Belgium, Hawaii to ban, regulate in-game loot boxes as gambling

[ktchong]

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by ktchong

[Volourn]

L0L Nazis will Nazi.

 

If people want to gamble let them. Their money their lives their choice.

 

 

It is all about power, control, and slavery.

[ktchong]

L0L Nazis will Nazi.

 

If people want to gamble let them. Their money their lives their choice.

 

 

It is all about power, control, and slavery.

 

Except video games are targeted at children.  The minds of children are not fully developed, and they lack self-control.  Which is why EA and other video game companies are  targeting children for exploitation and predatory business practices: children are easy targets.     EA and video games company were stupid to think they could get away with targeting children with predatory business practices.

 

FYI, while adults are allowed to gamble, children are banned from gambling in every country, every civilization, all over the world.

Edited November 22, 2017 by ktchong

[Archaven]

I hate political and authority forced and intervened onto gaming. But EA predatory practices where making people pay micro-transactions for progressions are really over the boiling point. Micro-transactions should only be allowed for free to play games and for cosmetic purposes not pay to win or pay to progress. Gamers should unite to boycott such unethical practices!

[ShadySands]

I'm surprised the US hasn't done anything to double down on it just to be contrary to Europe

[Belle Sorciere]

Belgium has not announced it will ban lootboxes. One person involved in the investigation opined that this would be the case, but the investigation simply isn't that far along yet.

[Volourn]

"Except video games are targeted at children.  The minds of children are not fully developed, and they lack self-control.  Which is why EA and other video game companies are  targeting children for exploitation and predatory business practices: children are easy targets.     EA and video games company were stupid to think they could get away with targeting children with predatory business practices.

 

FYI, while adults are allowed to gamble, children are banned from gambling in every country, every civilization, all over the world."

 

EPIC FAIL.

 

Children don't have money. The parents are the targets. The parents are the ones who are choosing to gamble their money. Not the children. So, stop making nonsense up.

 

But, hey, keep defending Nazism and using the 'ol 'what bout the childs' silliness.

 

Again, ON REPEAT, children do not have money so they cannot be targets of 'gambling'. The parents - who are adults - are.

[Malcador]

L0L Nazis will Nazi.

 

If people want to gamble let them. Their money their lives their choice.

 

 

It is all about power, control, and slavery.

Came here to see this post.

[Mamoulian War]

Children have more money than you can imagine.

[Blarghagh]

Hah! Brought this on yourself, game industry. Self-regulate before the government does it for you - you used to know this lesson.

[Hurlshort]

This is pretty dumb. I don't like them, but they aren't any different than those contests on cereal boxes, or those sticker machines in every grocery store in the US. You spend money, you get something. It may not be what you wanted, but that doesn't make it gambling. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

L0L Nazis will Nazi.

 

If people want to gamble let them. Their money their lives their choice.

 

 

It is all about power, control, and slavery.

This post actually reeks of Nietzsche (cited at the start of BG1, for instance), ironically a philosopher who Nazis twisted as to fit their own world view, ultimately misunderstanding and misinterpreting a number of his major arguments in so doing. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[Blarghagh]

This is pretty dumb. I don't like them, but they aren't any different than those contests on cereal boxes, or those sticker machines in every grocery store in the US. You spend money, you get something. It may not be what you wanted, but that doesn't make it gambling. 

 

Actually, those things are gambling. They just fall under non-regulated gambling. As far as I'm aware, anyway. Not sure how it works everywhere. I'd compare it more to, say, booster packs for a TCG.

 

That being said, most of those are non-regulated because they generally offer things of equal value (ignoring emotional value, anyway) and loot boxes often don't. Even booster packs generally have set rules of "will contain so and so amount of cards of this, this and this predetermined value mode like common or rare". Loot boxes generally do not. It's more like you pay some and get some but really are gambling on a higher value payout. Besides that, other key differences are that most games also offer the same boxes as rewards for skill or gametime, meaning that it's possible not to pay at all, and the contents of a reward pack (booster pack, blind collectible toys) is not pre-determined before purchase but randomly generated at the moment of purchase.

 

Varies per game, naturally, and these things are certainly not all arguments to classify it as illegal gambling. But Battlefront in particular certainly took it far enough to examine that question, especially with their connection progression based competition and famous IPs like Star Wars.

[evilcat]

Some countries have laws about gambling and hazard. Like age restriction, area limit, taxing, license. If you want sell casino platform, that is probably legal, all rules applied.

 

There are a lot of gray areas when gambling is or isnt: Kinder Suprise Eggs, Claw Mashine. Collectable Card Games. Draft King. 

The logic seems to be "Nobody really thought  about it so far". But if you can sneak in gambling as not a gaming, you can win a lot.

Regulations are generally to undermine human entrepreneurship, no asbestos, no marketing to kids, no synthetic playground cover, no slavery.

This is why we cant have nice things.

 

The worst thing to happen is: Overwatch will no longer have that sweet, sweet, lootboxes, instead you just get coins coins after match and buy item from shop like some weird animal in Splatoon. That is outrageaoius!

Edited November 22, 2017 by evilcat

[Volourn]

Comparing prizes in a cereal boxes to actual gambling is rather stretching it. People are gonna buy cereal to eat. the 'prize' is just something tossed in. You aren't PAYINg for the prizes. There is no risk involved. Youa re getting what you paid for.

[GhostofAnakin]

In general, I don't side with government regulations of this sort of thing.

 

But I'll make an exception this time because it's EA, and those guys deserve every bad thing they get.

[HoonDing]

You'd think Belgium had other stuff to take care of. Just look at what's going on in Brussels. It's like living in a hellhole.

[Gfted1]

Hmm, the demographic results of a recent survey (in the US) does not support games being purchased primarily by children. Weird.

 

Take a look at the average American gamer in new survey findings.

 

But maybe most European players are minor children?
 

[Katphood]

Good. God bless both Hawaii and Belgium. I hope EA goes bankrupt.

 

You'd think Belgium had other stuff to take care of. Just look at what's going on in Brussels. It's like living in a hellhole.

 

Well, you know the old saying: If you hate immigrants then stop making them.

[213374U]

L0L Nazis will Nazi.

 

If people want to gamble let them. Their money their lives their choice.

 

 

It is all about power, control, and slavery.

 

"First they came for the lootboxes, and I did not speak out-

because I hate microtransactions..."

[Zoraptor]

Hmm, the demographic results of a recent survey (in the US) does not support games being purchased primarily by children. Weird.

 

Take a look at the average American gamer in new survey findings.

 

But maybe most European players are minor children?

 

 

You need to keep your terms clear- are you talking about games being primarily purchased by children or played by them? I presume the latter, since that's what the ESA report is about (bonus for linking directly: avoids hits for Polygon). Their data shows that children are disproportionately game players, even if you include those that literally could not play due to being too young 29% of game players are under 18 while they make up ~25% of the US population. If you exclude those less than 4 as being highly unlikely to play games you get ~18% of the general population but 29% of the gamers.

 

In any case you can and often do aim a product at one group while having a secondary group be the actual largest market. Programmes on TV usually are aimed at young people because they garner the best advertising rates, but they're almost always watched primarily by oldies instead since oldies watch standard TV a lot more than young people both absolutely and as a proportion. In this particular case we also have the game being part of a franchise (Star Wars) that is specifically aimed at children and has most of its other merchandise specifically aimed at children.

[Orogun01]

I never thought I would see anyone in a gaming forum defending micro transactions and pay to win. I guess some people deserve to be cheated.

[Humanoid]

I don't think the target demographic thing even matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a big talking point, yes, and is an easy political target, but why should that be the determining factor? Casinos are marketed at adults, are regulated, and still operate legally and successfully. In the same way, lootboxes can also be marketed purely at adults, can be regulated, and still can be a legal and successful revenue stream for gaming companies.

 

A lot of the debate stems from the reporting at times using the terms "regulating" and "banning" almost interchangeably and leads a lot of people being inevitably categorised into being either for both, or against both. It turns the argument into one of black and white: should it or shouldn't it? Surely the sensible question would be about the extent to which it's regulated. Casinos, lotteries, betting, sweepstakes, and yes, competitions on the back of cereal boxes are all regulated, and are all still viable practices. Why can't there be a sensible debate on where lootboxes fit into that spectrum, and thus apply the appropriate level of regulation to them?

 

I mean look at the laws around stuff as simple as those crane games in shopping centres, y'know those machines where you manipulate a mechanical claw to grab a stuffed toy or whatever. Those are regulated and tested to ensure "fairness". Surely it's fine in that context to apply some level of due diligence to videogame gambling just so it isn't a complete wild west scenario.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Humanoid

[smjjames]

About time ingame/inapp purchases are cracked down on, I hate the in-game/app purchases (the ones that allow you to get for free and pay for full later are fine though) because a lot of those have become pay-to-win and I just dislike the way that games have become with that stuff. Similar for DLC, but some companies are better with it than others.

[Hurlshort]

I never thought I would see anyone in a gaming forum defending micro transactions and pay to win. I guess some people deserve to be cheated.

Who is defending it?