# 'Loot Boxes' Declared Gambling by Belgium GC & Hawaii HoR, Both Seek Bans in Europe and the US



## linuxares (Nov 22, 2017)

Yus! Please let EU do the same!


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 22, 2017)

Glad DBXV2 dosen't has loot boxes 

"Hopes fighterZ does"


----------



## Meteor7 (Nov 22, 2017)

You know, when they focus so heavily on buzz-phrases like "family" and "protecting children", while also bringing in a representative to talk about _religion's_ view on the matter, of all things, I can't help but feel a chill. I'm very much against these kinds of practices being implemented in video games, but I can't help but feel like I'm unintentionally on the side of the typical, overly-frenzied mommies and church people, who can't or don't think beyond the walls of their own skull, being whipped up in fear mongering and desperately pressing for legislation that ends up putting more of a restriction on the typical citizen than any companies. I don't know, but when my side is being argued in part by an old, blank-faced religious man coming onto television and proclaiming "this is _EVIL!!!_", I can't help but feel more than a little uneasy. That being said, I am still tentatively glad that the lootbox mechanic is at least getting some attention, even if I worry this whole craze may become a runaway train.


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 22, 2017)

Nintendo will now get a medal for not engaging in this, with a long speech by some high ranking politician, Secretary of Treasury or even Trump. I'm just making stuff up.


----------



## DKB (Nov 22, 2017)

guess overwatch is losing _more_ players


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 22, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> You know, when they focus so heavily on buzz-phrases like "family" and "protecting children", while also bringing in a representative to talk about _religion's_ view on the matter, of all things, I can't help but feel a chill. I'm very much against these kinds of practices being implemented in video games, but I can't help but feel like I'm unintentionally on the side of the typical, overly-frenzied mommies and church people, who can't or don't think beyond the walls of their own skull, being whipped up in fear mongering and desperately pressing for legislation that ends up putting more of a restriction on the typical citizen than any companies. I don't know, but when my side is being argued in part by an old, blank-faced religious man coming onto television and proclaiming "this is _EVIL!!!_", I can't help but feel more than a little uneasy. That being said, I am still tentatively glad that the lootbox mechanic is at least getting some attention, even if I worry this whole craze may become a runaway train.


I think microtransactions in the gaming industry is a realm where government regulation is sorely needed. I'm opposed to government overreach like the next guy, but in this situation, regulations are needed to protect children and adults from the dangers of gambling, just like with casinos. The gaming industry is highly unregulated, and while regulations aren't always a good thing, I don't see any other way to curb big corporations' predatory practices in games.


----------



## Garblant (Nov 22, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Nintendo will now get a medal for not engaging in this, with a long speech by some high ranking politician, Secretary of Treasury or even Trump. I'm just making stuff up.


_Remembers Pokemon duel_


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Lol, I hope EA gets sued


----------



## Bladexdsl (Nov 22, 2017)

linuxares said:


> Yus! Please let EU do the same!


and the rest of the world these are a cancer that needs to be stopped.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 22, 2017)

Yea WWE2K18 is loot box so thats why it might not be on switch yet


----------



## Meteor7 (Nov 22, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I think microtransactions in the gaming industry is a realm where government regulation is sorely needed. I'm opposed to government overreach like the next guy, but in this situation, regulations are needed to protect children and adults from the dangers of gambling, just like with casinos. The gaming industry is highly unregulated, and while regulations aren't always a good thing, I don't see any other way to curb big corporations' predatory practices in games.


It's not the regulations I'm against, at least not as they're being currently discussed, but the intentions and reasoning behind them that makes me uncomfortable. One of the arguments in a video put out by an official body of government really shouldn't be 'Hi I'm religion and we think this is devilry.', you know? It just... doesn't sit right. It makes me concerned that they aren't truly understanding the issue, or going about introducing these regulations for all the right reasons, and that it could easily turn into something harmful down the line just by way of that ignorance and misdirection. Then again, perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 22, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> It's not the regulations I'm against, at least not as they're being currently discussed, but the intentions and reasoning behind them that makes me uncomfortable. One of the arguments in a video put out by an official body of government really shouldn't be 'Hi I'm religion and we think this is devilry.', you know? It just... doesn't sit right. It makes me concerned that they aren't going about introducing these regulations for all the right reasons, and that it could easily turn into something harmful down the line just by way of that ignorance and misdirection. Then again, perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.


That wasn't an official government body. After Representative Chris Lee spoke, the people who followed are just everyday citizens. Moms and church leaders. They're put in front of the podium to give wider appeal to their message. Y'know, to speak to families and people's morality to support the new legislation. Again, only the first person who spoke is actually with the government.

I think the intentions are right. Perhaps you misinterpreted, thinking the other people were also representatives?


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 22, 2017)

Garblant said:


> _Remembers Pokemon duel_



Meh, I don't know about that. It's more on TPC than Nintendo I think.


----------



## Garblant (Nov 22, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Meh, I don't know about that. It's more on TPC than Nintendo I think.


Oh yeah, when it comes to mobile games, TPC isn't afraid of inlcuding stuff like IAP's or things that nearly make games p2w.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

Oh my gosh the Facebook Mom targeted ad campaign worked


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 22, 2017)

I feel all good inside. Hopefully this leads to more regulation on bad gaming practices. Now if only we could get more of this for Net Neutrality.

That said, depending on hard they go, this could effect mobile too. That's including games like Fire Hero Emblem and Pocket Camp. I'm not sure how far I want them to take this.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

Too good to be True


----------



## PrincessLillie (Nov 22, 2017)

Yet another situation where people take video games too seriously smh


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 22, 2017)

Lol. I remember raising that gambling legality in the thread where everyone was complaining about lootboxes. If I had actually contacted authorities about it, I would've feel so proud of myself right now (but alas...I gotta admit I don't care enough about people dumb enough to buy EA games to want to help them).



Meteor7 said:


> It's not the regulations I'm against, at least not as they're being currently discussed, but the intentions and reasoning behind them that makes me uncomfortable. One of the arguments in a video put out by an official body of government really shouldn't be 'Hi I'm religion and we think this is devilry.', you know? It just... doesn't sit right. It makes me concerned that they aren't truly understanding the issue, or going about introducing these regulations for all the right reasons, and that it could easily turn into something harmful down the line just by way of that ignorance and misdirection. Then again, perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.


I understand what you mean. Gambling isn't "just" a problem for minors or families. In fact, I think extra credits had a video on whales (=the name of the target group who spend way too much money on a single game) where they point out that singles are actually more likely to become gambling victims than children (they have more money and time, and aren't supervised). Despite this, this regulation and/or ban apparently only helps them by accident.



sks316 said:


> Yet another situation where people take video games too seriously smh


Have you ever seen someone with a real gambling addiction? I have, and it's not pretty. And even though I've only seen one (maybe more, but one I vividly remember), it's enough to have these sorts of legislations. That person would literally gamble away all she had if she was given the chance. She didn't exactly LIKE to gamble anymore, but it had become an urge she could only really stop by not going to places where gambling was allowed. For people like her, I would prohibit games involving gambling (with real money).


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't know how to feel about this, I'm glad they are doing something for regulating loot boxes and exposing ea predatory behavior; however, games like overwatch or other games which use lootboxes enjoyably could get in trouble and banned in certain countries were it didn't needed it to.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Nov 22, 2017)

https://www.twitch .tv/videos/182251739 (Cannot get the link to function correctly due to some sort of something here on GBATemp.)

I saw this video a month ago and it really resonated with me in how exploitative the lootbox system is becoming. I fully agree that it's reached a point of needing regulations as it has more than evolved past shallow addiction fueling behavior into something that affects someone's real world more than just in the amount of time they spend enthralled by a single game.


----------



## Joom (Nov 22, 2017)

As much as I despise this mechanic in gaming, this is just GTA all over again. Now instead of killing hookers, video games are "teaching" kids to gamble. Rather than there being intervention and education from the parents they just flock to these lobbyists, because it's much more convenient to go out on a witch hunt against the boogeyman instead of admitting they failed at parenting. It's absolutely disgusting that people take no responsibility for this crap. How did little Jimmy acquire the means to pay for these loot boxes? Did Mommy maybe give him her credit card? That's the game's fault, though, right?


----------



## Deboog (Nov 22, 2017)

"It's a trap."

Lmfao he actually said that.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 22, 2017)

Deboog said:


> "It's a trap."
> 
> Lmfao he actually said that.


Ikr? Best part of the press conference xD


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2017)

This won't matter in the least if net neutrality gets repealed.  It'll be like EA runs your ISP in the US.


----------



## linuxares (Nov 22, 2017)

Bladexdsl said:


> and the rest of the world these are a cancer that needs to be stopped.


I totally agree! But if a big market as the EU stops this, it would probably spread around. It needs to start somewhere and Belgium might just be the tipping point that we all asked for


----------



## mileyrock2 (Nov 22, 2017)

what about gachas


----------



## Hells Malice (Nov 22, 2017)

I ain't gonna jump down this rabbit hole, but i'll dip my toe in.

As much as lootboxes can be absolute shit, this really just is another case of a bunch of people with no fucking clue what they're talking about jumping balls deep into an issue. The keywords used make that more than obvious. Especially when the word "parents" gets involved.
Lets be honest. Loot boxes don't do fuck all to "muh children". They're targeted at working adults, either with a gambling addiction, poor attention spans, or the biggest target being whales, who are just people who make a lot of money and can drop it on games for various reasons. Adults who should be able to make decisions. Yes, it prays on people with gambling addictions...and so does a lot of things. They should get help.

It's kinda funny that this blew up because of Battlefront 2, which has a pretty horrible lootbox not anywhere near worth the money. The biggest controversy for that garbage fire was paying for heroes, but that was just content gating behind a paywall. None of it was pay2win. Every person I see playing the game agrees the lootboxes are shit and you're better off just playing the game to get things. The heroes were the only issue, and they didn't give any advantage, you start with heroes to use. They're just exploiting fans. Not good, but yeah. Nothing to do with lootboxes, gambling, or p2w.

This could hurt a lot of legitimate games, like Overwatch, Fortnite and Hearthstone off the top of my head. None of which are made bad by their microtransactions or lootboxes.
Most likely it wont go anywhere, but who knows. Parents are goddamn crazy.


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 22, 2017)

good. we need regulation on this shitty loot box epidemic. I hope it hits every game with exploitative random-chance boxes. sorry, overwatch's reward and loot box systems suck.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Nov 22, 2017)

I see it more of an overarching issue of the addictive qualities of time-sink gaming. Playing a game should be because the game is fun, not because you're being led into collecting more of something. It was bad enough (and I fell victim to it, too) in games like Diablo 2, but from all of what I've seen in the Lootbox genre, ESPECIALLY with Blizzard's games, they are not a good or healthy thing no matter how they are executed. We need fewer games whose goal it is to suck up every ounce of your time. Stepping on Lootboxes is a good start to that, in my opinion.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 22, 2017)

Even if you believe this is going overboard, it's better to be safe rather than sorry when it comes to an addiction like gambling


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> It's not the regulations I'm against, at least not as they're being currently discussed, but the intentions and reasoning behind them that makes me uncomfortable. One of the arguments in a video put out by an official body of government really shouldn't be 'Hi I'm religion and we think this is devilry.', you know? It just... doesn't sit right. It makes me concerned that they aren't truly understanding the issue, or going about introducing these regulations for all the right reasons, and that it could easily turn into something harmful down the line just by way of that ignorance and misdirection. Then again, perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.


That reminds me about the thing that happend in arabian countries with pokemon... "this is EVIL!!" I mean, when religious ppl try to force their opinion on others, without really thinking if thats a good idea, thats just wrong... "its bad because god said so" then an example of a thing that has nothing to do with that just to justify banning it, all because thats new and nobody wanna mess with it...


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Nov 22, 2017)

this is good stuff, i applaud them.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

Y'know, I thought loot boxes were ok when they were just cosmetic, but now after thinking about it, I just don't like the idea of them no matter how they're executed. It's still gambling, and it can still lead to a gambling addiction.


----------



## ov3rkill (Nov 22, 2017)

I'm sure they're now brainstorming on ways on how to circumvent this rules or perhaps make more money besides lootboxes and DLCs. Their creative and marketing departments are probably having a meeting right now.


----------



## Snoogins757 (Nov 22, 2017)

About time Its time to bring gaming back to its roots with competitive gaming everyone should be at a level playing field nobody should have the upper hand unless you've earned it ie halo being the first to get to the rocket launcher. Micro transactions should be outright banned and dlcs should go through some form of quality control I get paying for say a whole new campaign but the last few years the whole dlc market has got way too greedy!!!


----------



## jimmyleen (Nov 22, 2017)

DKB said:


> guess overwatch is losing _more_ players



That's what happens when you play with fire.

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



ov3rkill said:


> I'm sure they're now brainstorming on ways on how to circumvent this rules or perhaps make more money besides lootboxes and DLCs. Their creative and marketing departments are probably having a meeting right now.



Fine but more people will stay away from those games if company's resist any form of law.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 22, 2017)

Why is it that when there's a good thing, there's another along with it? First FCC (yes, I think that's a good thing, too complicated to explain here), now they are making loot boxes illegal! It was about time, people let companies like EA do whatever they wanted! While this is good and all, it's at least 2 years late... In my opinion, loot boxes shouldn't exist unless they are earned EXCLUSIVELY as rewards for playing (eg: a box every day you check in or if you play at least once a day for one week or something), while micro-transactions should have a limit, same for DLC. For micro-transactions for example, say, you have a spending limit of 30$ or around half the full price of the game IF there should even be any. As for DLCs, they should cost proportionately to how long it takes to beat them compared to the actual game (eg: if normal game is 20 hours and costs 40$, a DLC that takes about 4 hours should be at 8$, not 50$)! Welp, that's my opinion in all this, make gaming great again!


----------



## xBleedingSoulx (Nov 22, 2017)

This is good news and has long been coming. The rest of the world needs to step up and do the same.


----------



## The_Hulkster (Nov 22, 2017)

It's interesting how no one mentions Rocket League.
They've been doing the loot boxes for quite a while too, although the things that can be gained from it won't boost your in game skills.

Are they subject to the new law as well?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

May EA rest in pepperoni.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Nov 22, 2017)

I think there's more to it than the awards themselves, it's also how they are presented. That slot-machine-esqeue reward system exists as it does for a reason, and it's a 'gambling' thing within casinos for those same reasons. There's a subtle difference in psychology between the noisy clamor of a lootbox roll versus the simple flair of opening a treasure chest or killing a monster. Well, perhaps it's not all that subtle of a difference, yet people still seem to welcome it with open arms. *sighs*


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't really have anything against microtransactions at their core, but they're getting out of hand. It's good that someone's finally taking action against them.
It's when microtransactions become pay to win that I have a problem with them. If they're only for cosmetic items, or items you can still get through regular gameplay relatively easily, I don't mind them.


----------



## hiroakihsu (Nov 22, 2017)

Finally...I hope, albeit unlikely, that this will be the beginning of the downfall of EA (although I think DICE will most likely become the scapegoat for this just like Visceral did)...I'd also like to see this cleanup spread to mobile gaming too someday.


----------



## SkittleDash (Nov 22, 2017)

I say loot boxes in Free to Play games are justified since... Well, how else would they get their money. But in games that you've pretty much spent your payroll on? Fuck that. I'm behind these people to ban this bullshit. Right now, I want to watch EA burn.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 22, 2017)

SkittleDash said:


> I say loot boxes in Free to Play games are justified since... Well, how else would they get their money. But in games that you've pretty much spent your payroll on? Fuck that. I'm behind these people to ban this bullshit. Right now, I want to watch EA burn.


Even in Free to Play games I find loot boxes bad. In those games, micro-transactions are better, as you are paying for what you want, no gambling or rigged drop-tables involved.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 22, 2017)

Belgium saves  the day


----------



## gamesquest1 (Nov 22, 2017)

honestly I think this is yet another example of greedy bastards ruining what could have been fine if they weren't used aggressively.

unfortunately these greedy people will just move onto the next scheme and people who were using these things in a not so bad way (although in all fairness 99% of lootbox schemes are bad) will be left struggling to justify themselves and jump through 101 new rules, but I'm sure the likes of EA will happily find the next way to strip down games and demand more money for what should just be included without getting caught up in the new regulations


----------



## xXDungeon_CrawlerXx (Nov 22, 2017)




----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 22, 2017)

Doesn't that also mean that most freemium games where you can pay for character and item summons would also be "gambling" or would they get away with it by making you purchase in game currency?

While I hate lazy cash grabs like Loot Boxes, I don't think that they should be classified as gambling and restricted for moral reasons. Otherwise anything that you pay for that relies on chance should be classified as gambling as well, and that would just be stupid.



Joom said:


> As much as I despise this mechanic in gaming, this is just GTA all over again. Now instead of killing hookers, video games are "teaching" kids to gamble. Rather than there being intervention and education from the parents they just flock to these lobbyists, because it's much more convenient to go out on a witch hunt against the boogeyman instead of admitting they failed at parenting. It's absolutely disgusting that people take no responsibility for this crap. How did little Jimmy acquire the means to pay for these loot boxes? Did Mommy maybe give him her credit card? That's the game's fault, though, right?


It'll always be like that because bad parents will always be focusing more on themselves than their children and don't want to be proactive in parenting. Instead of talking to their kids about the dangers of smoking and drugs they just want to blame the tobacco companies and media. Or blame TV because their kid does something stupid instead of disciplining their child and not letting them watch certain things. Or blaming society because you're teenager acts like a shit head. Now they're just blaming games for teaching kids to gamble instead of just not letting their kids play these games or buy these items. That's the problem with western society, certain things are made so taboo that lazy parents try to dump their responsibilities on other people.


hiroakihsu said:


> Finally...I hope, albeit unlikely, that this will be the beginning of the downfall of EA (although I think DICE will most likely become the scapegoat for this just like Visceral did)...I'd also like to see this cleanup spread to mobile gaming too someday.


Then we won't have any good free to play mobile games because there won't be any money in it. There will just be the same shitty casual games that sell things that "help" you like boosts or are just add supported. Quality games will end up being pricey because they can't make their money back without things like luck based microtransactions in certain games (anything with summoning and equipment) or the microtransactions will be small things like a level boost that people probably won't buy.

People should just take responsibility for their own actions instead of making someone the boogeyman and starting some which hunt.


----------



## SkittleDash (Nov 22, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Even in Free to Play games I find loot boxes bad. In those games, micro-transactions are better, as you are paying for what you want, no gambling or rigged drop-tables involved.



Yeah, I guess that's true. I only know a select few Free to Play games that use gambling features. But our main focus are games that we paid for. Getting drops in Overwatch is going to get very slow. Then again, their drops doesn't give an advantage to the player.


----------



## SnAQ (Nov 22, 2017)

Great news! 

Sent from my F8331 via Tapatalk


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2017)

SkittleDash said:


> I say loot boxes in Free to Play games are justified since... Well, how else would they get their money. But in games that you've pretty much spent your payroll on? Fuck that. I'm behind these people to ban this bullshit. Right now, I want to watch EA burn.


I think there needs to be a clarification on the types of such things available as there is kind of a 4 way thing.

1) Cosmetic and alternative play styles, maybe even exclusive play styles. Cosmetic is obvious. Alternative play is things like if damage per second is king someone that dropped some cash on your game maybe gets one with the same dps but faster than another but lower damage, or maybe it is truly new and allows you to play as a medic as the gun heals people where that is not an option for the basic game. Balance for this sort of thing can be hard, and that is before you consider the somewhat esoteric stuff (if I realise my opponents are a bunch of cheap bastards I know they won't have a healer and I can reduce the number of things I need to consider/guard against).
2) Pay to win. You pay, you get better stuff than is available (or reasonably available -- 300 hours or $3 for this gun sort of thing). This can also include being able to buy in game resources which send you over the top. Where the old style coin op insert to continue/pay for extra lives thing falls is tricky, especially for a single player game/only leaderboard game, but it is more this than not. Equally pay to finish the game/access final areas (various Korean mmos were noted for this), join these sub areas (I saw that on some minecraft servers once) and similar such things can also be tricky depending upon what is walled off and how (if you have a happy hour/weekend raid that all/first few hundred can join or mid week paid then that could work from where I sit).
3) No transfer. You get what you will for that account. Items might reset at the end of a play session, maybe a period if all levels are reset every few months, or be able to be lent for a round or something.
4) Item transfer available. You can trade it with others on a permanent basis and thus facilitate transactions.

Said item transfer is the main thing that gets this anywhere close to justifiably being called gambling. You transfer it to a third party bot service and then can wager it, sell it or similar.

If someone wants to spunk $1000 on skins for their character then more fool them. If for whatever reason it is really getting to be a problem (right now gambling discussion in the UK is about various machines and limiting the max bet and amount per hour) I can see a path to limiting it a bit. 
At the same time I don't have a problem with mixed monetisation strategies, though I will certain judge your game accordingly if you do try layering such things on top of your full price game and encourage others to do the same.
Actually to expand on the bracketed thing I was playing battlefield 4 the other week; for levelling, using certain weapons enough to level them and so forth you get battle packs which contain skins for weapons and characters and weapon mods, said mods maybe not obtainable by any other means than the packs. You could buy said packs if you wanted, and there was also an option to unlock everything (including weapons) by paying. The timing was such that a session or two could see you unlock things, and maybe with new weapons keep it somewhat fresh (I unlocked a semi auto sniper rifle which was like a more powerful dmr but could also use real scopes, accuracy was not great and damage was less than a big boy sniper rifle but allowed me to play in a somewhat different way), and the only way someone else could use my weapons were if they killed me/found my corpse and took it.
Back to the in game resources there are ways to blur the lines a bit -- I once played a web browser based medieval city building thing (not quite a civilisation clone but you would not be far off). It had daily logins to get a certain type of resource (which was used for boosts like quick build, temporary increase food supply...), but you could also pay for it. They also did monthly contests for people to do in game challenges (find this thing we hid, do a tour of this area, surprise invasion by hostile creatures so please help wipe them out...) to maybe get some resources for either their guild or just them.

Personally you will never catch me paying for anything like this, indeed any game I can't reasonably play because of such things I would consider broken at its core, but if it is a model which some want to try then so it goes, and people do seem to like paying for and otherwise enjoying cosmetic things of limited use so eh.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 22, 2017)

I guarantee a bunch of the people taking a moral stance against gambling have played poker (and made bets) or buy lottery tickets.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 22, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> I guarantee a bunch of the people taking a moral stance against gambling have played poker (and made bets) or buy lottery tickets.


People are not taking a stance against gambling but gambling in a triple A game. Big difference


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> I guarantee a bunch of the people taking a moral stance against gambling have played poker (and made bets) or buy lottery tickets.


It's not so much about a moral stand, more about that if it is gambling you should specify it is gambling, hold the corresponding licence, pay the corresponding taxes, make your products/services unavailable/restricted for people under allowed gambling age.

PS: So yes, if it is considered gambling in Europe it will mean any game with lootboxes must be rated at least PEGI 18 (equivalent to ESRB AO), the users buying loot boxes must be above 18/21, the corresponding companies should advertise it as gambling, they should pay a lot more taxes (up to 90% tax), and acquire a licence.


----------



## linuxares (Nov 22, 2017)

The_Hulkster said:


> It's interesting how no one mentions Rocket League.
> They've been doing the loot boxes for quite a while too, although the things that can be gained from it won't boost your in game skills.
> 
> Are they subject to the new law as well?


I got plenty of times but people for some reason for gives this game a pass like it's the next coming of Jesus. They fucked up once they locked the cars. Before it was just cosmetic.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 22, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Nintendo will now get a medal for not engaging in this, with a long speech by some high ranking politician, Secretary of Treasury or even Trump. I'm just making stuff up.


Fire Emblem Heroes has loot boxes though lol


----------



## wolfmankurd (Nov 22, 2017)

Holy fuck, as much as I hate legislation of this nature. It is definitely needed. EA isn't even the worst.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 22, 2017)

Joom said:


> As much as I despise this mechanic in gaming, this is just GTA all over again. Now instead of killing hookers, video games are "teaching" kids to gamble. Rather than there being intervention and education from the parents they just flock to these lobbyists, because it's much more convenient to go out on a witch hunt against the boogeyman instead of admitting they failed at parenting. It's absolutely disgusting that people take no responsibility for this crap. How did little Jimmy acquire the means to pay for these loot boxes? Did Mommy maybe give him her credit card? That's the game's fault, though, right?


Sorry, but I have to disagree on this analogy. Strictly speaking, you never run over actual hookers (or humans, for that matter...or drive a car) in GTA. These are pixelated icons. There has been quite some (even understandable) fear that people (and specifically children) can't tell the difference between real and virtual, but this is for the most part not a concern: even children can distinguish what is real and what is not.

Lootboxes paid for with real money, on the other hand, is gambling. It is not "gambling" between brackets, and it's not "teaching" between brackets either. There's real money involved, there's an actual randomness mechanic and there is a real winning and losing scenario (meaning: you might get the stuff you want or you might not). These are the elements that make something gambling, and the fact that it is practiced within a game doesn't change that fact.

I'm not sure on the situation in Hawaii, but in Belgium, you simply aren't allowed in casino's as a minor*. As such, this isn't a new law in any form: it's just that video games can't just ignore it because they're a video game.

And aren't you a bit quick to blame parents? Failed parenting, no less. Why? Because parents don't check mechanics of games that aren't even the main core of either the mechanics or the storyline? I wasn't the first one to notice the similarities between gambling and lootboxes, but I'm sure a lot of gamers wouldn't recognize it as gambling either.

Finally: you claim that putting lootboxes under the same regulations as gambling somehow denies responsibilities from the gamers (and parents). I disagree with that as well. For a large part, regulations serve as a way to make people aware as well as shield themselves from malicious use of certain practices. Gambling can be very addicting and cost quite a lot, which is precisely the reason why it's regulated. But in the end, it really comes down to parents and peers to make sure what these can be, and how it's dealt with. The regulation just plays the part of warning of what it is.
Oh, and for the last part: nowadays it's almost harder to tell your computer to FORGET payment information than to keep it. So Mommy didn't _gave_ little Jimmy her credit card and Jimmy didn't steal it either...but in more than a few instances, that information was already known to the computer because mommy shopped something online earlier.




*at least not since I was young (and even then, I seriously doubt I could've put more than a few pennies in slot machines**)
**to my knowledge, all these machines now work with chips you have to buy in advance.

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



ov3rkill said:


> I'm sure they're now brainstorming on ways on how to circumvent this rules or perhaps make more money besides lootboxes and DLCs. Their creative and marketing departments are probably having a meeting right now.


Depends on who the "they" is, really. EA and Dice have made battlefront, but in the end it's Disney who owns the franchise. And I'm fairly sure they do NOT want to be associated with "a Star Wars-themed online casino".


----------



## THEELEMENTKH (Nov 22, 2017)

Funny how PEGI considered the casinos on pokemon games gambling but just now they realised that lootboxes are real gambling


----------



## leon315 (Nov 22, 2017)

Republic of China is the 1st country bans loot box system in Overwatch, guys THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT who really protects its children like a mother does!
What a visionary!


----------



## netovsk (Nov 22, 2017)

Nice now Overwatch will stagnate and die. It was nice getting new heroes and maps while it lasted.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 22, 2017)

The government is trying to declare this as "gambling" so it can tax it. This is disgusting.


----------



## Zense (Nov 22, 2017)

I'm so tired of reading about this microtransaction stuff. I guess it hasn't bothered me since I rarely play any games with MTs in them. Pay-to-win sucks, but paying for cosmetics or random stuff just sounds like buying pokemon card packs to me, which I have a hard time calling gambling.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> The government is trying to declare this as "gambling" so it can tax it. This is disgusting.


Tell me why it isn't gambling in this instance?

Funds involved, kind kind of reward given, transactions between people able to be done, said transactions (third party or not matters in some ways but few of the fundamental ones -- it does not matter if you do paper cash or a secure transaction online), random elements in some cases... seems like gambling as it tends to be defined to me. How, or possibly if, we should restrict such things have a lot of scope for debate but going from the definitions commonly accepted it is pretty clear.


----------



## APartOfMe (Nov 22, 2017)

this is great! i hope it happens in other countries as well. loot boxes are cancer


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> Tell me why it isn't gambling in this instance?
> 
> Funds involved, kind kind of reward given, transactions between people able to be done, said transactions (third party or not matters in some ways but few of the fundamental ones -- it does not matter if you do paper cash or a secure transaction online), random elements in some cases... seems like gambling as it tends to be defined to me. How, or possibly if, we should restrict such things have a lot of scope for debate but going from the definitions commonly accepted it is pretty clear.


You ARE guaranteed to get SOMETHING though. This isn't like a casino where you put $500 in, lose, then walk away with nothing. By definition? Sure. Realistically? It's petty.

Am I supporting loot boxes? No. I don't care for them. Never buy em. Cuz there's an option not to.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 22, 2017)

Hooray! This is welcome news, and hopefully it progresses. I hated that whole "arcade badge" system of nintendos, made me furious they were marketing such blatant gambling to kids.

I'm curious how to see the unusually high anti-regulation sentiment in this forum will react to this news.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> Hooray! This is welcome news, and hopefully it progresses.
> 
> I'm curious how to see the unusually high anti-regulation sentiment in this forum will react to this news.


I'm more curious as to how this will affect games like Overwatch..


----------



## SLiV3R (Nov 22, 2017)

Hmm. What is a lootbox excatly? Heartstones card packs?
Clash Royales magical chests?


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I'm more curious as to how this will affect games like Overwatch..


There will be ways to change the system so it doesn't qualify as gambling, though you're right...who knows how much they'll have to change the current system. It could be a simple matter of "every xth crate guaranteed x kind of thing", with chances for x before that number is reached. Or maybe a choice of which item? Not sure if that'd fix things or not though.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

osaka35 said:


> There will be ways to change the system so it doesn't qualify as gambling, though you're right...who knows how much they'll have to change the current system. It could be a simple matter of "every xth crate guaranteed x kind of thing", with chances for x before that number is reached. Not sure if that'd fix things or not though.


From the sounds of things though.. Overwatch partially relies on paid boxes. If those are banned are deemed as gambling, changing it so every xth box guarantees this or that may not fix it.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

leon315 said:


> Republic of China is the 1st country bans loot box system in Overwatch, guys THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT who really protects its children like a mother does!
> What a visionary!


It protects not the children, but all of its population. /s
(In China gambling is outright illegal for everyone)

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



Haloman800 said:


> The government is trying to declare this as "gambling" so it can tax it. This is disgusting.


It is exactly the case, but I find it amusing, far from disgusting.
(gmabling should always be extra-over-taxed IMHO)

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



Memoir said:


> You ARE guaranteed to get SOMETHING though. This isn't like a casino where you put $500 in, lose, then walk away with nothing. By definition? Sure. Realistically? It's petty.
> 
> Am I supporting loot boxes? No. I don't care for them. Never buy em. Cuz there's an option not to.


But even in a casino, you put some coins and get out warranted with a nice display of rotating slots. You get what you pay for, it is a service. /s


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> It protects not the children, but all of its population. /s
> (In China gambling is outright illegal for everyone)
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



It's not the risk or reward.. It's the experience.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You ARE guaranteed to get SOMETHING though. This isn't like a casino where you put $500 in, lose, then walk away with nothing. By definition? Sure. Realistically? It's petty.


I was thinking more the ability to trade in them over a controlled market (their servers, all secured with passwords and such) which in turn makes them a de facto if not currency then medium of exchange. Likewise there are some places with a minimum payout. Equally if the official exchange for/surrender value of the skins is 0 (ever noticed why some coupons have an exchange value of hundredths of a cent?*) and selling could be said to be discouraged (tricky as most of the cases I see are for spamming/in game advertising, and maybe botting, than outright selling -- you know, I know, the lawyers know but because of some quirk of law...)

*many many years ago I remember reading a review of a magic the gathering game with an online mode in which one could buy virtual cards, indeed it might be a nice proto example of some of these concepts, and said purchase attracted tax.
Edit found it http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/33249-i-lightning-bolt-your-order-of-leitbur-review . 2002 it was... thought it was earlier than that.

I am a bit hazy on the specifics of this game so I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time some law making type went off half cocked, maybe padding out with emotional nonsense, when there are or indeed have been far better targets (see videos below) but as most here seem to be thinking of the "typical" excesses we have seen several times now I will play to that for now



If they wanted to stop the non tradeable skin random chance thing, even more so if it was more a shortcut than a gated thing, then my baseline would be hostile and they would need to bring serious ammo/evidence of harm in either enough general or certain specific cases (think banning peanuts in school lunch rooms) and I am not sure there would be any of the latter.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

I have never purchased a "lootbox" in any game.
Especially not if I can get it by normal gameplay.


----------



## leon315 (Nov 22, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> It protects not the children, but all of its population. /s
> (In China gambling is outright illegal for everyone)



man, u r right! chinese's gov. forbids all sorts of gambling to protect its main land's population, and from the beginning, they 've already considered and banned 'loot boxes'' system found in Overwatch as a form of online lottery YEAR AGO, THEY truly outsmart those usa monkeys.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> I was thinking more the ability to trade in them over a controlled market (their servers, all secured with passwords and such) which in turn makes them a de facto if not currency then medium of exchange. Likewise there are some places with a minimum payout. Equally if the official exchange for/surrender value of the skins is 0 (ever noticed why some coupons have an exchange value of hundredths of a cent?*) and selling could be said to be discouraged (tricky as most of the cases I see are for spamming/in game advertising, and maybe botting, than outright selling -- you know, I know, the lawyers know but because of some quirk of law...)
> 
> *many many years ago I remember reading a review of a magic the gathering game with an online mode in which one could buy virtual cards, indeed it might be a nice proto example of some of these concepts, and said purchase attracted tax.
> Edit found it http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/33249-i-lightning-bolt-your-order-of-leitbur-review . 2002 it was... thought it was earlier than that.
> ...




It's a tricky topic.. That's for sure. My mind is janked right now.


----------



## wolfmankurd (Nov 22, 2017)

I hope they do gain the burden of being gambling.

IMHO the end result of loot boxes is games designed to sell loot boxes which hamper the fun of people who don't want them.

For example the star wars game will suck if every 13 year old has Vader and I don't because EA are greedy fucks.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Nov 22, 2017)

Imagine the absolute *chaos and commotion and EA's headquarters right now,* with people being fired left and right, some pulling their hair out and others jumping out the windows.

*You had it coming* for a long time EA. Not just you. But you by far deserved it the most.

Ha.


----------



## wolfmankurd (Nov 22, 2017)

WhiteMaze said:


> Imagine the absolute *chaos and commotion and EA's headquarters right now,* with people being fired left and right, some pulling their hair out and others jumping out the windows.
> 
> *You had it coming* for a long time EA. Not just you. But you by far deserved it the most.
> 
> Ha.


Don't think any of that is happening.

Do we even have any data on loss of EA preorders compared to usual?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

WhiteMaze said:


> Imagine the absolute *chaos and commotion and EA's headquarters right now,* with people being fired left and right, some pulling their hair out and others jumping out the windows.
> 
> *You had it coming* for a long time EA. Not just you. But you by far deserved it the most.
> 
> Ha.


I can only imagine their lawyers finally working their asses off for their salaries, and their overworked lobbyists sucking VIPs' dicks all around, I wonder if they will achieve anything.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Nov 22, 2017)

wolfmankurd said:


> Don't think any of that is happening.
> 
> Do we even have any data on loss of EA preorders compared to usual?



This *isn't about* pre-orders or number of copies sold.

This is about where the *real money *is. It is fair to say, that for the past few years the *majority *of profits can be seen with micro transactions and the free to play model. The sale of the original game probably accounts for a small percentage of the profit a title makes. Games like* CS GO *or *Dota 2 *are *prime *examples of this.

With this development, *not only *loot boxes but micro-transactions in general could end up being *banned in their entirety*. Which for companies like EA, would be the same as going back 10 years when all you could do was develop a good game 100% complete and hope it sells. No season passes. No useless quick cashgrab DLC's. No bullcrap.

That is what's scaring EA and other gaming companies *shitless *right now.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

WhiteMaze said:


> This *isn't about* pre-orders or number of copies sold.
> 
> This is about where the *real money *is. It is fair to say, that for the past few years the majority of profits can be seen with micro transactions and the free to play model. The sale of the original probably accounts for a small percentage of the profit a title makes. Games like CS GO or Dota 2 are prime examples of this.
> 
> ...


This would probably force more season passes, quick cash grab DLC, etc... Since they don't fall under loot boxes.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> This would probably force more season passes, quick cash grab DLC, etc... Since they don't fall under loot boxes.



We shall see. Either way, the *bad attention *these companies have on them right now is *unprecedented*. They have *already *been branded *illegal *gambling companies and *child predators*, and this thing has *only just started*. I feel the potential for this to turn into an absolute nightmare clusterfuck for companies could be very real and well over their heads.


----------



## RustInPeace (Nov 22, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Fire Emblem Heroes has loot boxes though lol



Okay. I was really just leaking stuff from the mind without any processing. I don't really play new video games unless it's Pokemon, and the exceptions are mostly Nintendo games, where I don't encounter loot boxes. I had to google the term, I don't know what it exactly means, shows how out of modern video games I am.


----------



## BORTZ (Nov 22, 2017)

Except Loot Boxes aren't gambling. 

Gambling requires wagering money. Since you aren't getting money back in exchange for loot boxes, technically this falls under "simulated gambling".
Gambling on something implies that you could lose it all and be left with nothing. Loot boxes, however shitty, still reward you with _something_. 

 However the ESRB does not even classify them as any form of gambling. If they were, games with said boxes would receive AO ratings and kill loot boxes all together.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

Wooo! Its about time someone did something about the scam that is the video game market these days. Loot boxes, DLC planned before release but still charged for, freemium, pay-to-win, etc..... I'm so sick of game companies getting away with all this crap. Sick of game them thinking its ok to charge $10-$15 for a skin. I mean seriously, that had to take devs what? 30 min? ...An hour tops? There are plenty of FULL GAMES that cost less.

This is a great step forward towards a better community / market!


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

BORTZ said:


> Except Loot Boxes aren't gambling.
> 
> Gambling requires wagering money. Since you aren't getting money back in exchange for loot boxes, technically this falls under "simulated gambling".
> Gambling on something implies that you could lose it all and be left with nothing. Loot boxes, however shitty, still reward you with _something_.
> ...


That's what I'm saying.


MadMageKefka said:


> Wooo! Its about time someone did something about the scam that is the video game market these days. Loot boxes, DLC planned before release but still charged for, freemium, pay-to-win, etc..... I'm so sick of game companies getting away with all this crap. Sick of game them thinking its ok to charge $10-$15 for a skin. I mean seriously, that had to take devs what? 30 min? ...An hour tops? There are plenty of FULL GAMES that cost less.
> 
> This is a great step forward towards a better community / market!


Devs charge for individual skins? At $10-15 a piece?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

BORTZ said:


> Except Loot Boxes aren't gambling.
> 
> Gambling requires wagering money. Since you aren't getting money back in exchange for loot boxes, technically this falls under "simulated gambling".
> Gambling on something implies that you could lose it all and be left with nothing. Loot boxes, however shitty, still reward you with _something_.
> ...


No, its the same scam being used on kids for generations now.

"Buy this mystery pack and see which action figures come inside! Bug your parents for more and more money until they finally break down and buy it at a hobby shop for $100, right before all the kids get bored with it and it becomes valueless."

Its wrong. They know kids will bug the living hell out of their parent until they get it. I agree that its not "gambling" per-se, but it is a disgusting business practice and its VERY close to gambling. Always has been.



Memoir said:


> Companies charge for individual skins? At $10-15 a piece?


Look at MOBAs. Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends, for example.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> No, its the same scam being used on kids for generations now.
> 
> "Buy this mystery pack and see which action figures come inside! Bug your parents for more and more money until they finally break down and buy it at a hobby shop for $100, right before all the kids get bored with it and it becomes valueless."
> 
> ...


In game or through a third party marketplace?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> In game or through a third party marketplace?


Both? Not 100% sure what you mean.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Both? Not 100% sure what you mean.



Do the devs charge for those items in game? Or do you pay for them through the likes of steam marketplace or some other third party website?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Do the devs charge for those items in game? Or do you pay for them through the likes of steam marketplace or some other third party website?


You mean the skins? Its in game. Buy directly from the company that made the game.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> You mean the skins? Its in game. Buy directly from the company that made the game.



I see. So, that's micro transactions then? Not loot boxes?


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I see. So, that's micro transactions then? Not loot boxes?


Yes.... but I never said it was loot boxes. It was included in a list of gaming industry common business practices that I find to be greedy / bad / scammy / whatever you wanna call it.


----------



## tunip3 (Nov 22, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> 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."
> 
> ...



I hope the company either gives away the stuff now or discloses how likely will it be that you get an item


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> the scam that is the video game market these days. Loot boxes, DLC planned before release but still charged for, freemium, pay-to-win, etc..... I'm so sick of game companies getting away with all this crap. Sick of game them thinking its ok to charge $10-$15 for a skin. I mean seriously, that had to take devs what? 30 min? ...An hour tops? There are plenty of FULL GAMES that cost less.



DLC before release at least when it is things like

I can stomach
Don't even mind on disc DLC -- plenty of other software models have it after all.
Speaking of software models I am OK with some aspects of the rolling release model and that can have implications here.

I have problems with them carving up games such that you are left with almost a shell of a game and then not expected to purchase the rest but moves purposely designed to maximise people buying in stuff like that.

Freemium is what it is. I can dismiss that as "if you don't like it then don't play".

Pay to win, which is to say those that paid end up with a fairly clear advantage over those that did not, I have problems with and happily call such games broken if you are going to call such things a test of skill. That said I don't know if I can get as far as calling it a scam.

The skins thing
You get things like
http://store.steampowered.com/dlc/24010/
Which may have rights issues associated with them. Fair enough really there.
Similarly skins which had the effort put in I can live with. The ones that are functionally the alt colours from the 16 bit era, or could be made in 20 seconds with a colour slider is not a scam in as much as it delivers what was asked for but certainly ranks up there with the "shit I touched" things you see at events where they drag a noted person into and give them a desk to sit behind.

You occasionally get a phrase along the lines of gambling is a tax on idiocy, or maybe a specific type of gambling. It feels like something similar could be made for many of these things.

In any case you are unlikely to find me buying into such things -- make a broken game and there will be thousands of other things out there to occupy my time.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> DLC before release at least when it is things like
> 
> I can stomach
> Don't even mind on disc DLC -- plenty of other software models have it after all.
> ...



Unfortunately, plenty of people DO buy that stuff, so it continues and we get less quality games, and more market flooding with cash-grab crap.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Unfortunately, plenty of people DO buy that stuff, so it continues and we get less quality games, and more market flooding with cash-grab crap.


Is market flooding a bad thing? There is more than sufficient space on virtual store fronts for all the games that want to be produced and means to by which to search/sort/categorise things.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Oh EA, never change


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

What the fuck is a lootbox


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> Is market flooding a bad thing? There is more than sufficient space on virtual store fronts for all the games that want to be produced and means to by which to search/sort/categorise things.


I think it is. Clutter is bad. Makes it tough for any small time dev / company to be noticed. My point with those types of things is more that they prey on addiction, or childrens tendency to ask for things a million times, though. My problem isnt so much the clutter, though I do personally dislike it. I feel this is getting a bit off topic now. More back to the point, I dont think loot crates are gambling, but I do think they are as close as they can legally be. You mat not end up with nothing, but you will probably end up with crap you didnt want. Its designed to make you pay again and again and again in order to TRY to get what you want, instead of just letting you buy it outright. I think thats a shitty way to "sell" your ip, and Im not sad to see it go.



StarTrekVoyager said:


> What the fuck is a lootbox


You pay real money for them and they give you random skins, items, or whatever else in game.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 22, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> Quality games will end up being pricey because they can't make their money back without things like luck based microtransactions in certain games (anything with summoning and equipment) or the microtransactions will be small things like a level boost that people probably won't buy.


Or they should simply rethink their budget and stop trying to scam people. Not that I think they aren't getting money back from just the games alone.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> What the fuck is a lootbox


I would recommend you watch some Jim Sterling. That would answer your question.
The Jimquisition has a ton of episodes on this topic, but I will post one of the more recent, from one week ago:


Of course, you can disregard my recommendation.


----------



## Deboog (Nov 22, 2017)

Joom said:


> As much as I despise this mechanic in gaming, this is just GTA all over again. Now instead of killing hookers, video games are "teaching" kids to gamble. Rather than there being intervention and education from the parents they just flock to these lobbyists, because it's much more convenient to go out on a witch hunt against the boogeyman instead of admitting they failed at parenting. It's absolutely disgusting that people take no responsibility for this crap. How did little Jimmy acquire the means to pay for these loot boxes? Did Mommy maybe give him her credit card? That's the game's fault, though, right?


It's so clearly gambling I don't even know where to start.

In GTA you kill fake hookers. In these games you spend REAL money to get something of VALUE, RANDOMLY. Saying this isn't gambling is like saying Pachinko in Japan isn't gambling because you win "prizes."


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

Deboog said:


> It's so clearly gambling I don't even know where to start.
> 
> In GTA you kill fake hookers. In these games you spend REAL money to get something of VALUE, RANDOMLY. Saying this isn't gambling is like saying Pachinko in Japan isn't gambling because you win "prizes."


But according to Japanese law, Pachinko isn't gambling, it is "amusement". All gambling is illegal in Japan. /s
(sad but true)


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 22, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> But according to Japanese law, Pachinko isn't gambling, it is "amusement". All gambling is illegal in Japan. /s
> (sad but true)


Reminds me of those claw/crane games.


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 22, 2017)

this was just uploaded so I feel I should post it here, since other jimquisition videos are here too.


----------



## Ritsuki (Nov 22, 2017)

I totally understand why they do that, but in this case trading card games are also gambling. Hell, even Candy Crush could be gambling. The problem is how those loot boxes are implemented.

IMHO, to be considered as gambling, you need a money to money transaction. Let me explain : when you go to a casino, you put money to make more money. In a game you put money to get random items.

There's also a thing called mathematical expectation, that you can calculate. Basically it tells you if in the long run you'll be winning or losing. Every single game in a casino has a negative mathematical expectation, which means the casino always win in the long term. In a game, you just give them money but you never get money in return. 

Now, some loot boxes can be unfair, I won't deny it. Some games play with that, and at this level I think we're closer to a scam than gambling. Now in some games, these boxes are only here for vanity items. In this case I don't see why it should be considered illegal, people are paying to get random items, they know they have only a certain amount of chance to get the item they want, and even if they get it, they're not going to get their money back. In gambling, that's one of the reasons people keep playing, they think they can beat the casino and become richer, which is not the case in games. You know you're just losing money whatever happens.


----------



## Osha (Nov 22, 2017)

Ritsuki said:


> in this case trading card games are also gambling


I'll just stick to this bit because I see it brought up very often for whatever reason. Difference between a lootbox and cards is that, first of all, one is digital while the other is physical.
Second, you can trade the cards you don't want for the one you may want, hence the "trading" in the name.
Finally, if trading doesn't work, you can always buy the card you want. Sure, it could be expensive, but at least the odds are 100%, unlike whatever EA and many other companies try to pull.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

Ritsuki said:


> IMHO, to be considered as gambling, you need a money to money transaction. Let me explain : when you go to a casino, you put money to make more money. In a game you put money to get random items.


Gambling is not just money for money, the prize can as well be almost any thing of value. At least in America, AFAIK, it would be considered gambling if the price is either money, something you can redeem for money, merchandise, or a service.
Is the content of a loot box any of those? Well, that should be answered by a court setting precedent.


----------



## Joom (Nov 22, 2017)

Deboog said:


> It's so clearly gambling I don't even know where to start.
> 
> In GTA you kill fake hookers. In these games you spend REAL money to get something of VALUE, RANDOMLY. Saying this isn't gambling is like saying Pachinko in Japan isn't gambling because you win "prizes."


Where did I say it wasn't? I'm saying that since kids are the concern here then maybe their parents shouldn't lend them their credit cards in the same sense that they probably shouldn't allow them to play mature video games (hence the GTA reference). 


Taleweaver said:


> Finally: you claim that putting lootboxes under the same regulations as gambling somehow denies responsibilities from the gamers (and parents).


No, I didn't claim that. I claimed that conveniently blaming game developers rather than thinking "huh, maybe my 12 year old shouldn't have my credit card information" is irresponsible.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 22, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> The government is trying to declare this as "gambling" so it can tax it. This is disgusting.


No it's not. I listened to what he had to say in Dutch and they're not. He said normally gambling is taxed by the goverment but they want to ban these lootbox thingies since minors can gamble on them. Belgium is making a problem out of it with all lootboxes. They're not making a problem out of micro Dlc because you know what you're getting but lootboxes be it  cosmetic or pay to win is a game of chance and since minors play games it isn't allowed because you need to be over 18 to gamble.   Good going, taking everything out of context


----------



## Ritsuki (Nov 22, 2017)

Osha said:


> I'll just stick to this bit because I see it brought up very often for whatever reason. Difference between a lootbox and cards is that, first of all, one is digital while the other is physical.
> Second, you can trade the cards you don't want for the one you may want, hence the "trading" in the name.
> Finally, if trading doesn't work, you can always buy the card you want. Sure, it could be expensive, but at least the odds are 100%, unlike whatever EA and many other companies try to pull.



You're right, but some loot boxes work like that. Should they be also banned ? Like I said in my post, when companies like EA do things like that, they really break the game experience, because you can't compete without buying loot boxes. If this is only for vanity items for example, why should that be a problem ? The items are not needed to play or to boost your skills, has no trading value, so basically the player knows he's just throwing money away.

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



sarkwalvein said:


> Gambling is not just money for money, the prize can as well be almost any thing of value. At least in America, AFAIK, it would be considered gambling if the price is either money, something you can redeem for money, merchandise, or a service.
> Is the content of a loot box any of those? Well, that should be answered by a court setting precedent.



Yeah but in this case we have to be on the same page as to what has value or not. IMHO if you get a service then it's not gambling because you're paying, and you get the service, in terms you've accepted. For example, there's a website where you can book an hotel for a very very low price. You just have to choose the city, but it will be randomly selected. Would you consider that as gambling or not ? Honestly, I wouldn't. I'm not defending EA, I actually hate loot boxes. I think microtransactions has nothing to do in video games.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 22, 2017)

So, I guess they won The Worst Company award again. lol Ok, maybe the second due to Net Neutrality.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 22, 2017)

Just sell items in game or dont, paying money on a gamble is a real shit thing to put in a game.


----------



## kehkou (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't get why USA, since I can just look out the window here and see a real casino, but if it is to ban microtransactions I'm all for it.


----------



## fluffykiwi (Nov 22, 2017)

The games companies just need to switch to telling gamers what the contents of the loot box will be to get around the gambling accusations.  They will still be able to target the game's addicts, just not so brazenly taking their money and not delivering anything they want to buy in the "random" lootbox, forcing multiple purchases on those desperate for certain items.

They are not random when the company can set the odds on certain contents. Paying cash only for a *chance* to get a desired item is gambling, but paying cash for a specific item is a sale.

I personally do not even want to see microtransactions within games, even for cosmetic items, although most argue this is acceptable to generate additional revenue for the producers. I feel this targets vulnerable people who are addicted to certain games. 

When you read about people spending hundreds of dollars in a game like Marvel Heroes, within a few months of the console version becoming available, I find it hard to avoid feeling that person is an addict. Nevermind the shitstorm that the game closing and them ending up with nothing produces.

I personally have a tendency to want to collect everything within games I love. Luckily I'm now mature enough now not to be spending money within games for additional digital content. 
In the past I've had my own problems with my own addictive tendencies


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

kehkou said:


> I don't get why USA, since I can just look out the window here and see a real casino, but if it is to ban microtransactions I'm all for it.


Depends where in USA. some places, Massachusetts, for example, have very strict gambling laws.


----------



## Polopop123 (Nov 22, 2017)

Step in the right direction


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 22, 2017)

this thread is funny! HA! Alot of people in this thread over the summer said they rather have loot boxes from EA then pay for non-cosmetic multiplayer dlc. Now you are bitching about how unfair the loot boxes are. Ha. Hypocrites, hypocrites everywhere. You were warned by supporting loot boxes, eventually they would screw you over. I don't feel sorry for any adults who willingly have purchased more then 50 bucks on loot boxes or digital cash to buy loot boxes.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 22, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> this thread is funny! HA! Alot of people in this thread over the summer said they rather have loot boxes from EA then pay for non-cosmetic multiplayer dlc. Now you are bitching about how unfair the loot boxes are. Ha. Hypocrites, hypocrites everywhere. You were warned by supporting loot boxes, eventually they would screw you over. I don't feel sorry for any adults who willingly have purchased more then 50 bucks on loot boxes or digital cash to buy loot boxes.


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.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 22, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Or they should simply rethink their budget and stop trying to scam people. Not that I think they aren't getting money back from just the games alone.


If you're already told the prize is random it's not a scam. You're not being misled in any way. If there aren't any microtransactions then we'll just get more casual shit like candy crush amd city building games. While summoning and paying for random equipment is gimmicky you're not forced to do it and you're already told it's random. If we don't have microtransactions any decent mobile games will be the $20+ Square Enix ports and games.


Ritsuki said:


> I totally understand why they do that, but in this case trading card games are also gambling. Hell, even Candy Crush could be gambling. The problem is how those loot boxes are implemented.
> 
> IMHO, to be considered as gambling, you need a money to money transaction. Let me explain : when you go to a casino, you put money to make more money. In a game you put money to get random items.



Exactly. If you're trying to define gambling as getting something for being luck based then you have to include things like trading card games and raffles. Hell, the cards are prizes would have actual value making them closer to gambling than a loot box is. There's also the fact that they're completely optional and you don't have to let your kids buy them. If they require a credit card then they're probably intended for adults or people with permission from parents to buy them. So you're not protecting kids who can't buy them without permission to begin with.


----------



## Ritsuki (Nov 22, 2017)

Well, it looks like it was a fake news : https://twitter.com/JVCom/status/933472669466423296 (source in french)

EDIT : Another source tells that it was not necessarily against loot boxes, they're just looking into it, but it's definitely not illegal right now. Source : http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 23, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> If you're already told the prize is random it's not a scam. You're not being misled in any way. If there aren't any microtransactions then we'll just get more casual shit like candy crush amd city building games. While summoning and paying for random equipment is gimmicky you're not forced to do it and you're already told it's random. If we don't have microtransactions any decent mobile games will be the $20+ Square Enix ports and games.


EA probably thought the same thing, now look at the trouble they have now. Besides, not everyone follows gaming like this. Poor business practices and people are trying to defend them. Wasn't even talking about mobile. Talking about these bigger games, especially these $60, that are being even more exploitive than mobile games themselves.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 23, 2017)

Can someone link me to that famous reddit post with the world record of downvote please?
Thanks


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 23, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> Can someone link me to that famous reddit post with the world record of downvote please?
> Thanks


https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBa...id_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/?context=3

Enjoy, good sir.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBa...id_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/?context=3
> 
> Enjoy, good sir.


I like how they are straight forward with EA lol just looking at the first comment. Im gunna enjoy reading the rest of that. Bookem danno comment lol.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 23, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBa...id_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/?context=3
> 
> Enjoy, good sir.


oh boy, now i see where all the anger comes from
thanks


----------



## Xiphiidae (Nov 23, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> ~snip~


Good. It's pathetic how representations of gambling (e.g. Game Corners in Pokémon) are deemed unsuitable to be in video games while what are effectively actual gambling practices that are fuelled by nothing but greed and designed to get people addicted are acceptable.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> I can only imagine their lawyers finally working their asses off for their salaries, and their overworked lobbyists sucking VIPs' dicks all around, I wonder if they will achieve anything.


The lawyers that work for corporations say they feel like prostitutes. Lawyers are basically trained to separate their feelings from the position their client wants to take, meaning your morals go out the window for the sake of your job. It works well for you as a lawyer career wise, but horrible as a moral human being. Theres a reason alcoholism is twice as high for lawyers than the general population.

41% of lawyers say they would choose a different career if they were given a chance to do it all over again. On top of the $80,000 debt from law school, you have people going into corporate law rather than public service law because it pays more. The reason is because if someone ever wants to get married and have kids than they would need the higher salary from getting into corporate law. And rather than changing their careers they hate they change their personalities so they can continue to work the job that pays them more. Lawyers can work up to 75 to 90 hours a week just to earn those higher salaries. So you have lawyers that suffer from chest pains, arthritis, hypertension, and insomnia in their 30's. Thus the alcoholism problem.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 23, 2017)

Joom said:


> Taleweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay. That's true. I admit I drew the wrong conclusion from what you your first wrote. Sorry for that. 


Note, though, that my opinion itself doesn't change. It's not because parents (or oneself) have the prime responsibility to properly guard use of credit card/other means of online payment that developers are off the hook. I'm not _conveniently_ blaming EA/dice/disney/many AAA-game developers for their practice, and I'm most certainly not blaming them because of fluffy reasons like "family values". I don't really mind people buying half-assed, broken or incomplete games, or even buying games where the developer lied to the audience (no man's sky). The reason: people can judge for themselves and just get a refund if they don't like what they've bought. That whole transparency isn't there with loot boxes. I mean...I _am_ correct in assuming you can't simply ask for a refund when you spend money on a loot box...right?


----------



## Joom (Nov 23, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay. That's true. I admit I drew the wrong conclusion from what you your first wrote. Sorry for that.
> 
> 
> Note, though, that my opinion itself doesn't change. It's not because parents (or oneself) have the prime responsibility to properly guard use of credit card/other means of online payment that developers are off the hook. I'm not _conveniently_ blaming EA/dice/disney/many AAA-game developers for their practice, and I'm most certainly not blaming them because of fluffy reasons like "family values". I don't really mind people buying half-assed, broken or incomplete games, or even buying games where the developer lied to the audience (no man's sky). The reason: people can judge for themselves and just get a refund if they don't like what they've bought. That whole transparency isn't there with loot boxes. I mean...I _am_ correct in assuming you can't simply ask for a refund when you spend money on a loot box...right?


I won't argue that it's a garbage mechanic. I've always hated the pay-to-win model regardless of whether or not it's random (reason why I never got into trading card games after the age of 10). I also despise that many games (mostly mobile) also make it nearly impossible to progress in the game without throwing money at them. That's honestly a bigger problem to me than gambling. At least with "loot boxes" you have at least one iota of a chance of getting something good. These games that purposely make the experience difficult (Clash of Clans, and all these other freemium games that get mainstream advertising) unless you spend money, is extortion in my opinion. Sure, you know what you're paying for, but the game is next to impossible unless you pay for it. I don't know of any AAA titles that do this (there's probably an MMO somewhere, I don't play them), but it's only a matter of time until they do.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 23, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> Tell me why it isn't gambling in this instance?
> 
> Funds involved, kind kind of reward given, transactions between people able to be done, said transactions (third party or not matters in some ways but few of the fundamental ones -- it does not matter if you do paper cash or a secure transaction online), random elements in some cases... seems like gambling as it tends to be defined to me. How, or possibly if, we should restrict such things have a lot of scope for debate but going from the definitions commonly accepted it is pretty clear.


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?


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 23, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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?


actually, just buying a game is gambling, because you never know if youll like it


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 23, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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?


it may not be legally, technically gambling right now, but in every other sense, it is gambling. you're paying for a chance at a desirable outcome. it's dangerous to those with gambling habits like those who could possibly dump thousands on in-game microtransactions.


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 23, 2017)

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

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



ihaveamac said:


> it may not be legally, technically gambling right now, but in every other sense, it is gambling. you're paying for a chance at a desirable outcome. it's dangerous to those with gambling habits like those who could possibly dump thousands on in-game microtransactions.


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


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 23, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 23, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2017)

jt_1258 said:


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


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 (Nov 23, 2017)

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


----------



## ThoD (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxchild said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThoD said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Nov 23, 2017)

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 (Nov 24, 2017)

ThoD said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

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


----------



## TehCupcakes (Nov 24, 2017)

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 (Nov 24, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> 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.



Haloman800 said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2017)

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


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 24, 2017)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> "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 (Nov 24, 2017)

SirNapkin1334 said:


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


This:


jt_1258 said:


> 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.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Nov 24, 2017)

ThoD said:


> This:
> 
> 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.


Oh, I had not realized that. I don't care at all about shooters or violent games, I don't really like PS/XBOX, I just like Nintendo games, so I figured it was marketed towards adults (because, ya know, violence)


----------



## ThoD (Nov 24, 2017)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> Oh, I had not realized that. I don't care at all about shooters or violent games, I don't really like PS/XBOX, I just like Nintendo games, so I figured it was marketed towards adults (because, ya know, violence)


MANY of the games with lootboxes are 12+ or 16+ rather than 18+, so if you take that into consideration there should be regulations about it. For example, allow lootboxes only in 18+ games and also have something like a spending limit. With spending limit, they can do something like, you spend max 200$ (still high, 150$ sound better) and after you hit that, you can't buy more but you will get free stuff once a week or some bonus...


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 24, 2017)

ThoD said:


> MANY of the games with lootboxes are 12+ or 16+ rather than 18+, so if you take that into consideration there should be regulations about it. For example, allow lootboxes only in 18+ games and also have something like a spending limit. With spending limit, they can do something like, you spend max 200$ (still high, 150$ sound better) and after you hit that, you can't buy more but you will get free stuff once a week or some bonus...


it's what they have in japan already, a pretty fun rythm game on mobile that I play called [email protected] Cinderella Girls: Starlight Stage(Yes I know that is a lengthy af name) has a thing like lootboxes in a sense and depending on the age you tell it you are, you can only spend so much real money on the jewels(the premium currency) in game


----------



## ThoD (Nov 24, 2017)

jt_1258 said:


> it's what they have in japan already, a pretty fun rythm game on mobile that I play called [email protected] Cinderella Girls: Starlight Stage(Yes I know that is a lengthy af name) has a thing like lootboxes in a sense and depending on the age you tell it you are, you can only spend so much real money on the jewels(the premium currency) in game


No need to even go to Japanese mobile games to find a system like I suggested. Look at Pokemon Picross on the 3DS. You can only buy up to 3000 picrites and if you do, you get bonus ones weekly. Same thing on Pokemon Rumble World (spending limit and occasional rewards once you hit it).


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 24, 2017)

ThoD said:


> No need to even go to Japanese mobile games to find a system like I suggested. Look at Pokemon Picross on the 3DS. You can only buy up to 3000 picrites and if you do, you get bonus ones weekly. Same thing on Pokemon Rumble World (spending limit and occasional rewards once you hit it).


ehh, I didn't want to talk about them as there more so on the microstransaction hoar type


----------



## Ulieq (Nov 25, 2017)

Finally something kills Maplestory.


----------



## tomhanks69 (Nov 25, 2017)

Wow.  That's flat out ridiculous...


----------



## Pluupy (Nov 25, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> I feel all good inside. Hopefully this leads to more regulation on bad gaming practices. Now if only we could get more of this for Net Neutrality.
> 
> That said, depending on hard they go, this could effect mobile too. That's including games like Fire Hero Emblem and Pocket Camp. I'm not sure how far I want them to take this.


It does not affect Fire Emblem Heroes or Animal Crossing Pocket Camp.

What they are banning are "loot boxes", purchases for very specific items which produce a product that is random. The difference is that with Fire Emblem Heroes and (i'm not even sure why you mentioned it because that game is not gacha) Animal Crossing  is that when you buy orbs or leaf tickets you KNOW what you are getting. Hence, why they will not be affected at all.

It is important to remember that orbs are a currency used for other functions than gacha. You use them to expand barracks, castle, restore stamina, etc. 

It's also important to remember that summoning doesn't tell you WHO you will get, but it does tell you WHAT you will get. You will ALWAYS get a unit when summoning. All units are useful in Fire Emblem Heroes in some way. 



Subtle Demise said:


> Fire Emblem Heroes has loot boxes though lol


See above.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

Once again the government steps in and spoils everyone's fun. Nobody forces customers to purchase loot boxes, they're available for free in-game through collecting experience. Even if they were like a casino, which they're not, there's nothing wrong with that - customers have a right to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they want, and this includes burning it on useless in-game skins. Unfortunately in oppression-land only the government itself is allowed to hold lotteries, they're the only ones allowed to perpetrate scams.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again the government steps in and spoils everyone's fun. Nobody forces customers to purchase loot boxes, they're available for free in-game through collecting experience. Even if they were like a casino, which they're not, there's nothing wrong with that - customers have a right to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they want, and this includes burning it on useless in-game skins.


It really depends on the game. Battlefront 2, please no, Overwatch, understandable.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again the government steps in and spoils everyone's fun. Nobody forces customers to purchase loot boxes, they're available for free in-game through collecting experience. Even if they were like a casino, which they're not, there's nothing wrong with that - customers have a right to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they want, and this includes burning it on useless in-game skins.


As someone said before, I feel like they're wanting to regulate it. Banning it may be a temporary thing. Regardless... It seems to be giving people false hope for something.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

TheVinAnator said:


> It really depends on the game. Battlefront 2, please no, Overwatch, understandable.


No, it doesn't. It's my money, I can spend it however I want. The government should stop telling people what they can and can't buy, it's not their money and not their decision. People have the right to make their own decisions, and that includes bad ones.


Memoir said:


> As someone said before, I feel like they're wanting to regulate it. Banning it may be a temporary thing. Regardless... It seems to be giving people false hope for something.


There's a zillion percent chance that they want a cut of the scam money, that's all this is.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Nov 25, 2017)

Fair, but when games are built around it (battlefront 2) that is definitely a problem.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 25, 2017)

It should really be only for microtransaction-powered loot boxes, in my opinion. 

I hope this will turn game developers against a free-to-play model on paid games, but I mainly play Nintendo games so it doesn't matter that much to me.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 25, 2017)

I can understand f2p games doing it (they have to make money somewhere) but when $60 games are doing it... just sell the skins in a store that way people actually get what they want instead of them spending $100 on loot boxes on a chance they might get what they want, of course it would be nice if they unlocked free but thats blasphemy talk these days


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 25, 2017)

Yay ban the random loot box crap, if you want to buy items then why not just have the option to buy the items in game? Problem solved.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 25, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> I can understand f2p games doing it (they have to make money somewhere) but when $60 games are doing it... just sell the skins in a store that way people actually get what they want instead of them spending $100 on loot boxes on a chance they might get what they want, of course it would be nice if they unlocked free but thats blasphemy talk these days


Agreed.  It still is a game of chance and buying what you know you're getting is still the better way to go. I don't even get how the fuck people are defending a game of chance to buying a skin you know for a certain amount and knowing 100 percent sure you're gonna get that skin. If you all like game of chances that much then i advise you to buy scratch off tickets or whatever.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 25, 2017)

Pluupy said:


> It does not affect Fire Emblem Heroes or Animal Crossing Pocket Camp.
> 
> What they are banning are "loot boxes", purchases for very specific items which produce a product that is random. The difference is that with Fire Emblem Heroes and (i'm not even sure why you mentioned it because that game is not gacha) Animal Crossing  is that when you buy orbs or leaf tickets you KNOW what you are getting. Hence, why they will not be affected at all.
> 
> ...


You are right that I shouldn't have mention Pocket Camp. FE got me so use to, buy in game stuff for random units, I just put it on their next game. 

Sorry, but just because I got some idea of what I'm getting, doesn't make the units any less random. Obviously, people will try to get the best and strongest units.  So, weaker units become less useful, if not useless.  



Foxi4 said:


> Once again the government steps in and spoils everyone's fun. Nobody forces customers to purchase loot boxes, they're available for free in-game through collecting experience. Even if they were like a casino, which they're not, there's nothing wrong with that - customers have a right to spend their hard-earned money on whatever they want, and this includes burning it on useless in-game skins. Unfortunately in oppression-land only the government itself is allowed to hold lotteries, they're the only ones allowed to perpetrate scams.


Except, it affecting gamers and games more and more, who doesn't want to deal with these scams. If people don't put up any protection against these scams, they are just going get worse. These scams aren't "fun" for me. I don't want to see every single game get loot boxes, especially since they are going make it harder to get things without them, if at all. Not to mention the other abusive nonsense on top of that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Except, it affecting gamers and games more and more, who doesn't want to deal with these scams. If people don't put up any protection against these scams, they are just going get worse. These scams aren't "fun" for me. I don't want to see every single game get loot boxes, especially since they are going make it harder to get things without them, if at all. Not to mention the other abusive nonsense on top of that.


Then don't buy games with loot boxes. The system is population because it sells well - people who want to buy skin do so, people who don't grind points, this way no DLC is behind a paywall and everything is available in-game. Don't buy it of you don't support it, nobody is forcing you.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it doesn't. It's my money, I can spend it however I want. The government should stop telling people what they can and can't buy, it's not their money and not their decision. People have the right to make their own decisions, and that includes bad ones.
> There's a zillion percent chance that they want a cut of the scam money, that's all this is.


I could care less that they exist.  The problem lies with how they are demarcated.  If you have to pay *real* money for a randomized outcome, in any fashion, be it through a virtual currency that you can buy with real money, or directly with real money, it should be classified as gambling, and fall under that regulation.  Currently, the industry as a whole is bypassing many of these restrictions by going through a virtual currency first.  It's exactly like the pachinko parlors in Japan:  I buy coins, then use those coins to play a game for tickets, then, because it's a different shop, I can go next door and buy things with those tickets without it being classified as gambling.  Fuck, even claw machines have been regulated in many states, purely because of the random nature they exhibit.

Do I think they need to be banned? Absolutely not.  Do I think they should be treated just like every other cash for random tat? Absolutely.  This only makes sense.  Do I have the ulterior motive of killing the practice? Damn straight I do.

The "let the free market decide" argument is already lost, because gambling wouldn't be regulated as heavily as it is if that was the case.  It's a matter of lining things up to make them consistent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> I could care less that they exist.  The problem lies with how they are demarcated.  If you have to pay *real* money for a randomized outcome, in any fashion, be it through a virtual currency that you can buy with real money, or directly with real money, it should be classified as gambling, and fall under that regulation.  Currently, the industry as a whole is bypassing many of these restrictions by going through a virtual currency first.  It's exactly like the pachinko parlors in Japan:  I buy coins, then use those coins to play a game for tickets, then, because it's a different shop, I can go next door and buy things with those tickets without it being classified as gambling.  Fuck, even claw machines have been regulated in many states, purely because of the random nature they exhibit.
> 
> Do I think they need to be banned? Absolutely not.  Do I think they should be treated just like every other cash for random tat? Absolutely.  This only makes sense.  Do I have the ulterior motive of killing the practice? Damn straight I do.


If we go by that logic, blind bags are also gambling. The result isn't random - the result is an in-game item, this is the case 100% of the time, you can't win anything else. There's no magical way of buying loot boxes, opening them and getting money, which would classify as a form of gambling. If we do squint and pretend that it is gambling and that you are able to win anything of considerable real-life value, I still don't see a problem - gambling itself shouldn't be illegal because it's none of the government's business how I spend my money. I can buy a truck of candy with my paycheck if I want to, that's my business.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If we go by that loving blind bags are also gambling. The result isn't random - the result is an in-game item. There's no magical way of buying loot boxes, opening them and getting money, which would classify as a form of gambling. If we do squint and pretend that it is gambling and that you are able to win anything of considerable real-life value, I still don't see a problem - gambling itself should be illegal because it's none of the government's business how I spend my money. I can buy a truck of candy with my paycheck, that's my business.


that's your opinion tho and most think differently so. It still is a game of chance and a game of chance is addictive to minors. Gambling is all good and well if you're at a certain age but if you like it or not, games are played by minors while other forms off gambling can't be played at by minors. And i get your opinion but your opinion is selfish as an adult without the regard of others. It is not about regulating how you spend your money but about protecting the people who can't properly and if you think we don't need to do that just so we can spend OUR own money ourselves how we want then that is just plain selfish. actions have to be taken !


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> that's your opinion tho and most think differently so. It still is a game of chance and a game of chance is addictive to minors. Gambling is all good and well if you're at a certain age but if you like it or not, games are played by minors while other forms off gambling can't be played at by minors. And i get your opinion but your opinion is selfish as an adult without the regard of others


Thank God we have the government to protect children's income from scammers. Oh wait, children don't earn money, they can only be given money, at which point it's up to the guardian to ensure that they don't spend it on age-restricted items online. By the way, games of chance are not illegal, unless you want to argue that spin the bottle should be made illegal.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank God we have the government to protect children's income from scammers. Oh wait, children don't earn money, they can only be given money, at which point it's up to the guardian to ensure that they don't spend it on age-restricted items online.


ugh facepalm. ur missing the whole point


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> ugh facepalm. ur missing the whole point


No, I'm not - I get the point, the point is stupid. If I sit at the poker table, I bet money and I can win or lose money. When I buy a loot box, I spend money - that's it. I don't "win" anything back, it's a loss 100% of the time. You know what's in the loot box - a random in-game item. You know exactly what you're spending your money on, it's a consensual transaction.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I'm not - I get the point, the point is stupid. If I sit at the poker table, I bet money and I can win or lose money. When I buy a loot box, I spend money - that's it. I don't "win" anything back, it's a loss 100% of the time. You know what's in the loot box - a random in-game item. You know exactly what you're spending your money on, it's a consensual transaction.



Kids (and some adults) don't have their impulse control developed fully. This is just taking advantage of that...

How many cases of exorbitant mobile in-game purchases have been done by kids with their parent's phone because they HAVE to HAVE the rare magicalwhateverthing. If the kid has their parents' credit card on their console to buy games and stuff, it's too easy to buy things without keeping tabs on it.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Nov 25, 2017)

LunarQueen626 said:


> Kids (and some adults) don't have their impulse control developed fully. This is just taking advantage of that...
> 
> How many cases of exorbitant mobile in-game purchases have been done by kids with their parent's phone because they HAVE to HAVE the rare magicalwhateverthing. If the kid has their parents' credit card on their console to buy games and stuff, it's too easy to buy things without keeping tabs on it.


Foxi is simply going to say: "Thats the fault of the parents", whcih I can agree too.  However I also agree with the underlying reason of regulating for impulse control, the same exact reason why gambling is still regulated today.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 25, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> When I buy a loot box, I spend money - that's it. I don't "win" anything back, it's a loss 100% of the time. You know what's in the loot box - a random in-game item. You know exactly what you're spending your money on, it's a consensual transaction.


That's not exactly true, certain games have trading and a whole economy system to go along with it, and sites that will take said said virtual items and allow you to trade it in for real money.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

LunarQueen626 said:


> Kids (and some adults) don't have their impulse control developed fully. This is just taking advantage of that...
> 
> How many cases of exorbitant mobile in-game purchases have been done by kids with their parent's phone because they HAVE to HAVE the rare magicalwhateverthing. If the kid has their parents' credit card on their console to buy games and stuff, it's too easy to buy things without keeping tabs on it.


So what if they don't? If we follow that mentality then we should ban commerce to protect people from "accidentally" buying a TV because it was on sale. If the parents are stupid enough to give their credit card details to a minor, they deserve everything that comes their way. It's not a deceptive form of sales, nobody is tricking anyone into spending money. In fact, you don't even have to spend any money - you can get the things in-game for free. Y'know what? I think we should ban all in-game containers. When I'm playing an RPG, I don't know what's inside a chest - maybe it's a useless item that I don't need and will have to dispose of? We should ban hidden enemies as well - I don't want to be tricked by walking into a room and getting flanked by an enemy I didn't know about. I paid good money for the game, I want a bland hallway with nothing in it. Let me win all fights while we're at it, I paid for the game, I should win all the time, that sounds like fun.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 25, 2017)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> Foxi is simply going to say: "Thats the fault of the parents", whcih I can agree too.  However I also agree with the underlying reason of regulating for impulse control, the same exact reason why gambling is still regulated today.



Agreed, like all problems...there is always more than one factor. Parents HAVE to regulate their children if they are given cc info for buying digital games, etc., but we can't deny the industry _(*cough, cough* EA) _has no shame in exploiting this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 25, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> That's not exactly true, certain games have trading and a whole economy system to go along with it, and sites that will take said said virtual items and allow you to trade it in for real money.


The sale of in-game items or accounts is explicitly forbidden on just about any network an is grounds for a permanent ban, it's a good way to lose your account.


AbyssalMonkey said:


> Foxi is simply going to say: "Thats the fault of the parents", whcih I can agree too.  However I also agree with the underlying reason of regulating for impulse control, the same exact reason why gambling is still regulated today.


It's regulated in the sense that only the government can do it. Nobody's pushing to ban national lotteries when they're no different than casinos. You don't even have to use your credit card for mobile purchases - kids should be given iTunes/Google, or PSN/Xbox/Nintendo scratch cards on consoles instead, every store recommends those in the event of a minor using a mobile device or console because it benefits stores.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If we go by that logic, blind bags are also gambling. The result isn't random - the result is an in-game item, this is the case 100% of the time, you can't win anything else. There's no magical way of buying loot boxes, opening them and getting money, which would classify as a form of gambling. If we do squint and pretend that it is gambling and that you are able to win anything of considerable real-life value, I still don't see a problem - gambling itself shouldn't be illegal because it's none of the government's business how I spend my money. I can buy a truck of candy with my paycheck if I want to, that's my business.




Foxi, here's the hangup though.  Let's play Overwatch, and let's buy a lootbox when I already have 50% of the items.  I spend virtual money to open a box, and I have duplicates of half the items, so they get turned back into the very currency I used to buy the box.  Tell me this isn't gambling.  You spend money, and you earn money back.  This is exactly like slot machines with guaranteed returns, which ARE regulated. The only difference is the form of currency, a virtual one.



Foxi4 said:


> It's regulated in the sense that only the government can do it. Nobody's pushing to ban national lotteries when they're no different than casinos.



You are right, no one is seriously trying to ban national lotteries, but, at least in the states, they are regulated.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> So what if they don't? If we follow that mentality then we should ban commerce to protect people from "accidentally" buying a TV because it was on sale. If the parents are stupid enough to give their credit card details to a minor, they deserve everything that comes their way. It's not a deceptive form of sales, nobody is tricking anyone into spending money. In fact, you don't even have to spend any money - you can get the things in-game for free. Y'know what? I think we should ban all in-game containers. When I'm playing an RPG, I don't know what's inside a chest - maybe it's a useless item that I don't need and will have to dispose of? We should ban hidden enemies as well - I don't want to be tricked by getting into a room and getting flanked by an enemy I didn't know about. I paid good money for the game, I want a bland hallway with nothing in it. Let me win all fights while we're at it, I paid for the game, I should win all the time, that sounds like fun.




If they do not (either kids or the adults), they can't be trusted to have credit cards, that much I can agree with you. It is part of what we usually call bad choices.

Also, not everything in-game is free nowadays. Just look at the any mobile game of your choosing and you'll find in-game items that are exclusive only if you pay. While the average person will shrug it off if they aren't too interested, the kid or adult with poor impulse skills will just start buying and buying to get things either done faster or to get rare items.

It isn't a matter of "tricking", it is just in-your-face advertising mixed with psychological factors to pressure the gamer to buy things and those that have issues with controlling themselves will spend a lot of money and not notice til it is a bit too late. 

While marketing is just that, everything has a limit and that is why regulations exist in commerce and gambling.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2017)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> Foxi, here's the hangup though.  Let's play Overwatch, and let's buy a lootbox when I already have 50% of the items.  I spend virtual money to open a box, and I have duplicates of half the items, so they get turned back into the very currency I used to buy the box.  Tell me this isn't gambling.  You spend money, and you earn money back.  This is exactly like slot machines with guaranteed returns, which ARE regulated. The only difference is the form of currency, a virtual one.


So you didn't lose? Good, I was getting worried you got scammed.

Funnily enough, the introduction of loot boxes convinced me to return to playing Rainbow Six because I would never, under any circumstances, pay to get an in-game skin or in-game currency, I only did that once in an old MMO and I couldn't be bothered to do it again since I could get the same stuff by farming. Now I roll for Alpha Packs whenever I win a game and I have a bunch of cool skins that I would never have otherwise, so that's great.


> You are right, no one is seriously trying to ban national lotteries, but, at least in the states, they are regulated.


I always find it amusing when the government regulates itself. They're the ones writing the rules in the first place, the benevolence surrounding the poor tax lottery is palpable.


LunarQueen626 said:


> If they do not (either kids or the adults), they can't be trusted to have credit cards, that much I can agree with you. It is part of what we usually call bad choices.
> 
> Also, not everything in-game is free nowadays. Just look at the any mobile game of your choosing and you'll find in-game items that are exclusive only if you pay. While the average person will shrug it off if they aren't too interested, the kid or adult with poor impulse skills will just start buying and buying to get things either done faster or to get rare items.
> 
> ...


Here I would like to point out that in many cases Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/your bank will refund unauthorised transactions made with your credit or debit card, it happens all the time. If your kid goes on a shopping spree, there are mechanisms in place to dispute unauthorised purchases. Naturally such disputes are lengthy and your account is likely to be suspended during the investigation, but that's the price you pay for poor parenting. I don't see how this is any different from your kid logging onto your Amazon and buying an Xbox, or downright stealing money from your wallet. You failed at your job as a parent, try harder next time. You can't hold companies accountable for the actions of their customers, that's backwards and asinine. I'm certainly not a fan of random paid drops, in-game currencies or other such assorted nonsense, but I simultaneously don't think they should be illegal and I change the situation in the only reasonable way - by not buying such products. If I were to ban everything I don't like, I'd have to have most of you guys banned - you're driving me nuts sometimes, and I'm a cruel, mean man.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't hold companies accountable for the actions of their customers, that's backwards and asinine. I'm certainly not a fan of random paid drops, in-game currencies or other such assorted nonsense, but I simultaneously don't think they should be illegal and I change the situation in the only reasonable way - by not buying such products. If I were to ban everything I don't like, I'd have to have most of you guys banned - you're driving me nuts sometimes, and I'm a cruel, mean man.




No, but I sure as hell can hold them accountable when they make the situation so imbalanced that it is a pay-to-win game. I don't think it should be illegal, but I do believe that there should be a somewhat strict measurement of any sort in-game purchases for kid-focused games, which is probably is being worked on as we type. The rest of the games would be too complicated because the intended audiences are more mature, so less control needs to be applied.

Kek, admins or high powered members are always going to be driven nuts by most users.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2017)

LunarQueen626 said:


> No, but I sure as hell can hold them accountable when they make the situation so imbalanced that it is a pay-to-win game. I don't think it should be illegal, but I do believe that there should be a somewhat strict measurement of any sort in-game purchases for kid-focused games, which is probably is being worked on as we type. The rest of the games would be too complicated because the intended audiences are more mature, so less control needs to be applied.
> 
> Kek, admins or high powered members are always going to be driven nuts by most users.


The way I see it and have always seen it is that children have no money of their own, they can only be given money by adults, and if they're given free reign over said money then they can waste it. In fact, children waste 100% of the money they're given - there isn't a child on the planet who takes their birthday money and invests it in stocks or deposits it in a retirement plan or savings account, not unless they're coerced to save it, which defeats the point of the money being a gift in the first place. Pay to win sucks, that's why I don't play pay to win games - the new Star Wars is a massive bomb so far, even with in-game purchases completely disabled, so clearly the market has decided all by itself and there was no need for the sluggish decision of the government. The market reacts to bullshit instantaneously, I trust it more than I trust a bunch of guys in suits who haven't played a video game since Pong.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The way I see it and have always seen it is that children have no money of their own, they can only be given money by adults, and if they're given free reign over said money then they can waste it. In fact, children waste 100% of the money they're given - there isn't a child on the planet who takes their birthday money and invests it in stocks or deposits it in a retirement plan or savings account, not unless they're coerced to save it, which defeats the point of the money being a gift in the first place. Pay to win sucks, that's why I don't play pay to win games - the new Star Wars is a massive bomb so far, even with in-game purchases completely disabled, so clearly the market has decided all by itself and there was no need for the sluggish decision of the government. The market reacts to bullshit instantaneously, I trust it more than I trust a bunch of guys in suits who haven't played a video game since Pong.



Hear, hear. Best way to curb those games is to never touch them.


----------



## Oleboy555 (Nov 26, 2017)

WOW Belgium, great moves! Keep it up! Im proud of you!

On a more serious note, I think this is great and hopefully we can go back to the good old days without microtransactions and other shit like that.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The sale of in-game items or accounts is explicitly forbidden on just about any network an is grounds for a permanent ban, it's a good way to lose your account.


There are plenty of things banned from using real money as well, still happens though.

In the end I guess this is a philosophy on life and government though, that being the extent of what regulations a government may impose to restrict behaviours or indeed incentivise with other mechanisms. Going by previous posts would appear to have you skew far more towards minimal restrictions and incentives, others appear to care for more. A world in which personal responsibility and a commitment to rationality and logic meant something would be nice but I ain't seeing it happening any time soon -- hardcore psychological manipulation met marketing in the 1920s but has worked for thousands of years before then.



Oleboy555 said:


> WOW Belgium, great moves! Keep it up! Im proud of you!
> 
> On a more serious note, I think this is great and hopefully we can go back to the good old days without microtransactions and other shit like that.


This does rather depend upon the quality of the resulting laws though. Sadly we have all too often seen nice intentions mask or result in crap laws.

Also good old days... I still treat arcades as the functional equivalent of microtransactions in many, if not most*, cases. I already mentioned a 2002 title http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/33249-i-lightning-bolt-your-order-of-leitbur-review with something unmistakeably similar (it is a computerised version of magic the gathering featuring online cards you buy), consoles got it https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391284,00.asp in 2011 but for many years prior MS had used "Microsoft points" as an abstraction method and things like https://www.engadget.com/2009/01/22/underachievement-ea-selling-unlock-everything-dlc-for-skate-2/ saw single player game paid unlocks in January 2009 and there may be earlier. Throughout it all we were getting screwed over by DLC expansion packs and updates even tied to them (so many "Gold" editions fixing bugs not fixed in baseline). Japan pioneered the skylanders/amiibo model back in 2004 http://www.advanscene.com/html/Releases/dbreleases.php?id=1578 on the GBA . 2009 is when hats appeared in Team Fortress 2, however many MMOs had gone down such paths long before then. Pokemon had the dual versions thing at least as soon as it made it out of Japan. A lesser remembered example of something I at least want to consider as part of this is 1997's MOPy fish ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOPy_fish ), in it HP released a screensaver (it was the style at the time) which earned you points for printing and if you have ever played the HP ink buying game... While I am at it Flash games also went there quite early https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023967/The-Flash-Games . I want to have a little look into the PDA market as part of this, and possibly the J2ME one (though if the current mob did not study the ringtone/j2me market heavily before these pushes they went wrong somewhere).

*a few were time limited or round limited, contrast "kid, why not pump in another quarter for another life?". 

Arcades never died here but I will go with the death of them in the US which was maybe the end of the SNES. The CP System II (the III never did much outside Japan) had a few things still coming out in the US in 1998 though (mainly street fighter versions and spinoffs), but call it 1996. That's a fairly small window even if I ignore the other crap.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Nov 26, 2017)

Lol @ the gambling addicts rattling in this thread. Flush your money down the toilette you will get the same outcome.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2017)

mech said:


> Lol @ the gambling addicts rattling in this thread. Flush your money down the toilette you will get the same outcome.


That's actually illegal, as opposed to commerce.


----------



## Cylent1 (Nov 26, 2017)

It must be an election year!


----------



## Condarkness (Nov 26, 2017)

Wow! I never thought that this would even be recognized like the actual problem that it is. I guess I'm happy, although I am a fan of 2k.

I honestly want to know what these companies will try next.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Then don't buy games with loot boxes. The system is population because it sells well - people who want to buy skin do so, people who don't grind points, this way no DLC is behind a paywall and everything is available in-game. Don't buy it of you don't support it, nobody is forcing you.


Because "don't buy" stop pay online for every console. Because "don't buy" stop the abuse of dlc. Because "don't buy" is what possibly stopping EA or anyone afterwards from abusing Lootboxes or even using them altogether. Meanwhile, people with buying disorders and the misinformed are still buying into this poor business practices making gaming worse for everyone. I remember being able to get a full game, without all this exploitative nonsense and not having to worry about things being purposely left out of games. Right, now they are just making it nearly impossible to unlock everything in the game, whether that be with money or grinding. Besides, knowing EA, they probably still planned to add DLC on top of all this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Because "don't buy" stop pay online for every console. Because "don't buy" stop the abuse of dlc. Because "don't buy" is what possibly stopping EA or anyone afterwards from abusing Lootboxes or even using them altogether. Meanwhile, people with buying disorders and the misinformed are still buying into this poor business practices making gaming worse for everyone. I remember being able to get a full game, without all this exploitative nonsense and not having to worry about things being purposely left out of games. Right, now they are just making it nearly impossible to unlock everything in the game, whether that be with money or grinding. Besides, knowing EA, they probably still planned to add DLC on top of all this.


I remember a certain Japanese company that used to require you to buy two copies of a monster-collecting game or have a friend who has the other version in order to complete them, nowadays they're even more egregious and owning both copies isn't enough, you also need to attend their stupid event, as if they were appointments with a doctor, you have to mark that stuff down in a calendar to make sure you get to complete the game you paid money for. What's that company called again?

People with "buying disorders" should have carers, that's not my problem.

Paid online on consoles is pretty much required of you expect to get monthly games and quality service, peer to peer connections are not reliable, high ping and prone to hacking, as we've learned from For Honor which is plagued by lag switchers.

"DLC" was around long before it became "downloadable", it used to be called "expansion packs", you bought them separately in stores, it was a common practice with big titles.

Anything else you want to throw at the wall to see if it sticks?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 26, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I remember a certain Japanese company that used to require you to buy two copies of a monster-collecting game or have a friend who has the other version in order to complete them, nowadays they're even more egregious and owning both copies isn't enough, you also need to attend their stupid event, as if they were appointments with a doctor, you have to mark that stuff down in a calendar to make sure you get to complete the game you paid money for. What's that company called again?
> 
> People with "buying disorders" should have carers, that's not my problem.
> 
> ...


Are really comparing the differences in Pokemon to the game contents that is being locked and cutout for pay DLC? Even if I were to agree with you, it is nowhere near wiped spread as they are today. 

Even if you don't care about them, you should care that your games are getting intentionally butchered, to sell to you at a higher price than they should be. Can't wait until the post game of Pokemon becomes pay dlc. /s 

Not really. PC is doing just fine without it, even Nintendo was doing just fine without it. Not everyone cares about "monthly games".  Then they should have a peer to peer mode for free online. I wonder why they don't.  Also, not like peer to peer games are gone on pay online.  Except online can be hacked even with paid online. I rather the occasional lag switcher than pay online. If not alright banned/suspended, block the cheaters, like you would with anything else. 

Again, "Expansion packs" are nowhere near abused and wide spread as they are now.

When are you going to stop defending this nonsense? Unless you like a lessen gaming experience and paying more for less. Not everyone does, including myself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Are really comparing the differences in Pokemon to the game contents that is being locked and cutout for pay DLC? Even if I were to agree with you, it is nowhere near wiped spread as they are today.
> 
> Even if you don't care about them, you should care that your games are getting intentionally butchered, to sell to you at a higher price than they should be. Can't wait until the post game of Pokemon becomes pay dlc. /s
> 
> ...


That's cute. There's only one problem, you're buying all of these things you purportedly hate, so you're logically inconsistent. If they're so terrible, stop paying for them. Your bias is showing when you're defending Pokemon, easily the most egregious example of an incomplete game on the market. In fact, being lacking is the main gimmick. I'm logically consistent - I don't give a damn about any of those things and only buy what I want/need. You're going off on a tangent while hypocritically supporting all of the aforementioned practices. It's not a good look. Nintendo isn't "doing well without it" by the way, they have the worst online services out of the big three, they always have, since the introduction of robust online features to consoles.


----------



## Pluupy (Nov 27, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> You are right that I shouldn't have mention Pocket Camp. FE got me so use to, buy in game stuff for random units, I just put it on their next game.
> 
> Sorry, but just because I got some idea of what I'm getting, doesn't make the units any less random. Obviously, people will try to get the best and strongest units.  So, weaker units become less useful, if not useless.



The usefulness of a unit in Fire Emblem Heroes depends on how far you want to dedicate to a unit. 

A 4-star Lv40+10 unit is just as good as a 5-star Lv40+5 unit. Even F2P players can make Tier 20, the top tier of the PVP arena, with dedication. 

What separates F2P from P2P players are more units due to their more frequent summons. This means the ability to pull a unit with good IVs and having plenty of fodder to build that unit. Nothing more. In other words, if you don't find a 3-star Donnel useful, someone has and will. Gitgud.  

With the upcoming update balancing out units and implementing the forge, Fire Emblem Heroes has, yet again, opened up new possibilities for units who have lost their edge to be useful once again. Looking at you, Eliwood and Takumi. 

Fire Emblem Heroes is popular because of the incredible customization of the characters that both F2P and P2P players must strategize around.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 27, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's cute. There's only one problem, you're buying all of these things you purportedly hate, so you're logically inconsistent. If they're so terrible, stop paying for them. Your bias is showing when you're defending Pokemon, easily the most egregious example of an incomplete game on the market. In fact, being lacking is the main gimmick. I'm logically consistent - I don't give a damn about any of those things and only buy what I want/need. You're going off on a tangent while hypocritically supporting all of the aforementioned practices. It's not a good look. Nintendo isn't "doing well without it" by the way, they have the worst online services out of the big three, they always have, since the introduction of robust online features to consoles.


Not sure how you got that I'm buying things I hate. Rarely buy anything extra for a game. Amiibos and pay online for example, but that is besides the point. It doesn't matter if I do or not, other people are. It only getting worse. If it takes the government to stop this abuse and exploitation of games then so be it. 

Don't see the differences in Pokemon as a incomplete game nor comparable to what happening to games nowadays. Guess we have to agree to disagree here. Good luck buying more and more over the price of each game and a lessen game experience. I just hope this is stopped were it is, if not reversed.   Yes, Nintendo's online is the worse. Meanwhile I'm literally playing free online right now with no problems.

It sad to see the informed actually all for these bad practices. Not even saying get rid of it all. Pay online? Fine, but gives a free option as well. Loot Boxes or even better, just plain microtransactions? Fine, but make it cosmetic only and don't make it nearly impossible to get in game. Lessen the pay dlc that is being put out every year. There's away to do this, without being as exploitative as companies, like EA, has been and trying to be. I'm glad that at least there is something to curb back these practices.




Pluupy said:


> The usefulness of a unit in Fire Emblem Heroes depends on how far you want to dedicate to a unit.
> 
> A 4-star Lv40+10 unit is just as good as a 5-star Lv40+5 unit. Even F2P players can make Tier 20, the top tier of the PVP arena, with dedication.
> 
> ...



Still comes down to luck.  Someone can built up much better units much faster than someone that took more time to do so. Not for the lack of skill or dedication, but the lack of luck and that's before you start putting money into the equation.  Don't get me wrong, as fair as fairness goes, FE is up there, but a big part of it still comes down to pay and luck.


----------



## rt141 (Nov 27, 2017)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
EA not only killed their own cancerous business practice. They totally obliterated it from the chart for everyone else too!!

What a day to be alive. Now companies either straight pay-lock content (which has proven disastrous when done abusively) or actually make complete games.


----------



## Kotomine Kirei (Nov 28, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Don't see the differences in Pokemon as a incomplete game nor comparable to what happening to games nowadays.



The multiple versions with locked Pokemon seems unnecessary, even with the trading aspect of the games, and knowing that there are missing features and such makes the games seem incomplete.
It is almost as bad as how Fire Emblem Fates was sold as three games.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 28, 2017)

Kotomine Kirei said:


> The multiple versions with locked Pokemon seems unnecessary, even with the trading aspect of the games, and knowing that there are missing features and such makes the games seem incomplete.
> It is almost as bad as how Fire Emblem Fates was sold as three games.


Is Pokemon "missing features" besides the small difference in Pokemon or is there more to it? Otherwise, I still don't think it is comparable. Would it be nice to have everything single Pokemon in one game, yes, but then that would lessen the trading aspect of it.

Yeah, the Fate thing was pretty bad. Ended up not getting game and I'm long time fan.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 29, 2017)

Was going to wait until someone comment, but UK Gambling Commission says that loot boxes aren't gambling under law. Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't change or have their own regulations. Lootboxes are still under investigation. Also, despite people wanting to compromise with cosmetics, EA still doubling down. The poor excuse is, that cosmetics would break the canon.
Link
Link


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 29, 2017)

Interesting statement from the UK commission. They talk of politicians setting their agenda but that could have been written by one (or their aide), save for the fact it appeared to show some reasoning and evidence. Are contracts up for tender around there?

Anyway lootboxes not at present, unofficial skin trading/facilitation maybe if they do other things seems reasonable. I am sure someone could find some way to walk up to the line in the future though.

On canon I thought disney packaged that up and fired it into the sun (no bad thing), not to mention there is surely still scope to play within the canon. It gives an example of a pink vader and while that might be troublesome there is plenty of scope for some fiddling without going into alt play territory (which is still my favourite method if doing it properly).


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 29, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> Anyway lootboxes not at present, unofficial skin trading/facilitation maybe if they do other things seems reasonable. I am sure someone could find some way to walk up to the line in the future though.


Can you clarify this? 



FAST6191 said:


> On canon I thought disney packaged that up and fired it into the sun (no bad thing), not to mention there is surely still scope to play within the canon. It gives an example of a pink vader and while that might be troublesome there is plenty of scope for some fiddling without going into alt play territory (which is still my favourite method if doing it properly).


I'm sure a lot of people are missing the old canon. It's true that they can have canon alts, but in a game like this, canon shouldn't even matter. Don't see how "Pink Vader" is a problem. As I seen mention somewhere, if there's an option to not see alts (canon or not) online, makes it especially not a problem.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 29, 2017)

The statement from the UK commission says they can not consider loot boxes at present as gambling, seemingly as the value of the reward is essentially nothing or intangible and remained with the game. However in what sounded like a "we're doing something, honest" remark, one of several, they mentioned the prosecution of a skin trading website which did bother minors with skins acting as a standin (and exchangeable for) cash. I don't know if I would go that way as a law maker but it seems to be within standards.

" if there's an option to not see alts (canon or not) online"
Earlier talk of lazy mods was had and if we are going to do hitboxes that could be tricky, and if colours represent some kind of visual camouflage then that might also play into something. Minor quibbles perhaps but given no oddjob...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 29, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's actually illegal, as opposed to commerce.


I've never pinned you to be the kind of person to base morals on legality


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 30, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I've never pinned you to be the kind of person to base morals on legality


This isn't a question of morality, there's nothing moral or immoral about selling a product that people want to buy. How much child labour is required to manufacture loot boxes? Compare that to the average smartphone, and I know each and every one of you has one, and we can have a conversation based on morality. If your argument is that "gambling-like" mechanisms in gaming cause suffering to some undetermined group of gamers that we're yet to observe, that's a pretty big claim and I'll need some evidence of that occurring. Please show me the families that got torn apart or the cars that were impounded because of Overwatch.


----------



## Ritsuki (Nov 30, 2017)

I posted it a few days ago, don't know if someone else did, but actually Belgium had not say anything about loot boxes, no conclusion has been taken and the case is still being analyzed.


----------



## Subzero100 (Nov 30, 2017)

haha now they have one less thing to use to steal money away from hard working people.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 30, 2017)

Subzero100 said:


> haha now they have one less thing to use to steal money away from hard working people.


You have hard working children? Bit of a touchy subject that one.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 30, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> You have hard working children? Bit of a touchy subject that one.


I think the implication might have been that if they're children they're probably using an allowance from their parents


----------



## Minox (Nov 30, 2017)

I'm not sure if a complete ban is needed, but regulations limiting incredibly predatory practices might be in order.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 2, 2017)

​

Doesn't seem like EA is stopping.  It is like they are trying to cause another game crash. Some kind of regulation(s) has to happen.  Companies, especially EA, only have themselves to blame. 

It seem these Lootboxes are in their own mode, that doesn't make it any better. Not to mention, they are probably planning to have it for the main play for the series later on.


----------



## smf (Dec 2, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> People with "buying disorders" should have carers, that's not my problem.



That's like saying that all drugs should be legal because some people can cope with taking them, or that there should be no speed limits because you can drive at 100 mp/h without crashing.

All people have bad judgement. You just haven't noticed yet.

If developers keep pushing this then it's bound to get regulated & it will be their own fault.



Foxi4 said:


> If your argument is that "gambling-like" mechanisms in gaming cause suffering to some undetermined group of gamers that we're yet to observe, that's a pretty big claim and I'll need some evidence of that occurring. Please show me the families that got torn apart or the cars that were impounded because of Overwatch.



Most addictions take a while to get a hold and do it's damage. You could give a child cigarettes and alcohol and claim they were safe because nothing bad happened the first time.


----------



## sneef (Dec 3, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> You know, when they focus so heavily on buzz-phrases like "family" and "protecting children", while also bringing in a representative to talk about _religion's_ view on the matter, of all things, I can't help but feel a chill. I'm very much against these kinds of practices being implemented in video games, but I can't help but feel like I'm unintentionally on the side of the typical, overly-frenzied mommies and church people, who can't or don't think beyond the walls of their own skull, being whipped up in fear mongering and desperately pressing for legislation that ends up putting more of a restriction on the typical citizen than any companies. I don't know, but when my side is being argued in part by an old, blank-faced religious man coming onto television and proclaiming "this is _EVIL!!!_", I can't help but feel more than a little uneasy. That being said, I am still tentatively glad that the lootbox mechanic is at least getting some attention, even if I worry this whole craze may become a runaway train.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 4, 2017)

So, no one can be religious and talk about children and family on a topic without you having a chill? Seems like very strong prejudice and bias.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 8, 2017)

Welp, it is actually happening. Good job EA.

​


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 8, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Welp, it is actually happening. Good job EA.
> 
> ​



Good


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 8, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Good


Given the "would be comical but actually affects things so not" misunderstandings legislation types have brought us in the past I would not only wait for it to be ratified but also tested in courts before declaring good. Given gambling, much less it also being tied to those awful vidya games (have they spouted the term gateway yet?), is the sort of thing the US public also seems to allow them to be really harsh on, with said legislators being all too happy to play up to,... yeah.


----------



## WARlord1903 (Dec 8, 2017)

Honestly, I agree. There is no reason for microtransactions in a full priced game.


----------



## koimayeul (Dec 12, 2017)

*cough* I declare amiibos in BOTW lootboxes.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

koimayeul said:


> *cough* I declare amiibos in BOTW lootboxes.


Literally....


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

koimayeul said:


> *cough* I declare amiibos in BOTW lootboxes.


They're not required to beat or enjoy the game, nor do they really make the game easier in most cases. You also don't have to buy them every time you want one


----------



## koimayeul (Dec 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're not required to beat or enjoy the game, nor do they really make the game easier in most cases. You also don't have to buy them every time you want one


Loot crates are loot crates, single or multi player games. Such partnership speaks volume.

https://www.google.fr/search?ei=1AE...ab..1.5.486...0i8i13i10i30i19k1.0.IXth2hCag8M


----------



## PrincessLillie (Dec 23, 2017)

So I guess these are illegal now.


----------



## 330 (Dec 23, 2017)

I better grab all the badges in that 3DS game before Nintendo decides to end it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 23, 2017)

koimayeul said:


> Loot crates are loot crates, single or multi player games. Such partnership speaks volume.
> 
> https://www.google.fr/search?ei=1AE...ab..1.5.486...0i8i13i10i30i19k1.0.IXth2hCag8M


"Loot Crate" as a delivery service is not the subject of the ban...


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They're not required to beat or enjoy the game, nor do they really make the game easier in most cases. You also don't have to buy them every time you want one


Same with quite a few games... You don't have to buy them to enhance the experience..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 23, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Same with quite a few games... You don't have to buy them to enhance the experience..


Correct

EA fucked up with Battlefront II, though, because they punish you (through lack of progression) for not getting loot boxes


----------



## Navonod (Dec 23, 2017)

Next we should do away with Season passes, and dlc, then start releasing full games like they should have been the whole time.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 23, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Correct
> 
> EA fucked up with Battlefront II, though, because they punish you (through lack of progression) for not getting loot boxes


I just don't understand why those types of loot boxes ever became a thing. You pay $60 for a game, just to either have to grind the event loving shit out of it or pay to unlock the rest of it.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 24, 2018)

More from the person who is trying to at least get some kind of regulation because clearly self-regulation is failing.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Next we should do away with Season passes, and dlc, then start releasing full games like they should have been the whole time.


Season passes and DLC are almost never developed at the same time as the main game.  Before any of that existed, they were just called expansion packs, so we've always had "DLC" in one form or another.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> More from the person who is trying to at least get some kind of regulation because clearly self-regulation is failing.


Failing how, exactly? I fail (pun intended) to see how the model has failed in any way - it seems to be profitable to companies that implement it and it was embraced by gamers worldwide. Perhaps not by yourself, but the beautiful thing about the free market is that you don't have to buy things you don't like. "The free market self-regulation is failing" is always code for "I want more free stuff" or "I don't like X". Here's a hint - don't buy them, that's how the market self-regulates in the first place. If people didn't buy loot boxes, companies wouldn't implement them as there would be no reason to do so. Since they are clearly buying them, those who crow against them are clearly a vocal minority, proving once again that the smallest dogs bark the loudest, but they don't have any bite.


Xzi said:


> Season passes and DLC are almost never developed at the same time as the main game.  Before any of that existed, they were just called expansion packs, so we've always had "DLC" in one form or another.


Still have my C&C Collector's Edition with an expansion. DLC just made distribution of expansions a heck of a lot easier, not to mention cheaper for customers, as now you don't have to buy a complete "big box" just to get add-ons for your base game. 90's kids know the real struggle.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Failing how, exactly? I fail (pun intended) to see how the model has failed in any way - it seems to be profitable to companies that implement it and it was embraced by gamers worldwide.


From a profitability standpoint, loot boxes have been extremely successful.  From a regulation standpoint not so much, because they are technically gambling for the items that the individual finds value in.  From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't make sense that the items aren't sold individually or that the odds aren't published at the least.


----------



## Navonod (Feb 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Season passes and DLC are almost never developed at the same time as the main game.  Before any of that existed, they were just called expansion packs, so we've always had "DLC" in one form or another.


I'm talking about gaming companies releasing halfassed games for $60 then a $10-$30 season pass and then making more "dlc" charging another $10-$30 taking 2 years to complete an already released game. Seriously though it seems some of you think I'm stupid. I know all of this. Just because I don't mention it, doesn't mean I don't know. Just saying.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I'm talking about gaming companies releasing halfassed games for $60 then a $10-$30 season pass and then making more "dlc" charging another $10-$30 taking 2 years to complete an already released game. Seriously though it seems some of you think I'm stupid. I know all of this. Just because I don't mention it, doesn't mean I don't know. Just saying.


There are one or two examples of developers actually withholding content from the main game to put it in DLC instead.  It's very rare though.  What you're considering a "complete game" is like Warcraft 3 + Frozen Throne, but WC3 is a complete game on its own.  We'd all love more free content, but a lot of work goes into post-release DLC assuming the devs care about the quality of their game.  Asking them to work free is a bit selfish.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> From a profitability standpoint, loot boxes have been extremely successful.  From a regulation standpoint not so much, because they are technically gambling for the items that the individual finds value in.  From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't make sense that the items aren't sold individually or that the odds aren't published at the least.


They're not gambling and individuals find value in everything they buy, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. The core element of gambling is the possibility of losing the bet, you can't lose at lootboxes, you can only get an undesirable result which is not the same thing. They're as much gambling as blind bag collectibles are - you always get something, it just might not be what you wanted, and you agree to participate in the randomness by purchasing the product.


Xzi said:


> There are one or two examples of developers actually withholding content from the main game to put it in DLC instead.  It's very rare though.  What you're considering a "complete game" is like Warcraft 3 + Frozen Throne, but WC3 is a complete game on its own.  We'd all love more free content, but a lot of work goes into post-release DLC assuming the devs care about the quality of their game.  Asking them to work free is a bit selfish.


R6: Siege is a good example. The new Outbreak event is like a completely different, brand new game, and it's completely free. The game would probably be dead by now if not for the introduction of lootboxes - I certainly got some cool stuff out of them despite never spending a single penny on them. The season passes did allow for a constant stream of new operators and maps though, so I'm picking up the three Passes this week to complete my Operator list.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> They're not gambling and individuals find value in everything they buy, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. The core element of gambling is the possibility of losing the bet, you can't lose a lootboxes, you can only get an undesirable result which is not the same thing. They're as much gambling as blind bag collectibles are - you always get something, it just might not be what you wanted, and you agree to participate in the randomness by purchasing the product.


An undesirable result in gambling is losing your money or winning back only a small fraction of what you put in to the bet.  Just because you always win something worth at least $0.01 does not mean it isn't gambling, it means you can only lose 99% of your bet instead of 100% of it.  It was only a matter of time until someone fucked up (EA) and lawmakers took notice.  Half the time these publishers are just hoping a 5-year-old gets their hands on mommy/daddy's account and racks up thousands of dollars of loot box charges, it's a predatory practice.

As someone who does occasionally like to gamble, I can say loot boxes evoke much the same feeling as a slot machine.  Thankfully I prefer blackjack and the sports book.  People who do find that kind of stimuli addicting are likely to get addicted to loot box gambling as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> An undesirable result in gambling is losing your money or winning back only a small fraction of what you put in to the bet.  Just because you always win something worth at least $0.01 does not mean it isn't gambling, it means you can only lose 99% of your bet instead of 100% of it.  It was only a matter of time until someone fucked up (EA) and lawmakers took notice.  Half the time these publishers are just hoping a 5-year-old gets their hands on mommy/daddy's account and racks up thousands of dollars of loot box charges, it's a predatory practice.
> 
> As someone who does occasionally like to gamble, I can say loot boxes evoke much the same feeling as a slot machine.  Thankfully I prefer blackjack and the sports book.  People who do find that kind of stimuli addicting are likely to get addicted to loot box gambling as well.


Your argument would make sense if you were betting money and winning or losing money. There's no direct correlation between money and digital currency, it's arbitrary. You buy digital goods, boxes, and they contain a random item. If the item happens to be a duplicate, you get compensation in the form of currency. You literally can't lose, the odds for particular skins are irrelevant. There can be no talk of gambling if there are no stakes - you can only get more or less valuable goods, but you always get something.


----------



## Navonod (Feb 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There are one or two examples of developers actually withholding content from the main game to put it in DLC instead.  It's very rare though.  What you're considering a "complete game" is like Warcraft 3 + Frozen Throne, but WC3 is a complete game on its own.  We'd all love more free content, but a lot of work goes into post-release DLC assuming the devs care about the quality of their game.  Asking them to work free is a bit selfish.


 No. What I consider a complete game is one that you can unlock every unlock able item in game with out having to buy the rest of the game later. Think of GTA SA or GTA Vice city for the PS2. That is a complete game. Yes some games do come out complete then get add ons later. There are many examples of game companies milking their costumers of money.

Edit: No one is asking them to work free. We only want our moneys worth with out having to pay more or wait for it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> No. What I consider a complete game is one that you can unlock every unlock able item in game with out having to buy the rest of the game later. Think of GTA SA or GTA Vice city for the PS2. That is a complete game. Yes some games do come out complete then get add ons later. There are many examples of game companies milking their costumers of money.
> 
> Edit: No one is asking them to work free. We only want our moneys worth with out having to pay more or wait for it.


You're not the one who decides what is and is not a complete product. If developers are inclined to provide additional content for games, all the power to them - if I like the game, I'll buy the DLC to have more of the game I enjoyed.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Your argument would make sense if you were betting money and winning or losing money. There's no direct correlation between money and digital currency, it's arbitrary. You buy digital goods, boxes, and they contain a random item. If the item happens to be a duplicate, you get compensation in the form of currency. You literally can't lose, the odds for particular skins are irrelevant.


You either buy loot boxes with real money or you convert real money into digital money and then buy loot boxes with that.  Either way, it's a currency with some value in it.  Cryptocurrency has become incredibly popular, so it's not like one can even still claim digital currency has no value.  So most of the time when you buy a loot box, you're turning $2, or the equivalent of $2 in digital/crypto currency, into $0.01 or equivalent.  Very rarely you turn it into something worth $5 - $10 or equivalent.  This is gambling by any definition.

In the case of Overwatch specifically, it's designed to often give you items you _will never use_, such as crappy common sprays or icons.  The only reason Konami is even bothering with Metal Gear Survive and not focusing everything on gambling (their headquarters in Vegas is huge), is because they believe they can milk just as much money out of gamers as they do out of gamblers in the current climate of MTX and loot boxes in full-priced games.  At the very least now other games can use not including these things as a selling point, and many publishers are now disclosing win rate percentages before they're forced to by law.


----------



## Navonod (Feb 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You're not the one who decides what is and is not a complete product. If developers are inclined to provide additional content for games, all the power to them - if I like the game, I'll buy the DLC to have more of the game I enjoyed.


Yeah sure it's my opinion. If feel like it isn't a complete game I'd want my money back. You should feel the same. I'm sure you have before.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah sure it's my opinion. If feel like it isn't a complete game I'd want my money back. You should feel the same. I'm sure you have before.


Well yes, there are games that ship incomplete.  There are games that are simply shitty.  There are games that don't turn out as intended, and there are games that are buggy.  So "completeness" is only one metric of a whole when judging a game, really.  Depending on if you define that by amount of content in a game.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You either buy loot boxes with real money or you convert real money into digital money and then buy loot boxes with that.  Either way, it's a currency with some value in it.  Cryptocurrency has become incredibly popular, so it's not like one can even still claim digital currency has no value.  So most of the time when you buy a loot box, you're turning $2, or the equivalent of $2 in digital/crypto currency, into $0.01 or equivalent.  Very rarely you turn it into something worth $5 - $10 or equivalent.  This is gambling by any definition.
> 
> In the case of Overwatch specifically, it's designed to often give you items you _will never use_, such as crappy common sprays or icons.  The only reason Konami is even bothering with Metal Gear Survive and not focusing everything on gambling (their headquarters in Vegas is huge), is because they believe they can milk just as much money out of gamers as they do out of gamblers in the current climate of MTX and loot boxes in full-priced games.  At the very least now other games can use not including these things as a selling point, and many publishers are now disclosing win rate percentages before they're forced to by law.


It's not my fault that you don't use sprays. You were aware of the fact that you might get one at the point of purchase, so nobody tricked you, you chose to buy a cat in a bag. That's *still* not gambling, you just bought an item that gives you a random draw of rewards, which is not the same thing at all.


DrGreed said:


> Yeah sure it's my opinion. If feel like it isn't a complete game I'd want my money back. You should feel the same. I'm sure you have before.


I have never wanted my money back for a video game, I don't play shitty games. I never returned one either - if I picked one I didn't particularly like, I just traded it for a different one later down the line. I totally get what you're saying, but the game is "complete" when it's on the store shelf, it's either shitty or not.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not my fault that you don't use sprays. You were aware of the fact that you might get one at the point of purchase, so nobody tricked you, you chose to buy a cat in a bag. That's *still* not gambling, you just bought an item that gives you a random draw of rewards, which is not the same thing at all.


If you've lost all objectivity on the matter I guess it isn't.  From any other perspective it is, and it's easy to make the case for calling it gambling from a legal standpoint, as well.

Loot boxes are something entirely new and different from traditional DLC or even old MTX, where you would always get to buy specifically the items you wanted.  This is still the case in games with a good payment model.  Rocket League is the one game I've seen do loot boxes right, all the others have been too greedy about their odds or had too much garbage filler content.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If you've lost all objectivity on the matter I guess it isn't.  From any other perspective it is, and it's easy to make the case for calling it gambling from a legal standpoint, as well.
> 
> Loot boxes are something entirely new and different from traditional DLC or even old MTX, where you would always get to buy specifically the items you wanted.  This is still the case in games with a good payment model.  Rocket League is the one game I've seen do loot boxes right, all the others have been too greedy about their odds or had too much garbage filler content.


Try R6 - there's a chance that you get a box with every match you win, and should you lose or fail to draw a box, your odds increase until you get one which resets the odds. It even shows you the percentage with each roll, and yes, I have gotten boxes for free at 5% odds before, so it doesn't seem to be a fake roulette wheel. That system gave me a bunch of free skins that I would never buy otherwise, it certainly kept me interested in the game.

As for objectivity (or a lack of it), I fully embrace any avenue the developers wish to use to make money. Whatever they choose to do, I'm the one with the wallet, so I'm the boss. I don't think they're responsible for the "financial well-being" of customers with shitty spending habits, nor do I think that the government should protect people from themselves. It's called personal responsibility, you should try it, it's pretty cool.


----------



## Anfroid (Feb 25, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Yeah sure it's my opinion. If feel like it isn't a complete game I'd want my money back. You should feel the same. I'm sure you have before.


Honestly everything you said is exactly what I want in the game industry, I grew up buying a complete game and spending the time and effort to unlock everything I could. Nowadays I won't buy a game if I can't everything included for 60$ or under.


----------



## Navonod (Feb 25, 2018)

Anfroid said:


> Honestly everything you said is exactly what I want in the game industry, I grew up buying a complete game and spending the time and effort to unlock everything I could. Nowadays I won't buy a game if I can't everything included for 60$ or under.


Yes finally someone agrees with me and knows exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know about these other people. I guess they're so used to being "right" that they assume everyone else is stupid or something. Honestly they should pull their head out of their ass.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> As for objectivity (or a lack of it), I fully embrace any avenue the developers wish to use to make money. Whatever they choose to do, I'm the one with the wallet, so I'm the boss. I don't think they're responsible for the "financial well-being" of customers with shitty spending habits, nor do I think that the government should protect people from themselves. It's called personal responsibility, you should try it, it's pretty cool.


There are reasons we have gambling regulations and gambling addiction hotlines in place.  Loot boxes aren't about making games more fun, they're about making games more profitable, which is why they have the exact same psychological design that slot machines do.  Some even literally spin a wheel each time you buy a box.

Personal responsibility is fine, but what you're suggesting is that the developer/publisher holds no responsibility while the customer being preyed upon holds all responsibility, which is not how things work, even in the "free market."  You don't see street vendors setting up "toy betting tables" for children where you always win a toy worth at least $0.01, because any cop who approaches is going to see right through that ploy.  The only reason it took longer for lawmakers to catch up with loot boxes is because they're old and bad with tech/games.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 25, 2018)

Are people honestly defending loot crates and the idea behind them? That's sad. They're a bane on games, they're a bane on people, and benefit no one but the company, giving them excuses to intentionally release incomplete games. We may as well be paying them to let us beta test their games. That's pathetic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There are reasons we have gambling regulations and gambling addiction hotlines in place.  Loot boxes aren't about making games more fun, they're about making games more profitable, which is why they have the exact same psychological design that slot machines do.  Some even literally spin a wheel each time you buy a box.
> 
> Personal responsibility is fine, but what you're suggesting is that the developer/publisher holds no responsibility while the customer being preyed upon holds all responsibility, which is not how things work, even in the "free market."  You don't see street vendors setting up "toy betting tables" for children where you always win a toy worth at least $0.01, because any cop who approaches is going to see right through that ploy.  The only reason it took longer for lawmakers to catch up with loot boxes is because they're old and bad with tech/games.


Sure, there's a reason why we have gambling laws - the nanny state. The government knows actual gambling is a scam so obviously it wants to perpetrate all of it, hence the national lottery, also known as the poor tax. They make a small exception for Indians since they kind of owe them, but other than that they want all of the dirty money for themselves. As far as I'm concerned none of it should be regulated and everyone should be responsible for their own financial decisions. If you're a sucker, you deserve to be sucked dry.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 26, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure, there's a reason why we have gambling laws - the nanny state. The government knows actual gambling is a scam so obviously it wants to perpetrate all of it, hence the national lottery, also known as the poor tax. They make a small exception for Indians since they kind of owe them, but other than that they want all of the dirty money for themselves. As far as I'm concerned none of it should be regulated and everyone should be responsible for their own financial decisions. If you're a sucker, you deserve to be sucked dry.


No regulation on gambling would be a shit show.  It's not about "suckers," children obviously aren't capable of realizing the gravity of their decisions, which is why gambling is 21+.  Not to mention the odds would be garbage in every casino game because they're no longer required to payout at regular intervals.

The bottom line is that gambling has no place in real gaming.  All you do by combining them is make both worse.  Libertarian views are fine to an extent, but when you try to completely erase government's role in everything, you simply end up ruled by the iron fist of corporate America instead.  That's the point where we start referring to each other by serial number and putting dollar values on human life.  Unregulated and unbridled capitalism never works out the way you'd want it to.  People don't self-regulate and corporations _definitely_ don't self-regulate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No regulation on gambling would be a shit show.  It's not about "suckers," children obviously aren't capable of realizing the gravity of their decisions, which is why gambling is 21+.  Not to mention the odds would be garbage in every casino game because they're no longer required to payout at regular intervals.
> 
> The bottom line is that gambling has no place in real gaming.  All you do by combining them is make both worse.  Libertarian views are fine to an extent, but when you try to completely erase government's role in everything, you simply end up ruled by the iron fist of corporate America instead.  That's the point where we start referring to each other by serial number and putting dollar values on human life.  Unregulated and unbridled capitalism never works out the way you'd want it to.  People don't self-regulate and corporations _definitely_ don't self-regulate.


Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose. I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show. Y'know, the ones that produce everything you use everyday, keep your lights on and enable us to have this conversation. That's all a matter of opinion though, you do you, I'll do me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 26, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose. I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show. Y'know, the ones that produce everything you use everyday, keep your lights on and enable us to have this conversation. That's all a matter of opinion though, you do you, I'll do me.


Allowances and/or jobs exist


----------



## Xzi (Feb 26, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose.


That's kinda the issue with bringing easily accessible gambling into people's homes instead of requiring them to go to casinos to gamble.  They'll either use their parents credit card or not even realize they're being charged real money.



Foxi4 said:


> I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show.


More freedoms for the individual would be great, but your mistake is believing corporations would give you more freedom without government around.  If anything, they'd take away more freedoms without government forcing them to do the right thing, and all the products you love so much would probably be unaffordable.  Especially medicine/healthcare which has already had too many regulations stripped away, and we see skyrocketing rates as a result.  It's not that corporations are inherently "bad," but it goes without saying that their focus is money, and not people.

2018 is long past the point where the Libertarian utopia ever had a chance to be realized.  It'd be simply be anarchy at this point, with everybody trying to prey on everybody else.  Besides, Libertarian ideals have mostly been hijacked by the Trump crowd, and they're all about sucking at the tit of government through corporate welfare.  Money seems to supersede the political ideology for them just about every time, so we'll probably see the apocalypse before we see a Libertarian president with real morals and convictions unfortunately.

When it comes right down to it, most Libertarians I know are more obsessed with capitalist gain than having more freedom, because that money grants them more freedom.  No government means no capitalism, so I'm not sure why any Libertarian believes that would be a real benefit to them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Allowances and/or jobs exist


Learn how to manage your money early.


Xzi said:


> That's kinda the issue with bringing easily accessible gambling into people's homes instead of requiring them to go to casinos to gamble.  They'll either use their parents credit card or not even realize they're being charged real money.
> 
> 
> More freedoms for the individual would be great, but your mistake is believing corporations would give you more freedom without government around.  If anything, they'd take away more freedoms without government forcing them to do the right thing, and all the products you love so much would probably be unaffordable.  Especially medicine/healthcare which has already had too many regulations stripped away, and we see skyrocketing rates as a result.  It's not that corporations are inherently "bad," but it goes without saying that their focus is money, and not people.
> ...


Your mistake is that supporting the idea of a minimal government is anarchy. There has never been an actual minimal government system, so it's hard to come up with controls for the system, but there are some minimal government cities with most of their city services completely privatised and they seem to be doing great as far as communities go. The law most certainly does need to exist, but the job of the government is to protect your freedom, not to limit it. That's all a matter of perspective though, so it's not an argument you can have in 400-odd characters.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Feb 28, 2018)

Another reason that any small government tends to grow out of control is because the average person is a lemon. To hell with personal responsibility I want daddy government to take care of me. Screw these people.


----------

