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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.