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

[Belle Sorciere]

Also, when I described how lootboxes impact gameplay even if you choose not to buy, I forgot to point out how Star Wars Battlefront 2 is pay to win - people who have spend money are going to have more powerful characters than people who don't. If you play without buying anything then you're going to be at a permanent disadvantage, at least under the original loot box model as presented in beta.

[evilcat]

Consumer deserve information about what is in the game, Violence? Sex? Drugs? Gambling?

It could be crucial information for parents, sensitive individuals, or twisted decadent.

Lootboxes for money are generally easy to check so there is no barrier at providing such information.

 

System could influence player. Could reward player for being extra violent, or being good teamplayer (moba try to do that), or turn kids into plungers, or radicalize YT watchers. You can design game to challenge players (in Dark Souls you just git gud) or frustrate (everything is random, including reward).

 

That is what gov should do. Players should probably do more, and beach more. Support games with good value for the money, and critise bad or medicorate games. Pay to win is generally bad design, since it undermines the idea of playing. Best way to progress is to spend money and play witcher instead. But game is not even fun, so what is the point.?

 

Games could be smarter. New Colossus or Bioshock play with political ideology. Witcher have shortstory about parenting. There are games with historical, economical, physical value (not much but some). There are crazy games about evolution or 4d.

If you want you can create game extra relaxing or extra frustrating.  And gamers should think what they want.

 

Realization: Subscription plans are better, at least more moral. Since you cant fall into your addition with subscription.

Edited November 26, 2017 by evilcat

[Gfted1]

Will these rat bastards ever stop with the microtransactions and gambling!?

 

Report: Nintendo to start offering in-game power-ups via cereal boxes.

 

I am sickened, sickened I tell you, about these pay-to-win scams being aimed at our impressionable children. smh.
 

[Gorgon]

What you seem to be missing is that progression based microtransactions are ruining the game experience because everything has to be built around the money grab. You really have to try one such game to understand it, to see how invasive and annoying it is. 

 

Maybe it shouldn't be legislated, I dunno, I guess I just don't care at all about EA's pain. 

 

Let me ask you a question. Would you want to play a multiplayer game if the deciding factor was not whether you were good or not but which person has paid the most into microtransactions. That is quite literally where this is heading.

[Gfted1]

Whats not to understand? Ive quit half a dozen mobile games because I hit the glass ceiling between f2p and p2w. No, Ive never run into that with a AAA game that I paid full price for, but I totally "get it". I think its a problem that will correct itself? BF2 got savaged sales wise, right? Maybe that will be enough motivation to change the model?

 

BTW, in your opinion, whats the difference between in-game microtransactions and the above cereal box?

 

EDIT: To answer your question, no I would not play a game where I could only achieve the "best stuff" with real money. But if I could grind for it, no problem.

[Hurlshort]

The deciding factor in many multiplayer games isn't who is good, it is who has the most time to sink into it. I guess that is better than paying to be leet, but it still seems pretty silly. It is why I tend to stay away from the whole idea of competition in games. Plus I am old and slow. All of this matches up pretty well with the way the real world works.

[Gorgon]

Whats not to understand? Ive quit half a dozen mobile games because I hit the glass ceiling between f2p and p2w. No, Ive never run into that with a AAA game that I paid full price for, but I totally "get it". I think its a problem that will correct itself? BF2 got savaged sales wise, right? Maybe that will be enough motivation to change the model?

 

BTW, in your opinion, whats the difference between in-game microtransactions and the above cereal box?

 

EDIT: To answer your question, no I would not play a game where I could only achieve the "best stuff" with real money. But if I could grind for it, no problem.

I suppose there is a limit on how many ceral boxes you can eat within a given time period. I suspect Disney leaned on EA because they are very protective of their brand and that persistent revenue is still very much a part of their formula wherever the can get away with it. Makes me worry about Farcry 5. 

[Mamoulian War]

And this is how EA self-regulates the gambling mechanics in their games due to BF2 backlash.

 

/sarcasm off

 

https://www.astutegaming.com/single-post/EASPORTSUFC3BETA

 

How could a single person still think, these greedy ****s can regulate themselves without government intervention, when they release just few days later a system, which is allegedly even worse than the BF2 p2w loot box ****... Not even 3 billion loss in shares did show them, this might not be the brightest idea to pull this **** again in such a short notice...

Edited December 2, 2017 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

https://kotaku.com/meet-the-19-year-old-who-spent-over-10-000-on-microtra-1820854953

 

A confession of MTX addicted who started as a 13years old and spent 13000 USD on them.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mamoulian War

[Hurlshort]

It isn't that I think EA can regulate itself, it is that I am cautious of allowing the government to step in unless it is a legitimate health concern. Them being greedy and consumers being dumb enough to feed that greed is not grounds for Big Brother stepping in to sheild us. I also believe it is early and the market will correct itself.

[Epaminondas]

It isn't that I think EA can regulate itself, it is that I am cautious of allowing the government to step in unless it is a legitimate health concern. Them being greedy and consumers being dumb enough to feed that greed is not grounds for Big Brother stepping in to sheild us. I also believe it is early and the market will correct itself.

Furthermore, how well does the government self regulate? The public, as I gather from and agree with what this bloke says, is impatient and calls for intervention for things that will iron out in the long run. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy content. We can either accept that individual freedom means the ability to make stupid decisions or we don't have individual freedom at all. The government should be reserved for making sure that the field is level in terms of outright fraud or deception. If we're counting on states (writ large) to provide reasonable self-restraint then we're essentially screwed already since I don't know of one that hasn't demonstrated out and out stupidity in terms of governance at some point along the line and some of them seem to have mastered stupidity and made it an art form.

[Belle Sorciere]

It isn't that I think EA can regulate itself, it is that I am cautious of allowing the government to step in unless it is a legitimate health concern. Them being greedy and consumers being dumb enough to feed that greed is not grounds for Big Brother stepping in to sheild us. I also believe it is early and the market will correct itself.

 

It's not a question of "allowing" the government to do anything. The way things are going, the industry self-regulates or the government's going to regulate the industry. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the government to do.

 

As far as "the market correcting itself", the market doesn't correct itself like that. Corporations don't make decisions based on what's best for consumers so much as what's best for their bottom lines. Hence regulation.

[Epaminondas]

It's not a question of "allowing" the government to do anything. The way things are going, the industry self-regulates or the government's going to regulate the industry. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the government to do.

 

As far as "the market correcting itself", the market doesn't correct itself like that. Corporations don't make decisions based on what's best for consumers so much as what's best for their bottom lines. Hence regulation.

Who made an argument that the corporation would suddenly realize its inner flower child? The market will only bear so much screwing before a significant amount of customers jump ship and go other places. ...But let's say the people who buy from EA simply can't help themselves. So what? When they run out of resources to engage in the behavior, they'll stop. Meanwhile, people who believe the product is worth the pricing will buy it. Why should a group of people change that for 'their own good?' Those words, born from the mouth of every tyrant as he stripped more freedoms from the citizenry, are the antithesis of responsibility and freedom. ...And what if it there is abuse? Are the customers defrauded? In that case, there's no need for more regulation. Laws exist. Enforce them. Does the company engage in other types of illegal activity? Does it launder illicit money? Does it fail to pay its workers? Does it charge for a product it doesn't provide? Laws exist to govern these things. Enforce them.

 

I make it a point never to become so personally invested that I'm angry about disputes on message boards. It's unhealthy. ...But too many people buy into the notion that the government is somehow better than the market because it's fairer, or maybe it's more logically designed, or even that it cares more about people. I don't take any of these things for granted. In fact, I doubt them. I'm probably one of the few people who despises net neutrality around here, but from what I can tell at least by following my friends' arguments in favor of NN, the vast vast majority of people who used the internet before went into effect in... 2015? didn't suffer the problems that NN allegedly addressed and the vast majority of those complaining about the change back wouldn't notice the difference if advocacy groups hadn't made such an issue of it. Even then, most of them won't be able to give a single example of something amiss at the change if they aren't spoon fed talking points by those advocacy groups.

 

I know my friends. I love my friends. One of those beloved quirks is that they often make the best decisions for society by simply engaging in self interested behavior without buying into big causes dredged up by others to make issues out of things that will never be perfect, no matter how intrusive the government becomes in our lives.

[Mamoulian War]

It isn't that I think EA can regulate itself, it is that I am cautious of allowing the government to step in unless it is a legitimate health concern. Them being greedy and consumers being dumb enough to feed that greed is not grounds for Big Brother stepping in to sheild us. I also believe it is early and the market will correct itself.

The Belgian government published a study already, which has a lot of facts about how it is already legitimate health concern for minors.

[Hurlshort]

The Belgian government published a study already, which has a lot of facts about how it is already legitimate health concern for minors.

I have heard the same thing about violent video games. Aren't most of these games rated Mature?

[Mamoulian War]

No they are not. Most F2P games with lootboxes have T ESRB or PEGI 12 rating. Some even lower.

 

The belgian research was funded by universities, so it is not some bollocks research made by few guys like the one lawyer who wanted to ban GTA5. Also many european researches funded by government bodies have found no impact of violence in video games on population as general. Most of them have even found, that people playing violent games are less violent in real life, because these game allow them to let the "steam" off and be more relaxed in everyday life.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mamoulian War

[Hurlshort]

Alright, then I'd be happy to push PEGI and the ESRB to up the age on games with loot boxes.

[Belle Sorciere]

 

It's not a question of "allowing" the government to do anything. The way things are going, the industry self-regulates or the government's going to regulate the industry. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the government to do.

 

As far as "the market correcting itself", the market doesn't correct itself like that. Corporations don't make decisions based on what's best for consumers so much as what's best for their bottom lines. Hence regulation.

Who made an argument that the corporation would suddenly realize its inner flower child? The market will only bear so much screwing before a significant amount of customers jump ship and go other places. ...But let's say the people who buy from EA simply can't help themselves. So what? When they run out of resources to engage in the behavior, they'll stop. Meanwhile, people who believe the product is worth the pricing will buy it. Why should a group of people change that for 'their own good?' Those words, born from the mouth of every tyrant as he stripped more freedoms from the citizenry, are the antithesis of responsibility and freedom. ...And what if it there is abuse? Are the customers defrauded? In that case, there's no need for more regulation. Laws exist. Enforce them. Does the company engage in other types of illegal activity? Does it launder illicit money? Does it fail to pay its workers? Does it charge for a product it doesn't provide? Laws exist to govern these things. Enforce them.

 

I make it a point never to become so personally invested that I'm angry about disputes on message boards. It's unhealthy. ...But too many people buy into the notion that the government is somehow better than the market because it's fairer, or maybe it's more logically designed, or even that it cares more about people. I don't take any of these things for granted. In fact, I doubt them. I'm probably one of the few people who despises net neutrality around here, but from what I can tell at least by following my friends' arguments in favor of NN, the vast vast majority of people who used the internet before went into effect in... 2015? didn't suffer the problems that NN allegedly addressed and the vast majority of those complaining about the change back wouldn't notice the difference if advocacy groups hadn't made such an issue of it. Even then, most of them won't be able to give a single example of something amiss at the change if they aren't spoon fed talking points by those advocacy groups.

 

I know my friends. I love my friends. One of those beloved quirks is that they often make the best decisions for society by simply engaging in self interested behavior without buying into big causes dredged up by others to make issues out of things that will never be perfect, no matter how intrusive the government becomes in our lives.

 

 

As long as they have enough "whales" they'll continue implementing microtransactions and loot boxes as they have been. Since corporations won't regulate themselves on this matter, they need someone to do it for them. That's where the government comes in.

 

I'm not here to debate with anyone who has a religious fervor about government interference being bad. Such a perspective requires either profound ignorance about the history of government regulations or outright lies about said history. I'm not going to speculate which. I'll just say we're in a much better place now than we were over a century ago because governments have stepped in to regulate commercial excesses.

[Epaminondas]

I'm not here to debate with anyone who has a religious fervor about government interference being bad. Such a perspective requires either profound ignorance about the history of government regulations or outright lies about said history. I'm not going to speculate which. I'll just say we're in a much better place now than we were over a century ago because governments have stepped in to regulate commercial excesses.

I could say the same thing about people who can't concede the over-reaction to a problem can be bad and that now that regulation has become the knee jerk reaction it's the hammer that sees every problem as a nail. We're not talking utilities, medicine, or banking, right? We're talking video games and we're going to pull out the hammer because every issue is a problem and every problem is a nail.

 

Anyhow, I don't doubt that you could have studied more recent history better than I have. I'm more of an old school kind of guy. I'm also not so invested that I see all regulation as bad. In my zeal, I probably proposed my argument with little too much fervor. Let me restate and then give some time to digest other arguments. Here goes:

 

We should be careful about regulating straight away. This phenomenon has been building, but it's not decades old. Let's see what happens as the market shifts around and people become more savvy consumers. It might be a little painful, but it also might lead to a better solution than hammering the problem with regulation, which is a different kind of pain.

 

Last word, promise, I'm much more irritated that every entertainment corporation wants to have its own streaming service. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime but now we have Disney and CBS and all these places that want to cash in on the streaming charges. It's going to be a pain eventually.

[Mamoulian War]

Alright, then I'd be happy to push PEGI and the ESRB to up the age on games with loot boxes.

So far, it was unsucessful, because ESRB have released their statement, which says loot boxes are not gambling, and PEGI’s statement was little bit more neutral about it, so there is still hope.

 

I would be happy to see AO rating on these games as well, but I somehow doubt, that it will happen without any kind of pressure from legislative bodies, especially when executive members of ESRB are also EA, Activision, I highly doubt, that they would willingly change only by themselves.

 

Just look how these companies literally ****ed up with Chinese government, when they tried to enforce these companies by law, to make public the odds of winning for various prizes...

 

You can read about it in this blog on Gamasutra:

 

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20171031/308600/How_the_ESRB_is_Promoting_Childrens_Gambling.php

 

If it is to long to read, just search for a part starting with “Because you got a pretzel.”

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mamoulian War

[Humanoid]

For what it's worth, I'm uncomfortable with that cereal promo too. Same principle that's led to some jurisdictions no longer allowing Maccas to bundle toys with Happy Meals, that kind of thing. It's not gambling but it does feel a little predatory.

 

If it was bundled with something like beer it'd be a bit more palatable, so I guess that parallels with the proposal to put strict ratings on games with lootboxes. However as I understand it, not all places have actual legal age restrictions for software and instead just have voluntary "informational" ratings only. So the first step would be to ensure the rating is legally enforceable like booze and movies.

[marelooke]

 

It isn't that I think EA can regulate itself, it is that I am cautious of allowing the government to step in unless it is a legitimate health concern. Them being greedy and consumers being dumb enough to feed that greed is not grounds for Big Brother stepping in to sheild us. I also believe it is early and the market will correct itself.

The Belgian government published a study already, which has a lot of facts about how it is already legitimate health concern for minors.

 

 

I linked a partial translation I did of a Belgian newspaper article covering it in the random video game news thread, assuming that's the study you are talking about (I'm not aware of any others, at any rate)

 

No they are not. Most F2P games with lootboxes have T ESRB or PEGI 12 rating. Some even lower.

 

The belgian research was funded by universities, so it is not some bollocks research made by few guys like the one lawyer who wanted to ban GTA5. Also many european researches funded by government bodies have found no impact of violence in video games on population as general. Most of them have even found, that people playing violent games are less violent in real life, because these game allow them to let the "steam" off and be more relaxed in everyday life.

 

Actually it was requested (and as such likely at least partially funded) by the National Lottery, who, if anything, would reasonably have a vested interest to not have this information come out.

[Mamoulian War]

Yup that was the article I was thinking about, thanks for correcting me.

 

Is there any chance that the kotaku article I linked few posts earlier could be somehow forwarded to people responsible for gambling stuff in Belgium? It would be interesting to see official response on underage teenager spending 13000+ USD on MTX and lootboxes.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Mamoulian War

[Darkpriest]

I could write a long article on this topic, but basically loot boxes are a game of chance, without guarantee of valuable payout and with no return policy. It works on some principles as any game of chance, and could be considered quasi-gambling.

 

The thing, that would regulate this practice would be applying a rule, that if it's not a pure game of chance, then I am eligible for a refund. I should also not get duplicates of items I already posses, so there is an incremental value on the purchase and a finite amount of money I can spend.

 

If it is a pure game of chance, and I can get items with no value while paying real money, then that should fall into gambling rule.

 

There is a difference in a free spin of a wheel or random loot in a game, if it's free. Heck, the loot randomness tied to game progression is not that bad in itself. All RPGs are based around that, however it's how they are integrated in the game play is the issue. bad implementation will result in a bad game and people will get frustrated / bored with it.

 

Not sure how many people remember Diablo 3 and it's implementation of loot, which was later trade eligible by real money - it required a lot of changes to become a better game, including removal of real money marketplace.

 

Again, lootboxes are not the problem on its own, the problem are lootboxes, which can be infinite money sink and guarantee nothing. If it can be purchased by real money, it's gambling. if it's pure in game part of in game progression earned purely by gameplay and ingame currency, then it's ok.

 

Lootboxes will be fine as well, if they will inform the purchaser what are the chances for each item to appear, and that the purchased ones will guarantee that you won't get duplicates of what you own already. The money sink is still there, but it's finite and the total cost can be estimated.

[Blarghagh]

I'm hesitant to let the government step in due to their history with media censorship (Hayes Code etc.) but do think the threat of this happening is a good way to get them to self-regulate and drop the predatory practices towards minors and the addiction prone.

 

Let's be fair here, I respect the view of 'people should make their own choices and doesn't need the government to tell them what's good for them,' but this applies to those who are accountable and capable of making healthy, rational decisions which significant portions of the population are not. Minors, mentally ill, even the poorly educated generally do not have the capability of making an informed choice and often this has impact on everyone else.

 

If all drinkers were allowed to drive, their choices could kill. The obesity epidemic affects insurance premiums. Rsise your kids the way you want? Fine, but for some people that's tying them up in the barn. Second-hand smoke. Drugs. Anti-vaxxers do what they think is best, and in doing so put not only their child but others at risk by screwing with herd immunity. And gambling addictions cause moneysinks of debt, crime, mental problems etc. that affect others and require tax money for cops and take money away from that previous free capitalist economy.

 

I'm hesitant to have government step in not on principle but because they often **** it up, but ideally the government exists to tell people what they can or cannot do because people are dumb cattle. Call me a cynic, but the only problem with getting regulation is that sometimes it's made by that cattle. Get more independent research done and bring the right information to the table, if that clearly states this lootbox stuff is bad for those who can't be held accountable then it needs regulation.

 

I'm not saying this as someone who thinks he's always accountable and capable of making decisions. My personal lingstanding history with mental illness makes me acutely aware of the many times I did things that someone should have stopped me from because I wasn't capable of making rational decisions. Regulation's great, as long as it helps the weak and abused and if you run into issues with that, either the government ****ed it up again or just maybe you're a dumb cow.

 

But then, maybe I'm just too cynical. Either way, in the real world right now the cattle's putting people like Trump or May in charge. So yeah, more research and qualified people in office before someone enforces regulation please. Because my faith in government, civilisation and democracy is severely shaken, and I thought humans were cattle before that...

 

/rant