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

[draykorinee]

That doesn't mean everything needs a scientific study before it can be sold to the public.

To a point, it depends on multiple factors of course. People research pretty much everything to be fair, so I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by someone, especially as its related to paediatric behaviour and that's always a hot topic.

[Dextroden]

Man, with all this focus on lootboxes and "gambling", I certainly hope game companies don't just focus more on doing microtransactions since it's not gambling and would escape any laws that focus on gambling.

[Polybius]

And hopefully it does. That still does not mean that a game should have to do a scientific study before it releases. Anything that provides any kind of pleasure can be addictive. That doesn't mean everything needs a scientific study before it can be sold to the public.

- - - Updated - - -



There are games that have had literal gambling for decades, without issue. The "think of the children" argument is tiresome, since all studies shown to date (even the research from the UK commission) shows that the rate is in line with the general population distribution. People want to ban based on their feelings, with no actual evidence. What's worse, is they want others to provide the evidence for them. Like the government, while still happily collecting money from the companies they want to restrict.

Using real life currency IS an issue. That's more than enough evidence.

You can undermine "feelings" all you want, that's how our most important laws were set in motion. Most gamers and parents oppose gambling and microtransactions.

[Krastyn]

To a point, it depends on multiple factors of course. People research pretty much everything to be fair, so I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by someone, especially as its related to paediatric behaviour and that's always a hot topic.

I'm surprised one of the "concerned groups" or the government themselves haven't put money towards funding a study. Even if the developers themselves do a study, people won't trust a report from them.

- - - Updated - - -

Using real life currency IS an issue. That's more than enough evidence.

You can undermine "feelings" all you want, that's how our most important laws were set in motion. Most gamers and parents oppose gambling and microtransactions.

I agree that using real life currency to gamble and win real life currency can be a problem. But you, like so many other people, just blanket statement that this is gambling, and as long as we treat it as such all the ills of the world will go away. That's far, far from the case. It also doesn't even touch on the fact that in the vast, vast majority of cases, you can't actually wager real life currency for real life currency in video games.

Finally, just because most people oppose something, doesn't mean you get rid of it.

[Carolus Rex]

Total nonsense.

[Flarelaine]

I hope they burn micro transactions and loot boxes to the ground, and to a lesser extent, paid DLC's.

A blanket ban on paid DLC's would wreck legitimate expansions as well.

[Temp name]

A blanket ban on paid DLC's would wreck legitimate expansions as well.

I don't think we'll see any legislation banning microtransactions or paid DLC. It would be way too hard to hit just the bad ones without good ones getting caught in the cross fire.

[Toxuvox]

The way I see it, anything that adds to a game in a purely cosmetic way is fair game for MTX. They don't add anything outside of some visual flare, they don't increase player power, and they don't effect gameplay outcomes (unless you're the type of person who is easily distracted by the pretty things). When game publishers start locking player power behind a pay barrier, that's the line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed. When publishers release a half finished game at full price, then expect players to pay extra for DLC packs to complete the roster, that's the line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed.

[Temp name]

The way I see it, anything that adds to a game in a purely cosmetic way is fair game for MTX. They don't add anything outside of some visual flare, they don't increase player power, and they don't effect gameplay outcomes (unless you're the type of person who is easily distracted by the pretty things). When game publishers start locking player power behind a pay barrier, that's the line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed. When publishers release a half finished game at full price, then expect players to pay extra for DLC packs to complete the roster, that's the line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed.

But how would you legally define "half finished game" in a way that's rigorous enough to stop all the bad apples without catching some false positives? And what about selling an expansion that has player power in it? Should that also be banned?

[Coldkil]

The whole problem is that lootboxes/RNG rewards have no reason to exist other than to make players spend way more money than they would like because you cannot target your rewards and you have just to spend money until RNG gets on your side or they made some sort of "catchup process" with virtual currency to get things eventually.

I'm not against MTX. Even if done wrong - are they P2W? I'm not going to play the game. Are they terribly expensive? Well, i'm not gonna spend my money and who have the money for them, good for them and devs. The point is that price A = item B and that's final.

Instead, lootboxes are made so you don't know how much you're going to spend in the first place and they actively try to divert you from the thought of spending money. They are actively trying to make you hooked. It's not a side effect, it's their prime goal.

This is what breaks the deal to me. Calling them gambling or not has no impact - they need regulations because at this point they've become a standard and players are so used to them they don't even realize they're scammed and the implemented "protection/rating" systems are completely broken, useless and downright corrupt.

I'm fine with people disagreeing, to each its own. But i'm not gonna change my mind.

[Trbn]

But you are paying for exactly what you are going to get? In case of Overwatch, its either skin, emote, spray or gold. It's guaranteed you will get one of those and it doesn't impact game-play. How is that gambling? If you cannot control yourself with this, you have issues.

ahahahahah

the most stupid thing i've read.

you know that's an actual problem of a gambling, gamblers rarely can control themselves.

you wrote such a stupid thing I'd even respond to it week later

[Krastyn]

The whole problem is that lootboxes/RNG rewards have no reason to exist other than to make players spend way more money than they would like because you cannot target your rewards and you have just to spend money until RNG gets on your side or they made some sort of "catchup process" with virtual currency to get things eventually.

To write it a slightly different way:
The whole problem is that RNG rewards have no reason to exist other than to make players spend way more time than they would like because you cannot target your rewards and you just have to spend time until RNG gets on your side or they made some sort of 'catchup process' with virtual currency to get things eventually.

With the above system, you have WoW, and every other subscription based game. Even non-subscription games, they are trying to extend their playtime through RNG.

Part of why I don't see the point in trying to outright ban them and why most regulation will either be completely ineffective, or result in a ton of collateral damage. There are so many other mechanics and ways of implementation that people aren't calling for changes on, that if you brought the hammer down they companies would simply morph the product into something else that is just outside of the legislation, creating an infinite game of whack-a-mole.

Instead, lootboxes are made so you don't know how much you're going to spend in the first place and they actively try to divert you from the thought of spending money. They are actively trying to make you hooked. It's not a side effect, it's their prime goal.

So are physical TCG's, which have been around for decades. As well as all the other real life examples that have been put forth in the thread. Why are digital loot boxes a unicorn?

[Greevir]

I look forward for these optional loot boxes to be banned and $80+ becomes the norm for a new game.

[oplawlz]

So are physical TCG's, which have been around for decades. As well as all the other real life examples that have been put forth in the thread. Why are digital loot boxes a unicorn?

This is such a head in the sand argument. Instead of pointing out the glaringly obvious differences and having you say "nuh uh" let's try a different tact.

Why do you think that children are prohibited from gambling in first world countries?

[Vash The Stampede]

But how would you legally define "half finished game" in a way that's rigorous enough to stop all the bad apples without catching some false positives? And what about selling an expansion that has player power in it? Should that also be banned?

Or what if PC players crack the game and get all the micro-transactions? It's optional, right? If I wasn't gonna pay for them then its not like I took money away from the developers. What if I mod the game and put my own cosmetics? It gets real messy real quickly.

It's much simpler to make a game and sell it for $60, instead of micro-transactions, loot boxes, and DLCs. If people start "unlocking" parts of your game then do you have legal ground to stand on? They paid for the game after all, so don't they already own the micro-transactions, loot boxes, and DLCs?

[Coldkil]

To write it a slightly different way:
The whole problem is that RNG rewards have no reason to exist other than to make players spend way more time than they would like because you cannot target your rewards and you just have to spend time until RNG gets on your side or they made some sort of 'catchup process' with virtual currency to get things eventually.

With the above system, you have WoW, and every other subscription based game. Even non-subscription games, they are trying to extend their playtime through RNG.

Part of why I don't see the point in trying to outright ban them and why most regulation will either be completely ineffective, or result in a ton of collateral damage. There are so many other mechanics and ways of implementation that people aren't calling for changes on, that if you brought the hammer down they companies would simply morph the product into something else that is just outside of the legislation, creating an infinite game of whack-a-mole.

So are physical TCG's, which have been around for decades. As well as all the other real life examples that have been put forth in the thread. Why are digital loot boxes a unicorn?

As i said in another post, i include TCGs into this. They're "slightly" different because when you buy a card pack, you have a material good that can be sold/exchanged but i see them as addictive as lootboxes and exploiting the system. I don't care how famous or old are they, they're blatant scams - mostly because it's a never ending treadmill with no way to get a specific set of cards (not that i know as official - if there is, see the stickers part below).

As you said, they're extending artificially the longevity with RNG system. However, in a subscription based game, you know upfront what you're paying for. You're paying for 1 month of access to the game. Devs will add content over time to make you play more and keep subbed, but there's no hidden costs whatsoever. You pay X = 1 month of gametime. That's why it's different from lootboxes and similar, and the crucial point of my reasoning. RNG is not the culprit here; it is when it's tied to real money/additional transaction and game progression.

On another example, stickers collections are not like lootboxes either. At least here in Italy, you buy stickers pack but if you want to complete the collection you can just write to the company and they will sell you whatever amount of specific ones for a cheap price. One could ideally buy its whole collection this way. So, while RNG is involved, you always have a way to "cap" it and have a limit on the money spent (which may vary from people to people). If this wasn't a possibility, then into the "lootbox bin" they go for me.

In videogames, the lootbox systems are designed to be addictive and most important to mask the fact you're going to spend so much money of them you wouldn't instead if they presented the total amount needed upfront. The fact thing like sports games make you buy them all over again basically resetting your progress/money spent each year is an exasperation of the system. Make them buyable only with ingame currency (no shitty loophole buy currency with money - buy lootbox with currency, hell, add even a store to buy directly specific things) and the issue would be solved in my eyes. They would still be crap games for me, but this is not the thing we're discussing here.


Like many other have said, i don't care about the quality of games on this topic. It's just completely detached and another thing. The problem here is a system that makes people spend tons of money for nothing and it's unhealthy. I want the money part removed.

I don't pretend people agree with me. Also i don't want to change people's mind - i'll just avoid engaging in these games altogether and i'll just stop playing if every game becomes a lootbox fest. When i have children, for sure i won't have (and i don't have now) my card attached to game account for purchases.

I agree with you on the last part. I want a ban? Yes. But i know already that it's going to be a shitfest with a lot of collateral damage and companies will just design a way to circumvent eventual new regulations. So that's it. Point is, this whole thing exploded because of companies creating shittier and shittier systems overtime and people just got tired and angry about them - if they kept a low profile the thing would have gone unnoticed completely. They couldn't pretend to rake up billions of dollars and just go unhinged forever. Somene with interests would have stepped in anyway sooner or later.

[minteK917]

I look forward for these optional loot boxes to be banned and $80+ becomes the norm for a new game.

wouldnt mind, only problem with your arguments, how do game without lootbox get by then? Just because ShitEA, Activision, etc cant seems to make games without them, other companies can somehow.

[dope_danny]

I know lockbox addiction is a very real thing, combined with low level youtuber/streamer detritus that make money off "MOST EPIC PACK OPENING EVER?!?" videos but seeing people screech in a fit of panicked rage "b-b-but trading cards and kinder eggs are exactly the same as paying money for a chance to unlock textures already on the disc i already paid full price for!" just shows how badly publishers got their hooks in people. Good lord its fucking embarrassing to watch this shit. Its like a drunk uncle at an intervention or something.

[Krastyn]

This is such a head in the sand argument. Instead of pointing out the glaringly obvious differences and having you say "nuh uh" let's try a different tact.

Why do you think that children are prohibited from gambling in first world countries?

Because lawmakers decided so.

So now explain how a digital pack of cards for a TCG game is so markedly different from a phyical pack of cards for a TCG that one is gambling while the other is not.

- - - Updated - - -

As i said in another post, i include TCGs into this. They're "slightly" different because when you buy a card pack, you have a material good that can be sold/exchanged but i see them as addictive as lootboxes and exploiting the system. I don't care how famous or old are they, they're blatant scams - mostly because it's a never ending treadmill with no way to get a specific set of cards (not that i know as official - if there is, see the stickers part below).

I actually view physical TCG's more akin to gambling than the digital version, for the very reason in bold. It's way easier to monetize.

As you said, they're extending artificially the longevity with RNG system. However, in a subscription based game, you know upfront what you're paying for. You're paying for 1 month of access to the game. Devs will add content over time to make you play more and keep subbed, but there's no hidden costs whatsoever. You pay X = 1 month of gametime. That's why it's different from lootboxes and similar, and the crucial point of my reasoning. RNG is not the culprit here; it is when it's tied to real money/additional transaction and game progression.

But what if they tweak it slightly, and add a "premium" tier subscription, what gives you access to an extra daily event that gives random rewards? What if they added a dungeon in game that cost $1 every time you wanted access to it, and it gave random rewards? Where do you draw the line between "subscription content" and "gambling"

On another example, stickers collections are not like lootboxes either. At least here in Italy, you buy stickers pack but if you want to complete the collection you can just write to the company and they will sell you whatever amount of specific ones for a cheap price. One could ideally buy its whole collection this way. So, while RNG is involved, you always have a way to "cap" it and have a limit on the money spent (which may vary from people to people). If this wasn't a possibility, then into the "lootbox bin" they go for me.

So what are the ratio's needed for it not to be a loot box? From what I'm understanding from the above,as long as all the individual items are for sale, it is ok. How "cheap" do they have to be? Who decides what the "cap" is?

Like many other have said, i don't care about the quality of games on this topic. It's just completely detached and another thing. The problem here is a system that makes people spend tons of money for nothing and it's unhealthy. I want the money part removed.

For anyone over 18, I really don't care. No video game company makes you spend tons of money. Show some personal accountability for your own actions (in the general sense, not you specifically).

For those under 18, there are other more effective methods than trying to get them banned. As at the end of the day, I don't think there is a way to get them banned. At best, you could make them 18+ (or whatever legal gambling is in the country of residence). Even that, still won't solve the problem (see alcohol, gambling, and tobacco). The UK report already showed that more kids already gamble on things that would otherwise be illegal for someone their age, than even buy loot boxes. That should be evidence alone to show that making loot boxes gambling it isn't going to stop it.

If Apple, Amazon, Google Play, and almost every other digital service I use can send me a receipt every time I make a purchase, why don't all credit card companies have this option? Then every single parent would know the instant their kid is trying to buy something online with their card. To me, this single move would absolve video game companies of most of their responsibility. It then becomes an issue of a parent not paying attention.

[Endus]

I actually view physical TCG's more akin to gambling than the digital version, for the very reason in bold. It's way easier to monetize.

This is a point I feel bears repeating. The core limitation on "gambling" has always been that it involves actual monetary value; that you're betting something for a return that may or may not be more than what you bet. It's why kids can't buy scratch lotto tickets; there's cash rewards.

There's no such value to the digital returns from lootboxes. They may have personal value, to the consumer, but there's no monetary value.

And with TCG card packs, there is monetary value. It's closer to "gambling" than lootboxes, and yet has faced basically no real arguments to limit their sales.

This whole thing just smacks of a few squeaky wheels who don't like lootboxes, because they have a completely unwarranted and incorrect belief that they "own" all the content of the game for the base purchase price they bought it at. And that's not an argument; it's just an objectively wrong belief, like thinking the Earth is flat or the Moon is made of cheese.