Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Study Finds Some Video Game Loot Boxes Broke the Law (vice.com)
The Netherlands Gaming Authority has published a study it conducted of 10 video games that reward players with loot boxes, packages players can sometimes buy with real money that contain random-in game rewards, and found that 4 of the 10 games it studied violated the Dutch Gaming Act. "It determined that loot boxes are, in general, addictive and that four of the games allowed players to trade items they'd won outside of the game, which means they've got a market value," reports Motherboard. From the report: According to the study, the authorities picked games "based on their popularity on a leading Internet platform that streams videos of games and players." Motherboard has reached out to the Gaming Authority for clarification on both the games it picked (the study doesn't name them) and the method by which it picked them, but did not receive an immediate reply. However, Twitch is the most popular way gamers watch others play and it's a good bet that Twitch is how the Gaming Authority focused its attention. Six of the ten games the Gaming Authority studied aren't in violation of Dutch law. "With these games, there is no opportunity to sell the prizes won outside of the game," the press release said. "This means that the goods have no market value and these loot boxes do not satisfy the definition of a prize in Section 1 of the Betting and Gaming Act."
The four others though offer the opportunity for players to trade items outside of the game and therefore meet the the Netherlands definition of gambling. To come into compliance, those games need to make their loot boxes less interesting to open. The Gaming Authority wants the companies to "remove the addiction-sensitive elements ('almost winning' effects, visual effects, ability to keep opening loot boxes quickly one after the other and suchlike)...and to implement measures to exclude vulnerable groups or to demonstrate that the loot boxes on offer are harmless."
The four others though offer the opportunity for players to trade items outside of the game and therefore meet the the Netherlands definition of gambling. To come into compliance, those games need to make their loot boxes less interesting to open. The Gaming Authority wants the companies to "remove the addiction-sensitive elements ('almost winning' effects, visual effects, ability to keep opening loot boxes quickly one after the other and suchlike)...and to implement measures to exclude vulnerable groups or to demonstrate that the loot boxes on offer are harmless."
I think it sounds really sad to have laws saying you cannot have game items that players can trade with each other.
Sure there can then be some real profit derived. But what is so bad about paying someone what may amount to 10 cents an hour because they like to grind, for an item that you find valuable?
It's up to game designers, not law makers, to decide if trades can upset game balance by having noobs buy overpowered stuff to start with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
trading them *OUTSIDE* the game.
Secondlife or Entropia would be examples of this. Combine those games with lootboxes and you would have a violation.
Under the terms listed above, it sounds like Star Wars: Battlefront 2 doesn't qualify however, even though that was the game that brought down the scrutiny.
And as long as we put up with being nickle-and-dimed, they'll continue to do it. What we have to do is to simply avoid games that charge 60 bucks for the "privilege" of even playing it, then another 30 for 0day DLC and another 30ish a month just to keep playing for the various tools and toys you "have to" buy to stay competitive.
As long as you keep paying, they'll keep milking you. Is that what you want?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They are practically FILLED with "addiction-sensitive elements" that need to be removed ('almost winning' effects, visually arousing effects, ability to keep starting interactions with beautiful women one after the other, for even more 'almost winning' effects, and suchlike). Measures to exclude vulnerable groups (males, ages 12-80) really NEED to be implemented, NOW!!!!!!!!11 (...or, we could just stop the over-regulation bullsh*t and let people be responsible for their own stupid behavior, perhaps?)
for trading. That's how gambling sites work. Just make it so you can only trade in game and you have to hold onto an item for a while. Valve Just did the latter and that alone has almost made "skin gambling" dead. Take the APIs away and problem solved.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
People who are easily exploitable; e.g. kids and folks with mental illnesses. Gambling does the same thing, so we heavily regulate it (and even then folks sometimes lose everything to gambling addiction).
It's not something these people "want". They're either too young to know better or they can't help themselves. In both cases it's worthwhile protecting them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What kind of night club admits 12 year olds?!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
What kind of night club admits 12 year olds?!
I never said they did. I guess this just means that they already managed to "implement the measures to exclude" that part of the "vulnerable groups" so far. If they could now only find a way to exclude the rest (males, 18-80?) too, AND ban the "addiction-inducing elements" (i.e., the women), or "make them less interesting" (only allow in fat, blue-haired feminazi women?), the goal would be reached and the rules would finally be fitting modern society (in more than one way...).
You can buy a loot box with $s and have a chance to win $$$s. That is gambling.
I can buy an item no-one wants at an action, and have it turn out to be valuable. The practice is so common there are a variety of TV shows doing just that... why are auctions or garage sales allowed?
Anything you buy theoretically might be worth way more than you paid for it later. Or less. Gambling is a straight-up return of money for money based on some random factor, not purchasing an item, then deciding you do not need it and sell it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't know the toy you'll get inside the candy? Doesn't that fit the definition of gambling?
> I think it sounds really sad to have laws saying you cannot
> have game items that players can trade with each other.
I know this is Slashdot, but it really helps if you RTFS. This involves trading items obtained from loot boxes, for goods/services in the real world. Let's compare...
1) You walk into a store that sells lottery tickets, plunk down cash, and buy a lottery ticket. It gives you the chance to win some unknown variable amount of money, which you can use in the real world.
2) You play a game, in which you can plunk down cash (credit/debit/whatever) and buy a loot box (i.e. lottery ticket) with an unknown amount of assets. You can trade these assets in real life for goods/services.
See the difference... neither do I. There is no problem per se with "in-game purchases" of objects of known value. But when you plunk down reals cash, for unknown items, which you can trade for real cash later on, it's effectively a lottery.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Open a lego box, it is also gambling. There is more chance of finding a dead rat than winning the lottery.
In my whole Life I have never ever bought anything without knowing exactly what I would get. And let me add that while I have invested several 10.000 € over the last 40 years into my personal computer hard and software I have not spend 100 € into ingame purchases.
Because honestly I think everyone who invests big into a small chance of getting "the one fancy hat" which is just bits and bytes is an obvious idiot who should be checked for his mental health and maybe put under tutelage.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
They get something of monetary value. Like a car. Not something woth no monetary value, like a hug.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Because it's possible for a government to do multiple things at once?
> That's how great countries die, by governments becoming bloated and unfocused rather than doing a few things well.
Got any examples of that happening?
. . . . have items bind to the toon when picked up. If you can't use it. . . . it lays there until it de-spawns. . .
Or do they get a pass because nobody cares?
I can't find the list of 10 games mentioned in the study:
Study into loot boxes: A treasure or a burden?
They get something of monetary value. Like a car. Not something woth no monetary value, like a hug.
So it's just like purchases a pack of baseball cards, or trading cards or Pokémon cards, or a Kinder egg, or a blind bag. You know that there's something inside, but you don't know exactly what it is. You may want to keep it, or you may want to sell it. It's up to the purchaser. Under the same logic Kinder egg's need to be banned because you're purchasing something with an unknown item, which may have monetary value. You never know when a collector is going to be willing to pay money for nostalgia.