From the Sunny Shores of Hawaii to the Marble Steps of the US Capital, Loot Boxes Stir Controversy -

SBFord

From the Sunny Shores of Hawaii to the Marble Steps of the US Capital, Loot Boxes Stir Controversy - MMORPG.com News

From humble beginnings in the State of Hawaii, the issue of "gambling" in games has crossed the nation all the way to the steps of the US Capitol Building. One US Senator from New Hampshire is already questioning the ESRB and the Federal Trade Commission about what needs to be done to curb gambling in gaming. Senator Maggie Hassan spoke with FTC members about the department's stance on loot boxes as a mechanic that could lead to deeper addiction in other areas.

Read the full story here

Slapshot1188

/grabs popcorn

cjmarsh

I kind of like loot boxes.

Slapshot1188

Interesting article on Dauntless and their switch away from Lootboxes:  https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-02-14-if-loot-boxes-are-free-to-plays-present-what-will-be-the-future

I think just the general negativity around loot boxes is already pushing companies to think twice about implementing them.

Coolit

The more pressure on the ESRB and similar bodies the better.

CrazKanuk

Slapshot1188 said:

Interesting article on Dauntless and their switch away from Lootboxes:  https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-02-14-if-loot-boxes-are-free-to-plays-present-what-will-be-the-future

I think just the general negativity around loot boxes is already pushing companies to think twice about implementing them.

So what I took from that is instead of loot boxes, they're just going to sell players what they want directly?

As for the bill, again, I love how they conflate loot boxes and gaming disorder. Actually, they conflate loot boxes and gambling also. You might say they have conflation domination on this one. If you want more evidence about how clueless these politicians are about the subject matter, just look at the first sentence in the article quote "The prevalence of in-game micro-transactions, often referred to as 'loot boxes',"...... Nope! No, microtransactions are NOT often referred to as 'loot boxes', loot boxes are referred to as loot boxes, lol. 

I'd be interested to know what others thought of the bill and whether they feel it applies to games like WoW or any other gear grinder that DOESN'T sell loot boxes directly. Do randomized gear drops from enemies constitute a loot box? I don't think it does, which begs the question, are we now, then, going to simply get RNG booster potions that will increase our chances of getting something good from a boss? Not only is this bad, but it also COMPLETELY destroys the classification of "Gaming Disorder" by the WHO, basically insinuating that loot boxes and gaming disorder are mutually exclusive. The WHO REALLY needs to publish something clarifying that gaming disorder isn't related to loot boxes. Otherwise, what? Removing loot boxes now solves gaming disorder? Nope! Two separate mental health issues! 

Lusts

Coolit said:

The more pressure on the ESRB and similar bodies the better.

The problem I've seen with ESRB and ESRB ratings is that it doesn't work. Most stores around me don't even care who walks in and buys the games. It's just money in their pocket. It is never enforced. Nor do parents actually look at ESRB ratings nowadays.

SBFord

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

cjmarsh

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

I think kids shouldn't be given smart phones rather than banning some of the gambling on some of the apps...

SBFord

cjmarsh said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

I think kids shouldn't be given smart phones rather than banning some of the gambling on some of the apps...

Thing is that for those so inclined as to legislate things like this, they can make laws and so forth about loot boxes that go after the game devs and publishers. They can't, however, legislate Mom and Dad from giving Little Sally and Tommy a smart phone.

CrazKanuk

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

Yeah, but is it a randomized loot box? Or are you buying the player you want? I can also buy a max level character in WoW for $60. My son has bought 2 of these in his 3 years of playing WoW. 

Also, GTAV apparently make like $1 Billion on microtransactions last year. That's a game where they don't even have loot boxes (completely making an assumption here, can someone confirm there are no RNG loot boxes for sale?). Clash of Clans makes like $2 billion with zero RNG loot boxes. Candy Crush makes hundreds of millions selling you extra turns. 

Honestly, I could care less if loot boxes stay or go, but this isn't an issue of gambling mechanics AT ALL. This is an issue of microtransactions at the core. Remember that in the grand scheme of gaming, microtransactions are still babies. Yet over the past 5 years companies have created whole jobs and departments centered around monetization. This is the product of a digital age where these digital items are available and people will buy them.... because... reasons? Unfortunately, in an attempt to understand why these old politicians figure, "FUCK! It must be these damn loot boxes because they're like gambling and I can identify with that." 

Look at the numbers, the digital sales are increasing like 80% year over year now and that growth is actually INCREASING. Now we have companies actually making more revenue from these microtransactions than the games themselves. EA, $2 billion, Activision $4 Billion, Take Two, $1 Billion, Ubisoft $500 million. For each of these companies, their digital revenues are beating their game sales revenues. Unfortunately, how can you stop microtransactions? Honestly, you can't. 

CrazKanuk

Torval said:

SBFord said:

cjmarsh said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

I think kids shouldn't be given smart phones rather than banning some of the gambling on some of the apps...

Thing is that for those so inclined as to legislate things like this, they can make laws and so forth about loot boxes that go after the game devs and publishers. They can't, however, legislate Mom and Dad from giving Little Sally and Tommy a smart phone.

I think they could, just like I can't give my son a vehicle to use until he's licensed. It may not be practical now to turn back society and make it function like that but I think it's equally as plausible to consider limiting the use of mobile devices for minors as it is to restrict what they can do with them.

Parents do have tools to restrict these things. My son got a Pixel 2 over the holiday. I can restrict his ability to purchase things through the Verizon account. He needs a payment method to fund mobile purchases so unless he's secured that on his own he'll need our assistance with that as well.

If we're serious about online gambling, in all its forms, then we should address those at the root instead of legislating fixes to the fruit of the issues. Addressing the symptoms and results of those is just a way to placate public opinion without having to effectively deal with anything. Dealing with the root issue ruffles more feathers and causes more waves through the political and business sectors. No one wants to do that.

Agreed, but we're also dealing an issue of poorly-developed problem solving skills. Remember, we live in an age where people actually believe that building walls solves immigration issues, lol. 

laserit

CrazKanuk said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

Yeah, but is it a randomized loot box? Or are you buying the player you want? I can also buy a max level character in WoW for $60. My son has bought 2 of these in his 3 years of playing WoW. 

Also, GTAV apparently make like $1 Billion on microtransactions last year. That's a game where they don't even have loot boxes (completely making an assumption here, can someone confirm there are no RNG loot boxes for sale?). Clash of Clans makes like $2 billion with zero RNG loot boxes. Candy Crush makes hundreds of millions selling you extra turns. 

Honestly, I could care less if loot boxes stay or go, but this isn't an issue of gambling mechanics AT ALL. This is an issue of microtransactions at the core. Remember that in the grand scheme of gaming, microtransactions are still babies. Yet over the past 5 years companies have created whole jobs and departments centered around monetization. This is the product of a digital age where these digital items are available and people will buy them.... because... reasons? Unfortunately, in an attempt to understand why these old politicians figure, "FUCK! It must be these damn loot boxes because they're like gambling and I can identify with that." 

Look at the numbers, the digital sales are increasing like 80% year over year now and that growth is actually INCREASING. Now we have companies actually making more revenue from these microtransactions than the games themselves. EA, $2 billion, Activision $4 Billion, Take Two, $1 Billion, Ubisoft $500 million. For each of these companies, their digital revenues are beating their game sales revenues. Unfortunately, how can you stop microtransactions? Honestly, you can't. 

Lets not obtusify this.

It's about gambling styled monetization in video games.  

Vrika

cjmarsh said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

I think kids shouldn't be given smart phones rather than banning some of the gambling on some of the apps...

Why should kids be denied smart phones because some adults want to gamble on them?

Children are humans too and they've got rights too. The limitations and rules that we place on them must be somewhat reasonable. If we must ban either adults gambling on smart phones or children from using smartphones altogether, then we must ban adults from gambling on them because that's so much smaller limitation on humans' freedom.

SBFord

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.

When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.

Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

MadFrenchie

The larger issue to tackle with regards to digital products is ownership rights.  It's completely borked right now, which makes it impossible to view the lootbox stuff in any easily relatable concept.

Most folks, politician's included, have zero idea what their rights are regarding digital products they've purchased.  This has come back to bite the consumer in the ass on occasion, but we're bombarded by too much noise in the digital age to reasonably expect a citizen to be knowledgeable about their ownership rights surrounding every product they own.

laserit

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.

When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.

Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

How do online casinos tackle the problem?

Seems to me that there are plenty of profits to fund a reasonable solution. 

Too much gravy is bad for one's health, all that fat and all

Scot

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.



When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.



Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).

When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.

Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.

Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.

laserit

Scot said:

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.



When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.



Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).

When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.

Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.

Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.

Back in my day we had no problem as young boys picking up copies of Playboy and Penthouse either

Loot boxes aren't flying under the radar anymore. They've garnered a lot of attention lately.

CrazKanuk

laserit said:

CrazKanuk said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

Yeah, but is it a randomized loot box? Or are you buying the player you want? I can also buy a max level character in WoW for $60. My son has bought 2 of these in his 3 years of playing WoW. 

Also, GTAV apparently make like $1 Billion on microtransactions last year. That's a game where they don't even have loot boxes (completely making an assumption here, can someone confirm there are no RNG loot boxes for sale?). Clash of Clans makes like $2 billion with zero RNG loot boxes. Candy Crush makes hundreds of millions selling you extra turns. 

Honestly, I could care less if loot boxes stay or go, but this isn't an issue of gambling mechanics AT ALL. This is an issue of microtransactions at the core. Remember that in the grand scheme of gaming, microtransactions are still babies. Yet over the past 5 years companies have created whole jobs and departments centered around monetization. This is the product of a digital age where these digital items are available and people will buy them.... because... reasons? Unfortunately, in an attempt to understand why these old politicians figure, "FUCK! It must be these damn loot boxes because they're like gambling and I can identify with that." 

Look at the numbers, the digital sales are increasing like 80% year over year now and that growth is actually INCREASING. Now we have companies actually making more revenue from these microtransactions than the games themselves. EA, $2 billion, Activision $4 Billion, Take Two, $1 Billion, Ubisoft $500 million. For each of these companies, their digital revenues are beating their game sales revenues. Unfortunately, how can you stop microtransactions? Honestly, you can't. 

Lets not obtusify this.

It's about gambling styled monetization in video games.  

I don't know how I could make the subject matter more obtuse than it is already. Can you? 

beebop500

I doubt much will change.  Loot boxes are sold, and are apparently successful (at least in terms of making money) because people keep buying them.  The only thing you might see is some attempt at regulating this (read: over-regulating, most likely), and even then, that's not going to dissuade anyone from continuing to pony up money for whatever in-game assets you're talking about. 

Folks can call it gambling, and blame it on "addiction" like we love to do in the West so much because nothing is ever anyobody's fault, but in the end I just don't see how a whole lot is going to change.  Should/could this sort of thing have some rules or regulations attached to it?  Probably.  Is a national government the proper entity to do that, considering most of them are corrupt?  Probably not.

CrazKanuk

Scot said:

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.



When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.



Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).

When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.

Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.

Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.

We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will? 

I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw. 

laserit

CrazKanuk said:

laserit said:

CrazKanuk said:

SBFord said:

Vinterkrig said:

I just think the pricing on this shit has gotten outrageous. Madden Mobile is charging $100 basically for a max player.. fucking stupid.

They need to go after mobile games as hard, if not harder, than they are with computer and console games. Most kids have phones with them 24/7 and have more opportunity to engage in "gambling mechanics".

Yeah, but is it a randomized loot box? Or are you buying the player you want? I can also buy a max level character in WoW for $60. My son has bought 2 of these in his 3 years of playing WoW. 

Also, GTAV apparently make like $1 Billion on microtransactions last year. That's a game where they don't even have loot boxes (completely making an assumption here, can someone confirm there are no RNG loot boxes for sale?). Clash of Clans makes like $2 billion with zero RNG loot boxes. Candy Crush makes hundreds of millions selling you extra turns. 

Honestly, I could care less if loot boxes stay or go, but this isn't an issue of gambling mechanics AT ALL. This is an issue of microtransactions at the core. Remember that in the grand scheme of gaming, microtransactions are still babies. Yet over the past 5 years companies have created whole jobs and departments centered around monetization. This is the product of a digital age where these digital items are available and people will buy them.... because... reasons? Unfortunately, in an attempt to understand why these old politicians figure, "FUCK! It must be these damn loot boxes because they're like gambling and I can identify with that." 

Look at the numbers, the digital sales are increasing like 80% year over year now and that growth is actually INCREASING. Now we have companies actually making more revenue from these microtransactions than the games themselves. EA, $2 billion, Activision $4 Billion, Take Two, $1 Billion, Ubisoft $500 million. For each of these companies, their digital revenues are beating their game sales revenues. Unfortunately, how can you stop microtransactions? Honestly, you can't. 

Lets not obtusify this.

It's about gambling styled monetization in video games.  

I don't know how I could make the subject matter more obtuse than it is already. Can you? 

It doesn't matter if some senator isn't hip on the lingo. It's the randomized loot box that has caught the legislators eye.

Maybe some gambling styled taxation would go along good with that gambling styled monetization.

Easy come, easy go

CrazKanuk

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.

When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.

Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

This isn't a parent-child issue, it's societal. Let's not forget that someone sued McDonald's for making them fat. Maybe they should sue their hands for shoving all the food into their gut. We've arrived at a point where nothing can be our fault. It's simply inconceivable. 

We can blame parents, and that's all well and good, and it is cause for some of the concern. However, let me ask this, and it's completely serious. How many countries have adequate access to free mental health services? I know in Canada we don't(ish). There are some services available to youth, but for adults there is very little. So my assumption is there is even less in the US. I'm not sure if there is something in like the UK that's free? So, in North America, something like 1/3 Americans are suffering from mental health disorders. THAT is pandemic. So we see something like obesity as an epidemic, but the underlying issue isn't physical, and it can't be fixed that way, even if you gave everyone free liposuction. Same goes for this. This isn't a gambling issue, as much as people would like to believe it is. Again, Clash of Clans did $2 billion last year without selling a single loot box. That's more than all of EA. So, great, let's solve this lootbox issue. Cool. Take a crack at it. However, with the money that would be spent to actually make change here, like real change, why not actually roll out some sort of mental health infrastructure. I know you Americans hate all that free health care, but removing loot boxes is the equivalent of using a bandaid for a bullethole. 

What's even more disappointing is that they reference the WHO's designation of gaming disorder as a mental health issue and completely skirted the mental health aspects. 

laserit

CrazKanuk said:

Scot said:

SBFord said:

As a former teacher, I can tell you straight up that many -- far, far too many -- parents abdicate their responsibility to their children to the phone, console, or PC.



When it comes to online gaming, all the legislation in the world won't do anything to stop Little Mary from spending on loot boxes when Mom or Dad sets up an account that says they're 18. How can legislation be set up to ensure that those playing a game are "of age"? What's next? Requiring photo ID to set up a virtual online account? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it can be done without being so restrictive and draconian as to be over regulated in a negative way to everyone who plays online games.



Of course there are many parents who do take that responsibility to heart, but far too many don't.

The average age a kid in the UK gets a smartphone is 10 years old, one in three 5 to 15 year olds have a tablet (higher now as that was 2014).

When I played Watchdogs 2 (PEGI 18), I watched a video review of a dlc from a kid who sounded like he was about ten years old. Good review actually, but he was way too young. Would I have done that when I was his age? Absolutely, if parents don't step in boys will certainly play anything over 18 they can, in fact they will regard it as a badge of honour.

Don't forget the Dutch are waking up to this too, calling loot boxes gambling.

Thanks for raising this one, we may get over regulation, but that's just going to be the price gamblers will have to pay to become gamers again.

We can call it gambling all we want, we can implement as many regulations as we want. Answer me this, though, when it doesn't solve anything, then what? You can outright remove loot boxes, but I'm asserting right here, right now, that it will not stop spending in-game and it won't all of a sudden resolve whatever this gaming disorder is that's been identified. Are you suggesting it will? 

I'd go as far as to bet you $50 USD that when this legislation passes, it will not only not slow spending, but spending will actually still remain the same or increase. <-- EDIT the irony here isn't lost on my btw. 

I'd bet that having those rules on those Mcdonald's contests etc. hasn't slowed down hamburger sales one bit.

There are good sound reasons for those rules.

Slapshot1188

CrazKanuk said:

Agreed, but we're also dealing an issue of poorly-developed problem solving skills. Remember, we live in an age where people actually believe that building walls solves immigration issues, lol. 

Let's leave garbage like that outside OK?  That's like saying we live in an age where people actually believe that anyone who likes should be able to self-immigrate to any country they like with no screening and the current citizens have no say. 

Let's just agree to leave immigration out of loot boxes.