-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So apparently EA are refusing to stop selling lootboxes in Belgium, criminal investigation underway
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
An entire days talk with their lawyers and director is not something I will sumarise here. And as for my expertise, well they were the ones who contacted me so they clearly thought I knew my stuff.
The main reason why EA defends these lootboxes anyway is because they can't make games what people want, they make games what they want. We already saw how the Battlefield 5 demo bombed as it is basically 100% the same as Battlefield One. So, as EA can't make games many people want to buy anymore, they have to rely on people getting addicted to lootboxes and grind them down. Minimum effort, maximum revenue.
You should get your news from better sources, because you end up regurgitating nonsense rendering your entire post stupid.
I'm aware, hence my initial jab - outside of your immediate background in videogames, your commentary on the subject is going to be defined as the everyday mans. It's not exactly a surprise there wasn't any acknowledgment on the final drafts of your opinion. That said, maybe you were called for simply to ensure that a variety of opinions were heard. What's interesting is how a lot of press seemed very reluctant to push back on these lootbox practices. I'm not entirely sure why, but i've noted the trend quite often :/
So you want to try to undermine a countries gambling commission because they didn't listen to you but you're not willing to state what your argument actually was or why it should have any legal weight?
Come on.
Yes, they contacted you, and decided your testimony wasn't the value they expected it to be. Not sure why they have to utilise your view if it was demonstrated to be from a legally baseless point of view?
That is literally the due process. They listen to the opinions and arguments of those they deem necessary. Just because they listen to the arguments doesn't mean that they need or even will take it into account. In this case it clearly sounds like they weighed their opinions and followed their current interpretation of law. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean that they are wrong. Sure the courts haven't tested the case but as the authorities have publicly announced their interpretation of the laws, companies either have to contest it like EA has done in this case or just follow it. We'll know more if the case goes all the way to court.
In an ideal world, they'd spend the money and effort innovating in a way where they're making money by not being exploitative.
But the reality is, they only spend money and effort innovating new ways to be exploitative and nothing else matters.
They're not evil, they're just capitalists
Money is king, so do what makes the most money
If something pro consumer made the most money they'd be all over that like a pigeon on a chip
It's just easier to make a $100m dollar game and make $150m in sales and then another $150m in MXT and lootboxes than it is to make three $100m games and make $150 back on each of them
Once you have the MXT or lootbox model it's then easier to work on making that bring in more money than to invest in making more high risk games
Thank you for your kind words. :)
As someone working at DICE I think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject
So due to JimmyJacking bringing it up, I looked at the report that the Australian regulators are using as the basis for their investigation, and, well, yeah.
It says that lootboxes aren't inherently gambling, despite the title of the article.
They are using the following indicators of gambling, as established by a psychologist pre-eminent in the field, and to my mind an accurate definition of what gambling consists of;
And taking point 5 to mean Pay 2 Win systems, where if one player "wins", say, a better gun then other players who did not "win" a better gun "lose", only 10 of the 22 games they examined meet that criteria. (And as a side note, I would disagree with that interpretation, as me "winning" a gun in a lootbox and you only "winning" a hat does not seem like I am 'winning' at your expense in the way that me taking the pot in a poker game is winning at your expense)
Meaning more than half are not gambling. They do not meet the psychological or legal requirements to fall under that definition.
Not that thats going to stop a bunch of you declaring that they just are though.
It says that lootboxes aren't inherently gambling, despite the title of the article.
They are using the following indicators of gambling, as established by a psychologist pre-eminent in the field, and to my mind an accurate definition of what gambling consists of;
- The exchange of money or valuable goods.
- An unknown future event determines the exchange.
- Chance at least partly determines the outcome.
- Non-participation can avoid incurring losses.
- "Winners gain at the sole expense of losers"
And taking point 5 to mean Pay 2 Win systems, where if one player "wins", say, a better gun then other players who did not "win" a better gun "lose", only 10 of the 22 games they examined meet that criteria. (And as a side note, I would disagree with that interpretation, as me "winning" a gun in a lootbox and you only "winning" a hat does not seem like I am 'winning' at your expense in the way that me taking the pot in a poker game is winning at your expense)
Meaning more than half are not gambling. They do not meet the psychological or legal requirements to fall under that definition.
Not that thats going to stop a bunch of you declaring that they just are though.
Hey yo!
FIFA 18, FIFA 19, Madden NFL 17 and Madden NFL 18 meet both the psychological and legal definitions of gambling (all 6 of them!) according to this study's recommendations. And they are rated E for Everyone w/c means kids could play EA's digital gambling games. The Belgian Gambling Commission better not get ahold of this pdf or they will rip EA a new assh0le with this.
Overwatch only got 4 checks. Lucky that they only use cosmetics. They may or may not fall under the recommendation that the ESRB and other ratings agencies review these games and increase their recommended minimum age.
Last edited:
If the definition of gambling isn't up to date then it needs to change. Spending real money for the chance to win something is gambling.
Guess which games meet all six of those definitions in the report you linked? FIFA 17 and FIFA 18 (and therefore by extension FIFA 19 since they haven't changed the system) - you know, the series which this entire thread is related to, because that's the series where EA is refusing to remove the gambling element and has therefore found itself subject to a criminal investigation.
As I said, You buying a lootbox does not directly affect me buying a lootbox, so that defintion of criteria 5 is very questionable. Our mutual lootbox purchases are entirely independent of each other. What I get from a lootbox has zero impact on what you get.
For 'cashing out', AFAIK there is no way offered by the makers of the game to do that, that is something done by third parties.
And as with the Netherlands ruling, it should be that the third parties doing that are held accountable, because it is they who are creating gambling scenarios.
A third party can turn almost anything they want into a gambling game.
I bet the majority of people here drank before they turned 21, smoked weed before it was legal, and speed on the freeway because 65 MPH is extremely slow for anybody with any type of awareness, but you wanna talk about how EA doesnt follow the laws. It's a stupid law, and it's our duty to not follow dumb ass laws. And before you say, "first change the laws", that's not how laws change. Never has everybody obeyed a law, people bitch, and then it changed because politicians don't care unless there is action.
Call me a weird person but i would rather trust the criteria definitions ('Competitive advantage', 'Can cash out') specified by and the recommendations of two psychologists over what some internet poster is trying to twist and redefine.
Ehm, Battlefield One, for example, you are forced to see other people buying lootboxes, so that affects others.
Also, ingame, people that buy lootboxes have an advantage over those who do not, means they are affected by it. Or even seeing a cosmetic purchase from others inside your game affects you, because you now know that it exists and you probably want it now as well.
I wonder if Belgium can make the fine per person harmed, then it would straight up kill EA.
Did you actually read the report, or just look at the picture with checkmarks?
They are basing their findings on other peoples research (specifically someone who is a specialist in all kinds of disorders including videogame addiction in general) who created those criteria.
They are then interpreting those criteria in such a way that a 'pay to win' model has someone 'losing' directly to a 'winner'.
You can choose to believe that that is the same intent as describing the transactional nature of a traditional bet - I win, and my winning is entirely dependent that you lose - if you want, but it is not that clear cut.
If only one person buys a lootbox, and gets the exact item they wanted on their first purchase, then they have 'won', and it is not directly as a result of someone elses 'loss'.
If only one person buys a lootbox and they didn't get what they want, they 'lost', but nobody 'won'.
In point of fact, if you buy a lootbox, you always obtain something. It might not be the specific thing you want, but it is always something. It is neither 'winning' nor 'losing'. It is independent of any other purchasers.
That criteria is explicitly describing a zero sum dynamic, where there is always a winner, and that winner is always at the expense of a loser.
The third parties aren't the ones "creating gambling scenarios" - EA did that when they programmed loot boxes / "card packs" into the game. If they don't exist, how does the third party allow cashing out? They don't. EA added the mechanics, EA is responsible for the gambling element - they know it all too well, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting so hard to retain the revenues they make off these systems they have implemented.
"You buying a lootbox does not directly affect me buying a lootbox" is a bizarre way to look at the point the report is making. The actual definition is "We took a relatively conservative approach to this criterion and assumed that winners only profit at the expense of losers if the obtained reward provides winners with a direct competitive advantage over losers (that is, some rewards increase the chances of the recipient winning future games)."
This is exactly what the system in FIFA does. Someone who gains Messi from a pack has an increased chance of winning a game vs someone who gains a lesser-rated player (if for the purposes of this comparison all other players are equal). FIFA games meet all definitions of gambling in the report.
Well, I mean 1/2 a glass full vs 1/2 glass empty I guess.. lol.. it's still 45% that meet that full criteria and then being high profile games (not even touching to mobile market)
I'm happy though people are actual researching and looking for themselves rather than going on anecdotal and 'feels'.
I'm not entirely sure I would agree with your summary that they ain't inherently gambling when their own summary says, quote;
(Sorry for the image, couldn't copy text directly from my mobile)
Also keep in mind, the Aus Govt. term of reference for the inquiry is;
(a) whether the purchase of chance-based items, combined with the ability to monetise these items on third-party platforms, constitutes a form of gambling; and
(b) the adequacy of the current consumer protection and regulatory framework for in-game micro transactions for chance-based items, including international comparisons, age requirements and disclosure of odds.
As I have always said and maintained, I don't think 'banning' is the answer. Even after reading this specific article, you must admit, there is some very damning evidence and arguements.
Well if you play a slot machine and lose, who wins? The owner of the slot machine I presume?
If you buy a lootbox and get only dupes/useless items, who wins? The publisher?
I mean, you always get something from a lootbox, even if it's useless, but if every slot machine awarded you with a fraction of a dollar for every spin, does that stop it being gambling? If so why hasn't every casino in the world done this?
I think this is probably the stupidest post I've ever seen on here.
Like how did you look at that before submitting and not think "I'm a moron".
What a shocker!
Who would've thought that psychology experts would reference the definition of gambling provided by a professor of gambling studies/behavioural addiction(Mark D Griffiths).
Erm . . . . yeah someone acquiring something that helps them to be a winner at the expense of others losing against said winner . . . . is the definition of 'competitive advantage'. You get those rare FIFA legend/icon cards in a randomized FUT card pack and kicking-ass in FUT becomes so much easier.
Thats cute and all but i would rather trust the criteria definitions ('Competitive advantage', 'Can cash out') specified by and recommended by the two psychologists who co-authored the study over whatever re-definition and re-interpretation some internet poster is trying to do.
Next time you shouldn't post expert, reliable proof contradicting your pro-lootbox stance.
They have the same arguments about 'skinner boxes' that have been used as evidence of videogames addictive nature for decades.
There are videogame addicts. Like... the WHO recently specifically acknowledged that. Variable reward conditioning is very likely a factor in those who are addicts to videogames, just as it is probably a factor to those who are detrimentally affected by lootbox consumption. But I don't find it helpful for people to declare that lootboxes are inherently addictive (and use terms like 'predatory' to describe their sale) any more than I find it particularly useful for people to declare all videogames are detrimental.
Some people are negatively affected by engagement in a way that most people are not.
That doesn't mean that I don't want to see any research done to find out why those people are affected and help them, any more than I want to see things banned where only a tiny percentage of people are affected by an issue.
Actual gambling is extremely profitable, and there is zero incentive to pretend that you are not a casino if you are.
EA would make a shit ton more money just not making videogames at all and being an online casino.
I don't think you are getting the point.
They interpreted "competitive advantage" as a "win at a losers expense". They mention in their own report that they could interpret that as getting a better looking thing as "a win at a losers expense".
The "win at a losers expense" is the definition. The "Competitive advantage" is the interpretation.
And thats besides the point.
If you accept their findings as accurate - even where you reject the notion that what is described is a zero sum game - then you accept that not all lootboxes are gambling, and to legislate as though they are is overreach.
I think P2W systems are shitty and I couldn't care less if there was scrutiny of them.
But contrary to the stance most people here take, lootboxes are just a delivery mechanism.
They are not 'gambling'. They are not 'immoral'. They are not 'predatory'.
What someone puts inside those, or the rules by which they are acquired, can be any or all of those things, but the actual lootbox concept is not inherently anything.
Its fine to criticise specific practices. Its a moral panic when people start tarring everything with the same brush and pearl clutching about thinking of the children.
*copy and pasted from my previous post*
Erm . . . . yeah someone acquiring something that helps them to be a winner at the expense of others losing against said winner . . . . is the definition of 'competitive advantage'. You get those rare FIFA legend/icon cards in a randomized FUT card pack and kicking-ass in FUT becomes so much easier.
Its a good thing the authors of the study offered a tiered recommendation in their, you know, Recommendations. Give it a read! Games who scored 4 checkmarks on the definition of gambling (like Overwatch) gets a more lenient regulation compared to those games who perfectly scored 6 checkmarks (like FIFA and Madden).
Dr Wily I've been wanting to ask this for a while. I mean no disrespect but why do you defend lootboxes so vehemently? I always see you in every LB thread going to bat for the companies. As someone who sees nothin mg worthwhile from these things, I'm curious why you do this?
Also tryin to excuse what EA does because some dumbasses like to speed is a terrible excuse.
No, don't smoke, and try my hardest not to speed. Laws are made to be followed and while I can certainly see instances in which they need to be changed, this isn't one of those instances.
Also tryin to excuse what EA does because some dumbasses like to speed is a terrible excuse.
People can continue to thread this needle all they want and enter semantic gymnastics over the ever fluid changing definitions of a word. All we need is one country, Belgium as it seems, to get this ball rolling. If the Industry truly needs this exploitative shit to survive as they claim, fuck em. Good Riddance to companies like EA.
What? 'Some laws get broken and unpunished so it doesn't matter'
How old are you? 15?
Roulette is seen as gambling, I guess it would be the house that wins that game. Isn't the publisher "the house" in this case?
Which Belgium is ignoring completely, and declaring that all lootboxes are gambling and people are cheering going "Yea! Ban all lootboxes! Lets hope every other country does it too!"
If you accept that post-release monetisation is necessary, which a lot of posters are still in denial about, cosmetic only lootboxes are the best option that has yet been presented as a solution, and they also serve as a decent progression system to keep a userbase for a game alive.
The ideal lootbox situation would be one similar to Overwatch, but with Valve style access to a trading market.
- Lootboxes are cheap due to their random nature. 5 random cosmetics for $1 is more palatable for most people than 1 fixed skin for $20.
- Lootboxes do not fragment a userbase like map packs do.
- Lootboxes solve a time versus cash scenario by making 'levelling' just a matter of acquiring more loot, not more in game power (such as COD or BF style levelling does where 'levelling up' is just straight up power upgrades)
- Lootboxes due to their random nature mean more variety of cosmetics. If you just need content to fill lootboxes, then anything goes, and you will see all types of cosmetics for all types of players created to fill those boxes - edgelord grimdark stuff, kawaii super cutesy stuff, memebait trolly stuff, whatever. In a system where you only sell specific cosmetics, only the most popular options even get made, so unpopular champions in a game like Overwatch get nothing and the super popular champs get everything, and what gets made is primarily what the makeup of the playerbase thinks is cool.
You're not hit with a project ten dollar anti-used market DLC to play online because its secondhand.
You're not stuck in ghetto playlists without any of the new maps or characters that you have to pay extra for.
You're not getting repeatedly owned by some dude who spent 200 hours grinding headshots to unlock akimbo shotguns while you're sat there with a pistol.
You're not playing some dead game that was abandoned 2 years ago and most of the userbase left to go play the hot new things instead, full of exploits that will never be patched out and only super hardcore diehard fans left making up the numbers.
The only real difference outside of learned playtime experience between someone who buys Overwatch today and someone who bought the digital deluxe edition day 1, is that they have a ton of cosmetics that they're not even using, and you don't.
e:
Roulette still has a 'pot'.
The croupier will clear all the losing bets, then pay the winner from them. If theres a shortfall then it comes from the House.
Nah.
The fifth criterion was more complex.
The definitional difficulty arises because
no player who purchases a loot box receives
their money back directly. Instead, they
receive items of various utility, desirability
or rarity, which may have some value to the
player, or, in cases where virtual items can
be traded or sold, can be later converted
to real-world money. We took a relatively
conservative approach to this criterion and
assumed that winners only profit at the
expense of losers if the obtained reward
provides winners with a direct competitive
advantage over losers (that is, some rewards
increase the chances of the recipient winning
future games). This is displayed in the
'Competitive advantage' column.
If you receive are FIFA legend/icon cards in a randomized card pack, it will increase your chance of winning future FUT games.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. While I can see your point in theory, Overwatch is the game that burned me on loot boxes in the first place. I despise the system in general I guess and for all the benefits it supposedly has I frankly don't think it outweighs the negatives.
Still thank you for taking the time to reply. I I appreciate that.
Well, duh. The tiered recommendations in the link you posted was done by Australian psychological experts for a lootbox-gambling hearing in Australia and not Belgium. Read the contents of the links that you post, please!
But dont worry, im sure the Belgian Gaming Commission will take those same study once the hearing against EA and its FIFA cardpacks get underway. And the BGC might not even ban lootbox outright, they just most likely adjust the minimum age requirements for digital gambling games like FIFA and Madden (from Everyone to 18/21 or whatever is the legal gambling age).
Denial? I know that it's not necessary.
Maintaining current publisher profits derived from lootboxes -- or even the size of the industry propped up by it -- is not necessary in the least.
This study was done prior to any legal proposals made by Australia, it was not done 'for' it. It was cited within the proposal.
The research it cites as the definition for what constitutes gambling was available long before Belgium made its decision, and was at least partially used as the reason other countries decided that lootboxes are not gambling.
e:
Maintenance of a title post release requires something or someone to pay the bills of the people doing that maintenance.
That's a different thing, but even then, games like Splatoon show you don't need additional monetization. The longer tail in game sales of a live supported game can by itself be more than enough to sustain the additional maintenance.
Well, things are simple going forward, just everyone who doesn't like lootboxes, just refuse purchasing those games. That is the message that must be send. There are enough great games out there that do not incorporate Lootboxes.
If an industry requires the psychological exploitation of people, including minors, to continue existing, then it deserves to not exist any more.
Seems like Nintendo has to save the industry a second time once this bubble completely collapses, like the bubble in 1983 did.
Oh right, Australia launched an investigation into loot boxes and gambling last June 28 while the Drummond and Sauer study 'Video game loot boxes are psychologically akin to gambling' was only published June 18, so yes it did play a role in the Australian government's increased attention on lootboxes . . . .
. . . . except it cant take full credit for the initiative as the Australian government has already started taking a long hard look on lootboxes since March this year.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/education-resources/iparent/staying-safe/online-gambling
Tell us why its wrong for the Belgian Gaming Commission and psychology experts like the 2 authors of the Australian study to use the definition of gambling provided by a professor of gambling studies/behavioural addiction(Mark D Griffiths)?
My examples are laws that are arbritrary. Weed, and many other drugs, never should have been made illegal in the first place especially since they won't make them legal after research is done showing that they can be beneficial or not harmful. If you can go to war at 18, you should be able to drink. There should probably be a lane for faster speeds at the very least. We aren't driving buggies anymore and car technology/safety has improved greatly. I'm still in the camp that thinks lootboxes aren't any different than collectible cards which also live off of being addicting coming from someone who engaged in at least 7 different types, but they decided that lootboxes are the only predatory one that needs legislation. But, nah, I'm 15.
