German Authorities Are Considering a Ban On Loot Boxes (heise.de)

Slashdot reader Qbertino writes: Heise reports that German authorities are examining loot boxes in video games and considering banning them in the country. Loot boxes might actually even violate laws against calls-to-purchase aimed directly towards minors that are already in effect. German authorities are also checking that. Loot boxes are randomized in-game item purchases that many people consider a form of gambling. The decision to take action against loot boxes in Germany is expected in March. Germany's Entertainment Software Self-Regulation Body has since clarified that Germany authorities are not considering a general ban on loot boxes, but are actually examining regulations of online advertising and purchasing as a whole.

"A closer look at the discussion is taking place, ie., if there are any specific risks and where to locate them legally. As part of that analysis the KJM (governmental institution responsible for youth protection regarding to online content/services) is taking a closer look at permitted and prohibited advertising in shop offerings. However these rules apply to online purchases in general, thus also to loot boxes," the rep said. "In the German debate this term [loot box] refers to a broad variety of different in-game or even just game-related purchase systems with more or less randomized items. Hence one cannot say that 'loot boxes' violate German laws, as each integration has to be evaluated as separate case."

Comments

But how else will kids develop a gambling habit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never too early to exploit children, addiction, and lax laws. This is the holy trifecta of making stockholders happy.

Idea for the US

[Anonymous Coward]

My idea for the US: Just tell the state gaming commissions about loot boxes, and this problem will solve itself about 24 hours after the gaming commission shows up at the publisher's offices demanding to audit the code AND to have their slice of the pie, unless the publisher ceases and desists using loot boxes immediately.

Re:Idea for the US

[Wrath0fb0b]

You would have to convince the gaming commissions that the items in the boxes were items of monetary value. Otherwise it's not gambling . . .

Re:Idea for the US

[yodleboy]

In-Game loot boxes that require no purchase are one thing. Paying real money for a box with a random chance of getting something is something else. It's most definitely assigning a monetary value to the box and its contents.

Good

[DrXym]

It is gambling and it is a cynical attempt to screw the player to pay more money to unlock a game they've already paid for. So I'd be glad if they banned it, though Germany should be aiming for EU wide legislation.

I'd also like to see laws that ban virtual currencies which are purchased with real cash. And require gaming services (which includes appstores etc.) to enforce limits on the amount that anyone can purchase in-game in any given month. And worded to prevent bullshit circumvention of the limits. The limits could be set by the age rating of the game - the lower the rating, the lower the limit.

Such things might motivate companies to start producing games again instead of skinner boxes designed to target whales and compulsive gamblers.

Re:Good

[Kjella]

It is gambling and it is a cynical attempt to screw the player to pay more money to unlock a game they've already paid for. So I'd be glad if they banned it, though Germany should be aiming for EU wide legislation.
I'd also like to see laws that ban virtual currencies which are purchased with real cash.

That would be too much nanny state for me, if you want to spend real world cash on virtual trinkets you should be allowed to do that. We don't generally restrict obsessive real world collectors either. What they should ban - and I really think this is deserving of a blanket ban - is the randomized rewards. You want to sell the loot in the loot boxes individually, so people can see the actual price of what they're buying that's fine. If you want to sell loot boxes then you go under all the same rules and restrictions as lotteries and gambling sites.

Re:Good

[Kjella]

You could still buy the trinkets but they should be a direct cash transaction that you pay the exact amount for. That way you know much you're paying and you're not buying an excess of virtual scrip in order to do it.

To me that sounds really annoying and like it'd give less overview to charge a few cents to my credit card every time I want something. For me I think it's better to have a few, bigger commit decisions to say "Do I really want to spend $20 on star berries?" and if I do well they're basically written off in my mind. By which I mean that even though I may have in-game currency I don't consider it an asset that could be converted back into dollars. More like a beer at the pub, I can drink it or pour it out but I can't put back in the tap and get my money back. And then I'm in a game, in a fantasy world until I run out and have to make another real world decision about real world money again.

It'd also make it harder for a parent to gift a kid some star berries as a reward for something, not free dollars. And in some cases it would be very strange in-game, like in GTA you'd buy supersports cars for a few bucks. The numbers make way more sense if you can buy "GTA-dollars", though I suppose you could just set a fixed multiplier like $1 real-world = $100000 in-game. Still, then all your in-game economics would be tied to real-world economics which would be troublesome for a virtual economy that are more complicated than you buying directly from the game company. I think it complicates more things than it solves, unless you're the guy who buys 500 berries for best value and get tired of the game after 50. But I really don't see how that's a bigger problem in-game than buying something in bulk in the real world and then discovering you didn't want/need it.

Re:Good

[squiggleslash]

Most (not all) games that have a premium currency have a way to earn it that doesn't involve cash, for example, by watching ads (and often just providing a stipend to regular players in the hope that if they stay around and invest enough of their time, they'll drop a few dollars in the long term.) So what you'd effectively do by banning premium currencies is ban being able to play F2P games for free.

That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. And I doubt it'd help with preventing fraud or reducing the amount of money so-called whales (people who spend hundreds of dollars a month, because they're rich and can afford it) pay.

Re:Good

[Solandri]

That would be too much nanny state for me, if you want to spend real world cash on virtual trinkets you should be allowed to do that. We don't generally restrict obsessive real world collectors either.

Psychologists have known for decades that the more you can disassociate the purchase from the actual transfer of cash, the more people will spend. People have a tendency to spend more carelessly (and thus spend more) when you disassociate the act of purchasing from the physical act of real cash leaving your possession.

Marketers know this and try to exploit it to generate more sales. This is why Disney likes to sell things in Disney Dollars, why casinos use chips, why some people get in trouble with credit card debt, why you can accidentally overspend when visiting a foreign country and paying with foreign cash. Regulators know it too and cast a wary eye towards anything which exploits it, especially if it involves gambling in the virtual currency.

I'm libertarian and pretty anti-nanny state too. But preventing exploitation of faults in basic human nature which causes people to harm themselves by acting irrationally is precisely one of the things government should be doing. We want to go see the wild rushing river during a flood despite the danger, so the government sends police to keep people away from it. We can get addicted to certain substances, so government regulates or prohibits its distribution. We enjoy the thrill of tempting death by bungee jumping, sky diving, or riding roller coasters. So the government regulates these things to assume minimum safety standards are met. And virtual currencies tend to exacerbate gambling problems, so the government keeps it on a short leash to prevent its widespread exploitation.

What they should ban - and I really think this is deserving of a blanket ban - is the randomized rewards. You want to sell the loot in the loot boxes individually, so people can see the actual price of what they're buying that's fine. If you want to sell loot boxes then you go under all the same rules and restrictions as lotteries and gambling sites.

That changes the game from being non-deterministic to deterministic. Randomized rewards (e..g loot drop from game bosses, whether a basketball player can make that basket, whether a billiards player can make that shot, what hand you're dealt in poker, etc) are what makes a game non-deterministic. And for many (most) people, are the only thing that makes the game interesting. Eliminate randomness and you're basically playing glorified tic tac toe (chess is deterministic, and is only challenging because the number of possible outcomes exceeds our ability to simultaneously comprehend).

The Duke.

[AndyKron]

Duke Nukem doesn't have loot boxes and I like it that way. Come get some!

It is that simple.

[kurkosdr]

Guys, it's simple: Games with loot boxes are targeting the same demographic that slot machines and roulletes do (real and virtual), only they do it without paying a gambling tax and without any age restrictions, so the governments are considering a ban on them to protect their tax revenue, they didn't magically start to care about the predatory nature of loot boxes or anything.

Gacha Too Please

[mentil]

I'm actually impressed that they're evaluating individual systems and mechanics, rather than doing a blanket ban, which would be easier but catch relatively-moral implementations (e.g. loot boxes that can only be purchased with ingame currency.)
Hopefully they'll extend the restrictions to other Gacha and 'blind box' systems in games and for physical items as well. Blind boxes sold in stores tend to have their contents opened/stolen by children more than other toys. It's marketed as a 'surprise' which is ostensibly beneficial, but in practice it becomes anxiety that you'll have wasted your money on a duplicate; having different rarities on different items in a set makes it clear which of the two is the actual intent. Gacha is psychological manipulation for profit. The Monopoly game that McDonalds does is the same thing.

Trading Cards?

[crow]

Are trading card packs different except for being physical objects? You buy a pack of cards with a chance of getting a rare card. It's the exact same idea.

What about mystery minifig LEGO collector series? While you might be able to feel which figure you're getting, it's designed to be a surprise, so you don't know what you're getting. It's not quite the same thing, but it's close.

Are we going to ban all mystery sales?

Perhaps that's a good idea, but let's think this through.

Or perhaps we treat online sales differently as they cater more to the gambling mentality due to being instantly available at any time. It may not be fair, but it is addressing a practical problem in a practical way.

Re:Trading Cards?

[Ormy]

I would mod you up but I've run out of points. When I was a kid in the early 1990s (in the UK) all the other kids were spending tons of money on football trading cards (soccer for you yanks). It was random whether you had bought decent cards or not. How are these loot boxes any different?

Re:Trading Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are trading card packs different except for being physical objects? You buy a pack of cards with a chance of getting a rare card. It's the exact same idea.

I would say yes.

I know that I was tricked into spending way more money on them than I would have if I had been old enough to understand the gambling part of that industry.
Sure, a lot of people associate trading cards with their childhood and look at them with nostalgia but in essence it is nothing more than immoral people preying on children that doesn't understand better.

One man's nanny state

[rsilvergun]

is another's protecting the psychologically vulnerable. Half of mobile game revenue comes from just 0.19% of players. When you've got numbers like that something is very, very wrong.

Germany is banning so much

[AHuxley]

From history, comments to freedom after speech, news on social media.
Now Germany wants to enforce its laws on computer games?
Time to see what German censorship is and publish around it.

Addiction

[TheReaperD]

The company behind Farmville and a massive number of "free to play" games hired a team of specialists on addiction and compulsive behaviors but, not to make sure their game wasn't addictive, of course, but to make sure that their games were as addictive as possible so that you would spend the maximum amount of time and money on their games. If it destroys someone's life, that's not their problem; they got their money.