My personal beef with this type of gambling is that the odds/statistics are not officially disclosed. These game publishers should be legally required to publish the loot box, promotional pack, &/or anything that cost real money with a randomized chance of winning something involved the probability rates as it is called for transparency & accountability. Without such information it is gambling at it's worst. It started out as a method to supplement finances for games & is now becoming a predatory practice. If the player/consumer knows the percentage odds because they have to be published & still chances it that is an informed consumer accepting that known risk as it should be.
I'm happy that this is going through, it is another step in the right direction and I just hope the momentum of the anti-lootbox bandwagon is enough that we do start seeing real change in the industry.
Will this bill be effective?
I honestly have no idea. An age restriction and displaying the odds sounds toothless, as SBF pointed out we probably all started drinking underage, we all watched 18 movies when we were younger.
But, psychology is a funny thing. The mere act of acknowledging the activity as gambling and informing people might be enough to kill off lootboxes. Certainly in the UK, gambling is still seen as a negative thing and the people who participate in gambling on a regular basis are usually pretty scummy so the rest of us don't want to be associated with them. So, whacking a warning sign on the box saying "this game contains gambling" alongside an 18 sticker would be enough to prevent a lot of parents buying a game for their children, not to mention preventing a lot of adults from buying the game for themselves.
Additionally, presenting the odds is another good way of building on psychology. I'm sure a lot of us, myself included, probably think that when an item is listed as "rare" (or whatever), we probably still think of that as like 1/20 or 1/100. That's still poor odds, but when the reality is more like 1/5000 or 1/10,000 I think that will shock a lot of casual buyers.
I truly don't see what this going to do. The average person does not know how the odds truly work. I asked a few people in my guild what they though 1:5 odds meant. Most though that meant that if they bought 5 boxes they get one drop. That totally wrong. you may get 5 or you may get zero. Your odds do not increase the more you buy. you still have a 20% chance of getting the drop. This is way to easy to exploit and way to difficult if you put a age restriction by a state to state basis.
Hawaii are also going to slap an age restriction on Fairground stalls and Pokemon trading packs in the future.
I'm sorry but only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children and require age restrictions.
Only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children? The thing about it isn't the loot boxes themselves. It's kids that develop a gambling habit before even leaving high school. There were those articles about people who have spent 20k + in two years that were under 18, and that's definitely not a normal habit.
An even bigger issue occurs when real money gets involved. Like CSGO loot crates, as those can be sold for money and give more incentive to push more purchases to "just get that knife" which for kids can be quite addictive. Plus you have the youtubers / streamers pushing gambling sites for those skins onto the audience which tends to be a lot of people under 18. I know my brother was gambling CSGO skins for a while and he isn't even 16 yet.
Pokemon trading cards are predatory but trading cards have always been that way, I know my school banned trading cards because it was causing older kids to take advantage of younger kids by manipulation to get all their good cards.
Kids are easily manipulated, and even older teens are as well. Parents should be the ones to limit this behavior but sometimes even that doesn't work.
It won't be hard. If they prohibit I
The sale of them to anyone under 21 it will be just like alcohol, most likely digital sales would take a hit hard and stores would most likely drop the game.
The State will protect you from evil loot boxes! The State will parent your children for you! The State will guide you! The State will provide for you! All hail the Almighty State!
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Hawaii are also going to slap an age restriction on Fairground stalls and Pokemon trading packs in the future.
I'm sorry but only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children and require age restrictions.
Only an idiot would think loot boxes are ok in their current state. And no they won't on tangible objects. With a Pokemon card pack you get a physical item, it may not be the one you wanted but you get them none the less. With loot boxes you get things with zero actual value it's completely based on personal worth. So in a way some loot boxes can give you stuff that you find worthless there for you don't win. It's the same in casinos. I put 20 bucks in I lose 19 gain 12 it's still a lose. It would be the same I throw 20 bucks at loot crates and get nothing but whites it was a waste or a lose.
Hawaii are also going to slap an age restriction on Fairground stalls and Pokemon trading packs in the future.
I'm sorry but only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children and require age restrictions.
Only an idiot would think loot boxes are ok in their current state. And no they won't on tangible objects. With a Pokemon card pack you get a physical item, it may not be the one you wanted but you get them none the less. With loot boxes you get things with zero actual value it's completely based on personal worth. So in a way some loot boxes can give you stuff that you find worthless there for you don't win. It's the same in casinos. I put 20 bucks in I lose 19 gain 12 it's still a lose. It would be the same I throw 20 bucks at loot crates and get nothing but whites it was a waste or a lose.
It's nothing like casino gambling either because you can't feed your addiction with your winnings.
You can't buy more loot boxes with your winnings.
I'm talking more about the psychology behind kids wanting to buy loot boxes/trading cards.
That's the same.
If a child doesn't get what they want in either they'll keep wanting to buy them until they do. Yes you can trade the cards. You can also trade the contents of loot boxes in certain games, SWTOR for example.
Hawaii are also going to slap an age restriction on Fairground stalls and Pokemon trading packs in the future.
I'm sorry but only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children and require age restrictions.
Only an idiot would think loot boxes are ok in their current state. And no they won't on tangible objects. With a Pokemon card pack you get a physical item, it may not be the one you wanted but you get them none the less. With loot boxes you get things with zero actual value it's completely based on personal worth. So in a way some loot boxes can give you stuff that you find worthless there for you don't win. It's the same in casinos. I put 20 bucks in I lose 19 gain 12 it's still a lose. It would be the same I throw 20 bucks at loot crates and get nothing but whites it was a waste or a lose.
It's nothing like casino gambling either because you can't feed your addiction with your winnings.
You can't buy more loot boxes with your winnings.
I'm talking more about the psychology behind kids wanting to buy loot boxes/trading cards.
That's the same.
If a child doesn't get what they want in either they'll keep wanting to buy them until they do. Yes you can trade the cards. You can also trade the contents of loot boxes in certain games, SWTOR for example.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted, and with Pokemon cards a 3 dollar pack will still have 3 dollars worth of cards in it. I am not saying the TCG is perfect but you also don't hear about kids and people spending 10 thousand dollars at one time on them.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
When I read the title about a Hawaiian Bill, I immediately imagined Hawaiian @BillMurphy but then I figured, that can't be right, how could he compete with the ever popular "Malibu Bill" or oldy but goody "Pet Doctor Bill", there's a Bill Murphy for every occasion.
On a side note, because this certainly isn't what the topic is about, legislation to protect consumers from their lootboxing ways is inevitable. It will certainly happen with all governments' love for regulations. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
When I read the title about a Hawaiian Bill, I immediately imagined Hawaiian @BillMurphy but then I figured, that can't be right, how could he compete with the ever popular "Malibu Bill" or oldy but goody "Pet Doctor Bill", there's a Bill Murphy for every occasion.
On a side note, because this certainly isn't what the topic is about, legislation to protect consumers from their lootboxing ways is inevitable. It will certainly happen with all governments' love for regulations. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
Yeah, I agree that it's inevitable. What I don't agree with is the painting with broad brush strokes. The major difficulty with this type of legislation is that I feel it's easily defeated by anyone with a half-way adequate legal team, nevermind an industry where companies are making BILLIONS from microtransactions. For one, I don't see how the legislation actually solves any problem whatsoever. Do parents look at labels on games right now? If you've ever played Call of Duty and wondered how an adult has such a squeeky voice, chances are it's not an adult. So how are kids getting these games in the first place? It simply isn't a problem.
I do like how he uses the whole "save the children" platform, though, and gives absolutely zero citation of exactly what "especially children" even means. Like if children gambling in games in pandemic, then maybe the question we need to ask ourselves is why does that child have that game? However, we haven't even shown that chlidren are making these purchases. We can say that someone is, but saying you're saving the children is hilarious.
Actually, even with this legislation, as proposed, I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single lawsuit over it. Why? All it does is HELP the publishers. So when their next quarterly earnings report comes in and their microtransaction revenues are up another 50% they can tell their shareholders that spending is up AND they are saving the children with this new legislation (*psst* but they really aren't saving the children because nothing will have changed *tee hee hee*). Leave it to a politician to draft 3 bills that will do exactly fuck all!
its funny how a boy cannot buy a loot box until the age of 21, but a girl still can have sex at 16.
So many legislations that need re assessment here, not just gambling in video games. I'm OK with this change and i hope it spreads outside of games too.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
There's ample evidence to support the idea that children are more susceptible to marketing and impulse buying than adults.... It's one of the reasons why Camel isn't advertising with their shaded animal mascot anymore.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
There's ample evidence to support the idea that children are more susceptible to marketing and impulse buying than adults.... It's one of the reasons why Camel isn't advertising with their shaded animal mascot anymore.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
I noticed you didn't mention trading cards, which is probably the less obscure example. So, based on your assessment of McDonald's, these companies can get around this gambling scenario by simply allowing people to purchase in-game currency which can be used for stuff and things, and when they do, they also get a free loot box?
As far as evidence goes, there isn't anything, and they haven't provided any evidence that in-game loot box purchases are pandemic with children. He uses the phrase "especially children", but we don't even know if children are purchasing them, and to what degree. It's basically unsupported, anecdotal evidence to support a theory and get less push-back. If you do push back, then you obviously don't care about the children, right?
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
There's ample evidence to support the idea that children are more susceptible to marketing and impulse buying than adults.... It's one of the reasons why Camel isn't advertising with their shaded animal mascot anymore.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
McDonald's by law has to disclose the odds, for their contests. It's also the law that there is "No Purchase Necessary" when its comes to these contests.
As for the topic:
It's nice to see the ball start to roll. When it comes to weeding out the minors with gambling, alcohol and tobacco the onus is on the vendor. If the vendor gets caught selling to minors, the vendor gets fined.
Why should it be different for the video game industry?
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted
No. If you think loot boxes/trading cards will be a problem for your child then you stop them from partaking.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
Well, gambling is bad for everyone really, it's just worse for children as they're more impressionable and more easily manipulated with more of their life left to screw up. There is an absolute ton of evidence to support the notion that gambling is bad, but it's repeated gambling that causes the most problems and that is what lootboxes are setup to do.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
There's ample evidence to support the idea that children are more susceptible to marketing and impulse buying than adults.... It's one of the reasons why Camel isn't advertising with their shaded animal mascot anymore.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
I noticed you didn't mention trading cards, which is probably the less obscure example. So, based on your assessment of McDonald's, these companies can get around this gambling scenario by simply allowing people to purchase in-game currency which can be used for stuff and things, and when they do, they also get a free loot box?
As far as evidence goes, there isn't anything, and they haven't provided any evidence that in-game loot box purchases are pandemic with children. He uses the phrase "especially children", but we don't even know if children are purchasing them, and to what degree. It's basically unsupported, anecdotal evidence to support a theory and get less push-back. If you do push back, then you obviously don't care about the children, right?
The better comparison would be if they gave you something unrelated to the game and of known value. That's what you're paying for at McDonald's. The Big Mac. It's not part of the game, you can't play the Big Mac on the board. As laserit mentioned, those games pieces are absolutely free; that's why they're required to say no purchase necessary. You get one included with your meal for a limited time, still for the price of free. The McDonald's game piece is a free contest that comes with the product being sold; microtransactions are products themselves being sold, but only to be used exclusively with the other product you're using that's made by the dev, and even then only in the manner specifically prescribed by the devs and only for as long as they see fit.
Trading cards depend on factors outside of the control of the manufacturer to determine their value. Having a limited edition 10 card print would still be largely worthless if nobody has any clue who the player is on the card.
As for TCGs, those cards are the totality of the experience. There's nothing else (other than rules) to enjoy; without the cards, there is no hobby there.
Comments
Will this bill be effective?
I honestly have no idea. An age restriction and displaying the odds sounds toothless, as SBF pointed out we probably all started drinking underage, we all watched 18 movies when we were younger.
But, psychology is a funny thing. The mere act of acknowledging the activity as gambling and informing people might be enough to kill off lootboxes. Certainly in the UK, gambling is still seen as a negative thing and the people who participate in gambling on a regular basis are usually pretty scummy so the rest of us don't want to be associated with them. So, whacking a warning sign on the box saying "this game contains gambling" alongside an 18 sticker would be enough to prevent a lot of parents buying a game for their children, not to mention preventing a lot of adults from buying the game for themselves.
Additionally, presenting the odds is another good way of building on psychology. I'm sure a lot of us, myself included, probably think that when an item is listed as "rare" (or whatever), we probably still think of that as like 1/20 or 1/100. That's still poor odds, but when the reality is more like 1/5000 or 1/10,000 I think that will shock a lot of casual buyers.
I'm sorry but only an idiot would think loot boxes are bad for children and require age restrictions.
An even bigger issue occurs when real money gets involved. Like CSGO loot crates, as those can be sold for money and give more incentive to push more purchases to "just get that knife" which for kids can be quite addictive. Plus you have the youtubers / streamers pushing gambling sites for those skins onto the audience which tends to be a lot of people under 18. I know my brother was gambling CSGO skins for a while and he isn't even 16 yet.
Pokemon trading cards are predatory but trading cards have always been that way, I know my school banned trading cards because it was causing older kids to take advantage of younger kids by manipulation to get all their good cards.
Kids are easily manipulated, and even older teens are as well. Parents should be the ones to limit this behavior but sometimes even that doesn't work.
It's been reported children as young as 6 have racked up $100+ purchases on Amazon using family accounts.
There's no evidence to support the claim that loot boxes lead children down a path to gambling more than Pokemon trading cards.
It won't be hard. If they prohibit I
The sale of them to anyone under 21 it will be just like alcohol, most likely digital sales would take a hit hard and stores would most likely drop the game.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Only an idiot would think loot boxes are ok in their current state. And no they won't on tangible objects. With a Pokemon card pack you get a physical item, it may not be the one you wanted but you get them none the less. With loot boxes you get things with zero actual value it's completely based on personal worth. So in a way some loot boxes can give you stuff that you find worthless there for you don't win. It's the same in casinos. I put 20 bucks in I lose 19 gain 12 it's still a lose. It would be the same I throw 20 bucks at loot crates and get nothing but whites it was a waste or a lose.
You can't buy more loot boxes with your winnings.
I'm talking more about the psychology behind kids wanting to buy loot boxes/trading cards.
That's the same.
If a child doesn't get what they want in either they'll keep wanting to buy them until they do. Yes you can trade the cards. You can also trade the contents of loot boxes in certain games, SWTOR for example.
Soo it is bad for them and should be age restricted, and with Pokemon cards a 3 dollar pack will still have 3 dollars worth of cards in it. I am not saying the TCG is perfect but you also don't hear about kids and people spending 10 thousand dollars at one time on them.
What I'm against is claiming it's bad for all children based on subjective morals.
There really isn't any evidence to support that they are more susceptible or more easily manipulated. I would suggest that adults lack of knowledge related to RNG and technology, as well as bias created through their life experiences would make them more susceptible.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that it sets a precedent that has a more wide-spread impact. Like what about trading card games (physical and digital)? Do you now need to be 18 to purchase a pack of cards? What about sticker books like Panini that sell sticker packs? What about Monopoly at McDonald's? Technically they are all using the same style of mechanics in order to entice you to purchase their products. So while it might seem quirky and odd to some, what is the differentiating factor that you can draw a line and say these are explicitly different? That's a big problem.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
On a side note, because this certainly isn't what the topic is about, legislation to protect consumers from their lootboxing ways is inevitable. It will certainly happen with all governments' love for regulations. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So many legislations that need re assessment here, not just gambling in video games. I'm OK with this change and i hope it spreads outside of games too.
McDonald's gives you game pieces as part of a meal. You're not paying for the pieces; in fact, you can't purchase pieces from McDonald's outright at all. That's the difference.
The best analogy for lootboxes is a casino that awards you in coins or other prizes that are not exchangeable for cash and is worth only what the casino tells you they're worth, which is subject to change at any moment for any reason whatsoever. They even retain the right to revoke your access to your own winnings for any reason at all, at any time.
I noticed you didn't mention trading cards, which is probably the less obscure example. So, based on your assessment of McDonald's, these companies can get around this gambling scenario by simply allowing people to purchase in-game currency which can be used for stuff and things, and when they do, they also get a free loot box?
As far as evidence goes, there isn't anything, and they haven't provided any evidence that in-game loot box purchases are pandemic with children. He uses the phrase "especially children", but we don't even know if children are purchasing them, and to what degree. It's basically unsupported, anecdotal evidence to support a theory and get less push-back. If you do push back, then you obviously don't care about the children, right?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
STOP OPENING YOUR WALLET. simple and super effective.
As for the topic:
It's nice to see the ball start to roll. When it comes to weeding out the minors with gambling, alcohol and tobacco the onus is on the vendor. If the vendor gets caught selling to minors, the vendor gets fined.
Why should it be different for the video game industry?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Trading cards depend on factors outside of the control of the manufacturer to determine their value. Having a limited edition 10 card print would still be largely worthless if nobody has any clue who the player is on the card.
As for TCGs, those cards are the totality of the experience. There's nothing else (other than rules) to enjoy; without the cards, there is no hobby there.