Parliamentary enquiry says loot boxes are gambling - govt must act.

[draykorinee]

https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../1846/1846.pdf

The conclusions:

We believe that any gambling-related harms associated with gaming should be
recognised under the online harms framework. To inform this work, the Department
for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport should immediately establish a scientific
working group to collate the latest evidence relating to the effects of gambling-like
mechanics in games. The group should produce an evidence-based review of the effects
of gambling-like game mechanics, including loot boxes and other emerging trends, to
provide clarity and advice. This should be done within a timescale that enables it to
inform the Government’s forthcoming online harms legislation. (Paragraph 72)

8. We recommend that loot boxes that contain the element of chance should not be sold
to children playing games, and instead in-game credits should be earned through
rewards won through playing the games. In the absence of research which proves that
no harm is being done by exposing children to gambling through the purchasing
of loot boxes, then we believe the precautionary principle should apply and they
are not permitted in games played by children until the evidence proves otherwise.
(Paragraph 79)

9. Loot box mechanics are integral to major games companies’ revenues and evidence
that they facilitate profiting from problem gamblers should be of serious concern to
the industry. We recommend that working through the PEGI Council and all other
relevant channels, the UK Government advises PEGI to apply the existing ‘gambling’
content labelling, and corresponding age limits, to games containing loot boxes
that can be purchased for real-world money and do not reveal their contents before
purchase. (Paragraph 86)

10. We agree with the Gambling Commission that games companies should be doing
more to prevent in-game items from being traded for real-world money, or being
used in unlicensed gambling. These uses are a direct result of how games are
designed and monetised, and their prevalence of undermines the argument that loot
boxes are not a form of gambling. Moreover, we believe that the existing concept of
‘money’s worth’ in the context of gambling legislation does not adequately reflect
people’s real-world experiences of spending in games. (Paragraph 97)

11. We consider loot boxes that can be bought with real-world money and do not reveal
their contents in advance to be games of chance played for money’s worth. The
Government should bring forward regulations under section 6 of the Gambling Act
2005 in the next parliamentary session to specify that loot boxes are a game of chance.
If it determines not to regulate loot boxes under the Act at this time, the Government
should produce a paper clearly stating the reasons why it does not consider loot boxes
paid for with real-world currency to be a game of chance played for money’s worth.

[Graeham]

I'm hoping that they tackle the issue head on. I'm happy to spend money on a game when I know exactly what I'm getting, though random loot with skewed odds is deceptive and definitely a case of gambling.

Some of the other stuff in the document is a little worrying, though not really relevant to the topic at hand.

[draykorinee]

Yeah, I still can't wait for Jim Sterling to get a video out, going to be a great one. Its a hefty read so I'll take a look in to the other stuff at some point.

[dope_danny]

I was just passing by someone watching tv earlier and i swear the news said they were going to have Sterling on to talk about it. Its now actually being talked about to the point i had my 72 year old grandmother say "what are these lot boxes in your computer games?". The moment the mainstream starts going "hang on, is this a scam that targets kids?" is the moment companies should actually worry. Gamers can bitch all they want but we all remember valves l4d2 and call of duty boycott lists of players all playing the games. Theres an entire cattle market of what companies call 'watercooler gamers' that have absolutely no issue with extremes like buying a game and only getting as little as 10% of the content on disc as long as they get the dopamine rush from the funpay minibuy surprise mechanics. You can't trust people who play games to change this, when it gets to the point parents kick up a stink is usually when heads start to roll.

[PromiscuousPenguin]

Well there is some work to be done still...

This is what Kerry Hopkins, EA VP, had to say to the UK MPs : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48701962

"But Kerry told MPs that EA believed the boxes are "quite ethical and fun."

"Kerry Hopkins compared paying for loot boxes to buying things like Kinder Eggs, Hatchimals or LOL Surprise."

[Deathpath]

It sucks that game companies push things far enough for the government to step in. Basically its lose lose situation.

Either devs will escalate their unethical behavior, or the government will over regulate games because they're a bunch of old fogeys that have no understanding of the industry.

[dope_danny]

It sucks that game companies push things far enough for the government to step in. Basically its lose lose situation.

Either devs will escalate their unethical behavior, or the government will over regulate games because they're a bunch of old fogeys that have no understanding of the industry.

"I can make bank and bug out before the shit hits the fan" is basically the mindset of suits in this kind of situation. Its not about lack of foresight, its about being able to get out before the clean up with the greasy money.

[DesoPL]

Oh wow they finally woked up.

Too bad only in case for some countries like Poland... Loot boxes are not gambling, due to fact of not specific mention in regulations. According to regulation back from 2008 and now. There is no mention about it.

[Jtbrig7390]

Jims video.

[Dhrizzle]

It sucks that game companies push things far enough for the government to step in. Basically its lose lose situation.

Either devs will escalate their unethical behavior, or the government will over regulate games because they're a bunch of old fogeys that have no understanding of the industry.

Yup, games companies basically shit the bed with this one, I'd expect more regulations to be suggested both to restrict the amount of money people can pay in games (regardless of random chance) and investigation into addictive gaming behaviours that could affect core content or even lead to China-style restrictions on how long people are allowed to game.

[oathy]

Given the utter poop show going on over here at the moment
having watched various hearings its clear most of them havent got a clue what the games are even about.
Still feel for children under a certain age its upto the parents to be the control not the goverment

[Zelk]

great but I have no confidence in the government's willingness to do anything about it. They're more than happy for more traditional forms of gambling to run rampant so I don't think this will enact much change outside of age ratings.

[Coldkil]

Well, UK just went all out on lootboxes it seems, nailing perfectly how they're mechanics tailored to exploit specific demographics and get as much revenue as possible from them.

The hilarious part is that everything of this just came out because of Battlefront 2 and gamers pissed off about another crappy game where progression was behind a paywall. Publishers could have just stopped a little before that and kept some sort of "low profile" and they would be doing this forever. But nope "PUT ALL INTO LOOTBOXES".

That's what you get when you just reiterate bad behaviour towards your customers. Shit has hit the proverbial fan.

[Dhrizzle]

Well, UK just went all out on lootboxes it seems, nailing perfectly how they're mechanics tailored to exploit specific demographics and get as much revenue as possible from them.

The hilarious part is that everything of this just came out because of Battlefront 2 and gamers pissed off about another crappy game where progression was behind a paywall. Publishers could have just stopped a little before that and kept some sort of "low profile" and they would be doing this forever. But nope "PUT ALL INTO LOOTBOXES".

That's what you get when you just reiterate bad behaviour towards your customers. Shit has hit the proverbial fan.

Or they could have said they recognise concerns about over-spending on microtransactions and parental worries to do with gambling-like mechanics instead of just throwing their arms up and saying everything is fine as far as they're concerned.

- - - Updated - - -

great but I have no confidence in the government's willingness to do anything about it. They're more than happy for more traditional forms of gambling to run rampant so I don't think this will enact much change outside of age ratings.

The cynic in me suspects that MPs either have more investments or stronger connections to lobbyists for traditional gambling and will be more than happy to jump onboard with anti-videogame hysteria as a sign they're taking it serious. Teenage gambling problems? Nothing to do with poor regulation of high street machines and online casinos. Must be these evil video games that also cause violence, let's sort them out.

[Coldkil]

Or they could have said they recognise concerns about over-spending on microtransactions and parental worries to do with gambling-like mechanics instead of just throwing their arms up and saying everything is fine as far as they're concerned.

They were more on the line "it's not gambling, it's not a worrying situations. players are happy and that's what they want". They were defensive about their predatory systems even when facing the facts.

[Aeula]

Government regulation is never a good thing. The last time they discussed lootboxes, it was brought up whether they should forcibly limit the time people can spend on games to help curtail it.

I’d rather put up with shitty micro transactions than have my Government implement another stupid, authoritarian law.

[Coldkil]

Wow is that a stupid comparison. Kinder Eggs do not have different grades of toys insider; they are all the same crappy toys. And plus, you get the actually chocolate as a reward.

Even better description: you buy a chocolate egg and a toy for a fixed price. It's not like you're hunting for a specific part to complete the toy that's randomly placed in 1% of the eggs.

Hell, even when there were the miniatures collection you had 3x egg packs where 1 was a guaranteed miniature, teh collection were comprised of like 10 ones and were basically piss easy to complete. Plus, given the diffusion (at least here) everyone had doubles to exchange for free - and you could even write to Kinder and you could buy the missing ones if you wanted.

There was literally a minimal if not zero RNG involved.

[horbindr]

Government regulation is never a good thing. The last time they discussed lootboxes, it was brought up whether they should forcibly limit the time people can spend on games to help curtail it.

I’d rather put up with shitty micro transactions than have my Government implement another stupid, authoritarian law.

governerment regulation isn't good no, but these companies aren't regulating themselves and seriously pushing the boundaries atm, so it's just a matter of time.

though honestly i think all thats going to come of this is some compromise where companies can still put T for teen/pegi12 on their boxes in exchange for some taxation.

[Coldkil]

This is pretty much it. Add a store that lets you buy all the rewards from the boxes, make the box rewards convertible for the store currency and you eliminate the RNG; this is largely what ESO does. You can keep lootboxes but as long as you diminish the gambling element it becomes much easier to defend them.

I'd just add the fact that you cannot but thing for real money and we're done. If everything comes from a shop but you can engage in a game of chance that doesn't include real money, then it's fine in my eyes.

The whole point is that if someone wants to spend 200$ on a skin, it's their money. However if the whole thing is comprised of 200$ transactions, then people will just see it for what it is - a shitty scam tactic. Lootboxes make it so you don't have a definite price for anything, so you're going to overspend by default and making thing broadily available just goes against the ultimate goal, which is profit.

[Tenjen]

Government regulation is never a good thing. The last time they discussed lootboxes, it was brought up whether they should forcibly limit the time people can spend on games to help curtail it.

I’d rather put up with shitty micro transactions than have my Government implement another stupid, authoritarian law.

The companies went over board with their changes and have pushed the line again and again, they create a new line and then cross it. Jim Sterling had warned YEARS ago it was going to attract attention if they kept going too far. which he predicted because each year stockholders asked for profits exceeding last years and thats just not sustainable. It pushes them to go to extreme lengths with MT's and lootboxes.

Without a doubt the government intervention will be over reaching and miss the point. Its going to hurt us too but hopefully game companies will learn a damn lesson about self control.