Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Eldurian

NY is another example of a place I would never willingly live.

Maybe a few states having horrible policies telling people how to live their lives doesn't change the fact that Belgium sounds like a horrible place where other people want to control your actions through the government as well.

I'm pretty comfortable with saying any place that has a high amount of laws that prohibit victimless crimes are bad places to live for people who value their individual liberties.

Ungood

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

So let me make sure I have this straight.  If you pay $1 to have a 50% chance of winning $2 and a 50% chance of nothing, that's gambling.  But if you pay $2 to have a 50% chance of winning $3 and a 50% chance of winning $1, then that's not gambling, because in the latter you always win something.  Is that basically what you're arguing?

Not really.

See it works like this. With a Loot Box, it is like putting money into a vending machine, that is full of random junk jewelry, and getting a Red one as opposed to the Blue one you want, but the drive and desire for the Blue one is because you know their is only 1 blue one in the whole dispenser, never realizing that both are worthless junk, and worth the same to the retailer and creator of the product.

As such, unlike gambling, the only value these "items" have, is based on what someone else will pay for it, or appeasing personal vanity, ergo, what you will pay for it. But the item, but, none the less, just like those bits of plastic jewelry they are vastly worthless.

This is of course, if the are purely cosmetic.

If they confer a direct and astute in-game advantage, that is a whole other matter.

You're simply shifting your argument to safer ground. You're now talking about real world monetary value and not the "you are guaranteed to get something" you clearly started with.

"Guaranteed to get something" is just not a defining characteristic of not gambling.

Cash for a chance at more cash is a better argument but still not the definitive criteria some want it to be. It doesn't address lotteries with items instead of cash as the payoff and it certainly does not address the perceived value of one digital item vs. another one which is a new a developing idea about which things are valuable to us.

Value is a consensual thing when applied to items. There is no intrinsic reason why a diamond is worth X times more than a lump of coal. Sure there is a natural rarity difference and an aesthetic difference but its worth is still something we consensually and arbitrarily assign to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that buying a $100 ticket for a chance at a diamond is not gambling even if the guaranteed consolation price is a a lump of coal. But that's happening in the real world and the diamond can be converted to cash. So no problem thinking of it as gambling and getting the necessary permit to hold that lottery.

What about an in game diamond lottery that only has value in that game? If the players who inhabit that virtual world consensually apply an arbitrary value to it and the way to obtain it is to pay real world cash for a chance from a box that may also give you a lump of coal how is that emotionally and mechanically different from its real world equivalent?

It's still gambling albeit with a virtual payoff of dubious value and if it was just pretend gambling with no real world cash needed to do it that would be a relatively harmless thing on the same level as simulated in game violence or sex.

But you add real world cash to it to get the ball rolling and I can see a legitimate reason for people to start wondering just how different this is compared to traditional real world gambling.

I think what you missed by the "You get something", and I was going to use a Gumball, again, but lets go with this.

a Diamond vs a Pile of Coal. 

If you need to heat your house, getting the diamond, really is just sale fodder to get more coal, right? Ergo, it's worth is based on what someone else will pay for it, not that it has any intrinsic value to you, as you needed the coal, so only the coal had value to you, and the diamond was nothing more then "More Coal"

Allow that simmer.

Eldurian

My dream is to live in a place where a married gay couple can legally defend their pot field with a fully automatic weapon.

cheyane

DMKano said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

For those wondering.. 

Just to give you an idea, of what you are dealing with in Belgium.

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling.

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that somehow this is a meaningful and powerful change of things.

For those wondering...  This is probably going to come as a shock to Ungood, but this is actually also the same way half the states in the US treat it.   Yes, for example in NY:

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that some posters comments are totally not researched or relevant.


http://www.pokerdiy.com/faq/home-poker-law

How embarrassing...

Guess what different states - different home laws.

In my state social gambling is allowed, can invite friends over and play with real money.

no big deal

My goodness I come from Malaysia but although I am not Chinese I love to go to my friend's houses during Chinese New Year and gamble for real money. Gambling is big in Malaysia and even though it is a Muslim country we have so many other races and religions and we go to each other's houses for festivities and we gamble a lot I mean really a lot.

My friend's granny taught to play Mahjong. Then she would take me for all I'm worth ....this was when I was in University so luckily with my scholarship "all I was worth' was not much. Jeez I cannot imagine not gambling at home.

MadFrenchie

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

You're simply shifting your argument to safer ground. You're now talking about real world monetary value and not the "you are guaranteed to get something" you clearly started with.

"Guaranteed to get something" is just not a defining characteristic of not gambling.

Cash for a chance at more cash is a better argument but still not the definitive criteria some want it to be. It doesn't address lotteries with items instead of cash as the payoff and it certainly does not address the perceived value of one digital item vs. another one which is a new a developing idea about which things are valuable to us.

Value is a consensual thing when applied to items. There is no intrinsic reason why a diamond is worth X times more than a lump of coal. Sure there is a natural rarity difference and an aesthetic difference but its worth is still something we consensually and arbitrarily assign to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that buying a $100 ticket for a chance at a diamond is not gambling even if the guaranteed consolation price is a a lump of coal. But that's happening in the real world and the diamond can be converted to cash. So no problem thinking of it as gambling and getting the necessary permit to hold that lottery.

What about an in game diamond lottery that only has value in that game? If the players who inhabit that virtual world consensually apply an arbitrary value to it and the way to obtain it is to pay real world cash for a chance from a box that may also give you a lump of coal how is that emotionally and mechanically different from its real world equivalent?

It's still gambling albeit with a virtual payoff of dubious value and if it was just pretend gambling with no real world cash needed to do it that would be a relatively harmless thing on the same level as simulated in game violence or sex.

But you add real world cash to it to get the ball rolling and I can see a legitimate reason for people to start wondering just how different this is compared to traditional real world gambling.

I think what you missed by the "You get something", and I was going to use a Gumball, again, but lets go with this.

a Diamond vs a Pile of Coal. 

If you need to heat your house, getting the diamond, really is just sale fodder to get more coal, right? Ergo, it's worth is based on what someone else will pay for it, not that it has any intrinsic value to you, as you needed the coal, so only the coal had value to you, and the diamond was nothing more then "More Coal"

Allow that simmer.

That doesn't change his principle.  You're trying to find exclusions in very specific and unusual situations (needing to heat one's house, which the vast majority of Americans don't have to physically buy any coal whatsoever to do) to destroy the notion that you can still gamble cash on a wager even if the worst result is not total loss of said cash.

Slapshot1188

MadFrenchie said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

You're simply shifting your argument to safer ground. You're now talking about real world monetary value and not the "you are guaranteed to get something" you clearly started with.

"Guaranteed to get something" is just not a defining characteristic of not gambling.

Cash for a chance at more cash is a better argument but still not the definitive criteria some want it to be. It doesn't address lotteries with items instead of cash as the payoff and it certainly does not address the perceived value of one digital item vs. another one which is a new a developing idea about which things are valuable to us.

Value is a consensual thing when applied to items. There is no intrinsic reason why a diamond is worth X times more than a lump of coal. Sure there is a natural rarity difference and an aesthetic difference but its worth is still something we consensually and arbitrarily assign to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that buying a $100 ticket for a chance at a diamond is not gambling even if the guaranteed consolation price is a a lump of coal. But that's happening in the real world and the diamond can be converted to cash. So no problem thinking of it as gambling and getting the necessary permit to hold that lottery.

What about an in game diamond lottery that only has value in that game? If the players who inhabit that virtual world consensually apply an arbitrary value to it and the way to obtain it is to pay real world cash for a chance from a box that may also give you a lump of coal how is that emotionally and mechanically different from its real world equivalent?

It's still gambling albeit with a virtual payoff of dubious value and if it was just pretend gambling with no real world cash needed to do it that would be a relatively harmless thing on the same level as simulated in game violence or sex.

But you add real world cash to it to get the ball rolling and I can see a legitimate reason for people to start wondering just how different this is compared to traditional real world gambling.

I think what you missed by the "You get something", and I was going to use a Gumball, again, but lets go with this.

a Diamond vs a Pile of Coal. 

If you need to heat your house, getting the diamond, really is just sale fodder to get more coal, right? Ergo, it's worth is based on what someone else will pay for it, not that it has any intrinsic value to you, as you needed the coal, so only the coal had value to you, and the diamond was nothing more then "More Coal"

Allow that simmer.

That doesn't change his principle.  You're trying to find exclusions in very specific and unusual situations (needing to heat one's house, which the vast majority of Americans don't have to physically buy any coal whatsoever to do) to destroy the notion that you can still gamble cash on a wager even if the worst result is not total loss of said cash.

It’s just another silly analogy.

Take it to its logical conclusion. Substitute pile of cash for diamond. The cash has no value only the coal does.  Cash just means “more coal”... We should just scrap our monetary system and go to a pure barter one.

Its ok...  bad analogies can’t save marketing gambling boxes to kids.  Those days are numbered.  We can do better than that.

Eldurian

Slapshot1188 said:

Its ok...  bad analogies can’t save marketing gambling boxes to kids.  Those days are numbered.  We can do better than that.

If your kid is spending money online and you don't know about it, you're a failure as a parent. I didn't have a debit card until I was 18. Everything I purchased online had to go through my parents. I couldn't even get them to pay 15$ a month subs despite offering to pay them back in cash before they paid for it, much less let me go willy-nilly with lootboxes. 

Face it. If your kid is spending money on crap they shouldn't be online a couple government policies won't save them because it's obvious the root of their problem is piss poor parenting and statist policies don't fix lack of parental supervision.

Ungood

MadFrenchie said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

You're simply shifting your argument to safer ground. You're now talking about real world monetary value and not the "you are guaranteed to get something" you clearly started with.

"Guaranteed to get something" is just not a defining characteristic of not gambling.

Cash for a chance at more cash is a better argument but still not the definitive criteria some want it to be. It doesn't address lotteries with items instead of cash as the payoff and it certainly does not address the perceived value of one digital item vs. another one which is a new a developing idea about which things are valuable to us.

Value is a consensual thing when applied to items. There is no intrinsic reason why a diamond is worth X times more than a lump of coal. Sure there is a natural rarity difference and an aesthetic difference but its worth is still something we consensually and arbitrarily assign to it.

I don't think anyone would argue that buying a $100 ticket for a chance at a diamond is not gambling even if the guaranteed consolation price is a a lump of coal. But that's happening in the real world and the diamond can be converted to cash. So no problem thinking of it as gambling and getting the necessary permit to hold that lottery.

What about an in game diamond lottery that only has value in that game? If the players who inhabit that virtual world consensually apply an arbitrary value to it and the way to obtain it is to pay real world cash for a chance from a box that may also give you a lump of coal how is that emotionally and mechanically different from its real world equivalent?

It's still gambling albeit with a virtual payoff of dubious value and if it was just pretend gambling with no real world cash needed to do it that would be a relatively harmless thing on the same level as simulated in game violence or sex.

But you add real world cash to it to get the ball rolling and I can see a legitimate reason for people to start wondering just how different this is compared to traditional real world gambling.

I think what you missed by the "You get something", and I was going to use a Gumball, again, but lets go with this.

a Diamond vs a Pile of Coal. 

If you need to heat your house, getting the diamond, really is just sale fodder to get more coal, right? Ergo, it's worth is based on what someone else will pay for it, not that it has any intrinsic value to you, as you needed the coal, so only the coal had value to you, and the diamond was nothing more then "More Coal"

Allow that simmer.

That doesn't change his principle.  You're trying to find exclusions in very specific and unusual situations (needing to heat one's house, which the vast majority of Americans don't have to physically buy any coal whatsoever to do) to destroy the notion that you can still gamble cash on a wager even if the worst result is not total loss of said cash.

The thing here is that you get an item that only has imaginary value.

Maybe it is best if I stay with the Gumballs.

If you put a quarter into the gumball machine, you will always get a gumball, there are varying colors, sizes and shapes, but in the end, it's still a gumball.

If there are 100 green, 10 blue and 1 red gumball, in the machine, none of them are in fact worth more or less then any other one, unless you want a specific color. The value of the color is purely a matter of personal preference, not intrinsic to the Gumball at all.  If someone wants a blue Gumball then regardless of the rarity, they will trade all the other colors to get their blue gumball. The value of those gumballs are based on what others will pay, and the value of the blue one is based on what they will pay.

But, no matter how you slice it, at no point does anyone get less then a gumball, or more then a gumball, even if they don't get the flavor, shape, color they want, they still got a gumball.

Now, to use the example above, it would be like everyone gets a diamond of various cuts and colors, obviously, some colors are more rare then others, some cuts look more attractive to some people then others,  but, even if you didn't get the cut or color they want, everyone gets a diamond none the less.

Now, Is it gambling? Well as I see it, it's no more gambling then watching a 6 year old pump quarters into a gumball machine till they get the color they want.. which is.. exactly what lootboxes are... Kids pumping money into a machine till they get the treat they want.

Ungood

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

For those wondering.. 

Just to give you an idea, of what you are dealing with in Belgium.

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling.

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that somehow this is a meaningful and powerful change of things.

For those wondering...  This is probably going to come as a shock to Ungood, but this is actually also the same way half the states in the US treat it.   Yes, for example in NY:

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that some posters comments are totally not researched or relevant.


http://www.pokerdiy.com/faq/home-poker-law

How embarrassing...

Wow, so our annual family camping event, where everyone brought the whole family, we stayed up late, and played poker with real money was breaking the law... I feel like such a outlaw, and there were children present, hell there were children kicking adults asses in poker.. and we all could have jailed for such a crime against humanity..

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

Brunlin

Hmm, wonder how this will affect trading card games online with boosters that have 1-3 random rare cards that can be of different value? I am against greedy cash shops that have loot boxes as well, but when governments starts making rulings against game mechanics, than there may be unforeseen consequences.

Eldurian

Brunlin said:

Hmm, wonder how this will affect trading card games online with boosters that have 1-3 random rare cards that can be of different value? I am against greedy cash shops that have loot boxes as well, but when governments starts making rulings against game mechanics, than there may be unforeseen consequences.

How dare you think about silly things like adults being able to choose to spend their money how they want, instead of the possibility of Timmy getting mommy's credit card and being allowed to spend it on whatever he wants online with no supervision. Obviously this will destroy Timmy's previously bright future and turn him into a delinquent gambling addict.

#ThinkOfTheChildren #WeAreBetterThanThis #HopeAndChange #MakeTheInternetGreatAgain

klash2def

Loot-boxes absolutely need to be regulated if they are going to exist, since Publishers cant do it themselves, then yes apparently the government has to step in and assist them. 

I don't personally care for them, I think its lazy on part of the gamer and the publisher but if they are gonna be a thing, they need to abide by rules. 

I see a lot of people talking about "Failed Parents" and all that jazz, I wonder how many of you actually have kids and understand the real dynamics of Parenthood. You are not a failed Parent if your kid steals your CC and uses it to buy a bunch of shit on a video game. Kids do dumb shit because they are kids. Parents can only guide them, we don't control their actions. Most parents are very reactionary, more so than we care to admit. So, don't blame the parents. Its not always them... (Sometimes it is when they don't care what their kids are doing online, but not all parents)  You can teach your kid all the right things to do and they still do idiotic shit. A lot more goes into parenting than watching them play video games. 

More important than trying to tell somebody to "be better parents" let's focus on the real issue. the predatory practices of game publishers/developers. Yes Predatory. 

They entice a person with the promise of getting a item in game that will "advance" their progress. What they fail to say is that you are gonna spend a lot of money because of RNG. There isn't a system in place that stops children from spending large amounts of money (regardless of how they got it) I'm all for regulating or removing them totally. This is an issue because children and teenagers have a much harder time with impulsive decision making than adults. Adults get addicted over time, children its almost instantaneous. Especially if its presented as harmless like most video games present them.

"BUY A BATTLE-CRATE TO GET THE NEW BATTLE RIFLE SKIN + 4 AMMO BOOSTS!"  The design is just a lure to catch children and when it gets bad the kid may start stealing from the parent just to feed their addiction. So to me the only option is to remove it.

As a parent I would like the choice to introduce my child to legal gambling. It wont be until they are old enough to visit Las Vegas if its up to me. This isn't about coddling them from reality. Trust me they deal with enough reality as it is. This is about Minimizing the harmful effects of something like gambling at such a early age. Its like Smoking cigarettes. You don't want your kids smoking at a early age because of what addiction to it may lead to. Same thing with Gambling. I don't want them to gamble at a early age. Period, end of discussion. When they get a little older then they should be able to make that choice, but they shouldn't have to worry about addiction to gambling at this point in their development. 

We didn't grow up with loot-boxes so we all know they aren't needed to enjoy the game. I don't understand the argument FOR loot-boxes at all. If you don't have time to play the game without buying boosts or packs then play it when you do have time. We absolutely do not need loot-boxes. 

Cash-Shop is different. There are P2W cash-shops which is another argument altogether but in a "decent" cash-shop, I prefer to see what I'm going to get vs not knowing at all and getting addicted to gambling just to get the item i really want.

We are talking about the difference between 1 direct purchase and 100-1000 RNG purchases. 

Herase

Brunlin said:

Hmm, wonder how this will affect trading card games online with boosters that have 1-3 random rare cards that can be of different value? I am against greedy cash shops that have loot boxes as well, but when governments starts making rulings against game mechanics, than there may be unforeseen consequences.

It's annoying, but it's one of those consequence due to the action of a few who took it too far.

If people from the gaming industry stepped in themselves and did something, maybe this ball wouldn't have started rolling. 

The public yelled,
the gaming industry looked away, some pretended to listen,
the government saw the opportunity and stepped in.

Only the industry can blame themselves imho. 

Ungood said:

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

It's not about coddling, it's about the overall affect on gaming, when you add lootboxes, it's not just those who pay that lose out, it's gamers who don't want to pay lost out as well. 

BF2 was an example, the game nerfed every aspect of multiplayer for the sake of lootboxes, meaning I would get my ass handed to me left and right because the other team had a person who dropped money and already unlocked Darth Vader or several powerful perks several month early.

I know a lot of people are making it about children and protecting people, but that's just the surface imho and the common person wouldn't understand the problem above and obviously the government don't either . The main problem is the watering down of games to make room for loot boxes. Another example to show the direction things were heading in is the patent EA I think wrote up, were they would pair you against someone in multiplayer who's used mtx to put you in a situation were you feel needed to buy items to keep up. Manipulating a none mtx user into using mtx.

Slapshot1188

Eldurian said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Its ok...  bad analogies can’t save marketing gambling boxes to kids.  Those days are numbered.  We can do better than that.

If your kid is spending money online and you don't know about it, you're a failure as a parent. I didn't have a debit card until I was 18. Everything I purchased online had to go through my parents. I couldn't even get them to pay 15$ a month subs despite offering to pay them back in cash before they paid for it, much less let me go willy-nilly with lootboxes. 

Face it. If your kid is spending money on crap they shouldn't be online a couple government policies won't save them because it's obvious the root of their problem is piss poor parenting and statist policies don't fix lack of parental supervision.

 
Change is coming 

Slapshot1188

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

For those wondering.. 

Just to give you an idea, of what you are dealing with in Belgium.

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling.

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that somehow this is a meaningful and powerful change of things.

For those wondering...  This is probably going to come as a shock to Ungood, but this is actually also the same way half the states in the US treat it.   Yes, for example in NY:

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that some posters comments are totally not researched or relevant.


http://www.pokerdiy.com/faq/home-poker-law

How embarrassing...

Wow, so our annual family camping event, where everyone brought the whole family, we stayed up late, and played poker with real money was breaking the law... I feel like such a outlaw, and there were children present, hell there were children kicking adults asses in poker.. and we all could have jailed for such a crime against humanity..

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

The point was that you attempted to poke fun and belittle Belgium while not realizing similar laws existed in half the US.

Keep changing arguments.  Change is happening and it's on the way 

Slapshot1188

klash2def said:

Loot-boxes absolutely need to be regulated if they are going to exist, since Publishers cant do it themselves, then yes apparently the government has to step in and assist them. 

I don't personally care for them, I think its lazy on part of the gamer and the publisher but if they are gonna be a thing, they need to abide by rules. 

I see a lot of people talking about "Failed Parents" and all that jazz, I wonder how many of you actually have kids and understand the real dynamics of Parenthood. You are not a failed Parent if your kid steals your CC and uses it to buy a bunch of shit on a video game. Kids do dumb shit because they are kids. Parents can only guide them, we don't control their actions. Most parents are very reactionary, more so than we care to admit. So, don't blame the parents. Its not always them... (Sometimes it is when they don't care what their kids are doing online, but not all parents)  You can teach your kid all the right things to do and they still do idiotic shit. A lot more goes into parenting than watching them play video games. 

More important than trying to tell somebody to "be better parents" let's focus on the real issue. the predatory practices of game publishers/developers. Yes Predatory. 

They entice a person with the promise of getting a item in game that will "advance" their progress. What they fail to say is that you are gonna spend a lot of money because of RNG. There isn't a system in place that stops children from spending large amounts of money (regardless of how they got it) I'm all for regulating or removing them totally. This is an issue because children and teenagers have a much harder time with impulsive decision making than adults. Adults get addicted over time, children its almost instantaneous. Especially if its presented as harmless like most video games present them.

"BUY A BATTLE-CRATE TO GET THE NEW BATTLE RIFLE SKIN + 4 AMMO BOOSTS!"  The design is just a lure to catch children and when it gets bad the kid may start stealing from the parent just to feed their addiction. So to me the only option is to remove it.

As a parent I would like the choice to introduce my child to legal gambling. It wont be until they are old enough to visit Las Vegas if its up to me. This isn't about coddling them from reality. Trust me they deal with enough reality as it is. This is about Minimizing the harmful effects of something like gambling at such a early age. Its like Smoking cigarettes. You don't want your kids smoking at a early age because of what addiction to it may lead to. Same thing with Gambling. I don't want them to gamble at a early age. Period, end of discussion. When they get a little older then they should be able to make that choice, but they shouldn't have to worry about addiction to gambling at this point in their development. 

We didn't grow up with loot-boxes so we all know they aren't needed to enjoy the game. I don't understand the argument FOR loot-boxes at all. If you don't have time to play the game without buying boosts or packs then play it when you do have time. We absolutely do not need loot-boxes. 

Cash-Shop is different. There are P2W cash-shops which is another argument altogether but in a "decent" cash-shop, I prefer to see what I'm going to get vs not knowing at all and getting addicted to gambling just to get the item i really want.

We are talking about the difference between 1 direct purchase and 100-1000 RNG purchases. 

As I pointed out earlier but was conveniently ignored by the group defending gambling for kids:

As for “Mommy’sCredit Card”, that’s a lame argument and I think you know it. For many games a kid would just ask for a gift card, maybe even one for that game. For Blizzard games you can get battlenet or blizzard cards, for GW2 you buy Gem Cards, for SWTOR you buy Cartel Coin Cards. For ESO you buy Crown Cards.  It goes on and on.  So no... in general Johnny doesn’t go ask Mommy to buy gambling boxes.  He asks for a gamecard which seems much more innocuous.
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/473536/lootboxes-are-gambling-official-statement/p8#fVEghGT7fGmqR6ji.99

Everyone who cares can plainly see how it's targeted at kids. It's sad that some people continue to put their head in the sand just so they can defend a horrible business practice as though they are some defenders of freedom.  It's pathetic.

We can do better.

ohioastro

There is absolutely no point in discussing things like this with libertarian true believers.  The rest of us can see a role for government in protecting children with legal boundaries - such as the age of consent for sex, the minimum age for working, requirements that they attend school, minimum age for driving, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol and gambling.  It's the responsibility of a bar owner not to serve minors and they face stiff fines if they fail.  Blaming the parents or the like is utterly beside the point.

My prediction is that these things are going to suffer the same fate as online gambling sites.  All it'll take is to have the feds pressure credit card companies not to accept these charges and the business model goes poof.  And I'm perfectly happy to see these things go away, because there a a host of reasons why lootboxes are predatory and make for terrible game design.

Vrika

Eldurian said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Its ok...  bad analogies can’t save marketing gambling boxes to kids.  Those days are numbered.  We can do better than that.

If your kid is spending money online and you don't know about it, you're a failure as a parent. I didn't have a debit card until I was 18. Everything I purchased online had to go through my parents. I couldn't even get them to pay 15$ a month subs despite offering to pay them back in cash before they paid for it, much less let me go willy-nilly with lootboxes. 

Face it. If your kid is spending money on crap they shouldn't be online a couple government policies won't save them because it's obvious the root of their problem is piss poor parenting and statist policies don't fix lack of parental supervision.

I disagree. Kids should be allowed to spend some money online.

We can't have a society where a 15 years old would be old enough to take a part time work and earn pocket money, but not old enough to use that pocket money to buy stuff without permission from adults.

We also definitely shouldn't have a society where people under 18 years old are too young to do any kind of part time works. It's not good for the children if they can't get that experience.

laserit

Said it before and I'll say it again.

It's not a matter of if, its a matter of when.

Ungood

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

For those wondering.. 

Just to give you an idea, of what you are dealing with in Belgium.

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling.

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that somehow this is a meaningful and powerful change of things.

For those wondering...  This is probably going to come as a shock to Ungood, but this is actually also the same way half the states in the US treat it.   Yes, for example in NY:

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that some posters comments are totally not researched or relevant.


http://www.pokerdiy.com/faq/home-poker-law

How embarrassing...

Wow, so our annual family camping event, where everyone brought the whole family, we stayed up late, and played poker with real money was breaking the law... I feel like such a outlaw, and there were children present, hell there were children kicking adults asses in poker.. and we all could have jailed for such a crime against humanity..

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

The point was that you attempted to poke fun and belittle Belgium while not realizing similar laws existed in half the US.

Keep changing arguments.  Change is happening and it's on the way 

no.. i am belittling any area that has a law that stupid

Ungood

Ungood said:

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

It's not about coddling, it's about the overall affect on gaming, when you add lootboxes, it's not just those who pay that lose out, it's gamers who don't want to pay lost out as well. 

BF2 was an example, the game nerfed every aspect of multiplayer for the sake of lootboxes, meaning I would get my ass handed to me left and right because the other team had a person who dropped money and already unlocked Darth Vader or several powerful perks several month early.

I know a lot of people are making it about children and protecting people, but that's just the surface imho and the common person wouldn't understand the problem above and obviously the government don't either . The main problem is the watering down of games to make room for loot boxes. Another example to show the direction things were heading in is the patent EA I think wrote up, were they would pair you against someone in multiplayer who's used mtx to put you in a situation were you feel needed to buy items to keep up. Manipulating a none mtx user into using mtx.

What BF2 did was P2W, and a real clear example of it, that was the problem, not the lootboxes themselves.

Now, ask yourself this question, Would you have been happier if they just sold Darth Vader for say, 1,000 dollars, knowing that anyone who had the money to buy that upgrade was still going to kick your ass? Along with a ton temporary and single use power ups that you needed to buy for each match? The issue you have is not the Lootbox, it is the P2W in those situations.

Now if you want to argue the problem with P2W that is another discussion.

But, reality is, in most MMO, Lotoboxes are mainly just cosmetic junk, dyes, armor skins, weapon skins, trinkets and the like, nothing noteworthy P2W for the most part, which is what makes Lootboxes in those games, no more or less then a Gumball from a vending mechanic, where the value of something, is purely a product of what someone else will pay for it.

Since they offer no intrinsic advantage, or necessity, Lootboxes in those games are just a game of chance, but not gambling, they are exactly like a Gumball Machine, were children drop money in till they get the candy they want.

MadFrenchie

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Ungood said:

For those wondering.. 

Just to give you an idea, of what you are dealing with in Belgium.

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling.

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that somehow this is a meaningful and powerful change of things.

For those wondering...  This is probably going to come as a shock to Ungood, but this is actually also the same way half the states in the US treat it.   Yes, for example in NY:

It's Illegal to place a bet or make a wager at a home game of poker, or any other kind of card game that could be considered gambling

So, put that into consideration during this discussion that some posters comments are totally not researched or relevant.


http://www.pokerdiy.com/faq/home-poker-law

How embarrassing...

Wow, so our annual family camping event, where everyone brought the whole family, we stayed up late, and played poker with real money was breaking the law... I feel like such a outlaw, and there were children present, hell there were children kicking adults asses in poker.. and we all could have jailed for such a crime against humanity..

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

The point was that you attempted to poke fun and belittle Belgium while not realizing similar laws existed in half the US.

Keep changing arguments.  Change is happening and it's on the way 

no.. i am belittling any area that has a law that stupid

It's not there to keep a few buddies from having a friendly poker game.  It's there to keep folks from organizing large gambling activities out of their homes and trying to use privacy or property rights to avoid scrutiny.

laserit

Ungood said:

Ungood said:

No.. I think doing better is teaching children responsible play, how to only bet what you can lose, and learn how to handle addiction.

Coddling people does not protect them anymore then putting people in a padded cell makes their life safe.

It's not about coddling, it's about the overall affect on gaming, when you add lootboxes, it's not just those who pay that lose out, it's gamers who don't want to pay lost out as well. 

BF2 was an example, the game nerfed every aspect of multiplayer for the sake of lootboxes, meaning I would get my ass handed to me left and right because the other team had a person who dropped money and already unlocked Darth Vader or several powerful perks several month early.

I know a lot of people are making it about children and protecting people, but that's just the surface imho and the common person wouldn't understand the problem above and obviously the government don't either . The main problem is the watering down of games to make room for loot boxes. Another example to show the direction things were heading in is the patent EA I think wrote up, were they would pair you against someone in multiplayer who's used mtx to put you in a situation were you feel needed to buy items to keep up. Manipulating a none mtx user into using mtx.

What BF2 did was P2W, and a real clear example of it, that was the problem, not the lootboxes themselves.

Now, ask yourself this question, Would you have been happier if they just sold Darth Vader for say, 1,000 dollars, knowing that anyone who had the money to buy that upgrade was still going to kick your ass? Along with a ton temporary and single use power ups that you needed to buy for each match? The issue you have is not the Lootbox, it is the P2W in those situations.

Now if you want to argue the problem with P2W that is another discussion.

But, reality is, in most MMO, Lotoboxes are mainly just cosmetic junk, dyes, armor skins, weapon skins, trinkets and the like, nothing noteworthy P2W for the most part, which is what makes Lootboxes in those games, no more or less then a Gumball from a vending mechanic, where the value of something, is purely a product of what someone else will pay for it.

Since they offer no intrinsic advantage, or necessity, Lootboxes in those games are just a game of chance, but not gambling, they are exactly like a Gumball Machine, were children drop money in till they get the candy they want.

Kids need to be protected from predators like the modern day video game industry. It's obvious that just like a child, your industry need to be taught where the boundaries are.

Many social animals communally care about the health and welfare of their young, they also protect the young against predators.

When a society has to contemplate placing armed guards in their schools to protect their children from their own citizens. Maybe it's time for a little bit of self reflection.

TalulaRose

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?

Then the players from the not allowed to gamble side move on to another game and spend their money there.

Only loser is the game company who is using gambling to make money instead of producing a game people will play and support.

Eldurian

Vrika said:

I disagree. Kids should be allowed to spend some money online.

We can't have a society where a 15 years old would be old enough to take a part time work and earn pocket money, but not old enough to use that pocket money to buy stuff without permission from adults.

We also definitely shouldn't have a society where people under 18 years old are too young to do any kind of part time works. It's not good for the children if they can't get that experience.

Oh I had money before I turned 18. I had thrown hay bales for some of the local farms (which is actually damn good money at that age) and a few other things and I had plenty of cash to get things I wanted.

The difference was, I didn't have a credit card I could use to just get whatever I wanted online. This was for a few reasons. Primarily, getting a kid a credit card to teach them about financial responsibility is like having them sleep with a loaded gun to teach them about gun safety. I still don't own a credit card to this day. A debit card is a necessary tool of life as an adult but there is plenty of evidence to show people tend to spend cash more responsibly than cards because they get to physically see there money leaving their hand.

I can't think of a single good reason cash is not good enough for someone under 18. 

As to people saying "You don't have kids!" "You aren't a failure if your kid steals your credit card!" I may not have them but I was a teenager not that long ago. Did I do some things my parent's didn't know about? Oh yeah.

Was one of them stealing, especially from my parents? Oh hell no. Yeah if your kid is stealing credit cards I'm going to stand by my failure as a parent thing. Especially since you apparently raised a kid not only dishonest enough to steal, but dumb enough to not know you can just check your bank history and be like "Wtf is this?!"