Take-Two, the parent company of GTA and Red Dead developers Rockstar Games, has responded to the recent controversy surrounding lootboxes and microtransactions. Speaking at a Credit Suisse event, Take-Two president Karl Slatoff said the company lootbox is not gambling. The executive said Take-Two’s view is the same as that of the Entertainment Software Association earlier this year when it released a statement clearly declaring that lootboxes “are not gambling.”
“We don’t think of it as gambling,” Slatoff said of the lootbox mechanics. “Our view on it is the same as the ESA statement, so [peraturan potensial] will play its way.”
“It’s about making sure that you focus on that, and I think that’s our strategy, that’s our focus. And as long as you keep an eye on that, you’ll be fine. to be really happy with what they got. ”
Despite consumer reactions to in-game lootboxes and rumblings from legislators that something must be done, Take-Two’s stance is anything but surprising. Not only because it fell with the ESA, but because it has big post-release monetization plans of its own: Chairman and CEO Strauss Zelnick recently said that the company wants to include “repeat consumer spending opportunities” in all of its future play.
Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto Online, the multiplayer mode for GTA V, has been a huge success in terms of the revenue it generates from microtransactions. In fact, the mode recently hit its best quarter ever in terms of microtransaction revenue, an important milestone considering that the game launched more than four years ago.
Slatoff goes on to say that it’s all about creating engaging content. If what is being sold is attractive enough and the price is right, consumers will flock to it, he said.
“Yeah, you can’t force consumers to do anything,” Slatoff said. “You try your best to create the best possible experience you can to encourage, and the driving involvement creates value in the franchise. That’s how it is and how it is.”
Microtransactions are not the same as lootboxes, and these are likely more so than the latter Zelnick was referring to. However, as we noted, why such laws can be bad, government regulations may not be the ideal solution – the difference is that our argument is not a lootbox defense.
