Support NeoGAF

[Wink]

I'd like it to go a step further and introduce a subtier of the rating that visibly states it includes real money gambling mechanics similar to the other codewords like violence or sexual themes, maybe even more eyecatching, like a pair of dice symbol next to the rating.
I'm not usually a fan of too much regulation, but this needs extra attention and awareness.

 

[Alienfan]

Nice idea in theory, but unless the legal definition of gambling also changes to cover arcade / claw machines, I don't see a 18+ rating ever happening. No reason why microtransactions can't be included in the ratings description though

 

[PuppetMaster]

I see a role for the European Commission here as well.

Is is not the same thing. ESRB is a privately funded non govenment org.

 

[Eumi]

Do it.

Predatory tactics designed to manipulate children into spending money before they really understand the value of it are far worse than seeing a boob in your game.

 

[Azure Phoenix]

I agree with that idea completely, and it would also be hilarious to see the likes of Fifa change from a 3+ rating to a 16+ or 18+ rating. Maybe once parents see that they'd actually question why. Sadly I think short of a huge movement or government pressure it won't happen, publishers are going to push back with everything they've got.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Gambling argument aside, I would like to see something as simple as "This game includes Micro transactions".

 

[lazygecko]

Good idea in theory but it won't have much effect.

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?

My personal opinion is that loot crates and all of these glorified gambling transactions in games is going to blow up really badly and go away......

It's more about the ripple effect it would cause in the industry. Publishers care a lot about ESRB ratings because major retailers like Walmart will not sell R-rated games on public shelves.

In an age where brick & mortar is rapidly losing ground to digital distribution though, that kind of dynamic is disappearing as well.

Nice idea in theory, but unless the legal definition of gambling also changes to cover arcade / claw machines, I don't see a 18+ rating ever happening. No reason why microtransactions can't be included in the ratings description though

Gaming has historically been collateral damage in gambling-related legislation in a lot of countries.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Someone should the same for PEGI in Europe. They even have a gambling icon but they're not using it because of their fucked up rating criterias.

 

[Doikor]

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.

No it isn't. It's an industry self-regulatory organization. Created in the explicit purpose of not wanting to be regulated by the government (same as MPAA for movies)

Thankfully ESBR is doing a much better job then MPAA. Most of their rating reasonings are based on actual research/science instead of crazy christians enforcing their believes on everyone.

 

[liquidtmd]

Theoretically based on the title, I'm all in

Will watch video when I get time shortly

 

[InquisitorAles]

They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs.

That doesn't mean it's okay to lure kids into buying lootboxes. And this doesn't affect current ratings for those games since most of them already have Mature rating, it's not like MT criteria will put them in AO territory.

 

[Rmagnus]

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.

Please go ahead and price your games at 100 bucks. Please do. If your game is good enough to justify 100 bucks I am sure it will work but it's crap your game will bomb so hard maybe it's time to rethink how you develop your games

 

[le.phat]

I wonder how we can help him to spread the awareness. Maybe we should start a list of agency's, links, email addresses etc. where we can voice our concern to?

 

[Crayolan]

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.

No it isn't. It's an industry self-regulatory organization. Created in the explicit purpose of not wanting to be regulated by the government (same as MPAA for movies)

So basically, unless the government is ever on the gaming industry's ass again, nothing is happening.

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

Yup. Jim said it best, publishers need to calm the fuck down with these for self preservation, because otherwise they will eventually go too far and if the goverment ends up stepping in its not gonna be pretty.

 

[PuppetMaster]

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

Absolutly agree. This will be the death of this industry. Some people don't know what a pandoras box this will be.

Also the ESRB is not a government org.

 

[rochellepaws]

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.

It wouldn't be viable for a game aimed at children especially to carry a 17+ rating, I don't think such a warning would be meaningless to parents on the box of a plants vs zombies game or minecraft for example. It would also prevent the current practice of patching in lootboxes and cash cards a few weeks after reviews have completed since these things would likely need to be declared in advance as part of the rating process.
More information to inform the consumer is always a good thing, I don't agree with "they won't look at it anyway" as a reason not to inform those who will.

 

[test_account]

I cant watch the video right now, but does he give any more specific reasons regarding the comparison to gambling and gambling laws? There was a thread here on NeoGAF not that long ago, suggesting basically the same thing that its about gambling, but that thread was closed because it didnt give any specific arguements up to gambling laws.

 

[jelly]

They need to be specific as well, don't let publishers get away with game space bucks not being real money so it doesn't count. This needs to be sorted asap. It's shameful on mobile as well. Kids, teenagers should not be getting moulded into gamblers, they are at a impressionable age and their brain is still developing, your lying if you don't think the manipulation by publishers is a very bad thing.

.

 

[Azusa]

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.

In most Japanese mobile games you have to type in your date of birth and the game will set a monthly limit if you arent old enough. Only if you are adult you can spend unlimited.

 

[JPS Kai]

Gambling argument aside, I would like to see something as simple as "This game includes Micro transactions".

It took years for Google Play to change games that were free with IAP

To quote Eurogamer:

"Google has decided on a number of changes," the EU Commission explained in a new statement. "Implementation is underway and will be completed by the end of September 2014. These include not using the word 'free' at all when games contain in-app purchases, developing targeted guidelines for its app developers to prevent direct exhortation to children as defined under EU law and time-framed measures to help monitor apparent breaches of EU consumer laws. It has also adapted its default settings, so that payments are authorised prior to every in-app purchase, unless the consumer actively chooses to modify these settings."

Something similar could just as easily be added to retail games with microtransactions, but you'd have to set up criteria to differentiate. Would it include games with $3 costumes? Experience doublers? Additional characters?

 

[rochellepaws]

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.

All the good games don't even lootboxes or microtransactions in them anyway. I think it would be an hilarious outcome if we reached a stage where masterpieces like Persona 5 or Breath of the Wild were being sold for $60 and yearly pushed out garbage like the latest Call of Duty or Assassins Creed game or whatever licensed trash WB are churning out based on the same combat system for the 7th time are going for $100. It would certainly provide an incentive for consumers to upgrade their gaming habits to better games on the basis of price and leave the greedy, exploitative games to the past.

 

[Drackhorn]

Is is not the same thing. ESRB is a privately funded non govenment org.

I know it's different but IF the EU would decide to really address this matter this could have a bigger effect. Lets hope they will.

 

[le.phat]

Absolutly agree. This will be the death of this industry. Some people don't know what a pandoras box this will be.

Also the ESRB is not a government org.

I think we all agree that the industry is playing with fire here, but it's good to remember that the publishers are holding the matches, not the consumers.

 

[Blyr]

ESRB should definitely step in and add this to their ratings guide, before the govt does it for them

It's the entire reason the ESRB exists to begin with, to regulate and label games so the govt wouldn't get involved, and I think that's the right approach (a private entity that understands and can give a general guideline for the products as opposed to the government who are typically out of touch taking broad actions that wouldn't fit with, or would have significant negative impacts on gaming)

 

[hotcyder]

Not a fan of Totalbiscuit but this idea isn't bad.

 

[PuppetMaster]

I think we all agree that the industry is playing with fire here, but it's good to remember that the publishers are holding the matches, not the consumers.

Then you let people vote withe their wallets. And let the Free Market decide.

If this trend is not something consumers want, it will die on its own.

Government is completely unneeded here. And potentially a very unwanted influence.

 

[Lain]

I don't like TB but this idea has merit.

 

[Deja]

I think the idea behind it is great. I see comments saying “well their parents will still buy the games for them”, and this is true. I think the point is that publishers aren’t going to want their sports titles and such to carry 18/Mature ratings because of a loot box. I hope it would force their hand to stop such bullshit. We will see.

 

[jabuseika]

Gambling argument aside, I would like to see something as simple as "This game includes Micro transactions".

Just a, "additional charges may apply for a premium experience".

Let's be honest, if the game has loot boxes. They probably designed the game so you have to spend money to enjoy it. Otherwise you get grinding and a "standard" experience.

 

[Danneee]

A big ass sticker on the cover proclaiming in game gambling with real world money and if they patch in loot boxes or the like later they should have to pull the game and go through every certification again.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

So by this rationale aren't Kinder surprises like gambling? Or collecting football/baseball cards?

 

[fhqwhgads]

If developers and publishers aren't going to change, it'll absolutely need to be done. Gambling in games aimed at teens and kids should never be tolerated and if gaming needs to have restrictions and regulations the same as gambling does to stop it, then so be it. If it happens, developers and publishers have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[CSJ]

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.

The annual profit alone from a lot of these publishers doesn't really make me believe that in the fucking slightest. It's greed. Prices don't have to go up like that, they just now expect to make more or it's a failure.

 

[Lilalaunebaer]

I´m all for it. And i want government regulations too. It´s gambling.

And yes, part of it is that i personally hate them and just want them gone. If that is the way, good. Buuuuuuuuut, they will have to charge 100+€ for a game. Try it. Go ahead, i wanna see them try.

 

[PsionBolt]

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.

As someone who loves Magic and the Pokemon TCG, I am hesitant about this angle from a personal investment perspective (as in, I don't want these things to go away, because I like them) -- but this problem is bigger and more important than my personal taste.

It would be a harsh blow to physical booster packs if this treatment extended to them, no doubt. However, regulations aren't made that way; if video game gambling was cracked down on by the ESRB or similar parties, paper card companies would have time to react before they were cornered by legislation or other regulations. It would be tough for them, but I believe they could survive a shift to alternate distribution models. Pre-built decks are already a major focus for casual players, for one; they could also look to the model used by "living card games" as a way to distribute whole new expansions. Limited formats, which rely heavily on booster packs, would be the most difficult to maintain; I honestly can't think of a better model right now than simply moving boosters out of Wal-Mart and keeping them in local game stores, allowing limited to continue to exist for those most interested in it while unfortunately taking it away from younger players. That would suck, a lot, but it might be necessary... You can't give legal exceptions just because Magic is an awesome, way-less-predatory game, unfortunately.

I'm sure Wizards and the Pokemon Company are thinking about things like this already. I have faith that they could survive, even if it would pain my heart to see them take a hit.

 

[Steroyd]

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

And thanks to that apps can no longer be sold as "free" and need to have the "in app purchases" tab.

A light needs to be shone on this bullshit.

 

[Danneee]

So by this rationale aren't Kinder surprises like gambling? Or collecting football/baseball cards?

If all loot boxes and player packs were sold as physical codes in stores only, sure, it would be kind of comparable.
But that’s not the case right now.

 

[Seyfert]

it really should be. Very good idea. But maybe write it to cover "play around the rule" like blizzard in China would be great. and should be anything in general not limited to box but any purchase that result in random outcome.

And if the game happened to patch it in later, it must go through the process again.

 

[Thorgal]

Then you let people vote withe their wallets. And let the Free Market decide.

If this trend is not something consumers want, it will die on its own.

Government is completely unneeded here. And potentially a very unwanted influence.

.

Let the market have what the market wants.

 

[MikeBison]

The problem is game ratings don't work as it is.

How many little dweebs are all over YouTube and twitch playing GTA and COD far younger than they should be? Not that I have a problem with it, my parents never vetted what I played or watched and I appreciate it.

I think a better idea is some kind of labelling or signifier on the box that the game contains these kind of Michael transactions. All for putting more info out for people to make informed decisions.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I, for one, think it's a reasonable idea.

Makes sense to me. Games have been given a pass for far too long on this one.

 

[PuppetMaster]

I am not saying disclaimers on boxes is a bad idea. But I think the only sane way to get these disclaimers on the box is to get the platform owners to mandate it.

And all the major platform owners including Valve are currently very pro-loot-box.

 

[Wink]

It's actually such a good idea that I, despite not being a big Youtuber, have just written feedback to the german and european equivalent of the ESRB in the hope they get enough of these kinds of messages to consider including these practices impact on consumers, especially younger ones, into their rating process.

 

[jabuseika]

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.

You really think Nintendo is going to put out a $100 Zelda game. How about Naughty Dog?

After season passes, pre order tiers, collectors editions, retail exclusive dlc, micro transactions, marketing deals, overseas tax deductibles, and loot boxes? Do you really think, when releasing a Star Wars game, that will sell like gangbusters just by the name alone. That EA is hurting in money? Or is it just pure fucking greed.

 

[Steroyd]

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.

At least with TCG there's the trading aspect of it, which gives you a degree of control of getting what you want, I guess this is why Fifa Ultimate Team was able to, for the most part stay under the radar because it is possible for you to get that Ronaldo card for a price if you want one.

 

[Eumi]

The problem is game ratings don't work as it is.

How many little dweebs are all over YouTube and twitch playing GTA and COD far younger than they should be? Not that I have a problem with it, my parents never vetted what I played or watched and I appreciate it.

I think a better idea is some kind of labelling or signifier on the box that the game contains these kind of Michael transactions. All for putting more info out for people to make informed decisions.

A lot of parents do in fact care about what their kids are playing, and don’t buy them games they think would be bad for them. Your perception is warped because you only see the kids who are playing 18 rated games.

A lot of parents are going to start paying attention if that football game they buy for their kids birthday every year suddenly has a big red sticker saying ‘18+ only’ on it.

 

[nynt9]

I'm surprised the anti-TB force hasn't come out considering there are a lot of posters on gaf who seem to disagree with him regardless of whatever hes doing.

That being said, even though I don't particularly hate microtransactions as a whole, classifying them in consumer ratings seems reasonable. The only question is how granular do we want to be about it? Do we distinguish between types of microtransactions? Like is a one time direct purchase of a known item the same thing as a blind pay2win loot box? How about blind loot boxes for irrelevant cosmetics? Direct purchases but the site is only available for a certain time? Consumables/boosters? Mini-DLC?

 

[SmartWaffles]

This is very reasonable.

 

[forms]

This is quite correct, micro transactions in the way loot boxes are implemented should most certainly be branded as some sort of gambling. Those games that offer the possibility to sell your won items for cash should definitely be marked as gambling.