MMO Business Roundup: Chinese vs Western gamers, devs against Brexit, and lockboxes as gambling in Australia

    
28
Ex Machina

Welcome back to another quick trip through some of this week’s gaming business tidbits.

Profiling Chinese gamers

Quantic Foundry, the Nick Yee research firm that studies online game analytics in part through its own Gamer Motivation Model, published a blog this week that covers the results of a survey of Chinese gamers specifically. Researchers found that Chinese gamers, who have developed relatively isolated from outside influences, are more likely on average to prioritize competition. Interestingly, the effect of gender and age on gaming motivation in China is much smaller – in some cases non-existent – than in the west, once again suggesting these motivations are purely cultural rather than biological.

Brexit and gaming

Over 1300 video game companies and developers across the UK – including CCP, Bossa Studios, Hi-Rez, and Riot – have signed on to the Games4EU letter urging the government to allow a fresh vote on Brexit in order to avoid what they characterize as a devastating effect on the game industry. (via Gamasutra)

“Brexit is a dire threat to UK interactive entertainment. Leaving the EU’s customs union, single market, VAT area and regulatory framework (in whole or part) will rip up the bedrock on which our industry operates and cause us grave harm, based on our detailed analysis available here. This is already causing serious uncertainty, raising costs and future red tape. Post-Brexit our products face the real risk of becoming more expensive, harder to access, delayed or in the worst case cancelled. We fear UK interactive entertainment businesses being compelled to partially/fully relocate to the EU. We foresee greater problems to hiring talent (risking over time a UK brain drain), loss of important consumer rights and cultural diminishment. All when we should be growing our position as a British success story.”

Lockboxes down under

Finally, the Australian Environment and Communications Reference Committee this week issued a 90-page report after a five-month investigation into lockboxes. The paper homes in on the complexity of the issue and suggests that assessment should be performed on a “case-by-case basis,” but seemed persuaded by arguments that lockboxes are essentially gambling and should be regulated similarly.

“However, there was broad consensus that where real-world currency is exchanged… loot boxes may most closely meet the definitions of gambling (both regulatory and psychological), and therefore a range of risks to players may exist.”

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
G0dl355

You don’t get to toss out the votes of millions because your side lost, doesn’t matter what excuse you vomit up “people didn’t know about XYZ” blah blah blah. Brexit was about regaining control of immigration for MANY, not about video games…sorry no do overs. You lost.

Reader
primal

well theresa mays brexit plan is horrendous. hopefully it gets shot down, as we will never actually leave the EU otherwise.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

The problem is, what would be a good, feasible plan that had any chance of being accepted by the EU — which isn’t willing to accept anything that violates the Good Friday agreement or that gives the UK any benefits not available for all other third party countries? The feasible options are basically May’s plan, a Canada-style deal with a special arrangement for Northern Ireland (which the DUP is very unlikely to accept), a Norway-style deal (which means free movement, and thus immigration, remains), crashing out without a deal (which would be a death blow to every UK company that focuses on the EU, forcing most of them to either close or relocate), or cancelling Brexit altogether.

xpsync
Reader
xpsync

I’m just here for the header pic Ex Machina, can’t remember the last time i was so absorbed watching a movie. It was one of those rare moments, had no idea what it was about, heard it was sci-fi and pretty good, turns out to be the best movie i’ve seen in years, exceptional movie.

Reader
rafael12104

You have to love the Aussies approach to this things. Want to smoke? Here is your cancer with gross pics of the outcomes on packs. Want to drink and drive? Here is your vehicular death and homicide with signs and ads pulling no punches.

Lootboxes, smells like gambling, sounds like gambling and feels like gambling? It’s gambling say the Aussies. Done and dusted.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Jack Pipsam

I wish we had the same proactive approach to the environment.
Australia lags behind on what is our ironic centre-points in tourism campaigns.

Reader
Weilan

Bulgarian cigarette packs also do that, but people still smoke like chimneys.

Nobody cares about that, if people want to smoke, they will smoke the s**t out of those cigarettes. What I find really ironic is looking at women talking about dieting and healthy lifestyle while smoking cigarettes and each time I get an urge to ask them if the cigarettes they smoke are some diet healthy type. xD

comment image

Reader
Mr.McSleaz

Canadian cigarette packs have done this for almost 20 years too.

Reader
Weilan

Did it help? That’s the important question.

oldandgrumpy
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
oldandgrumpy

It may end up under all the rules that cover gambling and they would have to have a license from each state/territory in Australia :). Ultimately those states just want their share of the revenue.

My territory sorts its gambling like this –
https://www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au/about-us

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Armsbend

I am not British so I have no say – but the entire notion of a do-over vote so the lazy do-nothings get a second chance to get off their ass and vote – is patently ridiculous. They deserve nothing.

Reader
Vincent Clark

And what about the large swathe of folks who voted based on misinformation and/or right out lies?

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

It is the responsibility — in fact, obligation — of the voter to ensure they are adequately informed before voting on something. If people don’t do their due diligence on something that’s important to them, then the blame falls on *them* and no one else.

Reader
Bruno Brito

That’s not enough reason to screw an entire country over.

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

You don’t keep having votes over and over again until you get the result that a certain group of people want. Unless you can show that the voting process itself (by this I mean the voting machines, the security of the ballots, or the way the vote was tallied) was fraudulent, I don’t accept the need for a need to have a new vote for this or any other election. So long as people had the ability to make up their own minds and vote accordingly, the vote is valid, IMO.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Actually, yes, you keep getting votes over and over. It’s very much in the definition of democracy (rule by the people). There are even mechanisms to shorten the period of time before a new vote is held, such as with the 2017 General Election, which was held almost 3 years early. And there’s a real chance the same will happen again, with a new General Election happening 3 years early, if the MPs can’t agree on the Brexit deal.

BTW, under UK law referendums aren’t binding. If the parliament decides to reverse course and abort Brexit, even without a new referendum, it’s their prerogative. And if they feel the population now doesn’t want the Brexit they might just abort it on their own, new referendum or not.

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

I meant you can’t keep voting over the *same thing* over and over until you get what you want.

Reader
Bruno Brito

Democracy doesn’t mean “Hey, you get fucked if you choose poorly”. It means that you always have a tool that’s decided by the majority to improve that same majority.

If the people aren’t complacent, you’ll see shitload of votes and other tools working in conjuntion to improve everyone’s lives. Problem is that most democracies are corrupted beyond belief, already, mostly in the bigger countries.

For instance: Just because you elected a bad president, doesn’t mean you don’t have the tools to manage him, deal with him, or ultimately boot him. Trump did shit that would impeach Obama in less than two weeks. That’s a huge demonstration of a corrupt democracy. He’s not being kept there by a majority.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Clarification: Trump is being kept there by a majority of politicians, though not a majority of people; Trump had already lost the popular vote when he was elected, winning only because the US uses a crazy “delegates” system to choose the president, and in the midterms that just happened the Democrats led the popular vote for the House by 8.9 million votes, the largest margin in history.

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

Trump is being kept there in accordance with the US Constitution, which has existed for over 200 years, and defines how presidents are elected, which is by the Electoral College, which Trump did indeed win. There’s nothing “crazy” about it. Obama won by the very same method, as did every president before him. If folks don’t like it, there is an amendment process which can change it. For now, that’s how it works and how it has always worked.

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

Yeah, right. I get it. You hate Trump and would be more than happy to hold the 2016 election over again in the hopes of changing its outcome… because you didn’t like it. That’s exactly the thing I was talking about. Same thing with the anti-Brexit guy above you. You don’t like it and want it to change, so keep voting till you get what you want. A great way to disenfranchise those who voted “wrongly” according to your viewpoint.

MagmaFist
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
MagmaFist

Depends what side of the argument you are on.

Reader
McGuffn

They voted for the extra 350 million pounds for the national health. Which they’re going to need because all that Fortnite addiction in the UK is out of control Do you know how much the Battle Royale version of Methadone is?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
BalsBigBrother

I would suggest that you maybe look into this a little more before you make your own lazy comments. That is as far as I will go on politics on this site even though they have posted about such I am not going to comment on it here.

fallwind
Reader
fallwind

to be fair, the latest vote was a do-over of the one they had in the ’70s (where they got >60% remain).

And I understand why they would like another vote, this time with a clearer question. The last lot was limited to “stay or go” without any refinement of what “go” meant. This ended up with people who had radically different ideas of what leaving would mean voting the same. People who wanted to leave the common market, shut down all the boarders (including breaking the Good Friday agreement), and imposing tariffs were voting the same as those who wanted a softer brexit with staying in the common market, open travel in Northern Ireland, and visa free travel to the EU.

Obviously, this lack of clarity of what “leaving” meant has created a lot of trouble when you need to satisfy everyone just to get 51.1% support.

A new vote could clarify what “leaving” means now that we know the deal. A three answer vote, “stay”, “May Deal”, or “No Deal”, would give a better view of what the people ACTUALLY want.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Cypher

Exactly! The vote in the 70’s was also only taken after the government had negotiated with the EU so people knew exactly what they were voting for… all we got was an opportunity for extremists to get up on stage and lie… we are gonna be so f*****d in the near future and we’ve got no one to blame but ourselves! And why not? People really wanted to punish Scotland for even wanting independence from the UK…

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

IMHO the best process after the “leave” vote should have been:

1. Figure a realistic plan for leaving the EU. Or multiple ones, if a single one that pleases most of the people wasn’t possible.
2. Get the plan or plans through a few negotiation rounds with the EU, to figure which changes would be needed to make them mutually acceptable. Then make prognostics for how the UK will fare under each scenario.
3. Do a second referendum, having as the options the tangible plan or plans, plus aborting the leave altogether and crashing out without a deal. Handle it like a traditional election, including a runoff vote if no option gets 50% of the vote.
4. If one of the leave options won that second vote, trigger Clause 50, knowing you have a feasible and already negotiated roadmap and should be able to immediately leave as soon as the two years waiting period is over, with no need for a transition period and without the confusion now playing out about what will ultimately happen.

This didn’t happen, unfortunately. The UK triggered Clause 50 too soon, without preparing for it, which put everything at risk.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
kgptzac

This is the down side of democracy that voters need to live with. Britain as a whole rejected a greater good for a more “private” good in the first referendum, and now to chase more “private” good a second referendum is proposed…

All I got to say is I expected better from a developed democracy like the UK. David Cameron was wrong to play politics with generational future of his people on the line, and lost that gamble, but two wrongs don’t make it right.

In a democracy we may not carry over sins from our fathers, but we sure are rightly judged by how our neighbors voted.