Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So you want a game dev to be paid by a player in exchange for some in-game reward, but then the game dev basically gifts the money back to the player? Because it's their money at that point in the transaction.
The player doesn't pay for it. I do. It is their money. They could cash out the funds and walk away. They will get an instant reminder what they spent, money that would be thrown away for a fancy sprite. Those games don't cost anything to develop, they target people's weaknesses and exploit them.
This doesn't make any sense. So you would have people give you their money, and then when they open a loot box, instead of a skin or whatever it would just be a message like "haha, you expected a skin for your character, but it's actually just shares in an S&P 500 ETF!"
Wouldn't that get old pretty quickly? Like, it's not a surprise. Why would people play this "game" instead of literally any other game where their microtransactions at least go toward the semblance of fun (even if that fun is fleeting and exploitative)?
The idea is that they get both. The reward of the game but also growing their bonds. There are fees that need to be paid so this is not as easy as the idea makes it out to be but i like the concept.
So the game takes your money, puts it in the stock market for you, and then gives you a loot box with some skins in it. What's to stop me from taking my money out of the stock market, putting it back into the game, and buying another loot box?
The money sounds irrelevant to the loot box here. What we really have is a game that is moving your money to somewhere kind of inconvenient and then separately from that transaction just giving you a free loot box. Part of the fun of lootboxes for people who enjoy them is the fact that you are paying something for them. If you don't actually give anything to the game, then the game might as well just be a big button that generates a new loot box every time you click it. There's no cost associated with opening a loot box in this idea.
The game is supposed to be a piggy bank for gambling addicts. You do not get money back right away. In the market you could sell your shares but the game manages it for you as a means to protect the gamer from downwards spirals.