(Loot Box's) Number of child gamblers quadruples in just two years....

[Charge me Doctor]

Lulz, that comparison is ridiculous. No one is forcing the child to push the buttons and buy some shiny stuff, and fuck yes the parents are responsible for not teaching their kid how to avoid spending huge amounts of money in video games. In that particular case ( buying stuff ) parents are responsible.

Companies do force them tho. They make those "buttons" and "shiny stuff" highly desirable for kids (as in deliberately targeting vulnerable for exploitation population in order to exploit them)

- - - Updated - - -

If parents can't spend time with their kids and raise them properly, why bother having kids in the first place?
Not company's fault for sure. Spend time with your children - problem solved.

You sound like someone who never actually had experience with kids. You do realize that sitting down and saying to a kid "don't waste your money" doesn't stop them from wasting their money? Or, you know, that kids can lie, steal, take money from other kids via various means? If we allow companies to exploit kids we fail as a society. Not because we "suck a parenting", but because we put corporate profits over mental health of kids.

[sam86]

This literally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

how exactly it doesn't when it is obvious they rate games more focus on nudity than violence, because how they tolerate violence in their country
we talk about a country that had back to school sales... on guns

[Charge me Doctor]

Now, IF those lootboxes could only be bought then certain posters would be right to complain about parents and paying attention.
But the thing is, companies throw those things at the players as playing-rewards to get them hooked.
Thats like saying: Kids, don't do drug, but then let the dealer run around on the playground handing out free test-samples to get his future clients hooked.

That's another good point that goes over of some posters heads

[Orange Joe]

How could a law that makes it where if a game has gambling in it you must be a adult to buy get twisted?

Its very clear cut...

Once again by ur logic there should be no laws because they don't work all the time.

Cause the definition of gambling can mean a great number of things


And I'm not saying laws don't work. i'm saying useless laws don't work. If they can easily be circumvented and hard to enforce it's a useless law.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually if there is a kid with the customer and they don't look like the parent that is pretty much store policy to not sell to them. So what are they going to do? They're gonna tell you to get the kid's parent.

Hell pretty sure in some regions it's even store policy to not sell digital currency to a kid if they tried and failed to buy an M rated game from you. It's not as easy as you think, nor are most kids smart enough to wait outside they're usually paying some 17+ teen 5 bucks and supervising the whole thing for them Seen this shit many times more then a decade ago and pretty sure it's no different now.

Um.... as I said before. Kid just waits outside in the car. Seller would never know the difference. Thats how I was able to get cigarettes at 14...... And anyone I knew that smoked underage knew how to do this. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.

[Tech614]

Um.... as I said before. Kid just waits outside in the car. Seller would never know the difference. Thats how I was able to get cigarettes at 14......

Like I already said, been there done that. Most kids come into the store.

And anyone I knew that smoked underage knew how to do this. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.

You literally proved my point kids are as dumb as I think they are when you're talking about smoking at 14 lmao. Anyways I crushed many a dreams of kids and been called every toxic slur in the book by them for refusing them games in this exact situation so please tell me more about how I'm wrong. Kids are indeed stupid, even the ones that are book smart generally lack wisdom and thus are liable to do lots of stupid shit. Hell kids literally need to do stupid shit because that is how you learn most life lessons in the first place.

[Charge me Doctor]

Move onto loot boxes, and we'll use Black Ops 4 as the example since everyone is on the EA train. Currently their loot boxes while you can earn them without purchasing them, you can purchase them and there's a chance you can get a sticker in which you can use for an emblem or maybe even spray it on the ground or a wall (SO COOL!..jk) or you can get a gun that is better than most of the other guns (What's even worse is, you can get duplicates of what you already have, 3 duplicates = 1 guaranteed item you don't have, and the quality of duplicates you get play no factor, you can get something super rare as a duplicate then get a sticker as a reward for getting three dupes).

I must add that for us to have these "spray loot drops" that you can put on a wall we had to give up custom sprays. Lootboxes suck

- - - Updated - - -

A kid with a part time job earning $600-800 a month with no bills or responsibilities should be monitored by their parent on what they spend their money on... this ain't rocket science nor is it claiming it's not "their" money. lmao.

Someone spending 600-800 a month on MTX should see a doctor or something, because it's most likely a result of being exposed to gambling.

[Tech614]

Someone spending 600-800 a month on MTX should see a doctor or something, because it's most likely a result of being exposed to gambling.

Words can't even describe how baffled I am at this strawman. I just don't know man. Please point out where I ever said any of that. Hint: I didn't.

[Charge me Doctor]

Because your scenario is ridiculous - now it's up to game devs to also make sure your kids don't pick up your cash and buy pre-paid cards?

Nah, it's more like devs contacting ESRB/PEGI and telling them "we have gambling mechanics and we plan to basically make people addicted to it in hope that they'll spend ridiculous amount of cash on them. We don't want kids to get in trouble tho, so please give us 18+ rating"

[niztheundead87]

Be like Belgium problem fixed

[Motso]

The thing is F2P Fortnite doesn't have loot-boxes, the Parliamentary commission is looking into addictive/immersive games as potentially harmful regardless of microtransactions including calls to outright ban the game or place restrictions on how long people are allowed to play.

There you go I was totally off base. I honestly didn't do more than flick through sources on it because I was just seeing if Keeper Whateverthehell would crack. And I found fortnight to be unplayable, literally, it won't run on my computer and I don't care to make it.

[Popastique]

You sound like someone who never actually had experience with kids. You do realize that sitting down and saying to a kid "don't waste your money" doesn't stop them from wasting their money? Or, you know, that kids can lie, steal, take money from other kids via various means? If we allow companies to exploit kids we fail as a society. Not because we "suck a parenting", but because we put corporate profits over mental health of kids.

That is an example of inadequate parenting that leads to a kid acting like that (lying,stealing,taking money from other kids) on everyday basis. No shit you can't say something like *don't waste your money* to a kid and expect them to follow that advice. It is a lot more complex than that, and usually providing a good example is just one of many things a parent must do to raise a kid properly.
Again : if someone can't be a proper parent and spend time with their child, then one shouldn't become a parent in the first place.

[Onikaroshi]

Nah, it's more like devs contacting ESRB/PEGI and telling them "we have gambling mechanics and we plan to basically make people addicted to it in hope that they'll spend ridiculous amount of cash on them. We don't want kids to get in trouble tho, so please give us 18+ rating"

Well, the devs don't really need to "contact" the ESRB since their companies kind of run the ESRB. It's more like the ESRB needs to sit down and figure out how they want to rate games with these things.

[qwerty123456]

Cause the definition of gambling can mean a great number of things


And I'm not saying laws don't work. i'm saying useless laws don't work. If they can easily be circumvented and hard to enforce it's a useless law.

- - - Updated - - -



Um.... as I said before. Kid just waits outside in the car. Seller would never know the difference. Thats how I was able to get cigarettes at 14...... And anyone I knew that smoked underage knew how to do this. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.

Laws don't prevent everyone from doing something but it does keep the numbers of people from doing it lower than if it was legal. Just because you were a kid smoking doesn't mean every kid does.

[Onikaroshi]

Laws don't prevent everyone from doing something but it does keep the numbers of people from doing it lower than if it was legal. Just because you were a kid smoking doesn't mean every kid does.

In the US ratings are basically useless honestly, it's nothing with the law or anything either, parents buy their kids MA games all the time, and get them into R rated movies, they don't even need to go in with them, just buy the ticket. So it's not just some rando buying them for them.

Apparently in the UK you can't even take your kid to an 18 movie? Seems silly to me honestly, I went to many R rated movies with my dad.....

[Charge me Doctor]

Well, the devs don't really need to "contact" the ESRB since their companies kind of run the ESRB. It's more like the ESRB needs to sit down and figure out how they want to rate games with these things.

But since ESRB does nothing - devs are interested in kicking their sorry ass so they finally start to work, before government regulated all this shit.

But i guess spice cash must flow and they don't care about long-term effects anymore

- - - Updated - - -

In the US ratings are basically useless honestly, it's nothing with the law or anything either, parents buy their kids MA games all the time, and get them into R rated movies, they don't even need to go in with them, just buy the ticket. So it's not just some rando buying them for them.

Apparently in the UK you can't even take your kid to an 18 movie? Seems silly to me honestly, I went to many R rated movies with my dad.....

Well it's good for industry in general, because in this case they can point at parents and say that it's their fault for buying their kid a 18+ game and ruining his life.

[omeomorfismo]

I'm a little bit surprised that people are trying to defend loot boxes existence on the premise that "companies need money". Like, is it being implied that that games only ever made profit since loot boxes existed? Because you know... The gaming industry has managed 50 odd years without them.

There's been published articles where EA and other companies have boasted that micro-transactions make them more money then the actual sale of the game. That's tremendously backward. It garners so much revenue that the business model of "free-to-play" can even exist because those that spend money on it, is by and large, so much in volume it can warrant that archetype.
And to add, the reason free-to-play and loot boxes are married together is to potentially dodge legislation. It may seem obvious but consider why Heroes and Overwatch have loot boxes but World of Warcraft doesn't. Having a subscription attached to the game means a contract has been struck. Suddenly, legislation has to be involved to cover risk management and they can't levy the same power they had when there is no contract.

And let's be realistic, loot boxes are gambling without even the presence of ownership... The companies self-impose the odds, they self-impose rarity, they own every asset you spend on, you don't get an actual return in ownership however minimal in time, you're not paying for a service, they also (which differs from other scenarios of gambling) script code to favour their desired odds. Those other scenarios like, in casinos or printing trading cards all have machine operating and have regulations already in place.
You may be quick with "Yes it is coding therefore machinery!" but coding relies solely on human input. It cannot and will not generate an unpredictable value/outcome because the game would bug, crash, etc. Coding has to have everything laid out to mimic unpredictability. To further indulge it. You can't enforce your odds and rules exactly on the roulette table - the nature of unpredictability is already applied without human intervention. You can't specify the ball to land where it does... Same as you can't specify other variants like what set of cards into what booster pack because it's machine printed and packed.
That's why it's being slapped so heavily.

The government are finally getting involved because companies like EA have been exposed. It’s taken a while but it could be that they needed evidence. You can’t immediately jump on a bad things without experiencing the negativity… Especially when it’s new and on a digital stage, no one has a clue about.
And really, gambling laws have been around for a long time (for UK since 1845 *cough* other places are potentially similar) so it's been a duty of the Government's for just a few centuries... On the grounds of damaging social aspects in society… Which is happening exactly today as it did then.
So I mean you can try to villainy the Government and exonerate the gaming companies but they've been ignoring legislation for a while... And not even for good intentions. We all know it's not for good intentions, trying to sugarcoat that is quite naive. They had money beforehand to make the game to platform loot boxes... They should be able to produce further content on the practices they had before. With years of being able to.

what?
roulette, dices, whatever dont grow alone, someone designed and built them with their shape and measures to determine the odds :|

[Thekri]

But since ESRB does nothing - devs are interested in kicking their sorry ass so they finally start to work, before government regulated all this shit.

But i guess spice cash must flow and they don't care about long-term effects anymore

I can't really think of any industry ever that has considered the long term social consequences of their monetizing. And loot boxes is only one of the behaviors that is causing long term issues. Honestly I think the even bigger one is the ongoing trend of swapping in game rewards for personal data. This has been going on for a long time, sign up for some sort of newsletter or Facebook group, and get a new skin or emote. Kids see this as "Free" stuff, and it is teaching them early that their personal data doesn't matter. And we know how responsible these companies are with data.

Well it's good for industry in general, because in this case they can point at parents and say that it's their fault for buying their kid a 18+ game and ruining his life.

Well, 90% of a social outcry is just figuring out where the blame goes. So parents will blame the companies and companies can blame the parents. And they are both right.

[Goldfingaz]

You're missing the point. If you're considering loot boxes gambling whether they are online or not is irrelevant. Or you would be making Hearthstone gambling, but Magic The Gathering ok.

Apples vs Oranges my man. Magic the Gathering isn't designed to get you hooked on it.

You keep changing your definition of "value". A Blackops 4 item has ZERO real world value supported through EA. Magic The Gathering used to have (and may still have) a magazine offering prices of cards. Almost every comic shop around me will pay cash for cards. They 100% have value. It's not a set in stone value, but it is way, way easier to convert it into actual cash.

I'm not changing my definition of value by any means. Blackops 4 sells items for CoD points which can only be purchased with actual money, they set the value on the items.

In one post you'll complain about how evil it is when they put items only in loot boxes, but then when they they offer it as a stand alone purchase you argue about how now the item magically has value and that's why it is gambling. Be consistent.

Never said anything was evil chum, you're reaching. I'm saying that when you get things like a kinder surprise, you're getting a dollar's value guaranteed. Where as when you purchase a loot box you can get something that's worth less than what you spent, there's a "loss" factor. There isn't a loss factor in the tangible items. It's entirely your own fault for not being able to understand the arguments being made.

And in blackops 4 loot crates, you get exactly that. Nothing. You can't sell it for anything, even if someone thinks it is worth more.

You're correct, they're non transferable. Your point being exactly?

A loot crate gives you a random chance at an item.

A Seal gives you a random chance at an item.

You just spoke about how BO:4 loot crates cost X points, which can be earned in game, or purchased for real money.

Seals can be purchased for gold, which can be earned in game, or purchased for real money.

Literally the same mechanic. The frequency and ease with which you can do it does not matter. What does is the mechanics, and they are identical.

You can't earn CoD Points in game, you get them via purchase only. Not sure what you don't get about apples vs oranges here.

Did I say that? Did I argue that? No. You're building a nice strawman though. You're saying it should be illegal because it's addictive. I'm saying that isn't reason enough. Addiction alone is not a reason to ban something.

Gambling is already illegal and this is seen as a form of gambling. If it weren't it wouldn't be brought up in gambling studies. It's pretty straight forward.

Again, thanks for completely missing the point. Maybe take some time to comprehend what is being said. Words have meaning. It isn't as easy as saying "all loot boxes are gambling, any game with them must be legal age". It goes way deeper than that, with way more nuance.

You're missing the point here not me. Gambling is gambling is gambling. That's the bottom line, and one of these things we're discussing is encouraging gambling, in this case loot boxes. They are literally designed to get you hooked on gambling.

Once again, just because you dismiss something as illegitimate does not make it so. Evidence needs to be presented. Middle ground can be found.

Then what is your argument FOR loot boxes? Why do you believe they're ok? Because you somehow link them as the same thing as trading card games?

You literally do not know the own source material you are quoting. It does not say anywhere that loot boxes were gambling. I will point out a few tidbits of information from the report:

They are doing a study on gambling and included all forms of gambling, including loot boxes. Just because you want to interpret in your own special way doesn't deter form the fact that they believe it's gambling enough to include it in a study about gambling.

So at best, 31% have ever opened a loot box. This alone to me is a meaningless stat since they lumped people who paid money OR used in game currency. They should have broken it down, as the vast majority of games allow you to purchase loot boxes with in game currency.

Again, you're just trying to split hairs to prove something, point remains gambling is still gambling.

Here are two more tidbits:

So in the last 12 months, twice as many kids have bought a Lottery ticket as have done any kind of online gambling. Wouldn't it be more effective to focus on all those addicted lottery players since there are way more of them than loot box buyers?

They are already being focused, there are already laws to help curb said behavior. It's like you're not even trying to be impartial to what's actually happening.


Probably the last time I'm going to reply due to the fact that a few of you can't comprehend that this is an actual issue, loot boxes are included in gambling studies meaning they're enough of a gambling concern to warrant research on it. Not only that, you nor anyone else has shown an actual reason for these to be a thing. Not one counter argument beyond "I like it", "I don't care" or simply "It's not gambling because this other company does something remotely similar but on a much smaller scale".

[Dhrizzle]

Never said anything was evil chum, you're reaching. I'm saying that when you get things like a kinder surprise, you're getting a dollar's value guaranteed. Where as when you purchase a loot box you can get something that's worth less than what you spent, there's a "loss" factor. There isn't a loss factor in the tangible items. It's entirely your own fault for not being able to understand the arguments being made.

That's completely backwards. With video game loot-boxes, assuming the items are not transferable, the value of whatever you get is essentially nothing. With physical items it's possible to sell what you get and rarer or more popular items could command a higher price.

Gambling is already illegal and this is seen as a form of gambling. If it weren't it wouldn't be brought up in gambling studies. It's pretty straight forward.

I've already linked the UK gambling commission's reasons for saying that loot boxes don't fall within their jurisdiction and don't count as gambling. Say "gambling is gambling" as often as you want. Add an extra "is gambling" if you really want. It doesn't change the fact that without a change in the law video game loot boxes are not gambling.

Then what is your argument FOR loot boxes? Why do you believe they're ok? Because you somehow link them as the same thing as trading card games?

By themselves loot-boxes aren't much different to trading cards, although most are cosmetic-only now whereas the TCGs require you to buy them to make a competitive deck. A greater concern should be the way microtransactions in general are marketed as people have reported addictive or compulsive behaviours around them even without a random-chance mechanic.

[Krastyn]

Apples vs Oranges my man. Magic the Gathering isn't designed to get you hooked on it.

That statement is 110% pure bullshit. So why doesn't MTG sell cards like Netrunner? Because they know kids will go for the chasers.

I'm not changing my definition of value by any means. Blackops 4 sells items for CoD points which can only be purchased with actual money, they set the value on the items.

And if they don't? Then it makes it ok?

Never said anything was evil chum, you're reaching. I'm saying that when you get things like a kinder surprise, you're getting a dollar's value guaranteed. Where as when you purchase a loot box you can get something that's worth less than what you spent, there's a "loss" factor. There isn't a loss factor in the tangible items. It's entirely your own fault for not being able to understand the arguments being made.

A kinder surprise toy has zero value. It's a loss.
When you buy a monthly loot crate, it has less value than the what you paid for it. It's a loss.
When you buy a loot box, unless the game supports some way to redeem the item for actual money, it's a loss. 100% of the time.

The only way you can argue you can "win" at a loot box (aside from the game itself giving you a way to "cash out", which the vast majority do not [WoW does, by the way]) is if you say there is "value" in cosmetics that exceeds the purchase price. If that is the path of your argument, then the "value" of a toy in a kinder surprise egg can exceed the what you paid for it.

You're correct, they're non transferable. Your point being exactly?

The point being that if you cannot exchange the item for cash, the item has no cash value. You can try to assign it a perceived "value", but as I said above, then that logic needs to then be applied to any random box.

You can't earn CoD Points in game, you get them via purchase only. Not sure what you don't get about apples vs oranges here.

From Activision's website:
"Do COD Points replace the Cryptokeys or Dr. Monty’s Factory Vials that are earned in game?

No, Cryptokeys are still earned by simply playing Multiplayer and Factory Vials are earned by playing Zombies. COD Points are optional."

So you cannot earn that exact currency in game, the effective purchasing ability is the same. Welcome to a granny smith vs McIntosh apple. The purchase price is still in apples.

Gambling is already illegal and this is seen as a form of gambling. If it weren't it wouldn't be brought up in gambling studies. It's pretty straight forward.

Seen by who? You? This whole discussion is about the fact that pretty much everywhere but Belgium, loot boxes are not considered gambling. In order for them to be considered as such, the laws need to be rewritten. How those laws are written will determine whether it catches just loot boxes, or a plethora of other things. Considering the majority of lawmakers aren't gamers there is a good chance it would overreach. Show someone the opening of a BO:4 loot box and the use of a Seal in WoW. They would likely

You're missing the point here not me. Gambling is gambling is gambling. That's the bottom line, and one of these things we're discussing is encouraging gambling, in this case loot boxes. They are literally designed to get you hooked on gambling.

They're designed to get you hooked on buying more loot boxes. Pokemon's literal theme is "Gotta Catch 'Em All". They're trying to get you hooked on buying more packs so you have everything. Sticker albums want you to complete the book. Baseball cards want you to have the set. Welcome to marketing. WoW has mechanics and nudges to make you chase that rare mount, toy, cosmetic, pet, or gear. In order to do so you need to keep paying their monthly loot box fee (some may call this a subscription, but they're also just selling you four pulls on the loot slot machine per target)..

Then what is your argument FOR loot boxes? Why do you believe they're ok? Because you somehow link them as the same thing as trading card games?

To your second snide comment, yes. Hearthstone and Magic the Gathering are both TCG's. You for some reason would classify Hearthstone as an adult gambling game, and MTG a simple TCG.

Depending on their implementation I have zero problem with loot boxes. One of the reasons new AAA video games are still $60 USD is because of MTX. Some games like Mass Effect 3 Multi Player implement it well. You could by a box through in game currency every other Gold game. Each gun had 10 levels, and once you maxed it you no longer got that gun again. I didn't spend a dime on it, and by the time I stopped playing I almost had everything. I don't have every possible item I want in WoW and earning it is time gated behind a monthly subscription. But that's totally ok, right?

I'm all for regulating loot boxes. Odds should be clearly available. The theatrics around opening them restricted. You can even throw in a bad luck prevention mechanism if you want (something by the way, physical TCG's do not have).

They are doing a study on gambling and included all forms of gambling, including loot boxes. Just because you want to interpret in your own special way doesn't deter form the fact that they believe it's gambling enough to include it in a study about gambling.

Please link where they said loot boxes are gambling. Please. YOU keep calling it that. They may want to try and have it classified as such, but they even state that it currently is not the case.

Again, you're just trying to split hairs to prove something, point remains gambling is still gambling.

It's not. If you're trying to convince someone that loot boxes are a gambling pandemic and these impressionable youths are going to be devoured by the greedy corporations because they will be powerless to spend all their money on the addictive gambling, then do so. Tell me what % of players specifically have paid money for a loot box. Don't lump them in with people who used in game currency.

They are already being focused, there are already laws to help curb said behavior. It's like you're not even trying to be impartial to what's actually happening.

Treat the bullet wound or what might be a paper cut under that bandage. Tough call.

Probably the last time I'm going to reply due to the fact that a few of you can't comprehend that this is an actual issue, loot boxes are included in gambling studies meaning they're enough of a gambling concern to warrant research on it. Not only that, you nor anyone else has shown an actual reason for these to be a thing. Not one counter argument beyond "I like it", "I don't care" or simply "It's not gambling because this other company does something remotely similar but on a much smaller scale".

"Studies" and you have linked one. Even that one admits they aren't currently classified as gambling. You want to downplay any counter argument, but yet the only argument you can give as to why it is gambling is 'Because I said so".

Even if loot boxes were to be classified as gambling, how are you going to verify the age of the person at time of purchase?