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

 

[Navonod]

Honestly everything you said is exactly what I want in the game industry, I grew up buying a complete game and spending the time and effort to unlock everything I could. Nowadays I won't buy a game if I can't everything included for 60$ or under.

Yes finally someone agrees with me and knows exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know about these other people. I guess they're so used to being "right" that they assume everyone else is stupid or something. Honestly they should pull their head out of their ass.

 

[Xzi]

As for objectivity (or a lack of it), I fully embrace any avenue the developers wish to use to make money. Whatever they choose to do, I'm the one with the wallet, so I'm the boss. I don't think they're responsible for the "financial well-being" of customers with shitty spending habits, nor do I think that the government should protect people from themselves. It's called personal responsibility, you should try it, it's pretty cool.

There are reasons we have gambling regulations and gambling addiction hotlines in place. Loot boxes aren't about making games more fun, they're about making games more profitable, which is why they have the exact same psychological design that slot machines do. Some even literally spin a wheel each time you buy a box.

Personal responsibility is fine, but what you're suggesting is that the developer/publisher holds no responsibility while the customer being preyed upon holds all responsibility, which is not how things work, even in the "free market." You don't see street vendors setting up "toy betting tables" for children where you always win a toy worth at least $0.01, because any cop who approaches is going to see right through that ploy. The only reason it took longer for lawmakers to catch up with loot boxes is because they're old and bad with tech/games.

 

[the_randomizer]

Are people honestly defending loot crates and the idea behind them? That's sad. They're a bane on games, they're a bane on people, and benefit no one but the company, giving them excuses to intentionally release incomplete games. We may as well be paying them to let us beta test their games. That's pathetic.

 

[Foxi4]

There are reasons we have gambling regulations and gambling addiction hotlines in place. Loot boxes aren't about making games more fun, they're about making games more profitable, which is why they have the exact same psychological design that slot machines do. Some even literally spin a wheel each time you buy a box.

Personal responsibility is fine, but what you're suggesting is that the developer/publisher holds no responsibility while the customer being preyed upon holds all responsibility, which is not how things work, even in the "free market." You don't see street vendors setting up "toy betting tables" for children where you always win a toy worth at least $0.01, because any cop who approaches is going to see right through that ploy. The only reason it took longer for lawmakers to catch up with loot boxes is because they're old and bad with tech/games.

Sure, there's a reason why we have gambling laws - the nanny state. The government knows actual gambling is a scam so obviously it wants to perpetrate all of it, hence the national lottery, also known as the poor tax. They make a small exception for Indians since they kind of owe them, but other than that they want all of the dirty money for themselves. As far as I'm concerned none of it should be regulated and everyone should be responsible for their own financial decisions. If you're a sucker, you deserve to be sucked dry.

 

[Xzi]

Sure, there's a reason why we have gambling laws - the nanny state. The government knows actual gambling is a scam so obviously it wants to perpetrate all of it, hence the national lottery, also known as the poor tax. They make a small exception for Indians since they kind of owe them, but other than that they want all of the dirty money for themselves. As far as I'm concerned none of it should be regulated and everyone should be responsible for their own financial decisions. If you're a sucker, you deserve to be sucked dry.

No regulation on gambling would be a shit show. It's not about "suckers," children obviously aren't capable of realizing the gravity of their decisions, which is why gambling is 21+. Not to mention the odds would be garbage in every casino game because they're no longer required to payout at regular intervals.

The bottom line is that gambling has no place in real gaming. All you do by combining them is make both worse. Libertarian views are fine to an extent, but when you try to completely erase government's role in everything, you simply end up ruled by the iron fist of corporate America instead. That's the point where we start referring to each other by serial number and putting dollar values on human life. Unregulated and unbridled capitalism never works out the way you'd want it to. People don't self-regulate and corporations definitely don't self-regulate.

 

[Foxi4]

No regulation on gambling would be a shit show. It's not about "suckers," children obviously aren't capable of realizing the gravity of their decisions, which is why gambling is 21+. Not to mention the odds would be garbage in every casino game because they're no longer required to payout at regular intervals.

The bottom line is that gambling has no place in real gaming. All you do by combining them is make both worse. Libertarian views are fine to an extent, but when you try to completely erase government's role in everything, you simply end up ruled by the iron fist of corporate America instead. That's the point where we start referring to each other by serial number and putting dollar values on human life. Unregulated and unbridled capitalism never works out the way you'd want it to. People don't self-regulate and corporations definitely don't self-regulate.

Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose. I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show. Y'know, the ones that produce everything you use everyday, keep your lights on and enable us to have this conversation. That's all a matter of opinion though, you do you, I'll do me.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose. I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show. Y'know, the ones that produce everything you use everyday, keep your lights on and enable us to have this conversation. That's all a matter of opinion though, you do you, I'll do me.

Allowances and/or jobs exist

 

[Xzi]

Children don't have income, they don't have money to lose.

That's kinda the issue with bringing easily accessible gambling into people's homes instead of requiring them to go to casinos to gamble. They'll either use their parents credit card or not even realize they're being charged real money.

I would happily trade the government's iron fist for more freedom, even at the cost of the "big bad corporations" running the show.

More freedoms for the individual would be great, but your mistake is believing corporations would give you more freedom without government around. If anything, they'd take away more freedoms without government forcing them to do the right thing, and all the products you love so much would probably be unaffordable. Especially medicine/healthcare which has already had too many regulations stripped away, and we see skyrocketing rates as a result. It's not that corporations are inherently "bad," but it goes without saying that their focus is money, and not people.

2018 is long past the point where the Libertarian utopia ever had a chance to be realized. It'd be simply be anarchy at this point, with everybody trying to prey on everybody else. Besides, Libertarian ideals have mostly been hijacked by the Trump crowd, and they're all about sucking at the tit of government through corporate welfare. Money seems to supersede the political ideology for them just about every time, so we'll probably see the apocalypse before we see a Libertarian president with real morals and convictions unfortunately.

When it comes right down to it, most Libertarians I know are more obsessed with capitalist gain than having more freedom, because that money grants them more freedom. No government means no capitalism, so I'm not sure why any Libertarian believes that would be a real benefit to them.

 

[Foxi4]

Allowances and/or jobs exist

Learn how to manage your money early.

That's kinda the issue with bringing easily accessible gambling into people's homes instead of requiring them to go to casinos to gamble. They'll either use their parents credit card or not even realize they're being charged real money.


More freedoms for the individual would be great, but your mistake is believing corporations would give you more freedom without government around. If anything, they'd take away more freedoms without government forcing them to do the right thing, and all the products you love so much would probably be unaffordable. Especially medicine/healthcare which has already had too many regulations stripped away, and we see skyrocketing rates as a result. It's not that corporations are inherently "bad," but it goes without saying that their focus is money, and not people.

2018 is long past the point where the Libertarian utopia ever had a chance to be realized. It'd be simply be anarchy at this point, with everybody trying to prey on everybody else. Besides, Libertarian ideals have mostly been hijacked by the Trump crowd, and they're all about sucking at the tit of government through corporate welfare. Money seems to supersede the political ideology for them just about every time, so we'll probably see the apocalypse before we see a Libertarian president with real morals and convictions unfortunately.

When it comes right down to it, most Libertarians I know are more obsessed with capitalist gain than having more freedom, because that money grants them more freedom. No government means no capitalism, so I'm not sure why any Libertarian believes that would be a real benefit to them.

Your mistake is that supporting the idea of a minimal government is anarchy. There has never been an actual minimal government system, so it's hard to come up with controls for the system, but there are some minimal government cities with most of their city services completely privatised and they seem to be doing great as far as communities go. The law most certainly does need to exist, but the job of the government is to protect your freedom, not to limit it. That's all a matter of perspective though, so it's not an argument you can have in 400-odd characters.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Another reason that any small government tends to grow out of control is because the average person is a lemon. To hell with personal responsibility I want daddy government to take care of me. Screw these people.