Support NeoGAF

[Jezbollah]

Regulating loot boxes.

Thats a bold strategy Cotton...

Spoiler

I'd love to see anything done. But it'll probably be a PEGI fob-off as an official response.

 

[Audioboxer]

What? You lose money every time you buy a box but you never win any money :thinking:

The whole petition is written very badly. Especially this:


I dont understand it. Its so badly worded. China didn't apply gambling laws or regulation to loot boxes but created a new special law for online games.

Also writing China as china and UK as uk. Is it a petition to the government or a blog post?

It's terribly written. As I said earlier probably a 19 year old who has spent £1,000 on Overwatch and has like 2 legendaries for it. What matters more is MP's are paying attention, as are gamers in general.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I really hope they don't actually regulate them other than to require a notice they are present on the box (or digital equivalent) and the posting of the odds.

Anything else I would be against.

 

[CosmicQueso]

You can't use real money to buy loot boxes Forza 7, at least not yet.

We can’t let pesky things like facts and details get in the way!!!

How the government responds will be the ultimate loot box. Just remember that whatever it is, gamers asked for it.

 

[Chris1]

I really hope they don't actually regulate them other than to require a notice they are present on the box (or digital equivalent) and the posting of the odds.

Anything else I would be against.

Nothing will come from this yet but if anything does the most extreme will most likely be slapping an 18 on it and requiring publishers to have a gambling license. Basically treating them as they would a bookmakers or casino. They would also probably have to prevent anyone from purchasing them under 18 but most people lie about their age on their gamer tags if they're under 18 anyways

They wouldn't flat out ban games or anything and there's already gambling games out there that's not banned so I wouldn't worry about that

 

[Audioboxer]

We can’t let pesky things like facts and details get in the way!!!

How the government responds will be the ultimate loot box. Just remember that whatever it is, gamers asked for it.

Like the fact they're coming?

“Once we confirm that the game economy is balanced and fun for our players out in the wild, we plan to offer Tokens [a real-money currency that works like CR] as a matter of player choice. Some players appreciate using Tokens as a way of gaining immediate access to content that may take many hours to acquire in the normal course of play. There will also be an option within the in-game menu to turn off Tokens entirely.”

The turn off MTs for reviews and turn them on weeks/month later is the latest and hottest tactic for some pubs/devs. Don't be fooled.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Nothing will come from this yet but if anything does the most extreme will most likely be slapping an 18 on it and requiring publishers to have a gambling license. Basically treating them as they would a bookmakers or casino. They would also probably have to prevent anyone from purchasing them under 18 but most people lie about their age on their gamer tags if they're under 18 anyways

They wouldn't flat out ban games or anything and there's already gambling games out there that's not banned so I wouldn't worry about that

An 18 rating is the kiss of death for a game. It should only be notification, nothing more.

 

[big_erk]

Inviting the government to regulate loot boxes sets a dangerous precedent. If it's OK to legislate that facet of gaming, what's next? You may not like where it ends up. Government regulations are like Lays potato chips, you can't stop at just one.

 

[Chris1]

An 18 rating is the kiss of death for a game. It should only be notification, nothing more.

Yet the highest selling games every year is an 18. Call of duty and GTA.


Also that would be the most extreme result not necessarily the one that would happen

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

We can't let pesky things like facts and details get in the way!!!

How the government responds will be the ultimate loot box. Just remember that whatever it is, gamers asked for it.

It has been stated multiple times in this thread that we dont want the government to regulate the gaming industry, we want the gaming regulators to regulate the industry.

PEGI and ESRB refused to do so on this issue, and this is the consequences of that. We did not ask for this.

 

[CookTrain]

An 18 rating is the kiss of death for a game. It should only be notification, nothing more.

Not so much in the UK. It's not like AO in America or anything.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Not so much in the UK. It's not like AO in America or anything.

I was just about to say that maybe the poster was american since most adults games get the M rating which is 17+. However 18+ is the dreaded AO rating. I can't recall any major game that got that at all.

 

[CosmicQueso]

It has been stated multiple times in this thread that we dont want the government to regulate the gaming industry, we want the gaming regulators to regulate the industry.

PEGI and ESRB refused to do so on this issue, and this is the consequences of that. We did not ask for this.

Will you be able to stop the government should it decide that action should go much further than your stated desire?

 

[wesleyshark]

This sounds like something that will inevitably backfire.

 

[nekkid]

I really hope they don't actually regulate them other than to require a notice they are present on the box (or digital equivalent) and the posting of the odds.

Anything else I would be against.

They’ll mandate an unbranded box with a picture of a homeless person on it.

 

[CookTrain]

Will you be able to stop the government should it decide that action should go much further than your stated desire?

Only in the same manner you're seeing so far. More communication and petitioning of MPs to try and reach another outcome.

 

[Audioboxer]

An 18 rating is the kiss of death for a game. It should only be notification, nothing more.

I think that is a bit hyperbolic

and there is more on that list

 

[Couleurs]

This sounds like something that will inevitably backfire.

Then the gaming industry can blame itself for not self regulating their abusive practices that target gambling addicts.

 

[Jezbollah]

I was just about to say that maybe the poster was american since most adults games get the M rating which is 17+. However 18+ is the dreaded AO rating. I can't recall any major game that got that at all.

http://www.mobygames.com/attribute/sheet/attributeId,426/

fill your boots.

 

[Wereroku]

Will you be able to stop the government should it decide that action should go much further than your stated desire?

At this point many game companies have hired professionals to figure out the best way to keep people spending money on their MT's. They knowingly take advantage of addictive people without regard to what it could result in. At some point something needs to be done because looking at the brain of a whale and a gambling addict there is probably little to no difference. It is the same areas being stimulated.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Will you be able to stop the government should it decide that action should go much further than your stated desire?

Why are you asking me? I didnt submit this petition, I dont want a conservative government messing with this industry, you should send this question to PEGI, because its 100% their fault that this is happening.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Only in the same manner you're seeing so far. More communication and petitioning of MPs to try and reach another outcome.

Seems like an incredibly risky bet to me. But I hope it works out as desired.

Box labeling makes a lot of sense for all parties, but it sure seems like this has the danger of going further than that.

If protection from loot boxes is deemed necessary, it’s not a huge leap for other things like violence to be deemed so, in which case you get laws like Germany and Australia.

Anyways, best of luck with the petition.

 

[tci]

It is about time this issue is being discussed and looked at. Loot boxes is a plague reaching every part of gaming. It is time for a cure.

 

[DunpealD]

Buying Pokemon cards will just be a casualty. Before they were a funn loophole not bothering too many people. Now loot boxes are too exploitative and need regulation, so card packs will have to be included.

The biggest difference between buying Pokemon cards and lootboxes is, that the card packs have fixed content post production and packaging.

Lootboxes are a blackbox of code lines until you get to see the items, i.e. the content is actually "produced" at the time of opening.
As this thread has already mentioned. It can be a rigged game from the very beginning with control over the loot based on your data.

 

[Chris1]

I think that is a bit hyperbolic

and there is more on that list

Lol

Yeah slapping an 18 on it wouldn't even change much. FIFA is probably the one that would be effected the most going from a 3 to an 18 but everyone will still buy that anyway.

 

[Phife Dawg]

Then the gaming industry can blame itself for not self regulating their abusive practices that target gambling addicts.

This so much.

 

[CookTrain]

Seems like an incredibly risky bet to me. But I hope it works out as desired.

Box labeling makes a lot of sense for all parties, but it sure seems like this has the danger of going further than that.

If protection from loot boxes is deemed necessary, it’s not a huge leap for other things like violence to be deemed so, in which case you get laws like Germany and Australia.

Anyways, best of luck with the petition.

I guess it's the natural result of frustration at industry inaction. I imagine what'll happen is they'll be coaxed into publishing odds and adding a disclaimer. The interesting thing is, we have no evidence that many loot boxes currently have fixed odds. So yeah... a lot of moving parts.

 

[fhqwhgads]

Then the gaming industry can blame itself for not self regulating their abusive practices that target gambling addicts.

This rings so true it hurts.
Everyone's at fault here. Developers, publishers, ERSB, PEGI and gamers who feed into these dangerous practices.

 

[Mechanized]

Second to top post there, to add some discussion point.

Maybe the esrb can(should) do something first instead of letting publishers line their pockets. Then the government wouldn't have to get involved.

 

[Audioboxer]

Lol

Yeah slapping an 18 on it wouldn't even change much. FIFA is probably the one that would be effected the most going from a 3 to an 18 but everyone will still buy that anyway.

Oh I mean I can imagine EA's literal army of lawyers would be protesting/fighting the shit out of any proposed regulation changes. Like full on go to war assault of the UK's government. Hence why if anything is ever attempted it needs to be more robust than China's effort so Blizzard, EA and others can't just say "lol" and ignore you.

Merely threaten the lucrative preying of these big boys and they'll have a canary. Even if it's statistically shown people still spin the wheel on mass when they know their odds. People love gambling. The pubs fear of even losing £10k a year is enough to have them blow a gasket. How dare anyone try and make them bend the knee to transparency and regulation? They only make billions, food is struggling to make it onto tables and gamers/MPs are proposing to potentially hamstring even a bit of profit? Scandalous.

 

[nekkid]

The other thing to consider is that all games include an element of randomisation that impact your experience to some degree. Whether that’s loot boxes or embedded in AI. This is where things get tricky, because what’s the difference between handing over cash for in-game currency that can be used to access a random loot box, and handing over cash to buy DLC that involves random encounter generation, like a Horde-type game?

Where is that definite black and white boundary that regulation can control?

Speaking of the regulation, I presume that it would involve code being handed over for inspection to ensure no foul play - which sounds incredibly difficult and expensive.

 

[CookTrain]

The other thing to consider is that all games include an element of randomisation that impact your experience to some degree. Whether that’s loot boxes or embedded in AI. This is where things get tricky, because what’s the difference between handing over cash for in-game currency that can be used to access a random loot box, and handing over cash to buy DLC that involves random encounter generation, like a Horde-type game?

Where is that definite black and white boundary that regulation can control?

Speaking of the regulation, I presume that it would involve code being handed over for inspection to ensure no foul play - which sounds incredibly difficult and expensive.

While I have no doubt there are some common-sense lines that can be drawn between lootbox RNG and game RNG, I'm having a good old laugh thinking of the Binding of Isaac as a loot box with the most ambitious, interactive and slow-paced opening ever invented

 

[Audioboxer]

The other thing to consider is that all games include an element of randomisation that impact your experience to some degree. Whether that's loot boxes or embedded in AI. This is where things get tricky, because what's the difference between handing over cash for in-game currency that can be used to access a random loot box, and handing over cash to buy DLC that involves random encounter generation, like a Horde-type game?

Where is that definite black and white boundary that regulation can control?

Speaking of the regulation, I presume that it would involve code being handed over for inspection to ensure no foul play - which sounds incredibly difficult and expensive.

Incentivized loot boxes/loot containers that have items inside that you can pay money towards a CHANCE of getting. Generic enough language so that the big boys can't all change from boxes/crates to an egg which you crack open to see your prize. Actual lawyers and regulators with enough industry experience/knowledge of games could get the legal wording right so as I said above, Blizzard cannot do another China.

Don't include financial opportunities/MTs in your game? Then it's just RNG in games like it's always been. Adding MTs in later should adhere you to the same laws as those who have them at launch (displaying drop rates). Age rating if it came to that, could be tricky here, but tough, you know fine well in planning/design if you're going to add MTs. Games can be a transformative medium, but we have to adapt to that. Movies have to be re-rated for directors cuts if they add more violence/nudity/etc.

 

[Wickerbasket]

What? You lose money every time you buy a box but you never win any money :thinking:

Depends on the game. In Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike you can get items worth hundreds of pounds out of the crates, so I can definitely see that as a motivation for people gambling for them.

 

[KingBroly]

I think the least that could be done is requiring odds to be told to people.

Loot Boxes in gaming are the definition of blind purchases. You have no idea what the odds are.

 

[CookTrain]

I think the least that could be done is requiring odds to be told to people.

Loot Boxes in gaming are the definition of blind purchases. You have no idea what the odds are.

As was brought to light by the post talking about Loot Box coding practices... we can't even be sure they have fixed odds.

 

[GarthVaderUK]

At the very least they should be required to make the odds clear to the user,

 

[AmyS]

I'm not from the UK, but very happy the effort against loot boxes has gotten this far.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Will you be able to stop the government should it decide that action should go much further than your stated desire?

I can do what ifs too: Will you be able to stop publishers when whatever they come up with next makes Battlefront 2 look like horse armor in comparison?

 

[TatteredHat]

I'm not looking to see loot boxes banned or whatever and I'm not even confident that the UK government has it in them to handle this properly, but there needs to be proper regulation and transparency and I welcome attempts to move in that direction.

 

[Ahasverus]

The other thing to consider is that all games include an element of randomisation that impact your experience to some degree. Whether that’s loot boxes or embedded in AI. This is where things get tricky, because what’s the difference between handing over cash for in-game currency that can be used to access a random loot box, and handing over cash to buy DLC that involves random encounter generation, like a Horde-type game?

Where is that definite black and white boundary that regulation can control?

Fucking money? God people are so dense.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm not from the UK, but very happy the effort against loot boxes has gotten this far.

I noticed this on his tweets (besides some hate as he's challenging Brexit)

Canada GAF? I always knew Canada GAF was superior to American GAF ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[nekkid]

Fucking money? God people are so dense.

I could ask the same of you. I did mention the exchange of “fucking money” for both scenarios.

I’m not arguing against regulation (although a government-led project doesn’t exactly have me leaping for joy), I’m just trying to understand where that clear cut, unambiguous line is.

 

[Stone Ocean]

The other thing to consider is that all games include an element of randomisation that impact your experience to some degree. Whether that’s loot boxes or embedded in AI. This is where things get tricky, because what’s the difference between handing over cash for in-game currency that can be used to access a random loot box, and handing over cash to buy DLC that involves random encounter generation, like a Horde-type game?

Where is that definite black and white boundary that regulation can control?

Can you use real money/fake money bought with real money to get more RNG rolls? There's your boundary.

 

[CookTrain]

Can you use real money/fake money bought with real money to get more RNG rolls? There's your boundary.

See, I was going to suggest that as well in my prior post. The problem is laws have to be specific and what that describes would possibly include arcade games. Paying more money for another attempt at a game with RNG included. I think there would have to be some element of skill or influence of outcome addressed in the description as well.

 

[nekkid]

Can you use real money/fake money bought with real money to get more RNG rolls? There's your boundary.

Yeah, I think “finite uses” is probably the wording.

Although that then raises the questions about arcade machines that have any randomisation in the code.

^^^ heh, exactly.

 

[Ahasverus]

I could ask the same of you. I did mention the exchange of “fucking money” for both scenarios.

I’m not arguing against regulation (although a government-led project doesn’t exactly have me leaping for joy), I’m just trying to understand where that clear cut, unambiguous line is.

Because with DLC, whatever random stuff that happens, that kind of randomness is part of the game's experience, the buyer gets the product he wants as a one time purchase of something he's sure to get.

Lootboxes include paying money for no return guaranteed, and the most important part is that there is no limit to lootboxes, when game experiences are built around the consuming of lootboxes to get enjoyment out of an already prepaid product, and such propositions are permanent, and the potential spending path has no real limits while still maintaining its random nature, it puts the whole bussiness in charge of the publishers, with zero guarantee to a buyer who might as well spend more money that he has.

And the worst part is that children games use this system. Old ass adults can destroy their finances for all we care, but no government wants to have a big part of its children pool in risk of becoming addicts.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Inviting the government to regulate loot boxes sets a dangerous precedent. If it's OK to legislate that facet of gaming, what's next? You may not like where it ends up. Government regulations are like Lays potato chips, you can't stop at just one.

In the UK we call them Walkers Crisps, and we are happy to eat the entire packet because it's healthier for you than eating a whole pack of Libertarian Doritos.

 

[TyrantII]

Something does need to be done about lootboxes but I don't think they need regulated as gambling. For example how are Overwatch loot boxes any different to buying a pack of pokemon cards? It's a product I'm buying and I know that I'll get x amount of cards and what the chances are of a rare/common/holo card are. It's just luck what specific cards you get. That isn't gambling like putting money into a slot machine in the hope you'll get money back.

Any developer selling loot boxes need to give more clarity on the chances of getting specific items. I thought Blizzard had to do this in china? I'm up for that being applied to all studios in every country.

Dumb argument. You're left with physical goods you can trade / sell / repurpose.

Loot boxes are much closer to pachinko / slot machines. You pull a lever and they're designed to extract the maximum revenue from players and provide a specific payout where the house always wins.

 

[Pastry]

5 years ago the thought of government regulation on games would have had GAF in an uproar. But s business model comes along that GAF doesn’t like and suddenly everyone wants the government all up in their games. It’s a terrible idea and starts a horrible precedent for the industry.