Considering we still have dumbasses getting into wrecks everyday you'll forgive me for not agreeing with you on speed limits.
Loot boxes need legislation. That's the topic at hand. You think other shit needs to be covered go make a topic about it.
-
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
Considering we still have dumbasses getting into wrecks everyday you'll forgive me for not agreeing with you on speed limits.
Loot boxes need legislation. That's the topic at hand. You think other shit needs to be covered go make a topic about it.
I mean we all cynically joke about this but considering how much money is on the line for lootboxes and the threat of legislation, I sometimes wonder to what degree the industry would go to foster grassroots support and counter consumer views. There are plenty of PR companies happily willing to accept money for 'community outreach' efforts. I am not suggesting this is what is happening here specifically, but again... people are so quick to say big publishers are willing to go deep into their pockets to buy politicians to sway their opinion on this matter. Hiring an unethical PR company would be pennies in comparison to them and shrewd way to sway public opinion.
Post-release monetisation is necessary is you believe the industry should have a few huge monolithic titles that update forever and ever, which does require post release content which does need to be funded
I think a lot of people seem to butt heads with you on lootboxes because that's the angle you are coming from, and in that respect you are 100% correct.
The industry doesn't need to work like that though. EA and Activision are not losing money on the games they make, they're making money on them and then making more money post release, which they are using to fund the free updates which in turn generates more MXT income, and as you have correctly highlighted, lootboxes make the most post release money and don't break up the playerbase
That has been established, so the real question is "are they exploitative" and even studies that don't consider them to be gambling do seem to imply they are problematic, or at least they can be
If you remove the paid aspect from lootboxes then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down, now the game is a grind with no way to skip it and the post release cash flow comes to an abrupt end
If most countries end up agreeing that they're problematic, even if they're not gambling, then things will have to change, and yeah, from your perspective, maybe huge online GaaS titles will get worse
Just a small remark: it's the Belgian Gambling Commission (Kansspelencommissie). As gambling in Belgium is strictly regulated (it's illegal unless in very specific cases where it's not - there are only a few casino's here, and they need a special license and have very strict rules including registering everyone who enters. There is a black list of people with gambling addiction who are not allowed to enter any casino etc...).
The thing is, publishers can't let the games get worse, otherwise, people will be upset and no longer buy their games. Means they have to adjust the progression system to make the games enjoyable. And if they aren't enjoyable, they aren't worth buying anyway.
Lootboxes are the answer to a problem made by the game designers themself to let people buy more lootboxes.
The market regulates itself.
Lootboxes are the answer to a problem made by the game designers themself to let people buy more lootboxes.
The market regulates itself.
But they're not...? If they were they wouldn't be saying that all lootboxes are gambling.
solid rebuttal to a detailed argument guys, good job.
Its not a question of should or need.
Its a question of is.
If someone really likes one game and only want to play that one game, and keep spending money on that one game to keep that one game running, why is that a "but they shouldn't do that!" scenario?
Then why Lootboxes have to exist for that? Direct purchases give the consumer what they want while also helping the developer. Big DLC/Expansions are best for that.
It wasn't a rebuttal. I've made my arguments in these threads. In my opinion, there is nothing left to discuss with the proponents of lootboxes. They are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to a gambling variant and should therefore be regulated. Which they will be in some parts of the world. We'll see if the eventual regulatory changes will be enough to foster satisfactory industry changes. All i hear from lootbox apologists are disingenuous comparisons, idiotic whataboutisms, legal fallacies and a whole lot of corporate talking points. Based on my observations of these arguments throughout the last year across multiple platforms, lootbox apologists seem to fall mostly on these camps:
- Unabashed corporate shills.
- Astroturfers.
- Shareholders.
- Industry workers who directly benefit from these practices.
- Gamers who exploit and benefit from the lootbox economy.
- Contrarians/Libertarians.
I might be misremembering but i seem to recall you yourself admitting in a previous thread that you were indeed a shareholder, hence my post. Apologies if i am mistaken.
As for the conversation itself, we're at the point where the only fruitful place for this conversation is within the regulatory and political spaces. The corporations individually said fuck it. The ESA said fuck it. And EA not only said fuck it but they added a fuck y'all. Let's see how they fare. Badly, i'd wager.
Last edited:
Because the person should be doing that because they want to, not because they are being psychologically manipulated into a chance game with no bottom line.
People can support games without lootboxes having to exist. Publishers shouldn't be making billions off abusive RNG.
Really curious as to your take on this. We used to unlock all these nice cosmetic things and bonuses just from playing. Why can't we go back to that and just ditch loot boxes? God knows the industry isn't hurting for money. How do you feel about this situation? I'm mainly a single player guy and the monetization of multi games has had a lot to do with that, so I will admit I'm probably a bit biased on the subject.
I appreciate the work you guys put in and the fact you post here. Just wanted to say that. Even if I'm not a fan of BF I respect the work you all do.
Because it's exploitative and because the majority of the mass are inherently stupid and need to be protected from themselves. For exactly the same reasons that cigarette packages have gross images and warnings on them, for the same reason that casinos and lottery machines are only present in 18+ areas, for the same reason that 3-year mobile contracts and phone locking were outlawed, for the same reason that pyramid schemes are illegal, etc. etc. etc.
I agree, more research is always welcomed.
But a line does have to be drawn for regulators at this very moment of time.
The link between patterns forming of young(er) people to adulthood when exposed to these mechanics has been well documents, discussed and accepted. It's why most countries have laws in place sourrounding it. I'm Aus for example a minor is not even allowed to be in a designated gambling area. There has been enough studies debates in that area, I'm not going there.
Now drawing on your own submission that 45% of these major titles contain elements that meet ALL 6 criteria that defines gambling, it's pretty hard to not come to a conclusion that exposing minors do have a risk of normalizing that behavior.
There is just too much information to be able to just leave it as a "slap on the bum and she'll be right, mate" mentality as in maintaining the status quo.
- and truth be told, this is only covering the front end mechanics. God knows what tomfoolery is going on in the back end;- stuff that is regulated with a pokie machine here in Aus. Who's tho say they ain't manipulating the variable win ratio depending on a persons spent habit.
n.b. I'm not making an accusation here, but nor can they prove it isn't happening.
Did you really make that comparison? I mean apart from all the existing regulations surrounding casinos both in Brick and Mortar and online.
Why go through all that, when you can place gambling like into your game that is legal basically everywhere because regulation hasn't caught up?
You're right, and I agree. I'm an adult, I should be free to spend my money how I see fit especially in a video game. But as an adult, I can see what is going on here. I can make an informed decision and gamble if I want.
That's why I support the doctors recommendations and changing the classifications of the games, rather than an outright ban. If you want your game to have. 'G'/'PG' or even an 'M'(Aus rating) don't put these in there.
That said, I respect Belgiums stance (going full swing in declaring them as gambling) as a nation in its decisions for its citizens.
Edit: Spellcheck failures
Last edited:
So if there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Mark D. Griffith's criteria for gambling then why should it matter to Belgium or to Australia that other countries using the same criteria judged FIFA lootboxes as not gambling? You do know that each countries have different gambling laws.
Also in the case of UK, while they using Mark D. Griffith's gambling criteria currently doesn't consider lootboxes gambling, its more of the case that the gambling laws that were set by the Parliament (and not by the UK Gambling Commission) is not updated and needs revision.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/146458704.pdf
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov..../news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx
Lootboxes' non-gambling status in UK is hanging by a thread.
But enough with the UK, lets go back on topic to Belgium and FIFA lootboxes as gambling. And yes, Belgium has a pretty good case against EA for a releasing a rated 'E' videogame that satisfies the 6 criterias for gambling. Isn't it double the penalty if it's found out that this gambling game/service is accessible and/or marketed to children?
At least you're honest about it, instead of just insinuating that the only reason anyone would buy a lootbox is that they are a child or are somehow mentally deficient, therefore anyone selling lootboxes must be doing so via "exploitation" or being "predatory".
But FWIW I find that worldview repugnant.
The problem is that the comparative links are weak. It is the same as the analogous links between real world physical violence and videogame violence.
Yes, they are there, it is is impossible to deny that, but the strength of response between real world physical violence or virtual violence is hugely disparate.
Claims that not getting that digital hat you want are literally the same as losing your paycheck on a bad hand at poker, and the repercussions thereof are also the same, frankly, trivialise actual gambling problems.
Thats why most jurisdictions don't give a shit about "sort of like gambling" activities where there is no money or real stakes involved. Because its the stakes that cause the problems.
I mean... that's what Konami did. They just said "Fuck this, we'll just stick to Pachinko".
It isn't, and I don't know why people keep kidding themselves about this.
Third parties turning activities that are not gambling into gambling are the ones responsible, and there have been prosecutions specifically against third parties for doing that.
Because thats gambling. Lootboxes are not.
Read that report. I've linked it multiple times in lootbox threads.
Not someone elses commentary or your interpretation. The actual report.
Have you read the contents of my earlier link from November 2017: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov..../news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx
You know the one where the UK Gambling Commission discussed the very real weakness in UK gambling laws as stated in their the March 2017 position paper(the link that you provided) and how their hands are tied by the limited gambling laws that were setup by parliament.
The sentiment from the UK Gambling Commission is clear. UK gambling laws are in need of a change. The pressure is there to re-categorize lootboxes in videogames as gambling. If i was EA, i wouldn't feel confident that the non-gambling status of FUT packs will remain in UK. Maybe a successful prosecution of EA for flaunting Belgian laws might finally send parliament to improve UK's gambling laws.
Thats because you're reading that statement as
"Wow, you guys are totally right. Totally. But what can we do?"
and not
"Could you pearl clutching fuckers please stop emailing us telling us to look into something we already fucking looked into and that none of you ever read when we did, because we have more important things to worry about like the fact that every fucking ad break on channel 5 is filled with ads for Super Happy Funtime Casino Joy apps"
"Wow, you guys are totally right. Totally. But what can we do?"
and not
"Could you pearl clutching fuckers please stop emailing us telling us to look into something we already fucking looked into and that none of you ever read when we did, because we have more important things to worry about like the fact that every fucking ad break on channel 5 is filled with ads for Super Happy Funtime Casino Joy apps"
I mean, between the preamble about how parliament sets gambling laws not them and that statement how :
- the line between video gaming and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred
- Where a product does not meet that test to be classed as gambling but could potentially cause harm to children, parents will undoubtedly expect proper protections to be put in place by those that create, sell and regulate those products
Belgium and Australia may be ahead of the curve when it comes to properly categorizing lootboxes as gambling but don't worry UK is following them in its own drunkenly disjointed ways.
Last edited:
The UKGC aren't bothered about Battldefront 2 - a PEGI 16 rated game - having lootboxes, even though thats what had reddit netizens contacting them en masse prompting them to issue a press release saying "WE FUCKING KNOW. WE FUCKING LOOKED AT IT ALREADY".
They're bothered about actual fucking casino apps advertising on prime time television with bright cartoon characters and giving you free money for your first gamble.
They're bothered about actual fucking casino apps advertising on prime time television with bright cartoon characters and giving you free money for your first gamble.
Battlefront 2 disabled its lootboxes remember? Even the Belgians did not include it in their list of games to ban.
Last edited:
That changed years ago, there used to be only 6 legal casinos. Now there are tons and you can gamble at nearly every newspaper store
I'm not addicted to anything, I work for a company that uses similar monetization for its apps. Lootboxes don't arguably favour the rich just as a fact due to the fact they're entirely random. Watch a Fifa streamer open 1000 packs he paid money for to find one great player then watch some guy on overwatch who has never spent money get the rarest skin in the game from a lootbox. This is the only way to make it fair unless you go to a direct cosmetic marketplace system which EA did for SWBF2 after the overhaul of the game.
That kind of monetization won't work for something like the ultimate team modes because they're based entirely off of the packs you buy and the ability to trade those players in the game to make the best team.I'm legitimately just stating a fact. I wasn't attacking you, just stating that a direct sale system won't work in something like Fifa because it leads to pay to win instead of people having a somewhat more fair chance of getting good items.
I've always been more of a fan of the cosmetic marketplace idea for game monetization, look at league of legends, that game makes so much money off of cosmetics. It literally has funded the game for years.
At the end of the day I really don't care about microtransactions the way that a lot of people do, I don't see any reason a company shouldn't be able to do it, especially if it funds continued support for a game. I obviously don't want pay to win mechanics but people always harp on about upping the retail price or thinking of "less shitty ways to monetize the game" But upping the retail price won't do anything, realistically a game makes 90% of its retail sale numbers in the months following release. What happens a year later, or even just 6 months later. The people buying the game in any significant numbers already own it now, and the game no longer makes money or at least doesn't make enough to justify dedicated support.
I'm not here to argue with anyone those are just my views, I understand why people don't like microtransactions but for me as long as they don't break the game or make it pay to win I genuinely couldn't care less
Last edited:
EAs lawyers demonstrating what I been saying all along.
If you are putting in real money but funny hats and camo gun skins are coming out instead of more real money.....it ain't gambling.
Honestly, calling loot boxes 'gambling' is an insult to anybody's who's ever had to deal with an ACTUAL gambling addiction.
Call it exploitative. Call it unfair. But don't call it 'gambling' any more than you'd call battlefield a 'murder training sim'
If you are putting in real money but funny hats and camo gun skins are coming out instead of more real money.....it ain't gambling.
Honestly, calling loot boxes 'gambling' is an insult to anybody's who's ever had to deal with an ACTUAL gambling addiction.
Call it exploitative. Call it unfair. But don't call it 'gambling' any more than you'd call battlefield a 'murder training sim'
These companies hire gambling psychologists, neuroscientists, and marketing experts to intentionally stimulate the same addictive receptors as slot machines and casinos do. Don't give me that crap. If you hire people designed to make casinos addictive for your games then you know 100% what you're doing.
It's a system you pay into for the chance to receive something of higher or lower perceived value. Sounds like gambling to me.
Unless you wish to discuss how money - the item of value based on the goods and/or services it can be exchanged for - and the very goods that it can afford are inherently different in the context of gambling.
I guess Pokémon digital TCG, magic the gathering and hearthstone are all worse than gambling then.
I'm sorry, I watched my grandfather lose his house, savings and everything else he owned, get into serious trouble with loan sharks from casinos, horse racing and poker games. Then he basically killed himself by drinking himself to death.
He used to sit in front of a vlt lotto machine with a 2 litre bucket full of loonies (1 dollar Canadian coin) every night for hours on end.
But go ahead and tell me more about how fucking loot boxes in overwatch are worse than gambling.
Gambling is if you put in money to win something. Doesn't matter if it's real or virtual.
Loot boxes are gambling. Real money to win something, you don't get something of value thus you lose.
Gambling. And it's a real gambling addiction for some out there.
Loot boxes are gambling. Real money to win something, you don't get something of value thus you lose.
Gambling. And it's a real gambling addiction for some out there.
Because with you are purchasing a service. It's an end unto itself.
You could conceivably get every item, or even just the ones you want and then stop making the transactions. It's an end unto itself.
With gambling it never ends. The more you win, the more you spend. The allure of starting with 2000 dollars and walking away with 200,000 is what makes it compulsive and dangerous in a way that some amusing digtal hats can and will never be.
It's not even remotely the same thing. It's no more gambling than buying a pack of Pokémon cards.
It's worse because they don't have any of the responsibilities gambling companies have, and never have to payout anything of value from the company.
Also a shit ton of people have literally lost their houses and marriages etc due to addiction to buying loot boxes in games. So it is worse, definitely.
I promise you, actual legal gambling, even in the last year, had ruined far more lives than loot boxes will in 30. There is no comparison. This is like saying weed is worse than meth. Not even. It's a absurd comparsion than that, even.
Also, people have probably lost their houses and relationships from fuckin clash of clans but we aren't calling that 'gambling' are we? Or Pokémon trading cards?
I can't believe the whole 'loot boxes are gambling' thing has even gotten this far.
When it comes to something like steam marketplace, where you can take a digital item and trade it for hard cash then I will start to concede you have something close to gambling.
But ffs, you don't even OWN the digital items in over watch. You are paying to using something that's part of a liscense. That shit is a digital item tied to an online account and it's non transferable. In no way, shape or form is that anywhere near the legal definition of gambling
I said loot boxes are worse, not more popular or prevalent.
People have literally died playing games for to long. So playing any games is defiantly worse.
Would it still be a problem if EA offered both? say they offered the skins direct buy for a 100 dollars, or loot boxes for a couple of bucks.
Yeah, so they need to get help. You don't see casinos or lottery tickets outlawed why should loot boxes? Should we also outlaw alcohol since some people can't control themselves while were at it? Should sweets be outlawed since some people overeat and have garbage diets?
At some point a person needs to take self responsibility. The first step in that is admitting you have a problem and getting help. Not going to treat addiction as something that isn't serious because it is but at the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Any situation where companies are reaping the benefits of gambling with none of the responsibilities or risk is worse.
Yes but the fact that the payout HAS NO VAULE is what makes it NOT WORSE.
The chance of an actual cash payout is what makes it compulsive and addictive to the degree that something like a casino or horse betting is.
You don't see loan sharks lending out money for loot boxes, because there is no return on the investment.
It's not even in the same galaxy, let alone the same ballpark. I guess if you've never dealt with a real gambling addiction you may not be able to understand this.
Not even saying gaming addiction isn't a serious problem, or that being able to spend massive quantities of money on a game can lead to a crippling addiction. Just that the severity of it compared to slot machines or poker is infintisimally small. Let alone claiming it's 'worse'
If companies like EA aren't allowed to sell games with loot boxes to those under 18, have to pay into GA services like many casinos, and are taxed properly as gambling income, publish odds, have federally vetted checks to make sure the odds are true? I'm 100% fine with it morally. At that point I'd still say they are worse since there is no risk of having to pay out like traditional gambling, but that isn't a moral argument.
So? Loot boxes aren't regulated. That's bad. It doesn't make it gambling?!
It doesn't magically stop being gambling when you can trade the items. That just makes it closer to the actual definition, especially if the trades involve an actual monetary payout
Please tell me how spending $2,000 on the chance to receive physical goods (i.e. money) at a casino is different from spending $2,000 on the chance to receive digital goods in games such as League of Legends, Love Live: School Idol Festival, Fire Emblem Heroes, or Fate/Grand Order, because there's only 2 differences I see: one won't delude themselves into thinking that the right waifu will save their house, and the other is easily accessible right in your pocket any time you want, ad infinitum.
There's definitely a difference in gambling for money vs. gambling for digital goods, but that doesn't change that the act in and of itself is gambling. Gambling is not defined by the payout, it's defined by the act of taking an action of risk in the hopes of achieving a result one desires - it does not hinge on if actual money is obtainable or not.
*deep breath in* Nope. Not going to engage.
Must resist!
FIFA is still pretty much pay to win with it's current model
Two new players starting at the same time, playing 5 hours of ultimate team and then one paying for 5 FIFA packs and one paying for 20 FIFA packs, who is going to have the better team?
It's going to be the guy who paid the most
Not that direct sale of players would make things better, as you say it would make them worse. It just goes to show what a shitshow FIFA is
Again not necessarily. The pack contents are completely random. You can open 5 or 500 and still get garbage. Or you could open one and get an amazing player. I'm not defending FUT but I've played quite a bit and I've had zero trouble being a completely non mtx player
https://gyazo.com/a8f2e614a2919736f7ea036df93595dc
That guy - German ProPlayer.
I translate it for you "As some may know i got the game early and pulled CR7 in my FIRST pack"
So this is the perfect example to debunk your "knowledge"
Its a game of chance where no one is losing because unlike in a Casino you will always get value in return from your investment(be it now ingame currency earned through playing or RL currency).
The only thing that is a variable is the Value in return - You could get something worth 200 coins or 2 Million coins.
If you are interested you more than likely can see twitch streamers make big pack opening on the first day.
We are talking here like 20 000$ and upwards where more than likely they won't pull anything comparable to a CR7 and only accumulate a similar amount of coins equally his worth through selling the contents obtained from the packs.
And Fifa being P2W?Yeah that is long history since Fifa16.
EA is showering you with ingame rewards these days(SquadBattles,FUT Draft,Weekend League) and in Fifa19 with the revamped Online Divisions there is even one extra Gamemode this year especially designed for Casuals to have something to play for while not having to play or miss out on the rewards from the stressful Weekend League Rewards.
As a Road to Glory Player its these days perfectly doable to get everything you could want with playing for it.The only difference might be time you need to invest because you will have to play and trade more than someone who can ignore certain parts of the game especially if your goal is to qualify for the e-sports tournaments and have a team ready for the first qualifying month in November whre you will face actual pro Players that got sponsored by their real life football clubs they represent.
Oh and something from leaked copies
EA for the very first time is disclosing the %chance you have on pulling "higher" rated players displayed here on the second worst pack in terms of estimated value in returns
Its more than likely the higher the rating above 84 the lower the chances are even though not displayed here - Players like CR7&Messi are surely in the 0.?% range.
This is why you don't opend these low value packs and wait for special promotions if you really want to buy some because the value in return isn't worth the value invested be it hard earned ingame currency through playing or real money.
You rarely will have any advantages from opening this crap value packs over someone simply playing the game.