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

[kail]

Tehnicaly yes:


Just difference is that you exchange them for money. Counter strike go works same.

And that difference is what matters. I'm not at the casinos or playing slots to win virtual goods, the desired goal is to win money. Loot boxes is the reverse and until it awards money, it's not gambling.

D3 is more closer to gambling when it had the RMAH but that is a stretch as well.

[Dhrizzle]

Tehnicaly yes:


Just difference is that you exchange them for money. Counter strike go works same.

It's strange that people are concentrating on EA and Blizzard when, as you point out here, Valve are the ones who allowed definite gambling that is a larger risk to children. It's almost as if this moral outrage is motivated by a desire to attack the gaming boogie-man rather than genuine concern over child welfare.

- - - Updated - - -

Overwatch loves lootboxes so much, even their toys are lootbox-based!

Presumably these blind-bag collectibles will be targeted as gambling next, along with TCGs, Lego minifigures (my nephew's will be gutted,) football stickers and (retroactively) Pogs.

[Yunru]

And that difference is what matters. I'm not at the casinos or playing slots to win virtual goods, the desired goal is to win money. Loot boxes is the reverse and until it awards money, it's not gambling.

D3 is more closer to gambling when it had the RMAH but that is a stretch as well.

There are online casinos. You change it for virtual currency. While tehnicaly is not illegall (but banneable), some people sell their accounts that have rare virtual goods for truckload of cash. Or if the reward is transfeable to another account, they can just do that.
https://www.therichest.com/rich-list...n-video-games/

SO yes items inside do have the value.

[Serenity91]

And that difference is what matters. I'm not at the casinos or playing slots to win virtual goods, the desired goal is to win money. Loot boxes is the reverse and until it awards money, it's not gambling.

D3 is more closer to gambling when it had the RMAH but that is a stretch as well.

I open lootcrates in csgo in hopes for a rare item that I can sell. My desired goal is to win money.

Your argument is subjective at best.

[Niroshi]

Regulate CS:GO and the others that give you stuff to sell for a monetary payout legally, leave the rest the fuck alone. Just having RNG isn't enough for gambling, that shit is madness.

[Yunru]

Regulate CS:GO and the others that give you stuff to sell for a monetary payout legally, leave the rest the fuck alone. Just having RNG isn't enough for gambling, that shit is madness.

Do you realy like to get scruved up? Without any laws in place you get riped off every time.
For example:
Unknown drop chance--
*Banana 80%
*Apple 15%
*Golden banana 0.000001%
*Golden Apple 0.000000001%
*trash -- rest of %

[Greevir]

Do you realy like to get scruved up? Without any laws in place you get riped off every time.
For example:
Unknown drop chance--
*Banana 80%
*Apple 15%
*Golden banana 0.000001%
*Golden Apple 0.000000001%
*trash -- rest of %

The fact that bananas have a higher drop rate than apples baffles me.

Also, disclosing drop rates will change absolutely nothing. People know the win chance of lotteries, they still buy into the ridiculousness.

[Yunru]

The fact that bananas have a higher drop rate than apples baffles me.

Also, disclosing drop rates will change absolutely nothing. People know the win chance of lotteries, they still buy into the ridiculousness.

You dont see those.



Seems like Desteny 2 outrage is gona spread. Activision should never be trusted again.

[Dhrizzle]

There are online casinos. You change it for virtual currency. While tehnicaly is not illegall (but banneable), some people sell their accounts that have rare virtual goods for truckload of cash. Or if the reward is transfeable to another account, they can just do that.
https://www.therichest.com/rich-list...n-video-games/

SO yes items inside do have the value.

Running through that list it seems the only thing that that would be considered gambling is from Valve yet again, but I don't recall gamers getting up in arms and asking regulators to step in and save children from the corrupting effect of video games back in 2013.

[Bronan]

I don't see a problem with loot boxes. Unless they're selling them to minors. Minors shouldn't be allowed to gamble.

All these games are available to minors, not one of them has an 18+ rating. Because if they were rated 18+, they couldn't sell them to as many people, and wouldn't be able to make as much money.

[Deleted]

All these games are available to minors, not one of them has an 18+ rating.

http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/eula
http://eu.blizzard.com/en-gb/company/legal/eula

You may establish an Account only if: (i) you are a “natural person” and an adult in your country of residence

You can, of course, argue all you like about the legality of legal agreements and whatnot, but it is, in fact, against the EULA for a minor to establish a Battle.net account, and thus gain access to Overwatch, or any other Blizzard game. However, I'm sure a lot of parents wittingly or unwittingly allow their kids to create Battle.net accounts, and I guess we should blame that one on bad parents, as is with almost everything else.

[Yunru]

EULA doesnt mean anything in court.

[Deleted]

EULA doesnt mean anything in court.

Well, I haven't gone to law school and gotten a law degree, which I'm sure you have, so I couldn't possibly say whether it does or not, other than to wonder why it is they still exist then, if they're so useless. However, it's not Blizzard who would be taking anyone into court; they'd simply close down an offending account. It would be the owner of that account - the minor, in this case - who would then have to bring the lawsuit against Blizzard, at which point Blizzard would rely on their legal defense, one pre-emptive part of which is, of course, the EULA.

I don't see Jim Bob 14 years old bringing a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard over losing his Battle.net account, though. Do you?

[Yunru]

Well, I haven't gone to law school and gotten a law degree, which I'm sure you have, so I couldn't possibly say whether it does or not, other than to wonder why it is they still exist then, if they're so useless. However, it's not Blizzard who would be taking anyone into court; they'd simply close down an offending account. It would be the owner of that account - the minor, in this case - who would then have to bring the lawsuit against Blizzard, at which point Blizzard would rely on their legal defense, one pre-emptive part of which is, of course, the EULA.

I don't see Jim Bob 14 years old bringing a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard over losing his Battle.net account, though. Do you?

Many form contracts are only contained in digital form, and only presented to a user as a click-through where the user must "accept".
This is the main reason why its not legal in court, since no1 reads their wall of text of non-sense.

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.—see, for instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-S...yse_Technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_...d_Software_Ltd.

There are probaly people who went against the company, but they lost due to lack of money (as company has unlimited money for court). But if there is a massive lawsuit with more than 100 people, then there is a change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

[Deleted]

Many form contracts are only contained in digital form, and only presented to a user as a click-through where the user must "accept".
This is the main reason why its not legal in court, since no1 reads their wall of text of non-sense.

Like I said, I don't know the law, so I can't really say, nor care, one way or another. However, to get back to what I responded to;

All these games are available to minors, not one of them has an 18+ rating.

Ratings mean even less than EULAs.

[Orange Joe]

It's strange that people are concentrating on EA and Blizzard when, as you point out here, Valve are the ones who allowed definite gambling that is a larger risk to children. It's almost as if this moral outrage is motivated by a desire to attack the gaming boogie-man rather than genuine concern over child welfare.

To me it shows people don't really care about kids. They just don't want everything in the game for free.

[Cattleya]

Ratings mean even less than EULAs.

EULA won't stop a game from being sold, an Adults Only rating will.

[Jtbrig7390]

Ratings mean even less than EULAs.

Not even close to being true, Ratings do in fact matter. How much they matter likely depends the country you live in, but one thing about them that is universal is if your game gets a A ranting that's a death sentence. No store will touch your game and you will have to sell it yourself.

[Elim Garak]

Not even close to being true, Ratings do in fact matter. How much they matter likely depends the country you live in, but one thing about them that is universal is if your game gets a A ranting that's a death sentence. No store will touch your game and you will have to sell it yourself.

Not in the age of digital distribution. Even steam has AO games now.

[Jtbrig7390]

Not in the age of digital distribution. Even steam has AO games now.

Steam has ONE AO game and its a special case on why its there. XBL/PSN do not sell any AO games and nether does any stores. On top of that if these games get a AO rating due to gambling that means said stores will now needs to get a license to sell them including the publisher if they decide to tell them themselves.

AO rantings are still and will likely always be a death sentence.