​

After Star Wars Battlefront II released to major controversy regarding lootboxes and in-game purchases, it started a chain of events leading to certain places in Europe and Hawaii attempting to classify lootboxes as "gambling". The pressure from lawmakers and gamers alike have pushed the Entertainment Software Board (ERSB), the North American video game ratings board, into making a label for games that include in-game purchases with real actual money. However, this label isn't for just lootboxes--anything that requires extra purchases outside the basegame, i.e. season passes, skins, lootboxes, upgrades, subscriptions, item packs, basically any form of DLC will fall under this umbrella label.

The purpose for this new addition, states the ESRB, is to inform parents on which games do or do not include any form of in-game extra paid content. Games that use lootboxes or microtransactions in this form will NOT be targeted by this, nor will they be getting any new classifications outside of this. When asked if the ESRB finds lootboxes to be a form of gambling, the ESRB remained certain that they do not consider paying money for lootboxes as gambling in any way.

I’m sure you’re all asking why aren’t we doing something more specific to loot boxes. We’ve done a lot of research over the past several weeks and months, particularly among parents. What we’ve learned is that a large majority of parents don’t know what a loot box is. Even those who claim they do, don’t really understand what a loot box is. So it’s very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, to make sure that we’re capturing loot boxes, but also other in-game transactions

Source

 

[Hells Malice]

Wow I'm baffled even a single person thinks this will do anything.

The one time in my life the ESRB rating did something was when I went to buy Ninja Gaiden 2 at release, and the dude at future shop said I needed ID...so I just looked at him baffled before walking away saying "I'll just go buy it at Walmart then." And did just that. Luckily Walmart was a minutes walk away.

This will do absolutely nothing.

 

[xile6]

This sounds like it's going to accomplish absolutely nothing.

100%

On the back of most games it says dlc or in game purchases.
So this is just moving it to the front.
Does nothing.

 

[Hozu]

Wow I'm baffled even a single person thinks this will do anything.

The one time in my life the ESRB rating did something was when I went to buy Ninja Gaiden 2 at release, and the dude at future shop said I needed ID...so I just looked at him baffled before walking away saying "I'll just go buy it at Walmart then." And did just that. Luckily Walmart was a minutes walk away.

This will do absolutely nothing.

The only way this will do anything is if the gambling MTX shit makes a game have an AO rating. We all know that's not going to happen.

Nice timing, by the way ESRB. Comes out with this after the state of Hawaii introduces legislation to quash the awful behaviour of game companies because the ESRB failed to inform customers of the gambling MTX.

 

[keven3477]

What I want to know is how would the label affect the esrb rating, would having in-game purchases boost the grade rating from E to T / T to M?

Also I don't know how to feel about the part of add-on purchases, dlc falling under the category. Games that have a casual cheap but useful add-on might get a higher grading just for doing something that can please a fan.

 

[the_randomizer]

Would you look at that, private enterprise is self-regulating, the system works! :^)

Hey, it works for the government

 

[anhminh]

When was the last time ESRB actually stop parent from purchase shit? And Kid don't really care much about how those label look either so this is meaningless.

 

[Xzi]

The president is the country's spokesperson, that's his entire job.

Uhh...no. Nowhere in the oath of office does it talk about golf and tweeting. The president's job is to preserve and uphold the constitution and federal law. Also enact foreign and domestic policy on a national level, but Trump is very bad at both of those. Being the "face" of the country isn't important, we have ambassadors for that.

 

[RedBlueGreen]

I think that an in game purchase advisory is a good idea for stuff with in game currency, loot boxes, cosmetic items, etc. But including DLC (legitmate stuff like an expansion) is a bit of a stretch.

 

[hobbledehoy899]

Good guy ESRB!

 

[gamesquest1]

oh look they are trying to conflate loot boxes to normal paid DLC, while micro-DLC started to get a bit money grabby at least you knew what you were buying, loot boxes took it to another level of cup and ball street scamming designed to entice the gullible into a heavily fixed game of chance

honestly though, most kids buy their own games usually, and even if a parent tries to stay as the arbiter the game creators can just for F2P and then shill for their slot machines once your in game, plus this rule I'm pretty sure is designed to dilute the warning so parents cant differentiate from lootbox frenzy games or games that offer random valid DLC packs

 

[mr allen]

What does everyone want them to do? Ban them? They have literally no say in the matter, that was kind of the point of the ESRB. They're just there so everyone knows whats in the game so parents could figure if it's appropriate for their child rather than the government do it. If people are to god damn stupid to read the case that's their problem, not anyone else's.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Um okay. No one ever bothers looking at the rating score but I guess it's something.

 

[Deleted User]

How about we take all the DLC...

and push it somewhere else?!

 

[BORTZ]

While I don't necessarily agree that loot boxes are gambling... I think its a good idea for ESRB to add them to the ratings box.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Wait so, every single game, because most have some kind if dlc, even if it's for something stupid/unnecessary.

 

[SG854]

I don't think that the parents were the ones who complain about those loot boxes... it was the gaming community itself.

Makes me wonder if Kids are used as an excuse to try to get rid of loot boxes in games. Gamers don't like loot boxes because they say it ruins their games. It was never about the kids but gamers using kids for their agenda. Makes you think.

I don't realistically seeing a kid getting addicted and stealing their parents credit card for in game DLC like some say. I don't realistically seeing this going on for a long time and nobody does nothing. A competent responsible parent that keeps track of their money will realize that there is unwanted charges to their credit card. And it actually tells you what that money is being spent on. So a parent will know its spent on the video game console. A parent has bills to pay so that money can't be used irresponsibly on DLC, so they will do what a parent does and discipline their kid for stealing their credit card.

If the Teen gets a job and irresponsible wastes his money on DLC and has no Money for other things like getting new clothing or paying for a car bill then tough love. He learn a life lesson to manage his money better. If you irresponsibly waist your money and can't afford a car then take the bus. If you want a new game console then too bad manage your money better. If you want that new smart phone but decide instead to buy micro transactions then too bad, get a cheaper less expensive not smart prepaid phone. Better them learn this lesson at a young age while they are living under the support of their parents then living alone without support and which can affect them negatively. You can't have everything you want and need to mange better. Its really up to the parent though to properly raise their kids.

People use the addiction argument but can't that argument also be used for video games in general. We must protect kids from micro transaction addiction so lets not let under 21 kids by without parent supervision. Well can't kids get addicted to video games so lets not the buy any video games under 21 without parent supervision. We must protect kids and their future. VG addiction is a thing you always hear about it in the news. We can't let them play video games non stop which will lead them to not study for school and not get exercise and develop health problems. Isn't really the parents responsibility not government that has to limit VG time. Shouldn't the same apply to micro transactions its the parents job not he government to teach them how to manage money. If not then we should also put selling limitations on video games too. Basically people want government to come in and do something that they were incompetent enough to do in the first place. Which was be good parents.

 

[grossaffe]

This is just a ploy by them to hide the actual predatory lootbox mechanics by putting this label on not only those games, but every game with paid DLC without distinguishing between the two. You can't fool me, ESRB. Question is if it will fool government officials into believing the industry is actually self-regulating this. It's sad, because the ESRB rating was a big win back in the day in terms of self-regulation, but now they're sullying their name with this stoogery.