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.
Gambling favors the house....
Learn it and you wont lose a dime....
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
What about bobcats?
Chuck E. Cheese has been "targeting our children with predatory gambling masked in a game" for decades now.
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 :(
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 $99.99 (Best Value!!!) and contains three random virtual items with no cash value, at least two of which also have no practical value in the game and one of which, once every 15-20 times, may be something of in-game utility that can't be sold or traded and will probably be useless after the next update, when new loot box contents are released?
Why is this a problem that needs legislation to solve? As a kid I never had access to my parents credit card or accounts. If I wanted something I had to mow a lawn and decide if that was worth blowing on Magic the Gathering cards. If you don't want to spend money on games don't associate your credit card with them. If the game is honestly worth playing then let the whales pay for development and just leech off the F2P content.
And really, is the person who needs the drop rate on Malibu Darth Vader honestly going to; a) be surprised that it is abysmally small b) do anything differently with that information?
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
'nuf said.
But what is 20$ 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 stacker stop the light to win prize games are rigged to pay out %.
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.
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/
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.
Just let 'em play the stock market, that way it'll be perfectly legal.
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.
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.
You're wrong.
Life is random.
Gambling (as in organised gambling) is not really random. The house organises it in such a way to have an advantage.
In both cases you take risks and you could win, but life if randomly fair while gambling is deterministically unfair to the players.
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!
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.
That's not whataboutism, he's complaining about priorities.
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.