Video Game Loot Boxes Under Scrutiny By 16 Gambling Regulators (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Gambling regulators from 16 agencies signed an agreement Monday in an effort to tackle the "blurring of lines between gaming and gambling." The international coalition, made up of European agencies and the Washington State Gambling Commission, said it's calling on the video game industry and tech platforms to help crack down on unlicensed third-party sites offering illegal gambling in video games. The coalition also said game providers have to make sure that features like loot boxes, which let players pay real money to purchase in-game items to artificially advance their power levels, aren't considered gambling under national laws. This kind of pushback could impact the decisions of video game makers. UK-based Gambling Commission said in a statement: "We are increasingly concerned with the risks being posed by the blurring of lines between gambling and other forms of digital entertainment such as video gaming. Concerns in this area have manifested themselves in controversies relating to skin betting, loot boxes, social casino gaming and the use of gambling themed content within video games available to children."

Comments

Remember when

[stealth_finger]

Remember when you used to buy games and just unlock stuff as you go? Ah, simpler times.

Re:Remember when

[bickerdyke]

Remember when you used to buy a game and could simply PLAY it?

Re:Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

This is solved by not buying games from shitty companies.

Re:Remember when

[blahplusplus]

Remember when you used to buy games and just unlock stuff as you go? Ah, simpler times.

Everyone who bought Ultima online and everquest back in the day paved the way for all this shit. As soon as publishers saw gamers were dumb enough to buy or subscribe to software they didn't own or control it was over.

Re:Remember when

[ArchieBunker]

Gamers are a bunch of whores who like getting treated badly. Every time EA releases a game people bitch and moan how terrible the company is, how terrible the game was, and how they will NEVER buy another EA game again. Well six months later some new bullshit game is announced and all those people can't get to the credit cards fast enough to pre-order.

Re:Remember when

[bickerdyke]

For an online game, you are paying for the online service, like you did with AOL or your ISP. So I don't have a problem with subscribing to such a "Game as a service". But then again, Clients for online services used to be free and did not cost full retail price. (Aol coasters anyone?)

Re:Remember when

[Oswald McWeany]

Gamers are a bunch of whores who like getting treated badly. Every time EA releases a game people bitch and moan how terrible the company is, how terrible the game was, and how they will NEVER buy another EA game again. Well six months later some new bullshit game is announced and all those people can't get to the credit cards fast enough to pre-order.

I haven't bought anything from EA in over a decade now. Not because they don't have titles that would appeal to me- but because I think they're scum and I don't trust them.

Re:Remember when

[Spamalope]

I've done the same. I also research the DRM before getting anything from anyone. There is also a problem with titles adding spyware to updates, or being aquired by a company that does. :/

Re:Remember when

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Exactly. MMORPGs need regular income to continue as a going concern. "Lifetime subscriptions" are fraud.

I remember when exercise places exploded in the 1980s. Every one had a "lifetime memnership". They aren't carefully investing your money so they can keep going indefinitely. They spend and pocket it as immediate profits.

What happens when the market "gets mature" and there aren't enough new lifetimers or monthlies to keep it open? It closes. This is a few years later. This was the business model all along.

Whenever you see "lifetime membership" to an ongoing concern with a monthly fee, realize there is fraud going on.

An MMORPG needs stable monthly income, and that means people with jobs who don't wince at $15/mo. and expansion packs and vanity stuff, and yes, maybe even small powers mildly useful in combat but not gamebreaking or p2win.

Re:Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when your parents bought you that game for Christmas but your brother decided to "rage quit" the game by pulling out the cartridge (while the console was still on) and stomp it to bits? Me neither. I don't have a brother.

Re:Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

What comes to my mind, is the constant banter from the videogame industry about how getting rid of piracy would lower prices for everyone. Well, there is a 0% piracy rate on consoles these days... but a game that used to cost $60 and be a truly finished product now costs $250-300, and likely will require hours of patch and DLC downloads before it is usable... much less the cost of the loot boxes needed to get the items that you could purchase one by one in the past.

Combine this with the video game community being extremely toxic with any interactions with it, it just isn't worth bothering. There are other things to do in the real world.

Re:Remember when

[bickerdyke]

I'm not taking a "stupid" from someone who can't recognize the difference between a MMORPG with thousands of players in a realm where each player is able to (temporarily) change the environment for all other players and a simple 5vs5 deathmatch on a limited map.

But I agree that slapping an MMO-label on what would be a simple shooter is ruining many good games. But It's not 100% scam. There is a good portion of hype in it. You say you remember the 90s.... Do you also remember what happened to games in the 2000s that did not come with an online multiplayer mode? They were unsellable. So there was an actual demand for the MMO/online "rebranding"

Does that qualify for a monthly subscription? Not really. For that I would expect more bells and whistles... ongoing content updates, events and that whole stuff.

Re: Remember when

[UnknowingFool]

Yes back in the day, you paid for a video game once and that was it. And no one is arguing that more games shouldn't be like that; however, if you are playing a multiplayer game online, it's just a matter of reality that someone has to pay to keep the infrastructure working. Subscriptions are one option if players choose that option.

Where we should object is if a game is required to be online for no reason (SimCity). Where we should object is where additional money is required for content that should have been in the game (DLC packs to complete the storyline). Where we should object is where additional money is required to progress in the game (Battlefront).

Choosing to fight against any online game that requires subscriptions is takin away choices from players. Some players want to play against someone else online.

Re:Remember when

[jwhyche]

I can't remember when I bought my last EA game. I checked my inventory and none of games I bought from Steam are EA. Plenty of indy games out there. I paid 15 bucks for Giana Sisters, Twisted Dreams and played the hell out of it.

Re: Remember when

[nitehawk214]

Well, at least not anymore...

Re: Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to play multiplayer games without a subscription model, you know.

Re: Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the techh& gaming companies have gone for rent seeking over innovation since about 2010.

Re:Remember when

[locopuyo]

EA has their own service called Origin. They don't sell games on Steam.

Re:Remember when

[jonwil]

A check of my records shows the last thing I bought from EA was The Ultimate Collection with all the C&C games in it. And (with the exception of the abomination that is C&C4) those games aren't terrible and are actually good to play (plus I bought it 2012 before EA went full scumbag with loot boxes etc).

My most recent gaming purchases have been Bethesda titles (Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4) and some old stuff on Gog (the System Shock games specifically)

Re:Remember when

[jwhyche]

Well that might explain some things,

Re: Remember when

[UnknowingFool]

Where in my post did I say that multiplayer never existed before? Nowhere. What I said is that a subscription model is a sometimes a necessity. If you don't want to pay for a subscription that's your choice, don't take that choice away from people who want it.

Wizards of the Coast should worry

[MikeRT]

Every collectible card game like Magic is the same deal. You can't drop $20 on Magic and walk right into a tournament and not get hopelessly slaughtered unless you are a step short of Ender Wiggin come to life. It's all "gambling" on some level if you use that logic.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that gives you a tangible product. Wizards cannot ban me from playing MTG, nor can they disallow me from using proxies or fake cards, and are not obligated to allow tournament entry (nor are you entitled to it). I am free to sell and trade the cards I acquire, I cannot do this with the majority of lootbox or gacha games and when I can it's often trapped on another market.

In addition, if WOTC goes belly-up tomorrow, I still have my cards, can still play the game, and can even organize (unofficial) tournaments. If Waifu Simulator Gacha 2018 shuts down, all my stuff is gone and I can't get anything back. If EA bans my Origin account, then all my shit is gone for good unless I do serious dicksucking or file a lawsuit. If Blizzard shuts down the WoW servers, they will DMCA any private servers that spring up, even non-profit ones.

That's the difference between the two.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[omnichad]

I don't disagree. It was always a gambling scheme. They're obviously not selling something worth what people are paying each time.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[The MAZZTer]

The worst part is, you're calling it "my stuff". Except it's not, not really. It's a series of numbers in a database on the company's servers that gets temporarily transmuted into pixels on your monitor as long as the company allows it. It'll be interesting to see how digital ownership evolves, since giving users any sort of control over ownership would allow as a side effect infinite duplication of virtual items (since they effectively cost nothing and are worthless without the company controlling the creation and distribution).

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can. If you want to buy a pack and start playing in a tournament then grab a premade pack. Those cost far less than $20 and work very well provided that you are familiar enough with the game to identify which one you want and to play it effectively. In fact, for $20 you can buy several and mix-and-match them to make your own distinct deck without relying on chance.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason why WOTC is very careful to not acknowledge the secondary market. If they acknowledge that you can convert the cards you purchase from boosters into real money, then it literally is gambling.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. I am free to sell and trade the cards I acquire, I cannot do this with the majority of lootbox or gacha games

You realize that this makes it far more like gambling, right? I mean, you are literally buying a box of things with variable value. I'm not sure why that's not gambling, but a scratch-off ticket is.

Re:Wizards of the Coast should worry

[mark-t]

Where I would say that CCG's like Magic crosses the line and becomes gambling is that you don't know in advance how valuable the cards you get are going to be... while perhaps as a tangible good they might technically have the same monetary value as whatever you paid for them, sometimes you will get multiple cards that you like in a single booster pack, but other times you'll get a whole pack of cards where none of them will offer any significant benefit.

In the end, the practical usefulness of individual cards (and by implication, their value in the second hand market) within different packages is simply too disparate for this to be anything but gambling.

cards?

[cascadingstylesheet]

What about those card games where you buy packs of cards, hoping to get some special powerful cards in them?

If loot boxes are gambling, why aren't those card packs?

Re:cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats... actually a good point. If the cards have cash value (and the manufacturers definitely have been marketing to resellers) and packs are at least semi-randomly sorted then yea, it would seem to be the same as a lottery ticket. Magic the Gathering card packs are basically loot boxes.

Re:cards?

[rmdingler]

Shhhh...

If we're not careful, they'll restrict everything that's even potentially onerous in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

We're already dumbing down our education system to account for the least of us, at the expense of the best of us... why not legislate to protect the weakest citizens so I can't even get a decent pain pill?

Re:cards?

[SirSlud]

The difference is with cards, you end up owning something physical. I don't really care what you say they're worth, it's a physical tangible thing that you spend money on that you then physically own. That's a discrete difference.

Also because the barrier of effort required to spend is much lower with virtual currencies/items in game storefronts, it's more prone to taking advantage of people who have spending control problems or gambling issues which is why you're seeing increased scrunity.

Garret

Re:cards?

[stealth_finger]

Because with those card packs that is 100% of the deal you know you are getting rather than being hidden away inside a different product that you have already paid full price for. Also you can take any cards you have, sell them, trade them, burn them, whatever you want.

Re:cards?

[SirSlud]

God damn this "old man complains world is getting dumber and making his life difficult/annoying" shit is super tedious. Doubly so because it never fucking changes and it's always the same kind of morons who whine about it, regardless of what decade it is.

Re:cards?

[jdavidb]

And even more importantly, why isn't this a purely academic matter? Why do busybodies get to decide that somebody's game is too gambly or their drink is too alcoholy or whatever and make them stop? I think such busybodies should be shown the door of society and allowed to debate those things on their own without forcing their religion on the rest of the world.

Re:cards?

[Only Time Will Tell]

The OP may be referring to games like Hearthstone which is a purely digital CCG. If Blizzard decided to shut it down tomorrow, you'd have nothing for the money you spent.

Re:cards?

[sinij]

Magic the Gathering card packs are basically loot boxes.

Yes, but there is "truth in advertising" aspect to this. The entire point of MtG are card packs, it isn't stapled to something else unrelated.

EA isn't selling Lootbox the Gathering games, they are selling other types of games (e.g. FPS) and then force lootboxes on players.

Re:cards?

[drinkypoo]

Why do busybodies get to decide that somebody's game is too gambly or their drink is too alcoholy or whatever and make them stop?

Because society can't survive too much gambling or too much drinking, because they provably cause fallout.

I think such busybodies should be shown the door of society and allowed to debate those things on their own without forcing their religion on the rest of the world.

And I think people who engage in antisocial business should get that experience instead.

Re:cards?

[ausekilis]

According to Wikipedia gambling requires three elements: consideration, chance and prize.

Packs of cards certainly have the first two - consideration is (according to my reading) the promise or exchange of payment. I'm not sure I'd agree about "prize", considering packs of cards are clearly labeled to have "n random cards". Some may be worth more than others, but it's unlikely to buy a new pack of Magic cards to find one card worth much more than the price paid for the cards.

Loot boxes, on the other hand, have prizes that have 'street value' much higher than the price paid. Though due to the chance the prize is often much lower. That's more akin to Poker, there's some slim chance you can win 100x what you paid, though more often than not you lose money.

Re: cards?

[nitehawk214]

Because time and time again, the free market has proven to not be capable of regulating itself.

Re:cards?

[Xylantiel]

I've never understood why card packs where the vendor determines the rarity and value of cards aren't gambling. I think in baseball cards the vendor didn't necessarily know in advance which cards would be the most valuable, as it depended on how the players did after the cards were made/sold. But pokemon cards are basically like slot machines or lottery tickets for kids, it's borderline evil.

Loot Boxes Vs Digital CCGs

[Only Time Will Tell]

I'd be curious on how these agencies delineate between loot boxes which you buy and have random pulls based on probability and digital CCG packs which you buy and have random pulls based on probability... The former I think is poor game design when you are trying for a skin or weapon and have to keep buying to get it (I'd rather have an in-game way to earn it). The later is inherent in the design to keep players buying packs in hopes of landing powerful rare cards (which carry a lot of value in platforms that allow trading). In either case, I can see a kid wrecking their parents' credit card trying to get the card or item they're hoping for.

Re:Loot Boxes Vs Digital CCGs

[Luthair]

I think the card games both digital and physical should be required to disclose odds.

Re:Loot Boxes Vs Digital CCGs

[bickerdyke]

Don't they somehow do that by guaranteeing that there is something like 10 common, 5 uncommon, 4 rare and one epic?

Assuming that the odds have something to do with the rareness-tiers.

Re:Loot Boxes Vs Digital CCGs

[omnichad]

Yeah, I'm sure they would be glad to announce that it is, in fact, gambling.

Re:Loot Boxes Vs Digital CCGs

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I believe with MtG the breakdown per pack is 1 rare (1:8 chance of it being mythic rare) 3 uncommons, 10 commons, 1 basic land with 1:4 packs containing a foil card of any rarity that replaces one of the commons.

Shut em down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly I hope they shut down all the games that have loot boxes that do anything beyond cosmetic looks. Any company that puts items in to loot boxes that increases power levels over regular game play options needs shut down.

Re:Shut em down.

[stealth_finger]

Honestly I hope they shut down all the games that have loot boxes that do anything beyond cosmetic looks. Any company that puts items in to loot boxes that increases power levels over regular game play options needs shut down.

Just get rid of them all together, pubg is the worst, its cosmetics only but you get the same shitty cosmetic again and again and again, but it's ok because I guess because you can sell them back for a fraction of a percent of the cost.

Re:Shut em down.

[genfail]

The only good pay to win gamer is a pwnd pay to win gamer!

Alternative

[jdavidb]

Or they could ignore each other until they go away?

Take chance

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Loot boxes are not under investigation. Spending real cash to buy them (or unlock "keys") is under investigation for gambling. And gambling for kids at that.

We already have a solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like games with lootboxes either.

You know what I do?

I don't buy them.

I buy other games that don't feature lootboxes. And which let me own the game outright in a way so the company cannot rescind my ability to play it at any point in the future that I want.

This doesn't need legal claptrap. If you like lootboxes, buy those games. If you don't, then don't.

NBA2K19

[Andy Smith]

I was looking forward to getting NBA2K19 when it released a few days ago. But then the horror stories started coming out about all the microtransactions. Every review mentioned how bad they were. Some reviews _only_ talked about the microtransactions and how theyâ(TM)re so deeply ingrained in every single part of the game.

Fortunately for me Iâ(TM)m not interested in multiplayer. I just want a âoequick matchâ against the AI, similar to the Kick Off mode in FIFA. Well, try this for yourself â" see if you can find ANY information online about this mode in NBA2K19. Even the manual makes _zero_ mention of it.

I posted on the 2K forums to ask if such a mode existed. No reply. Emailed 2K support. No reply. Posted on the forum again. No reply. Eventually someone on Reddit replied to tell me that yes, that mode exists, and no, microtransactions play no part in it.

Itâ(TM)s really, really weird to have to go through all this hassle when considering a game. As we all know, studios are only doing all this microtransaction junk because it works. They make more money. But still, as a gamer, itâ(TM)s weird and it really sucks.

Yes, ban all this gambling aimed at my son

[omfglearntoplay]

I'm sick of games trying to get kids hooked. I personally disallow many games, but you literally can't get away from the loot box nonsense if you want to play virtually any game outside of Nintendo games these days.

Re:Yes, ban all this gambling aimed at my son

[Jason Levine]

This is really bad in mobile games. I play a few mobile games and have noticed this happening more and more. One game had an event with premium characters. Pretty standard stuff - you pay the premium currency which you can accrue by watching ads, completing certain in-game actions, or by paying actual money. I'm fine with this part. I buy the ones I want and skip the ones I don't want, mostly using freely earned premium currency. The problem was that one character could only be obtained in premium "chests." These chests had the possibility to give you tokens which, if you got enough of them, would earn you the character. (There was also the chance to get the character outright, but this was such a small chance that you could pretty much ignore it.) Buying enough chests would cost hundreds of dollars of premium currency. Hundreds of dollars for a single character in a mobile game was outrageous. Hundreds of dollars for the possibility of getting it was even worse. (Thankfully, there was a blow back and it looks like the company has stopped doing this in subsequent events.)

Re:It's about money, not kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

They would love if regulation vanished completely so they could sell health cigarettes to toddlers and pregnant women...

Why don't they go after Draft Kings?

[mea2214]

Draft Kings is clearly gambling yet it is endorsed by MLB, NHL, NFL, and (possibly) NBA. How can these "regulators" go after such pettiness that are loot boxes and ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room. Is is because regulators are big sports fans and like to play Draft Kings?

Re:Why don't they go after Draft Kings?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

1) Those countries tend to regulate Draft Kings. For Example, they have a gambling license for the UK. 2) Loot boxes make far more money than draft kings. Hell, you could probably point to at least 10 companies that make more than draft kings.

Don't Think of the Children

[mentil]

Concerns in this area have manifested themselves in controversies relating to skin betting, loot boxes, social casino gaming and the use of gambling themed content within video games available to children.

There's nothing special about children when it comes to gambling. It's not like adults aren't affected by the same psychological mechanisms. Knowing that something is addictive, and being wiser, doesn't make it less addictive. There's no reason to bring children into the conversation, gambling is just as manipulative of adults.