In a very sudden development on the hot-button topic of 'loot boxes' and gambling in video games, the Belgium Gaming Commission has completed their investigation on the matter and have concluded that in-game 'loot boxes' are a form of gambling, and will likely be banned in Belgium. This could entail hundreds of thousands of Euros in fines towards Electronic Arts and other offending companies, as well as a ban on sales of games with loot boxes until companies acquire a gambling license or remove the feature from their games. What's more, Belgium is seeking to classify loot boxes as gambling across the entirety of Europe. Currently, the Dutch Gambling Authority has launched a similar investigation.

The Belgium Gaming Commission's statement roughly read, "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling." Belgium's Minister of Justice also chimed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child."

Following quickly after, and in a highly unexpected move, Hawaii House of Representatives rep. Chris Lee (D) held a press conference where he announced that the State of Hawaii would be introducing legislation to curb the "predatory behavior" of companies like Electronic Arts. He explicitly mentions Battlefront 2, calling it a "Star Wars-themed online casino, designed to lure kids into spending money." Highlights from that press conference can be seen here:



Lee said that new legislation in the coming year will target predatory microtransaction practices and that Hawaii would be speaking with other states to introduce similar legislation elsewhere in the United States. Parents also took the podium at the press conference to express their own concerns about loot boxes and microtransactions. Lee later wrote a Reddit post explaining the announcement, which can be read in its entirety by following this link. In the post, he calls on US citizens to contact their state legislatures and demand action against predatory microtransaction practices in the gaming industry.

The speed at which regulatory bodies are reacting to the loot box controversy is astounding. These developments come in the wake of EA's botched microtransaction scheme in Star Wars: Battlefront II that led to a Reddit post by an EA representative becoming the most downvoted comment in the website's history, prompting Disney to intervene and garnering mainstream media coverage on popular news outlets like CNN. This spells trouble not just for EA, but for all major publishers, including Activision-Blizzard, Ubisoft, 2K Games, and any other company engaging in 'loot box' practices and predatory microtransaction schemes.

Oh, how the tides turn.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

 

[FAST6191]

Gambling involves cash prizes. This isn't gambling, it's akin to a "spin the wheel" prize game.

When I was a kid, the local dollar store had "surprise" bags for $1, filled with stickers, puzzles, bubbles, etc. Was that also gambling?

Also, do you accept that buying stocks is gambling? If not, why not?

In a later post ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/loot-box...-europe-and-the-us.490041/page-4#post-7703729 ) I clarified that I was thinking the Counterstrike Go type things where it was functionally a stand in and had not properly gone in for the mechanics of this one.

Still

Stocks would also fall under a type of gambling, however a key component of a lot of gambling legal theory is that of the component of skill (to keep it within gaming then the history of pinball being a good one here http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/nyregion/fyi-315893.html ). If said boxes involve no skill then it may count. As you can quite readily demonstrate skills in market trading, and you may also consider it a useful type of gambling (it theoretically funding new businesses and providing a means for other businesses to generate revenue) and one you wish to encourage (and most places do offer tax breaks for such people). Going a bit further there are types of market trading which explicitly aim to be a type of gambling (spread betting and such) so there is also that.
In a sense the grab bags/surprise bags/lucky dip bags would be a type of gambling, as might toy/capsule dispensers. There may be some argument made for expected value and it may also be deemed too low level or hard to abuse to worry about -- while some laws are set such that the people making them appear prescient there are just as many made for reactionary reasons when problems become apparent.

 

[Haloman800]

In a later post ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/loot-box...-europe-and-the-us.490041/page-4#post-7703729 ) I clarified that I was thinking the Counterstrike Go type things where it was functionally a stand in and had not properly gone in for the mechanics of this one.

Still

Stocks would also fall under a type of gambling, however a key component of a lot of gambling legal theory is that of the component of skill (to keep it within gaming then the history of pinball being a good one here http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/nyregion/fyi-315893.html ). If said boxes involve no skill then it may count. As you can quite readily demonstrate skills in market trading, and you may also consider it a useful type of gambling (it theoretically funding new businesses and providing a means for other businesses to generate revenue) and one you wish to encourage (and most places do offer tax breaks for such people). Going a bit further there are types of market trading which explicitly aim to be a type of gambling (spread betting and such) so there is also that.
In a sense the grab bags/surprise bags/lucky dip bags would be a type of gambling, as might toy/capsule dispensers. There may be some argument made for expected value and it may also be deemed too low level or hard to abuse to worry about -- while some laws are set such that the people making them appear prescient there are just as many made for reactionary reasons when problems become apparent.

Blackjack is a game of skill, and also a form of gambling, so your argument is invalid.

 

[FAST6191]

Blackjack is a game of skill, and also a form of gambling, so your argument is invalid.

I fail to see how that renders anything I said there invalid. Indeed I dropped a bit about poker from the reply as it felt redundant.

Perhaps I should have said skill components provide a modifier for a lot of the approaches taken by legal classifications. It is not however predicated upon it.

 

[ThoD]

hmm, having to be 21 just to play overwatch cause it has gambling, welp, seems I need to lie more about my age

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


aka whales, we have a word for those types who dump boat loads of cash on just wanting one character or skin of said character

It could just become "you must be 21 to BUY loot boxes" rather than to play a game with loot boxes in it you know.

 

[Foxchild]

Gambling is horrible! Evil!!! Preys on children and destroys families!! Unless you buy a gambling license from us, then it's cool.

 

[ThoD]

Gambling is horrible! Evil!!! Preys on children and destroys families!! Unless you buy a gambling license from us, then it's cool.

Didn't know you sold licenses, how much do you sell them for? /s


I'm joking a bit, but I'll let you know that they have to buy a license for EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY they decide to sell their games to, not just the US.

 

[FAST6191]

I'm joking a bit, but I'll let you know that they have to buy a license for EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY they decide to sell their games to, not just the US.

Is that any different from wanting to use licensed music?

 

[ThoD]

Is that any different from wanting to use licensed music?

Very actually. For using licensed music, all you need to do is buy the permit from whoever you get the music off (label company), but have no restrictions on where you can sell it. For gambling, you must get licenses from where you plan to sell, so it's kind of opposite, plus music only takes one license for a bunch of stuff, rather than having to go from government to government to get individual ones.

 

[FAST6191]

I see plenty of regional disparities between such things and the sorts of things lawyers earn their pay for.

There may well be some labels that offer so many run (or maybe even unlimited- http://www.ibtimes.com/licensed-mus...r-hd-be-blamed-games-retirement-steam-2564043 ) worldwide agreements but there are enough exceptions I felt comfortable with the original comparison.

 

[jt_1258]

It could just become "you must be 21 to BUY loot boxes" rather than to play a game with loot boxes in it you know.

I know, but are they that smart enough to do that, likely not

 

[Haloman800]

I fail to see how that renders anything I said there invalid. Indeed I dropped a bit about poker from the reply as it felt redundant.

Perhaps I should have said skill components provide a modifier for a lot of the approaches taken by legal classifications. It is not however predicated upon it.

Then you would agree that the classification of "gambling" is arbitrarily applied by governments to different activities with no logical basis.

 

[KingVamp]

I mean, if we are going be that acute, life is a gamble.

 

[TehCupcakes]

Well this is... Unexpected.

I can totally understand the classification in some cases. (I'm looking at you, Clash of Clans...) But to designate the entire game feature of lootboxes as gambling is wildly inaccurate and naive. If the items contained are exclusively cosmetic, I just can't see how that classifies as gambling in any sense. Sure, the outcome of the box is chance based, so if you're hoping for a specific reward then you are not guaranteed to get it... But the same can be said of thousands of other products that are blind grab bags. For that matter, let's throw in rarity systems as well - because if a game drops Legendary loot less frequently than Common loot, that means it's chance based which equals gambling!

 

[chartube12]

Um... The discussion started over them being banned in some areas, or very close to.... not because anyone was "bitching." Not to mention, trying to generalize this into "everyone." I've always thought loot boxes were crap, where do I fit into your little equation? The people you are talking about only make up a small percentage.

I never used "everyone" and never said this thread's opening topic was about. Try to troll else where. :-p Plus there are many people in this thread complaining about EA, and loot boxes.

Moving on, I see the star wars game as one of the most extreme cases for loot boxes being gambling. However if you do not draw the line quickly, others will fallow them when they see how much cash they are making.

In many games with loot boxes, there are boxes that can not be bought with earned in game cash. They can only be purchased with real money or other credits bought with real money. Those boxes always have a better chance of rare or better items, as well as always guarantee a higher amount of common and uncommon items overall coming in them. My finale thought is why do single player games have loot boxes? They shouldn't have them at all. They only exist in single player games for the company to make money. The main example here is shadow of war. First Modar (sp) title I have ever purchased and it having loot boxes when it is a purely single player game is ridiculous.

 

[FAST6191]

Then you would agree that the classification of "gambling" is arbitrarily applied by governments to different activities with no logical basis.

Not really. Seems to be plenty of logical basis for it, just multiple modifying factors including extent of any skill component, reward type/value and potential harm done relative to intended audience (and maybe actual audience should that change or an unintended one crop up*).
We, or I, don't have to agree with each other or some legislative body on the the extent of any restrictions placed and regulations created, indeed there is probably a good debate to be had there, but we seem to once again have got stuck at basic definitions.

*you mentioned investment earlier. There are places where buy ins or qualifications are needed, for the latter what typically get referred to as widows and orphans laws where those without training can not personally invest beyond a certain amount in a startup or certain schemes (but can probably put as much as they like into a hedge fund).

 

[Taleweaver]

Gambling involves cash prizes. This isn't gambling, it's akin to a "spin the wheel" prize game.

When I was a kid, the local dollar store had "surprise" bags for $1, filled with stickers, puzzles, bubbles, etc. Was that also gambling?

It depends. If that bag contained roughly all equal-valued items and each item has an equal chance to be picked, then it's not legally gambling. Of course one can have preferences (we tend to prefer ultra rare foil cards in a pack of magic: the gathering over a proverbial mudhole), but I understand from the situation that loot boxes are just in the way of people wanting just a few outcomes over all the others.

Also, do you accept that buying stocks is gambling? If not, why not?

When talking about legality, the random aspect is important. The stock market is (for the most part) incredibly hard to predict, but that doesn't make it random.

But for me personally: I'd absolutely consider the stock market a form of gambling. One I'd much rather see thoroughly regulated than any stupid video game, even.

 

[MadMageKefka]

I never used "everyone" and never said this thread's opening topic was about. Try to troll else where. :-p Plus there are many people in this thread complaining about EA, and loot boxes.

...I think you need to go look up what "troll" means. You literally made your first post with the sole purpose of harassing / laughing at a group of people. If anything, you're the troll, kiddo. Glad to see your 2nd post has much less cancer in it. Keep up the good work.

 

[SirNapkin1334]

"Predatory schemes"
I doubt that these are predatory. After all, you don't need to buy the crates.

 

[jt_1258]

"Predatory schemes"
I doubt that these are predatory. After all, you don't need to buy the crates.

it does prey on those who are compulsive buyers, who can't help but feed in more cash to get the skin or hero they want

 

[ThoD]

"Predatory schemes"
I doubt that these are predatory. After all, you don't need to buy the crates.

This:

it does prey on those who are compulsive buyers, who can't help but feed in more cash to get the skin or hero they want

ON TOP of marketing the game to KIDS! It's not marketed to adults, almost all the advertising for it is aimed towards underage people.