League of Legends dev Riot Games details how it ensures fairer loot box odds
Leading MOBA studio is the latest to share drop rates as scrutiny over monetisation continues
Riot Games has become the latest company to detail the chances of receiving new in-game items from two upcoming forms of loot box.
Interestingly, the studio behind League of Legends has gone one step further and not only declared the drop rates for each type of loot, but also detailed some of the rules governing item generation via a FAQ on the site.
The studio assures players that all skins, regardless of rating, will have the same odds of dropping - i.e. an 'ultimate' skin is just as likely to appear as the most basic. Similarly it promises to protect against bad luck, claiming no user can open three chests in a row without receiving at least one skin shard or more than 50 boxes without getting a gemstone.
Finally, Riot Games has stipulated that negative behaviour from players will lock them out of earning loot boxes for some time, depending on the severity of their punishment.
These rules apply to both the new Hextech Chests and upcoming Masterwork Chests, which can be earned either through winning matches or purchased directly from the store.
Riot also says it is "looking at features to allow you to use... duplicate shards in various ways", recognising that players may well receive items they already own.
The studio behind League of Legends is the latest in a series of prominent companies that have opted to be more transparent how they monetise their games. Most recently, Bluehole detailed the loot drops for PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.
The mobile space is also shifting towards open declarations of loot box drop rates. Just before Christmas, Apple decreed that all App Store games must make it clear how likely players are to receive randomly generated items.
Of course, this is something that China has been demanding of developers for almost two years.
It's almost certain that more companies will reveal the odds of their loot box drop rates, particularly as the ongoing discussion around whether the monetisation mechanics constitutes gambling continues to attract the attention of politicians and legislators.