Talk:Loot box/Archive 1

History intro

I find the sentence "Loot boxes derive from both booster packs of collectible trading cards,[20] which originated in 1886 as promotional items inside packs of cigarettes,[21] and randomised loot drop systems from earlier video games." problematic in terms of sourcing. It has a lot of WP:SYNTH going on. No source directly supports this claim -- that loot boxes derive from booster packs or that loot boxes derive from earlier video game drop systems, or that booster packs are specifically from CCGs or that trading cards originated from cigarette packs. Even the first part is a fairly big leap from "think of this system as like trading card booster packs," to "Loot boxes derive from both booster packs". They probably have close ties, but it's up to a reliable source to say this directly and draw any sort of conclusions. At best, we could say "Loot boxes can be thought of as trading card booster packs" from the first source. And there's nothing we can say from the second without WP:SYNTH, because it says nothing about video games, loot boxes or booster packs. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly use a word other than "derive". I'd be happy with simply "are similar to". WRT the second source, it's merely backing up the claim that trading cards were invented in 1886. It's the same source as used in the trading cards article. --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say "are similar to" when the source never said this. It said "think of this system as like trading card booster packs". It's not even talking about loot boxes, but the "system" of "random chance of dropping something". So, technically, all we can say is "Loot box random drop system can be thought of as similar to trading card booster packs". That's a good piece of info and a fine comparison, and that's sourced exactly to what was said. We can say that. But everything else is not supported by the source. The second source does not even say the words "trading card". There is no link between the material. Neither is there anything about "randomised loot drop systems from earlier video games". And there's definitely nothing in TF2 primary source about "An early example of the two being combined". These are all claims that are very close to reality, but are not sourced and we shouldn't include them. May be there are more or better sources. But video game terminology in general is not well-sourced and there's nothing we can do. Most articles are short or made up of individual factoids. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found new sources which align more closely with the text, but you're splitting hairs to the extreme here. We do not need a citation for cigarette cards being trading cards any more than we do for Wikipedia being a website. --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do and that is not a valid comparison. That source literally does not say the words "trading card". You don't find sources to align with text; you write text to align with sources. This is the core of WP:V. And WP:BURDEN of proof is with whoever is adding content. The sentence is not supported by sources and is a combination of several parts, which is a WP:SYNTH violation. You should only write statements that are part of a source. And never conclude anything in between. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable?

We now have the unreliable sources template without any unreliable sources flagged. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to tag-bomb every source. All the Steam Community ones, YouTube ones, Reddit one. A bunch of unvetted sites, like JoinDota or BlizzardWatch. Then there's all the primary ones that should be replaced with secondary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck with that, as it's certainly not worth my time. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lede:

A couple points. First, per WP:LEDE, the lede does not need citations if all the points are sourced in the body of the article, which they are. Second, the point about some Asian countries regulating loot boxes is true and sourced: China requires loot box distribution stats to be public (a type of regulation), Japan bans the use of "collect commons to put together a rare", and the other two countries mention tie in loot boxes and other issues into whether these game systems overall are types of gambling. Its not saying loot boxes are illegal, just that video game companies in those countries have to conform to certain laws. The other parts of the lede are also sourced to the body via the criticism section. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Specific examples" section

I think this section has problems.

Where it talks about Overwatch it reads like a puff piece for Blizzard. The quote from Mike Morhaime is worth keeping but the rest of it should go in my opinion. This is an article about loot boxes, not the items they give out or how any one specific company responded to customer complaints.

Where it talks about Battlefront it digresses into a discussion of pay-to-win before becoming a chronology which belongs in the History section. The debacle is definitely worth documenting, but only from the perspective of the loot boxes themselves and the responses to them from European governments. Tom Edwards (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OW section is showing that journalists don't consider OW's loot boxes are criticized by players/journalists outside of things like dup ratio. In other words, loot boxes are not inherently bad. It is actually difficult to find any strong criticism that is backed by sources of OW, excluding that they are being grouped into the gambling discussion for regulation.

Battlefront, while it can go into the history, is the fact that mainstream press (non-gaming) is calling out the game's loot box problem, and even the Telegraph is saying this may be a tipping point. (There's word via Venture Beat that EA's last minute change was directed by Disney but that's only a supposition). Now, maybe in a few weeks or so, when there may be clear fall out from Battlefront, it might go back to history, but this is probably the example of loot boxes that has the most coverage as an egregious example. Its chronology should be considered separate from the chrono of loot boxes in general. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New OW source

[1] has some useful quotes re: OW's system czar 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loot boxes and gacha games

I've created Category:Gacha games, and then found out we have Category:Video games containing loot boxes. I am not sure if those should or shouldn't be merged, and whether gacha games and loot box articles should be mrged as well. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are different enough concepts. They clearly relate to each other, and this loot box article is covering them both because of their common DNA, but I wouldn't combine them 100%, due to the mostly Asian nature of gacha games compared to loot boxes. --Masem (t) 06:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem, considering games are often delineated by whether they are from the East or West, it seems fine to delineate loot boxes by that distinction too. Combining them will not serve any beneficial purpose and there is merit to separating them._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they're considered different enough to not merge, why is the language in the article "also known as gacha"? There are similarities, but they're most definitely not synonyms.Desirsar (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying gameplay is loosely tied (enough) to loot boxes that the idea of "gacha" needs to be mentioned, but "gacha games" are still distinct from loot boxes themselves as they are physical games predicating loot boxes. --Masem (t) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“gacha” isn’t just any loot - it emphasizes collectibles; completing a collection. Loot boxes are a broader concept. And as mentioned, different histories. Not appropriate to merge. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwatch section is hardly neutral

The entire section praises the system, yet two of the first sources directly criticize the system for still being a form of gambling and still possibly taking away the joy of the game. It might still be one of the better ones, but "is considered a harmless use of loot boxes" is far too generous given two sources used for the first sentence criticize it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The complains of those sources primarily boil down to 1) you can't directly by a skin you want with real world money - you have to play to get gold or spend money to get loot boxes to get gold for loot boxes, and 2) the rate/duplicate conversion rate for gold is low enough that it encourages player to pay for loot boxes to try to get at skins they want faster, which leads to gambling-like behavior. I've emphasized those points in the last sentence. --Masem (t) 13:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loot box hypen

Regarding hyphenation. "Loot box" is a term, ~~it doesn't form a compound adjective~~, so it shouldn't be hyphenated in cases like "loot box system". That's like hyphenating "video game" in "video game development". Unless I am misunderstanding something here? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand what "compound adjective" means, and need to go look it up. Any noun (or other) phrase used to modify another noun or noun phrase becomes a compound adjective, by definition. If you have, for example, a system log and you regularly do something specific with it, that's your system-log routine (compound adjective, system-log, modifying noun routine). Various forms of specialized writing do not bother hyphenating compound adjectives if and when they are clear to other specialist readers in the specific context, but Wikipedia does hyphenate them (see MOS:HYPHEN), and so do other general-audience publishers [note: that's general-audience publishers, not general audience publishers]. See The Chicago Manual of Style and many other style guides for further information. The short version is that compound adjectives are hyphenated to group them and make the meaning clearer to people who are not already subject-matter experts [note the hyphen again; it's not subject matter experts] in the topic at hand. Thus, hyphenate narrow-gauge railway, banana-bag IV, loot-box system, etc., etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where you're coming from, the way I read MOS:HYPHEN does not require them if the confusion is not there. There is no such thing as a "box system" modified by "loot"; the phrase "loot box system" has only one obvious meaning. --Masem (t) 00:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Manual of Style 7.80: "Where no ambiguity could result, as in public welfare administration or graduate student housing, hyphenation is unnecessary." — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Microtransaction article in lead

@Masem:. What's this "video game microtransaction" article you're referring to in your revert? I see no such page linked to in the article body or the lead.

I'm also confused as to what you mean by too many "micro-" aspects. There isn't a single word with "micro" in it in the lead.

IMO it's essential to mention microtransactions in the lead, since loot boxes are often considered to be a major subclass of them, and understanding the concept is central to what a loot box is. The article body should probably also do a better job of explaining the connection.

If the wording was not ideal, it should be fixed instead of the whole thing being reverted. --Veikk0.ma 06:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was mistaken about having "micro-" something in the lead already, I missed that. However, I don't loot boxes always fall as "microtransactions" as more as they are still monetization of video games, particularly in games where you can't buy loot boxes directly but buy coins or similar in-game currency which may be spent then on lootboxes. Its a subtle but important difference. There are games where loot boxes are bought directly and thus are microtransactions but this is not universal. --Masem (t) 06:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit didn't universally classify loot boxes as microtransactions, it stated that they are typically considered as such. If that's the issue, the wording can be changed to "often".

Loot boxes not being microtransactions because of a simple currency conversion (which is what in-game currency obtainable with real money boils down to in the end) is going to the territory of splitting hairs. What we as editors think of the issue doesn't really matter that much anyway, as I'm sure loot boxes typically being considered microtransactions can be sourced easily enough. --Veikk0.ma 06:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that it started with TF2 in the west

The article which is cited and attributed to the statement: " The first appearances of loot boxes in these regions was with Team Fortress 2 in September 2010, when Valve added the ability to earn random "crates" to be opened with purchased keys." is attributed to the source[2] which only seems to mention team fortress in the context: "The list of "games with loot boxes" is painfully long—and gets longer if we get into the history of the practice, which would have to include Team Fortress 2, huge Eastern MMOs, and Japan's wave of "Gacha" smartphone games." And that's it. It doesn't seem to support a single claim in that sentence and EA already had Ultimate team, which is more or less a loot box (it's not in box form) rolling for like 3 years at that point.--222.109.164.154 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added FIFA 09 (w/ confirmed of how its ultimate team worked at that point) and reworked how TF2 is described so that neither are necessarily the "first" but "among the first". --Masem (t) 06:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]