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in

    I understand your argument, but technically all cards in FUT have no value. If I recall correctly, in the terms and conditions, you play FUT acknowledging that you have no legal ownership of anything you have in FUT. I understand how it could be perceived as morally wrong, but monetarily, Prime Ronaldo is worth no more than NIF Shelvey, he is only worth more “coins”, which have zero monetary value.

    Once again irrelevant. The money you pay has value. But like I said, court cases and legislation are probably a secondary issue. Once it's mainstream, the stock is dropping and investment funds are offloading it as it's not seen as being ethical then the crisis is real. It's the reputational hit that will kill the company stock and the sales, not the courts. Sure there'll be some legal moves and early shots like we're seeing now but fundamentally EA can't let it become a purely legal issue that they defend only in the courts. The damage is done by then.

    Once this kind of thing gets momentum {irony intended} it's nearly impossible to stop
  • Si
    192 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Honestly thought the 'State Representative' was a teenager who'd spent thousands on the game, with his furious Mam next to him :D
  • Eyeball
    281 posts Sunday League Hero
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in

    I understand your argument, but technically all cards in FUT have no value. If I recall correctly, in the terms and conditions, you play FUT acknowledging that you have no legal ownership of anything you have in FUT. I understand how it could be perceived as morally wrong, but monetarily, Prime Ronaldo is worth no more than NIF Shelvey, he is only worth more “coins”, which have zero monetary value.
    I play FUT so obviously I agreed to EA's terms but I also have statutory rights that could result in EA's FUT cards have no value term being declared unenforceable.

    Probably it'll never happen that someone will corroborate EA can or cannot enforce their claim that FUT cards have no value. :tongue:
  • Knowlesdinho
    13341 posts Has That Special Something
    Eyeball wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in

    I understand your argument, but technically all cards in FUT have no value. If I recall correctly, in the terms and conditions, you play FUT acknowledging that you have no legal ownership of anything you have in FUT. I understand how it could be perceived as morally wrong, but monetarily, Prime Ronaldo is worth no more than NIF Shelvey, he is only worth more “coins”, which have zero monetary value.
    I play FUT so obviously I agreed to EA's terms but I also have statutory rights that could result in EA's FUT cards have no value term being declared unenforceable.

    Probably it'll never happen that someone will corroborate EA can or cannot enforce their claim that FUT cards have no value. :tongue:

    I seem to remember Bruce Willis having some beef with Apple over property rights. He wanted to pass all the music that he had bought to his daughter when he dies, but Apple said he couldn't because despite buying the music, he didn't own it.

    All these corporations are shady!
  • Shaanxz
    21402 posts Club Captain
    Won’t happen, with packs you know what you’re getting
  • Eyeball
    281 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited November 2017
    Eyeball wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    Technically, it’s not gambling if you are receiving what you pay for. If you open a Jumbo Rare Players Pack, you receive 24 rare gold players. Of course there are variations in the gold cards you receive, but you still get 24 at the end of the day.

    Don't be stupid. By your argument if a bookie just offered a sum of money if your horse wins then it isn't gambling. Idiotic argument.

    Specifying the nature of a prize but not it's value doesn't make it legit. It makes it a lot LESS legit than other gambling where a bookie is upfront about exactly what you can win and under what circumstances. We won't even get into the possibility that ea adjust pack odds by criteria known only to themselves.

    Last but not least, legal definitions don't matter a hoot here. A court case is the end game after the damage is done and the issue has become mainstream, shareholders are raising hell and parents are debating whether this is something they want their kids to have. The potential catastrophe is well ahead of a court case that will take years and will anyway have different legal definitions in every jurisdiction that EA operates in

    I understand your argument, but technically all cards in FUT have no value. If I recall correctly, in the terms and conditions, you play FUT acknowledging that you have no legal ownership of anything you have in FUT. I understand how it could be perceived as morally wrong, but monetarily, Prime Ronaldo is worth no more than NIF Shelvey, he is only worth more “coins”, which have zero monetary value.
    I play FUT so obviously I agreed to EA's terms but I also have statutory rights that could result in EA's FUT cards have no value term being declared unenforceable.

    Probably it'll never happen that someone will corroborate EA can or cannot enforce their claim that FUT cards have no value. :tongue:

    I seem to remember Bruce Willis having some beef with Apple over property rights. He wanted to pass all the music that he had bought to his daughter when he dies, but Apple said he couldn't because despite buying the music, he didn't own it.

    All these corporations are shady!
    I remember it. The digital world of licenses and limited rights of use.

    Consumer laws have been significantly bolstered. Probably it's enough that shady corporations will get their comeuppance eventually. :wink:
  • maymanpele
    14423 posts Has That Special Something
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    Won’t happen, with packs you know what you’re getting

    Remind me the exact odds of getting 96 Ronaldo. 0% right?
  • JimmyVulmer
    6506 posts Big Money Move
    Tof33z wrote: »
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    I love how people say it's not gambling then talk about pack odds.

    Intellect of a tree stump

    I'll bet you twenty bucks I can get you gambling before the end of the day
  • Recardo
    9099 posts League Winner
    been saying this for years.

  • Shaanxz
    21402 posts Club Captain
    maymanpele wrote: »
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    Won’t happen, with packs you know what you’re getting

    Remind me the exact odds of getting 96 Ronaldo. 0% right?

    But you know you’re getting 3 rare cards
  • Recardo
    9099 posts League Winner
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    maymanpele wrote: »
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    Won’t happen, with packs you know what you’re getting

    Remind me the exact odds of getting 96 Ronaldo. 0% right?

    But you know you’re getting 3 rare cards

    when you play the lottery. you buy 6 numbers. whats your point. :D
  • S P 4 C E Y
    2537 posts Fans' Favourite
    Like countless others have said, this will realistically get nowhere in court. You always receive what you pay for. The most I could see coming out of this would be the inforcement of EA publishing pack odds and so forth, just to appease the people who are outraged at this, but packs will never leave UT.

    "You always receive what you pay for"

    No, you observably don't. In the U.K. for instance, all gambling (including fixed oddds betting machines) must publicise their odds. Video games do not.

    Some degree of legislative attention was always going to happen. There are predatory tactics used by game's developers to milk young gamers of money. There are any number of similar tactics that would not be legal in other areas of life.

    'Loot boxes' are becoming more and more common, and are a very lucrative part of video games. Developers will inevitably push the boundary until legislators are persuaded, or forced, to push back.
  • ALIST4R
    3874 posts National Call-Up
    The argument keeps boiling down to whether it’s gambling or not. Both sides have a good argument, if you can’t see that then you’re blind. But it’s blantently obvious how bad this stuff is for gaming. It’s introducing gambling(or atleast parts of gambling) to children in the early years of growth. It’s not good and needs to be changed somehow. Simple as that.

    If some guy who makes $1 million a year decides to drop $4,000 on fifa, so what? But this is a form of gambling and kids are being introduced to it in a very unhealthy way. There’s no positive to how out of control micro-transactions have gotten.
  • maymanpele
    14423 posts Has That Special Something
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    maymanpele wrote: »
    Shaanxz wrote: »
    Won’t happen, with packs you know what you’re getting

    Remind me the exact odds of getting 96 Ronaldo. 0% right?

    But you know you’re getting 3 rare cards

    And EA also make non rares randomly rare without warning lol
Sign In or Register to comment.