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."

Comments

Seems like bullshit to say players cannot trade

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Seems like bullshit to say players cannot trade

[ShanghaiBill]

specifically those that you can buy in the game's cash shop for real-world money

That is only half of the problem. The other half is that if you "win" a rare or valuable item, you can turn around and SELL it for real-world money.

You can buy a loot box with $s and have a chance to win $$$s. That is gambling.

Re:Seems like bullshit to say players cannot trade

[JaredOfEuropa]

IIRC the Dutch law on gaming says:
- You can trade in-game items with each others.
- You can sell in-game items to others (but Internal Revenue will want their cut)
- You can have random crap spawn in-game, even if the drop includes rares that can be sold for RL currency

What you cannot have is:
- Random crap that may include valuable rares, AND
- The ability to trade those rares for RL currency, AND
- The option / necessity to plonk down RL cash to obtain these random items.
Those three things together constitute "online gambling" according to the law.

Re:Pretty sure the implication was...

[CrimsonAvenger]

And if I give you a six-pack of beer for that rare skin you just got from a box, then what?

Depends on the beer.

In general, though, I've got beer to drink at the next picnic/ballgame/whatever, and you've got a rare skin that I have no use for.

Sounds like a win for me, but if you're not a beer-drinker, you'll probably think you came out ahead on the deal....

Loot boxes are in general a player problem

[Opportunist]

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?

The problem is video games attract

[rsilvergun]

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.

It's effectively a lottery

[knorthern knight]

> 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.