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

 

[Foxi4]

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]

It must be an election year!

 

[Condarkness]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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