And a prison sentence up to 5 years. If minors are involved that can double.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
So apparently EA are refusing to stop selling lootboxes in Belgium, criminal investigation underway
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
Assuming they were not properly consulted regarding EA's decision to flaunt Belgian laws even after the company was given ~4mos. leeway to prevent it from happening, its also possible for certain segments of EA shareholders to file a separate director misconduct case against Andrew Wilson and other EA execs. Admittedly, its a pretty huge assumption to make but i bet most of EA's shareholders wouldve preferred to bend the knee on Belgium's gambling laws and take the financial hit instead of getting on to this type of sh1tstorm just like their counterparts in Actiblizzard and Take-2.
Belgium is a small country but it also happens to be at the administrative and logistic heart of the EU. You start a multinational sh1tstorm from there, you run the risk of making it Euro-wide very quickly.
Money is just one of the many carrots in the stick can people use to lure people into the addiction of gambling.
Which is literally the implemetation of cosmetic only lootboxes titles like Overwatch use.
You level up, you get a lootbox. You never have to pay a penny more than the asking price of the game, and you get cosmetics, you get continuous updates, you get new maps, you get an active userbase, you get bug fixes and balance patches.
Now rephrase that without the loaded terms.
A publishers best system is the one that makes the most money.
More people are willing to buy 20 random cosmetics for $5 than are willing to buy 1 cosmetic for $20. Significantly more people.
You don't speak for "all gamers" and your personal preferences are not universal.
They weren't "forced" on people.
People vote with their wallets.
When a title like Overwatch offers continuous free updates for a single price buy in and has a super healthy and active userbase years after release in a way that, say, 100%-lootbox-free-as-designed Star Wars Battlefront 1 does not, they choose what suits them better.
Which, again, is why the people who are super mad butthurt about the very existence of lootboxes (and tbh DLC in general and keep bringing up things like "cosmetics 'should be' just unlockables for doing well") are forming political pressure groups to try and lobby politicians to pass laws to stop people buying what suits them.
Who are these political pressure groups you keep referring to? Who is lobbying?
everyone who contacted their local authorities to tell them that games companies are targetting children for gambling.
There were form emails and contact details and reddit groups and everything.
In this day of a possible historical hurricane and gun violence, it's nice to have some good news for a change. Good for EA.
Game developers have been doing the bolded without resorting to random,paid lootboxes before. We have expansion packs for content and we have plain game updates for bug fixes and patches. Also, randomized lootboxes/FIFA Ultimate Team packs earned through clear player progression is not the issue here. Do not confuse it with the randomized PAID lootboxes/FUT packs which are the target of Belgian authorities.
LOL. As shown by games that have lootboxes and direct purchase options like LoL, direct purchase is the PRIMARY and popular way for players to acquire the skins of their favourite characters. Putting up with paid, randomized bs items from lootboxes/Mystery chests are a hassle unless youre in that rare and adventurous mood with your money.
BS. People endure Overwatch paid, randomized lootboxes because its the only way for them to even get a snowball's chance of getting the skins that they want for their character. . . . in their paid $60 game. People prefer transparent transactions and given a chance to buy specific skins directly, most if not all people will choose that over lootboxes.
Oh you tease, you! Anti-lootbox gamers like me are not that special. We wish but we're not.
Honestly, with that last statement you sound less of a gamer and more of a PR worker. Have we forgotten that this lootbox controversy with countries like Belgium started when EA doubled-down on their predatory tactics and stuffed play-2-win items in their Battlefront 2 lootboxes. That went mainstream news because exploitative sh1t on a pop-culture fixture like Star Wars will attract mainstream attention. Stupid miscalculation. Had EA contented themselves with cosmetic lootboxes, this issue would very likely not have gone beyond gaming circles. I mean even the CEO of ActiBlizzard have to make a press release differentiating Overwatch cosmetic-only lootboxes from its Battlefront counterpart.
Sadly for EA and the rest of the gaming industry, even after the Battlefront 2 sh1tstorm passed away, it opened a lot of eyes, regulatory eyes, on the gambling nature of lootboxes. But that shouldnt worry EA nor its PR people. After all they did released this statement:
The question is also, why are so many microtransactions even necessary? I mean, look at Nintendo, look at Sony. They don't include a ton of microtransactions in their games, but still make way enough money through their games to get a huge benefit. They can do it with their AAA games, why EA/Actiblizard can't?
I also wonder how Hearthstone would work in Belgium with the law intact. Isn't that actually the same as FIFA and co? Same goes for lootboxes in mobile games.
Personally I would classify everything as gambling where the goal behind buying something is to get something, which is in there by a chance and is the main focus of that purchase. This means for me, TCG Booster Packs should be also marked as gambling a long time ago. Things like Starter Sets or buying cards directly is okay, but anything that attracts people to buy more and more of to get what they want should be forbidden. And if people then complain about the prices of the single card, you don't have to wait long until the prices come down if the creators don't sell their cards anymore, that is easily regulated by the market itself.
McDonalds Monopoly isn't gambling for example as you can only get them by buying their food, means the food is in the foreground.
A bigger discussion would be Kinder Surprise which actually offers some chocolate, but the focus seems more onto the toy inside it for the market group they attract, the children. Which means by my definition this would be also gambling (And yeah, you can get easily an addiction to them as the toys have a lot of garbage inside plus some rare figures which are only available for a limited time)
I also wonder how Hearthstone would work in Belgium with the law intact. Isn't that actually the same as FIFA and co? Same goes for lootboxes in mobile games.
Personally I would classify everything as gambling where the goal behind buying something is to get something, which is in there by a chance and is the main focus of that purchase. This means for me, TCG Booster Packs should be also marked as gambling a long time ago. Things like Starter Sets or buying cards directly is okay, but anything that attracts people to buy more and more of to get what they want should be forbidden. And if people then complain about the prices of the single card, you don't have to wait long until the prices come down if the creators don't sell their cards anymore, that is easily regulated by the market itself.
McDonalds Monopoly isn't gambling for example as you can only get them by buying their food, means the food is in the foreground.
A bigger discussion would be Kinder Surprise which actually offers some chocolate, but the focus seems more onto the toy inside it for the market group they attract, the children. Which means by my definition this would be also gambling (And yeah, you can get easily an addiction to them as the toys have a lot of garbage inside plus some rare figures which are only available for a limited time)
No, the fact that "real gamers" only started giving a shit when it happened in games they play is extremely telling about who are the most vocal complainants.
Sony (and now Nintendo) earn 30% of every game sold on their system, take a subscription fee to allow games to be played online at all, take the money from 1 in every 3 lootboxes sold on their platform, and charge a variety of assorted costs to even allow someone to make a game for their system in the first place.
If you take the cash from 1 in every 3 lootboxes sold by anyone, you don't actually need to sell your own.
Let me reiterate:
If 2 games with lootboxes come out on Playstation, Sony make as much money as either of those 2 games do from lootboxes.
That the platform fee is ~30% for all purchases made on a platform isn't exactly a secret.
Nor is the fact that things like SDKs, Devkits, certification costs etc are all purchased directly from a platform owner.
Nah, gamers have been complaining about paid, randomized lootboxes. Just check the Overwatch forums for example. We all want to spend extra money on the game but we prefer a less bs option like direct purchase instead of paid randomized lootboxes.
Like i said earlier, EA made a stupid miscalculation by trying to predatory exploit a pop-culture IP like Star Wars and they and the rest of triple-A industry now has to contend increasing oversight on their lootbox money train. Schadenfreude, baby!
Right... So citizens of their respective countries should not be able to contact their elected rep of issues of concern?
As I have said on this forum before and contrary to what you might think not all of us in the "ban the lootboxes or bust" camp. I personally do not have a large issue with them in a game.
I take issue with how paid lootboxes are presented in game with ZERO oversight and are basically mini pokie machines using pokie industry techniques and targeted at teen and pre-teens.
As the saying goes, "call a spade a spade".
EA knows they have a good position to challenge this. Blizzard will obviously fold because they're not going to spearhead this but you have already gambling like items IE TCG, Kinder Surprise, etc so, they're going to need a strong argument it's cash gambling. I think Belgium saw the backlash from gamers and thought they were on to something. Banning lootboxes in Belgium and making it law will cause a shitstorm of what can actually be sold there. No more pokemon cards, no more TCG, no more random gachas, etc. They all fundamentally work the same and that's why EA is most likely going to win. If, let's say, the loot boxes were giving actual money or credits that can be exchanged for money then it'd be a different story.
They are not fundementally the same and at this point, you are simply parroting the industry lobby groups line.
Isn't that only because they stopped giving out those awards?
On topic, I want EA to crash and burn. I'll feel bad for the guys actually making the games, of course, but Wilson and the other sleazebags at the top need to go down a few dozen pegs.
They actually are. Comparing slot machines to loot boxes is the wrong comparison (which a lot of anti-loot box people do) because they have the same "bells and whistles". Slot machines have a chance to give you a monetary return or credit return that is only used for more chances or exchanging for cash. A loot box gives you an item of value (within the game), so you're not actually losing anything except your own perceived value which is not something you can regulate. I could buy 3 packs of Pokemon cards and chances are I will almost get a lot of the same cards or cards with the same rarity. I could up that to 100 packs and the rarity would still be evened out with a lot of duplicates (that is if I buy a certain set of gen packs). It is fundamentally the same except one is on the computer and one isn't. There hasn't been a good argument as to how loot boxes aren't similar to card packs, gachas, or even those $0.25 toy things you see at your local store.
You aren't going to convince many people that loot boxes fit within the realm of cash gambling because you're not actually gambling for cash.
No, they are not. It is a false equivalent peddled by the lobby.
With the recent Australian commission into lootboxes, a part of process is a public hearing where it invited members of academia, doctors, industry experts and of course the industry body to provide evidence based upon their submissions.
A part of that was direct questioning regarding the lobby groups relating/asserting them to both TCG and Kinda Surprises. It was basically poo'd poo'd all over the place. To the point where the chair was making jokes of it. The "Surprise and delight" mechanic as industry called it, while everyone else (experts) labeled it the "variable ratio reinforcement"
You question that money value of the item is a main point, again, was directly questioned and the prevailing answers was they hold value to the person owning the item due to an individuals 'prestige' or status weight on said item. evidence was also submitted where you can cash out on these items via a marketplace (I believe it was the steam marketplace)
I have littered this forum with links to the commission, and its public hearings, its all on the public record and anyone can view them if yoj would like to read it.
Edit: As I even mentioned on the day of the hearing a few weeks ago, where I actually listened to them discuss it - where it is even more nuanced than what you can read in the transcript.
Last edited:
Personal value isn't something that can be regulated, though, as that's very similar to someone in WoW grinding mythic+ for certain items. Like, you bring up individual prestige but fail to realize that TCG have the exact same thing going for people in that hobby too.
Can you actually "cash out"? Does Valve, as a company, pay you for the item you have won? They facilitate trading but that's about it. That's not cashing out, that's just people trading. It's very similar to people trading or selling rare casino chips but the only difference is those chips are regulated because you can bring them to a casino and exchange them for cash.
Btw, you can gamble in Australia at 18. I don't know about you, but that seems way more harmful than lootboxes if we're talking about protecting people.
It's not me failing to do anything. It's me simply stating this is what the lobby group is saying and what the experts are saying and whom govts are listening too.
If anything, it's the lobby group (at least in Aus) that's failing (hard) to explain - but given the evidence put against it (Refer to the submitted report from VRGF) and submissions from the Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists- it's a pretty tall mountain.
So on your first point
Again, not me bringing it up - I'm just giving you the responses from the experts, that governments are listening too. In fact, it was yourself that made the link between the value of an item. I don't see anyone asking for the value amount to be regulated. Though on your point of obtaining items in game via gameplay (reward) vs a paid loootbox was discussed by Sauer and Dummond (I think? - I admit, I don't have perfect recollection of everything but I do know it was discussed). And a separation was identified. We are talking about paid lootboxes.
You seem to be shifting some goal posts here... but again, I don't play these game to have personal opinion on. But evidence was submitted that you can 'cash out' items, these items hold a dollar value. It's spoken about by Dr James Sauer and Dr Aaron Drummond in their submission. It wasn't disputed by industry. They (If I recall correctly) argues that these may have been 3rd party sites, but did not dispute it was not possible.
Yeah, and? What's that got to do with the price of bread? We don't allow kids under the age of 18 to play pokies? But an 18yr can vote, drink and do everything they like.
If anything, it's the lobby group (at least in Aus) that's failing (hard) to explain - but given the evidence put against it (Refer to the submitted report from VRGF) and submissions from the Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists- it's a pretty tall mountain.
So on your first point
Again, not me bringing it up - I'm just giving you the responses from the experts, that governments are listening too. In fact, it was yourself that made the link between the value of an item. I don't see anyone asking for the value amount to be regulated. Though on your point of obtaining items in game via gameplay (reward) vs a paid loootbox was discussed by Sauer and Dummond (I think? - I admit, I don't have perfect recollection of everything but I do know it was discussed). And a separation was identified. We are talking about paid lootboxes.
You seem to be shifting some goal posts here... but again, I don't play these game to have personal opinion on. But evidence was submitted that you can 'cash out' items, these items hold a dollar value. It's spoken about by Dr James Sauer and Dr Aaron Drummond in their submission. It wasn't disputed by industry. They (If I recall correctly) argues that these may have been 3rd party sites, but did not dispute it was not possible.
Yeah, and? What's that got to do with the price of bread? We don't allow kids under the age of 18 to play pokies? But an 18yr can vote, drink and do everything they like.
FWIW appreciate your input, JimmyJacking. I live in Australia and didn't have half a clue this was going on. Knew there were hearings, but that was about it.
I think a big difference between FIFA and say trading cards is that you already pay 60 bucks upfront with FIFA. If FIFA and Battlefront 2 were free to play games it wouldn't stop it from being scummy, but would make the comparison make more sense to me.
Then there's the fact that you obtain physical goods in Magic The Gathering that you can in turn re-sell, not sure if that works with digital items.
Then there's the fact that you obtain physical goods in Magic The Gathering that you can in turn re-sell, not sure if that works with digital items.
This. I would suspect they're hoping for a big fine which in reality will be a pittance compared to what they make off the loot boxes.
The big thing your ignoring here is that some of these companies (Wizards of the Coast, Kinder) do not benefit from the second hand market like lootboxes do. When somebody buys a booster pack of MtG cards Wizards only sells you the cardboard, but the second hand market (which they have nothing to do with) determines the wealth of a card by its affect on the meta. With McDonald's you're still buying the food, so that's how they get around that. I'm not going to defend other companies, they should probably adhere to the same rules put on EA.
Wizard's and Hasbro have gone out of their way to reprint certain cards that are prohibitedly expensive outside of the reserve list.
They did this to try and get newcomers into modern and other formats. They still don't make any money off of the second hand market. It'll get people to buy more packs sure, but at the end of the day Wizards is only getting the fraction of a dollar for that reprinted fetch land.
Of course they will fight this tooth and nail. As soon as 1 country makes it illegal, no matter how little they may actually make off of lot boxes from that particular country, others will soon follow suit.
They stand to potentially lose a massive chunk of revenue over the course of time vs the cost of a legal battle.
They stand to potentially lose a massive chunk of revenue over the course of time vs the cost of a legal battle.
I have no issue with that, gaming shops live off of the secondhand market. Wizard's goal is to get more playing their game and buy the sets.
That is why these cards should be sold either in bundles where you know exactly what is inside without randomness or sold seperately by the producer, without the Lootbox-Style of Booster Packs.
That Booster Packs are dangerous I don't think we have to argue about, you buy more and more Booster Packs until you have that one card you want 3 times, that is the same type of motivation as gambling for money.
The platform holders fees are common knowledge. They do, in fact, make all of that off of everyone else's microtransactions, and save all of that on their own product.
Andrew Wilson came up with the fifa card pack shit, got promoted to head of EA as a result and was in the process of spreading the cancer to every EA published title possible. Of course he's going to push against banning lootbox packs considering his position is based on that one idea and how lucrative the concept is. He's a one trick pony and will ride it into the grave.
Maybe, i think theres some value in the idea that each card pack has guaranteed rarities unlike viseo game lootboxes. You also get a physical good you can sell. Its hard to equate the two when the secondary market does exist. Even trading exists. Its a problem for sure, just different.
Of course of all the publishers, fucking EA would be the one who would go against entire country and its laws to defend lootboxes.
Also lmao at the good old defense of "its not gambling by this arbitrary definition of gambling on wikipedia." You know the definition is decided by the law right? Belgium just amended the law to including gambling-like practices into gambling. Imagine EA lawyers using the defense that this age old definition on wikipedia based on some other country's constitution says lootboxes are not gambling, so this ban should not apply in the country of Belgium, even though they just amended it to include lootboxes in it.
Also lmao at the good old defense of "its not gambling by this arbitrary definition of gambling on wikipedia." You know the definition is decided by the law right? Belgium just amended the law to including gambling-like practices into gambling. Imagine EA lawyers using the defense that this age old definition on wikipedia based on some other country's constitution says lootboxes are not gambling, so this ban should not apply in the country of Belgium, even though they just amended it to include lootboxes in it.
Re: card games like MtG (and Panini football cards), the way it works in Belgium iirc is that they are seen as gambling too, but have a specific exemption in the law that allows them to be sold to minors.
EA could battle for such an exemption (I don't think it will ever happen for digital games due to a lack of oversight and other dampening factors), but I'm not convinced breaking the law first before you lobby for an exemption, is a sound strategy.
The second hand market is also not as benign as it looks. The fact that there is a second hand market with high value limited cards, increases the perceived value of the MtG cards themselves, driving much higher sales of the booster packs. It's the same reason why lootboxes are still nominally accepted in the Netherlands as long as there's no way to cash out on a second hand market.
EA could battle for such an exemption (I don't think it will ever happen for digital games due to a lack of oversight and other dampening factors), but I'm not convinced breaking the law first before you lobby for an exemption, is a sound strategy.
The second hand market is also not as benign as it looks. The fact that there is a second hand market with high value limited cards, increases the perceived value of the MtG cards themselves, driving much higher sales of the booster packs. It's the same reason why lootboxes are still nominally accepted in the Netherlands as long as there's no way to cash out on a second hand market.
I am from Belgium and gave expert testimony to the Belgian Gaming Commision which they completely ignored in their rapport because it did not fit their narrative.
First thing first, we have no law about lootboxes. What the gaming commision did was interpret existin gambling laws to say that most lotbxes are indeed gambling and should be treated as such. That is all it is, no court has yet decided on the legal validity of their intrepetations.
First thing first, we have no law about lootboxes. What the gaming commision did was interpret existin gambling laws to say that most lotbxes are indeed gambling and should be treated as such. That is all it is, no court has yet decided on the legal validity of their intrepetations.
"Expert" testimony. On behalf of consumers or developers?
BTW: Wasn't there once a patent from Activision to implement a Software that encourages you to buy as much Lootboxes as you can in every way possible?
Both.
My credentials, I used to be press, still ocasionally write but the last years I have been more involved with helping out local indiedev, organized game jams, was involved in festivals like Screenshake and now with our upcoming 1up conference.
I have been part of the games industry in one way or another since 92.
Feel free to google my name.
I think that was unused, but if I remember correctly it was a system that gave you a weapon then used matchmaking to put you into a game where the new weapon would give you an advantage, and then after that put you into a game where someone else has a weapon that has an advantage against you, so you feel inclined to buy the item that just dominated you
Not necessarily related to lootboxes, but scummy as hell
It just goes to show how publishers are thinking of ways to manipulate the back end to encourage people to spend more money on in game items, to the detriment of the game
Building matchmaking around throwing you into unfair situations, some where you win easily and others where you lose easily, all with the intention of making you believe you need better items, just so they can repeat the process all over again to get you to buy another item, is unquestionably a worse experience for the player
Publishers are more than happy to ruin the basic rules and systems in their games to shoehorn this kind of crap into games (see Battlefront 2, FIFA etc)
I know people like "free updates" (which are actually funded by whales, so they're not really 'free') but they're a net negative if they come at the cost of this kind of fuckery
Yes, that's how gambling laws work.
You don't create laws to cover things that can be covered by existing legislation.
You were called to give evidence, there was no need for them to actually use it, especially if you had no actual professional merit to your arguments.
Being involved in gaming stuff doesn't make your views on legal matters valid. Do you have any professional capacity to fall back other than "I write about games and stuff".
This is a legal matter, not "well I've been involved in games and this is totally not gambling because reasons".
What was your actual argument made to committee?
Aren't FIFA card packs their main income source? For sure they will fight this. A general ban of lootboxes could bring the whole company down.
Gambling legislation is usually something called "blanket legislation". If a thing can be covered with it, it will be. Until a more specific law can be crafted, it's common that these kind of laws are applied this way.
As Belgium has different laws, things I state are those of my own personal opinion as someone working as a lawyer.