Thanks to the new laws in Belgium, which have classified certain instances of lootboxes and microtransactions as "gambling", 2K Games and Blizzard have been forced to remove these from their games. Overwatch, Heroes of the Storm, and NBA 2K have been affected, for the region of Belgium, due to the aforementioned legal decision. Both companies maintain that they do not agree with the ruling, but that they must forcefully comply. Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch no longer allow players to purchase lootboxes, while NBA 2K18 has partially removed MyTeam Packs, their form of lootboxes, though ingame currency can still be used to obtain them.

This follows similar changes made in games like CS:GO and FIFA 18 having to disable lootboxes for Belgian players. While not being considered as illegal, Forza Motorsport 7 and Shadow of War voluntarily removed their microtransactions worldwide as well.

Source: Battle.net

In April 2018, the Belgian Gaming Commission published a report that was endorsed by the Belgian Ministry of Justice in which they concluded that paid loot boxes in Overwatchare considered gambling under local law. While we at Blizzard were surprised by this conclusion and do not share the same opinion, we have decided to comply with their interpretation of Belgian law. As a result, we have no choice but to implement measures that will prevent Overwatch and Heroes of the Storm players located in Belgium from purchasing in-game loot boxes and loot chests with real money and gems.

 

[kumikochan]

This conversation is rapidly becoming too silly for me to partake in. I explained quite thoroughly what a firearm is and I also explained why certain countries choose to treat them as firearms to simplify legislation. You can legally define a dog to be a cat, but that doesn't make it so. Such legal shortcuts are used worldwide to make things easier for everyone - some are good, some are bad. The primary difference between an air gun and a firearm is that an air gun is a pneumatic device that uses compressed air or other gasses to propel a projectile whereas a firearm is a barrelled weapon which discharges exothermic cartridges. That is the definition of the two mechanisms. You can legislate until you're blue in the face and you won't change that. That's neither here nor there though, I was using a simple example of a similar legal equivalence that doesn't translate into reality to demonstrate a point.

What your opinion is well is your opinion. But an opinion doesn't make it so. In most countries it is considered a firearm and that's it. There is no going around it. I already told you, if you want your opinion to be treated as a legally binding thing making them consider it not to be firearms then I advise you to do so through legal means. An opinion is just an opinion and nothing more. A lot of countries do consider it to be firearms and that's it. Words evolve over time and the term firearms seem to have evolved in those countries deeming it so. Legally binding things make a word more then it is like for example in your country where it is not considered a firearm so the term firearm has a totally different meaning then it does in countries who do considered it to be one. There's absolutely no changing that than challenging that through legal means itself

 

[Foxi4]

What your opinion is well is your opinion. But an opinion doesn't make it so. In most countries it is considered a firearm and that's it. There is no going around it. I already told you, if you want your opinion to be treated as a legally binding thing making them consider it not to be firearms then I advise you to do so through legal means. An opinion is just an opinion and nothing more. A lot of countries do consider it to be firearms and that's it

I don't know if you're trying to seem purposefully clueless just to annoy me or if you genuinely don't understand the difference between a real-life definition and a legal definition. They're not one and the same. In 1893 the Supreme Court has ruled that a tomato should be considered a vegetable and not a fruit for the purposes of commerce. A tomato is not a vegetable, it's a fruit. You're welcome to verify that. The court or the government don't get to decide botanical facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

A tomato is not a vegetable, a airgun is not a firearm and lootboxes aren't gambling. They can be treated as if they were for whatever purpose in the legal sense, that doesn't magically change their classification in the real world.

 

[LittleFlame]

I don't know if you're trying to seem purposefully clueless just to annoy me or if you genuinely don't understand the difference between a real-life definition and a legal definition. They're not one and the same. In 1893 the Supreme Court has ruled that a tomato should be considered a vegetable and not a fruit for the purposes of commerce. A tomato is not a vegetable, it's a fruit. You're welcome to verify that. The court or the government doesn't get to decide botanical facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

A tomato is not a vegetable, a airgun is not a firearm and lootboxes aren't gambling. They can be treated as if they were for whatever purpose in the legal sense, that doesn't magically change their classification in the real world.

At this point Foxi there is literally no point arguing as the opposing party doesn't seem to be open to changing his standpoint

 

[kumikochan]

I don't know if you're trying to seem purposefully clueless just to annoy me or if you genuinely don't understand the difference between a real-life definition and a legal definition. They're not one and the same. In 1893 the Supreme Court has ruled that a tomato should be considered a vegetable and not a fruit for the purposes of commerce. A tomato is not a vegetable, it's a fruit. You're welcome to verify that. The court or the government doesn't get to decide botanical facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

A tomato is not a vegetable, a airgun is not a firearm and lootboxes aren't gambling. They can be treated as if they were for whatever purpose in the legal sense, that doesn't magically change their classification in the real world.

an airgun is considered a firearm in a lot of countries. Your opinion is your opinion but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of countries DO consider them firearms so as long as they do consider them they are a firearm. Also that has to do with the US and not where I live. Bikes with an engine were considered bicycles until law changed it here and made it so that they're considered motorized vehicles. Same with electrical bicycles so yeah the law can change the definition. Your opinion can be that they're still a bicycle but that doesn't make them so

 

[Foxi4]

At this point Foxi there is literally no point arguing as the opposing party doesn't seem to be open to changing his standpoint

It's not even a standpoint, it's lack of any form of sense. "It's true because the government said so" is not an argument.

an airgun is considered a firearm in a lot of countries. Your opinion is your opinion but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of countries DO consider them firearms so as long as they do consider them they are a firearm. Also that has to do with the US and not where I live

I never contested that this is how they're classified, I merely explained to you why this is the case. It's easier to *treat them as if they were firearms* so that you don't have to legislate them separately, that's all there is to it. They are not mechanically firearms in reality, but they are treated as firearms legally to make legislation easier. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Similarly tomatoes were treated as vegetables in order to encompass them in a tariff act. That didn't make them vegetables in reality and nobody in their right mind would argue that it did. You don't have to bow to your government overlords just because you agree with their decision, you can make a salient point yourself.

 

[kumikochan]

It's not even a standpoint, it's lack of any form of sense. "It's true because the government said so" is not an argument.
I never contested that this is how they're classified, I merely explained to you why this is the case. It's easier to *treat them as if they were firearms* so that you don't have to legislate them separately, that's all there is to it. They are not mechanically firearms in reality, but they are treated as firearms legally to make legislation easier. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Similarly tomatoes were treated as vegetables in order to encompass them in a tarrif act. That didn't make them vegetables in reality and nobody in their right mind would argue that it did. You don't have to bow to your government overlords just because you agree with their decision, you can make a salient point yourself.

let's agree to disagree since my point isn't gonna change and yours neither so pointless to go on with this discussion since it has zero to do with the topic at hand

 

[Foxi4]

let's agree to disagree since my point isn't gonna change and yours neither so pointless to go on with this discussion since it has zero to do with the topic at hand

Of course you're not going to change my "opinion" because it's not an opinion, it's fact. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between how things are legally defined and what the actual real life definitions are. You seem to have trouble operating on two dimensions simultaneously and you refuse to cede a point even when you're demonstrably wrong in both of the presented cases, so yes, this conversation is pointless. I'm not "agreeing" to anything, you're wrong, period. This isn't a disagreement because it's not a matter of opinion.

 

[kumikochan]

Of course you're not going to change my "opinion" because it's not an opinion, it's fact. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between how things are legally defined and what the actual real life definitions are. You seem to have trouble operating on two dimensions simultaneously and you refuse to cede a point even when you're demonstrably wrong in both of the presented cases, so yes, this conversation is pointless.

Jezus I just told you that my stance isn't going to change and yours isn't go to change. I tried to be respectful in saying let's agree to disagree because this is going out of hand and has nothing to do with the topic !!! And now you keep on going obviously baiting me with claiming '' what I'm saying are faaaaaaaaacts and what you're saying isn't !!!!!!!! Dude stop it and act like a moderator should. I'm not gonna argue anymore regarding this. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and this is going out of control and not my stance is gonna change and yours neither so lets agree to disagree. Yes this conversation is pointless, you nailed it right on the head.

 

[FAST6191]

The gambling or not discussion is an interesting one for me.
Ignoring skins trading acting as currency standin stuff for a moment (it is a readily solvable issue if nothing else -- if you care then stop trading, limit trading massively such that it becomes untenable) then while I can't definitively say it is gambling I also can't definitively say it isn't. It is definitely a carefully designed money extraction practice which serves, again by design, frequently to part fools from their money, and almost inevitably blends any number of elements perfected by out and out games of chance and aspects of compulsion/addiction type psychology into it (sometimes out and out actively, sometimes they seem to reinvent it) -- abstraction of money to in game currency, possibly several currencies, I saw someone complain about times to obtain rewards earlier and you think they don't fine tune that stuff? Please I would put decent odds on everybody implementing stuff here knowing what the Skinner box is, loss dampening (the cash in junk mechanics), the term whale (user what disproportionately pumps in the money) comes from gambling proper and I could go on for a while.
I am similarly not quite as gung ho for free markets in this instance as some in the discussion, and I would also say protecting some fools is not a choice without merit. If nothing else we protect people all the time from other things where human psychology and a lack of knowledge on their part will get them into trouble. At the same time I don't see losing it ruining anybody's fun or closing down any industries, maybe an avenue or revenue stream respectively but plenty of other viable methods for those.

For myself I find gambling boring as fuck, to the point where I struggle to see why anybody enjoys it; I have observed it, I know the psychology of it, I have seen the brain scans, I can predict things based upon the science I know... still a mystery to me personally. Someone once asked if you would rather win a day's wages in a 6 hour casino stint or via working the same time, almost as though it was rhetorical but I will pick work every time. I don't know if it is mostly nature that done that or if it was mostly nurture, though if it is the latter then my parents were even more devious than I thought and while I have realised most of their other tricks I don't know where that one would have been.
If I go into a casino (evening out with friends sort of thing) I view it as an evening's entertainment, and said entertainment has always been left wanting (something said gambling companies seemed to have realised is a thing for younger audiences brought up on computer games, commonly things with a serious skill component and even active skill components). If you ever find me in a betting parlour it is because someone fluffed the maths somewhere and I can make something from it*.
By extension cosmetic stuff (a line I often utter is call me to make something work, tell you why it no longer works or how it works, literally anybody else to make it look pretty) is of no real appeal, certainly not enough for me to crowbar the wallet open and I see someone with something I know they had to pay through the nose for then I will find it a bit sad really. If you gate some "alternative play" methods or character selection that confer no real advantage beyond "this guy has fewer or greater choices I need to consider" behind a paywall then I am OK with that, not going to pay for them either but I am still OK with that. If you gate stuff behind them such that those that pay are more likely to win (this also extends to things which set the manual unlocks to truly ridiculous times) then your game is broken, I might still extract some value somehow if you have a nice mechanic I want to explore a bit but definitely don't expect me to pay anything.

*classic one. Win or lose event. 2:1 odds. Somewhere offers me a matched bet to entice me in. Somewhere else also matches. £5 on either odds. Each matched to make 10 to payout 20. As I have only paid in £10 in total I walk away with £10 profit regardless. It gets more complicated in real life with other odds, most things have more than two outcomes and when they want you to cycle your matched winnings through them a few times, and there are other things like "gambling" to increase payout (internet gambling tends to be the cycling a few times one, if you are willing to walk away with less payout then you can bias it towards a real world one and potentially double your payout) but the underlying principle remains the same.

As much as I applaud it, there is a caveat: we've got an election coming up in about 1.5 months. Passing this sort of things is most likely more due to the timing ("we make popular laws! btw, plzvoteforus ") than Koen Geens (our minister of justice) actually caring about the topic.


The question is always whether lootboxes are a form of gambling or not. It is concluded that they are, and therefore should comply to gambling laws. Lootboxes aren't forbidden per se (nor gambling, for what it's worth)...it's just that blizzard decided it wasn't worth the effort (genuinely being able to prove there are no minors participating is probably the main hurdle) and rather ditched the whole thing.

What are they saying the chances of a hung parliament again are?

That said while technically the law might allow for them to still exist it is probably viewable as one of those de facto bans as no company in that kind of position is going to want to comply.

 

[Foxi4]

Jezus I just told you that my stance isn't going to change and yours isn't go to change. I tried to be respectful in saying let's agree to disagree because this is going out of hand and has nothing to do with the topic !!! And now you keep on going obviously baiting me with claiming '' what I'm saying are faaaaaaaaacts and what you're saying isn't !!!!!!!! Dude stop it and act like a moderator should. I'm not gonna argue anymore regarding this. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and this is going out of control and not my stance is gonna change and yours neither so lets agree to disagree. Yes this conversation is pointless, you nailed it right on the head.

Argue with Wikipedia then. Everything I said can be corroborated. Good day.

The gambling or not discussion is an interesting one for me.
Ignoring skins trading acting as currency standin stuff for a moment (it is a readily solvable issue if nothing else -- if you care then stop trading, limit trading massively such that it becomes untenable) then while I can't definitively say it is gambling I also can't definitively say it isn't. It is definitely a carefully designed money extraction practice which serves, again by design, frequently to part fools from their money, and almost inevitably blends any number of elements perfected by out and out games of chance and aspects of compulsion/addiction type psychology into it (sometimes out and out actively, sometimes they seem to reinvent it) -- abstraction of money to in game currency, possibly several currencies, I saw someone complain about times to obtain rewards earlier and you think they don't fine tune that stuff? Please I would put decent odds on everybody implementing stuff here knowing what the Skinner box is, loss dampening (the cash in junk mechanics), the term whale (user what disproportionately pumps in the money) comes from gambling proper and I could go on for a while.
I am similarly not quite as gung ho for free markets in this instance as some in the discussion, and I would also say protecting some fools is not a choice without merit. If nothing else we protect people all the time from other things where human psychology and a lack of knowledge on their part will get them into trouble. At the same time I don't see losing it ruining anybody's fun or closing down any industries, maybe an avenue or revenue stream respectively but plenty of other viable methods for those.

For myself I find gambling boring as fuck, to the point where I struggle to see why anybody enjoys it; I have observed it, I know the psychology of it, I have seen the brain scans, I can predict things based upon the science I know... still a mystery to me personally. Someone once asked if you would rather win a day's wages in a 6 hour casino stint or via working the same time, almost as though it was rhetorical but I will pick work every time. I don't know if it is mostly nature that done that or if it was mostly nurture, though if it is the latter then my parents were even more devious than I thought and while I have realised most of their other tricks I don't know where that one would have been.
If I go into a casino (evening out with friends sort of thing) I view it as an evening's entertainment, and said entertainment has always been left wanting (something said gambling companies seemed to have realised is a thing for younger audiences brought up on computer games, commonly things with a serious skill component and even active skill components). If you ever find me in a betting parlour it is because someone fluffed the maths somewhere and I can make something from it*.
By extension cosmetic stuff (a line I often utter is call me to make something work, tell you why it no longer works or how it works, literally anybody else to make it look pretty) is of no real appeal, certainly not enough for me to crowbar the wallet open and I see someone with something I know they had to pay through the nose for then I will find it a bit sad really. If you gate some "alternative play" methods or character selection that confer no real advantage beyond "this guy has fewer or greater choices I need to consider" behind a paywall then I am OK with that, not going to pay for them either but I am still OK with that. If you gate stuff behind them such that those that pay are more likely to win (this also extends to things which set the manual unlocks to truly ridiculous times) then your game is broken, I might still extract some value somehow if you have a nice mechanic I want to explore a bit but definitely don't expect me to pay anything.

*classic one. Win or lose event. 2:1 odds. Somewhere offers me a matched bet to entice me in. Somewhere else also matches. £5 on either odds. Each matched to make 10 to payout 20. As I have only paid in £10 in total I walk away with £10 profit regardless. It gets more complicated in real life with other odds, most things have more than two outcomes and when they want you to cycle your matched winnings through them a few times, and there are other things like "gambling" to increase payout (internet gambling tends to be the cycling a few times one, if you are willing to walk away with less payout then you can bias it towards a real world one and potentially double your payout) but the underlying principle remains the same.



What are they saying the chances of a hung parliament again are?

That said while technically the law might allow for them to still exist it is probably viewable as one of those de facto bans as no company in that kind of position is going to want to comply.

I have a very simple litmus test of whether something is gambling or not - I look at the features. Gambling necessarily includes winning and losing conditions, there is a randomness element and money at stake, let's call it a bet. When I buy a lottery ticket, I enter into a game based on a random selection of variables that I can win and multiply my initial bet *or* lose and come out with nothing. A lootbox is not that - it's a digital good bought for a set amount of real life currency which contains a random set of digital items and, in the event of duplicates, digital currency which can be spent on buying the non-random items. There is no game, nothing is at stake and you can't lose, you can only be unhappy with the random draw. It's much more akin to a blind bag, in fact, the whole system is based on real life blind boxes, the original "loot" crates and such.

 

[kumikochan]

Argue with Wikipedia then. Everything I said can be corroborated. Good day.
I have a very simple litmus test of whether something is gambling or not - I look at the features. Gambling necessarily includes winning and losing conditions, there is a randomness element and money at stake, let's call it a bet. When I buy a lottery ticket, I enter into a game based on a random selection of variables that I can win and multiply my initial bet *or* lose and come out with nothing. A lootbox is not that - it's a digital good bought for a set amount of real life currency which contains a random set of digital items and, in the event of duplicates, digital currency which can be spent on buying the non-random items. There is no game, nothing is at stake and you can't lose, you can only be unhappy with the random draw. It's much more akin to a blind bag, in fact, the whole system is based on real life blind boxes, the original "loot" crates and such.

everything I said can also be and yes finally, have a good day

 

[Taleweaver]

What are they saying the chances of a hung parliament again are?

That said while technically the law might allow for them to still exist it is probably viewable as one of those de facto bans as no company in that kind of position is going to want to comply.

Depends on the vote outcome, really. I don't think we go for another world record (quick google), but who knows...if the dolts that inhabit this country (myself included) are still stubborn enough to distribute votes all over the spectrum, it could take a long time.

I agree with the second part: our country is rather known (at least with ourselves) for bureaucratic jargon. In practice, it's probably forbidden in all but the terms. Kind of like this:

Government: no! Loot boxes aren't illegal. You can get them if you just apply to the ruling standards.
Blizzard: all right...how do I apply?
Government: just head over to that desk we outsourced to the fifth dimension, speak to that representative that we let go off ten months ago and then file that form we never made.
Blizzard: ...yeah, okay. Nevermind.

 

[vinstage]

I don't get why people really dislike the system within Overwatch? They don't shove the option to buy in your face and block features behind a paywall and there are no enhancements to your gameplay except for purely aesthetic and cosmetical purposes? Plus lootboxes are way more accessible with the arcade feature and grinding from levelling up even as a casual?
And say per example you don't receive the item you wish for, they're easy to access via the credit system. But yeah of course this is so unruly and they should seriously consider themselves ripping off so many people out there kappa.

 

[Foxi4]

everything I said can also be and yes finally, have a good day

I never argued with any of the laws and legal definitions you mentioned, I merely pointed out that they do not reflect reality which you vehemently objected to for a yet unknown reason. Similarly, a lootbox is not a form of gambling unless we accept the premise that blind bags, loot crates or any other form of randomised purchase is also gambling. Is that what you're arguing?

 

[kumikochan]

I never argued with any of the laws and legal definitions you mentioned, I merely pointed out that they do not reflect reality which you vehemently objected to for a yet unknown reason. Similarly, a lootbox is not a form of gambling unless we accept the premise that blind bags, loot crates or any other form of randomised purchase is also gambling. Is that what you're arguing?

To me they are and to many people they are and according to the government they are. People can disagree as much as they want but that doesn't take away the fact that the gambling commission and the government itself views it as gambling

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't get why people really dislike the system within Overwatch? They don't shove the option to buy in your face and block features behind a paywall and there are no enhancements to your gameplay except for purely aesthetic and cosmetical purposes? Plus lootboxes are way more accessible with the arcade feature and grinding from levelling up even as a casual?
And say per example you don't receive the item you wish for, they're easy to access via the credit system. But yeah of course this is so unruly and they should seriously consider themselves ripping off so many people out there kappa.

They did not tell them to remove lootboxes. They told them to remove the means of using real currency to buy in game currency to use lootboxes. They never claimed lootboxes to be a problem but the means of using real currency and trading it in for in game currency to use that sytem

 

[FAST6191]

I have a very simple litmus test of whether something is gambling or not - I look at the features. Gambling necessarily includes winning and losing conditions, there is a randomness element and money at stake, let's call it a bet. When I buy a lottery ticket, I enter into a game based on a random selection of variables that I can win and multiply my initial bet *or* lose and come out with nothing. A lootbox is not that - it's a digital good bought for a set amount of real life currency which contains a random set of digital items and, in the event of duplicates, digital currency which can be spent on buying the non-random items. There is no game, nothing is at stake and you can't lose, you can only be unhappy with the random draw. It's much more akin to a blind bag, in fact, the whole system is based on real life blind boxes, the original "loot" crates and such.

While that would unequivocally return gambling I can see a path to there usefully being a wider net cast and certainly don't find it as a clear cut as that. In lawyer parlance then it would be a spirit of the law vs letter of the law type discussion, in more practical terms then I would look at the net effects, results, implementations and such and from a distance it gets harder to discern. It might well end up as one of those "a few idiots ruin it for the rest of us" type scenarios as well but in terms of harms done or prevented either side then losing them could well end up a net winner.

 

[leon315]

They just removed the possibility to BUY loot boxes with real world currency, but they can still earn those boxes through ingame grinding, just to be clear.

Anyway Overwatch's loot boxes only offer cosmetic items and none of them affects gameplay at all, which is something very different than many other PAY2WIN games. So stop bitching on Overwatch.

 

[Foxi4]

While that would unequivocally return gambling I can see a path to there usefully being a wider net cast and certainly don't find it as a clear cut as that. In lawyer parlance then it would be a spirit of the law vs letter of the law type discussion, in more practical terms then I would look at the net effects, results, implementations and such and from a distance it gets harder to discern. It might well end up as one of those "a few idiots ruin it for the rest of us" type scenarios as well but in terms of harms done or prevented either side then losing them could well end up a net winner.

I do not see the net benefit of these restrictions, they're nothing more than a limitation on the free market. Children generally don't have income - they can only spend money given to them by their guardians. As minors they lack any financial freedom. As such, it is encumbent on the parent to decide what they get to purchase, and this includes video games and digital content. I reject the notion that that the government should replace the parent here.

 

[FAST6191]

I am content in this instance with a limitation on the market (as far as limitations go this is at best a mild annoyance for the devs), and while I would like people to be good parents I am similarly OK with having a system in place such that it is harder to fail.

 

[Lumince]

I read no other posts here. I just want to say this.

We need to stop giving them money for these things. I would hope that the moment they notice how much backlash they get or how much money they are not getting from them, that they would stop putting them in game. They just see it as a cash grab for some skin that you like, or even these pay to win games.... Buying equipment to make you better at the game doesn't actually make you better

Sadly, I know that even if a bunch of people stopped buying them, theres always someone that will put money into it.

They see it as free money. EA for instance will no longer get my money. I will not be buying any games by them ever again, and this sadly means that I will have to pass on Anthem. Something I wanted has now become something unwanted because EA is making it and I really hate them at this point. The micro transactions need to die, or the company's that include them need too. (BattleFront 2(new) was garbage)

The overwatch stuff... I am fine with, but micro transactions are just a terrible terrible practice that need to die. Just let it die please.