Slashdot Mirror
Belgium Denounces Loot Boxes as Gambling; Hawaiian Legislator Calls Them 'Predatory' (arstechnica.co.uk)
Peter Bright, writing for ArsTechnica: Belgium's Gaming Commission has ruled that loot boxes -- in-game purchases where what you receive is randomized and only known once you open the box -- are gambling. The country's minister of justice, Koen Geens, has said that he wants to see them banned Europe-wide, reports PC Gamer. Amid outcry over the use of loot boxes in Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2, the Belgian Gaming Commission decided last week to look into the issue, with Commission Director Peter Naessens specifically saying that the combination of paying money and receiving something "dependent on chance" prompted the investigation. Rather swiftly, it seems, the Commission has made its decision. In October, the US' Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rejected calls to classify loot boxes as gambling. It told Kotaku that since players receive some reward from opening the loot box -- even if it's useless or unwanted -- that it's not gambling. As such, loot box games will receive neither ESRB's "Real Gambling" nor "Simulated Gambling" labels, the former of which automatically gives a game an "Adults Only" rating. Many retailers refuse to sell A-O games, so giving every title that uses loot boxes such a rating would likely be harmful to their sales. The question of whether loot boxes are gambling may see some new scrutiny in the US. Hawaiian Democratic State Representative Chris Lee has described loot boxes as predatory behavior.
It is unregulated gambling. Just because you can't cash out, doesn't make it not gambling.
These Loot boxes, gachapon, etc are rigged against the player so they spend as much as possible to get whatever "rare" thing is in it.
If it was simply "buy this skin" no RNG involved, people would not be having a shit fit. But this RNG "slot machine" type of behavior is exactly designed to bilk players out of money and hand out as few valuable items as possible. You know where like a real slot machine pays out 93-97% of the time. Loot boxes may never pay out.
We've also had this argument for years, as Nexon Corp has been doing this for at least a fricken decade in their Maple Story and Mabinogi MMO games.
Captcha: Jackpot.
Well, if the ESRB's reasoning of "if you receive a reward, even if useless, then it's not gambling" than any business that is considered and regulated under gambling laws can simply provide their players with rewards points which can be redeemed for prizes (even if useless). Most if not all casino's have rewards programs, I guess they'll be able to claim exemption from gambling laws for any players who collect rewards not based on chance (i.e. if you gamble for $1000, you get a free complementary drink).
If you are interested in this topic, or if you have children, you must read this:
https://www.facebook.com/notes...
Quote from the maifesto:
"If you are playing a game for next to nothing – or free – and you find out people are spending thousands, or tens of thousands, or in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars – there may be a problem."
I felt awful after reading this,
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
Because you don't know what cards you get, and some are worth a lot of money while others are worthless, is this not gambling? Magic the gathering is the prime example as cards are so much more expensive than similar games.
Do you mean (a) "is it gambling" or (b) "is it unlawful gambling according to the particular laws of my jurisdiction"?
Ans:
(a) You're paying for the pack in the hope that it contains items worth considerably more than what you paid - of course it is bloody gambling.
(b) Go pay a lawyer to give you the answer you want - and if that doesn't work, go pay a local politician to change the law.
The next question is: is it a problem - considering we've had trading cards for years - compared with the type of "stealth" gambling that is now being concealed in computer games targeted at children. Apart from any "think of the children" issues, "free to pay" (hmm. that was a genuine typo...) games are a pox on the face of gaming, since they are inevitably designed to maximise in-game revenue rather than provide a good game.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Well, if the ESRB's reasoning of "if you receive a reward, even if useless, then it's not gambling" than any business that is considered and regulated under gambling laws can simply provide their players with rewards points which can be redeemed for prizes (even if useless).
Those reward points aren't considered a payment that is given to the player for playing the game, though they are considered to be cash and the casino is responsible for making sure that the player gets rewarded at some point. If they have an outstanding points balance for a player who doesn't bother to redeem them, they ask the player what they want and then they will go out and spend their cash value on something that they actually want, like a car, and deliver it. In my former life, I wrote Crystal Reports for a casino...
It does however raise the question of precisely where the line in gambling is. If I overcharge you for an item and give every hundredth customer thirty of them, is that gambling? Obviously it is, but is it legally?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'll be the first to agree that real-money loot boxes in gaming are a terrible thing (if they're only available with in-game currency, I don't give a stuff). At their most benign (e.g. Overwatch), they are an inducement for people to continue to sink cash into a virtual slot machine. At their worst, when used as part of a pay-to-win system, they fundamentally corrupt a game's mechanics.
And yet...
I really, really wish that gamers (of all people) had not been jumping up and down and begging for Government intervention. Should you boycott games for containing loot box systems? Yes. Should you take to social media and cause as much brand damage as possible? Definitely. But bringing Government into things? Not going to end well...
Popular authoritarianism and censorship is on the march at the moment, driven by both the religious right and the snowflake left. Do we really think that Governments poking around with one area of video-game regulation are going to limit themselves to that particular area? That this won't turn into some kind of "think of the children/think of the trans community" moral crusade.
There's a real risk here that games are rushing headlong towards a cliff that could see German, Australian or even Chinese-style censorship of games spreading worldwide. The US might be at least partially protected due to its First Amendment, but here in the UK, with an authoritarian Government faced with an even more authoritarian opposition, I'm getting properly worried.
Making a payment with the result of a basic award plus a bonus is still a game of chance.
Right. For the past three years (not this year), Buffalo Wild Wings offered a mystery bonus gift card when you spend $25 on gift cards. That mystery bonus was guaranteed to be worth $5, but could be worth $10, $20, $50, or $100.
And since it qualified legally as a sweepstakes, they were forced to offer a no purchase necessary method of entry. And I took advantage of that each year, mailing in four self-addressed stamped envelopes and getting four $5 gift cards in return.
Of course it's gambling. The question is only whether or not to set an age limit or other regulations. Baseball cards were originally distributed in cigarette packages... aimed at adults.
Personally, I think that when baseball cards left the gum wrapper and started being sold as a product on their own they should have been restricted according to regular gambling regulations.
Overwatch: you get loot boxes for each level, for playing certain types of games or can purchase them. You can also purchase the item straight out for various prices with in game coins. In game coins come as items in chests and when the chest contain an item you already have, a duplicate; recent changes made this rare so getting coins is harder. They only contain cosmetic items, nothing that gives boosts or benefits in game play.
Battlefront II(star wars the recent one) gives you loot boxes on leveling or purchasing. These boxes contain new abilities, cosmetic items, and crafting parts. The abilities come in variety of items or effects you can apply to your character. The top level items can only be crafted, so you have to have a lot of crates to get the best things or play alot of hours to get enough free ones. Since they are not cosmetic or if you want to play Hans Solo or any of the movie heroes it does make it possible for a person to lay down some money or $2100 for everything and "pay to win"
Absolutely. The math has been done and the apprximate amount of money one has to spend if you wish to unlock all of the content (in the game you've already paid good money for) is 2100 $ [vg247.com]! Or, alternatively, without money, it takes over 4500 hours of gameplay to unlock everything!
...but is (saddly) not how things are considered.
In most jurisdictions "gambling" is clearly defined, and thus companies have found way around it, some ways even predating video games.
Basically, for something to be considered "gambling", you need :
- to put money in in order to participate (you need to bet cash, or buy chips, or whatever).
- the RNG being the sole determinant of the outcome (the actions of the player don't have any influence on outcome of game : no matter which numbers one bets on at the roulette or which team a sport gambler bets on, these bets won't change which number the ball of the roulette lands on, or which team will be victorious - well unless underhanded mafia influence was involved).
This has been circumvented by marketeers making "contests" to win prizes :
- the contest has a very small tiny note explaining that there's no mandatory buying to take part into the "contest" (e.g.: if bottle caps need to be collected, you can send a post card to ask for free)
- the randomness is usually only a second step to discriminate among contestant. Usually, there's some trivial stupid quizz to answer (whose answer sometime is literally a few lines above the paragraph with the contest). Thus winners are actually winning by playing a game (of skill), randomness only comes into play to select among the winners because it "happens" that there a lot fewer prices than "winners" (than anyone with 2 brain cells) but those who couldn't answer the quizz because they lacked the necessary skills (a pulse ?) aren't taking part in the second random round.
And lootboxes, as despicable as they could be as a practice, have already a built-in circumvention around being considered "gambling".
- Most of the online games, specially those relying on lootboxes for income, are following the "freemium" model. (even the game that cost an initial price for the game purchase, one could argue that you don't need an aditionnal purchase *per lootbox* the money you put buying the game doesn't correlate to the number of time you're pulling the "lootbox slot machine lever"). As the study mention, you could instead be spending time instead.
Playing the "lootbox slot machine" can be considered free
- You are playing a game (or could be playing one, in games where paying cash for a loot crate is an alternative to going on quests to get them). The RNG only comes into play as a way to handle (artificially) scarce prizes.
In other words :
- you put money in -> some steps happen, the only influence is external (apparent randomness) -> you might get something of value (e.g.: money) out.
That is gambling, legally.
- you do NOT need to put money in -> lot of steps happen, some might be under random influence, but other are under the influence of player's actions -> you might get something of value (e.g.: an object with commercial value that could be sold for money)
That is what "contests", "quizzes" and online games go for.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Here's the reason why.
My wife plays Farmville type games on her tablet. She can earn things through gameplay or she can choose to buy items. Say she wants a tractor. She can either play for so many hours to earn enough in game credit to get a tractor or she can buy in real cash so many game credits and use those to buy a tractor.
Now here is where it differs. In COD:WW2 I can choose to earn supply drops through game play or I can buy COD points to purchase supply drops. Same as the game my wife plays so all good so far yes? The problem is that when I open those supply drops what I get is chosen at random. I cannot buy a supply drop to get a specific weapon or upgrade I want, I get what is randomly assigned to it. At the point I am in the game the ones I earn through gameplay mostly contain duplicates of what I have so I get a paltry amount of armoury points awarded for the dupes. Therefore I buy $40 of COD points, use those to buy supply drops and I could find myself getting mostly duplicates and not getting the stuff I wanted or need.
If you could buy the points and choose the items you wanted as you can with my wife's games then there would be no issue but you can't, what you get is random. And that is the whole problem with it and why some look on it as gambling.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
How's life in the hypocrite lane?