While heated debates over the lawfulness of pay-to-win microtransactions and lootboxes continue, a United States Senator has taken the first step to introduce his bill to the Senate. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) hopes to make changes to the current landscape of gaming by regulating certain microtransactions and sales of lootboxes in video games. The bill, which has two supporters--Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)--intends to outlaw physical and digital games that are both targeted to minors and allow the use of elements that could be considered similar to gambling.

In regards to his proposed law, which is titled The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, Hawley commented the following:

Only the addiction economy could produce a business model that relies on placing a casino in the hands of every child in America with the goal of getting them desperately hooked. I’m proud to introduce this landmark, bipartisan legislation to end these exploitative practices.

The full document, which is available for the public to read, clearly defines what is and isn't a predatory lootbox; anything cosmetic is entirely fine, but if the contents within a lootbox contain advantages for a player that would put them ahead of those who do not pay extra, then they are considered unlawful. Additionally, paying money for "cheats" or the ability to not have to wait for things to unlock would also be illegal. Should a publisher make use of such practices, they would be fined, as well as the online storefront. So, if EA theoretically included a pay-to-win microtransaction for a console game on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, Sony, Microsoft, and Electronic Arts would be held liable. Or, if Ubisoft let players buy items that would let them skip segments of a game, and it was on PC, then both Steam/Epic and Ubisoft would be charged; the latter for adding it, and the former for allowing it to be sold. One-time purchase DLC that offers extra story, levels, or non-competitive items would be unaffected, like cosmetics.

This bill faces political opposition, and is a long way from being anywhere close to approved, but it could be the first step for the United States government to ban titles with microtransactions, which could result in a similar outcome like with what happened in Belgium. The next process for The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act would be for it to go before a committee, where it can then be debated upon by other senators.

Source

 

[KingVamp]

clearly defines what is and isn't a predatory lootbox; anything cosmetic is entirely fine,

Wow... Not an outright ban. I find it interesting that they actually separated the two.

That said, I still don't know how I feel about this. Basically any game selling random characters like Fire Emblem Heroes will be affected. Also, the accelerator thing may also be too much.

 

[FoxMcloud5655]

I wonder if right-leaning people will argue against this bill just because dems support it or if they will support it in spite of political differences

I don't know. The extremes (left and right) tend to be pretty biased. I lean towards the right myself (if you can even call it that), but I'm 100% for this bill being passed. I've wanted something like this to be passed for a long time; it's the reason why I left the Minecraft server community.

 

[Costello]

Considering that the bill itself came from a "right leaning" senator, I assume it'll have support from republicans.

I read too fast and missed that part, so my point becomes moot, it’s good to see that this is a bipartisan bill.
Lets see if a lobby starts meddling with it

 

[SaberLilly]

I'm glad they took the time to separate what defines a pay to win lootbox from a cosmetic lootbox, although i wonder what this means for games like World of Warships that might technically fall under "pay to win" as their version of lootboxes contain things like free XP, 1 use flags and camos that give added perks, Doubloons which is their version of premium currency, and lastly, ships that actually would cost real money although the chance of getting one is so slim its not funny.

 

[RyanAnayaMc]

I certainly can agree against loot boxes and other forms of pay to win in games that I've actually paid for. Haven't played many EA games, but I don't like the effects on other games like Call of Duty. Glad about the exemption for cosmetics too, because I like customising my characters with cool cosmetics, DLC since I find nothing wrong with DLC. For free to play games, though, I'm not entirely in full support. I personally quite like my mobile gacha games, and I'm hoping those don't get affected in the end.

 

[limpbiz411]

I'd love to play Overwatch without BS

 

[the_randomizer]

What's the bad news? Screw EA and all the companies that are into lootboxes, serves them right

 

[Ampersound]

What about trading card games? I mean technically it's the exact some thing. It doesn't matter if it's digital only or if kids are buying overpriced cardboard, in the end it's p2w lootboxes.

 

[RPG_FAN128]

If worldwide governments are willing to stand up and say this business practice is wrong, it definitely proves what kind of "human beings" who thought up said business practice are like.

 

[QuazaRayy]

yeetus!

 

[julianuf]

How on earth does this make sense? Cosmetic paid lootboxes are just as much "trying to get children hooked to lootbox gambling" as any other type. Also, banning any type of progression-based microtransactions will instantly kill 95% of all mobile games, lmao. I would assume this also includes things like banning level skip potions in MMOs. I really don't see this happening in its current form.

Agree 100%. Exempting cosmetics makes absolutely no sense.

 

[MiiJack]

So Gacha games will be banned from the US?

 

[D34DL1N3R]

apparently there is already 2 democrats supporting it. sorry i dont know their name and i only heard on this matter in a youtube french video so it may be wrong!

Right=Republican, Left = Democrat. Cheers.

Considering that the bill itself came from a "right leaning" senator, I assume it'll have support from republicans.

That means next to nothing at all. Plenty of bi-partisan matters have stemmed from Republicans only to get completely shot down by their peers. And yes, often enough only because the majority of Democrats approve.

I read too fast and missed that part, so my point becomes moot, it’s good to see that this is a bipartisan bill.
Lets see if a lobby starts meddling with it

Not moot whatsoever. See my above reply to Chary.

 

[KingVamp]

Well, if they get too restrictive, that would basically lead to banning anything that's random in a game.

 

[migles]

so what will happen with every mobile game? like thoose clickers with gems and shit? do theese count?
i mean there is usually a leaderboard and with facebook integration you compete against your friends and obviously who spends money in diamonds\currency gets the upper hand..
will theese be also banned?

 

[murdersbane]

Should have been all loot boxes, even cosmetics, but a great first step and I'll take it!

Nothing wrong with cosmetic lootboxs.

A growing trend among people who dislike cosmetic my trends to be they are jobless losers... "Why should we have to pay for it" then why should you have it... Get a job.

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

so what will happen with every mobile game? like thoose clickers with gems and shit? do theese count?
i mean there is usually a leaderboard and with facebook integration you compete against your friends and obviously who spends money in diamonds\currency gets the upper hand..
will theese be also banned?

I doubt mobile games will change at all.... No one touches the mobile market... And if they did then the us market would just crash and have 0 games.

TBH Its a whole different beast.... But it does have some seriously good games nowadays.

 

[kuwanger]

That means next to nothing at all. Plenty of bi-partisan matters have stemmed from Republicans only to get completely shot down by their peers. And yes, often enough only because the majority of Democrats approve.

The major tactic to shut down bills, of course, is to poison pill them. Got wide support for the "Stop Doing Horrible Things Act"? Include some language that pays for a giant Jesus statue in Texas right beside the also funded new giant abortion clinic. I mean, why let legislation be passed that people want when you can do that *and* get your pet project passed as well that otherwise would never get support?

 

[the_randomizer]

Nothing wrong with cosmetic lootboxs.

A growing trend among people who dislike cosmetic my trends to be they are jobless losers... "Why should we have to pay for it" then why should you have it... Get a job.

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


I doubt mobile games will change at all.... No one touches the mobile market... And if they did then the us market would just crash and have 0 games.

TBH Its a whole different beast.... But it does have some seriously good games nowadays.

"Get a job" okay, and using "jobless losers" really? Wow, that's some mighty fine bullshit you have spewing outta your ass there, pal. Maybe you should get a job too and maybe then you can stop defending lootboxes like the little EA loving sycophant you are? What gives you the right to go after those who are jobless. and yet here you are wasting time on the internet.

Games should be completed before release, paying for lootboxes that serve no purpose is a waste of money, if you're going to go after people who complain about lootboxes, and target them for being ""jobless losers" then go piss up a rope. I'd like to see you jobless, then we'll see who has the last laugh.

 

[Bladexdsl]

So Gacha games will be banned from the US?

time to cleanup up the play store!

 

[deinonychus71]

See America, government regulation doesn't necessarily mean evil.

Now. Thats interesting. Because some practices given as an example arent exactly lootboxes. "Pay to save time" ubisoft content isn't.
Not that I care mind you, artificially increasing the lifespan of a game (especially solo game, mmo are another topic) is just dumb. But still.