Support NeoGAF

[CookTrain]

Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?

Are you allowed to patch a game above the rating it was given?

 

[Evilmaus]

Makes sense to me. If I were a parent, I wouldn't be comfortable with this kind of thing being marketed towards my children. Like he's said before; it's got all the same sensibilities as gambling, just not the label.

 

[GHG]

Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?

The publishers will need to disclose that when they submit the game for rating. If not then they leave themselves open to being hit with this:

...However, this and other remedies are less readily applied with respect to physical (boxed) video game products, where the ESRB enforcement system allows for the imposition of harsh sanctions (e.g., fines up to $1 million, product recall, the stickering of product throughout all retail outlets) for instances of significant or egregious content non-disclosure. Less serious violations of ESRB content disclosure guidelines can result in the assignment of points, fines, and mandated corrective actions.

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/enforcement.aspx

 

[PataHikari]

Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Wolf Akela]

Good idea. However I thought I remember recently reading about some other company skirting a rule against MTX gambling? Instead of paying for random contents, you pay for a guaranteed base and the random stuff are treated as bonuses. Like, you pay money for 1000 points and they throw your lootboxes as "bonuses".

 

[OCD Guy]

It's about making parents more aware of what their kids are exposed to. They might choose to still buy it for the child but they might prepare their child better in terms of educating them about the mechinics at play and what the child needs to be aware of.

As it stands most parents have no idea about what their kids are being exposed to in these games.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that what TotalBiscuit is proposing can only do good things. I guess even if it effects 10% of people it's done it's job.

Ultimately all of these micro transactions, which in my mind really took off on mobile games is the one thing I really wish would die completely, as opposed to being regulated.

Although being regulated is the next best thing, and hopefully will come into play.....

 

[60EffPeeEss]

You know, working PlayStation Support, I hear of cases every single day where kids have spent hundreds, sometimes thousands, on loot boxes, FIFA Points and other stuff from their parents card.

They buy them a console, they buy them the latest hot game, and think thats it. They buy PS Plus, leave their card on the account by accident and then the kid buys shitloads of these items, and there's no real daily limit to these purchases. I've had to deal with cases where the kid has spent £8000 on COD Points, and they've all been applied to their COD account, so on our end, we can't refund it.

To really get microtransactions legislated on, you need to get those mothers and fathers on side. Having the actual users of the games complain means fuck all. You need the people suffering from it.

 

[BrassDragon]

Good. The thing that infuriates me the most these past months is not the misguided defenders of microtransactions and loot crates but all those defeatists going 'eh, what can you do, business gonna business'.

This is how you push back. If publishers make bad business decisions they should suffer business consequences and regulation is the time-honoured way of doing it.

 

[Impulsor]

This could actually force some publishers to relax with these darn loot crates.

 

[Pandy]

Somebody raised this idea in a thread the other day, I forgot to reply, but I absolutely think this is a good idea.

If you have any micro-transaction that buys a random item/loot crate, or if the micro-transactions can buy currency to be used to buy random items/loot crates, then it should be marked as including gambling, and made an Adult/18 Only title.

The biggest impact would be the restrictions on where these games could be advertised in the first place. Would go a long way to de-normalising this bullshit.

 

[Crayolan]

I like the idea, but the big companies would never allow this to happen. You'd need someone with more sway than a youtuber to actually get this moving forward.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

I totally agree, what a great idea.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Are you allowed to patch a game above the rating it was given?

The publishers will need to disclose that when they submit the game for rating. If not then they leave themselves open to being hit with this:

That's probably true. Think they rather have that mark than these problems.

 

[Markitron]

I don't like TB but he's right on the money here.

 

[Daingurse]

That's fair. Parents should know that stuff upfront.

 

[KyleCross]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?

 

[Vintage]

I think lootboxes being marked as gambling is just a matter of time. Good initiative.

 

[OCD Guy]

I like the idea, but the big companies would never allow this to happen. You'd need someone with more sway than a youtuber to actually get this moving forward.

The companies themselves e.g Publishers have no say in this. They don't determine what regulations come into play. Some would likely try and appeal it, although I'd be intrigued to know what their defense would be.

However I agree that in order to get someone like the ESRB to enforce this you might need more than a Youtuber to propose it.

 

[Yohane]

Kudos TB.

 

[Dusk Golem]

Hey everyone, this is Dusk Golem aka AestheticGamer. I have posted on NeoGAF since 2011, and have decided to resign. I have enjoyed posting about horror games here for years, but I no longer wish to support the site and will be leaving for good. I will still be around the internet, I go by AestheticGamer on YouTube, I make games on Steam as Yai Gameworks, and I plan to go by Dusk Golem on other forums. I'll be joining an off-set of the GAF community leaving to try other ventures like ResetEra (Official Twitter for that here: https://twitter.com/reseteraforum ). I hope some of you who read this may consider it, and I plan to try to expose more people to horror games in the years to come. Just not here.

I hope you all are having a good day, and know I always loved the community, and in the end it's the community I'm going to stick with, not the site itself. If you want to follow me, my official Twitter is here: https://twitter.com/AestheticGamer1

 

[-shadow-]

Here's hoping it'll seriously be considered. This stuff is disgusting.

 

[Hasney]

Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?

Reduce budgets. I'm fine with smaller, less graphically impressive games with a smaller scope if the market isn't there to support them, rather than exploit gambling techniques on children.

I know, parental controls and all that, but you still see the stories about kids running up a huge bill.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.

Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.

Games are not $60. Between season passes and special editions, full games are 90 bucks in average.
And even If that is still an issue... downsize? Sell us meaningful content? Publishers chose to all in on AAA development so sorry if I don't give a shit as a customer if your games that sell 10 million copies aren't making enough money so you need to gouge people off while your profits soar to all time highs.

 

[Markitron]

Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?

Ah this train is never late. Poor publishers just trying to break even.

 

[KyleCross]

Reduce budgets. I'm fine with smaller, less graphically magical games if the market isn't there to support them.

I agree with you here. But I'm sure you can understand that doesn't solve the problem. Look at the bad PR some games have gotten for looking "ugly." The industry is between a rock and a hard place currently.

 

[Bluth54]

As long as US law doesn't consider blind boxes gambling then it's not going to happen. I doubt the US will ever pass a law making them gambling but you never know.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I think putting an auto-M rating is stupid and I disagree with the ideas of lootboxes as a direct 1-to-1 correspondence with gambling, but I wouldn't be against disclosing it's existance as well as the odds of getting each rarity tier.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?

THE $100+ VERSIONS OF GAMES STILL HAVE THE LOOTBOXES IN THEM

 

[rh1n0man]

On their face, loot boxes don't seem terribly different from TCG card packs, which have been generally acceptable for children to purchase for two decades. Are we ready to retroactively decide that Pokémon TCG booster packs should always have been 18+? If not, where should the line be drawn? That said, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with requiring developers to advertise that such a system exists as well as the drop rates.

 

[OCD Guy]

I agree with you here. But I'm sure you can understand that doesn't solve the problem.

What problem exactly?

I honestly wasn't aware that without micro transactions, developers and publishers were making no money and operating at a loss. That's what you're saying here right? If games were sold at $60 with no additional micro transactions then developing and publishing games would not be sustainable.

You honestly believe if Fifa games had no packs that EA would lose money? Nah I'm not buying it, all packs do is make them even more money....

 

[Alo0oy]

Not to shit up the thread, but I think giving people like him clicks is much more dangereous than microtransactions.

As for the idea itself, I think if a game has microtransactions, putting that information in the box/game page should be mandatory.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This stuff is locked behind parental controls right? You can't make any purchases if they set the system up right.

So I don't think an automatic 17/18+ rating is needed. But more clarity about them being in games would be good. Just like app stores are doing.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Take a game like Fifa for example with pack opening being nothing more than glorified gambling, you think if it suddenly had an 18 rating little Jimmy's parents still wouldn't buy it for him?

It'll make them do a double-take for sure. And if Pro Evolution Soccer, for example, had a '3' rating, then that might be enough to swing it.

This stuff is locked behind parental controls right? You can't make any purchases if they set the system up right.

So I don't think an automatic 17/18+ rating is needed. But more clarity about them being in games would be good. Just like app stores are doing.

A kid can buy a PSN or XBL £10 card and buy lootboxes on FIFA with credit. We don't let kids into casinos just because they have the cash.

 

[Rodelero]

Not a bad idea... a far more productive idea than most seem to have on how to deal with this trend... It's only a start though. These are the three key changes I want to see that would really have to come from the government level:

1) The odds of getting specific items from a given box should be easily discoverable. Ideally these should be listed within the game but also perhaps at a central website to aid parents in purchasing decisions.

2) The odds from a given box shouldn't change without it being clearly explained. Developers must not be allowed, as an example, to make sure you get something good from your first box as this warps one's expectations in future.

3) Games must allow users to ban themselves from purchasing boxes (for a period of time or indefinitely) in much the same way that you can ban yourself from gambling on online betting sites. This could be handled on a game level or on a system level.

 

[jabuseika]

Yup. These loot boxes are disgusting.

Raising a new generation of suckers.

At least you should be old enough to understand that there's very little value in loot boxes. And that you should only buy them responsibly.

How many kids are going to max out their parents card, because the guy on the other team can do more damage than him, so they also wants to be on an even playing field.

 

[Human Trashcan]

I hate TB's guts but even a broken clock is right twice a day. It is gambling and it should be regulated.

 

[ExoSoul]

You never hear about kids spending thousands of dollars accidently on their parent's iPad

You do hear about this.

You know what they say: a broken clock is forever bad, but a delayed one is right twice a day.

TotalBiscuit, I would sign this petition.

Just a warning, you're using that saying wrong. A watch that's delayed is always off-time while one that's broken (handles don't move) points the correct time twice per day.

 

[panda-zebra]

Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.

Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.

As if the only viable route to producing money-making games is a binary $100 price tag or the filthy, insidious, scumcuntery of sliding gambling in there with little in the way of awareness-raising or regulation.

Exposing people to gambling at such impressionable ages is setting a subset of them up for a lifetime of debt and sorrow. It has to stop.

 

[CookTrain]

3) Games must allow users to ban themselves from purchasing boxes (for a period of time or indefinitely) in much the same way that you can ban yourself from gambling on online betting sites.

That's a really, really interesting proposal.

 

[Majine]

Absolutely fair.

You're a publisher and want gambling-like mechanics in your games? Well, then we'll treat you according to gambling.

 

[Crayolan]

The companies themselves e.g Publishers have no say in this. They don't determine what regulations come into play. Some would likely try and appeal it, although I'd be intrigued to know what their defense would be.

However I agree that in order to get someone like the ESRB to enforce this you might need more than a Youtuber to propose it.

The ESRB is a government entity, isn't it? Business interests hold a lot of influence in government, and I'm sure if this was ever seriously considered most big publishers would fight it.

 

[Yoshi]

Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?

What's the current procedure if a pub was to patch in gore into their E rated game? I guess it does not matter on consoles either way, because console vendors will forbid any updates that affect the age rating.

 

[jdstorm]

Government regulation over games that has loot boxes would set a bad precedent

Why?

 

[rochellepaws]

Very sensible idea. There's little question that the model of lootboxes and microtransactions with an element of chance have a predatory element which appeal to the same senses as gambling.

 

[Rmagnus]

What's the current procedure if a pub was to patch in gore into their E rated game? I guess it does not matter on consoles either way, because console vendors will forbid any updates that affect the age rating.

We have currently users of gaf fighting it already. I think it's a lost cause.

 

[2+2=5]

What people don't think of when it comes to loot boxes is that they are a real lottery and put videogames in the dangerous position of gambling, there's a real risk that soon videogames will be restricted by gambling laws because of them.

 

[Goodacre0081]

Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.

Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.

ok, $100 games. i'm fine with that but how long until the lootbox problem creeps back in at those prices? one or two years at most before the likes of EA start to miss the absurd amounts of cash they're getting today.

 

[CookTrain]

What people don't think of when it comes to loot boxes is that they are a real lottery and put videogames in the dangerous position of gambling, there's a real risk that soon videogames will be restricted by gambling laws because of them.

I've seen people speak saying that blind-buy boxes skirt it by guaranteeing you "something" instead of nothing, like most gambling.

I can't see how casinos and such wouldn't be able to skirt the law with guaranteeing a penny back on a loss, if it was that simple.

 

[PuppetMaster]

My understanding is the ESRB was created by and is funded by publishers and major developers to protect themselves and thier interests...

It was not ever intended to protect consumers.

I think he is barking up the wrong tree. He needs to target consumer rights groups.

 

[El-Suave]

Would that change anything? The whole microtransaction/lootbox dilemma needs different regulation, not just a sticker nobody pays attention to anyway. Our best bet seems to be the EU in my opinion. If they forced it to become more consumer friendly and less exploitative that might help.