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

[Dhrizzle]

You asked, I answered. The monetary value of a particular item is random to each individual player, as the cost associated with obtaining it is random.

If it has no monetary value, it wouldn't cost money to buy it. But they aren't selling you nothing. What they're selling you is a chance. Those mechanics are a game of chance. That is gambling. It uses all the mechanics and tactics of gambling, saying it's worth nothing doesn't remove that when they're charging real money (even if they try to obfuscate it through a secondary currency sometimes).

This isn't to say it shouldn't be allowed. It should just be classified correctly. People enjoy slot machines, people enjoy lootboxes. Let them play if they want to, and let the games be classified correctly.

That doesn't make it gambling though, any more than getting a capsule with a random prize or a pack of trading-cards for MtG or Pokemon is gambling (though in the case of TCG it comes much closer to gambling due to the potential for selling on high value cards.)

There's a problem with gambling that loot-boxes don't have, and that's the fact it presents itself as a solution to the problem it has caused. When you gamble or overspend on anything else there's a chance you can spend the money you needed for more important things (rent, bills, food etc.) However only gambling offers you a way out, if you bet with the rest of your money you might win back what you lost and solve the problem. If you lose that, well you can always take out a loan, but if you gamble with that loan you might make enough to pay back the loan and your bills and have some left. No-one has ever regretted spending their rent money on FIFA and getting the wrong players, but thought if they borrow some more money and get the correct player it will solve their rent problems.

TL~DR Gambling for money is different to loot-boxes because money is more important than a piece of digital crap with no real-world value. Obfuscating the two is just a way of regulating video games because "think of the children" while failing to tackle the real problems of gambling and predatory marketing with microtransactions.

[Coldkil]

TL~DR Gambling for money is different to loot-boxes because money is more important than a piece of digital crap with no real-world value. Obfuscating the two is just a way of regulating video games because "think of the children" while failing to tackle the real problems of gambling and predatory marketing with microtransactions.

This is mostly semantics to me. I both agree and disagree with this - mostly because as you said the focus is that microtx/lootboxes are predatory practices that just need to be gone. Unfortunately, no one is making them disappear and no one can; not even government can say a company how to make their products.

The only way to deal with this is to find a way that even if lootboxes are there, it's either an hassle to implement them correctly for the producer or the new rules cut the majority of their market. So the comparison between lootboxes and gambling, because it's the only reasonable way to do so, given also how similar they are and how much money they move.

I fully agree that money > digital goods. That's the exact reason why this is happening - players (of any age) burning down huge masses of money on digital good that have zero value, not even an enteraining one. The way they're designed clearly has the same approach as gambling games have. The side effects they bring are similar not to say the same.

It's not "thinking about the children", i couldn't care less. It's just game publishers going over the top with this and now facing the consequences, we like it or not.

We all want these shitty things gone. Doesn't matter how to me.

[Dhrizzle]

This is mostly semantics to me. I both agree and disagree with this - mostly because as you said the focus is that microtx/lootboxes are predatory practices that just need to be gone. Unfortunately, no one is making them disappear and no one can; not even government can say a company how to make their products.

There are regulations that dictate how products are allowed to be advertised to children or during children's television (for example,) I would much prefer it if these rules were applied to the way companies promote MTX during gameplay to ensure it isn't coercive or abusing minors' poor impulse control.

The only way to deal with this is to find a way that even if lootboxes are there, it's either an hassle to implement them correctly for the producer or the new rules cut the majority of their market. So the comparison between lootboxes and gambling, because it's the only reasonable way to do so, given also how similar they are and how much money they move.

I wouldn't call it reasonable, it's a crappy, lazy way of trying to take down something you don't like while ignoring the fact there are real problems with MTX taking advantage of poor impulse control and real world gambling that this doesn't address at all.

I fully agree that money > digital goods. That's the exact reason why this is happening - players (of any age) burning down huge masses of money on digital good that have zero value, not even an enteraining one. The way they're designed clearly has the same approach as gambling games have. The side effects they bring are similar not to say the same.

There are similar horror stories about people burning piles of cash on MTX that has no randomising feature at all, like online games that require you to buy some sort of currency for additional goes or to speed up an aspect of gameplay. This strongly suggests that it's a problem with MTX and the way they are promoted and sold rather than a gambling problem.

It's not "thinking about the children", i couldn't care less. It's just game publishers going over the top with this and now facing the consequences, we like it or not.

We all want these shitty things gone. Doesn't matter how to me.

And this is the major problem I have. You might not care about how it effects children but you're supporting "think of the children" legislation to get what you want without caring that it leaves children vulnerable other ways. There's also the fact that once the government implements "think of the children" legislation to stop video game features influencing real life behaviour it opens up a whole can of worms for people to campaign to have other aspects regulated.

[Saltysquidoon]

I think we're all getting a little too lost in the technicalities here. We're not talking about the law as is (because one way or the other it's clearly deficient) we're talking about law reform. It doesn't really matter if the items in the loot box 'have no value' because the new regulation may well account for that.

Further, this corporatist bomber logic that you don't 'own' anything you 'buy' via a microtransaction is just an example of legislation not keeping up with reality. If steam can run its own commodities exchange with these 'imaginary, valueless' products that the traders dont 'own' then perhaps these goods are slightly more real then EA and Actiblizzard might want us to believe.

What is ironic - players don't have a problem with lootboxes themselves... they only complain that everything good is in them and you can buy them instead of playing the game to get them, sometimes it's even the only way - to buy. So shitty devs. The only problem. Which has nothing to do with gambling.

Are you operating behind seven proxies or something? That is exactly what people are talking about.

Shitty devs (publishers) locking content behind games of chance to promote higher engagement (spending) through the application of gambling psychology instead of just providing the product directly. Loot boxes exist for a reason, they work. People are taking umbrage with how they work.

[Coldkil]

-snip-

Maybe i haven't been clear, or i didn't get your point. Anyway, what you say is what i say.

Loot-boxes ARE gambling. They're based on the same principles and work in the same ways. They present the same nasty side effect and everything, and in the same way they're targeted at vulnerable people to exploit their weaknesses. The fact you get money from one and not from another is not what defines gambling - or better, if this is the distinction, the laws need to be changed.

However, you're right. The issue are not lootboxes themselves but how game publishers continued over and over to change their focus from selling games to get as much money out of their customers as possible. Lootboxes are just the tip of the iceberg and some serious regulations need to be made to fix this.

In practical terms though, i don't think there's any solid ground to tackle something on let's say, skins stores. You get what you buy and that's it, it's optional as it can be and while i dislike it with a passion, i just cannot see a way for any authority to work on that that's not just "it must go". Lootboxes on the other side have way too many negative traits (that are found in gambling aswell) that makes the whole thing much easier to deal with.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we're all getting a little too lost in the technicalities here.

Agree, but apparently it's the only way for some people to justify the presence of these practices in videogames.

[Dhrizzle]

Maybe i haven't been clear, or i didn't get your point. Anyway, what you say is what i say.

Loot-boxes ARE gambling. They're based on the same principles and work in the same ways. They present the same nasty side effect and everything, and in the same way they're targeted at vulnerable people to exploit their weaknesses. The fact you get money from one and not from another is not what defines gambling - or better, if this is the distinction, the laws need to be changed.

However, you're right. The issue are not lootboxes themselves but how game publishers continued over and over to change their focus from selling games to get as much money out of their customers as possible. Lootboxes are just the tip of the iceberg and some serious regulations need to be made to fix this.

In practical terms though, i don't think there's any solid ground to tackle something on let's say, skins stores. You get what you buy and that's it, it's optional as it can be and while i dislike it with a passion, i just cannot see a way for any authority to work on that that's not just "it must go". Lootboxes on the other side have way too many negative traits (that are found in gambling aswell) that makes the whole thing much easier to deal with.

If you think money shouldn't be a factor do you think all forms of RNG loot should be removed form video games? After all they work on similar principles where the RNG factor helps create a bigger hit of dopamine and video game addiction can also be harmful.

[Coldkil]

If you think money shouldn't be a factor do you think all forms of RNG loot should be removed form video games? After all they work on similar principles where the RNG factor helps create a bigger hit of dopamine and video game addiction can also be harmful.

Then here you're saying a completely different thing, and again, apples to oranges. Anyway.

RNG is not a problem. Most if not all of games have a layer of RNG; and not just videogames. So the comparison is wrong.

What i meant, is that it doesn't matter if the outcome does involve real money or not. If you're spending money on a game of chance (literally, "spend X for a chance to win"), it's gambling. Lootboxes? Gambling. The neighborhood raffle? Gambling. TCGs? Gambling. They all work the same.

There are different degrees though. I don't expect someone to blow his entire saving on a neighborhood raffle obviously. That's why they're regulated, at least here - tickets all cost the same amount, and all the money actually goes to beforehand discussed projects; the raffle itself is just a bonus game to attract more people (and that's the exact mechanism gambling works on actually).

Video game addiction is harmful, as you said. Lootboxes are one aspect of that aswell since they contribute to said dopamine rush.

If we want, there's so much to discuss about videogames design and how they're created in a way so people play more and more time; just look at WoW and how the focus went away from number of subs to "how much time can we make players play". Also this has a degree of predatory practice since it goes directly against one's wellbeing.

But that's another topic. Right now we're talking about how badly lootboxes need to be regulated, and here it seems to me we're all more or less agreeing on that. It's the "how" part that i see many different opinions going.

[Temp name]

You know what you get for your money. A lootbox that doesn't contain anything of monetary value. You buy it for entertainment purposes. You buy entertainment. There's nothing else in the lootbox.

Of course the contents have monetary value. You're literally spending money on them, which means that by definition what is inside has value. You might not think they do, but that's like me claiming that cars don't have value, and you're just buying transport. You spent money on something, that thing has value.

Letting the government regulate lootboxes like gambling is idiotic.

no

You will be the first to complain about it if that happens.

Oh? How do you know that? Because I sure as fuck won't.

Because for instance boss drops in WoW are lootboxes and you pay monthly to get a go at those once a week. So 4 goes a month for $15. Such gambling.

The difference is there's gameplay between those two. If I buy a lootbox, I pay money and get stuff. In WoW I pay money, play the game, and then get stuff. That is the difference.

What is ironic - players don't have a problem with lootboxes themselves...

Yes, they do.

they only complain that everything good is in them and you can buy them instead of playing the game to get them, sometimes it's even the only way - to buy.

That's another thing people complain about. Not the same thing.

So shitty devs. The only problem. Which has nothing to do with gambling.

No, pay to win isn't gambling, but lootboxes are.

[Krastyn]

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.

While your posts repeatedly imply you think loot boxes are gambling, this statement is a easy defense of why they are not. Gambling has to have the ability for you to "win". If you always lose, it's not a gamble. It's a cost.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No, the laws can't. The laws need to be written to describe the act, and then it is up to the government to decide if what you're doing violates that act.

MtG is a great example. They have both a digital and physical version. A "Loot box ban" would make the digital version illegal while the physical version would be fine.

It's not easy (or may not even be possible) to write a law that would make loot boxes gambling (which still doesn't solve the problem people want to solve) while not having collateral damage.

- - - Updated - - -

- 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.

A lot of the blowback against digital loot boxes is because a secondary market existed to allow people to "cash out". To me, this makes it more like gambling, not less.

[Hellobolis]

Trading cards are gambling. Claw machine is gambling. Suprise boxes for kids are gambling. All of these are predatory business practices.

yeah they are. they get away with it because they know their place and haven't tried to push their luck, unlike the gaming industry.

[Krastyn]

Should gambling be regulated like gambling? Of course it should. Because it is gambling. Gambling is regulated for a good reason, so regulating gambling in video games is good.

This shit is not hard people. What is there even to discuss here?

Write me a law that bans loot boxes, and I'll write back how you can tweak the game to get around it, and I'll give a list of additional products you've now banned other than digital loot boxes,

[Saltysquidoon]

MtG is a great example. They have both a digital and physical version. A "Loot box ban" would make the digital version illegal while the physical version would be fine.

Frankly, MtG boosters are just straight up gambling on every conceivable level. The physical booster packs don't even have the lootbox 'defence' of arguably not having a 'prize'. Given the very real cards have a very real value and can't be artificially restrained by boomer understanding of digital goods.

But this runs back into what I said before, the crown choosing not to prosecute does not necessarily mean something doesn't run afoul of an act.

I completely believe that TCGs should be regulated in any manner that loot boxes would be theoretically regulated, let a game stand on its own. If you want to have booster gambling hits then target it at adults.

[Hellobolis]

Frankly, MtG boosters are just straight up gambling on every conceivable level. The physical booster packs don't even have the lootbox 'defence' of arguably not having a 'prize'. Given the very real cards have a very real value and can't be artificially restrained by boomer understanding of digital goods.

But this runs back into what I said before, the crown choosing not to prosecute does not necessarily mean something doesn't run afoul of an act.

I completely believe that TCGs should be regulated in any manner that loot boxes would be theoretically regulated, let a game stand on its own. If you want to have booster gambling hits then target it at adults.

they are gambling but i feel it's offset a bit by the existence of secondary markets for them.

on the other hand, the very fact that you can resell them for real money would likely make them subject to gambling regulations where i live if some official decided to take a closer look. but they are probably too niche to attract any real attention.

[Krastyn]

Frankly, MtG boosters are just straight up gambling on every conceivable level. The physical booster packs don't even have the lootbox 'defence' of arguably not having a 'prize'. Given the very real cards have a very real value and can't be artificially restrained by boomer understanding of digital goods.

But this runs back into what I said before, the crown choosing not to prosecute does not necessarily mean something doesn't run afoul of an act.

I completely believe that TCGs should be regulated in any manner that loot boxes would be theoretically regulated, let a game stand on its own. If you want to have booster gambling hits then target it at adults.

And yet the House of Lords is still not concerned about TCG's, despite them having more aspects of gambling than most loot boxes.

The main driver of people wanting loot boxes banned is because they don't like them. Not even because they think they are gambling, they just hate loot boxes and all MTX. Anyone who thinks loot boxes will disappear if they are ruled as gambling are deluding themselves.

I'd sooner have them regulated, than restricted.

[Kiri]

A lot of the blowback against digital loot boxes is because a secondary market existed to allow people to "cash out". To me, this makes it more like gambling, not less.

Is it? Honest question, since I see much more of the criticism aimed at other parts of the system. I don't actually know a lot of lootbox games personally that even allow trading, if I am being honest.

[Saltysquidoon]

The main driver of people wanting loot boxes banned is because they don't like them. Not even because they think they are gambling, they just hate loot boxes and all MTX. Anyone who thinks loot boxes will disappear if they are ruled as gambling are deluding themselves.

Yes, corporations are amoral snakes that exist for their own enrichment to the exclusion of all others up to and including riding the razor's edge of illegality and immorality.

Yes, politicians are corrupt boomers who don't understand what they're talking about half the time and only care about things important enough to get them sound bites on the news.

But suggesting nothing be done is just an appeal to cynicism. Anything that moderately inconveniences a corporation and forces them to pretend to give a shit about the law until some new senior-junior vp of sales comes up with a new way to skirt the new law is still a win in my book.

[Krastyn]

Is it? Honest question, since I see much more of the criticism aimed at other parts of the system. I don't actually know a lot of lootbox games personally that even allow trading, if I am being honest.

The initial blowback to loot boxes came from CS:GO when a market developed for them.

Society at large has considered trivial acts of gambling acceptable. There are many examples of "loot boxes" that have existed physically for decades. It is usually because while they are a game of chance, the "value" is insignificant. Some countries, like the UK regulate it. Crane games are limited to a prize less than £6, I believe.

So in the case of the UK, is a loot box more like a slot machine, or a crane game?

[BeepBoo]

Are lootboxes gambling? Yes.
Should games be regulated? No.

What I don't understand is how so many humans can KNOW the psychology behind something like gambling addiction/drug addiction/etc and STILL CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN IT? WTF is with that? Knowing a system is rigged to take advantage of you and still choosing to participate anyway sounds like a sure sign of a punk ass that deserves to be taken advantage of...

[Krastyn]

Yes, corporations are amoral snakes that exist for their own enrichment to the exclusion of all others up to and including riding the razor's edge of illegality and immorality.

Yes, politicians are corrupt boomers who don't understand what they're talking about half the time and only care about things important enough to get them sound bites on the news.

But suggesting nothing be done is just an appeal to cynicism. Anything that moderately inconveniences a corporation and forces them to pretend to give a shit about the law until some new senior-junior vp of sales comes up with a new way to skirt the new law is still a win in my book.

You're building a straw man now. I have never suggested nothing can be done. I've been commenting in this thread for much longer than just the last couple days, and I have never said anything remotely like that.

I have consistently, and repeatedly said that:
- Seeking to classify loot boxes as gambling is going to be:
a) Hard to create such that loot boxes can't be tweaked to get around it
b) Hard to create laws that will not have collateral damage
c) Does not necessarily achieve the objectives of underage gambling, adult gambling, or loot boxes in general

- I do not believe loot boxes to be gambling if there is no legal way to "cash out" . You're never winning.

- I believe loot boxes should be regulated (much like how we regulate say, advertising to children). Odds should be clearly posted, There should be no flashy mechanics. I'd prefer a loss prevention mechanic and/or a secondary purchase mechanic (like dust in Hearthstone, for example). I'd also prefer a way to reasonably gain in game currency to purchase them (though the "reasonable" part is quite subjective).

- Some loot boxes are implemented quite well. I think ME3 did a great job with theirs. Bioware made a bunch of money from them, I unlocked almost everything without spending a penny.

- I believe people haven't spent time to think about why loot boxes are a problem, why they think they are gambling, and what classifying them as gambling will ultimately accomplish.

- I believe as others have mentioned in the thread as well, that in trying to "stamp this out" you may just drive companies to other shadier tactics.

[kail]

Should gambling be regulated like gambling? Of course it should. Because it is gambling. Gambling is regulated for a good reason, so regulating gambling in video games is good.

This shit is not hard people. What is there even to discuss here?

Regulate all the TCG booster packs, mystery ball toys that girls like, those candy wonder balls. Gambling is gambling after all.