Howdy, Stranger!

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

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

2456719

Comments

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    I think the public opinions on lootboxes are shifting and that will be more powerful than any law.  I have never once in my life talked about lootboxes with my kids but over the past 2 months I have overheard them talking among themselves about how they aren’t interested in a game because it has loot boxes.  I know they still make a ton of money, but regardless of any laws passed I think the next few years will see this business model die a natural death. 


    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    Asm0deus said:

      (In this case though the game would just be a blatant p2w game and hopefully fail on it's own)
    I think you vastly underestimate peoples willingness to spend money on shiny stuff in game.
    [Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    I would like to point out that there is no free lunch.  If laws are successful at banning paid loot boxes so that there is less money to be made by making computer games, then fewer games will be made and/or the games will tend to have smaller budgets.  Maybe that's worth it to be rid of the scourge that is loot boxes, but don't get the idea that there won't be any trade-offs elsewhere.
    [Deleted User]
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    Quizzical said:
    I would like to point out that there is no free lunch.  If laws are successful at banning paid loot boxes so that there is less money to be made by making computer games, then fewer games will be made and/or the games will tend to have smaller budgets.  Maybe that's worth it to be rid of the scourge that is loot boxes, but don't get the idea that there won't be any trade-offs elsewhere.
    I would not expect a decrease in games or game budgets. I would expect changes in monetization (and the pain that goes with that) as well as less indy developers (who cant survive in the uncertainty). The publishers that people are complaining about today (EA, Blizzard, Valve, etc) are not the innovators in monetization.... they learned from others that were doing this stuff a decade ago. They are going to look to others for solutions, and you can look around, and see what some of those ideas may be before they implement them.

    [Deleted User]
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,389
    Asm0deus said:

      (In this case though the game would just be a blatant p2w game and hopefully fail on it's own)
    I think you vastly underestimate peoples willingness to spend money on shiny stuff in game.
    Oh I know and I am not arguing that there are not people that are plenty happy to be whales and part with their monies, I am just saying some of the practices are just becoming too blatantly scummy and like anything where there can be abuse some basic laws need to be passed... be it gambling, drinking or selling drugs (pharmacies) they all have laws they are required to follow.

    @Quiz One of the trade offs might be decent games that don't suck outright that are designed as blatant cashgrabs?

    Personally I don't think gaming companies will suddenly roll over and go bankrupt, I think they will keep making money but they will just have to adjust how.....I don't remember any of my game back in the day having lootboxes and yet there were plenty of awesome fun video games!


    Nilden

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • IceAgeIceAge Member EpicPosts: 3,118
    edited May 2018
    In Overwatch, for example, the player can purchase items with such coins (“credits”) in the “Hero Gallery”. Social psychology shows us that these rewards are very sophisticated. Sometimes the rewards are trivial for an outsider and sometimes they do not affect the game (e.g., the colour of a T-shirt), but they can be quite important to the course of the game.

    Although the content of the loot boxes is always aesthetic in nature in Overwatch, a value is associated with the content and the player has an advantage by purchasing these loot boxes

    Am I reading this wrong? 

    Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
    Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    If lootbox games could readily make just as much money by other mechanics that players find more amenable, they would.  The reason they go with lootboxes is that it works.

    I'm not predicting that we'll end up banning lootboxes.  I think it will be much harder to ban than some others do.  As Torval and Superman pointed out above, given a law that would ban currently implemented loot boxes, companies would likely be able to do something functionally equivalent but compliant with the law.  If you make the anti-loot box law broad or vague enough to prevent that, you'll end up banning a ton of things that you didn't intend to ban.  If you make enforcement dependent upon a judgment call by some bureaucrat, then you open up the system to selective prosecution, bribery, and various other real-life mischief that is far worse than loot boxes.
    [Deleted User]
  • IceAgeIceAge Member EpicPosts: 3,118
    "Activision is the distributor of the Call of Duty games as well as of Destiny and is a subsidiary of Blizzard, the distributor of Overwatch. "

    Who made this report ?

    Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
    Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,389
    Quizzical said:
    If lootbox games could readily make just as much money by other mechanics that players find more amenable, they would.  The reason they go with lootboxes is that it works.

    I'm not predicting that we'll end up banning lootboxes.  I think it will be much harder to ban than some others do.  As Torval and Superman pointed out above, given a law that would ban currently implemented loot boxes, companies would likely be able to do something functionally equivalent but compliant with the law.  If you make the anti-loot box law broad or vague enough to prevent that, you'll end up banning a ton of things that you didn't intend to ban.  If you make enforcement dependent upon a judgment call by some bureaucrat, then you open up the system to selective prosecution, bribery, and various other real-life mischief that is far worse than loot boxes.
    Lootboxes are so popular because they make the most money the easiest, companies that have shareholders etc etc want to maximize profits and that's why there are lootboxes...it's not because they were not making money before they came around and games were not failing.

    Some of you seem to be arguing to try and save the tree without looking at the forest really.  What it comes down to is what we as a society decide is acceptable.  It's very easy to make the "but ma liberties" argument and fearmonger about corruption etc etc but like I said before that doesn't mean we just throw everything to hell and let society fall apart...the same principles apply here.

    There's going to be corruption no matter what we do so we might as well try to slow it down,  who knows maybe instead of jumping out of the frying pan and landing in the fire we shall get lucky and avoid the fire altogether.


    ysquare21

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    Asm0deus said:
    Quizzical said:
    If lootbox games could readily make just as much money by other mechanics that players find more amenable, they would.  The reason they go with lootboxes is that it works.

    I'm not predicting that we'll end up banning lootboxes.  I think it will be much harder to ban than some others do.  As Torval and Superman pointed out above, given a law that would ban currently implemented loot boxes, companies would likely be able to do something functionally equivalent but compliant with the law.  If you make the anti-loot box law broad or vague enough to prevent that, you'll end up banning a ton of things that you didn't intend to ban.  If you make enforcement dependent upon a judgment call by some bureaucrat, then you open up the system to selective prosecution, bribery, and various other real-life mischief that is far worse than loot boxes.
    Lootboxes are so popular because they make the most money the easiest, companies that have shareholders etc etc want to maximize profits and that's why there are lootboxes...it's not because they were not making money before they came around and games were not failing.

    Some of you seem to be arguing to try and save the tree without looking at the forest really.  What it comes down to is what we as a society decide is acceptable.  It's very easy to make the "but ma liberties" argument and fearmonger about corruption etc etc but like I said before that doesn't mean we just throw everything to hell and let society fall apart...the same principles apply here.

    There's going to be corruption no matter what we do so we might as well try to slow it down,  who knows maybe instead of jumping out of the frying pan and landing in the fire we shall get lucky and avoid the fire altogether.
    My basic thesis is that, when evaluating a proposed law or regulation, the only thing that matters is the real-world consequences of it.  In particular, the nominal intent behind it doesn't matter.

    There are always negative consequences to any law or regulation.  Some fill their intended purpose well enough to outweigh the unintended consequences.  Some manage to do this by an enormous margin, even.  That's why some laws and regulations are good.  But there are always pros and cons to every proposal, and to ignore that is to refrain from seriously considering the issue.

    It would be incredibly foolish to sign up for just any proposal that says "loot box ban" as the headline.  A proposed ban on loot boxes that doesn't actually ban them or even meaningfully limit them will still have unintended, negative consequences.

    I'm not saying "don't do anything".  I am saying to be careful to only support a proposal that will substantially restrict loot boxes and without having other, catastrophically negative consequences.
    [Deleted User]
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    DMKano said:
    Quizzical said:
    What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

    What would happen is the lootbox laws would be reversed after enough gamers got pissed off and petitioned to have it removed
    Not hardly.  Gamers are neither the most vocal nor the most populous voting groups, and they sure as hell aren't making or breaking an incumbency.  Likely, Belgian politicians could completely ignore any petition from a Belgian group unless it's thrust into the international spotlight again like it currenty is.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    No not all.

    It has to have real world value.

    Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this
    They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

    Then this is beyond moronic.

    Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

    Lets say the game is also single player.

    If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


    There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.
    Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

    Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

    However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.
    Again, you make this point, but seem to do so completely ignoring that we're talking about living, breathing human beings thinking on this here, not semantic-saddled robots.

    If there's a monster to fight and you have to defeat them to get loot, you aren't purchasing the loot roll.  You're purchasing the gameplay experience, which includes a loot roll should you down the boss.  Lootboxes are nothing but a cash exchange for a chance at an item.  There's nothing else involved.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Asm0deus said:
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    No not all.

    It has to have real world value.

    Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this
    They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

    Then this is beyond moronic.

    Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

    Lets say the game is also single player.

    If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


    There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.
    Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

    Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

    However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.
    It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

    It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

    ... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

    Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.
    Not as easily said, as done. I will give you an example from a system that I have already used for monetization.

    You dont sell lootboxes, you give them in game, using virtual currency earned in game. This would not be gambling, even with the current interpretation.

    The way to monetize this is to make the boxes with good stuff cost a fortune, and sell items that increase how much currency you earn in game. Increasing in game returns for a price is not gambling, and this does not make the in game boxes gambling.

    You are just moving the target to something that does not qualify under the rules. I can think of a few other ways as well, and this is just the first day... I am sure that with a little though, a solid work around will be found.
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    ysquare21

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    Asm0deus said:
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    No not all.

    It has to have real world value.

    Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this
    They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

    Then this is beyond moronic.

    Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

    Lets say the game is also single player.

    If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


    There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.
    Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

    Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

    However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.
    It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

    It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

    ... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

    Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.
    Not as easily said, as done. I will give you an example from a system that I have already used for monetization.

    You dont sell lootboxes, you give them in game, using virtual currency earned in game. This would not be gambling, even with the current interpretation.

    The way to monetize this is to make the boxes with good stuff cost a fortune, and sell items that increase how much currency you earn in game. Increasing in game returns for a price is not gambling, and this does not make the in game boxes gambling.

    You are just moving the target to something that does not qualify under the rules. I can think of a few other ways as well, and this is just the first day... I am sure that with a little though, a solid work around will be found.
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    Fine then.  When you play the game, the monsters you kill drop loot boxes.  On average, you get about 100 loot boxes per hour, even at the very low levels.   Those loot boxes are also freely tradeable between players, so you could buy them by the thousands off of the auction house for a nominal fee.

    The catch is that it costs $1 to actually open each loot box, however.  Now you have to do something to play the game in order to get the loot boxes.  But is that really meaningfully different from a system where the loot boxes are purely bought for $1 each?
    ysquare21jimmywolf
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,389
    edited May 2018
    Quizzical said:
    Asm0deus said:
    Torval said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    No not all.

    It has to have real world value.

    Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this
    They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

    Then this is beyond moronic.

    Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

    Lets say the game is also single player.

    If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


    There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.
    Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

    Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

    However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.
    It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

    It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

    ... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

    Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.
    Not as easily said, as done. I will give you an example from a system that I have already used for monetization.

    You dont sell lootboxes, you give them in game, using virtual currency earned in game. This would not be gambling, even with the current interpretation.

    The way to monetize this is to make the boxes with good stuff cost a fortune, and sell items that increase how much currency you earn in game. Increasing in game returns for a price is not gambling, and this does not make the in game boxes gambling.

    You are just moving the target to something that does not qualify under the rules. I can think of a few other ways as well, and this is just the first day... I am sure that with a little though, a solid work around will be found.
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    Fine then.  When you play the game, the monsters you kill drop loot boxes.  On average, you get about 100 loot boxes per hour, even at the very low levels.   Those loot boxes are also freely tradeable between players, so you could buy them by the thousands off of the auction house for a nominal fee.

    The catch is that it costs $1 to actually open each loot box, however.  Now you have to do something to play the game in order to get the loot boxes.  But is that really meaningfully different from a system where the loot boxes are purely bought for $1 each?
    It's the same difference, you are using real life money to gamble with a lootbox. You're just using different methods to try and claim it's not gambling.


    Now say you want that lootbox to try and get that anima pistol that has a low .0001 % chance to drop but instead, since lootboxes are now illegal, you just go to the cashshop and outright buy the anima pistol, no RNG involved, then no gambling required and the issue is resolved.

    Ofc companies are doing mental gymnastics to avoid this because they know it will cost far far more to gamble your way into the said pistol unless they sell at an astronomical price which they know wont fly and they'll be called out for the p2w.
    ysquare21jimmywolf

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • SephirosoSephiroso Member RarePosts: 2,020
    Or they could simply go back to the enhancing gear power system that archeage used. No lootboxes, just straight up-front p2w like things used to be.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,389
    Sephiroso said:
    Or they could simply go back to the enhancing gear power system that archeage used. No lootboxes, just straight up-front p2w like things used to be.
      Indeed and to me that would be preferable. 

    Gambling should be done in a casino or such internet site and just like casinos have rules, like no counting cards etc etc, so we should have rules in the reverse to keep gambling out of video games so it is done in the proper venues that our own laws say it should be done in.

    If I go to rent an apartment that has a cats only, no dogs allowed policy and I rent a place and dress up my yorkie like a cat eventually I will be found out and no matter how much make up or dress up I do a vet will tell the judge, "tis a cat your honor not a dog." I will have the option of getting rid of the dog or moving out.

    Same thing applies here gambling shouldn't be in our video games anymore than a bar with strippers belongs in our kids schools.

    It's not rocket science in the end.  People are just easily confused and being conned into thinking a dog is cat.
    craftseekerysquare21RexKushman

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 4,389
    edited May 2018
    Torval said:
    ...snip...
    ...snip....

    Bigger questions will be how this fits in with the rest of the EU. What will other EU member nation do in response? What will the UK do? And how will NA and SEA nations respond, if they respond at all?
    Indeed. We can't say how it will go but if one country starts banning lootboxes it's a right step in the right direction. We just have to hope the rest of the world isn't too slow on the uptake and follows suit sometime this century...lol

    I highly doubt gaming company would give up potential revenue just to thumb their finger at a country if enough of em decide to follow suit.

    I mean what are they gonna do pack up shop and quit making $$$ in a hissy fit cause their $$$ exploit was nerfed?


    This reminds me of the Net Neutrality debate somewhat, for example California is in the process of passing some nice NN rules and if they succeed and NY follows suit there's good chances ISP will just follow those rules even if other states don't have the same rules because ISP tend to make one policy according to the toughest state rules/regulations to simplify their policies/management and avoid legal issues across the country.

    Game companies could do something similar.
    RexKushman

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,823
    Quizzical said:
    What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?
    That's like saying what happens if any unfair business practice is clammped down in one county, could there be any negative side effects for consumers in that country?

    Yes, but that's not a reason to allow bad business practice to continue, eventually some version of those new laws will become worldwide enough for it to not to mater. Also your concerns are worst case speculations, lets see what happens.
    [Deleted User]ysquare21Asm0deuscraftseeker
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,823
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    Quizzical said:
    What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?
    That's like saying what happens if any unfair business practice is clammped down in one county, could there be any negative side effects for consumers in that country?

    Yes, but that's not a reason to allow bad business practice to continue, eventually some version of those new laws will become worldwide enough for it to not to mater. Also your concerns are worst case speculations, lets see what happens.
    You keep on thinking it's getting nipped in the bud. Watch how that doesn't happen. Then ask yourself why.
    Not at all, I stand by what I said a few months before we had that US senator who started talking about it. It will take ten years before we sort this out, its a complex gambling issue. Also as we talked about before in another thread, it is hard to say if this decision will have the desired effect.

    As you know I advocate we remove all gambling from games, but gambling is a tide coming into our wider societies that is going to take a lot of wising up to before we realise what we are dealing with. We had very strict gambling rules which have been loosened up over the years, that plus digital means of bringing in gambling under another name are a corrosive influence.
    Asm0deuscraftseeker
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    edited May 2018
    Torval said:

    I'm not that clever and I have thought of lots of fun ways to play around with this.

    [snip]

    You sell cash shop items such as an XP boost for $2. It also comes with random extra goodies. You're buying an XP boost, not a loot crate.
    I think that wouldn't work in EU. Our consumer protection laws basically state that an agreement like "If you buy this item you'll get that item for free" must be considered an agreement "I'll sell you both of these items together at this price".

    Companies are allowed to advertise free stuff coming together with the purchase, but to better protect customers it's never considered free if you make a purchase to get it.

    That would likely extend to all arrangements where company would sell something and give free lootboxes as an extra.



    That's not to say that companies might not find another way to circumvent the rule. I don't think it's possible to prevent companies from circumventing it, but the legislators might be able to make it unattractive enough that companies and customers would prefer another form of monetization. The law wouldn't need to be perfect, just effective enough.
    Asm0deuscraftseeker
     
  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 7,885
    Belgium does not have a big enough player base unlike China that has for a company to worry about. More countries have to adopt this to make a real change. 

    Of course companies will immediately if not already are busy designing alternatives.
    Asm0deus

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    edited May 2018
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


    MendelAsm0deuscraftseeker

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • mklinicmklinic Member RarePosts: 1,976
    No, because your example still requires an intermediate activity- you play the game.  You're not buying the loot box, or the item that drops, you're playing the game and the RNG rolls come along with it.  That's an RPG.

    Take out the "playing the game" part, it's a lootbox.
    If we're talking about gambling, then how does this differ from a casino?

    I buy chips (intermediate currency) to go play a game (blackjack for the sake of example) and through some combination of luck + skill, am potentially rewarded with something of value (moar chips!!). So I bought a form of currency and used it to participate in an intermediate activity; I gambled. Except, In this case, I can turn my intermediate currency back into cash.

    If an intermediate activity was all it took to remove the label of gambling, then it's seem like plenty of things we consider gambling now could be re-examined (if just considering this point of view and not additional regulation specific to other venues of course).

    I'm sure that's an overly simplified example, and I have no legislative influence to speak of, but just the way I see it after reading the various back and forth in the thread....
    Asm0deuscraftseeker

    -mklinic

    "Do something right, no one remembers.
    Do something wrong, no one forgets"
    -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence

  • mklinicmklinic Member RarePosts: 1,976
    Are there really no other ways for gaming companies to make money than by randomizing what people are buying?  If it’s such a great model why hasn’t it moved to all other aspects of society?  Why dont we just buy McBoxes at McDonalds that contain random food items?  Just costs $0.25 a box. Or maybe buy a drink for $1 but get a McBox free.  Some will only have 2 fries, some might only have lettuce or a slice of tomato, but some will have Deluxe Chicken sandwiches worth $5!!  It’s not gambling because you actually “win” something each time (by the logic of some)

    It hasn’t spread because it’s simply not acceptable.  It snuck into gaming, and insidiously has taken over like a virus that finds a host with no natural defenses. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to know what they are buying?

    We can do better. 

    Is this law going to be a silver bullet?  No...  but it’s a step.  It’s an acknowledgement that this is wrong, and even if it ends up being flawed it’s an attempt to let companies know that this is simply not acceptable to society.


    Hasn't it spread though? When I want to buy my kids a new toy, there are plenty of "mystery box" toys. They tend to vary in the $3-$6 dollar range and contain a random [thing], from that particular toy set, which you don't know until you open it. For clothing, Funko has had mystery T-Shirt boxes. These boxes would contain one of some number of shirts along a certain theme such as Minecraft. Otherwise, you have various monthly "loot crates" subscription services that you tend to not know the content of until you receive them/they've shipped.

    I'd say the mechanic, or a reasonable variationw there of, is pretty visible outside of gaming as well. Not that it's right or good mind you...but the illness has already spread :P
    ScotAsm0deus

    -mklinic

    "Do something right, no one remembers.
    Do something wrong, no one forgets"
    -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence

This discussion has been closed.