Parliamentary enquiry says loot boxes are gambling - govt must act.

[Paraka]

That is just a slippery slope fallacy with a little bit of paranoia sprinkled on top.

Dude, Australia has banned games because the government is involved for a variety of "problematic" content. I wouldn't pass neither EU or US government to "regulate" content the same way. It's been a push for years, we literally had people blaming violence on them mere months ago.

But hey, guess since I disagree and remain sceptic over their "intentions" must clearly be overtly wrong. Wrong opinions and whatnot, I suppose.

[Vash The Stampede]

For money decisions? Not beyond their allowance. If parents are letting them have more access than that, it's a parenting issue (or more accurately, lack thereof).

What about children who don't get money to buy in game items and instead just find an exploit and break the game? The kid literally finds an exploit in the game and gets his hands on free V-Bucks and shows everyone on the internet how to acquire them. Now he's brought to court over the issue.

It's going to happen because the game had bugs that allowed for this exploit and of course children are very good at exploiting things. Now this person has no future because of a game that took its micro-transaction monopoly money a little too seriously.

Parents who don't inform themselves about their children's hobbies and interests aren't really doing their jobs.

What we need is to have a label on the game that clearly shows that there's a store where you can buy digital items. That way parents can make better informed choices.

Ironically, it's regulation that's largely failed to achieve goals, with those fields. Thanks for supporting my point.

So because regulation failed that means we shouldn't have any right? Anti-piracy measures have always failed so why do companies have them?

[Xar226]

What about children who don't get money to buy in game items and instead just find an exploit and break the game?

It has literally nothing to do with gambling, or with whether or not loot boxes should exist or need to be regulated. At least half of their case smells like utter bullshit as well. They might have a breach of contract claim if it was in the EULA, but it's sure as fuck not copyright infringement. If you want to campaign against unethical companies, I'm right there with you, but this does nothing for your point.

"Think of the children!" has always been a shitty defense of any behavior. If lootboxes are gambling and we need to protect the children, well that's easy: Don't give them access to a credit card. The fact that this is where the argument immediately goes shows exactly how poor it is on its face, that its supporters immediately have to leap to an emotional appeal based on a connection dubious at best.

Loot boxes are being regulated because people don't like them and politicians can score easy points against them. That's it. If it were anything else, we would all be deafened by the outcry to regulate activities much closer to gambling; I for one look forward to the government jumping in to eliminate that all-time scourge, baseball cards.

[Endus]

What about children who don't get money to buy in game items and instead just find an exploit and break the game? The kid literally finds an exploit in the game and gets his hands on free V-Bucks and shows everyone on the internet how to acquire them. Now he's brought to court over the issue.

Yeah. That's a whole suite of civil violations and potentially criminal conduct. As for "what about kids that do this", that's why we have courts (and considerations if the offender's a minor).

It's going to happen because the game had bugs that allowed for this exploit and of course children are very good at exploiting things. Now this person has no future because of a game that took its micro-transaction monopoly money a little too seriously.

Because they broke laws and stole stuff.

If a kid found a way to pick the lock on an arcade machine and stole thousands of tickets to trade in for prizes, same kind of issue. It's illegal conduct, and should be treated that way.

So because regulation failed that means we shouldn't have any right? Anti-piracy measures have always failed so why do companies have them?

You haven't made any argument about any "rights" being violated, to begin with.

[draykorinee]

T

You 100% can argue that virtual slot machines are not gambling, much like I can argue virtual murder is not actual murder.

What a weird hill to die on, equating virtual gambling with real world money and virtual killing of npc characters.

As to Endus and the whole TCG stuff, as a Magic player I'd have no qualms whatsoever if they were labelled 15+ or whatever and a gambling warning printed on them, its worth noting that Magic are moving away from the randomness and introducing lots of ways of building decks with prebuilt compoetitive-ish decks. I'll never see lootboxes and TCGs as anlogous but they are similar in some mechanics.

But just because one has done it for years doesn't make it wholesome. I did wonder how this thread suddenly went from 2 to 5 pages then I saw someone defending the practice with gusto and realised it was Endus and knew we were in for some 'interesting' posts.

- - - Updated - - -

To be clear, they're explicitly taking their stance based on an absence of research proving that no harm is done. This is literally impossible; such research would be setting out to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility.

.

Ummm, thats kinda how medical research works, why are you trying to use the illogical argument that you can't prove a negative in medical science? Its literally possible...Its literally what medical research is, you test something and you prove its safe to administer with no negative consequences (outside of minor statistical probablalities or interactions) THEN you sell it. You don't just give the drug or the treatment and then hope someone completes some research on it.

I've worked in medical research trialing a new way to treat post op care and our job was to prove positive benefits, but fundamentally to disprove that our treatment would cause negative consequences, thus proving a negative. Sadly our research also proved anohter negative, that our treatment just did not make a statistical difference, thus proving a negative.

[Krastyn]

What a weird hill to die on, equating virtual gambling with real world money and virtual killing of npc characters.

Who said anything about dying on a hill. I was just pointing out that just because something is virtual, does not automatically make it identical to its physical counterpart. Just because a slot machine may exist in a game (or poker, or various other gambling items), does not mean they are equal to real world gambling. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series have had gambling in them for decades. Where is the outcry over that?

As to Endus and the whole TCG stuff, as a Magic player I'd have no qualms whatsoever if they were labelled 15+ or whatever and a gambling warning printed on them, its worth noting that Magic are moving away from the randomness and introducing lots of ways of building decks with prebuilt compoetitive-ish decks. I'll never see lootboxes and TCGs as anlogous but they are similar in some mechanics.

I also have no problem with them putting whatever labels they want on the game. It's still a recommended age, and with game purchases shifting more from physical to digital, labels are going to mean less and less. If a kid can get a credit card to buy loot boxes, they sure as hell can get a credit card to buy a game.

There is very, very little difference between FIFA packs, and TCG packs. Yet one is constantly vilified online, and the other coasts along. The only difference is that some stores sell individual cards, usually at multiple times the cost of a pack.

But just because one has done it for years doesn't make it wholesome. I did wonder how this thread suddenly went from 2 to 5 pages then I saw someone defending the practice with gusto and realised it was Endus and knew we were in for some 'interesting' posts.

Much like there are people calling for the banning of loot boxes because of emotion.

Ummm, thats kinda how medical research works, why are you trying to use the illogical argument that you can't prove a negative in medical science? Its literally possible...Its literally what medical research is, you test something and you prove its safe to administer with no negative consequences (outside of minor statistical probablalities or interactions) THEN you sell it. You don't just give the drug or the treatment and then hope someone completes some research on it.

You can't prove a negative. No drug in the history of humanity has been ever been 100% safe. You do trials to assess the potential risks and then weigh it against the benefits. Even then, sometimes you don't realize until too late (thalidomide says hi), as with numerous other drug recalls.

You also don't have to look very hard to see that trying to overly regulate or restrict may not have the impact you're looking for. Take smoking and alcohol as prime examples. Both are 18+ where I am. My friends and I started drinking at 15. I tried my first and only smoke at 13. Neither are difficult to obtain. Even if you slap a full 18+ rating on the games, it will still be incredibly easy to purchase and play them. As realistically, how are you going to verify age?

[draykorinee]

You can't prove a negative. No drug in the history of humanity has been ever been 100% safe.

Okay, can we please stop this fallacy. You can prove that a 500mg tablet of Paracetamol will not cause cardiac arrhythmia (Outside of the aforementioned statistical probabilities and interactions), nor will it cause suicidal convictions. You can prove that administering 40L of flow to a healthy person using the Airvo Highlow device does not cause a negative impact of any note on a person (I know I helped with the research). Yes, you can prove negatives, you can prove things don't cause harm (Or at worse, less harm than if you did not do the treatment in the case of things like Chemo). If I didn't prove that our device did not cause harm then we wouldn't be able to sell it, its that simple.

Stop using pseudo logic, we're not talking about fairies in the garden, we're talking about observable medical research, and the fundamentals of that are A) proving it works and b) proving it is safe to administer and the only way to prove that is to show it does not cause certain harms, like death. That is a negative.

There are scientific, medical and mathematical negatives that have been proven.

A mathematichan can prove that there is no triangles, in euclidian geometry, with a sum of their inner angles bigger than 180º. He doesn’t need to check every existing triangle (what is impossible), he can use math to prove it.

A biologist can prove that there is no living arthropods in all earth with 3 meters tall, because the square cube law turns it biomechanically unsustainable.

[draykorinee]

In which way you win money and in which way you win material goods? Oh yeah, you don't.
Don't spend money on things that you do not want to spend or you rather sound like a true gambler that is walking a path towards abyss. That is you. Not Blizzard or EA.

I suppose you omitted the primary intent bit to suit your own narrative, also that isn't the definition in the 2005 gambling act which is what the UK uses, Wikipedia is not a legal document I'm afraid.

The gambling act 2005 states

(4)For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance for a prize—
(a)if he plays a game of chance and thereby acquires a chance of winning a prize, and
(b)whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.

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, its a very broad definition open to interpretation, what is 'money's worth' It also does not suggest that the prize needs to be a material thing. You can't copy paste Wikipedia mate, thats not how it works.

If you read the this commision by the government you'd know they suggested that money's worth is where the grey area is, they are saying that the fact people are betting real money for non real world items gives those real world items relative worth.

[Okacz]

Yup, games companies basically shit the bed with this one, I'd expect more regulations to be suggested both to restrict the amount of money people can pay in games (regardless of random chance) and investigation into addictive gaming behaviours that could affect core content or even lead to China-style restrictions on how long people are allowed to game.

My personal beef with this is that I actually do like gambling. You know, from casino stuff to RNG in games. It's a simple and cheap spice that can make anything fun. Even rock-paper-scissors can be many times more enjoyable and memorable if you put anything on the line.

With lootbox controversy, companies have completly muddied the water when it comes to gambling mechanics in games. Some of them don't necessarily have to be this predatory bullshit like boxes in Battlefront or Fifa, but now they are in the same category. Sterlings videos do show that problem - he made on in context of GTA game adding a virtual casino. Something that works perfectly for the setting, MMO aspect of GTA online and the fact that it's obviously a game for adult audiences. Still, due to the controversies with gambling, it managed to find itself on the same shit page as lootboxes.

If this whole scenario goes any further, the whole RNG scene in games might be looked at by govs. Take Borderlands. Those games always had closed chests containing random loot, or even slot machines to get random guns. Perhaps an overzealous inspector will one day ban those kinds of mechanics, saying that they also can prey on gambling addicts and/or children? Random loot in WoW also rises dopamine levels, doesn't it?

So basically, EA and other greedy smartasses with their lootboxes might have brought government regulations into video games with full force. We'll see in a few years I guess.

[Dhrizzle]

That's kind of where I fall on this particular issue.

Sure, loot boxes are "gambling". So are TCG packs, not to mention other trading cards. So are a lot of carnival games. So are those vending machines that sell toys in bubble packs. You know you're getting "something", but you can't pick what you want, directly. And to date, these things haven't been flagged as some kind of risk factor to kids.

When I was growing up, if I wanted to blow my allowance on Magic: The Gathering cards, I could (and did) do that. Was that dumb? Probably. Did I get a metric fuckton of garbage that's worth nothing? For sure. Still did it. Don't consider myself to have been a victim of anything shady.

If the issue is kids stealing their parents' credit card information and spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, that's on the parents' not keeping their card secure and their kid who thinks stealing is okay. They'd steal to fund whatever hobby they had.

I do think there are differences but it's more to do with the nature of an electronic economy. For starters it is very easy for devices to have quick-pay options activated that a parent might miss so the kid has access to their card, and even if the account is secure and the kid has to physically take the credit card and type in numbers it's easy to see how a young child might not understand the exact consequences of typing a string of numbers into a game. Even adults have to be careful because it's so easy to buy things with a card and not feel like you've actually spent money.

There's also the lack of safeguards and spending limits - if a child walks into a bricks-and-mortar store with a card and tries to buy thousands of pounds worth of MtG cards it's going to set off alarm bells with the staff, game developers seem reluctant to implement such things.

Obviously there are obligations on the parents - locking down spending on the device, securing cards, teaching children that using it is actually stealing etc... but I really think devs need to be putting in simple to use safeguards like 2-step verification for big spends or at least e-mail notifications. From what I saw of this inquiry a big problem is how the game companies came across with a "don't know, don't care" attitude towards customer spending habits.

Another thing that should be looked at is what boils down to marketing for MTX in the game which should be subject to similar rules as advertisements during children's television. MTXs are very open to being compulsive purchases and the ease with which they are purchasable and way they are pushed while people are playing games can be harmful to children and vulnerable adults. The trouble is all the hand-wringing over gambling is great for causing a moral panic over evil video games but does nothing about the non-random MTX which have also spawned horror stories about massive overspending.

- - - Updated - - -

My personal beef with this is that I actually do like gambling. You know, from casino stuff to RNG in games. It's a simple and cheap spice that can make anything fun. Even rock-paper-scissors can be many times more enjoyable and memorable if you put anything on the line.

With lootbox controversy, companies have completly muddied the water when it comes to gambling mechanics in games. Some of them don't necessarily have to be this predatory bullshit like boxes in Battlefront or Fifa, but now they are in the same category. Sterlings videos do show that problem - he made on in context of GTA game adding a virtual casino. Something that works perfectly for the setting, MMO aspect of GTA online and the fact that it's obviously a game for adult audiences. Still, due to the controversies with gambling, it managed to find itself on the same shit page as lootboxes.

If this whole scenario goes any further, the whole RNG scene in games might be looked at by govs. Take Borderlands. Those games always had closed chests containing random loot, or even slot machines to get random guns. Perhaps an overzealous inspector will one day ban those kinds of mechanics, saying that they also can prey on gambling addicts and/or children? Random loot in WoW also rises dopamine levels, doesn't it?

So basically, EA and other greedy smartasses with their lootboxes might have brought government regulations into video games with full force. We'll see in a few years I guess.

I do put a lot of blame on the publishers who have shown no interest in self-regulation despite growing concerns from parents and authorities, but you also have to look at the way some "gamers" have been polishing their hate-boners by declaring video games to be addictive, evil and harmful to children without thinking that it might extend beyond loot boxes. Most alarming I thought was the MPs asking if companies had any ways of monitoring or controlling play-time in a game.

[draykorinee]

I am not omitting anything. I am stating what is widely accepted as common sense. Also, I am not from UK so why would I care about that act?

This whole thread is based on a UK governmental report and about what the UK are doing about loot boxes, yes of course you can chose to discuss outside of the UK if you so wish, but that leads to derailing.

[draykorinee]

No, I am quite sure that I am free to express my criticism towards any government.

As I said, you're free to do as you wish, not sure where you think you saw otherwise.

[Krastyn]

Okay, can we please stop this fallacy. You can prove that a 500mg tablet of Paracetamol will not cause cardiac arrhythmia (Outside of the aforementioned statistical probabilities and interactions), nor will it cause suicidal convictions. You can prove that administering 40L of flow to a healthy person using the Airvo Highlow device does not cause a negative impact of any note on a person (I know I helped with the research). Yes, you can prove negatives, you can prove things don't cause harm (Or at worse, less harm than if you did not do the treatment in the case of things like Chemo). If I didn't prove that our device did not cause harm then we wouldn't be able to sell it, its that simple.

Research shows you what a specific dosage does. It doesn't test every dosage. People want to treat loot boxes like gambling, which doesn't restrict dosage. So unless you're arguing that loot boxes belong in their own special category above and beyond gambling.

What would be the "dosage" that you would test for loot boxes?

[draykorinee]

Research shows you what a specific dosage does. It doesn't test every dosage. People want to treat loot boxes like gambling, which doesn't restrict dosage. So unless you're arguing that loot boxes belong in their own special category above and beyond gambling.

What would be the "dosage" that you would test for loot boxes?

I guess the researchers would need to figure that out. We have observable, testable data for the physiological changes that happen during gambling, its not too difficult to recreate, the reason EA etc haven't invested in research is because people aren't making them, theres a very common problem within medical research taht people don't like proving negatives because there just isn't money in it.

Why would an independent group study lootboxes? How do they gain financially? Which is why the burden of proof needs to rest on EA and co to show that it does not trigger the very same observable changes.The burden of proof can always be argued, but seeing as the gambling comission aren't going to make money it seems unlikely they'll go out of their way when they can just label it gambling and get EA to prove otherwise.

[Krastyn]

There's also the lack of safeguards and spending limits - if a child walks into a bricks-and-mortar store with a card and tries to buy thousands of pounds worth of MtG cards it's going to set off alarm bells with the staff, game developers seem reluctant to implement such things.

And if a child logs onto Amazon, nothing will stop them from buying thousands of pounds worth of MtG cards. This isn't a loot box specific item. This isn't a video game developer specific item. This is a commerce / industry problem. There is a lot of blame to go around. Banning loot boxes won't stop the small fraction of gamers blowing tons of money on MTX. There are a lot more methods that would be effective in targetting the problem, rather than emotional cries for a ban that won't have the desired effect.

Obviously there are obligations on the parents - locking down spending on the device, securing cards, teaching children that using it is actually stealing etc... but I really think devs need to be putting in simple to use safeguards like 2-step verification for big spends or at least e-mail notifications. From what I saw of this inquiry a big problem is how the game companies came across with a "don't know, don't care" attitude towards customer spending habits.

Two problems with the bold. The first, is that it often isn't big spends, but a series of small spends. So the warning would have to be on a cumulative scale. The second is that if the minor set up the account, they also likely set up the email too. What may work instead however, is having a 2-step verification method on credit cards themselves, for all online purchases. That way the card holder is setting up where any notifications / approvals are going.

Another thing that should be looked at is what boils down to marketing for MTX in the game which should be subject to similar rules as advertisements during children's television. MTXs are very open to being compulsive purchases and the ease with which they are purchasable and way they are pushed while people are playing games can be harmful to children and vulnerable adults. The trouble is all the hand-wringing over gambling is great for causing a moral panic over evil video games but does nothing about the non-random MTX which have also spawned horror stories about massive overspending.

Definitely on board with this. I'd also be fine with them regulating the amount of "flash" with loot boxes. As for the non-random MTX, I think modernizing credit cards would go a long way to that.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess the researchers would need to figure that out. We have observable, testable data for the physiological changes that happen during gambling, its not too difficult to recreate, the reason EA etc haven't invested in research is because people aren't making them, theres a very common problem within medical research taht people don't like proving negatives because there just isn't money in it.

Why would an independent group study lootboxes? How do they gain financially? Which is why the burden of proof needs to rest on EA and co to show that it does not trigger the very same observable changes.The burden of proof can always be argued, but seeing as the gambling comission aren't going to make money it seems unlikely they'll go out of their way when they can just label it gambling and get EA to prove otherwise.

Why restrict it to just loot boxes though? Why doesn't Epic have to do tests to show that Fortnite isn't addictive? People have died playing WoW, should Activision have to do studies to show evidence that their game is safe? Using the MTG example, MTG has been around for decades. The online pack version (which would fall under the definition of a loot box) is identical to a physical pack. Should they be required to do a study because their product is digital, despite the fact that the physical version has been around decades with no legislation? If the digital version is banned, should the physical one be as well?

[draykorinee]

Why doesn't Epic have to do tests to show that Fortnite isn't addictive?

Gaming addiction is already a thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwIyohVongg

The Church of England are weighing in.

[Krastyn]

Gaming addiction is already a thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwIyohVongg

The Church of England are waying in.

Did Epic, or the industry do a study showing that it is? Were they required to?

[draykorinee]

Did Epic, or the industry do a study showing that it is? Were they required to?

Nope, this was done independantly due to concerns raised. Loot boxes dont get the same publicity, therefore at present no independant research has been published.

This publication might prompt some independant research which would be nice.

[Polybius]

Did Epic, or the industry do a study showing that it is? Were they required to?

Video game addiction is a thing, and people can seek help. The issue here is acknowledging that loot boxes are essentially gambling, which is illegal in many places for minors.

[Krastyn]

Nope, this was done independantly due to concerns raised. Loot boxes dont get the same publicity, therefore at present no independant research has been published.

This publication might prompt some independant research which would be nice.

And hopefully it does. That still does not mean that a game should have to do a scientific study before it releases. Anything that provides any kind of pleasure can be addictive. That doesn't mean everything needs a scientific study before it can be sold to the public.

- - - Updated - - -

Video game addiction is a thing, and people can seek help. The issue here is acknowledging that loot boxes are essentially gambling, which is illegal in many places for minors.

There are games that have had literal gambling for decades, without issue. The "think of the children" argument is tiresome, since all studies shown to date (even the research from the UK commission) shows that the rate is in line with the general population distribution. People want to ban based on their feelings, with no actual evidence. What's worse, is they want others to provide the evidence for them. Like the government, while still happily collecting money from the companies they want to restrict.