In the latest scrutiny over the biggest modern gaming controversy, lootboxes, the United Kingdom's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee has called both Epic Games and Electronic Arts into Parliament in order to discern whether lootboxes should be outlawed. With both companies publishing some of the largest video game franchises that include lootboxes as a major mechanic--Fortnite and FIFA, respectively--the Committee has begun an investigation into whether lootboxes are harming consumers. During the meeting, which was held on June 19th, Scotland's National Party MP claimed that studies and evidence showed that lootboxes have a close link to gambling. In response, EA's Vice President of Legal Affairs, Kerry Hopkins, made a few comments in the defense of lootboxes in video games, saying, "We don't call them lootboxes. They are instead referred to as surprise mechanics."

Hopkins continued her statement by stating the following, "We do agree with the UK gambling commission, the Australian gambling commission, and many other gambling commissions that they aren’t gambling, and we also disagree that there’s evidence that shows it leads to gambling. Instead, we think it’s like many other products that people enjoy in a healthy way, and like the element of surprise."

In attempts to further explain EA's stance on preventing lootboxes from being considered gambling, especially towards minors, Hopkins then said "People enjoy surprises, it's been a part of toys for years, like in Kinder Eggs or Hatchimals. [...] Lootboxes are actually quite ethical and quite fun, quite enjoyable to people".

Regardless of EA's own stance on the subject, it appears that smaller European countries do not agree, with Belgium and the Netherlands having outlawed lootboxes, resulting in the removal of those elements from their Belgian and Dutch releases, such as Blizzard and 2K removing the option to pay real money for lootboxes in Overwatch and NBA 2K18. Even in the United States, the Senate has put up a bill that, should it manage to be passed, would also ban pay-to-win microtransactions.

Source

 

[xxNathanxx]

The market self-regulates

Come on dude, the market for hard drugs also 'self-regulates'. Should they also be sold to children because "their parents should be the ones to tell them getting addicted isn't healthy" or "those kids should be more disciplined"?

Nature itself even 'self-regulates', might as well let big companies pollute rivers and air as much as they want because the planet itself fundamentally doesn't care.

 

[Foxi4]

It's almost as if consumer abuse should be regulated and any practice that actively abuses it's consumers is destined to be regulated. Humans aren't perfect machines and are susceptible to abuse and governments are there to protect the people against them.

This has nothing to do with free market interference and everything do to with consumer protection.

I already have a mom and dad, I don't need another one in the form of the government. The only instance where the government should step in is when goods and services are sold under false pretenses or there is a breach of contract to deal with, anything else is fair play. If you pay someone to punch you in the gut, you can't press charges for assault - you requested to be punched with full presence of mind, you got exactly what you wanted.

It's almost as if consumer abuse should be regulated and any practice that actively abuses it's consumers is destined to be regulated. Humans aren't perfect machines and are susceptible to abuse and governments are there to protect the people against them.

This has nothing to do with free market interference and everything do to with consumer protection.

Who gives the children money to purchase their lootboxes with? They don't make any income, someone pays for them - who? Is it grown adults, as in the legal guardians? Then it's their fault. This is an instance of governments protecting people from themselves - we have a word for that, it's called nannying. You expect the government to fulfil the duties of the parents instead of expecting the parents to actually do some parenting for a change.

The comparison to hard drugs is completely ridiculous, I won't even address it, it's so over the top that I don't have a ladder tall enough to reach. Just the health implications of drug use alone should tell you that this is a terrible analogy, and you're making fun of EA for comparing lootboxes to Kinder eggs, which is actually apt in the sense that you always get "a treat" (the chocolate is your digital credit) and you can find a random "surprise" inside (the toy, or a random item), except there are less disappointments involved.

 

[Kioku]

The comparison to hard drugs is completely ridiculous, I won't even address it, it's so over the top that I don't have a ladder tall enough to reach. Just the health implications of drug use alone should tell you that this is a terrible analogy, and you're making fun of EA for comparing lootboxes to Kinder eggs, which is actually apt in the sense that you always get "a treat" (the chocolate is your digital credit) and you can find a random "surprise" inside (the toy, or a random item), except there are less disappointments involved.

Comparing digital goods to physical is just as asinine. It's not the same thing, maybe in a shallow definition of the principle. That's stretching it pretty damn far, as well. Especially when bringing kids into the matter. Kids don't steal credit cards to go to their local convenience store or Walmart to buy Kinder eggs/surprise toys. They DO however rack up an absurd amount of debt for a plethora of excuses. While we're on the subject, it also does build the basis for a gambling problem. THAT is the responsibility of the parents. Not the companies targeting kids with irrational logic. We're not buying plastic toys at $1 a pop. We're talking about wholly rigged digital chests that require (Yes, REQUIRE) you to dump some obscene amount to get what you're after in a game.

EA and the rest should hold some accountability when it comes to minors. Drugs, liquor, tobacco. It's the same effect. Whether you agree or not is your problem.

 

[Foxi4]

Comparing digital goods to physical is just as asinine. It's not the same thing, maybe in a shallow definition of the principle. That's stretching it pretty damn far, as well. Especially when bringing kids into the matter. Kids don't steal credit cards to go to their local convenience store or Walmart to buy Kinder eggs/surprise toys. They DO however rack up an absurd amount of debt for a plethora of excuses. While we're on the subject, it also does build the basis for a gambling problem. THAT is the responsibility of the parents. Not the companies targeting kids with irrational logic. We're not buying plastic toys at $1 a pop. We're talking about wholly rigged digital chests that require (Yes, REQUIRE) you to dump some obscene amount to get what you're after in a game.

EA and the rest should hold some accountability when it comes to minors. Drugs, liquor, tobacco. It's the same effect. Whether you agree or not is your problem.

Clearly you've never met any otakus sinking their life's savings into blind bags hoping to nab that one rare figurine they're missing in their cabinet, or TGC addicts compulsively buying stacks of boosters to get a "perfect deck" when in reality they should be buying soap and deodorant. All jokes aside, that's just my opinion - you don't have to agree with me, it's just the way I see it. I'd rather if people focused more on the fact that parents aren't doing a whole lot of parenting and hand over their credit cards to their children instead of pointing fingers and video game companies. The companies make a product, and if the product sells, it's their obligation and sole raison d'etre to provide it to their customers.

 

[xxNathanxx]

Just the health implications of drug use alone should tell you that this is a terrible analogy

Are you trying to suggest:
- that gambling addictions are not real, or
- that they're not very addictive, or
- that children are not susceptible to addictions, or
- that gambling addictions are not as bad as drug addictions?

What are you trying to say? Why would you completely disregard all scientific research that's been done on the subject all in order to make some hazy point about "da gubmint"?

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

I'd rather if people focused more on the fact that parents aren't doing a whole lot of parenting and hand over their credit cards to their children instead of pointing fingers and video game companies. The companies make a product, and if the product sells, it's their obligation and sole raison d'etre to provide it to their customers.

Good luck being a kid born to shitty parents, as according to your reasoning that kid's just doomed to be an addict, nothing to do about it. Poor companies, they're just trying to take advantage of the undeveloped brains of children, nothing bad about that, it's all their parents' fault if the children fall into the companies' traps.

 

[Foxi4]

Are you trying to suggest:
- that gambling addictions are not real, or
- that they're not very addictive, or
- that children are not susceptible to addictions, or
- that gambling addictions are not as bad as drug addictions?

What are you trying to say? Why would you completely disregard all scientific research that's been done on the subject all in order to make some hazy point about "da gubmint"?

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


Good luck being a kid born to shitty parents, as according to your reasoning that kid's just doomed to be an addict, nothing to do about it.

Lootboxes are not gambling, that's what I'm saying, and I've explored it in other threads so extensively that repeating myself for the n-th time seems redundant to me. Lootboxes are a product, you are given precisely what it says on the tin. Gambling differs from lootbox mechanics in the sense that there are no winning and losing conditions - every lootbox contains something, and if the item is a duplicate, you are refunded in currency which can be spent on other items. There is no way to "lose" at lootboxes, which by extension means that you're not gambling since there are no stakes. This is basic game theory stuff, that's the short version of it, that's how I see it. I'm sorry that some kids have shitty parents, but that's not EA's fault, it's not my fault, and I'm not planning to support adjusting the law that binds the many to cater to the few.

As for the analogy and why it's poor, besides their addictive nature, hard drugs have a negative impact on the physical well-being of the user. Taking hard drugs leads directly to physically harming the user, which includes the very real possibility of death, either from overdose, overuse over a long period of time or accidental death under influence. Lootboxes are not associated with that kind of danger, that's why your analogy doesn't work. The only thing a lootbox might harm is your wallet, and only due to your own lack of restraint.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

I already have a mom and dad, I don't need another one in the form of the government. The only instance where the government should step in is when goods and services are sold under false pretenses or there is a breach of contract to deal with, anything else is fair play. If you pay someone to punch you in the gut, you can't press charges for assault - you requested to be punched with full presence of mind, you got exactly what you wanted.

Turning this conflict into a matter of free market is completely out of touch. You are seemingly more out of touch than even EA is in this regard. They used the word "ethical" for a reason. They realize that this is a matter of consumer protection, and not a free market problem. They did not use wordings such as "unfair", they used "ethical". Pivoting the conversation isn't going to save them from the storm of complaints about the protections people are demanding the government to reconsider.

"The only instance where the government should step in is when goods and services are sold under false pretenses".

You even stated it yourself. This is exactly what people are having the government do. People are demanding the government look into whether their products have been sold under the false pretense of "not gambling", knowing full well that gambling has psychological impacts coming with the trade. You can claim that the people bought it so it's their own fault, but under false pretenses the blame is now shifted towards the producer, not the consumer.

You can tout free market regulation as much as you want, but a fundamental assumption that all marketable goods have unless otherwise stated is the ideal that they should be safe. Cigarettes have warnings on them, medicine has warnings on them, even casinos have warnings on them. Things have gone on long enough, and enough damage has been dealt and enough shit has been stirred that people are now looking at the industry, looking at gambling, and demand from the government an answer to whether or not they have been mislead about the safety of the products that they have been told by the companies were "safe".

Please stop blindly trying to divert the conversation away from the issue and do try and see where the current issue of conversation is truly. The people may be using this as a stick to whack companies over the head with, but the way their complaints are being leveled does not make them any less valid. To dismiss the complaint because of false pretenses is truly fallacious.

 

[pasc]

Mhmmmm a nice fresh cup of capitalism. yum.

 

[Foxi4]

Turning this conflict into a matter of free market is completely out of touch. You are seemingly more out of touch than even EA is in this regard. They used the word "ethical" for a reason. They realize that this is a matter of consumer protection, and not a free market problem. They did not use wordings such as "unfair", they used "ethical". Pivoting the conversation isn't going to save them from the storm of complaints about the protections people are demanding the government to reconsider.


You even stated it yourself. This is exactly what people are having the government do. People are demanding the government look into whether their products have been sold under the false pretense of "not gambling", knowing full well that gambling has psychological impacts coming with the trade. You can claim that the people bought it so it's their own fault, but under false pretenses the blame is now shifted towards the producer, not the consumer.

You can tout free market regulation as much as you want, but a fundamental assumption that all marketable goods have unless otherwise stated is the ideal that they should be safe. Cigarettes have warnings on them, medicine has warnings on them, even casinos have warnings on them. Things have gone on long enough, and enough damage has been dealt and enough shit has been stirred that people are now looking at the industry, looking at gambling, and demand from the government an answer to whether or not they have been mislead about the safety of the products that they have been told by the companies were "safe".

Please stop blindly trying to divert the conversation away from the issue and do try and see where the current issue of conversation is truly. The people may be using this as a stick to whack companies over the head with, but the way their complaints are being leveled does not make them any less valid. To dismiss the complaint because of false pretenses is truly fallacious.

I'm not diverting the conversation, I'm offering an opposing, contrasting opinion in a hugbox. Would you prefer if everyone just nodded? That doesn't seem like a fun conversation to me. From where I'm sitting, microtransactions and lootboxes enabled the development of games that wouldn't exist otherwise, including two of my favourites - Rainbow Six Siege from Ubisoft and Apex Legends from Respawn/EA. As a side note, I have never purchased a lootbox in my life because I have impulse control. I'm sorry if some people don't, but that's not my problem. Looking at the evidence, I don't think the government should restrict lootboxes in any way, self-regulation is perfectly sufficient here.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

I'm not diverting the conversation, I'm offering an opposing, contrasting opinion in a hugbox. Would you prefer if everyone just nodded? That doesn't seem like a fun conversation to me. From where I'm sitting, microtransactions and lootboxes enabled the development of games that wouldn't exist otherwise, including two of my favourites - Rainbow Six Siege from Ubisoft and Apex Legends from Respawn/EA. As a side note, I have never purchased a lootbox in my life because I have impulse control. I'm sorry if some people don't, but that's not my problem. Looking at the evidence, I don't think the government should restrict lootboxes in any way, self-regulation is perfectly sufficient here.

Your insistence that the free market will self regulate itself suggests that you don't, in fact, understand how the current allegations against lootboxes are being levied. If you did, you wouldn't have brought up self regulation in the first place as it is a term that applies only to the free market and not consumer protections.

Personally, I don't care how this plays out. Like you, I've never bought one, nor will I ever let my children play a game with one. Lootboxes are a tool game designers should be allowed to use, however, enough damage has been caused that they need to be re-examined in full diligence, which is what the government is doing.

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna put on my prophet hat and make a prediction: if this fails, and lootboxes or similar mechanics go into games unchecked as they currently are, someone is going to take one of these companies to court. Once this happens, it's not in the hands of politicians or companies anymore, it's in the hands of the court. The court is an entirely different ball game and things will then have the very real possibility of changing.

 

[xxNathanxx]

only due to your own lack of restraint.

Well, there you have it, you don't consider gambling to be addictive, thereby completely disregarding all scientific research that proves that it is pretty damn addictive. There is nothing to discuss on what you see if you refuse to look because you've already made up your mind. Belief truly is the death of intelligence.

 

[Foxi4]

Your insistence that the free market will self regulate itself suggests that you don't, in fact, understand how the current allegations against lootboxes are being levied. If you did, you wouldn't have brought up self regulation in the first place as it is a term that applies only to the free market and not consumer protections.

Personally, I don't care how this plays out. Like you, I've never bought one, nor will I ever let my children play a game with one. Lootboxes are a tool game designers should be allowed to use, however, enough damage has been caused that they need to be re-examined in full diligence, which is what the government is doing.

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna put on my prophet hat and make a prediction: if this fails, and lootboxes or similar mechanics go into games unchecked as they currently are, someone is going to take one of these companies to court. Once this happens, it's not in the hands of politicians or companies anymore, it's in the hands of the court. The court is an entirely different ball game and things will then have the very real possibility of changing.

I'm very familiar with the controversy and I've addressed all the criticism levied against lootboxes. I know how those "inquiries" look like and I put zero trust in the government making an accurate assessment regarding the "safety" of these mechanics. To be fair though, I put very little trust in the government in general, so it's not unusual for me. Opposing any form of limitations of the free market or restricting the access of consumers to goods comes pre-packaged with my ideology. I am instantaneously suspicious of any attempts to restrict people's ability to spend their own money, including in manners that are self-destructive.

Well, there you have it, you don't consider gambling to be addictive, thereby completely disregarding all scientific research that proves that it is pretty damn addictive. There is nothing to discuss on what you see if you refuse to look because you've already made up your mind. Belief truly is the death of intelligence.

You should scroll back up and read the post again, I don't think you read it quite right. Try again. I never said anything of the sort.

Hint: I specifically said that lootbox mechanics do not constitute gambling and explained why. You would know that if you actually read what I wrote instead of skimming through the post.

Edit: Let's use our "intelligence" instead of "belief" and supplement what we know with a handy definition from Wikipedia:

"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), risk (chance), and a prize."

So, as I said earlier, lootboxes do not qualify as there is no monetary or material gain to be had, there is no risk as every lootbox contains a reward (making the outcome certain - you get a random reward every time) and there is no wager. Only the "prize" itself is random (if you can even call it a "prize" since you're not "winning" at a game of chance) but it's always there. Lootboxes may be addictive in an out of themselves, but they do not fulfil the game theory model of gambling, not even close. Not every action with a random reward or outcome can be considered gambling - you need to have something to win and something to lose. If you can't lose, you're not taking a risk. If you can't lose, you also can't win - you de facto get the "prize", you're only uncertain of what it is. Don't accuse others of ignorance when you yourself ignored everything they've said. As it stands, a lootbox is exactly what it says on the tin - it's a digital "container" with a randomised item. Calling it "gambling" is muddying the waters. We can discuss whether it's an addictive and habit-forming activity, but that's a different discussion.

 

[tranceology3]

I mean where is the line crossed. Many toys, card games, collectibles are basically gambling when they have a "rare" surprise inside. How does it feel when you and buddy each buys a Magic the Gathering Booster pack for $4, to find out your pack is worth 10 cents in cards, and his is worth $30 cause he got an ultra rare card.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Does this mean Fortnite's gonna die?

 

[Tiger21820]

I would consider getting ANY duplicate of ANYTHING from lootboxes as losing. Fire Emblem Heroes as an example: You pay 5 orbs to start a summoning session. You pay 4 for 4 more heroes each. The 5th one costs 3. If you get nothing but duplicates, you lost big time! You do not get refunded 25 orbs and there is practically no benefit to getting duplicate heroes. So with these things considered, this would be considered losing lootboxes! Oh, and you can purchase orbs too. Purchasing orbs DOES NOT increase your chances of getting a 5 star hero and DOES NOT REDUCE your chances of getting a duplicate! So you spend real money on at least 25 orbs. You do a full summoning session. ALL OF THEM ARE FREAKIN' DUPLICATES! YOU ARE NOT REFUNDED THOSE 25 ORBS!! YOU JUST WASTED YOUR MONEY!!! Is anyone going to defend this horribly broken "lootbox" system? Don't blame yourself for wasting your money, blame Nintendo for implementing this system so poorly!

 

[skullskullskull]

Don't blame yourself for wasting your money, blame Nintendo for implementing this system so poorly!

It's absolutely your fault for playing a crooked game in the first place. Don't play games with lootboxes if you don't like them.

 

[medoli900]

They are illegal because there is a toy inside the egg which you could choke on if you dont open the egg and take the toy out. There are kinder eggs in america which are worse versions which separate the toy from the choclate. The only reason I know this is because I go to the uk every summer and smuggle kinder eggs back to the us to eat .

You could also get them in Canada. Would probably cost you less in travel

Comparing loot boxes to kinder surprise (or kinder eggs, as called in UK), is so dumb. You have the chocolate, the toy is a plus. In a lootbox, you don't even have the chocolate, you just have the "surprise".

(Now I want Chocoloot. Lootboxes sold inside chocolate... *Drool*)

 

[gamemasteru03]

You could also get them in Canada. Would probably cost you less in travel

Comparing loot boxes to kinder surprise (or kinder eggs, as called in UK), is so dumb. You have the chocolate, the toy is a plus. In a lootbox, you don't even have the chocolate, you just have the "surprise".

(Now I want Chocoloot. Lootboxes sold inside chocolate... *Drool*)

I go to england rather than Canada since I have family to visit there.

 

[Bladexdsl]

Does this mean Fortnite's gonna die?

we can only hope

 

[DarkWork0]

It's like saying "I didn't shoot him, I just thought he would like the surprise mechanic."