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

[Belle Sorciere]

"Your defenses of lootboxes and microtransactions are the most fervent and least logical in this thread. So... Orogun01 isn't wrong to point out that you're defending them, on account of you defending them."

 

Except I';m not defending them. I'm attacking gov't interverence on people's choice. If you (or I) don't like lootboxes (or gambling) we have the damn choice not do it.   I don't need or want the gov't babysitting me in this regard.

\

Why do you believe in power, slavery, and Nazism?

 

Why are you anti freedom?

 

Like I said, most fervent and least logical. Is this the best you can muster?

[Belle Sorciere]

Volo is quite right.

 

That not liking lootboxes is like believing in power, slavery, and Nazism? That not liking lootboxes is anti-freedom? How hysterical can you get?

[Volourn]

No. Not liking lootboxes doesn't make one pro power, slavery, or Nazism. But, believing the gov't should come in tell people what they can spend their money or what is 'bad' for them is acceptable. Unlike most, I don't believe the Nanny State should be our goal. I believe in personal responsibility and choice.

 

btw, Being against such a ban doesn't make me 'pro lootbox'.

 

I believe all drugs including steroids should be legal. That is despite the fact outside of one puff of a cieggeratte when I was kid I have never touched drugs 9well I guess outside of the 'drug' known as alcohol lol).

 

I also think people who choose to go bungy jumping are stupid idiots taking a risk for a cheap thrill... but I also don't believe the gov't should ban it either. And, that's risking your life not a few $. LMAO

 

Yet I guarantee you that most of the same people in this thread demanding the gov't ban 'gambling' and lootboxes would be OUTRAGED if the gov't banned bungyjumping.

 

 

R00fles!

[Belle Sorciere]

No. Not liking lootboxes doesn't make one pro power, slavery, or Nazism. But, believing the gov't should come in tell people what they can spend their money or what is 'bad' for them is acceptable. Unlike most, I don't believe the Nanny State should be our goal. I believe in personal responsibility and choice.

 

btw, Being against such a ban doesn't make me 'pro lootbox'.

 

I believe all drugs including steroids should be legal. That is despite the fact outside of one puff of a cieggeratte when I was kid I have never touched drugs 9well I guess outside of the 'drug' known as alcohol lol).

 

I also think people who choose to go bungy jumping are stupid idiots taking a risk for a cheap thrill... but I also don't believe the gov't should ban it either. And, that's risking your life not a few $. LMAO

 

Yet I guarantee you that most of the same people in this thread demanding the gov't ban 'gambling' and lootboxes would be OUTRAGED if the gov't banned bungyjumping.

 

 

R00fles!

 

It does make you pro lootbox, though. You're advocating for their continued existence, while accusing those who are against them of being Nazis and now pro-slavery. Really, your arguments are hysterical in both senses of the word.

 

Also, do you know why the ESRB and PEGI exist? Do you realize you lost the battle you're trying to fight here over two decades ago? Do you understand what's at stake or are you just calling people Nazis because you don't like what they have to say?

[Belle Sorciere]

Really, what gets me about your argument isn't so much your stance whether you're for lootboxes or against them or for regulation or against it, but that you're accusing people of being Nazis, of being for slavery, if they don't agree with you. Until now I thought the whole "calling people Nazis when they disagree with you" was a straw man and you've thrown that out the window.

 

Maybe, IDK, try to sound more rational, and there'll be room for actual discussion.

[Orogun01]

No. Not liking lootboxes doesn't make one pro power, slavery, or Nazism. But, believing the gov't should come in tell people what they can spend their money or what is 'bad' for them is acceptable. Unlike most, I don't believe the Nanny State should be our goal. I believe in personal responsibility and choice.

 

btw, Being against such a ban doesn't make me 'pro lootbox'.

 

I believe all drugs including steroids should be legal. That is despite the fact outside of one puff of a cieggeratte when I was kid I have never touched drugs 9well I guess outside of the 'drug' known as alcohol lol).

 

I also think people who choose to go bungy jumping are stupid idiots taking a risk for a cheap thrill... but I also don't believe the gov't should ban it either. And, that's risking your life not a few $. LMAO

 

Yet I guarantee you that most of the same people in this thread demanding the gov't ban 'gambling' and lootboxes would be OUTRAGED if the gov't banned bungyjumping.

 

 

R00fles!

My takeaway is that Volo wants crack on his coffee and we shouldn't be forced to disclose it beforehand.

[redneckdevil]

 

No. Not liking lootboxes doesn't make one pro power, slavery, or Nazism. But, believing the gov't should come in tell people what they can spend their money or what is 'bad' for them is acceptable. Unlike most, I don't believe the Nanny State should be our goal. I believe in personal responsibility and choice.

 

btw, Being against such a ban doesn't make me 'pro lootbox'.

 

I believe all drugs including steroids should be legal. That is despite the fact outside of one puff of a cieggeratte when I was kid I have never touched drugs 9well I guess outside of the 'drug' known as alcohol lol).

 

I also think people who choose to go bungy jumping are stupid idiots taking a risk for a cheap thrill... but I also don't believe the gov't should ban it either. And, that's risking your life not a few $. LMAO

 

Yet I guarantee you that most of the same people in this thread demanding the gov't ban 'gambling' and lootboxes would be OUTRAGED if the gov't banned bungyjumping.

 

 

R00fles!

It does make you pro lootbox, though. You're advocating for their continued existence, while accusing those who are against them of being Nazis and now pro-slavery. Really, your arguments are hysterical in both senses of the word.

 

Also, do you know why the ESRB and PEGI exist? Do you realize you lost the battle you're trying to fight here over two decades ago? Do you understand what's at stake or are you just calling people Nazis because you don't like what they have to say?

Volo isn't FOR loot boxes, he's against gov't stepping in and doing something when instead it should be US the consumer who does something instead.

It's not the product, it's who regulating he has a problem with.

 

Look at it another way, would everyone be okay with the instead of all the ruckus that the gov't instead stepped in and said that loot boxes gambling was OK for children? What are people gonna do then, bend over and take it bc they gave the decision making to the govt or do something and chose themselves?

The "nanny state" can be a double edged sword in decision making because what it decides then becomes "official" weither we agree or not.

I mean hell, why get the govt involved when all ya gotta do is just get the internet to get really loud in it's bitching and moaning and company change to make public happy or go bust when no one buys it. No need for govt to get involved if people can deal with it themselves.

 

Then again, I'm not speaking for Volo and could probably have totally missed the mark.

 

 

Also I dunno where I am personally with loot boxes. I have no problem with Killing Floor 2 and ESO loot boxes because it's only skins really that's in them, u can still enjoy the game fully without having to buy them. Now doing what EA did and withholding characters/weapons/maps/etc inside a lootbox I wouldn't pay to buy the game at all bc I can't afford and have no desire to play a game that has that.

[evilcat]

COnsumer beaching and moaning each time so ceo gets idea of infusing product with gambling could be a bit time consuming. And time could be spend on some more advanced stuff. Like how to make stories more immersive or something.

Also EA ceo takes profit if gambling sneaks in, but any risk is transfered to investors or related companies (like Disney). So law enforced fairness could lower industry risk level.

 

If under the radar gambling is more profitable it could allow dishonest company to just take over all other fair companies and shut them down.

Could you imagine that to happen?

 

Some goods could be age restricted due to some outside effect, like creating bad habbits.

Edited November 24, 2017 by evilcat

[redneckdevil]

COnsumer beaching and moaning each time so ceo gets idea of infusing product with gambling could be a bit time consuming. And time could be spend on some more advanced stuff. Like how to make stories more immersive or something.

Also EA ceo takes profit if gambling sneaks in, but any risk is transfered to investors or related companies (like Disney). So law enforced fairness could lower industry risk level.

 

If under the radar gambling is more profitable it could allow dishonest company to just take over all other fair companies and shut them down.

Could you imagine that to happen?

 

Some goods could be age restricted due to some outside effect, like creating bad habbits.

I agree it does take a long time, unfortunately making stories more immersive doesn't bring in alot of money sadly when focused on.

Take Bethesda for example and the elder scrolls and fallout games. Massive successes but each one that comes out focuses more on gameplay than mechanics and story. Each game has less story, less dialogue options, and less mechanical stats to shape ur character in favor or shinier and easier. Dragon age origins and mass effect, compare them to their sequels. Sadly rarely is it the other way around (shadowruns, Witcher 3, borderlands 2) where success brings more of the same but refined.

 

 

 

Personally I don't have a problem with them ingames because "I" don't have a problem with them because I don't use them rarely. I'm not that worried with my kids because right now I have alot of control over what they have access to in video games. Now that wouldn't mean anything if I wasn't teaching and explaining to prepare them. So I'm comfortable in not caring if the govt gets involved or not and seeing govt track record of handling things like this is what persuades me over the line to govt not getting involved.

If every game started doing it from now and til I die, if it bothered me I'd just quit playing newer video games and just play my older ones and find something else to do.

Edited November 24, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Hurlshort]

So do we ban trading card games next? In High School I bought a bunch of magic cards and then sold them off for a decent profit because I had a few rare ones in the mix. That would clearly fall under the same category. Baseball and other sport novelty cards also should be banned since they can turn out to be worth a bunch if the players do well.

 

 

Can you even sell this digital merchandise you get from loot boxes for real money?

 

 

edit: Maybe we should just teach kids that digital merchandise is a stupid investment, instead of banning stuff?

Edited November 24, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Malcador]

Can sell your account, possibly.  

 

 

I mean hell, why get the govt involved when all ya gotta do is just get the internet to get really loud in it's bitching and moaning and company change to make public happy or go bust when no one buys it. No need for govt to get involved if people can deal with it themselves.

 

 

Doubt the public can do it and make it stick. Need a bigger hammer, usually that is the government.  People are only truly honest with a gun to their head.

 

Certainly is a scummy practice, but not convinced it is gambling.  

[Mamoulian War]

@Hurlshot. There is big difference. Makers of TCGs have to disclose the odds of getting cards. In Magic, you always get 6 common, 3 uncommon and 1 rare card. And also the thing, you can hold your cards for few years and sell it later for nice money. So people are looking at them more like an investment than gambling.

 

Loot boxes on other hand, no one will ever tell you what kind of stuff it contains, and also you are not able to resell. Therefore you do not get any value out of digital merchandise, if you can't resell it later. That's what makes them more of a gamble than any TCG ever released.

[Hurlshort]

The fact you can't get any value out of it (outside of the game itself) would seem to make it less of a gamble. It is a product you are paying for. 

 

I've seen plenty of games that do tell you what will be in each box (one weapon, one mount, etc.) Are you telling me EA just needs to be more clear about what is in the boxes and it will no longer be worthy of government intervention?

 

 

I'm not arguing that it isn't a terrible business practice. I'll sign petitions or whatever to pressure companies to pull back on this stuff. But I have a big problem with the government labeling it as something it really isn't so they can police it.

[Orogun01]

So do we ban trading card games next? In High School I bought a bunch of magic cards and then sold them off for a decent profit because I had a few rare ones in the mix. That would clearly fall under the same category. Baseball and other sport novelty cards also should be banned since they can turn out to be worth a bunch if the players do well.

 

 

Can you even sell this digital merchandise you get from loot boxes for real money?

 

 

edit: Maybe we should just teach kids that digital merchandise is a stupid investment, instead of banning stuff?

You're missing the point; someone in a company has an idea that they believe will make money, they push that idea and since everyone at the top are little greedy imps they go ahead and implement it drooling over their coming profits. So it gets implemented irregardless of whether is consumer friendly or if it will go well with their target demographics. The only thing that gives them pause is the law because that means they're liable to be sued.

 

TL:DR: Companies would sell your children crack if it was legal because its a guaranteed returning customer.

[Gizmo]

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.

You know... They used to have a television commercial where Santa told the kids (watching it) to hold up the phone to the TV, and then it played the dial-tones needed to call a pay-by-the-minute phone number to talk to Santa. This was targeted at children—to unwittingly spend their parents money without permission; and it worked.

 

 

 

So... do these games accept a credit card during setup? Are the purchases one-click payments (like Amazon), or are they multi-stage transactions with committed consent; that require a sign-in and credentials?

 

 

I am asking if it is reasonable (or common) for kids to have their parents setup some needed payment for their kid's game to work, and then get an outrageous (and unexpected) bill at the end of the first (and probably the last) month; after their kids bought every loot-box they came across.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Gizmo

[Hurlshort]

 

You're missing the point; someone in a company has an idea that they believe will make money, they push that idea and since everyone at the top are little greedy imps they go ahead and implement it drooling over their coming profits. So it gets implemented irregardless of whether is consumer friendly or if it will go well with their target demographics. The only thing that gives them pause is the law because that means they're liable to be sued.

 

TL:DR: Companies would sell your children crack if it was legal because its a guaranteed returning customer.

 

 

None of that has anything to do with gambling. Microtransactions and parents getting crazy bills have been a problem for years. I completely agree with it being a messed up business practice.

 

I want disclaimers and complicated authorization procedures to make it easier for parents to avoid massive bills on their credit cards.

 

I don't want to government banning stuff and calling it something that it isn't. That is a massive overstep. I do not see how this is any different than the decency laws drafted to protect children from violence in video games.

[Belle Sorciere]

 

 

No. Not liking lootboxes doesn't make one pro power, slavery, or Nazism. But, believing the gov't should come in tell people what they can spend their money or what is 'bad' for them is acceptable. Unlike most, I don't believe the Nanny State should be our goal. I believe in personal responsibility and choice.

 

btw, Being against such a ban doesn't make me 'pro lootbox'.

 

I believe all drugs including steroids should be legal. That is despite the fact outside of one puff of a cieggeratte when I was kid I have never touched drugs 9well I guess outside of the 'drug' known as alcohol lol).

 

I also think people who choose to go bungy jumping are stupid idiots taking a risk for a cheap thrill... but I also don't believe the gov't should ban it either. And, that's risking your life not a few $. LMAO

 

Yet I guarantee you that most of the same people in this thread demanding the gov't ban 'gambling' and lootboxes would be OUTRAGED if the gov't banned bungyjumping.

 

 

R00fles!

It does make you pro lootbox, though. You're advocating for their continued existence, while accusing those who are against them of being Nazis and now pro-slavery. Really, your arguments are hysterical in both senses of the word.

 

Also, do you know why the ESRB and PEGI exist? Do you realize you lost the battle you're trying to fight here over two decades ago? Do you understand what's at stake or are you just calling people Nazis because you don't like what they have to say?

Volo isn't FOR loot boxes, he's against gov't stepping in and doing something when instead it should be US the consumer who does something instead.

It's not the product, it's who regulating he has a problem with.

 

Look at it another way, would everyone be okay with the instead of all the ruckus that the gov't instead stepped in and said that loot boxes gambling was OK for children? What are people gonna do then, bend over and take it bc they gave the decision making to the govt or do something and chose themselves?

The "nanny state" can be a double edged sword in decision making because what it decides then becomes "official" weither we agree or not.

I mean hell, why get the govt involved when all ya gotta do is just get the internet to get really loud in it's bitching and moaning and company change to make public happy or go bust when no one buys it. No need for govt to get involved if people can deal with it themselves.

 

Then again, I'm not speaking for Volo and could probably have totally missed the mark.

 

 

Also I dunno where I am personally with loot boxes. I have no problem with Killing Floor 2 and ESO loot boxes because it's only skins really that's in them, u can still enjoy the game fully without having to buy them. Now doing what EA did and withholding characters/weapons/maps/etc inside a lootbox I wouldn't pay to buy the game at all bc I can't afford and have no desire to play a game that has that.

 

 

Volourn is defending loot boxes and basically saying that it's fine to put them in games because all people need is self-control to not buy them.

 

Including loot boxes in a game affects the game's design. Take Shadow of War - to get to the true ending cinematic, you have to play through several sieges, and to have a chance of succeeding at those sieges you need orcs. The best, fastest way to get those orcs is to buy them from the endgame store, as grinding them takes a long time. This sequence wouldn't exist, at least not in this form, if loot boxes weren't in the game. The inclusion of loot boxes in games warps them around said loot boxes, resulting in design intended to encourage players to buy loot boxes, which means things like grindy gameplay that you can bypass with loot boxes. Star Wars Battlefront 2 also does this, requiring large amounts of time (as in a couple of thousand hours) to unlock everything, which again warps the gameplay around the presence of loot boxes in order to try to push players into buying them.

 

If Volourn is fine with loot boxes in games (which he appears to be) and his best argument against regulating them is "people should just choose not to buy them" not only is his opinion factually wrong, he's defending the inclusion of loot boxes in games, which makes him all for the inclusion of loot boxes in games, because there's no middle ground here.

 

As far as people objecting to the developers and publishers, they have been. There's been no constructive response other than "the loot box controversy hasn't affected sales" which is demonstrably no longer true, at least in Battlefront 2's case. Some people turned to the government. Now, that doesn't mean that the government will regulate loot boxes, it may mean that organizations like the ESRB step in and update their take on loot boxes so that the government doesn't feel the need to regulate them.

 

The ESRB exists because the game industry was basically told "regulate yourself or the government will regulate you." It's not necessarily a bad thing if this happens again, since the game industry is going hog wild on predatory game design.

[marelooke]

Whoops, didn't notice this thread before pasting in the "random video games news" one, so there's a bit more going on here as one of Belgium's universtities also published a study about the prevalence of gambling (and its promotion) in our society and the effects on children.

 

Anyway, post is here.

 

Their job is to make as much money with as little expense as they can. Make shareholders happy.

 

And there you listed everything wrong with the current business attitude.

 

Their job is to create the best product they can while ensuring the company's future, making investors happy should be a result of that, but most certainly not the focus.

Shovelling out drivel as bad as they can get away with and abusing human psychology to get away with it due to unbridled greed most certainly isn't "their job" (though it is the interpretation they like to give it).

 

There's a reason "greed" is a serious sin in most religions, yet here we are revering it.

 

/rant

[HoonDing]

its almost like there's something in between "muh freedomz" and "evul government"

 

[Volourn]

The logic that you are anti ban means you are pro something is plain stupid. Again, I am anti ban of cigarettes and other drugs even though I  think they are garbage.

 

There are plenty of things I'm against that I don't think should be banned simply because I dislike them. Like idiots who like ES games. LMAO

[Orogun01]

 

 

You're missing the point; someone in a company has an idea that they believe will make money, they push that idea and since everyone at the top are little greedy imps they go ahead and implement it drooling over their coming profits. So it gets implemented irregardless of whether is consumer friendly or if it will go well with their target demographics. The only thing that gives them pause is the law because that means they're liable to be sued.

 

TL:DR: Companies would sell your children crack if it was legal because its a guaranteed returning customer.

 

 

None of that has anything to do with gambling. Microtransactions and parents getting crazy bills have been a problem for years. I completely agree with it being a messed up business practice.

 

I want disclaimers and complicated authorization procedures to make it easier for parents to avoid massive bills on their credit cards.

 

I don't want to government banning stuff and calling it something that it isn't. That is a massive overstep. I do not see how this is any different than the decency laws drafted to protect children from violence in video games.

 

I would say that having massive disclaimers not written in fine print would be an acceptable compromise. But you don't start haggling at your goal you go above it and get talked down.

[Gorgon]

So far just talk and fallout from Battlefront 3. EA's greed bit them in the ass. They don't know how to say no to more money even if it damages their IP. 

 

This is good news for consumers though. None of the gambling but not gambling ****ery benefits us. As far as legislators over reaching, go cry me a river. 

[Mamoulian War]

Expecting from compabies like EA to self-regulate themselves because of customer backlash due to loot-boxes is as stupid as expecting big oil companies to regulate themselves because of backlash due to global warming.

 

Sometimes government just has to step up and cut of the most greedy parts of corporations by law...

[Gorgon]

Well, nothing much is going to come of it. Who wants to bet the lootboxes are coming back to battlefront with some small band aid. 

[Belle Sorciere]

Well, nothing much is going to come of it. Who wants to bet the lootboxes are coming back to battlefront with some small band aid. 

 

Yeah, that is almost certainly the intended plan.

 

I should clarify that I am not necessarily in favor of government intervention: I just see it as the inevitable end result of what the publishers are doing. Since the publishers are obviously not going to regulate themselves, someone is going to step in and do it for them. I also do not think that government intervention is itself a bad thing, but I'm sure we'll (Americans) get a load of why that is next month when the FCC repeals net neutrality regulations. Unregulated markets are consumer hostile.