Slashdot Mirror
The Legislative Fight Over Loot Boxes Expands To Washington State (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The government backlash against video game loot boxes -- the randomized in-game item purchases that some observers and legislators consider a form of gambling -- moved from Hawaii to Washington state earlier this month. That's when a group of three Democratic state senators introduced a bill that would require the state gambling commission to examine loot boxes and determine "whether games and apps containing these mechanisms are considered gambling under Washington law." "What the bill says is, 'Industry, state: sit down to figure out the best way to regulate this,'" Orcas Island Senator and bill coauthor Kevin Ranker told the Tacoma News Tribune. "It is unacceptable to be targeting our children with predatory gambling masked in a game with dancing bunnies or something."
The bill text puts specific focus on the question of whether children who "may be more vulnerable to gambling addiction" should be allowed to access games with loot boxes, and on the question of "transparency" around "the odds of receiving each type of virtual item." The latter point took on additional salience last month as Apple required such odds to be posted alongside games with loot boxes. Actual government regulation of loot boxes in Washington is still a ways off, though. Ranker's bill needs to be approved by the full Washington state legislature (which is narrowly held by Democrats) and be signed by the governor before being referred to the gambling commission. At that point, the commission would have until December 1 to form its recommendations for any regulatory and enforcement system the state might set up.
The bill text puts specific focus on the question of whether children who "may be more vulnerable to gambling addiction" should be allowed to access games with loot boxes, and on the question of "transparency" around "the odds of receiving each type of virtual item." The latter point took on additional salience last month as Apple required such odds to be posted alongside games with loot boxes. Actual government regulation of loot boxes in Washington is still a ways off, though. Ranker's bill needs to be approved by the full Washington state legislature (which is narrowly held by Democrats) and be signed by the governor before being referred to the gambling commission. At that point, the commission would have until December 1 to form its recommendations for any regulatory and enforcement system the state might set up.
Learn it early and you'll go far in this world.
Probably depends on all what they are including in the lootboxes.
Lets say the lootbox costs $20. If you get $20 in value out of the box, be it a single expensive item with a value of $20, or multiple cheaper items with a total value of $20 then i really wouldn't call it gambling.
Gambling would be where you pay $20 for a box, might get a single item worth $100, or 5 smaller items worth a penny a piece.
What about bobcats?
Chuck E. Cheese has been "targeting our children with predatory gambling masked in a game" for decades now.
At some point every kid becomes and adult regardless of whether or not they act responsibly. Instead of banning shit that can be addictive you should teach this thing called responsibility. Banning it is just a form of punishment for those who have been taught this thing called moderation. And that's just wrong. It's wrong to punish the masses for the poor decisions of a few. The harm to positive results ratio doesn't add up ever when you do such things. You always overwhelmingly punish innocent people.
whataboutism
The way Apple did it was to require games that sell loot boxes for money to post odds.
I've never seen a game do this. All games that I've seen sell in game currency and the loot boxes are purchased with that currency. IMHO, Apple introduced something to appear that they are doing something, while actually doing nothing.
And that makes sense. Apple gets 30% of all the sweet sweet revenue. So they want to appear to be doing something to calm enraged law makers, but actually do nothing to keep the money flowing.
How are loot boxes different than collectible card game sets or grab-bag sales at school fundraisers?
At first they came for the loot boxes, and I said nothing because I don't play that game.
Then they came for the Hatchibles, and I said nothing because I don't have kids.
Then they came for the Magic The Gathering booster packs and there was no one left to speak for me.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Sounds like the same value to me. You got a hundred-dollar sword for cheap, or you got a box full of valuable life lessons.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
For the love of god, don't these idiots have something more important to do? How much do we pay these idiots anyway?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Every lootbox contains an item worth zero dollars. Everything in a lootbox is developed at the same time as the game and already paid for. Otherwise the developers would have not had time for that.
They are all a scam.
The only way they aren't is if there is no buying the boxes and they are just awarded to players at specific points in the game.
The whole idea of random lottery style lootboxes was introduced by free to play games. The justification being the game is free, and stuff is continually being added. And in those cases I did buy some. But never in a retail game, screw that.
The games I bought boxes in don't even exist anymore so I learned my lesson the hard way. Not even ragezone can resurrect these games :(
Washington state legislators are not happy unless they are pushing the latest liberal agenda.
FUCK THEM!!!
Yeah I'd agree with you except there is no such thing as innocent gambling.
I guess we should get rid of crosswalks and school zones too.
Kids need to learn how to dodge cars on their own.
I've pretty much given up gaming after UT3. It just didn't have what the Duke has, but Duke Nukem Forever was not good either. Come get some!
What do you call it when a loot box costs one loot box token, which in turn costs 100 gembux, which are available via in-game prizes at a rate of 1-10 per day or for cash at rates of 10 for $0.99, 250 for $9.99, 1,000 for $19.99, or 10,000 for $99.99 (Best Value!!!) and contains three random virtual items with no cash value, at least two of which also have no practical value in the game and one of which, once every 15-20 times, may be something of in-game utility that can't be sold or traded and will probably be useless after the next update, when new loot box contents are released?
I wouldn't say they are worth zero dollars, they are obviously worth something to those playing the game.
That's like saying MS is printing money out of thin air for every boxed copy of windows they sell that prob only costs $5 to stamp to CD/DVD and box it yet they charge $100 or more for it.
They are making a profit off the intellectual property contained therein and the development efforts to create it, just as the game makers with loot boxes.
That's where in if the box contains something of equal value to what you paid, be it a single item or multiple items would make it fair and not gambling.
Not just talking video games here.... but in the realm of hobbyist gaming, this is one big-ass grief of mine. What pisses me off the most about it is that the company basically locks you you into having to settle for buying randomized stuff where you'll end up with lots ofshit you don't want or need by making any official avenues for buying specific stuff economically nonviable unless you have stuff that another person is willing to trade for.
Fucking money grabs... pisses me off something awful.
Teaching responsibility doesn't do a damn bit of good to those susceptible to addiction. My wife is a therapist who works with addicts. Trust me, they don't indulge in drugs and alcohol because they weren't taught to be responsible.
Besides, regardless of the responsibility of the person partaking, how are loot boxes not an attempt to prey on human weakness? If we could do what you say, loot boxes would just go away, but does that mean that people trying to prey on others get a free pass because it's the fault of the people who partake and not the seller?
Why is this a problem that needs legislation to solve? As a kid I never had access to my parents credit card or accounts. If I wanted something I had to mow a lawn and decide if that was worth blowing on Magic the Gathering cards. If you don't want to spend money on games don't associate your credit card with them. If the game is honestly worth playing then let the whales pay for development and just leech off the F2P content.
And really, is the person who needs the drop rate on Malibu Darth Vader honestly going to; a) be surprised that it is abysmally small b) do anything differently with that information?
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
'nuf said.
The $5000 I sold a WoW account for definitely shows that virtual stuff is definitely worth something.
...would be the simplest solution. Let parents prohibit in-app purchases, or prohibit downloading games with in-app purchases. Handing a smart phone to a kid without locking down its purchasing power is a recipe for disaster. Give a kid an allowance and they are limited to the number of baseball cards they can buy. Hand them your credit card and they'll try to buy the whole store.
The responsible thing to do would be for the industry to come up with a solution before ignorant legislators get their grubby mitts involved and over-regulate the crap out of the video gaming industry. It'd be like Tipper Gore all over again.
But what is 20$ out of the box in value? You can't trade these items away in most cases, so it's value is always only what the user is willing to pay for it.
But most importantly, these items in general do not affect your ability to play the game. If you get a lootbox with a nifty skin for your Overwatch character, or you get in game currency that allows you to buy that same skin, in both cases it doesn't affect the game at all; it just looks nice. I'd say people might have a point if the functionality of the contents of box altered the game in your favor, but I don't know if instances where that happens.
The billion dollar illegal drug industry agrees. Addiction sells. It doesn't change the fact that it is still worthless.
Your WoW account is worth zero to me. You found a fool and separated it from its money. Not to mention WoW isn't free, it's a monthly fee to play. So you probably paid just as much.
The stacker stop the light to win prize games are rigged to pay out %.
The difference being MS actually updates their products. Instead of adding more gambling disguised as new content.
It's because people become addicted and the games are deliberately designed to facilitate addiction so that you spend as much as you can on loot boxes.
the NJ roms for the games that have them are more skill then the non NJ ones
well apple needs to be like google no password or card needed for free apps.
The father of Malibu Stacey?
Why is this a problem that needs legislation to solve?
This isn't about solving anything, this is retribution for intentionally making games shittier. They deserve all the government there to help them they are going to get.
notices. Also there are explicit exceptions to gambling laws for non-profits, charities and government organizations in many places (which is why churches can do Bingo night). Card games generally publish the odds of getting the merchandise.
There's also finite limits to the amount of feedback you can give with a card game. You open the pack and that's that. With a video game, especially an online one, there's all sorts of nasty tricks that can be played. Call of Duty for example makes it a point to show all the other players the loot box being opened to great fan fare.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Right now the US is at full employment, the Dow is at its highest. If companies want to do loot boxes, it is their games, their EULAs, and their playground. Don't like it, go elsewhere.
This is not the government's place, and plain old government overreach. Government needs to be behind business and enforce the needs of companies, not attacking what keeps the economy going.
last time I bought a full copy of windows (because the network drivers got fragged) it was a flash drive.
Back in 1999, Quake 3 Arena came out with the ability to add maps, mods and skins to the game for free. If it were made ~5 years ago, the equivalent would be buying half of the same content as the base game, with the other half in DLC that has been further divided into 5 pieces for example, all of which were completed prior to launch. You are effectively buying an unlock code for content on your disc, with individual prices for each DLC piece or one season pass (Best value!) If it were made now, the modern equivalent would be the DLC shit above + in game virtual currency to buy in game content (skins etc), and that content used to be freely available to download, or make your own. Example: http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/n... Now consider how you would monetise skins if they are freely available on the internet. Answer: prevent 3rd party skins and mods, give some weak excuse tied to "game as a service" Example, overwatch: https://eu.battle.net/forums/e... TL;DR: Jim Sterling was right, "only cosmetics" are part of the problem.
Boring. Stop pasting that shit.
Just let 'em play the stock market, that way it'll be perfectly legal.
What unintended affects would making loot boxes in games have?
Consider this, if buying loot boxes is considered gambling, and since what you get from loot boxes are unsalable (in most cases) you can write 100% off as a tax deduction if you won money gambling in a casino or sports betting... etc.
You are taxed around 25% of net gain (gain - loss = net gain). So if you bet on the Patriots to win the Superbowl (which they will easily) and make $1,000 on the bet, you would be taxed $250 when you file your taxes. If you find someone who wants loot boxes, you can buy them with your credit card so you have proof you bought the loot boxes, and the person hands over cash.
You can then file gambling profit as Zero, saving you $250. Don't matter what is in the boxes, as nothing in the boxes have any real value.
The whole thing is only about creating a new way to collect taxes where the winners are the gamblers, and the losers are the non-gamblers who buy loot boxes.
If it was really about stopping kids from spending too much money, make any loot box purchase verify you have the credit card information instead of saving that information for whenever you buy something. If a kid is old enough to own a credit card, they are old enough to decide how to spend their money.
The bill only has three sponsors. It's scheduled for a public hearing on January 31st and isn't scheduled for an executive session. Bills have to be voted out of committee no later than February 2nd to survive the legislative session. This bill isn't going anywhere beyond the public hearing.
The case was settled a long time ago : since the card are physical and all valued the same by the companies (the outlandish values are set by the outside market), then there is no problem, as you are buying a grab bag or a set of card which are actually valued at the price you buy it. Just like the surprise egg for example. OTOH the loot box premise is that *some* item are more rare and far more expansive than others. A bonus +10% XP or some crafting mats is nearly always sold at a different price than a rare mount on most stores. Since there is a different value the *gambling* (as in legal term not colloquial) becomes a major point.
It's not the same. When you go to buy windows, checkout from the store, a RNG doesn't decide that you have a .1% of actually getting windows, a 1% chance of Word, and a 98.9% of some stupid app.
Introducing artificial scarcity, handing it out at random with designed odds, and requiring payment to roll the dice is pretty much gambling by definition.
How does it feel to be a corporate whore?
People dying also increases profits, that is fine under your logic. Teaching kids to gamble is definitely in the realm of government business since it has terrible effects on the population as a whole down the road.
The government is not here, or at least not supposed to be here to enforce company policy.
Fascist numbnuts.
Only - The reason this is exploded is that these loot boxes no longer contain "only cosmetic" items, but stuff that gives you advances in the game. In short - it's a "pay to win" scheme. Mind you - That is for a game you already payed a full price for.
And even more - There are plans to tinker with the difficulty of the game to press you to buy those loot boxes. There is even an AI in development that analyses your behavior in the game, and will try every trick in the book (or better said - In their programming) to force you to buy loot boxes or in-game items. This is not only by tweaking difficulty, but also by "matching" you (if you play on line) with another player that can beat you with the item that they want to sell you. The AI will also be programmed to influence you on a psychological level, so you won't be aware that you are being manipulated.
It's this scary stuff that has to be regulated before it goes out of hand.
Way to go, you ballless wonders! Instead of doing your job -- passing a law to make it illegal, you punt to someone else. Why are you there again?
Oh right. So you can hide and say "I didn't do it!" if it blows up in your face.
I guess you will defer your motion to allow a commission to explore the validity of your accusations, Senator.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The problem to be solved is adults making a business model out of children gambling.
Heaving crap at them the 99% of the time they don't win the big prize doesn't make it not gambling any more than winning a dollar or another ticket does in a scratch off.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If the legislature confirms selling loot boxes is not gambling, I am starting a Lootery which will work just a lottery, but instead of lottery tickets you buy a virtual loot box. You are guaranteed to win a minimum of $0.01 per loot box which costs $1. 1 in 100M will win $1M dollars. 1 in 10 will win $2, and a bunch of odds and winning between those. I'll adjust the odds to compete and be better than the Washington State Lottery. The best news, it won't be gambling so won't be taxed and regulated as such!
As addictive as WOW is I doubt he played it for 28 years.
Please, child, step aside. Let the adults handle this.
You know what's a great way to stop shitty games from being made? Stop fucking buying them.
There are plenty of fun, entertaining games available (frequently made by independent studios) which don't pull this type of lootbox/DLC bullshit. Spend your money on those games.
I swear, all these gamers angry about lootboxes of all things... some people must have some major self-esteem issues if they keep lining up like lemmings to spend their hard-earned cash on the latest shit pumped out by ${BIG_VIDEO_GAME_CORPORATION}, when they've received nothing but DRM/lootbox/DLC/always-online/etc.-laden trash before.
Maybe it's just me, but when I play a game I'm usually looking to be entertained and have a good time. The last thing on my mind is demonstrating how "cool" I am to anonymous shit-talkers by having the latest FPS-of-the-week, or, god forbid, worrying about accumulating meaningless digital points or, worse, digital flare. I don't have time for that shit--I have a life.
Full employment? Christ, you are a dullard.
What we can expect next is that Washington will make possession of any unlicensed loot box code within the state a felony, regardless of how trivial the code, except on Indian reservations, which we can expect to capitalize on the opportunity to provide loot boxes.
Washington will then institute its own games with loot boxes, which will have much worse odds than either the Indian loot boxes or the previously legal game loot boxes, and justify it by saying the profits will go towards education.
The Washington State legislature will then be held in contempt by the Supreme Court (again) for failing to adequately fund education.
Am I missing any steps?
Sorry, putting a false moustache on your face and speaking in a grave voice while wearing your father's suit does not make you an adult.
no wonder almost none of you understands it, this is slashdot after all
LOL
Why is this a problem that needs legislation to solve?
Because it's a problem for people, and we generally resolve conflicts though such manner, rather than duels at dawn.
Really, this is nothing more than a continuation of decades of practice, when it comes to carnival games, lotteries, and gaming in general. It's long been a regulated market. For good reason. It's a terribly easy way to take advantage of people.
You know, the sort of thing that the law frowns upon.
P.S. thanks for fucking up so bad! Even mobile phone games didn't screw up as royally as you assholes to get this much attention
What makes it gambling is "having crap in them 99%". This enables 1% of having really desirable items.
If loot boxes have really desirable items 100% of the time, it wouldn't be gambling, and wouldn't be as addictive (see: variable reinforcement schedule).
Instead of these random boxes, do one of two things.
1) Allow all to have the same items (remember the good old days when this was the case?).
2) Allow the purchase of specific items for a set price instead of the gamble method of hoping to hit it big.
I prefer option 1. Devs can go back to the ways of making a game which is balanced with all of the items in the game being available to everyone from the start. This can be furthered through level based weapons where one gains access to these upgrades over time as your characters level up. This option does open itself up to abuses by the game company by making progress painfully slow with the option to pay to advance quicker but then this devolves to become option 2 at this point so I don't consider the slow progression with pay to speed up as option 1.
I don't like Option 2 as it closes out the game to those who can't afford to pour a lot of money into the game just to get access to items which the other richer players can. Ideally, charge the full price for the game and be done. If they want to charge less, then charge less and give an option for a one-time purchase to get the rest of the content (kind of like how Doom was initially distributed)
I've avoided many, many games which I would absolutely love to play because of the ongoing gouging of players. It sucks (because there are some really amazing looking games out there) but I'm not pouring an endless stream of money into a game just to be able to enjoy it / enjoy it at a reasonable pace.
You know what's a great way to stop shitty games from being made? Stop fucking buying them.
Good in principle, but it requires everyone to adhere to this principle. For this to happen, marketing will have to be 0% effective. This won't happen.
But, that is already possible to set up for the iOS app store..
I am not Chris: I am writing a sentence with a semi-colon used correctly. However, your copypasta is LOOOOOOONG and Zappa is dated as fuck and it takes forever to scroll.past on slashdots shitty mobile site. Plus it is as boring as sin.
Good to know there are still people out there who are OK with me going to the playground and playing dice with kids too young to fully grasp how statistical odds work so I can take their lunch money... I mean, the smart kids will just stay away from me, so nobody gets hurt, right?
Are World of Warcraft bosses considered loot boxes?
Like attracts like. creimer is boring. creimer is dated as fuck, which is ironic since he never dated.
"a sentence with a semi-colon used correctly"
A Brit, ha? creimer has reached across the Pond?
That's not whataboutism, he's complaining about priorities.
Adults have independent thought, corporations tell you what to think.
I see nothing wrong with requiring companies to reveal what your actual chances are of getting certain items before you burn your real dollars "gambling" on their loot boxes.
I also see nothing wrong with having a warning about these systems so parents can make informed decisions about whether or not to let their kids play these games.
baseball cards as well. are they ready to take down TOPPS?
There is truth here. When you got the year 1 Pete Rose baseball card, nobody would know - or likely know - it was valuable at the time. It is years later - or at least months - it becomes valuable. At best, it was a delayed gambling but not even that. Had Ma-n-Pop shops known there was a positive return, they could have bought more and kept them for themselves. Perhaps some did but I suspect most were in the business of buying what people want at the price they will pay.
Maybe transparency is what is needed. Or like Zelda/BotW DLC - everybody gets the same thing/expansion pack/modes/stories.
lol calm down
We really got to do something about these fucking spergs.
numbnuts