Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Scot · May 2018

mklinic said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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

Indeed it has, here is your 1 in 20 chance to get a 55+ inch TV for free!

http://www.thedrum.com/creative-works/project/amv-bbdo-1000heads-currys-pc-world-your-1in20-chance-free-tv

Now this is all factored in by the store, but would you not rather see reduced prices than gamble for a free TV?

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Scot said:

mklinic said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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

Indeed it has, here is your 1 in 20 chance to get a 55+ inch TV for free!

http://www.thedrum.com/creative-works/project/amv-bbdo-1000heads-currys-pc-world-your-1in20-chance-free-tv

Now this is all factored in by the store, but would you not rather see reduced prices than gamble for a free TV?

Perhaps you are right... we have just been made so numb to it that it’s spreading. This is what happens when you expose kids to the concept at an early age. Heck it’s been going on since you put a coin in a machine and twisted a knob to get a random prize.

Im not against gambling for adults. But we all have to take some responsibility for letting it get this far.

We can do better.

mklinic · May 2018

DMKano said:

The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning

That's a fair distinction. I was looking at it as "chance to get [thing of perceived value]" as perceived by me vs. "chance to get [something at all]." To me, getting 5 things I wasn't after has no value and getting what I was after was equivalent to "winning." That was a flaw in my logic.

Aside from the free crates ESO occasionally gives out, I guess I just don't have enough experience gambling/not-gambling/sorta-maybe gambling...

Based on the "at least you got something" angle, these have more in common with the "mystery toys" that are sold in stores. You have a general idea of what you'll possibly receive, but don't know what you got until you've paid. Perhaps those are worse as they overtly target children...

MMOGamer71 · May 2018

Sounds like politicians are looking for a new source of tax revenue to squander - a loot box tax must be needed since it's "gambling."

cesmode8 · May 2018

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?

They won't do this, its not the gamer's fault. They will simply not sell lootboxes in Belgium.

Or, alternatively, they will not sell their game to players in belgium (whether or not you buy from someplace else and have it shipped to your home in Belgium is a different story).

PsYcHoGBR · May 2018

It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

Vrika · May 2018

PsYcHoGBR said:

It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

The location of HQ doesn't have much influence on EU laws.

Germany has most power on EU laws, and after that probably France. Belgium and Netherlands are minor countries and usually can't pass anything unless one of the giants decides to support them.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:

Superman0X said:

Asm0deus said:

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Superman0X 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?

Of course it's meaningfully different- quality of gameplay comes into play. If the game is shit, players aren't going to grind for drops in the first place.

The essence of the issue is divorcing the purchase completely from the game. Buying a lootbox from a store isn't even playing the game itself. At that point, there's not even wiggle room for a business to try and make the case that the revenue wasn't received for a lootbox, but for the gameplay experience itself.

EDIT- I would also submit that the system you describe would be hardly as effective in terms of marketing to players. They have to put in the time still. Lootboxes are convenient for players because they don't have to put any time in, just cash.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

MMOGamer71 said:

Sounds like politicians are looking for a new source of tax revenue to squander - a loot box tax must be needed since it's "gambling."

Again, do realize that taxation IS one of the ways politicians discourage behavior they see as unhealthy for society. That's why booze and cigarettes are taxed so highly.

Letsinod · May 2018

PsYcHoGBR said:

It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

If you think anything is going to change then I got a bridge to show you.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

DMKano said:

mklinic said:

MadFrenchie said:
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....

The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning

No, lootboxes are actually worse, because you never actually own what you win. It'd be like gambling at a casino with your real money knowing that, no matter how much you win, at the end of the night, it's all gotta be given back to the house.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

DMKano said:

mklinic said:

MadFrenchie said:
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....

The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning

By that logic all a slot machine would need to do is drop a penny guaranteed every pull...or a ticket for a prize like an arcade.

Amathe · May 2018

Damn. Now what do I do with my stockpile of Belgium loot boxes?

time007 · May 2018

Superman0X said:

In an official statement from the Belgian Gaming Commision, they declare that lootboxes are gambling:

https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf

With the definitions that they give, they make it clear that all lootboxes are now illegal in Belgium. They recommend criminal prosecution on this basis. (Note: They will not proceed with this until the Minister of Justice meets with industry stakeholders).

I would expect to see lootboxes pulled ASAP, but also to see legal challenges to several of the definitions that they have given. I am also not certain how this affects the EU in general vs just Belgium.

thats good news. one less way for companies to take advantage of consumers

Superman0X · May 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

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.

The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes. It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.

mklinic said:
MadFrenchie said:
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....

You are correct. This new interpretation (specifically based on the subjective value of items) could be applied to many things that were not considered gambling in the past.

DMKano said:
PsYcHoGBR said:
It's Belgium and the Netherlands that have ruled loot boxes to be gambling. Belgium is the HQ for the EU, this could become EU law for all 28 of the EU countries.

The rulings are different in Netherlands and Belgium, the criteria are slightly different in each country, but there are loopholes that will allow companies to keep lootboxes in place with tweaks.

Like Blizzard did in China by including lootboxes as "gifts" when purchasing game currency - as this is a direct sale with a free gift - so not subject to gambling laws

There is discussion at this point of having a joint conference for the EU to consolidate these rulings, and apply them consistently across all members. I would expect something like this, as there are more reports coming out, and it makes sense from both a political and business sense.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Superman0X said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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.

The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes. It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.

The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company.

Superman0X · May 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

Superman0X said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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.

The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes. It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.

The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company.

That is correct. It is also how the company makes money. Just look at the diamond industry, they only exist because they can artificially inflate the rarity of diamonds.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Superman0X said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Superman0X said:

Slapshot1188 said:

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.

The reason that gaming companies use randomization is because of the rarity of items, and the extreme value that this rarity causes. It does not work for McDonalds, because they do not have items with value based on rarity, their item values are based on cost.

This is not a new law.. this is an interpretation of an existing law... and one that will be challenged. However, in the short term it will cause a lot of quick on the fly changes, that will likely not be friendly to the customer.

The rarity is 100% self manufactured by the company.

That is correct. It is also how the company makes money. Just look at the diamond industry, they only exist because they can artificially inflate the rarity of diamonds.

Sure but when I buy a diamond I buy the exact cut, carat, clarity and color I want. I don’t get one at random.

Quizzical · May 2018

Why do companies sell loot boxes? Because people buy so many of them. Why do people buy so many of them? The same reason people buy so many lottery tickets. People tend to overestimate very small probabilities. That's just one particular way that a lot of people are stupid.

cameltosis · May 2018

Just to be clear, paid-for-lootboxes have always been gambling. You pay money, there is an element of chance, and then win/loss rewards.

This Belgian ruling simply moves paid-for-lootboxes from the unregulated form of gambling, into the regulated form of gambling, by removing the current loophole regarding a real world value on the reward.

To me, this is a great step forwards. Repeated gambling causes serious harm, the reward aspect is almost immaterial as long as it is valued by the player. Lootboxes do cause real harm, just like other forms of gambling, so closing this loophole is really positive. Here's hoping that more countries follow suit and that further loopholes aren't found. Gambling just shouldn't be part of computer games.

Mendel · May 2018

This topic is on page 4 already, and I'm totally flabbergasted that I haven't seen a dozen "I'm moving to Belgium" replies. If this was some kind of devious ploy to increase immigration to Belgium, I'd say it failed.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Torval said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

mklinic said:

MadFrenchie said:
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....

The difference is a game lootbox always give you something of value in game, where in real gambling losing results in zero value.

Thats one exploitable loophole right there - lootbox = rng buying, gambling = high chance to lose money and get nothing and low chance of winning

No, lootboxes are actually worse, because you never actually own what you win. It'd be like gambling at a casino with your real money knowing that, no matter how much you win, at the end of the night, it's all gotta be given back to the house.

You don't own win from the boss loot chest either.

No, but you're not paying for the loot roll. You're paying for the gameplay experience associated with the boss fight and any other PvE content associated with it.

Yaevindusk · May 2018

This is, to me, mainly about updating a law to help catch up with technology. As well as archaic descriptions of what gambling is, and how virtual worlds and currencies are described and understood as.

It was inevitable ever since Second Life and similar games official sold real estate in the virtual world and loopholes like saying "this has no real world vale" are being targeted.

Implementing the sciences of gambling and releasing the chemicals into the brain thereof is as much a part of gambling as "real money." In fact, it is more so: What do you hear from someone who goes to Los Vegas and is told that they'll likely lose money? "I don't care. It's the experience of gambling that I'm after." Or some such. The thrill. The random chance to potentially get something additional is there. The same goes with virtual lootboxes. Except they take all of the fun out of it -- the travel, the drinks, the people, the sites... basically the memories you form and the hungover regret of the morning... and then just get you to pay real world money for something they or others say has no real world value by using the same principles of flashing lights, minor rewards and the potential of something you might like. The thrill of it. This is still preying on that thrill, and the fact that we're especially concerned about minors when it comes to this is more than just a little telling. They who don't know withstraint with real money for something that supposedly isn't worth real money... but historically has been and is still being sold for real money.

First and foremost that's poppycock. It has value the moment someone agrees to pay for the chance to get something. Otherwise nothing has value if you aren't willing to pay for it. You have heard the phrase "increasing the value of my account" many times, I'd imagine. People paying exorbitant prices for virtual items. These accounts have value no matter what anyone says, even if they're locked in ownership. An account that has paid enough to have everything unlocked is more valuable and worth more than a fresh account that someone just bought. If one has an option to get an account with everything unlocked over a fresh one, it is obvious what most will pick.

But I do understand the ramifications of going about this in the wrong ways. As well as companies just moving onto new ways of scamming money out of people. The potential irrelevance as a whole in fixing one thing only to find another has popped up. Along with new issues that a new ruling gives that weren't thought of or made exceptions with at the time. They may even have to define terms that were otherwise ambiguous in the past just to use as reference in this.

Iselin · May 2018

Stepping back for a minute from the legal and moral aspects of the gambling mechanics, the thing I hate the most about these loot crates is that being as lucrative as they are for the sellers, any game that has them - especially the ones that have them that are "just cosmetic" - spend an inordinate amount of time developing this shit at the expense of development for the actual game play.

I've seen this happen in ESO with the incredible proliferation of new looks for mounts and outfit styles - many of those loot crate exclusives. A large portion of every new update is all about that. They're even introducing new outfit looks in the crown shop with Summerset that are not even crafting styles... just outfit looks.

Say what you will about this stuff but from the perspective of that shrinking portion of the player base that wants to quest, PvE, explore and PvP, this second-life like shit does nothing to make game play better.

And to that increasing portion of the population that mostly just wants to dress-up, it's a disrespectful way to sell them a chance to get what they actually want. These are the players that will spend and spend because the stuff in those crates actually matters to them.

Now carry on with your prognostications about how things will change in the future... or not

Asm0deus · May 2018

Yaevindusk said:

This is, to me, mainly about updating a law to help catch up with technology. As well as archaic descriptions of what gambling is, and how virtual worlds and currencies are described and understood as.

...snip...

Indeed fully agree and I have said as much on other threads about this topic!

I also agree with what Iselin has just said about how many games with lootboxes seems to spend far too much time working on lootboxes rather than actual content.

Just wanted to say I am impressed with everyone participating in this thread as of now we are on page 4 and while the topic can be a hot button issue and we don't all agree on things we are all discussing this quite civilly without any rants, raves or hissy fits and personal attacks, tis a nice change from the usual!

Howdy, Stranger!

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Comments