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

[Aliven]

Yes. I think they are using that 'love of discounts' to get people to spend a vast amount more than they need to, in order to get their "gamble fix" or w/e the psychological reaction is; by making the discount bundles exponentially large. I think that's shitty.

That is separte issue from gambling and loot boxes. You can bundle them that way but also you can bundle in game money.

Like it or not but lootboxes are carefully crafted systems that are designed to create and prey upon unhealthy habits and our own psyche. Thats why for example they are shiny, the opening mechanic is like mini holiday with lights, bombastic sound and awesome animations, they WANT the opening of them be exciting, dont matter what is inside.

Btw any twitch/youtuber who made those "I OPEN 2000000 LOOTBOXES HERE IS HOW IT WENT" should be forever banned imo.

[Elim Garak]

I mean isn't that the exact situation with CS:GO that opened this pandora's box (pardon the pun).

I'm not aware of what CS:Go did. Last time I played CS seriously it was a mod for half-life at version 1.6.

[Okacz]

You always get something and you know beforehand what you might get and it's not money, you don't buy lootboxes to get more money. It's a mystery bag. You buy it not knowing what you get exactly but you do know it's not money and you do know you won't get anything worth more than what you have paid and it won't be money.

In gambling, you lose money if you don't win and your possible reward is money and you gamble to gain MORE money. That's the hook. Easy money. Lootboxes don't give you anything that has any worth in real life.

Don't wanna get stuck on definition here, but I'm pretty sure you can gamble for things beyond money. There's a spot near me that organizes poker tourneys with non-monetary rewards, last time you could win a fridge (all that effort to bypass gambling law). Point being, you can gamble for anything to get the same thrills.

When it comes to contents of lootboxes, they also have value. Even if it's an extremly rare skin, power boost, XP booster, even an icon, those things have a measurable value for people who would roll the dice to get them. Sometimes you can even buy them as MTX, lootbox is only a different way of doing so.

To be honest, I don't want to rip on gambling here. It is fun (as long as you're not addicted), it can get thrilling even, some people can get good at it. It would probably be for the best if the whole government-side debate disjointed lootboxes from other, less predatory forms of gambling - I wouldn't mind games where you could bet real money on blackjack and whatnot. Like RDR2 online, a game that's clearly 18+ - in my opinion it would be sweet if you could actually play the card games there betting actual money. With all the regulations, not happening anytime soon.

[Saltysquidoon]

I'm not aware of what CS:Go did. Last time I played CS seriously it was a mod for half-life at version 1.6.

To my understanding CS:GO had loot boxes with random skins that players generated through play, to open them you had to buy a key with real money. The skin (which had a variable value) could then be onsold on the steam marketplace again for real money. So the more keys bought offered more chances to roll a skin of high value.
This is by any definition gambling

I understand that the CS:GO scandal was what started the whole "loot boxes are gambling debate".

[Aliven]

We are not talking about hooks of lootboxes but rather if they are gambling - they are not. Gambling requires a monetary or a valuable (an asset that can be converted into money) reward, reward that is valuable in real life. When people buy a loot box to get an in-game item - they know they are not getting anything worth anything in real life. They want it - but they are not expecting it to be worth anything. They want it for vanity.

This is not gambling. The hooks of lootboxes are not different than "sale" and "discount" hooks or simple ads. They are psychological and predatory - but not gambling.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari...glish/gamble_1

"[intransitive, transitive] to risk money on a card game, horse race, etc.
gamble (at/on something) to gamble at cards
to gamble on the horses
gamble something (at/on something) I gambled all my winnings on the last race."

and second

"​[transitive, intransitive] to risk losing something in the hope of being successful
gamble something (on something) He's gambling his reputation on this deal.
gamble with/on something It was wrong to gamble with our children's future.
gamble that She gambled that he wouldn't read it before she reached the airport."

There is nothing about reward for it. Just that it is risking money in an activity.

and from the same dictionary

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari.../money?q=money

"money = what you earn by working or selling things, and use to buy things"

I mean, we can play the game of "only real money count" but that is kinda stupid...

[Biomega]

You always get something and you know beforehand what you might get and it's not money, you don't buy lootboxes to get more money. It's a mystery bag. You buy it not knowing what you get exactly but you do know it's not money and you do know you won't get anything worth more than what you have paid and it won't be money.

In gambling, you lose money if you don't win and your possible reward is money and you gamble to gain MORE money. That's the hook. Easy money. Lootboxes don't give you anything that has any worth in real life.

Legally (at least in the US) it doesn't matter if you win money or win something else; it also doesn't matter if the outcome includes complete loss of stake. If that was the case, gambling legislation could be easily circumvented by never having a total loss scenario, and simply offering some trivial prize in its stead (like e.g. a handkerchief, or something equally effectively worthless). The stake you wager doesn't have to be money, either, just "something of value".

What matters for the definition of gambling in most jurisdictions is:

1. you must wager a stake to enter, and that stake is something of value
2. the outcome of the gambling event is uncertain, and not in control of either party involved
3. a certain desired outcome results in the return of a prize, which is also something of value
4. the transaction is not a bona-fide business transaction under valid contract law (such as e.g. insurance or securities etc.)

There is also the related concept of GAMING, which covers three different types (one of which is gambling): skill-based, chance-based, and both skill and chance based.

The argument for loot boxes (at least in the US, probably in many other jurisdictions as well) rarely centers around the question of whether or not it's gambling, but whether or not it's ILLEGAL gambling. Legal gambling is subject to fairly strict regulations and oversight, including restrictions on who is able to participate (e.g. no minors, etc.), and (depending on jurisdiction) what information has to be provided (e.g. odds of winning, etc.).

The "mystery bag" concept is legally a very tricky beast to tackle, and there's regular challenges against e.g. trading card games for their "booster pack" model that usually includes highly valuable cards mixed into effectively worthless ones (or ones of nominal value). So far, those have not been classified as illegal gambling in most countries, however many countries have tightened regulations on such products (like the already mentioned mandated printing of certain odds on packaging). One big defense in many of these cases has been that the actual VALUE of the items in question is set by the consumers, not the producers; i.e. if you think a Black Lotus card in Magic: the Gathering is worth $20,000 then that's between you and other players; the company itself doesn't set these prices and does not engage in the secondary market. A similar argument is used in the case of virtual/digital loot boxes. However, those arguments aren't universally accepted, as the company may not be DIRECTLY involved in price-setting, but certainly is INDIRECTLY involved as the price is usually a function of parameters they very much do control (like in-game power), and they are also in control of the supply (by setting the rarity).

It's an ongoing legal debate, that I'm sure will swing one way and the other many times over before we see sweeping legislative changes (if we even see those at all).

[Elim Garak]

Don't wanna get stuck on definition here, but I'm pretty sure you can gamble for things beyond money. There's a spot near me that organizes poker tourneys with non-monetary rewards, last time you could win a fridge (all that effort to bypass gambling law). Point being, you can gamble for anything to get the same thrills.

If the reward doesn't depend on investment - it's not gambling. It's an event with a reward. If you can replace poker with any other activity and the reward stays the same - it's outrageously NOT gambling.

Gambling is investing money to get money with a risk to lose all. Stock market investment is GAMBLING. But it has no predatory hooks though.

When it comes to contents of lootboxes, they also have value. Even if it's an extremly rare skin, power boost, XP booster, even an icon, those things have a measurable value for people who would roll the dice to get them. Sometimes you can even buy them as MTX, lootbox is only a different way of doing so.

They have no IRL value. They are restricted to the specific game. To be used in the game. And it's not a secret.

To be honest, I don't want to rip on gambling here. It is fun (as long as you're not addicted), it can get thrilling even, some people can get good at it. It would probably be for the best if the whole government-side debate disjointed lootboxes from other, less predatory forms of gambling - I wouldn't mind games where you could bet real money on blackjack and whatnot. Like RDR2 online, a game that's clearly 18+ - in my opinion it would be sweet if you could actually play the card games there betting actual money. With all the regulations, not happening anytime soon.

Gambling is fine. But it always gets involved with shady practices. I would rather all the casinos and slot machines were banned from the premises of cities. Access to them should be problematic. Because gambling is addictive.

[Bigbazz]

You probably werent ridiculed for that seeing as it's been pretty common knowledge since the inception of loot boxes of what they would lead to.

What I'm just imagining it? It was on these very forums in the Overwatch section, by regulars many of which are posting here today and some who are moderators, they were defending the microtransactions within Overwatch as well as defending the use of lootboxes for rewards. I literally got ridiculed, people were toxic, condescending and patronising as fuck towards me because I was showing dislike towards that.

If you're really interested you can just search my username in Overwatch section, you will see a lot of turd tennis.

[Saltysquidoon]

1. you must wager a stake to enter, and that stake is something of value
2. the outcome of the gambling event is uncertain, and not in control of either party involved
3. a certain desired outcome results in the return of a prize, which is also something of value
4. the transaction is not a bona-fide business transaction under valid contract law (such as e.g. insurance or securities etc.)

Off-topic but 4 million keks they had to write in an unironic exception for securities 'trading' especially in this day and age where the market is entirely controlled by high volume algos.

[AeneasBK]

That is separte issue from gambling and loot boxes.

All I was saying is while I have no problem with lootboxes, and no problem with them being purchasable for real money, I just find the amount that some games allow you to spend in a single transaction (anything above the average price of a video game really) to be gross, especially because they are bundled in with discounts. That's all.

[Onikaroshi]

Thats why those games should be labeled as intended for 18+ audience, so parenting could be easier due to better informent parents.

As if parents pay attention to the rating nowadays.

do have to wonder though... would TCGs become 18+? No more pokemon sold in the target checkout isle.

[Okacz]

If the reward doesn't depend on investment - it's not gambling. It's an event with a reward. If you can replace poker with any other activity and the reward stays the same - it's outrageously NOT gambling.

Gambling is investing money to get money with a risk to lose all. Stock market investment is GAMBLING. But it has no predatory hooks though.

Stock market is driven by logical data. You can make a good or bad investment, but if you use all the information correctly you would always win. The reason people lose there is that there are a LOT of factors, and most of them are not available, but gambling implies that there is no logical way to predict the outcome.

As for "reward depending on investment", I'm pretty sure by definition you can gamble for something that's not money. I mean, I would call russian roulette a gamble, wouldn't you?

Gambling is fine. But it always gets involved with shady practices. I would rather all the casinos and slot machines were banned from the premises of cities. Access to them should be problematic. Because gambling is addictive.

So is beer. I dunno, my approach is we shouldn't be trying to enforce bans too much. Especially since a lot of shady practices are born from actually trying to get around restricting laws.

[Krastyn]

Don't wanna get stuck on definition here, but I'm pretty sure you can gamble for things beyond money. There's a spot near me that organizes poker tourneys with non-monetary rewards, last time you could win a fridge (all that effort to bypass gambling law). Point being, you can gamble for anything to get the same thrills.

The definition however, very much matters, because that is what it will be judged on. The mechanic is what is going to be the test.

If a loot box is gambling, and thus subject to gambling restrictions, what about RNG loot? You're paying money for a chance at an outcome.

If a loot box is gambling, but the game only allows loot boxes to be purchased with only in game earned currency, is it gambling?
What if the game had a subscription fee?
What if as part of the subscription fee, they included some free loot boxes?

If loot boxes are gambling and should be restricted to adults, so should all TCG's, sports card collectibles, sticker books, LEGO, monthly loot crates, mystery bags, or Kinder Surprise Eggs.

Loot boxes should be restricted (remove the flash and animations from opening them). There should be no way to convert items from the box back into actual currency. I would also prefer there to be ways to reasonably obtain the currency in game to purchase them, as well as some kind of loss-prevention mechanic (such as dust in Hearthstone, or not being able to get duplicates).

But for now, almost all loot boxes to me are not gambling, because you always lose. There is no situation where you come out financially ahead.

[Saltysquidoon]

The definition however, very much matters, because that is what it will be judged on. The mechanic is what is going to be the test.

Per the Gambling Act 2005 UK:
Gambling
In this Act “gambling” means—
(a)gaming,
(b)betting, and
(c)participating in a lottery.

Gaming is defined thusly

[Krastyn]

As for "reward depending on investment", I'm pretty sure by definition you can gamble for something that's not money. I mean, I would call russian roulette a gamble, wouldn't you?

So is asking someone on a date. It's a gamble, but that doesn't mean it needs to be regulated.

So is beer. I dunno, my approach is we shouldn't be trying to enforce bans too much. Especially since a lot of shady practices are born from actually trying to get around restricting laws.

I'm in agreement here. Trying to ban loot boxes is going to create an game of whack-a-mole, which will result in either the government eventually giving up, or the removal of all RNG from games.

- - - Updated - - -

Per the Gambling Act 2005 UK:
Gambling
In this Act “gambling” means—
(a)gaming,
(b)betting, and
(c)participating in a lottery.

Gaming is defined thusly

And per the the act:

(5)In this Act “prize” in relation to gaming (except in the context of a gaming machine)—
(a)means money or money's worth, and
(b)includes both a prize provided by a person organising gaming and winnings of money staked.

So as long as loot boxes can't be "cashed out", they're not gambling. But this is also the law they want to change.

[Saltysquidoon]

So as long as loot boxes can't be "cashed out", they're not gambling. But this is also the law they want to change.

Except, is that exactly what made the CS:GO skins gambling (because the skins had a definable, usable worth) which started the whole debacle in the first place?

Further, I'm not sure your reading of the act is necessarily correct with respect to needing to 'cash out' anything. Money's worth would impute to me so long as the 'prize' has a definable value it would count.
So, for example, the way I read that is if a skin costs 1350 units and you can buy a loot box for 900 units that had a chance of rolling either the 1350 unit skin the player wanted or a 500 unit cost skin that would be gaming (and thus gambling) within the meaning of the act.

[Echeyakee]

This is why I have more respect for UK legislation than US (or US like). Instead of trying to write a retard proof definition of gambling in video games off the bat, expecting companies to try and get out on technicality, they left it rather open with a broad statement of:

"If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling,"

I'm sure that down the line it will still come to the cat and mouse game with definitions, but they have the right idea. I see a bunch of semantics warriors in this thread, but even they can't deny that, despite any real or made up legal definitions, lootboxes and similar mechanics look and feel like fucking gambling. Because they are gambling, just with extra steps.

And for those worried about all RNG mechanics, the problem starts when you start to charge money to be able to participate in said gambling, or build the game in a way that promotes paying money for gambling, over earning the rewards in-game. Same goes for subscriptions. Paying to have access to the game as a whole is not a problem, even if it has RNG elements, but having to pay subscription to be able to participate in the RNG part is gambling.

[Krastyn]

Except, is that exactly what made the CS:GO skins gambling (because the skins had a definable, usable worth) which started the whole debacle in the first place?

Which is why I said the vast majority of games do not allow for the trading of items from loot boxes. Loot boxes are significantly less like gambling than TCG's, which can easily be sold for money.

Further, I'm not sure your reading of the act is necessarily correct with respect to needing to 'cash out' anything. Money's worth would impute to me so long as the 'prize' has a definable value it would count.
So, for example, the way I read that is if a skin costs 1350 units and you can buy a loot box for 900 units that had a chance of rolling either the 1350 unit skin the player wanted or a 500 unit cost skin that would be gaming (and thus gambling) within the meaning of the act.

You enter a giant murky area by that interpretation though. Take WoW for example. Almost all loot is RNG. BoE loot can be sold on the AH for gold. You can both buy gold for money and cash out gold for money to spend on other products. So every mob you kill is gambling.

Per the Act, it meets:
2(iii) - a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but (b)does not include a sport.
It meets section (3)
4 (b) whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.
5 (a) means money or money's worth, and

You could also just stop selling individual skins, and make them all lootbox only. Then none of them have a "set" value.

Or you don't sell loot boxes directly, but give them out as bones for other purchases. This is what China did the Hearthstone. You don't buy backs of cards, you buy dust, and get packs thrown in for "free".

So you're left either legislating RNG out of games, or forever playing whack-a-mole.

Even if the government ruled tomorrow that any game with loot boxes must be rated 18+, how do you enforce age verification?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure that down the line it will still come to the cat and mouse game with definitions, but they have the right idea. I see a bunch of semantics warriors in this thread, but even they can't deny that, despite any real or made up legal definitions, lootboxes and similar mechanics look and feel like fucking gambling. Because they are gambling, just with extra steps.

There are semantics warriors because that's how the legal system works. Making a statement of "If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling," is absolutely meaningless. The devil is in the details. There have been games for decades that literally contain gambling. You can buy PC games that is like Hoyle Casino. So you need to be clear how the gambling act in the game relates to real money. After doing that, you need to look at how that definition is then going to apply to other markets and products (see TCG's, collectables, etc).

The House of Lords says that "To ensure that all future gambling-like products are regulated as gambling, Ministers must have a power analogous to section 6(6) of the Act to specify that any activity which has the characteristics of gambling, even if not similar to a game of chance, should be brought within the purview of the Act." and "We recommend that section 3 of the Gambling Act 2005 should be amended to give Ministers a power, analogous to that in section 6(6), to specify by regulations that any activity which in their view has the characteristics of gambling should be treated as gambling for the purposes of the Act."

So without any written definitions, the government could just decide whatever they want is gambling, such as RNG loot.

[Orange Joe]

You guys know how this will end up right? I mean they already did this once. Anyone with gambling laws will just get the same game with lootboxes disabled.

[Kathranis]

So without any written definitions, the government could just decide whatever they want is gambling, such as RNG loot.

There is a pretty obvious line, I think, which is when you exchange real money for a chance to get an item with perceived monetary value (whether you can cash it our or not).

Now you could maybe stretch the definition to extend to "buying a game and it has enemies that drop random items" but I don't think that's something anyone is interested in actually pursuing.