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

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

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



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

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

Oh, how the tides turn.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

 

[Taleweaver]

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 ---------------------------

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".

 

[AxlSt00pid]

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

 

[leon315]

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]

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

 

[Haloman800]

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

 

[Zense]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kioku]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[osaka35]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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 ---------------------------

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]

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

[FAST6191]

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]

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

 

[leon315]

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]

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.

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