Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation

[chrisnumbers]

It's not gambling if the lootbox item droprates are widely known, and there is bad luck protection on rare items. This is the case with Overwatch.
How does BF2 work?

[Jtbrig7390]

How does BF2 work?

Spend money (before u can't now), Hope to win a prize.

[chrisnumbers]

Spend money (before u can't now), Hope to win a prize.

Is it like Overwatch where you always get something, even if it's just currency? Or do you literally sometimes get nothing?

[Jtbrig7390]

Is it like Overwatch where you always get something, even if it's just currency? Or do you literally sometimes get nothing?

Yes you always get something, But no matter what you get it provides power.

[Lucetia]

I'm purposely suggesting that any rational being would want to get rid of all sorts of the kind. Since that loot should be obtainable through other means.

I think a lot of that is how it's handled. Overwatch's system doesn't bother me since you get 1 every level and you gain a level after about 3-5 games, depending on how much you win/lose. It's all completely cosmetic and on duplicates you get currency so you can eventually buy whatever. To me this type of lootbox system works as there's nothing there you "need" or feel like you are at a disadvantage for not having them. It also gives you incentives to keep playing the game if you are interested instead of just gaining levels and not really seeing anything rewarding.

Something like what I've heard about EA definitely needs to change and be obtainable through game play that isn't a gamble. I would feel similar to (and I'll use WoW analogies here) you leveling a priest 1-110. Each level you gain you get a "lootbox" that has spells, attribute points, talents. Then you hitting 110 and all you got was +health, +mana, +intellect, but you never received a heal spell or resurrection spell. Which is kind of what it sounds like EA is doing with it's games. Stuff like that should be gained in-game through leveling, etc so you don't feel forced to pull out your wallet or be at a disadvantage. This is the stuff I definitely want gone.

My rationale on the first is that it's a harmless system. You don't gain anything of value whether you pull out your wallet or not. You just chose to try and speed things up because you value your time over farming it. Which is fine as it's similar with games where you buy stuff off the AH instead of farming it. The rationale on the second one is burn it with fire.

Also, Overwatch's system is nice in that you have some "bad luck protection" in the form of you won't get dupes until you get closer to having all the items of that color category. So for instance I had all whites/blues so I was getting dupes left and right. Moira got released and now I'm spammed with all her stuff. You also get bad luck protection in the form of currency to spend on whatever.

I rarely if ever but lootboxes. I have no worries about being "abused"

See, I'm in the same boat here. I don't buy lootboxes as I just farm them in-game. When the holiday events roll around I toss out about $10 for the 11 lootbox just to either up my chance of getting something or have backup currency, but the main reason is that I consider it a "donation" to Blizzard for putting new content in the game for the holidays and the event itself. They don't have to and they choose too. I don't feel compelled to do it or anything or feel like I'll "fall victim". Instead during the holiday events I just set myself a goal of 1-2 lootboxes a day and strive for that.

[Dhrizzle]

In the US, I think they are going to have to consider loot boxes as gambling. The reason why is because it would be easy for a state lottery to change their "game" to work exactly like loot boxes do. Then, when the state drags them into court trying to force them to pay tax, these lotteries will just point to video game companies that do exactly the same thing...yet, the court already ruled that it wasn't gambling.

If the lottery changed so you could only win digital items with zero monetary value I doubt they'd make enough money even with a lower tax rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Idk how I feel about this...On one hand it doesn't seem like real gambling, yet on the other hand they are literally getting kids addicted to gambling.

If nothing else the rates really should be more clear, and it's not as if no other game gives rates on how likely you are to get things... Hiding something like that shows they are clearly trying to deceive consumers.

Are there any stats showing how many kids go on to have gambling problems after playing games with loot boxes 'cos at the moment it seems a lot like the "video games make.you violent" argument.

[Koward]

Overwatch is gambling but not hearthstone? What you gamble on with hearthstone actually effects gameplay...

I think the difference is actually that in Heartstone you only get cards that way. If Blizzard sold individual cards on their store that would be a different thing.

[Flarelaine]

The person in question, in his own words, "just cannot stop buying lootboxes". This is coming from someone who intentionally self-excluded himself from any form of gambling, online or otherwise. He doesn't have the willpower or the self control to stop himself from buying them, even to the point at which he's forgoing buying food just to buy more lootboxes!

I don't know how lootboxes work in Overwatch, if they allow for duplicate items or not, but if it wasn't Overwatch and PUBG lootboxes it would be Fifa, or Battlefield or some other game.

As far as I know you get game currency when you would get a duplicate. After ~750 boxes, that would be all you get.

[Vespian]

I rarely if ever but lootboxes. I have no worries about being "abused"
.

Generally in any debate or discussion, anything starting with "I", is an invalid argument.
- The question whether it is or isn't, psychologically speaking, addictive, is an objective statement based on past research. There's very little debate possible there.
- The "you" in question is irrelevant when you look at the population as a whole. I myself have little to fear from lootboxes, except that to cram them into my games, usually means gameplay revolves around the lootbox, rather than the narrative and this bothers me greatly, but I'm not buying them if I don't think the game is worth spending on. I'm fairly robust, mentally speaking. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're objectively addictive. Not everyone who smokes is actually addicted, not everyone that games 8h/day is addicted. Not everyone that drinks, is addicted. Some addictions stop by themselves, some never do without help. What matters is; Can the system be abused and what could be the potential effects on the population as a whole. Even if only 5% is susceptible, 5% is a major number in quantity and that Q adds up financially to the big fat corporations, who in turn will try to create even more addictive systems that might eventually actually hit you or me. So why not just step on the breaks now?

[breadisfunny]

I never said it was the governments fault, the government is here to protect people, whats the point in having them other wise, sort out your argument and make sense, for points A), B) and C) and? if the option wasn't there to begin with there would be nothing to watch out for. Keep bleating.

you do realize your arguing with a libertarian right?

[Dhrizzle]

Generally in any debate or discussion, anything starting with "I", is an invalid argument.
- The question whether it is or isn't, psychologically speaking, addictive, is an objective statement based on past research. There's very little debate possible there.
- The "you" in question is irrelevant when you look at the population as a whole. I myself have little to fear from lootboxes, except that to cram them into my games, usually means gameplay revolves around the lootbox, rather than the narrative and this bothers me greatly, but I'm not buying them if I don't think the game is worth spending on. I'm fairly robust, mentally speaking. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're objectively addictive. Not everyone who smokes is actually addicted, not everyone that games 8h/day is addicted. Not everyone that drinks, is addicted. Some addictions stop by themselves, some never do without help. What matters is; Can the system be abused and what could be the potential effects on the population as a whole. Even if only 5% is susceptible, 5% is a major number in quantity and that Q adds up financially to the big fat corporations, who in turn will try to create even more addictive systems that might eventually actually hit you or me. So why not just step on the breaks now?

Would you extend this to any and all systems that might be considered addictive in video games because I can see there being a lot of restrictions on what we're allowed to play if you want to ban everything that might possibly be harmful to anyone susceptible to reward feedback loops.

[Orange Joe]

Generally in any debate or discussion, anything starting with "I", is an invalid argument.
- The question whether it is or isn't, psychologically speaking, addictive, is an objective statement based on past research. There's very little debate possible there.
- The "you" in question is irrelevant when you look at the population as a whole. I myself have little to fear from lootboxes, except that to cram them into my games, usually means gameplay revolves around the lootbox, rather than the narrative and this bothers me greatly, but I'm not buying them if I don't think the game is worth spending on. I'm fairly robust, mentally speaking. That doesn't take away from the fact that they're objectively addictive. Not everyone who smokes is actually addicted, not everyone that games 8h/day is addicted. Not everyone that drinks, is addicted. Some addictions stop by themselves, some never do without help. What matters is; Can the system be abused and what could be the potential effects on the population as a whole. Even if only 5% is susceptible, 5% is a major number in quantity and that Q adds up financially to the big fat corporations, who in turn will try to create even more addictive systems that might eventually actually hit you or me. So why not just step on the breaks now?

When it's a reply to "you" as below,

Apparently enough to build laws around it.

Well, this thread has opened my eyes though. I thought rational people would all rather get rid of them and currently ignored them, because they simply wanted to play the game, but people actually want them in their games. .. I guess EA should abuse you..

It is a perfectly fine reply.

[Yunru]

Time to bump this up:


Seems like this game is getting hit hard to.

[Vespian]

When it's a reply to "you" as below,

It is a perfectly fine reply.

But it's not an argument. So.. moot.

Would you extend this to any and all systems that might be considered addictive in video games because I can see there being a lot of restrictions on what we're allowed to play if you want to ban everything that might possibly be harmful to anyone susceptible to reward feedback loops.

I think games owe their existence to the addictive element, so no, I don't think it should extend beyond what we're discussing. What I'm concerned about, is the fact that publishers are using other addictive elements, like slotmachines, in their games to make (a fuckton) more profit. This used to be limited to F2P games, so the trade-off is there, but now it's invading premium games. It just has to end.

[Dhrizzle]

I think games owe their existence to the addictive element, so no, I don't think it should extend beyond what we're discussing. What I'm concerned about, is the fact that publishers are using other addictive elements, like slotmachines, in their games to make (a fuckton) more profit. This used to be limited to F2P games, so the trade-off is there, but now it's invading premium games. It just has to end.

Well now it seems to be going from "this is a potential public health issue" to "this is something I personally disapprove of" as you admit you don't mind addictive elements in games and are willing to accept the slotmachines (and loot-boxes?) in games as long as they don't have an initial box price.

The thing is I'm perfectly open to the idea that there may be some sort of link between loot-boxes and gambling problems in later life but I'd rather see some sort of evidence than go along with a knee-jerk reaction reminiscent of the "video games cause violence" outrage of the 90s. I'm also open to the idea that some of these lootbox systems may be against consumer protection laws or, in cases like Belgium, gambling legislation. However if you're willing to accept potentially addictive elements in games, including lootboxes and slotmachines in free-to-play games, then having the same in premium games should be a matter for the market to sort out, in other words if they're actually bad for the games then people will stop buying them and developers will abandon them.

[DesoPL]

Analitic named Evan Wingren from KeyBanc Capital Markets is defending EA, that games are not overcharged but undercharged and he encourages industry to rising prices.

Funny because he didin't considered one thing... In this stupid world there is more than one country, so everyone got diffrent salaries...

http://www.pcgamer.com/financial-ana...-undercharged/

This guy is dumb...

[Vespian]

Well now it seems to be going from "this is a potential public health issue" to "this is something I personally disapprove of" as you admit you don't mind addictive elements in games and are willing to accept the slotmachines (and loot-boxes?) in games as long as they don't have an initial box price.

The thing is I'm perfectly open to the idea that there may be some sort of link between loot-boxes and gambling problems in later life but I'd rather see some sort of evidence than go along with a knee-jerk reaction reminiscent of the "video games cause violence" outrage of the 90s. I'm also open to the idea that some of these lootbox systems may be against consumer protection laws or, in cases like Belgium, gambling legislation. However if you're willing to accept potentially addictive elements in games, including lootboxes and slotmachines in free-to-play games, then having the same in premium games should be a matter for the market to sort out, in other words if they're actually bad for the games then people will stop buying them and developers will abandon them.

No, now you're twisting words.

Without addiction, there would be no gaming. Gaming has been on many lists including that of addictions for a long time. There are health centers that focus on gaming addiction. Gaming addiction is a real thing and people have trouble getting rid of it, though for me personally I just outgrew it.

But during all those years of WoW addiction, I had one truth; It only cost me ~10 euro's a month.

Being able to see the direct relation between gaming and addiction is a whole different matter from seeing a relation between gaming and extensive planning to shoot people at a school/public area. The one is simply a selfcontained well-researched and agreed-upon effect of certain triggers our brains like, the other has been mutilated by certain researchers to prove a political/social line of thinking, while there is no actual proof that gaming has long-term effects on our emotional state, though it attempts to make that stick, but there is certainly no evidence that gaming turns teens into massacre-planning zombies.

This is not about proving a case that won't stand any way you look at it. Gambling laws are already in place. Gambling laws exist due to the nature of the practice. It's addictive, it costs money and people can't control it (in a certain percent of cases). Now the exact same systems used in gambling, are being introduced to gaming. Yes, I would suggest that these similarities are more than just a coincidence, which basically gets proven on a daily basis, when the likes of Ubisoft patent new algorithms that will increase the chance of people buying 'more'.

[Sky High]

in the case of Overwatch none of the things you're "gambling on" effects your gameplay in the same way BFII does. I would think OW would slide but with how things were in battlefront 2 for a while there I wouldn't be too surprised if they get in shit for that.

[GennGreymane]

http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-...ned-in-europe/


yaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssss

[Acidbaron]

And my country has taken steps to ban these practices and correctly so as it is gambling and the rest of EU often follows suit when such things take place.

http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-...ticle-comments

Minister van Justitie wil aankopen in videogames verbieden, als je niet weet wat je met die aankoop precies inhoudt. “Gokken en gamen vermengen, zeker op jonge leeftijd, is gevaarlijk voor de geestelijke gezondheid van het kind.”

De ophef ontstond vorige week rond de nieuwe game Star Wars: Battlefront. Daarin kon je eerst zogenaamde 'lootcrates' kopen, virtuele dozen die bepaalde voordelen voor het spel konden opleveren. Alleen weet je op voorhand niet wat de inhoud van zo'n lootcrate inhoudt.

“Het vermengen van geld en verslaving, is gokken”, oordeelde de Kanspelcommissie toen. VTM NIEUWS bracht het nieuws en enkele dagen later verwijderde maker Electronic Arts de functie uit het spel, onder meer na kritiek van Disney, dat de rechten heeft op de Star Wars-merchandising.

Geens wil nu voorkomen dat zulke functies überhaupt nog in spelletjes kunnen voorkomen. “Maar dat vraagt tijd, want we moeten hiermee naar Europa. We gaan zeker proberen om het te verbieden.”

Translated this becomes.

Minister of justice wants to forbid purchases in video games, if you do not know what the purchase actually includes. "To mix gambling and gaming, especially at a very young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child"

The fuss/issue started last week surrounding the new game Star Wars: Battlefront. In that game you could at first buy so called "lootboxes", virtual boxes that could include certain advantages for inside the game. However you do not know the contents of such a loot box.

"The mixing of money and addiction, is gambling" Was the judgement that followed from the gaming commission. VTM NIEUWS reported on it and a few days later the game maker EA removed the function from the game, due to criticism from Disney who owns the right to the Star Wars franchise.

Minister Geens has now made a goal of it to prevent such a function to ever show up in games. "But that takes time, because we'll have to go with this to Europe. We will definitely try to get this banned"