Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

(updated!) Authorities looking at regulating RNG as gambling

13468920

Comments

  • LerxstLerxst Member UncommonPosts: 646
    sayuu said:
    By law in Belgium for a game to be considered gambling one must be able to lose one's money ( the wager)

    so  online casinos and more recently CS:GO item wagering is considered gambling in belgium because one can lose what they wager and walk away with nothing


    in loot boxes one never walks away with nothing, one can get something undesirable, but one will always get something.



    so by current  law in belgium loot boxes are not gambling. . .
    I wonder what consumer protection or advertising laws would be like though. Saying to give us $5 and then walking away with either something worth $.50 or something else worth $15, might be considered false advertising or fraud according to some laws.
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member UncommonPosts: 1,135
    Lerxst said:
    sayuu said:
    By law in Belgium for a game to be considered gambling one must be able to lose one's money ( the wager)

    so  online casinos and more recently CS:GO item wagering is considered gambling in belgium because one can lose what they wager and walk away with nothing


    in loot boxes one never walks away with nothing, one can get something undesirable, but one will always get something.



    so by current  law in belgium loot boxes are not gambling. . .
    I wonder what consumer protection or advertising laws would be like though. Saying to give us $5 and then walking away with either something worth $.50 or something else worth $15, might be considered false advertising or fraud according to some laws.
    Problem is who decide the price of a virtual gun is worth 0.5$ but not 5$.

    I actually saw the exact same response from a game developer.  He defended the loot box since you always get something in return it is not gambling.

    I don't think all this semantic matters.  What matter is if government put regulation on it or not. 
    GdemamiTuor7
  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 442
    Do I think governments should step in? No. But at the same time companies like EA have become too freaking greedy and have brought the worst case on themselves(if this happens). This isn't a gamers fault or a group of naïve gamers that did this. Its the companies that have embraced this method that is to blame. If they have to pay extra, lose business or be heavily fined it is all on them. And rightfully deserved. 
    GdemamiJeroKaneYashaXjimmywolfTuor7
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    Waste of time, they will just lobby the politician he will get a few million, bill will never see light of day. Would love to see it happen, don't have faith it will.
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    George Carlin
  • Stayn2010Stayn2010 Member UncommonPosts: 12
    become too freaking greedy
    No such thing as "becoming to greedy".
  • acidbloodacidblood Member RarePosts: 858
    sayuu said:
    By law in Belgium for a game to be considered gambling one must be able to lose one's money ( the wager)

    so  online casinos and more recently CS:GO item wagering is considered gambling in belgium because one can lose what they wager and walk away with nothing


    in loot boxes one never walks away with nothing, one can get something undesirable, but one will always get something.



    so by current  law in belgium loot boxes are not gambling. . .
    But is it really 'something' when the player doesn't actually own the item (i.e. the item cannot be traded or re-sold for else of value) and as such the item's only 'value' is to the individual player within the context of the game? If so, and if the individual player does not value what they get from a given loot box then the 'wager' can be considered to be lost; thus, by law, loot boxes = gambling.
    Gdemami
  • NorseGodNorseGod Member EpicPosts: 2,375
    Loke666 said:
    While I hate loot boxes actually banning them is not a good idea. Forcing the devs to publish the odds is fine though. 
    Personally I just don't buy them and boycot games that have blatant pay2win content.
    Imagine if they spent that time on actual content as they do with recolored skins of armor bikinis and pets.

    I'd love to see them go, just because of what they turned MMORPGs into today. But, it won't happen.

    1. There are armies of lawyers ready to go at the drop of a shekel.
    2. Governments don't give a shit about people, they just want their cut.
    3. Millions of freeloaders will cry about it (all the more reason to drop the hammer).
    ScotchUp
    To talk about games without the censorship, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/
  • JeroKaneJeroKane Member RarePosts: 6,262
    About time it happened!

    The sole purpose of loot boxes is to prey on weakminded people with an addiction problem and get them to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars in their games!

    This is a well known secret and the whole business model and strategy behind many P2W...ehhh F2P mobile games and MMO's.

    EA (and other big game companies, like ActiVision, which recently got caught by a leaked document!) are now doing the exact same thing!

    They are trying to see how far they can go into milking their customers for maximum profit!
    It has nothing to do with gaming anymore, when games are now "ENTIRELY" designed around loot boxes and micro-transactions...and that next to a full box retail price as well of course.


    I vote with my wallet and won't be buying Battlefront II, nor any other game with this P2W crap! and so should you!
    Beatnik59Tuor7
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,105
    Loke666 said:
    While I hate loot boxes actually banning them is not a good idea. Forcing the devs to publish the odds is fine though. 
    Personally I just don't buy them and boycot games that have blatant pay2win content.

    That argument is the same as what happened when cash shops started in MMOs, "I just don't play MMOs with cash shops." For now what you are saying works, but for how much longer? Unless you are happy to only play indie solo titles, not for much longer.
    YashaX

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,105
    edited November 2017
    Iselin said:
    Scot said:
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.
    But it obviously has an impact on the bottom line or companies wouldn't fret so much about games having an ESRB rating higher than what they were targeting. Not that the ESRB is all that strict or you would see a lot of games in the GTA series labeled "A" instead of "M"

    And not that "A" and "M" are all that different since one is 18+ and the other one is 17+. My memory is probably not what it used to be but I personally don't remember a huge difference between 17 and 18... that 16 > 17 year though, that was Epic :)

    I think that has been true up till now. But if the rewards are big enough, they will take losing the younger gamers on the chin. Before gambling gameplay came in they were not getting anything from a 20ish + year old that they could form a 10ish + year old, now they can.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • HeraseHerase Member RarePosts: 992
    Loke666 said:
    While I hate loot boxes actually banning them is not a good idea. Forcing the devs to publish the odds is fine though. 
    Personally I just don't buy them and boycot games that have blatant pay2win content.
    That doesn't really solve the problem, these companies will still be able to create an environment where players are backed into a corner of either, grinding stupid amount of hours or incentivised to but loot boxes in hope of reducing that time.

    There are quite few games that already show the drop rarity of items and I haven't seen that sway people.

    Imho, loot boxes in any game that require real money to purchase add no value to the game. They don't make the, story, gameplay or anything any better
    YashaX
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,213
    First off, lootboxes that you can buy with money are a form of gambling. This has already been debated by many parliaments around the globe and most / all have admitted it is gambling. 

    The problem is that not all forms of gambling are regulated. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the UK specifically gambling is only regulated by gambling laws when the return is either monetary or there is a guaranteed method of converting the winnings into money. There has already been a specific investigation into lootboxes in the UK, the secretary of state was involved and it has been discussed in the house of commons. 


    Here is what the UK government said:

    "Consumers are also protected by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This includes a requirement on businesses not to subject anyone to misleading or aggressive marketing practices, or, for example, direct exhortation to buy products, such as games content, including in-game purchases such as loot boxes. The government is committed to ensuring that consumers are properly protected and that children's vulnerability and inexperience is not exploited by aggressive commercial practices."


    Its the direct exhortation to buy products that currently determines the legality of lootboxes. When they contain cosmetic items only, they're fine as there is no compelling reason to buy them. When they contain direct improvements, like BF2 does, then we enter mirky waters. The game is basically telling players to buy lootboxes so they can be better. The counter argument is that you can earn everything without paying money. So, to take a case to court over something like the BF2 lootboxes, you have to be able to successfully argue that earning through gameplay is unreasonable and thus the lootboxes are seen as required. That is a tough argument to make in a legal context. 


    Personally, I'm all in favour of more regulation. I hate lootboxes, they were a stupid idea even before we could buy them with money, they are even worse now. So, anything that can be done to remove them from gaming is a good thing. 
    YashaXSlapshot1188ScotGdemamiScotchUpBeatnik59MaxBaconlaseritJacobinTuor7
  • RexKushmanRexKushman Member RarePosts: 545
    Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long. 

    That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.

    If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
    jimmywolfGdemamiacidbloodTuor7

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,105
    First off, lootboxes that you can buy with money are a form of gambling. This has already been debated by many parliaments around the globe and most / all have admitted it is gambling. 

    The problem is that not all forms of gambling are regulated. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the UK specifically gambling is only regulated by gambling laws when the return is either monetary or there is a guaranteed method of converting the winnings into money. There has already been a specific investigation into lootboxes in the UK, the secretary of state was involved and it has been discussed in the house of commons. 


    Here is what the UK government said:

    "Consumers are also protected by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This includes a requirement on businesses not to subject anyone to misleading or aggressive marketing practices, or, for example, direct exhortation to buy products, such as games content, including in-game purchases such as loot boxes. The government is committed to ensuring that consumers are properly protected and that children's vulnerability and inexperience is not exploited by aggressive commercial practices."


    Its the direct exhortation to buy products that currently determines the legality of lootboxes. When they contain cosmetic items only, they're fine as there is no compelling reason to buy them. When they contain direct improvements, like BF2 does, then we enter mirky waters. The game is basically telling players to buy lootboxes so they can be better. The counter argument is that you can earn everything without paying money. So, to take a case to court over something like the BF2 lootboxes, you have to be able to successfully argue that earning through gameplay is unreasonable and thus the lootboxes are seen as required. That is a tough argument to make in a legal context. 


    Personally, I'm all in favour of more regulation. I hate lootboxes, they were a stupid idea even before we could buy them with money, they are even worse now. So, anything that can be done to remove them from gaming is a good thing. 

    Just to add, they brought in loot boxes which costed no money to acclimatise players to the idea of loot boxes. Then you bring in the ones players can buy. The clinical treatment of players as cash cows, not people, annoys me as much as the gamebereaking issues.
    Tuor7

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,213
    Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long. 

    That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.

    If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
    This is faulty logic. 

    Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people. 

    Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost. 
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long. 

    That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.

    If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
    This is faulty logic. 

    Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people. 

    Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost. 
    All of that ignoring that a large portion of the "increased cost" comes from skyrocketing marketing costs.  AAA developers generally spend as much on marketing as they spend on development. 
    GdemamiTuor7

    image
  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,408
    When they contain cosmetic items only, they're fine as there is no compelling reason to buy them. When they contain direct improvements, like BF2 does, then we enter mirky waters. The game is basically telling players to buy lootboxes so they can be better. The counter argument is that you can earn everything without paying money. 
    I'm not so sure we can say that.

    Personally speaking, I can't think of a better "compelling reason" than looking the way that you want.  This makes cool skins, cool emotes, and cool textures just as compelling as the more mechanical stuff...maybe even more compelling.  Because an XP/leveller potion just gets you to the same place you will eventually go more quickly.  But the cool demon wings?  The skull helmet with the eyes on fire?  If it's the thing that everyone wants, it's the thing everyone will strive to have.  If not to use, then to sell or trade.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted.
    1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old
    2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.

    Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,350
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted.
    1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old
    2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.

    Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.

    2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).

    3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.



  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,742
    SEANMCAD said:
    I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    You are responsible for yourself, in case you are underage, the responsibility is passed onto parents.

    What else you need to know?

    There is 0 reason for goverment to intervene.
    SovrathimmodiumHorusraConstantineMerus
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Gdemami said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    You are responsible for yourself, in case you are underage, the responsibility is passed onto parents.

    What else you need to know?

    There is 0 reason for goverment to intervene.
    so that means a child can not buy bubble gum?

    why gambling SPECIFICALLY and not EVERYTHING
    Gdemami

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,163
    Gdemami said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    You are responsible for yourself, in case you are underage, the responsibility is passed onto parents.

    What else you need to know?

    There is 0 reason for goverment to intervene.
    Your entitled to your opinion

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Sovrath said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted.
    1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old
    2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.

    Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.

    2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).

    3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
    but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'.
    The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,350
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted.
    1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old
    2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.

    Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.

    2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).

    3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
    but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'.
    The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
    Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.

    Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Sovrath said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted.
    1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old
    2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.

    Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically

    1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.

    2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).

    3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
    but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'.
    The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
    Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.

    Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
    so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?

    its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.

    I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.