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

[Krastyn]

They are not mechanically literally identical. With loot-boxes you buy the box and then you open the box and see what you get. To use Seals you have to complete an aspect of the game that gives you a loot drop then use the seal to get a second chance.

You are using a selective definition of loot boxes.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box:

In video games, a loot box (also called a loot/prize crate) is a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, ranging from simple customization options for a player's avatar or character, to game-changing equipment such as weapons and armor.

A Seal fits that definition. Adding a hoop to jump through before you can open the loot box does not change the fact that you are opening a loot box.

What is your definition of a loot box?

I disagree with every step of that "logic."

I disagree with the first step, which also makes the third untrue. People purporting that loot boxes are gambling however, are arguing the first is true. They haven't given a reason why the second isn't true. So if 1 and 2 are true, so is 3.

If what you're talking about is giving randomly selected prizes as a reward for winning a match in FIFA then no, they would not be loot-boxes as you see in games like Overwatch.

But why not?

It doesn't count if you have to get other people to carry you, essentially those people are part of your team and carrying out the non-trivial activity.

There also content in WoW you can solo by face rolling your keyboard, and then use tokens for bonus rolls. Trivial. You've also made the solo blanket decision that every example I am giving is non-trivial. If the governing gambling body considered them trivial, would they be gambling under Belgium law?

Congratulations on completely missing out on what people are talking about when they discuss loot-boxes being a problem in video games. The discussion is about micro-transactions that reward a player with a random reward from a pool of prizes, often these prizes will vary in their value (either in-game value or perceived value by the player.) The discussion does not include literally anything in a video game that could be considered a container with loot inside.

Congratulations on that nice pair of blinders you are wearing. The bolded part of your above statement is EXACTLY what a bonus seal roll is. You have a chance to get in-game value or perceived value. You just want to hand wave it away for a reason you haven't given. The closest I can tell is that it is because you have to do something you subjectively consider non-trivial.

I totally get that the what gamers dislike loot boxes like those in FIFA and Overwatch. That doesn't mean that the laws being proposed are ONLY targeting those. The wording is too broad and will logically apply to much more than just that.

The frequency with which the boxes can be accessed does have a bearing on the problems around loot-boxes such as overspending and encouraging gambling-like behaviours.

They can amplify the problem but the do not change the fact that gambling is gambling. Is betting on who wins the World Cup not gambling because you can only make that bet once every four years? No. It's gambling.

Correct, but it does mitigate some of the problems associated with loot-boxes.

But ultimately irrelevant. As stated, the proposed or enacted legislation in every country does not care about the frequency of the loot box. Just on their existence. When you apply for a lottery licence, it doesn't matter if you are holding one lottery, a lottery once a month, or a lottery once an hour. You're gambling.

No because seals are not loot-boxes.

Because?

Are slot machines in casinos gambling? Yes absolutely.

So a non-time gated loot box is gambling, but a time gated loot box is not. Non-time gated gambling is gambling, but time gated gambling is still gambling. Your logic is inconsistent.

I just need to check I'm getting what you are saying...
FIFA becomes a subscription online game.
Subscribers get to play a weekly challenge.
The challenge has a chance to drop loot (players.)
You can also spend a currency to have a second chance of loot drop.
The currency can be earned in game or you can pay real money.
If that is all correct then...
First part no, the fact the ball gives a second chance of loot from an in-game activity means it wouldn't be considered a loot-box the same as FIFA has now, depending on the cost of the ball and how difficult it is to get through playing the game players may be critical of it as a MTX.
I'm not an expert on Belgian law, but I suspect the fact you are having to complete a non-trivial activity would be similar to UK law so it would not be gambling.

Everything you have been arguing keeps focusing on frequency, and difficulty. Frequency is irrelevant. The laws do not care about the frequency of occurrence. It's the act that matters. The game of chance. When it comes to difficulty, you have to apply what an "average" person would find difficult. While a regular FIFA player might have no problem winning a game on an easy or normal difficult setting, for a random "average" person they would likely lose.So it would be classified as a non-trivial activity, but for the people who would actually be spending money, it would be a trivial activity. Regardless, the level of difficulty does not automatically eliminate it from being gambling or not.

Nope, although if you are one of the "think of the children" brigade you could argue that RNG drops use gambling-like mechanics to trigger dopamine releases and may cause addictive behaviours.

And that is where legislation like this will lead. It's the logical end point.

I'd also be curious to see if there is a breakdown of % of total MTX revenue by age group. It's a stat that is probably incredibly difficult to track though.

And while you have given a pass to my examples on WoW and the FIFA proposal that's exactly what game developers will shift their boxes too. Considering they have teams of people doing it they'll likely be able come up with more / better ideas than what I came up with in a day. While you think that shift may be better than how things are currently, there are many ways in which they can make the revenue exactly the same (or squeeze out even more).

[SirBeef]

I don't really get why people have suddenly started taking this big moral stand about fucking Overwatch loot boxes and bringing up "The children, the children..." as if skins in boxes are actually ruining their lives. Just because some people in the gaming community are whiny bastards over not getting the skin they wanted and wanted to blow it out of proportion, I guess.

Meanwhile there's still actual gambling out there that's completely accessible to minors - and in the gaming community - but no one really bothers with that in the gaming community because they don't actually give a fuck about "gambling", they're just being bitchy about loot boxes in their games.

I want to know where their parents are, why they kid has access to their CC/money to do this, and why the parents just can't say no, restrict access/use parental controls?

[Vash The Stampede]

That's cool when you put it like that, problem is, anyone with brain will just scoff it off. Imagine, I already did. If you want to give argument how everything is digital and you don't own anything, well take rollecoaster for example. You don't own it either but you pay to get a ride for some self pleasure. Lootboxes are nothing else than that.

Ignoring micro-transactions and loot boxes are hard to do when they effect game design. Do you really think the reason why World of Warcraft is failing is because the game is old and people lost interest? Grindy game mechanics? That's done to keep you playing and paying. Trash mobs so easy that a cat could kill them? That's also done to keep people playing and paying the monthly fee. And of course they have an in game store to buy your new mount or whatever it is that pleases you. It all erodes away the gameplay in order to pursue reoccurring revenue.

But it isn't something I have to worry about much longer as these companies may soon realize this doesn't fly with people today. It's a problem that will fix itself.

[PACOX]

I see how loot boxes can be/are exploitive but how much vs old exploitative practice had they had modern technology.

When a lot of us were young there were Pokemon cards (or insert whatever cartoon you were into). Those are loot boxes and most of us didn't even know how to play the game. It was sports cards before that. There were quarter machines where you could gamble on getting the shitty penny toy from it that you wanted.

I think the only differences are now there are more available parental controls but the stores are in your house.

[Verdugo]

Sorry for resurfacing this...



So, since lootboxes are now a dirty word, EA is trying to sidestep the issue by simply renaming the system as "surprise mechanics". Also unlike lootboxes, this system is apparently "ethical".

[Unholyground]

They just need this when you load up any games with those mechanics "WARNING gambling like addictions can occur when continually purchasing randomized digital mystery content. Studies have show that the same effects and patterns seen in the brains of gambling addicts are present in many who repeatedly purchase these micro-transactions." Pretty simple I think and very fair.

[Arrashi]

They just need this when you load up any games with those mechanics "WARNING gambling like addictions can occur when continually purchasing randomized digital mystery content. Studies have show that the same effects and patterns seen in the brains of gambling addicts are present in many who repeatedly purchase these micro-transactions." Pretty simple I think and very fair.

Yeah because cancer warnings sure as hell work against smokers.

Never underestimate "Im special so it won't happen to me" mindset.

[Puupi]

They just need this when you load up any games with those mechanics "WARNING gambling like addictions can occur when continually purchasing randomized digital mystery content. Studies have show that the same effects and patterns seen in the brains of gambling addicts are present in many who repeatedly purchase these micro-transactions." Pretty simple I think and very fair.

No, it's not that simple.

It's that simple only when the age rating for the game is adult only.

[Unholyground]

No, it's not that simple.

It's that simple only when the age rating for the game is adult only.

It should be there though, not everyone is retarded.

[Unholyground]

... expect it's not, Overwatch for example is +12 rated.

Gambling mechanics have no effect on the games ratings.

Informing people is better than taking away their freedom to choose in a lot of cases, maybe they need to slap a big digital gambling symbol on those games.

[Dhrizzle]

Informing people is better than taking away their freedom to choose in a lot of cases, maybe they need to slap a big digital gambling symbol on those games.

Only when microtransactions are involved or any game that uses random loot mechanics to stimulate a dopamine hit and could potentially be addicting?

[Unholyground]

Only when microtransactions are involved or any game that uses random loot mechanics to stimulate a dopamine hit and could potentially be addicting?

I guess it depends on the genre, a game like hearthstone is built around that as a main mechanic, however they should allow you to buy cards outright or dust outright.

[oplawlz]

Informing people is better than taking away their freedom to choose in a lot of cases

Not in this case. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason.

[Temp name]

Informing people is better than taking away their freedom to choose in a lot of cases, maybe they need to slap a big digital gambling symbol on those games.

So why does violence increase a games rating when they could just slap a "This game features intense scenes of violence" warning at the start? It'd the the exact same fucking thing as a "Gambling is bad mmmmmmmmkay?" warning.
That namely being fuck and all.

There is a REASON that gambling is so heavily regulated, and if video games can get away with LITERAL GAMBLING in games targeted at minors, then why not just open up the casinos too, since not letting minors in is "taking away their freedom to choose" too

[Eapoe]

Not in this case. Gambling is heavily regulated for a reason.

Only when real money becomes a factor. Gambling exists everywhere, from the slot machines in certain states and business, to the casinos in video games themselves. Even the less well known exists where D3 has a gambling system made up just in its game mechanics. You pony up a rift stone in the off chance you’re going to get some reward from doing it.
Dragon Quest games have literal casinos that simulate winning and losing in an offchance or getting a better item.
Real life cliff jumpers gamble with their lives when they jump off.
While none of these reflect gambling in the common sense, they all release levels of dopamine which trigger an addiction. It’s one reason people say things like sky diving or getting tattoo’d is addictive. (I’m not saying getting a tattoo is gambling, im just stating the dopamine release is similar to a gambling high).
Gambling is a huge part of the world’s history. I’m not even sure why it is regulated other than the fact it became such a huge thing that had ties to the mob. In the U.S. gambling is becoming legal in multiple states, but I will admit I have no idea how it’s regulations have changed or stayed the same on a federal level.

[Unholyground]

So why does violence increase a games rating when they could just slap a "This game features intense scenes of violence" warning at the start? It'd the the exact same fucking thing as a "Gambling is bad mmmmmmmmkay?" warning.
That namely being fuck and all.

There is a REASON that gambling is so heavily regulated, and if video games can get away with LITERAL GAMBLING in games targeted at minors, then why not just open up the casinos too, since not letting minors in is "taking away their freedom to choose" too

Oh I am not disagreeing that it is bad for kids, I just think it will happen in steps not all at once. The gaming industry is now the largest entertainment industry on the planet and those TAX dollars are lining gov pockets.

[oplawlz]

Only when real money becomes a factor.

This whole discussion is about real money gambling, yes. That is the issue at hand.

[Eapoe]

This whole discussion is about real money gambling, yes. That is the issue at hand.

The whole discussion is about gambling. My point is that the only regulations come up around real money, while gambling is taught and/or learned solely thru other aspects that are not being regulated. Nor can they legitimately be.
People gamble in all kinds of things, and video games, social media, and movies teach this. Don’t misunderstand me, I love video and have been playing them for about 33 years now, since I was 5. The point is that gambling still exists and is taught to children and adults alike simply by the things they already do, even when money isn’t involved.

[oplawlz]

The whole discussion is about gambling. My point is that the only regulations come up around real money, while gambling is taught and/or learned solely thru other aspects that are not being regulated. Nor can they legitimately be.
People gamble in all kinds of things, and video games, social media, and movies teach this. Don’t misunderstand me, I love video and have been playing them for about 33 years now, since I was 5. The point is that gambling still exists and is taught to children and adults alike simply by the things they already do, even when money isn’t involved.

Right, but simulated gambling isn't a problem and no one is saying it is. I think we agree on this, I just don't understand why you're bringing it up here, as no one is suggesting that chance mechanics should be removed from video games. The issue is purely related to companies using those mechanics to monetize said games.

[Evangeliste]

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.