Slashdot Mirror


Square Enix Pulls Three Games From Belgium After Loot Box Ban (theguardian.com)

The games publisher Square Enix is pulling three mobile games from Belgium following the introduction of a law in the European nation that bans "loot boxes" as a form of gambling. From a report: The games -- "Mobius Final Fantasy", "Kingdom Hearts Union X" and "Dissidia Final Fantasy Opera Omnia" -- are some of largest titles in the publisher's mobile roster, although it is better known for its console games such as "Tomb Raider", "Final Fantasy" and "Hitman." In statements posted in the games, Square Enix confirmed that the new law was to blame for their removal, citing "the present uncertain legal status of 'loot boxes' under Belgian law". Belgium first took action against "loot boxes", digital reward packs which can be bought with real or virtual money and contain a semi-random array of in-game items, back in April. The country's gaming commission ruled that the mechanics, as implemented in three popular games -- "Overwatch", "Fifa 18" and "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive" -- were in violation of gambling legislation.

102 comments

  1. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The law has been in place since 2014.

    1. Re: Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Loot boxes - future of gaming addiction

  2. God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Troll
    I'm not saying the EU is a Nanny State....

    But it's a Nanny State.

    Is there a Ministry of Protection from Games yet?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, if you zoom out, every country is turning into this. We've been moving towards global nanny state and dictatorships.

    2. Re:God Bless the EU by pahles · · Score: 2

      You know this is about Belgium, not the EU?

      --
      Sig?
    3. Re:God Bless the EU by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Gambling has been regulated for a long time. Most states in the west are becoming more less protective: see gay marriage and marijuana legalization.

    4. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not saying the EU is a Nanny State....

      But it's a Nanny State.

      Is there a Ministry of Protection from Games yet?

      I really hate this kind of bullshit on slashdot, the reality is games are still largely targetted towards kids and teens who's brains aren't developed. Maybe you want to raise a generation of gambling addicts but I don't.

    5. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Slashdot Neckbeards need to figure out what they want.

      You and probably some of the libertarian/alt-right/randroid/all-government-is-collectivism types say:

      "Nanny State"

      Then someone else says:

      "Loot boxes and microtransactions are anti-consumer and EVIL and should be banned"

      Look, Self-regulation isn't working, this is when government needs to step up and lay down some consumer-friendly ground rules.

      Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.

    6. Re:God Bless the EU by Smigh · · Score: 1

      What does the EU have to do with this story?

    7. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying the EU is a Nanny State....

      But it's a Nanny State.

      Is there a Ministry of Protection from Games yet?

      I really hate this kind of bullshit on slashdot, the reality is games are still largely targetted towards kids and teens who's brains aren't developed. Maybe you want to raise a generation of gambling addicts but I don't.

      We need a Ministry of responsible Adulthood grooming.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Slashdot Neckbeards need to figure out what they want.

      You and probably some of the libertarian/alt-right/randroid/all-government-is-collectivism types say:

      "Nanny State"

      Wowsers! Never been called Alt-Right before. Why dropping to insults, as you're going to see when you read lower.

      Then someone else says:

      "Loot boxes and microtransactions are anti-consumer and EVIL and should be banned"

      Right off, your concept of "everyone must think the same is a little disturbing. No, they don't, and there is no reason that they should.

      Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.

      It makes me exceptionally nervous when I see Europeans start talking about strong central governments. This trait pops up every once in a while, and the results are usually pretty bad.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What does the EU have to do with this story?

      Belgium is a member, and this is the sort of thing that the EU is getting more and more into these days. All you have to do is wait a short while

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:God Bless the EU by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with that? Belgium (and the EU in general, though this is Belgium only for now) believes loot boxes are detrimental to their population, especially the young people targeted by that business model. It's a model that can have massive (negative) financial impacts on the individual, and fosters addiction. Now, you may not believe that about loot boxes, and that's your right, but the Belgian government does, and as a self-respecting government thinking about doing the best for its population, it decided to act.

      It's not that different from banning drugs, or having regulations around gambling, or laws against underage drinking, or a TSA agent that prevents me from carrying a pocket knife, except in this case your personal freedom isn't even infringed. A government that cares about its population legislates in order to prevent for-profit, private entities to do what they want to the detriment of the people. If you call that a nanny state... fine? Does it really go against your freedom? No, it's about mandating corporations to do the right thing. Heck, what's the alternative, a Wild West where the government does nothing, and corporations can do what they want?

    11. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a Ministry of Protection from Games yet?

      Yet? We've had that for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons

    12. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with that? Belgium (and the EU in general, though this is Belgium only for now) believes loot boxes are detrimental to their population, especially the young people targeted by that business model. It's a model that can have massive (negative) financial impacts on the individual, and fosters addiction. Now, you may not believe that about loot boxes, and that's your right, but the Belgian government does, and as a self-respecting government thinking about doing the best for its population, it decided to act.

      Gambling addiction is interesting, and apparently has a genetic component. https://www.nhs.uk/news/geneti... The study notes that almost half of all gambling addicts are women - so what the hell - is this pandering for money because once you invoke the W word, people get sympathetic and shower their largess upon it?? If you weren't, you'd write that gambling addiction is fairly consistent between the sexes. But I digress.

      Anyhow, the brains of addicts get the same sort of endorphin buzz over almost winning as they do actually winning. Whereas normal people get mostly discouraged by losing, and almost winning tends more to piss them off. I personally get zero joy from almost winning, and the very few times I have gambled, found the idea of investing much better while I was gambling.

      But my point is that normal children will not become addicts.

      I also believe there is no future in banning everything that someone might become addicted to.

      Lessee Belgium.... I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year - but people can become alcoholics. Should we ban alcoholic beverages?

      Or the biggie - Sexual addiction. Ban sex some folks get addicted to it. .

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a Kinder Surprise Toy Ministry in the US?

    14. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belguim is also a country in the world. Therefore, by the same logic, every place on Earth is going to get worse. Or all of the Universe!!

    15. Re:God Bless the EU by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Alcoholic beverages are heavily regulated, though.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    16. Re:God Bless the EU by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if you read the original summary it feels like this is about classifying loot boxes as a form of gambling, which is regulated, and is illegal when targeting non-adults. Presumably if the game makers could guarantee no minor is allowed to pay for loot boxes (impossible, I know) and would disclose the odds (like the lottery), it would be fine. Again, this is not even "banning", this is saying "you're a form of gambling, act like it" and companies prefer to get out rather than obey the law.

      Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...

    17. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're still a gamer or game developer in 2018, kill yourself.

    18. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Informative

      I didn't call YOU alt-right, I'm saying that because you are crying "Nanny State", you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.

      Right off, your concept of "everyone must think the same is a little disturbing. No, they don't, and there is no reason that they should.

      I didn't say everyone needs to think the same. What I'm saying is that WE as citizens have to decide what we want to do about this. We can't have it both ways.

      It makes me exceptionally nervous when I see Europeans start talking about strong central governments. This trait pops up every once in a while, and the results are usually pretty bad.

      I'm in the US and Nazi Germany wasn't all of Europe. Neither was the old Soviet Union. Both are gone. And the UK, France, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, etc have strong central governments.

      Strong central governments aren't a negative. In the Real World we need such things to do things that people want governments to do. A strong central government put men on the moon. A strong central government created the internet. Money from strong central governments wiped out smallpox.

      And a strong central government is the ONLY thing that really has any chance at all of putting megacorps to heel.

    19. Re:God Bless the EU by Smigh · · Score: 1

      It seems that you're aware that the EU had no say in this, which makes your comment about it really random. Maybe you should save your resentments with the EU for things that the EU does.

    20. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Lessee Belgium.... I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year - but people can become alcoholics. Should we ban alcoholic beverages?

      We did, for a while, did you forget Prohibition? Did you know that per capita alcohol consumption in the United States is STILL below pre-prohibition levels. Abuse of Alcohol was a serious socio-economic problem pre-prohibition, and while it still is, it isn't as bad as it was before.

      Alcohol is still HEAVILY regulated. There's rules about who can buy it, rules about where and when it can be sold and consumed, and a lot more cultural censure on those who overuse it.

    21. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.

      My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..

      Bloat doesn't just affect software.....

    22. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.

      Right.. It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea.. Who's the bigger idiot? The nutjob who is anti-government or the nutjob who thinks that governments spun out of control can only happen to "other governments"?

      I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..

      Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.

      The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..

    23. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)

    24. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea..

      Really, there are millions of people living in strong central governments that work. No government is perfect, but there are many strong central governments that are nice places to live. Some of the worst places on this planet are places without strong central governments, or those that are young and haven't worked out the kinks yet. (and are dealing with the legacy of colonization/imperialism)

      I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..

      Articles of Confederation...it didn't work.

      Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.

      The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.

      The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..

      They weren't infallible, they were men of their time with the faults and foibles and mindsets of their time and we have learned much from the things they did wrong. They were wrong on many things. They intentionally created the Senate as a pseudo-aristocracy. They believed that the senate would actually run things and act as a check on what they considered the "rabble" Really, they, even Franklin were rabid plutocrats. They didn't really believe in democracy for everyone, just for the "right sort of people"

      The founders shouldn't be worshiped as inerrant holy leaders who could do no wrong. They made a LOT of mistakes that we are still paying for (figuratively AND literally) hundreds of years later. And those mistakes were compounded by later mistakes and so on.

      Quoting John Rogers: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

    25. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Articles of Confederation...it didn't work.

      What the fuck? I'm talking about our CURRENT constitution. Amendment 10 is crystal clear.. If the federal government wasn't given the power, it doesn't have the power. Any powers not given to the feds are reserved to the states or the people....

      That list of powers is surprisingly small..

      Besides national defense and interstate commerce (and a handful of other powers - treaties, etc) what does the fed really bring to the table that the states can't handle on an individual basis?

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government. Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..

    26. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..

      that is one of the stupidest things I've read today because you are, right now, using a communications network that has it's origins in a Government project of the USA. And what did it take to stop the Final Solution? Did the netherlands belgium and luxembourg destroy the Third Reich? No, it was a bunch of POWERFUL strong Central governments with vast resources. UK and the Commonwealth, the US and the former Soviet Union.

      Do you think some tiny little country like montenegro could put a man on the moon? What happens if some smaller country gets invaded by another and it's other small neighbors don't care or are too afraid to get involved?

      Your anti-government bias is blinding you to reality.

    27. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The Constitution isn't Holy writ. it is a FLAWED human document written by people (a bunch of whom wanted to favor wealthy plantation owners in the rural south) who couldn't see what people might need in the future. It isn't infallible.

      How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.

      We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.

      Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..

      Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one. That is one of the many things the founders didn't forsee because they were men of their time living in the nation of their time. You are doing that libertarian-adolescent-randroid thing of being literal in regards to the Constitution, just like Biblical literalists are.

      You're wrong in the same way they are. You may want a literal interpretation, but that horse left the barn many many years ago.

      There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

    28. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.

      No, you listen you cunt, I want a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. That's what I want. I'm also aware that power corrupts.. You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..

      We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed. We have a central government that grows larger and larger and larger.

      You talk about rights... You talk about Jim Crow.. THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION. The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.

      Yeah, cocksucker.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that legitimized it.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.

      More than 1/2 of the states in this union were FREE. But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.

      The senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states that CREATED the federal government out of thin air. Immediately after the revolution we had 13 SOVEREIGN NATIONS. They banded together, gave up some autonomy, and formed a bond.. Stronger together than apart... The Senate was supposed to have the states interests at heart.. Senators were APPOINTED by the states.. The House was elected by the People.. Both were represented.. The states and the people.. Equally..

      The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.

      None of that was challenged or decided by the Civil War as you imply. The ONLY thing the civil war was about was keeping the union together. Lincoln hated slavery but was unwilling to go to war over it. He figured it would fade on its own. He was probably right. The emancipation of the slaves was a fucking afterthought. Your precious central government only gave 2 shits about the slaves when it became clear the North had won.. They didn't care two fucks before that.

    29. Re:God Bless the EU by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..

      Unlike the corporation, the government works for me because WE are the government through our elected representatives. And what is the only thing that has a chance of stopping egregious behavior of corporations?

      We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed.

      Don't be a fool, the Constitution isn't infallible, being written by people with faults and axes to grind. You're sounding more and more like one of those "Sovereign Citizen" crackpots out in Idaho or Montana.

      THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION.

      It did? citation needed.

      The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.

      Why yes it did, because the Constitution you worship didn't outlaw it from the start. And it didn't do so because there wer too many wealthy slaveowners writing the thing! Which again makes my point that it is a FLAWED document that shouldn't be treated as infallible

      It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.

      yes, because the Constitution set things up to favor the south. It still does you know, especially since the size of the House was limited to 435 members instead of growing with population as it did before the freeze.

      But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.

      The central government set up by the Constitution that you worship which was written by people who knew slavery was immoral but didn't have the guts to outlaw something that made them more money than paying wages.

      The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.

      Yes, and it turned out a nation that grows in size and population doesn't work very well with a weak government that can't get shit done. Practically from the beginning they KNEW that they had fucked up and just shoved off the consequences of their bad decisions for a few decades because a bunch of rich guys didn't want to pay taxes for the central government the country really needed, just some kind of weak confederacy of sovereign states.

      Quit obsessing over the Constitution. You're not going to get the weak government you want because we live in the real world here. with a nation of over 350 million people. You can't run a nation like that in the way you want, it would fall apart. Just live with the fact that the federal government is the real power, and has been for a looong time.

    30. Re:God Bless the EU by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year

      Did you have it with France cheese or Germany sausage?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:God Bless the EU by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How many betting shops are there on your local high street? None, you have to go to an Indian reservation, right?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.

      We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.

      Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..

      Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one.

      Then you amend the constitution. Did we do that? No. Our federal government just decided to ignore the fact. You're the child. Children don't understand rules and why you either obey them or you have chaos.

    33. Re:God Bless the EU by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Your anti-government bias is blinding you to reality.

      Pot Kettle Black

    34. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to compare gambling laws with the EU and the US

    35. Re:God Bless the EU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Should we ban alcoholic beverages?

      We did, for a while, did you forget Prohibition? Did you know that per capita alcohol consumption in the United States is STILL below pre-prohibition levels.

      It's actually below prohibition levels, too. Prohibition was not the answer, reform was the answer. Prohibition was one way to get there, but it was the wrong way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:God Bless the EU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The official number is more like 10,000.

      This nation was built on genocide and it has been run by oligarchs in a slipshod, slap-dash fashion. Luck and natural resources have carried us so far, but that time is ending.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year

      Did you have it with France cheese or Germany sausage?

      Me flunk English? That's unpossible!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)

      You are not wrong

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    39. Re:God Bless the EU by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Otherwise yeah, I agree you can't just ban everything that's potentially addicting. However you do forget to address the fact drugs are banned, and alcohol is regulated, and that's fine...

      Is there anyone here familiar with the game? Do you have to use a credit card to register the game so that a 5 year old can buy stuff?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    40. Re:God Bless the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for a game company? Or are you also thinking pedophile laws are only for a nanny state?

  3. Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    lots of folks find it very, very addicting. That's why it's being used in games.

    The trouble here is the games industry is refusing to self regulate. And who can blame them? They're making not just billions, but tens of billions. Activision and EA have collectively increased their market cap by $70 billion. Like it or not, loot boxes work. And they work because _gambling_ works. It's not as though the effects of gambling aren't well researched either.

    At this point I think the game makers know what they're doing is wrong and that they're going to have to stop. They're just going to make as much money as they can before the ban hammer comes down. In the meantime it kinda sucks to be a gamer if you want new games, since they're stuffed full of crap that's meant to manipulate me. I'm old enough to see right through that crap so it's ruins the escapism for me. It drags me right back to the real world like a bad product placement.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The trouble here is the games industry is refusing to self regulate. And who can blame them? They're making not just billions, but tens of billions. Activision and EA have collectively increased their market cap by $70 billion. Like it or not, loot boxes work. And they work because _gambling_ works. It's not as though the effects of gambling aren't well researched either.

      Look - I understand gambling, and I think those who do it regularly are idiots. But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      Does the EU not have stock markets? That is gambling, and there are people who are addicted to that, and people who lose everything.

      At this point I think the game makers know what they're doing is wrong and that they're going to have to stop.

      I wonder if Candy Crush is next on the hit list?

      And if the EU is nannying it's citizens, why not ban gambling in all th eplaces that have casinos in the EU - I'd bet my life that those Casinos have ruiuned many more lives than loot boxes.

      Or Candy Crush.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble here is the games industry is refusing to self regulate. And who can blame them? They're making not just billions, but tens of billions. Activision and EA have collectively increased their market cap by $70 billion. Like it or not, loot boxes work. And they work because _gambling_ works. It's not as though the effects of gambling aren't well researched either.

      Look - I understand gambling, and I think those who do it regularly are idiots. But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      Gambling addiction is a real condition no matter what you believe.

      And there's a huge difference in microtransactions and pay-gates in crap like Candy Crush (you pay some money to bypass some artificial restriction and you know exactly what you're going to get) and the virtual slot machine mechanic of loot boxes (you throw your money at the game for the chance of getting something good, but you can't know what you get ahead of time nor do you know the odds of getting any of the potential payouts, much less the thing you want).

    3. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Gambling is definitely not an illness of any sort, however Gambling Addiction most certainly is.

      Stock Markets are not gambling, just like sports events are not gambling. There are certainly people who gamble on them, but that doesn't negate their actual purpose and function.

      I agree that the regulation cropping up around loot boxes is extreme and provides a slippery slope, or lubes up an existing slope. That said the behavior of the gaming industry in so broadly implementing these bullshit systems is clearly a jackass move.

      I think in large part this is driven by game companies deciding they don't want to produce a quality product and sell it for a healthy, sometimes absurd, profit. Instead they want to produce a mechanism that will continually milk the same kind of profit out of a customer for years on end, with minimal input from them. Blizzard got their first taste of such a business model with the success of WoW. Then they went on to put out Hearthstone, Diablo 3 with its RMT Auction House, Heros of the Storm, Overwatch, and next up is Diablo Immortal. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of business plan and so will likely not be buying or playing Blizzard/Activision games.

      So far as the Casino vs. Loot Boxes topic goes, the only problem I really see is that Casinos are typically regulated in some fashion. There is usually some government agency responsible for policing the Casinos to ensure that the odds of the games really match what is published or advertised, and all kinds of other stuff. Whereas with the video game industry practically nothing is regulated, yet.

    4. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the EU is nannying it's citizens

      Learn to write and we might take you seriously, you silly old fart.

    5. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Are you also for a prohibition on alcohol because some people get addicted to alcohol? It's the same stupid argument. Some people can't handle it so no one should be able to enjoy it.

      How about instead if you don't like playing the games, you just don't do it and don't worry what other people are doing.

    6. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by arth1 · · Score: 1

      How about instead if you don't like playing the games, you just don't do it and don't worry what other people are doing.

      The problem isn't those who don't like playing the games, but those who like playing them so much that they lose the ability for critical thinking and spend money they can't afford.

      Even here in the US, there's protection against that - in many states, you can't buy lottery tickets or casino chips with credit cards, for example. But the video gaming companies accept credit cards.

    7. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      hey, where did you get your psychology degree, asshole?

    8. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      hey, where did you get your psychology degree, asshole?

      I Don't recall saying I was, intensely angry person.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look - I understand gambling, and I think those who do it regularly are idiots. But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      If there was a way in game to spend money to literally kill other players would you be okay with that? I'm asking seriously. You seem to have a serious problem with government being a "nanny" and having regulation over things. You think "mental illness" has something to do with it for some reason.

      Does the EU not have stock markets? That is gambling, and there are people who are addicted to that, and people who lose everything.

      As another poster pointed out, the stock market isn't gambling but definitely people do gamble on stocks. The difference between this and loot boxes is that loot boxes are specifically designed to be gambled on. It's done specifically to enrich the company running the gambling outfit. Some people want to gamble on loot boxes. Some people want to literally kill other people. The issue is, should a company be enriching itself by designing to encourage these things?

    10. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      And if the EU is nannying it's citizens, why not ban gambling in all th eplaces that have casinos in the EU - I'd bet my life that those Casinos have ruiuned many more lives than loot boxes.

      Gambling is HEAVILY regulated and you know it. There are limits on who, where and when. Things were worse before it was regulated.

    11. Re: Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You implied you had a degree when you spoke like your voice caried weight on the subject.

    12. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the EU not have stock markets? That is gambling, and there are people who are addicted to that, and people who lose everything.

      Stock markets aren't advertised to children.
      By the time someone is old enough to gamble on the stock market they are supposed to understand the problems with it. (Even if some don't.)

      I wonder if Candy Crush is next on the hit list?

      Hopefully.
      The microtransations in Candy Crush aren't random.
      They have people analyzing gameplay so that they can change the levels in a way that makes players more prone to pay to finish it.
      You get the gambling addiction but unlike your regular gambling it is completely unregulated and you can't win.

    13. Re: Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Calydor · · Score: 1

      You are trying to turn the discussion into one of which words a given person chooses rather than the actual topic at hand, which is gambling, the addiction to gambling, the effects of said addiction on the human mind, and whether loot boxes in computer games have the same effect.

      Do you work for a game company, either directly or indirectly?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    14. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you also for a prohibition on alcohol because some people get addicted to alcohol?

      You can make an argument that 21 is ridiculous, but do you think it should be sold to 10-year-olds?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Gambling is regulated for a very good reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Look - I understand gambling, and I think those who do it regularly are idiots. But for my money, it isn't a mental illness.

      If there was a way in game to spend money to literally kill other players would you be okay with that? I'm asking seriously

      Okay, I will answer you seriously. There is something wrong with you. Equating my belief that a child shouldn't have access to spending money for a "loot box" with me believing that murder is ever excusable or equivalent is so abysmally stupid that I can easily judge that you cannot think rationally.

      As such, the smartest thing you did today was to post as an anonymous coward, because otherwise I'd remember to give you the ridicule you deserve.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  4. Nothing Of Value Was Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All games with loot boxes or micro transactions should be banned. Why people play this shit is beyond me.

    1. Re:Nothing Of Value Was Lost by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never played OverWatch. All the loot boxes are cosmetic and do not change the gameplay at all. You cannot buy yourself a faster, strong, better character. You can only make it look different.

      As a gamer, I don't mind those kinds of loot boxes. You also sometimes receive them for free in the game (at random, I think?) and the cosmetic items are random, too. The only constant is that there is four items per box.

      I think Belgium is pushing things too far and should only ask Blizzard to ban the sale of loot boxes in their country.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re: Nothing Of Value Was Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Different countries have their own cultural definitions of gambling

    3. Re:Nothing Of Value Was Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Belgium is pushing things too far and should only ask Blizzard to ban the sale of loot boxes in their country.

      Maybe.
      I haven't looked into their reasoning but I suspect they are doing it for a different reason than what you think it should be done for.

      The argument about "cosmetic" only lootboxes focuses more on fraud.
      You buy the game only to realize that it also has a pay to win element. Then you need to pay more to get the expected enjoyment out of it.
      This doesn't really have anything to do with lootboxes. It could be implemented with traditional DLC/expansions where you get what you pay for and you'd still have to pay if you want to enjoy the game.

      I suspect Belgium is going more after the gambling part where lootboxes causes gambling addiction.
      In that case it isn't necessary that it has an impact on gameplay.
      What is important is that you pay money for an addictive element.
      If the player perceives that there is a value in a skin (and they do, otherwise Blizzard wouldn't have spend resources to make them to begin with.) he or she will be willing to pay for it.
      Since you can't buy the skin directly you are lured into the gambling and their lootbox system does all the little tricks with the anticipation delay animation (Think rolling ball in roulette or spinning wheels.) and sounds to reinforce the response.

      If they implemented it so that you got a more direct result; click to list of box content within a couple of milliseconds it wouldn't be nearly as addictive.

      Essentially Blizzard does lootboxes right from a gamers perspective, but they still do all the immoral crap of a casino.

  5. Arcade games by tepples · · Score: 1

    Would you prefer that arcade games never have existed? "INSERT COIN" is a repeatable microtransaction.

    1. Re: Arcade games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You paid 25 cent to play a game. Now you are paying $1-$10 for an ITEM in a game YOU already paid for.

      Apples and oranges.

    2. Re: Arcade games by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Some of those games are free and make their profits exclusively by selling items.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: Arcade games by tepples · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps a better analogy is a blind-box trinket vending machine inside an amusement park that charges admission.

    4. Re:Arcade games by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Arcade games are upfront and predictable about what you get for a credit (a certain number of lives, health, time extend in a driving game, whatever). Lootboxes contain random, often duplicated items. They're gambling.

    5. Re:Arcade games by tepples · · Score: 1

      Lootboxes contain random, often duplicated items.

      So do blind box vending machines, which are often seen at a store's exit next to the gumball machine.

  6. Freemium huh ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loot boxes, the way how players earn them fosters the habit of gambling. It seems the games developers intentionally never code a mechanism that searches the players in-game inventories before determining the contents of loot boxes. The content of loot box is coded to be random even when the loot box is purchased with only exception increasing percentage of rare items appearing.

  7. disney does not like them or slots by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    disney does not like them or slots

    1. Re:disney does not like them or slots by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Disney has their own loot box game, Disney Heroes Battle Mode. You pay real money for random crap. They have guaranteed elements, though. I've been playing it, it's fairly fun for a grind game, though of course I haven't given them any money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Well shit by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    I guess they'll have to go back to making normal games.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Well shit by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I guess they'll have to go back to making normal games.

      That would be nice. At the very least these games should be labelled, so I can choose to avoid them, just like those freemium games.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  9. That seems unwise from a business standpoint by Smigh · · Score: 1

    They would be better off disabling loot boxes in Belgium so no one's really pissed off about it. I doubt the loss of Belgium sales would be noticeable, so they might be trying to put pressure on Belgium by getting voters discontent with those laws if they don't have access to the games, especially if other publishers follow the trend, but that can also make Belgium try to escalate the issue to the EU level to gain leverage.

    1. Re:That seems unwise from a business standpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would be better off disabling loot boxes in Belgium so no one's really pissed off about it. I doubt the loss of Belgium sales would be noticeable, so they might be trying to put pressure on Belgium by getting voters discontent with those laws if they don't have access to the games, especially if other publishers follow the trend, but that can also make Belgium try to escalate the issue to the EU level to gain leverage.

      There are a few other possibilities here. First, if Square Enix was woefully unprepared to disable loot boxes on a per-region basis, they may have chosen the option they could implement the fastest to avoid legal consequences. Second, they might have concluded that it costs them less money to just disable the game entirely rather than developing alternate code for Belgium (and rebalancing when non-gambling users get better gear, etc.), especially in light of how much less money the game will rake in without the retched loot boxes.

      The more fascinating question is what the gaming industry (and government) does next: If Square Enix takes a bath on loot box games in Belgium, will future loot box games be originally designed with fallbacks to use in a regulated scenario so these costs are minimized? Will this dissuade some companies from developing loot box games altogether? The outcome will be largely dependent upon whether China and the United States follow suit; Will larger and larger areas exclude/regulate loot box gambling? ,,, Or, will a lack of political momentum mean that only a few no-loot-box-zones like Belgium will exist, and the present loot box gambling status quo will remain unscathed in most territories of the world?

  10. EU nations and more laws by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Banning words, taxing links and removing news. Demanding control over news and user linked content.
    Now EU nations want to control computer game content.
    Why do EU government and bureaucrats want so much control over what people read and do using networked computers?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:EU nations and more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the EU should just make up some tariffs.

    2. Re:EU nations and more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because their citizens are fucking retarded and their government knows it.

    3. Re:EU nations and more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because their citizens are fucking retarded

      As proof I present our referendum result.

    4. Re:EU nations and more laws by Smigh · · Score: 1

      This specific thing is about consumer protection, just like all the other gambling laws that are uncontroversial. This has nothing to do with the EU, though. Many countries across the world are now starting to take steps against loot boxes, even some states in the US. The other things you mention aren't connected with this.

    5. Re:EU nations and more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name a country that statement isn't true for.

    6. Re:EU nations and more laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are regulating gambling. It is the fault of game companies if they create games that include a gambling element, but are unwilling to follow the relevant regulations.

      They are doing this to protect their citizens. Personally I think it is better to have a government that actually gives a shit about you than one that doesn't.

  11. You don't understand gambling by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Informative

    if you think people who do it regularly are idiots. Gambling takes advantage of several well known psychological quirks of the human mind to manipulate already vulnerable people.

    This isn't nannying. It's recognizing a vulnerable minority and taking steps to protect them. You might just as well say consumer protection laws are nannying.

    Lastly, video games are Casinos now. The lootboxes are the slots and poker tables. It's like how Uber is really a taxi cab service. You call a spade a spade and gambling gambling. The only reason loot boxes haven't ruined more lives is the game companies are holding back just a bit. They're only doing that under threat of regulation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You don't understand gambling by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      if you think people who do it regularly are idiots. Gambling takes advantage of several well known psychological quirks of the human mind to manipulate already vulnerable people.

      Once upon a time, I was a smoker. 3 plus packs a day. I was as addicted as you get. I was an idiot. I realized the expense and the health hazard. So I quit.

      This isn't nannying. It's recognizing a vulnerable minority and taking steps to protect them. You might just as well say consumer proatection laws are nannying.

      Except consumer protection laws are not nannying.They are ensuring quality ans safety. Enough with the slippery sloping me into being an anarchist.

      One thing that the USA can speak with authority on is exactly what happens when you ban things. What that thing is, the creation of a very lucrative source of money for organized crime. Prohibition of alcohol empowered Organized crime to heights that never would have happened otherwise. Gambling as well. And lest we forget, there is a quote, attributed to William F Buckley, the famed conservative intellectual IIRC that went:

      Marijuana laws have destroyed many more lives than marijuana ever did.

      So despite your claims in your subject line, You might be surprised to learn that a person who is prone to gambling addiction, because of genetics, is going to develop that addiction no matter if you ban lootboxes, make all gambling illegal, start a US style armed war on Gambling, and send people to prison.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re: You don't understand gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to acknowledge that to go into a casino you need to be 18 or 21 to gamble. This is targeting kids when their brains havenâ(TM)t even developed enough(or mature enough) to recognize the risks. Just like Cigarettes, you canâ(TM)t sell them to children. And giving games to children that have gambeling with real money should be treated as such with the same penalties.

    3. Re: You don't understand gambling by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You fail to acknowledge that to go into a casino you need to be 18 or 21 to gamble. This is targeting kids when their brains havenâ(TM)t even developed enough(or mature enough) to recognize the risks. Just like Cigarettes, you canâ(TM)t sell them to children. And giving games to children that have gambeling with real money should be treated as such with the same penalties.

      How exactly does a child have the money to gamble with? Or do children in Europe have their own credit cards?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: You don't understand gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fuck STFU, you don't seem to understand how things work, no one has to explain it for you.

    5. Re: You don't understand gambling by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Jesus fuck STFU, you don't seem to understand how things work, no one has to explain it for you.

      U mad Bro?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  12. Kinder Surprise vs. Kinder Joy by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is there a Kinder Surprise Toy Ministry in the US?

    I forget whether it's the Food and Drug Administration, but the USA bans Kinder Surprise because food and toy are enclosed together, posing a choking hazard. It allows Kinder Joy because the food and toy are separately sealed.

    1. Re:Kinder Surprise vs. Kinder Joy by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Is there a Kinder Surprise Toy Ministry in the US?

      I forget whether it's the Food and Drug Administration, but the USA bans Kinder Surprise because food and toy are enclosed together, posing a choking hazard. It allows Kinder Joy because the food and toy are separately sealed.

      Do people in Europe understand the difference between choking and expiring on a plastic toy inside food, and children who apparently are allowed to use mommy and daddy's credit card to buy stuff?

      If the child who we are so worried about developing a gambling addiction doesn't have the means to buy the loot boxes, then the problem does not exist, does it?

      Or do European parents not supervise their chidren's use of computers? Just hand them the credit card, and expect that everything is someone elses fault?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Kinder Surprise vs. Kinder Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, that's a good reason to have it regulated.

  13. Jim Sterling's made a good point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    which is that while loot boxes are bringing in a ton of money they're doing it with gambling techniques; and that can't last. They work because they're exploitative, and if you take that away they stop working. Eventually gov't will step in.

    So far so good, but it's going to punch a massive hole in the balance sheets of every major company. The shareholders aren't going to stand for that. I'm not really sure what will happen. "Activist" shareholders might push to liquidate the companies. Or the companies might case some desperate trend to make back the lost profits only to lose a ton of money and collapse. Don't know, but it's going to be interesting times...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Jim Sterling's made a good point by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with gambling. But when I want to go gambling I can go to a casino and do it.

      As for corporate profits, there was a time when game companies existed before online services and in-game currency. Of course the game industry was a fraction of the size it is now.

      Cutting an industry down to a smaller size isn't the end of humanity or even the end of gaming. Definitely would transform it into a different sort of business, hopefully a better sort.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. So it's the EU's fault that Enix has to obey laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me, when something like kiddie porn is prosecuted and suppliers halted, do you whine about the EU then too? Fucking moron.

  15. Nope, all about YOUR words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you made that claim in ignorance then you must admit that it is an ignorant claim. Making you, ironically, the idiot you claim those who are addicted to gambling are. Retard.

  16. Not just children mentally incapable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignorant idiotic libertardians are too. Tell me, do you whine about the USA who arrest people for running an internet gambling store as being nanny? No, because you're a fucking hypocrite, like all libertardians.

  17. So? You ignore the ones not free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also ignore that it is gambling, something the USA is FAR more nanny state over than almost the entire EU (and I only say "almost" because there MAY be a country in the EU that isn't, because I don't know the gambling laws on all of them). Gonna whine about the USA? No?

  18. blame the law? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    i would say, i blame the game for being an incognito gambling scheme.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  19. Ban 'em all and let God sort it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ban video gaymez. They're gay and stupid.

  20. Overwatch? I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it has loot crates - you earn them by leveling up, and hitting other certain milestones.Once you have them, you can open them - you don't have to pay to open them. Other games, you do, and you x% chance of getting whatever super-fangled widget etc.

    I know you can buy loot crates, but really, for a bunch of stuff which is cosmetic and kind of fun to have, I don't feel the need to buy shit, happy to earn as I play.

  21. More than three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is somewhat incomplete, more games are also pulled from Belgium, such as Final Fantasy Brave Exvius.