The worldwide lootboxes controversy continues, and this time, the claim is coming from the Netherlands. Four games were found to be breaking the country's "Betting and Gaming Act", meaning there's an addictive gambling element, and due to the ability for players to create a market based upon selling lootbox content, it's considered a "game of chance", and therefore requires a license. The four games weren't specified, however a Dutch news channel called out games like PUBG, Rocket League, Dota 2, and FIFA 18. All of which do have a large trading economies that base themselves on lootboxes.

The Dutch gaming authority has decided that lootboxes are similar to casino games, meaning they either need to acquire a gambling license in the country, or the developers need to change how lootboxes work. Such changes would involve disabling any visual effects while opening a lootbox, so that players do not have a rush of excitement from potentially being psyched into winning big, and there needs to be a cooldown on opening lootboxes, so players don't open mass amounts of them in one go. The four games must make here changes before June 20, or else the Dutch gaming authority will be forced to take legal action.

Source

 

[Foxi4]

We have been through this, and you've got blinders on in regard to the subject. If you spend money on the chance to win something worth more money, that's gambling. It doesn't matter how anyone tries to double-speak around this seemingly inconvenient fact.

And are you seriously going to try and pretend that loot boxes are pro-consumer? Pro-consumer is putting in content that you unlock by PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME, not locking it behind a paywall with a randomized element of chance thrown in.


The US does have online gambling laws that loot boxes would clearly be in violation of. If any of our government was tech literate enough to understand these things, anyway.

I don't want the government to be involved in protecting people from themselves, whatever self-destructive tendencies they might have. If Mr.Foxi-dad gives his Foxi-son a fiver to buy V-Bucks with, I as an adult have already given consent and my kid can buy whatever the hell he wants. I decide what my kid can or cannot buy, not some old, fat men with no concept of the Internet who sit atop the cloudy heights of the government, drenched in confirmation bias and filter bubbles. I find it thoroughly amusing that gambling is perfectly fine when the government creates a poor tax by releasing a bunch of scratchcards and ping pong machines and calls it the National Lottery, but when a private entity does it it's suddenly nefarious, even if said private entity is fully transparent about the process, to the point that even calling it gambling is debatable. Our elected officials need to have a monopoly on all the scamming, that's the moral solution.

You have to keep in mind that loot boxes aren't prohibited by default. The Dutch gambling authority only wants the developers to make some specific changes to their loot box models.

Also, a bit off topic but from what I've noticed on Reddit and several Dutch forums most Dutch people actually welcome this change.
Most Dutch people aren't as liberal as the typical U.S citizen.

It's already an infringement of inherent rights to me. I'm sure the majority of people support this, the majority is always uninformed, it's tyranny of the stupid. I'm also not an American.

 

[Xzi]

I don't want the government to be involved in protecting people from themselves, whatever self-destructive tendencies they might have.

Well it's too late for that, the country was established with plenty of laws protecting idiots from self-harm, otherwise our population would probably be less than half what it is now. OTOH, we also probably wouldn't have elected Trump with all the paint drinkers gone, so I like this hypothetical.

I find it thoroughly amusing that gambling is perfectly fine when the government creates a poor tax by releasing a bunch of scratchcards and ping pong machines and calls it the National Lottery, but when a private entity does it it's suddenly nefarious, even if said private entity is fully transparent about the process, to the point that even calling it gambling is debatable.

Scratch tickets are regulated, can't be sold to minors, and clearly label themselves as gambling. If all three of these things were true of loot boxes too, there would be no issue.

Our elected officials need to have a monopoly on all the scamming, that's the moral solution.

At least you're willing to admit that loot boxes are a scam.

 

[Ysle29]

It's already an infringement of inherent rights to me. I'm sure the majority of people support this, the majority is always uninformed, it's tyranny of the stupid. I'm also not an American.

I didn't mean to imply you were an American, I just wanted to illustrate the typical Dutch mindset. Since most users here are Americans it was the easiest example to make.
Also, I don't get my information from Facebook or a Dutch Breitbart equivalent, just take a look at the Dutch subreddit. Most people there are younger, educated people in their twenties.

 

[VitaType]

The four games weren't specified, however a Dutch news channel called out games like PUBG, Rocket League, Dota 2, and FIFA 18.

They put lootboxes in a annually released sport game?
I thought you can't get cheaper then EA with there recent Star Wars game. Are the things you get from these lootboxes at least transferable to never versions of the game once they release? I mean there're alot of people who buy these games every year.

 

[Ysle29]

They put lootboxes in a annually released sport game?
I thought you can't get cheaper then EA with there recent Star Wars game. Are the things you get from these lootboxes at least transferable to never versions of the game once they release? I mean there're alot of people who buy these games every year.

FIFA has an online game mode called "Ultimate Team" in which you can buy random football player packs for real money.

The players aren't transferred over to new FIFA versions which is why I don't play Ultimate Team. EA's multiplayer modes always suck.

 

[Foxi4]

I didn't mean to imply you were an American, I just wanted to illustrate the typical Dutch mindset. Since most users here are Americans it was the easiest example to make.
Also, I don't get my information from Facebook or a Dutch Breitbart equivalent, just take a look at the Dutch subreddit. Most people there are younger, educated people in their twenties.

I don't see what their age or level of education has to do with anything. They don't appreciate their inherent rights, including free will and the capacity to choose how to spend their money, that's what matters to me. As I said, it's still tyranny of the stupid.

Well it's too late for that, the country was established with plenty of laws protecting idiots from self-harm, otherwise our population would probably be less than half what it is now. OTOH, we also probably wouldn't have elected Trump with all the paint drinkers gone, so I like this hypothetical.

Scratch tickets are regulated, can't be sold to minors, and clearly label themselves as gambling. If all three of these things were true of loot boxes too, there would be no issue.

At least you're willing to admit that loot boxes are a scam.

The lottery is a scam, the likelihood of you winning is infinitesimal. Lootboxes are clearly labelled - they contain an in-game item, and should you receive a duplicate item, you receive in-game currency - you can't lose, which differentiates lootboxes from the lottery, or gambling in general. If anything, they're shortcuts for players and a money-making scheme for developers, which I'm fine with. Maybe you relish the prospect of the government stepping in and ensuring that citizens have less agency in how they spend *their* money, I don't.

 

[Ysle29]

I don't see what their age or level of education has to do with anything. They don't appreciate their inherent rights, including free will and the capacity to choose how to spend their money, that's what matters to me. As I said, it's still tyranny of the stupid.

It has everything to do with your prevous comment. Their level of education says something about their intelligence, they're not stupid. The fact that they're younger means that they're generally more informed on the subject and thus are not part of the "tyranny of the stupid".
They do appreciate their rights and free will and they are using them to think about the subject before they form an opinion on it, instead of just cracking down on the change simply because it's "nanny state policy".

 

[Xzi]

The lottery is a scam, the likelihood of you winning is infinitesimal. Lootboxes are clearly labelled - they contain an in-game item, and should you receive a duplicate item, you receive in-game currency - you can't lose, which differentiates lootboxes from the lottery, or gambling in general.

The loophole here being that you can receive "common" filler items, valueless from nearly any perspective. However, this isn't at all different from putting $1.00 into a slot machine and getting $0.10 or $0.02 cents back, which is not unusual. It's still gambling.

 

[Foxi4]

It has everything to do with your prevous comment. Their level of education says something about their intelligence, they're not stupid. The fact that they're younger means that they're generally more informed on the subject and thus are not part of the "tyranny of the stupid".
They do appreciate their rights and free will and they are using them to think about the subject before they form an opinion on it, instead of just cracking down on the change simply because it's "nanny state policy".

It absolutely doesn't - that's an appeal to authority. I've met many people who are dumber than a bag of bricks, but we're either resilient enough, rich enough or particularly talented in a narrow field enough to get a degree. Education does not translate to wisdom, they're only tangentially related. They don't respect rights, and the only evidence I need is their willingness to trample on other people's rights. They're keen on deciding on behalf of other people what's best for them as opposed to standing on the side of personal responsibility which exposes their shallow thought process.

The loophole here being that you can receive "common" filler items, valueless from nearly any perspective. However, this isn't at all different from putting $1.00 into a slot machine and getting $0.10 or $0.02 cents back, which is not unusual. It's still gambling.

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it.

 

[Xzi]

That's your opinion.

No, it's just fact that slot machines work that way. And it's fact that loot boxes have very similar pre-programmed odds in many games. At the very least, we must require odds published.

I also completely oppose the idea that this is somehow a "rights" issue. If anything it's a corporate rights issue, but the consumer gets absolutely fucked over in most loot box models. IMO also give people the option to purchase the content they want directly, at pricing tiers based on rarity.

 

[Foxi4]

No, it's just fact that slot machines work that way. And it's fact that loot boxes have very similar pre-programmed odds in many games. At the very least, we must require odds published.

I'm totally fine with odds being public as a half-measure, it would make the game more transparent. I support transparency, I only oppose infringement of rights.

 

[Ysle29]

They don't respect rights, and the only evidence I need is their willingness to trample on other people's rights. They're keen on deciding on behalf of other people what's best for them as opposed to standing on the side of personal responsibility which exposes their shallow thought process.

Just because they support a government decision doesn't mean they don't appreciate their rights and that they have a shallow thought process. The fact that you base your opinion solely on the fact that this is a government decision only shows that you have a shallow thought process.

 

[The Catboy]

I was really hoping Overwatch would be on this list. That game can not keep getting a pass, despite being the game that popularized lootboxes.
Edit: Personally I feel like the law should be, "If you are going to have a freemium economy/lootboxes, then your game has be free."

 

[KingVamp]

I was really hoping Overwatch would be on this list. That game can not keep getting a pass, despite being the game that popularized lootboxes.

It is also one of the games that has been the least to abuse them.

 

[SkittleDash]

Wait... Hear that? I can hear EA screaming in agony... It's music to my ears.

 

[The Catboy]

It is also one of the games that has been the least to abuse them.

Doesn't change the fact that they popularized this system and effectively made it mainstream (it's also a game that people are far too willing to defend despite this fact.) Going after Overwatch would send a very clear single that this practice is shouldn't be considered acceptable and will send a far harder single than any other game.

 

[anhminh]

I'm totally fine with odds being public as a half-measure, it would make the game more transparent. I support transparency, I only oppose infringement of rights.

They may transparent about the odd but they never transparent about the value of what you get. Outside of the 95% filler which worth nothing (aka trash), the usual 5% premium shit also contain shit that worth just as much as trash since it was powercreep by 0,0001% of tier 1 shit. So even though the odds being public, the actual odd of getting something value is not.

Can't help that they also encourage you to keep going after you getting trash by keep raising the odds you get premium shit but in the end you get nothing but bottom tier shit and trash. I'm not joking when say that gaming company that running this kind of gacha game have a bunch of psychologist working all day just to exploit the customer's mind. From the illusion of choice to peer pressure, their know all of your weakness and will exploit it to get to your wallet.

 

[KingVamp]

Doesn't change the fact that they popularized this system and effectively made it mainstream (it's also a game that people are far too willing to defend despite this fact.) Going after Overwatch would send a very clear single that this practice is shouldn't be considered acceptable and will send a far harder single than any other game.

Maybe because popularization doesn't necessarily equal bad and simply having lootboxes wasn't the problem. Considering it wasn't them, but EA misuse that started all this in the first place.

You do realize that everyone would have to pay for any new content for Overwatch, not just the people who are buying cosmetic lootboxes, right? If it wasn't lootboxes, it would be them eventually, if not initially, spamming DLC instead, splitting up the userbase.

 

[The Catboy]

Maybe because popularization doesn't necessarily equal bad and simply having lootboxes wasn't the problem. Considering it wasn't them, but EA misuse that started all this in the first place.

You do realize that everyone would have to pay for any new content for Overwatch, not just the people who are buying cosmetic lootboxes, right? If it wasn't lootboxes, it would be them eventually, if not initially, spamming DLC instead, splitting up the userbase.

Or we can stop making excuses and hold Overwatch accountable. We can't keep giving this game a free pass because it's that very same free pass that got us to where we are now. It's always "It's just cosmetics," "It's only a few unnecessary accessories," and now entire games built themselves on lootboxes. Stop giving Overwatch a free pass, you only continue the problem by doing so.

 

[KingVamp]

Or we can stop making excuses and hold Overwatch accountable. We can't keep giving this game a free pass because it's that very same free pass that got us to where we are now. It's always "It's just cosmetics," "It's only a few unnecessary accessories," and now entire games built themselves on lootboxes. Stop giving Overwatch a free pass, you only continue the problem by doing so.

It isn't Overwatch fault, that others are abusing it. Seems like the biggest misuse of Lootboxes are already being dealt with culturally and legally, but since you are all or nothing with lootboxes, prepare to pay for more dlc instead, if lootboxes go away altogether. Not that I think they will.