US anti-lootbox bill formally introduced, begins to gain political traction

Overwatch-LootBox-640x353.jpg

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.

:arrow: Source
 

Dax_Fame

Annoying Member
Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
494
Trophies
0
Age
33
Location
Mom's house
XP
1,259
Country
United States
Oh no... Rest in Piss, EA

It would be lovely to get rid of this sh*t colored stain in gaming history but I won't hold my breath. Capitalism, maaaan! This is America! Micro transactions will find a way!
 

Darth Meteos

Entertainer
Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
1,669
Trophies
1
Age
29
Location
The Wrong Place
XP
5,628
Country
United States
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.

I did get a job to purchase the game. Y'know, those things where wages are stagnant but prices are going up? Those gimmicks? Yeah, I did that, and guess what; I still don't have enough money to own the entirety of many games I like because the cost of cosmetics are enormous. Saying I don't have to get them misses the point. I don't have to buy video games, but I love video games. Locking enormous amounts of content behind paywalls is transparently just the developer/publisher reaching for my wallet after I've already bought their game.
 

Glyptofane

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
1,746
Trophies
2
XP
2,905
Country
United States
Why should I let the government decide how I spend my own money? Learn some self-discipline people!
True, but I still consider these garbage games harmful to the real gaming industry, so would only laugh and gladly give up playing Animal Crossing Pocket Camp if this passes.
 

npiet1

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
50
Trophies
0
Age
30
XP
262
Country
Australia
I did get a job to purchase the game. Y'know, those things where wages are stagnant but prices are going up? Those gimmicks? Yeah, I did that, and guess what; I still don't have enough money to own the entirety of many games I like because the cost of cosmetics are enormous. Saying I don't have to get them misses the point. I don't have to buy video games, but I love video games. Locking enormous amounts of content behind paywalls is transparently just the developer/publisher reaching for my wallet after I've already bought their game.

That's how I feel about it. I get people don't want the government involved but we already paid for the game. It's pure greed. I'm glad this is happening. It's not like in the early 00's and 90's where DLC were expansion packs and made it worth while.
 

murdersbane

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
77
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
337
Country
United States
That may be true, but what if they eat at McDonald's isn't as simple as that? What if they eat there because it's cheap and they can only afford it? What if the unhealthy method is the only thing they can get because the other options either aren't there or they simply can't afford it? Not to mention all the advertisements spent on said unhealthy food. Yes, the people who got fat probably could have chosen to eat elsewhere, but then what else would have happened in that regard? And what if the food isn't the only thing they are consuming? What if there's a chemical put into the food that makes it taste better and is more addicting? The company would be doing it intentionally too to boost sales and cut down on costs.Then where does the fault lie? Still solely with the people who chose to eat there? If they were aware of it, then they could have gained the self control to keep from eating the addicting food and not gotten fat, but then the company artificially enhanced the food to boost sales not caring it would get people fat. 2 sides who are equally at fault, with one side may have less of a choice in the matter than the other, but still having some of the blame regardless.
McDonald's ain't cheap tho... Like at all... And there isn't an addictive chemical in the food... The only addictive thing about McDonald's is that it's EASY. I mean idk where you live but where I live there is one on damn bear every street corner.. easier to go there then buy some groceries... But for less then the amount ud spend on a meal there u can make a meal for 2-3 DAYS...

SO no McDonald's isn't at fault...

Just like company's offering cosmetics arnt at fault if you wanna look cool... Look at fortnite the like second most played game... Uses cosmetics... Minecraft which isn't a f2p sells cosmetics... The list goes on.

People need to stop blaming other people for their own actions.

Should Walmart stop selling alcohol because some people are alcoholics? How about cigs because people are smokers? Condoms because people are sex addicts? Medicine because some people use them to get high?

The answer is no.... Why are loot boxes any different.

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

wow, if this passes, lot's of facebook games will be GONE in DAYS!



or the entire mobile industry.
arnt Facebook games already dead tho?
 

rob4

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
59
Trophies
0
Age
36
XP
538
Country
Argentina
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.

I thought exactly the same.

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

Random but with a payment.
 

Silent_Gunner

Crazy Cool Cyclops
Banned
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
2,696
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
4,727
Country
United States
I would think the main way out here for companies is to add legally satisfactory checks that children themselves aren't buying things, rather than actually dropping these practices. That could be as minor as a useless "are you 18" question, or something stronger if the law actually mandated it. Either way the monetization onslaught would continue.

If that's the crux of the matter then its really more the platform holders that should be targeted rather than individual games. The likes of Apple, Google, Sony, or Steam in some way verifying purchases, rather than having to sort out whose games are P2W or not.

Except the "Are you 18?" question/criteria leads to people creating fake accounts to get past that stuff, as 18 is a really arbitrary number. Like, I remember when I got a PS3 in 2011 (this was just after Sony had recovered from getting pwned by hackers) I wanted to download some DLC for a game or two from PSN, and I was a year from turning 18, and they wouldn't let me download it even though the guidelines to purchase a game rated M is that you have to be 17 years of age and have a parent who isn't a moral guardian be with you. Hence, I created my PSN account to let me do it then, and they haven't bitched at me about it or anything.

Of course, I never would've bought into all of the microtransaction BS that was going on even back then, as it was during the life of the 7th generation of consoles that they introduced all of that pay-to-win or pay-to-unlock nonsense.
 

murdersbane

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
77
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
337
Country
United States
Except the "Are you 18?" question/criteria leads to people creating fake accounts to get past that stuff, as 18 is a really arbitrary number. Like, I remember when I got a PS3 in 2011 (this was just after Sony had recovered from getting pwned by hackers) I wanted to download some DLC for a game or two from PSN, and I was a year from turning 18, and they wouldn't let me download it even though the guidelines to purchase a game rated M is that you have to be 17 years of age and have a parent who isn't a moral guardian be with you. Hence, I created my PSN account to let me do it then, and they haven't bitched at me about it or anything.

Of course, I never would've bought into all of the microtransaction BS that was going on even back then, as it was during the life of the 7th generation of consoles that they introduced all of that pay-to-win or pay-to-unlock nonsense.
So you admit to it being entirely you AND your parents fault .... You didn't monitor yourself and your parents didn't do any kind of moderation on what you where playing/spending ....

Tell me again how the company is at fault for warning people ._.
 

Silent_Gunner

Crazy Cool Cyclops
Banned
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
2,696
Trophies
0
Age
29
XP
4,727
Country
United States
So you admit to it being entirely you AND your parents fault .... You didn't monitor yourself and your parents didn't do any kind of moderation on what you where playing/spending ....

Tell me again how the company is at fault for warning people ._.

I was going to say that you didn't read and get the full context, but then I see that you're one of those guys who gets a hard on for desperate attention seeking.

It's not a lack of self control as much as it is people thinking some rules are bullshit and the fact that, frankly, there's bigger issues in the world for the police and big companies to solve as opposed to a user making their account a year older than reality because the individual themselves is mature and that arbitrary, robotic systems with no humans operating them to run things isn't the best way to ensure quality service...kind of like Youtube. Hell, the expectation back in previous generations was that you were a responsible adult by age 14, and got married much younger than mid-20's to mid-30's! I know there's a lot of reasons for the shifting of norms in that regard, but maturity isn't a simple arbitrary number for how many years someone has managed to live on for. Shocking, I know. /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: cots

medoli900

Open the Benzenes;Gate
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
1,116
Trophies
0
Location
Lavender Town
XP
1,316
Country
Antarctica
By the wording, Nintendo's recent policy of giving online player stuff in advance could be in jeopardy. I'm thinking stuff like Mario Tennis Ace, where you'd have to pay the online to get the monthly character.
 

cots

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
By the wording, Nintendo's recent policy of giving online player stuff in advance could be in jeopardy. I'm thinking stuff like Mario Tennis Ace, where you'd have to pay the online to get the monthly character.

That doesn't seem like it would be under the scope of the entire law. They want to specifically ban loot boxes and pay-to-cheat. I totally agree with not having children gambling and also that if you can't play a game and have to cheat in it you shouldn't be allowed to play it to begin with. Cheaters suck.
 

medoli900

Open the Benzenes;Gate
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
1,116
Trophies
0
Location
Lavender Town
XP
1,316
Country
Antarctica
That doesn't seem like it would be under the scope of the entire law. They want to specifically ban loot boxes and pay-to-cheat. I totally agree with not having children gambling and also that if you can't play a game and have to cheat in it you shouldn't be allowed to play it to begin with. Cheaters suck.
"Additionally, paying money for "cheats" or the ability to not have to wait for things to unlock would also be illegal. " Paying online subscription to not wait a month for a character seems to be quite exactly that.
 

JavaScribe

Confused
Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2017
Messages
299
Trophies
0
Location
here idk
XP
794
Country
United States
Wow. A bill regarding gaming, and the core idea behind it isn't angering nearly all people that play such games.

Personally, while I see why people would want to ban cosmetics along with everything else, I don't think that's really necessary. Even if it is, let's take this one step at a time.
 

cots

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
"Additionally, paying money for "cheats" or the ability to not have to wait for things to unlock would also be illegal. " Paying online subscription to not wait a month for a character seems to be quite exactly that.

Well, you're not paying just for that character. When you pay for a loot box - you're paying just for that loot box. You're paying for an online service. You also have to realize that if you're going to be getting the character as a bonus before other player that the other players are also going to get that exact same playable character no matter if they paid for the service or not. I suppose, your logic does make sense, which is why the law should include some very verbatim terms of what exactly would be legal and would be illegal. I think outright banning loot boxes is pretty clear language. Cheating would have to be more clearly defined to address your issue, but I don't think you'd be cheating in any form of the traditional sense by using a different character than someone else is using. If you're paying for a box that contains materials that normally you'd have to spend weeks gathering or a way to obtain armor that you'd normally have to spend months obtaining or pay to advance to the "next level" without having to actually put effort into the game then that would be cheating.
 

deinonychus71

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
912
Trophies
1
Location
Chicago
XP
2,809
Country
United States
I did get a job to purchase the game. Y'know, those things where wages are stagnant but prices are going up? Those gimmicks? Yeah, I did that, and guess what; I still don't have enough money to own the entirety of many games I like because the cost of cosmetics are enormous. Saying I don't have to get them misses the point. I don't have to buy video games, but I love video games. Locking enormous amounts of content behind paywalls is transparently just the developer/publisher reaching for my wallet after I've already bought their game.

The base price of a game has been $60 for over a decade. They should be more expensive today.

Its not the fault of the game industry if jobs are stagnant.
 

cots

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
The base price of a game has been $60 for over a decade. They should be more expensive today.

Its not the fault of the game industry if jobs are stagnant.

Well, a game, when released shouldn't contain bugs. It should also be complete. I agree, due to inflation the cost of video games should be more than what they are now, but you won't find me buying one that isn't complete, full of bugs and that requires additional money to obtain stuff that traditionally wouldn't have cost anything. Possibly, if they weren't trying to pull this shit with people than they could charge more for the base game.
 

WD_GASTER2

Hated by life itself.
Developer
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
779
Trophies
1
XP
1,848
Country
United States
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
you know it!
something something free market... let it sort itself.

I personally feel like the industry brought this onto themselves.
Growing up I never saw half the BS the video game industry pulls on a consistent basis nowadays.

The base price of a game has been $60 for over a decade. They should be more expensive today.

Its not the fault of the game industry if jobs are stagnant.

interestingly the industry now makes record profits... Its hard for me to side with them on this issue just based on that alone.

Wow. A bill regarding gaming, and the core idea behind it isn't angering nearly all people that play such games.

Personally, while I see why people would want to ban cosmetics along with everything else, I don't think that's really necessary. Even if it is, let's take this one step at a time.

I do remember when cosmetics were sweet unlockables in a game that came to you as a reward for doing things. good times :(
 
Last edited by WD_GASTER2,
  • Like
Reactions: JavaScribe and cots

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
Kids can’t even get a job to support this addiction because of government regulation on age and hours they can work. And would have to go against what’s legal if kids want to work. You can’t even sell lemonade without a permit. Kids don’t make enough money to become addicted, it’ll end real quick, and would be the parents fault if they keep giving them money to spend on this. Teenagers are the ones that can get jobs.

Hook em’ young with mechanics of gambling from loot boxes and you’ll hook em’ for life. Isn’t this also true with card games, Mario 64 DS had gambling card games. Many video games have gambling like mechanics in them, RNG. Should we ban those too because it might get people addicted to the reward loop system which will then translate to later life when money is involved.

The comments on the Video Game Addiction as a Mental Disorder thread is in contradiction with this thread. Let’s ban Video Games to stop Video Game Addiction. It’ll affect people and they won’t get jobs to support themselves because they play too much Video Games. So let’s ban Video Games to save the addicted Children.
 
Last edited by SG854,
  • Like
Reactions: CallmeBerto

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Sorry for accidentally bending over