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

[Santti]

Yes, it's gambling and should be regulated.

[ShmooDude]

I'll trade you Lord Hope in R v Burt & Adams 1998, who adopts a more broad approach of treating anything exchanged for money and having intrinsic value (i.e. not a sham) as having money's worth.

I don't think that section of the argument supports you like you think it does:

The first reason is that a teddy bear or other soft toy-- assuming always that it is a genuine toy and not sham or a device--is something which has its own intrinsic value as a toy. It is something which can be played with or admired and kept for amusement. No doubt it can, like any other article, be exchanged for something else if another person is willing to enter into such a transaction. In that sense it has a value which can be measured in money.

The "intrinsic value" as you put it is its ability to be "exchanged for something else" that gives it "a value which can be measured in money." Without the ability to enter into a transaction (or series of transactions) that ultimately result in money, it does not have "money's worth."

[Mumba]

I dislike MTX, but at least they are _somewhat_ fair as in you know exactly what you get, like MOBA skins. It also gives the option for companies to monetize their games in other ways than raising the price tag.

Lootboxes or "surprise mechanics" you buy with real currency on the other hand act exactly like gambling and I'm glad more countries are branding them as such. Predatory practises like that has no place in an industry which is based on skill (or anywhere else).

[Saltysquidoon]

The "intrinsic value" as you put it is its ability to be "exchanged for something else" that gives it "a value which can be measured in money." Without the ability to enter into a transaction (or series of transactions) that ultimately result in money, it does not have "money's worth."

Wew looks like I'm in the clear then. As I said In my previous post both cases are not considering digital goods or the current legislation in any case.

From a policy perspective, existing jurisprudence aside. I'm not sure its a super good idea to give companies a pass for artificially limiting the resale of 'objects' a consumer has provided valuable consideration for a chance at obtaining on the basis that doing so somehow strips them of value.

[Krastyn]

Solid point about WoW loot, although to me that just highlights how borderline shoddy blizzard's business practices are. I do have to admit that the act as written does appear to cover such conduct though so I can't really think of a complete defence for blizzard here, although I admit I'm more familiar with Australian legislation.
I have to say personally as an Australian the WoW token lacks the element of betting required under Australian law to constitute gambling.

The defense they would likely use is that you can never "cash out". Yes, you can convert some gold to dollar value on Battlenet, you can't actually have Blizzard give you that money. The closest you could come is finding somene to buy a game from you, and then gifting them a game.

However both the issue with the WoW token and your further examples frankly just go to show why the house of lords is correct. The act does not conceive of or correctly regulate online video games that while not traditionally associated with gambling (such as online poker) that are attempting to use gambling to leverage profit. The need for reform is clear.

In order to have a discuss what value digital goods have that you don't own. You also need to discuss at what point it becomes gambling. How close does the link need to be between payment and reward, As I've said, RNG has been in games for decades. Literal replications of gambling has been in games for decades. It's going to come down to what is considered "reward", and in relation to money spent.

That said I'd not go as far as this "they'll have to remove all RNG" pearl-clutching. Under the act as written WoW without the token would not fall foul of the offence provisions.

WoW doesn't fall under it now. It would have to be modified To fall under it. Even without the token, the government could still argue it falls under the umbrella. Much like how CS:GO used a 3rd party site to monetize the skins market, gold selling websites have been around since as long as WoW.

As far as RNG goes, I'm not pearl clutching. I'm not even saying that's a likely outcome. As I've repeatedly said, trying to legislate something like this is going to lead to a a game of whack a mole, which will end either with them giving up, or RNG being removed. Any legislation that you try to create I can likely find both a way around in a short amount of time, and also collateral damage from trying to implement the changes.

I'm not sure why you're making out like that's high bar to overcome, online gambling services have age verification requirements right now.

You misunderstand me. My point is that it is an incredibly low bar to overcome. If the "problem" is kids "gambling" how much would it actually stop it? It would do literally nothing to stop anyone 18+, and would at most, offer an inconvenience to those younger.

I'll trade you Lord Hope in R v Burt & Adams 1998, who adopts a more broad approach of treating anything exchanged for money and having intrinsic value (i.e. not a sham) as having money's worth.

I don't think that case quite backs your argument. In that case, the issue wasn't specifically the value of the good, but whether the fact that you could trade multiples of the same good for a larger prize, which would then exceed the dollar limit per the legislation. The Lords ruled doing so is not a violation.

So is a loot box more like gambling, or more like a crane game?

[Saltysquidoon]

The defense they would likely use is that you can never "cash out". Yes, you can convert some gold to dollar value on Battlenet, you can't actually have Blizzard give you that money. The closest you could come is finding somene to buy a game from you, and then gifting them a game.

This is a fair point (and one that immediately sprung to mind), what concerns me about that defence is the previous and availability of non-blizzard products on battle net. When destiny, for example, was available that would be a concern for me there simply comes a point where 'not being able to cash out' becomes a bit of a *wink wink* situation.

WoW doesn't fall under it now. It would have to be modified To fall under it. Even without the token, the government could still argue it falls under the umbrella. Much like how CS:GO used a 3rd party site to monetize the skins market, gold selling websites have been around since as long as WoW.

As far as RNG goes, I'm not pearl clutching. I'm not even saying that's a likely outcome. As I've repeatedly said, trying to legislate something like this is going to lead to a a game of whack a mole, which will end either with them giving up, or RNG being removed. Any legislation that you try to create I can likely find both a way around in a short amount of time, and also collateral damage from trying to implement the changes.

Possibly, possibly not. Whether the crown chooses to bring a prosecution or not doesn't define what falls afoul of an act. But that's really more of an aside.

I think if there is any element of whack-a-mole it will run along two limbs; 1. Shoddy drafting by people who don't understand what they're drafting 2. Companies attempting to evade regulation because they know gambling engagement is a pot of gold they're just scratching the surface of (see 'raid: shadow legends') and they do not believe themselves beholden to the law (which has been a problem since forever).

If I was to air where I would take the policy position. I would focus down on the directness of the consideration provided to the 'game of chance' being played. Although I admit that is a bias because it would more closely reflect the Australian position.

You misunderstand me. My point is that it is an incredibly low bar to overcome. If the "problem" is kids "gambling" how much would it actually stop it? It would do literally nothing to stop anyone 18+, and would at most, offer an inconvenience to those younger.

I don't profess to be intimately acquainted with UK online gambling requirements. But my understanding is that the provision of an id is required to sign up, in addition there is some sort of self-exclusion register for problem gamblers.
I suppose an enterprising youngster might steal dad's id with his credit card, we could conjure ways minors could evade restrictions till the end of time, however.

[BrintoSFJ]

It is not the games they are trying to regulate, they are trying to regulate gambling inside games, be that console, pc or mobile games.

[ShmooDude]

Wew looks like I'm in the clear then. As I said In my previous post both cases are not considering digital goods or the current legislation in any case.

From a policy perspective, existing jurisprudence aside. I'm not sure its a super good idea to give companies a pass for artificially limiting the resale of 'objects' a consumer has provided valuable consideration for a chance at obtaining on the basis that doing so somehow strips them of value.

Yeah, the CS:GO stuff can definitely be said to have money's worth. Most don't though.

I totally agree with you on the policy point. It probably belongs in a broader argument of ownership of digital good.

For example, I remember reading something a while back. If you "buy" a movie on amazon, you're not actually buying it in the traditional sense. It's a service (that's essentially akin to an indefinite rental). People found this out when some old movie withdrew amazon's rights to distribute it and thus even everyone that "bought" it lost access to it.

That doesn't even include the complication of should the law require you to be able to resell a digital object in a digital world and the whole other ball of wax that would open.

P.S. If you check my original link, we both linked the same case. Just referenced different opinions within the case.

[Krastyn]

This is a fair point (and one that immediately sprung to mind), what concerns me about that defence is the previous and availability of non-blizzard products on battle net. When destiny, for example, was available that would be a concern for me there simply comes a point where 'not being able to cash out' becomes a bit of a *wink wink* situation.

They could remove the backwards exchanging, but I think that's actually a loss for players. I paid for my WoW sub for over a year through just gold. I'd be worse off if they did that.

Possibly, possibly not. Whether the crown chooses to bring a prosecution or not doesn't define what falls afoul of an act. But that's really more of an aside.

True, but as I said, you could interpret that loot boxes are in violation of the current 2005 laws, but the common consensus is the rules need to change to encompass this.

I think if there is any element of whack-a-mole it will run along two limbs; 1. Shoddy drafting by people who don't understand what they're drafting 2. Companies attempting to evade regulation because they know gambling engagement is a pot of gold they're just scratching the surface of (see 'raid: shadow legends') and they do not believe themselves beholden to the law (which has been a problem since forever).

For the first, I think it is pretty clear from listening to a lot of politicians talk about video games that they aren't exactly knowledgeable about video games, or their mechanics.

For the second, that' just the case of any business following changing rules.

If I was to air where I would take the policy position. I would focus down on the directness of the consideration provided to the 'game of chance' being played. Although I admit that is a bias because it would more closely reflect the Australian position.

But how would you word it?

I don't profess to be intimately acquainted with UK online gambling requirements. But my understanding is that the provision of an id is required to sign up, in addition there is some sort of self-exclusion register for problem gamblers.
I suppose an enterprising youngster might steal dad's id with his credit card, we could conjure ways minors could evade restrictions till the end of time, however.

I also don't specifically know UK rules, but for Canada the standard is you just need a credit card. Not something hard to acquire.

[UpsideDownCoffee]

As someone who works in gamedev I can say that loot boxes are a predatory business practice but it's not gambling.

It’s still gambling. Just because “nothing” isn’t an option in the results doesn’t mean it’s not gambling.

[Krastyn]

It’s still gambling. Just because “nothing” isn’t an option in the results doesn’t mean it’s not gambling.

How can you come out ahead?

[Onikaroshi]

I actually like loot boxes, they're fun, as long as you can earn them by playing the game as well. Hate the "buy only" ones.

[HitRefresh]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ba...GSS-05-10aaa0b





Enjoy the lootbox shit while you can because more and more country's are going to crackdown on it and rule it for what it is... Gambling.

Edit: Changed title from "And so it begins Battlefront 2, Overwatch Being Investigated By Gambling Authority" to "Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation" - Nov. 22, 2017. Lucetia

Then consider trading card games and mystery box figures gambling.

[Aliven]

Then consider trading card games and mystery box figures gambling.

To be fair myster box figures are cancerous. They are like real world lootbox.

[Coldkil]

Maybe one point isn't really clear for many people: the point is not to decide if lootboxes are gambling or not since they don't give a monetary prize. The point is that gambling laws are outdated and obsolete and need to be changed to include lootboxes.

The fact lootboxes don't give you a prize in money is even worse: you're literally gambling for nothing, as you lose your money every single time.

Citing the UK directly: "if it behaves like gambling, it's gambling".

That's way laws need to be changed to reflect this. Many people instead seem to believe the opposite - that since laws about gambling don't include lootboxes, then they're not gambling.

Sidenote: what makes me laugh is that all of this splurted out from a videogame and players mad at EA because their favourite Star Wars characters were put behind a paywall.

[Elim Garak]

Maybe one point isn't really clear for many people: the point is not to decide if lootboxes are gambling or not since they don't give a monetary prize. The point is that gambling laws are outdated and obsolete and need to be changed to include lootboxes.

The fact lootboxes don't give you a prize in money is even worse: you're literally gambling for nothing, as you lose your money every single time.

Wait... you mean when I go to the Disneyland I lose money every single time? That's GAMBLING for NOTHING!

[Kiri]

Can that law be changed though to only include loot boxes? I am not a lawyer, but I know laws can have very convoluted descriptions about what they try to restrict and allow.

And what I gather from other posters here: Isn't a pack of random cards (be it Magic the gathering, Pokemon or your Football Stars collection of the next championship) fulfilling the same criteria? You pay money (real or in game currency) for a sealed container (physical of digital), where you do not know what is in it in hope of an item or several that you like. Hell, wouldn't they have to close down Hearthstone? That game basically functions on card packs.

Even if that law only included digital loot boxes, I would expect companies suing against the perceived injustice. So it is not really only about the stuff we get in games, it would (and should) affect all kinds of mechanics where you pay your money for something where you do not know what is in the box.

Yet I noticed I myself was so brainwashed from buying and accepting the system of trading cards since a child that I found THAT totally ok while finding loot boxes questionable.

I don't really think it is brainwashing as much as a different matter entirely. There are some key differences, I think, that make people think that way:

- The rates are known to begin with and you get a deterministic outcome rarity-wise. What I mean here is that all cards of the same rarity are equally likely and you get X amount of R/SR/SSR per pack guaranteed. That way, the 'value' that you get out of the pack does not objectively differ, but rather subjectively. In an Overwatch lootbox, you can get any kind of rarity. And even in gacha games giving out a specific rarity selection, they usually just go "one SR guaranteed" or so. As such, there is a more 'objective' variance in outcome value here.

- Building on that, card value is directly assigned by players to begin with, leading to a lot of situations where common cards are worth more than rare ones etc. While that is technically true for lootboxes too, to an extent, well, a spray and a skin are just not comparable, really.

- There is no base game to buy that has lootboxes introduced on top of existing mechanics, making it more comparable to a freemium game. People know exactly what they are getting into, even parents buying that stuff for their children, meaning it requires less regulation to make informed choices.

- And finally, there is the social aspect of the game. Simply having trading for example means that there are alternate ways to get what you want, while also smoothing out the value curve. That rare card you got might have little value to you, but it may have more value to someone else, etc.

Mind you, it is still gambling in my eyes still. But there are enough differences that make it reasonable to think of those as at least more benign forms of gambling.

[Saltysquidoon]

Then consider trading card games and mystery box figures gambling.

Where is this weird "oh won't someone think of the TCGs" defence coming from?

TCGs have always been dogged by accusations of gambling and at least magic's booster packs have been modified over time to stay one step outside a regulators interest (you always 'win', cards have a preset chance, etc).

I mean on the most basic level buying a booster pack is gambling. You put up consideration (bet) for a chance (gamble) to win a prize, the existence of the secondary market is proof the cards have intrinsic value.

[Temp name]

Wait... you mean when I go to the Disneyland I lose money every single time? That's GAMBLING for NOTHING!

No, because you know exactly what you're getting when you go to Disneyland. You don't when you buy a lootbox.

That's what this is about.

[Elim Garak]

No, because you know exactly what you're getting when you go to Disneyland. You don't when you buy a lootbox.

That's what this is about.

First of all, this is a completely different point. Secondly, you always know exactly what you are getting when you buy a lootbox. You get a lootbox that contains N items and you get K random items out of it when you open it. No one is scamming you. You are not gambling. You know the deal and agree to it.