What regulation exists for lootboxes outside of China?
Sadly the only real regulation employed is that if you pay for one, you get one.
What regulation exists for lootboxes outside of China?
What regulation exists for lootboxes outside of China?
What's your barometer? I think a petition that passes the required amount of signatures for parliament to at least acknowledge it isn't too shabby. Not to mention a MP taking reasonable questions to the Government themselves.
So what is your desired outcome?
That the UK rejects IARC, and establishes a new governmental regulatory body that has oversight over all videogames availability in the UK, and which - by necessity - includes rejecting titles entirely that they do not feel are appropriate for sale in the UK?
Reasonable people are discussing this. None, or very few of which are even hinting that they want games banned.
That videogame content is made transparent to parents regarding content by a coalition of independent industry regulators such as PEGI, ESRB, USK, across specific criteria applied at a regional level.
And lootboxes are not gambling, and do not fall under existing local gambling regulations as a result..
So what is your desired outcome?
That the UK rejects IARC, and establishes a new governmental regulatory body that has oversight over all videogames availability in the UK, and which - by necessity - includes rejecting titles entirely that they do not feel are appropriate for sale in the UK?
UK does that already.
They are regulated like any other game content is regulated.So to be clear, zero regulations for Lootboxes, yes?
Lies. The anti-lootbox crowd have been demanding a total ban of them from all governments for the past fortnight.We did not ask for this.
Part of Nut Labour's Infinite Money For Infinite Numbers Of New Jobs scheme I gather.
That videogame content is made transparent to parents regarding content by a coalition of independent industry regulators such as PEGI, ESRB, USK, across specific criteria applied at a regional level.
And lootboxes are not gambling, and do not fall under existing local gambling regulations as a result..
So what is your desired outcome?
That the UK rejects IARC, and establishes a new governmental regulatory body that has oversight over all videogames availability in the UK, and which - by necessity - includes rejecting titles entirely that they do not feel are appropriate for sale in the UK?
Lies, the anti-lootbox crowd have been demanding a total ban of them from all governments for the past fortnight.
Because we all know that old people in government always think reasonably about video games.
I hope you're right, and that there's nothing to worry about. Guess we will find out.
I don't want government involved in my games. Im smart enough too not buy lot crates.
Blizzard probably does stuff that range from constantly A/B testing odds to using algorithms to tailor the odds for each individual player on each draw based on player behavior, so a simple drop chance table wouldn't cut it and they don't want players to be privy to such information.Fantastic. This is definitely one of those things that's only given free reign because nobody with any responsibility knows what it is.
It bears repeating, why did Blizzard go out of their way to not reveal probabilities/loot odds in China? Legally, they were supposed to, but it was a better idea for them to find and utilize a loophole than to simply let the odds be publicized.
How is that not weird to everyone?
I've said a million times what my desired outcome is. Something like China where publishers and developers must display the odds of winning in some form of breakdown.
I don't want government involved in my games. Im smart enough too not buy lot crates.
Okay.
So: deep breath, think this through;
your best case scenario is - due to hypothetical UK regulation - all games companies that provide lootboxes in their games... what, treat digital goods the same as physical goods as per the Isle Of Man, by request of the OP, and things like being scammed in an MMO or account hijacking becomes the equivalent of real world fraud?
Selling CD Keys from grey market sources becomes the same as illegal importation of goods and customs evasion?
Any digital items owned have a real world value, and are subject to things like capital gains taxation, and affect income tax personal allowance?
Or, because the UK introduces it, every publisher in the world follows suit voluntarily? Or that plucky Britain leads the way, and every other countries legislature follows suit?
Or are we saying the UK enacts some regulations, and the UK being not-China, games either make a special UK-only edition of games, or just skip the UK entirely?
I mean, "I wish the UK was more like China" is quite the statement.
We already have our poor mans great firewall and we're working on allowing governmental backdoors into citizens communications.
Video game consumers in the UK spent £4.332bn on their hobby in 2016.
This is part of UKIE's Market Valuation Project, in collaboration with GamesIndustry.biz. The figure combines data from GfK (physical games and hardware), SuperData (digital, mobile and VR hardware), Kantar (pre-owned), Nielsen (books), Official Charts Company (soundtrack and movies), NPD (toys) and UKIE estimates (events).
That £4.332bn figure is 1.2% higher than the year before, when the market value was £4.28bn (revised figure from the originally announced £4.193bn).
There were certain key areas that drove this growth, and these can primarily be found in the digital space. However, physical remains a significant area of the business and accounted for almost 50% of all the revenue generated from games and games-related items in the UK last year.
The UK gaming industry is growing exponentially. Last year was a record year for both the monetary value of the UK gaming market (£4.33bn) and its impact on other sectors, such as films and merchandising (£100.5m).
And it's not yet finished its growth spurt; estimates from PwC suggest that by 2021, the UK market will be worth £5.2bn, growing at a rate of 6.7pc, making it Europe's largest market and the fifth largest in the world.
I'd like to see games skip the UK entirely over damn drop rates regulation.
I don't think this newfound fear of them taking your games away is very well founded in reality.
If you think having to do this, for video games, means developers and publishers all skip the UK entirely with those numbers I posted above I'd like a months supply of what you're smoking.
That is the level of hysteria you are going to? Just having to show drop rates of these boxes means skipping a £5 billion industry?
I never made that claim.
And my responses to you have been respectful and dispassionate.
You really could try to be a little more pleasant and respectful of others.
Your argument is the same as saying "Why wouldn't all games replace human enemies with robots or zombies to comply with stricter German (a bigger market than the UK) regulations?" or "Why wouldn't all games provide UK English in addition to US English for all text?".
Because the UK is best case scenario 10% of revenue, tops.
Do western games skip being released in Japan (another much bigger individual market) entirely due to cultural differences?
I will say this, if they would be willing to skip the UK rather than publishing loot box odds... that should make people very, very suspicious.
So you're admitting to actually thinking games will skip the UK if the drop rates are required to be listed? You should go away and think about that if so, as that itself should tell you why others think this is a preying industry if left as is.
No.
I am saying that if UK specific regulations come into place that forbid the sale in the UK without meeting them, it will necessarily lead to certain games being unable to be sold in the UK on purely investment : return grounds.
Like... why would you honestly think otherwise?
The only scenario it wouldnt is if multiple territories adopt similar legislations, or publishers voluntarily move to providing such data.
This is also under your literal wish fulfillment best case scenario where governmental scrutiny of the videogames market comes only to the conclusion that the only things the governement would like to see different in videogames is adding drop rate percentiles.
And any reason for that would be a developer or publisher CHOOSING not to comply.
No, you would be not going an extra mile to appease one single markets additional requirements.
Which companies do literally all of the time.
Like... the UK has weirdly specific (and weirdly sexist) pornography legislations, and pornography that includes such activities just doesn't get released in the UK.
Blizzard aren't known as "That shady company that doesnt provide drop rates in china because they use a complicated equation to dynamically modify variables based on a myriad of factors".
They're "That company that make videogames that sell insanely well globally".
So you're admitting to actually thinking games will skip the UK if the drop rates are required to be listed?
No.
I am saying that if UK specific regulations come into place that forbid the sale in the UK without meeting them, it will necessarily lead to certain games being unable to be sold in the UK on purely investment : return grounds.
So... you are admitting that. Just phrasing it in a way wherein publishers are left forced to not sell games in the UK due to regulation, whereas they could easily still be sold if they simply followed said regulation - one that is simply about transparency for customers - you're saying it like that, rather than noting how poor a practice these publishers are adopting if they value loot crates over a sustained £5 billion market.
I would be absolutely gobsmacked (though delighted) if the UK moved to regulate loot boxes. Ironically, this is precisely the kind of legislation they should be pursuing to keep people safe on the internet, something the Conservative government talks about frequently, but they only tend to do so when trying to snoop on more of our private data and personal information.
I do think people need to slightly readjust their expectations though. If anything has been made clear over the last few weeks it's that loot crates are massively unpopular on NeoGAF, but realistically regulating loot crates isn't going to see them disappear. Addicts may be safer, children might be safer, companies will probably see revenues drop, but the concept of the loot crate wouldn't go anywhere, nor would the concept of pay to win games, et cetera. There are two separate debates at play here. Loot crates can harm people, and that's where the government comes in. Loot crates can also harm games though, and government can't, won't, and shouldn't help with that.
I'm saying that adding additional legislative requirements to a single market in any industry leads to a reduction in imports in that industry, which is a banal truism.
I do think people need to slightly readjust their expectations though. If anything has been made clear over the last few weeks it's that loot crates are massively unpopular on NeoGAF, but realistically regulating loot crates isn't going to see them disappear.
Okay, but given how menial the legislative requirement is (still entirely hypothetical at this stage, but I'm arguing under the assumption that said legislation requires the revelation of drop rates) with regards to the publisher's and developer's requirements for getting a game released in the UK (they know their own drop rates), why should we be concerned they leave us?
Lets be honest here. The least we're going to say is an official one liner about how PEGI takes into consideration any kind of gambling in their evaluation of games. The most we'll see is some kind of small print on the odds of loot crate content dropping. That small print is hardly going to put a dent into the sales of those products.
This is utterly small fry in terms of the issues this country has to deal with, especially with Brexit going on. The fact only 10,000 people have signed that petition says it all.
I'm saying that adding additional legislative requirements to a single market in any industry leads to a reduction in imports in that market, which is a banal truism.
Lets be honest here. The least we're going to say is an official one liner about how PEGI takes into consideration any kind of gambling in their evaluation of games. The most we'll see is some kind of small print on the odds of loot crate content dropping. That small print is hardly going to put a dent into the sales of those products.
This is utterly small fry in terms of the issues this country has to deal with, especially with Brexit going on. The fact only 10,000 people have signed that petition says it all.
In markets where Lootboxes are just a staple of monetisation, improvements come about via market forces, because people would rather play a game where these things are better signposted than where they are black boxes.
e:
Its not menial. Its extra work. Unless they can just say "and heres a weblink to our Excel spreadsheet formulas, now fuck off"
Might as well figure out lootboxes, cause you sure as fuck aren't doing anything about brexit.
This is utterly small fry in terms of the issues this country has to deal with, especially with Brexit going on. The fact only 10,000 people have signed that petition says it all.
Is that your answer to my question above about why you fear loot box drop rates would stop games being released in the UK? Or do you not want to go on record with your personal opinion as to why drop rates would upset pubs/devs soo badly they'd stop selling games in the UK?
I'll ask again, why should we be concerned they leave us over this legislation?
I honestly don't expect loot crates to go anywhere, but I think more can be done to keep people informed and make informed decisions for if they want to play games that include them. I don't expect any of these to be implemented but I've been considering some rough ideas for legislation:
1) Implementations of lootcrates and other pseudo-gambling systems to be included as part of PEGI / ESRB / USK / CERO ratings system. ”This game contains psuedo-gambling elements" / ”This game contains mechanics designed to induce addictive behaviours" - idk, the exact wording can be debated but something along those lines. Perhaps separate definitions for:
- simple RNG mechanisms (random chance to receive an item) akin to CCG packs? (This gets the first warning)
- stronger language / rating for systems intrinsically designed to encourage behaviour? (This would get both warnings)
2) Inclusion will automatically raise the rating of your game. I'm not one of those people who think it should make your game AO but I definitely think Overwatch getting by with a ”12" is too low under proposed scheme. Kids shouldn't be exposed to this stuff at all. If you as a parent want to allow this and think your children can deal with the behavioural psych targeting, then that's up to you. (Yes I can hear the CCG fans groaning)
3) Inclusion of pseudo gambling systems at a later date will require a recertification of your game. This is to deincentivise publishers who like to launch without this stuff to evade it showing in reviews and add them in later.
4) Drop rates for all items must be clearly and easily available for access both in-game and on a company's website. I don't just mean:
- ”bronze items have a 20-30% drop rate"
- ”silver items have a 8-13% drop rate"
- ”gold items have a 0.01-0.7% drop rate"
...I mean you need to be able to go to a page online, and a menu item in-game (like if you want to re-watch credits) and see that ”Mjolnir hammer, Son-of-Odin Limited Winter Exclusive Edition™" is a 0.01% drop. I understand that UI space is at a premium while playing a game and the more general figures may occur there but the full figures must always be disclosed, easily available, and updated whenever the rates are updated.
5) Drop rates must be consistent across all territories a game is available in. No lowering the odds in specific regions except for testing & diagnostic reasons. Eg, right now there are several games that we think we know the rates of because disclosure is required in China. But what is stopping a publisher from improving the rates in regions they are required to disclose in, but lowering them elsewhere?
6) If crate systems can be obtained with real money currency directly, or an intermediary current obtained with real money the game is required to disclose a running total of how much a player has spent. This must be shown both at time of purchase and available for later viewing via a menu item (similar to if a player wishes to re-watch credits).
7) Parental options to limit or block purchases should be implemented by both platform vendors and publishers for best practice. They have collaborated in order to enable these systems — it would not be an undue burden on either side to collaborate to provide monitoring mechanisms. Ideally a global option for blocking with an opt-in system per game to control limits. Eg you can allow a player to limit themselves to say £5/$5 a month increments or something. (I can already see publishers adjusting pricing to get to Incentivise you to go beyond that though).
Anyways those are just some rough ideas. I'm sure you guys can come up with better ones. I'd rather publishers toned this stuff down in the first place but if these systems aren't going to go away, we can at least encourage some more responsibility from publishers on them — as well as ask for some tools to better protect ourselves from their effects.
Literally the best case scenario for people that want the government to "Do Something For The Children" is going to be a new Byron Report, which was also a nothing burger
e:
Because in your head canon, lootboxes are gambling, so getting additional legislation involved to scutinise that one specific aspect of videogames - and nothing more - will be what happens, and For The Greater Good.
But the reality of politics is that as dog-with-a-bone as you are about lootboxes, there are others who are just as dog-with-a-bone about videogame violence, and about British Identity, and Moral Standards, and Why Don't Kids Today Climb More Trees? and when you start drafting a bill whose aim is specifically to state that existing viodegame legislation does not go far enough, all kinds of special interests will start jumping in on that bill, who would also like to see much further reaching governemental controls over what videogames 'should be', what they consist of, and who should have access to them
The level of governmental oversight of videogames right now is pretty good.
It could be better, It could be vastly worse.
Literally the best case scenario for people that want the government to "Do Something For The Children" is going to be a new Byron Report, which was also a nothing burger
e:
Because in your head canon, lootboxes are gambling, so getting additional legislation involved to scutinise that one specific aspect of videogames - and nothing more - will be what happens, and For The Greater Good.
But the reality of politics is that as dog-with-a-bone as you are about lootboxes, there are others who are just as dog-with-a-bone about videogame violence, and about British Identity, and Moral Standards, and Why Don't Kids Today Climb More Trees? and when you start drafting a bill whose aim is specifically to state that existing viodegame legislation does not go far enough, all kinds of special interests will start jumping in on that bill, who would also like to see much further reaching governemental controls over what videogames 'should be', what they consist of, and who should have access to them
The level of governmental oversight of videogames right now is pretty good.
It could be better, It could be vastly worse.
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.
I mean people asked on the ESRB thread for games with lootboxes to literally be banned by having a AO+ rating. (none of the console providers accept AO games)
If Call of Duty and Fifa got rated as AO because of loot boxes you can guarantee that policy will change literally overnight.I mean people asked on the ESRB thread for games with lootboxes to literally be banned by having a AO+ rating. (none of the console providers accept AO games)
For me personally, I'm happy enough if they do not get classed as gambling. I can live with that distinction in the law saying as it's not actual money being waged on, so it's not going to satisfy current gambling definitions
For a third time, why should we be concerned they leave us due to these regulations?
I'm asking you to describe to me why the hypothetical situation you put forwards that these publishers are forced to not sell certain games in the UK as it breaches our legislation should concern us.
Have you ever had a job where one customer makes you fill out a bunch of paperwork that has to be vetted by a lawyer who is a specialist in that particular field, versus one where you just do the job you usually do?
Even if this hypothetical legislation literally does only the one thing you want and touches nothing else, there will be games that just skip the jump;ing through hoops entirely, and with digital purchases that is as simple as a "This game is not available in your region" checkbox on submission.
Like.... why is there any doubt that that would happen at all?