Just another reason to pull the plug on Brexit: Belgium’s Gaming Commission has declared loot boxes to be a form of gambling – and it wants to ban them across Europe. News comes courtesy of VTM (via PC Gamer), with the verdict of a recent investigation determining that loot boxes are indeed a form of gambling, and “mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child”.
The report continues that, while it doesn’t necessarily have a problem with in-app purchase where players know exactly what they’re getting, it wants to ban those with a random element. And it’s not just speaking about Belgium either: it wants to prohibit the sale of loot boxes across Europe. Of course, the EU is notoriously slow when it comes to things like this – or so Nigel Farage likes to tell us – so we could be waiting a while for this story to get really juicy.
[source nieuws.vtm.be, via pcgamer.com]
Comments 123
Are they going to ban baseball cards and sticker packs as well?
Yes finally. I have always been fine with microtransactions especially cosmetic one's cause u know what you are getting and it doesn't alter gameplay but loot boxes always rubbed me the wrong way.
Ultimately, this will go nowhere.
Hopefully this is just the beginning, if publishers really want MTX then at least us buy the thing we actually want. Would have loved some of the skins in the Overwatch Halloween event but didn't get them because you have to rely on RNG all the time and those skins don't become available for another year again.
@Tasuki Except those don't give out competitive advantages for those willing to pay for it.
Thing is, they are completely right; and its a complete and utter nonsense and a farce that wr have got ourselves into this position. As hateful as microtransactions are, at least you knew what you were buying. Loot boxes are just laughable and and insult to gamers everywhere.
I understand that the cost of development is increasing ; but there has to be a better way to make money than loot boxes. Hopefully the furore over Battlefront 2 will lead many devs to sit up and take notice and remove these awful practices, even before the ECJ is called on to get involved
@adf86 @Tasuki He does have a point, though. The contents of a sticker pack are equally random, yet they're marketed at children.
I guess the counter-point to that is that a sticker has inherent value, so can be traded or even potentially sold.
@get2sammyb This is a different media though with different expectations and ultimately people are fed up of the greedy publishers warping their games to appease shareholders. When EA said the removal of MTX in BF2 won't harm their quarterly earnings it just goes to show you that they had no right to be in there in the first place but were cos these companies want all the money not some of the money.
@Rob_230 That's the thing though, yes games are expensive to make yet these companies still insist on charging us full priced releases, multiple preorder versions, season passes and Microtransactions as well. The biggest problem I have with the industry is the complete lack in transparency across the board. We know next to nothing on how much games actually cost despite publishers crying poverty.
@adf86 booster packs for card games do though.
@get2sammyb @adf86 The skins in Overwatch don't give a competitive edge either. They are just for looks.
I think the real interesting thing here is that Battlefront 2 is now attached to headlines from mainstream news publications with the words "Star Wars" and "gambling" and "dangerous for kids" in them.
Disney must be absolutely livid with EA. I'd absolutely love to listen in on some of the conversations.
I hope the rest of the world - not just Europe will follow suit. I totally agree that any Random element is unacceptable and a form of gambling.
@Tasuki Except those trading cards (clue is in the name) and stickers have 'value' in that they can be sold or swapped for cards/stickers you actually wanted. With the current system, you have 'nothing' of value from the purchase, nothing that can be swapped or sold to others to get the items you wanted. Its something physical that can be sold or swapped.
Some Pokemon cards are actually worth more than most cars, more than some peoples whole collection of games, consoles etc - the most expensive sold for $55000. You can also sell completed sticker albums - even un-complete ones have value. Of course Kids may not be buying these to collect but they may swap 'duplicates' or unwanted cards/stickers etc with a friend to get the ones they wanted.
This is very much a different situation.
@get2sammyb I wouldn't be at all surprised if Disney takes the Star Wars game license from EA. Disney has cut ties with things in the past that could potentially hurt their image. Heck they cancelled Tim Allen's show Last Man Standing for remarks he made on a talk show.
Correct, common sense.
@Tasuki Yeah but there the only meaningful reward in the game. When you've grinded for 2 hours straight to just get one loot box, only to get voice lines and sprays instead of what you actually want is a big slap in the face. The whole "cosmetics don't effect gameplay" argument doesn't wash with me anymore, Jim Sterling said it best that cosmetics still play the psychological trick on consumers because it's ultimately one player flaunting something that the other play doesn't. Of course if Blizzard made such content more easily available then it would be an issue but instead they left everything to an RNG system.
@get2sammyb According to the Wall Street Journal, Disney were the ones that told EA to take the loot boxes out, I would love it if they pulled the Star Wars contract off them too.
@Tasuki you can't buy a skin, you pay for RNG boxes, baseball cards actually exist, you can trade, sell, burn, eat.
@BAMozzy Not going to argue with you because you never get it and quite frankly I don't feel like reading a wall of text, but yes they are they same. They are random things in a package that you use real money on and have no value except to play the game.
Well, it IS a form of gambling. They're right on this. Personnaly I do not play much online, and I just discovered the concept of those boxes with the last version of EVE VALKYRIE : when they changed the game and its system with the Warzone expansion (an automatic and free expansion), they addeds this system.
So, when I reach a certain lvl, or a certain amount of xp, or when I success a type of challenge, I'm granted with some boxes to open. And indeed, opening those boxes felt to me like gambling : oh, what's it gonna be ?
The thing is, those in Valkyrie are essentially cosmetic, but you can also find XP boosters. And off course, if you're lazy, you can buy these lootboxes with real money.
From my point of view, it is a dangerous system. Charge what you want for this DLC or this haircut for your character, or whatever. But don't charge just for A CHANCE TO WIN one of those little things.
Or hey, even better : stop this charging crap, and just make a good game, where you get everything simply foe having bought the damn game.
@Tasuki The sticker and card are real, you can sold them again.
Sometimes I actually feel like I'm losing control about loot boxes in league of legends xD I feel like I can stop when I want to but the thing is I don't want to! Dangerous thing...a ban on lootboxes would be good for society, imagine little kids getting addicted to this!
they don't have to be banned but they should be forced to disclose the actual odds of getting each prize and someone needs to monitor to ensure they don't engage in unethical practices (like lowering odds for people they have identified as big spenders)
This won't happen but it's still hilarious how badly EA screwed up. Other companies will be livid that they put this in the spotlight and might not be able to get away with it so easily now the general public have gained some awareness.
@get2sammyb my thoughts exactly. Disney can’t be happy right now. I hope EA doesn’t cancel other Star Wars games because of this; Star Wars 1313 needs to happen.
Unfortunately if they took the license from EA there wouldn’t be too many developers left who have worked on Star Wars games in the past.
Although, could you imagine a Naughty Dog Star Wars game?
@NESguy94 Ubisoft seems good, I want assassin's creed origin star wars edition
And EA already cancelled uncharted star wars, they only interested on game that can be monetized (micro-transaction and lootbox friendly). EA want to go full mobile with AAA games price.
And yes, origin has lootbox, but you can buy it with in-game money, so it's kind of alright, I guess.
https://kotaku.com/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behavior-of-loot-1820664617
@adf86 I really dislike that Jim Sterling conflates his argument by mentioning cosmetic lootboxes in Overwatch that we already know the odds for (See Overwatch China). How the heck else are Blizzard going to pay for the numerous updates, events, balancing, ect in Overwatch without those lootboxes? You get a box for every hour of play after level 10 or so in Overwatch, and before that they come at a faster rate. As far as lootboxes go that is less egregious I've seen as far as post game monetization goes!
It's a dumb thing to put on an otherwise sound argument. It reeks of entitlement.
That being said P2W and single-player MTX/lootboxes are inherently bad because of their impact not on gameplay, but on game design and design philosophy.
TL;DR Don't conflate an already sound argument by overextending to things that can easily be shot down as petty or entitled. An argument is only as strong as its weakest point.
@Kai_ Nice avatar
Let's leave the politics out please. -Tasuki-
@Tasuki Maybe, but i'm not sure if Disney cares so much about the quality of these games, Battlefront had great sales, I will not be surprised if the sequel does great overall. Sony is heavily marketing the game, especially in countries like Japan. I think that's what matters in the end for them.
Anyway, who knows? Would love to see Sony studios working on Star Wars and Marvel games, they already have Spider-Man. =P
@NESguy94 Star Wars 1313 was cancelled awhile ago.
@PS_Nation When it comes to Disney their image is more important then anything else with them. It doesn't matter how much money something will make them they won't do it at all if it hurts thier rep. If that was the case well Song of the South wouldn't be locked away in the Disney vault.
@Tasuki Just look at Maker Studios on YouTube. iDubbbz is still with them and he has very mature/edgy content (Not dissing on Ian, I love iDubbbzTV), but PewDiePie does something relatively innocuous and they dropped him.
You're right Disney really really needs their image for long-term profit.
@Tasuki Nah unlike looboxes, trading cards can be sold, kept or traded so if I buy a pack of cards and don't get the one I want I can trade it for something else or sell it to get a return on the money I spent. This greatly mitigates the "chance" aspect in trading card games.
I buy a pack of cards for a chance to get the card I want, I can trade a card I already own for the card I want, I can sell the cards that I don't want, and I can buy the card that I do want directly.
3 very different ways of getting the same thing, lootboxes don't give you that choice.
For lootboxes you can't do that, so I can't trade the skins I don't want for the ones i do want nor can I sell them.
I think thats something that you have to keep in mind
@Tasuki lol that's the most childish comment I've read. Your a grown man yea? "I'm not going to read it" How old are you, 12?
Tldr
Trading cards can be traded with your friends.
Loot crate content is worthless if it's not something you want. You can't trade it.
Thats a gigantic difference. There's a hint in the name.
@xXDibbs So just cause you can trade it makes it ok? If that's the case then gambling shouldn't be held to tha laws it's held by cause you can trade your winnings for something. So in that theory lootboxes aren't gambling.
@solocapers Please do not use insults. It's ok if you don't agree but there's no need to insult.
@Tasuki Mate, are you really trying to claim because you can trade your winnings (money) in a casino that shouldn't be classed as gambling just to suit your argument.
I was gonna give you the benefit of doubt not understanding the difference between trading cards and Loot crates but you are either just being contrary for the sake of it or just plain blind to the difference.
@Tasuki Its barely an insult however warranted. You've ignored his post because it's too long to read/you don't agree with it. What's the point engaging people if you only read select comments.
Hence.. Acting like a child.
@Tasuki there is more, much more depth that we can go into.
So for example a physical trading card is your property so fit he company that makes them goes out of business you still have your cards. When a "fee to play" game has lootboxes and whatever you get from that lootbox only exists within the game and if the game goes offline so does everything you got in those lootboxs.
You don't own it, with physical trading cards you do and you can trade what you have for what you want so that offsets that chance mechanic. Basically you are given multiple ways of getting what you want.
Then there's the dopamine effect, dopamine is a very addictive chemical that the brain secretes. Remember the Skinner box method that gambling is based on?
Cash, lootbox, dopamine, more cash, more lootboxes, more dopamine, more lootboxes.
It's a cycle literally steeped in that cycle.
Most Dopamine stimulants are regulated by law such as alcohol, drugs, smoking and gambling among others.
Lootboxes are designed to stimulate dopamine in the people that buy them, thus creating an endless cycle. Similarly to gambling.
As lootboxes depend on the stimulation of dopamine then it should be subjected to the same regulation as other dopamine stimuli.
Children and young adults are very susceptible to these kind of stimuli and can lead to a very real life damaging addiction to bigger dopamine stimuli.
Its not something to be taken lightly, at the very least let the consumer purchase what they want directly rather then "gamble" for a chance to get what they want.
Lets look at it this way.
I want to buy a can of mango juice.
Store A lets me buy it for a set price.
Store B lets me pay for a chance to get that specific mango juice
Thus store B is essentially forcing me to gamble for that chance to get what I want.
Lootboxes on the other hand require that the user becomes addicted to them in order for them to be working as intended.
So you pay $60, you buy a game, you buy a lootboxe then you get a rush of dopamine. Then you buy more lootboxes, then more dopamine and it just keeps going.
@xXDibbs So the same thing doesn't happen when a young kid buys a Pokémon card pack? A kid buys a Pokémon card pack in hopes of getting a gold Pikachu card and doesn't get you don't think that he/she isn't going thru the same thing and what's another pack?
You pay what $20 for a starter pack and then you buy another pack and another it's the same as a loot box but no one is screaming bloody murder about Pokémon cards.
@solocapers How can I be blind to a difference when there isn't one. The only thing that's different about loot crates and Pokémon cards is that are aren't a bunch of crybabies or out of control kids that didn't get what they wanted but through entitlement feel that they should that are into Pokémon cards as there are games with lootboxes. And that is what it comes down to entitlement.
And I never said I didn't read his post. Also please watch the insults, I won't ask you again.
Why do children have access to credit cards to buy these things. I would never give my children my credit/debit card and let them buy these things. Not defending loot boxes/microtransctions but parents shouldn't blame a game if they are letting their children buy whatever they want.
@Tasuki except you can trade the cards that you do have for a Gold Pikachu card, or that kid can sell his cards and use the money he got from selling it to buy that specific card.
I said that in my previous reply btw
@Tasuki Every time this subject comes up your there defending the practice.
Your right its a bit like card collecting.
Except I bought a computer game. I dont want to collect cards.
@get2sammyb
Totally agreed, it's been the perfect storm. But what did the company that absolutely must be seen as squeaky clean honest family fun think would happen when throwing one of their crown jewels into the ring with the gaming company known for extorting every last drop out of football and football fans by essentially making their games sticker albums and making people complete a sticker book every year.
Which brings me on to...
@Tasuki - I thought as you initially with the sticker albums and pokemon cards, how is this different?
Then as well as the @xXDibbs arguments, I also thought there is the price - A single BF2 Loot Crate was what, £5.99 ontop of a £60 game? A pack of stickers is 50p on top of a £3 sticker album, (http://collectibles.panini.co.uk/editorial/panini-football-2017-sticker-collection.html) the economics is more palatable, especially with children.
Like the fixed odds betting terminals, it's not whether they are good or bad in theory (certainly debatable), the argument was the price per chance for a game deliberately designed to be addictive to people and remove money from them. If loot crates in BF2 were 50p, and the game was £3, I don't think there would be this level of hubbub.
@Tasuki Which you can order the missing ones in the end and you can trade them to and sell them as well.
@ellsworth004 You can't have an Itunes account, nor a Google Play store account unless it has a working credit card attached to it.
So this could actually be due to the way Apple and Google have structured their app stores.
I'd advise that every parent only register a debit card with a balance of $0 on it to protect their children from these systems.
Also use prepaid cards when available over credit cards whenever possible.
@RPE83 So I take it my argument made some semblance of sense?
Hahahahahahahaha
Belgium, France, Holland & Hawaii.
Did internet outrage actually have a meaningful impact?
@themcnoisy Who said you bought a card game? If you don't want the loot boxes you don't have to buy them. I don't get why you feel you have to buy them.
@ellsworth004 Exactly.
Out of interest is it the apparent "gambling" (whether you agree its gambling or not) aspect you all disagree with or just the concept of microtransactions and so called "pay to win"? Because I see a lot of people latching onto the gambling argument, because it feels like this is an element the authorities will actually take notice of and clamp down on, when in reality you just don't like microtransactions in your game in any shape or form. So, if EA pulled the chance aspect but let you keep spending money on in game perks that were guaranteed would you be satisfied or not?
@Tasuki That's nothing more than a rumour. The show's ratings weren't great and his salary kept getting bigger. At the end of the day, it wasn't profitable. There's a reason no network picked it up after its cancelation.
@xXDibbs
Yeah, i totally agree, despite initially having the same thoughts as Tasuki.
I am surprised that nobody has applied this level of complaint to Fifa and Madden, but then I guess they aren't owned by Disney who extensively market to children/family fun. I also gather you can also play online against people not using the Ultiamate Team mechanics, i.e. does it not pair "gamblers" against "gamblers" on Fifa and Madden and regular squads/players against likewise, but Battlefront 2, you were all in the same matches?
@ellsworth004 , @tasuki , agree on the debit cards/kids , but again, do you think Disney spending all winter marketing Star Wars to kids, and essentially give them a £60 sticker album and then no means to buy the really expensive stickers except for playing the game for a silly amount of time, is the type of family experience that Disney would be going for? Especially since they would probably be being beat badly by the characters they want to unlock, hence puting more pressure on them to want to have them.
I can't see "Attack of the Clones Chocolate Death Sticks" coming out either.
@kyleforrester87 - Yes, it's gambling, the panini stickers album comparison I made myself fails on
a) price
b) the fact you pay to win under BF2's system, stickers you pay to collect and own
c) the fact that even the stickers you don't want can be traded with other collectors as bargaining chips.
I'm not foaming at the mouth in outrage here, I'm just avoiding the game till it's silly cheap then picking it up for the solo campaign as a star wars fan. I think EA have just pushed it (profiteering) a bit too far here with the wrong IP.
@RPE83 I didn't ask if it was gambling, I said if the element of chance was removed, would you be satisfied with the microtransactions remaining in the game. Or is it not really all about little jimmy wasting all his pocket money, and more your own hatred of microtransactions and the perceived pay to win?
@Tasuki 'Who said you bought a card game? If you don't want the loot boxes you don't have to buy them. I don't get why you feel you have to buy them.'
Because games are starting to be designed around loot boxes, not the other way around. Your the one who brought up sticker books / card packs so Im attempting to stamp on that ridiculously weak arguement.
If you want the new full game experience you HAVE to buy loot boxes. Thats just not right.
I dont have an addictive personality, so from a personal point of view I in theory should feel like you. But Ive felt the urge to splurge on more than one occasion, so if I feel like that god help the people with addictive personality disorders.
Loot boxes are a joke bro, we dont see eye to eye on this, which is fine. But please stop calling people cry babies. We are free to complain about stuff we dont like and are free to force EA to shut that practice down.
Its dead easy they should design a good balanced game and sell the extras as dlc for a set price.
@Tasuki The problem which you clearly fail to see is some people are massively addicted to them.
I don't buy them myself but it doesn't mean that I can't feel the practice is a dangerous positive enforcement for children regarding gambling.
People are spending thousands of dollars/pounds per title. This isn't so much about the many spending the odd few dollars, more its about the vulnerable few who should be protected from their own addictive traits.
You'll come back with "it's their money" but checks should be in place as these publishers are deliberately targeting people who have a problem and are going to create a generation of gamblers.
If you are a parent that must surely worry you. Your defending of this practice is odd and worrying that you would rather side with a corporation who just wants to bleed people out of every penny.
You've not got shares in Activision have you?
@kyleforrester87
Either way, It's gambling by definition;
"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize."
I don't hate microtransactions, for example, The Batman skins that had no effect on the game mechanics and design were fine and I bought several for amusement.
I am most concerned however, when games are by design becoming nothing but skinner boxes and all the fun is in gambling for buffs against other players.
@RPE83 see that's what I think is interesting, I'm seeing a lot of people using the gambling argument when really it's microtransactions in general they have beef with. But the gambling argument seems to have some political traction so they are running with it and declaring "oh, think of the children!"
Just an observation
Loot boxes will stay and rate the games 18 in the countries that deem the practise to be gambling that is all that will happen. Its in no way a victory.
@kyleforrester87 pay to win microtransactions I've still got a problem with but that's a different issue.
You can have a problem with both.
Microtransactions which are purely cosmetic and you buy what you actually want I've no problem with at all. I don't think many do.
@solocapers So if they put an 18 label on the game and a gambling disclaimer we're good to go, right? Or do you have the same problem with all forms of gambling for adults too?
@kyleforrester87 More there should be protections for people spending 100x plus more than the games initial cost in the first place and if that means slapping an 18 rating on then so be it and tighter checks on funding.
Bookies have a moral and legal obligation to warn customers if they believe they are spending out of their means. It should be no different with these.
I've no problem with gambling I stick a coupon on at the weekends (fobt are cancer though) however this practice is deliberately targeting kids and vulnerable people with no protections in place at all. So yea, it should be regulated like any other betting company.
When done correctly (rocket league as an example since you can trade stuff) Loot crates aren't so bad as it sounds.
However the recent practices are abhorrent and are setup to hamper a game people have already paid money for.
Better education is needed regarding them.Everyone has free will they are not forced on anyone. I have not seen evidence that its primarily kids who are buying these loots boxes.
@solocapers Fair enough then, I agree stricter measures should be in place to protect vulnerable people.
This is great.. I think I have a waffle then
Look, regardless if anyone buys them or doesn't at the very least it should boil down to this.
These full priced games have been setup from the ground up to encourage EVERYONE to buy these crates to complete the game in a reasonable amount of time and be a fair playing ground.
No one has a problem with free to play games like world of tanks or war thunder as those games are clear from the outset what to expect. They have to make money somehow. This is making you pay full price then further fleece you and you might not even get what you want as it's 'random' drops
Its unbelievable that people can defend this. Genuinely staggering.
@kyleforrester87
Yes, I agree, but then again a zealot will always use every trick, justification or straw man agument in the book to get the result they want, ends justifies means and all that.
I dont have a problem with them as a concept but EA seemingly solely existing now to pump out 5 or 6/10 skinner boxes using freemium mechanics at premium prices are bad for us as gamers if we just keep lapping them up and giving them money hand over fist.
Equally, gamers that always want 100's of hours of gameplay for less than £50 and throw their toys out their pram at the thought of anything less, and then moan when games are stuffed with pointless radiant fetch and return quests and grind are just as bad.
There's a nice creamy middle which i try and exist in
@solocapers Maybe I'm just not very competitive (although, actually, I think I am haha) but I've never been fussed about having to play on a level playing ground when gaming online. Some people do paintballing with better equipment, others play football with the newest boots and keeper gloves. In the PC environment people have higher spec PC's which give them the edge. Maybe some PS4 gamers use those "gamer glasses" that were in the news recently haha. I used to love playing Counter-Strike with hackers back in the day and pwning them regardless
I think my point is, personally, I just don't care enough about it to get wound up. I don't want to come across like I'm defending something that's bad, because I can see that in an ideal world it wouldn't be the case but..c'mon.
@kyleforrester87
It's the psychological addiction forming tricks and techniques games companies use in the gambling for better gear that's the problem, not neccesarily the better gear or the gambling.
Also the crappy games EA makes.
@RPE83 "Also the crappy games EA makes."
It all boils down to this in the end my friend :')
@get2sammyb perhaps it won't but at least it might show publishers that this kind of thing won't fly
also IF they did become illegal in europe it would also affect everywhere else because i can't imagine a publisher putting them in their games if they can't sell them in a huge market like europe
@adf86 that isn't a factor in this ruling it's the fact they see it as gambling which is funny because then buying Pokémon,baseball,football etc cards would need to be considered gambling
@RPE83 I think that has to do with the Star Wars name making this problem resonate with a larger audiance since Fifa 18 and Need for Speed Payback also have the same kind of Lootbox system as SWBF2.
But when you put "Gabling" "Disney" "Star wars" together major news outlets such as CNN and Fox, and the huffington post and WSJ will all pick it up since its the mother of all clickbait headlines.
This issue has been around for a bit, but since the Star Wars brand is at the center of it then it grants mass market visibility.
The people who read news articles on CNN, FOX, BBC, WSJ etc are not going to know what Need for Speed is so they will just assume its the name of a racing casino, but Star Wars?
Everyone knows what that is, and thats why its getting this mass amount of coverage.
Not just from "core" gamers but from the public at large.
I hope this makes sense
@kyleforrester87
Maybe Belgium should just skip all this dancing around the issue and just try make EA illegal in Europe :')
@xXDibbs
Yep, totally. I can mentally imagine the interviews with the kids dressed as Poe, Finn, Kylo and Rey now almost crying and looking down at the floor next to a stern looking parent because some adult dropped money to get Darth Vader and cut them to ribbons repeatedly without mercy on boxing day, captioned with "Star Wars Battlefront gambling ruins Christmas, and possibly childhood too."
like when PSN being down for a day ruined christmas, childhoods the other year.
@dryrain I think that the least that will happen is that games with Lootboxes will be rated AO or the PEGI equivalent and thus console manufacturers will not stock them which will do a lot of damage to those franchises.
It could get much worse than that as well, they could create a new rating above AO and class all games with lootboxes in that catagory which will mean no retailers will stock it and no console will allow it on its platform.
All big wins in my eyes
@RPE83 lol
The point stands that the SW brand made this far more visible to the public at large, no SWBF2 for Jimmy!
Now go play BoTW like a good boy!!!
@xXDibbs
"but, but, but I haven't got all the Link Amiibos!!!"
Infact EA missed a trick here, since the big N got around this whole kerfuffle by giving kids a plastic statue they can actually own as part of the microtransaction deal.
@RPE83 like I always say, if you let buy it then I won't mind it.
On that note, if the Nintendo network goes offline and you can no longer play a game like Splatoon you still get to keep your Amiibo hahahahahaha.
Now the amiibo thing actually would fall into the same category as CCG (collectable card games) or trading card games if you think of it.
Nintendo dodged a major bullet there and now its going to hit EA like an arrow to the knee
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Gamble
"Play games of chance for money; bet".
"Take risky action in the hope of a desired result".
You can slice it as many ways as you want...it is what it is...
The crazy thing from my point of view. (write sports articles and have to look at betting odds) is that EA do not have to even disclose the potential odds of picking up what the player wants via this gamble. Even fruit machines have to state the percentage of payouts...
No one should be asked to gamble (at their own risk) anything without being told the mathematical odds of this happening.. It doesnt happen in sports betting, so why is this any different, considering the age groups that are involved
If loot boxes are to be deemed gambling then they need to be treated the same way across all games not just paid this must also include fp2 games. Games such as Paladins would also need to change how they are stuctured.
I think there are different issues here. Which are all getting put into one pot. Players hate EA. Many other games have loot boxes and nobody was really bothered about them before. The items in the star wars game could give a competitive advantage and people did not deem it fair that someone could buy boxes to give an advantage.
@dellyrascal
Exactly. Maybe if EA stuck the odds up and "When the force stops, stop" in big yellow text at the bottom, it would all be fine.
@RPE83 Never understood that people put time played above quality anyway.
@RPE83 I'd trademark that phrase quickly, if I was you....
@kyleforrester87 It's a combination of a lot of things. EA hatred, P2W, the phasing out of single player games, 'always online' games as a service & lootbox gambling. Add to that a beloved IP with worldwide appeal in Star Wars & you have the perfect s##t storm.
I don't care for Star Wars or online shooters. This issue is beyond that. SWB2 & EA have to be made an example of, so that it discourages other publishers-we've already seen pushback from other developers. My issues are the pay-to-win elements & how progression is tied to it.
However, imo loot boxes are gambling. The randomness factor makes it so. Trading cards & stickers are different. They are physical & they have value. Digital items are worthless & only stay in your possession as long as the servers stay on.
I don't think micro transactions are going away. Lootboxes might.
Jim Sterling said it best 'EA got too greedy too fast'. If they had incrementally added these micro transactions it wouldn't have been a big deal. EA always pushes the envelope. They try & create their own trends & the rest follow.
It's good that the community as a whole has bonded together over this.
To sum up. Gambling is bad. Don't take away our single player games. Don't force us into spending extra money. We hate EA, so let's make them an example.
@Fight_Teza_Fight what about the people who like loot boxes and do not have a gambling problem? Apparently they generate a fair amount of money so there is a market for them. I can't believe they are all addicts. They might not be as vocal about their inclusion as those are who want them removed, but shouldn't gaming be inclusive? After all, really what percentage of games released overall have a loot box mechanic? Not many, I'd say.. plenty of options and choice for all.
Are digital Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic the gathering cards a form of gambling too? Haven't bought any and I'm not sure how and if they are random, but let's say that you buy a booster pack without knowing exactly what are gonna get, should those be banned as well?
As for the ability to trade physical ones, I find it laughable. I had thousands of Yu-Gi-Oh cards, most of them useless that I couldn't do anything with. The guys who had more money, bought more cards and were able to easily beat the rest of us in tournaments. I don't remember anyone complaining about that (other than saying, "this sucks" .
But at any rate, getting rid of loot boxes will be great for everyone other than greedy publishers. When they affect the gameplay, it becomes a problem. This is one of the few cases that i don't mind the internet mob mentality.
@Tasuki @xXDibbs @BAmozzy and everyone else : The trading card analogy is very accurate- but both are gambling and predatory. Baseball/hockey cards always came with a stick of gum in every pack, a little reward to make kids keep buying. And trade or not, you can randomly get something worth tons of cash, or nothing - it’s like a slot machine in both cases, just the currency is different (online prestige/epeen being effectively currency here). Another case is Magic: The Gathering. TOTAL gambling. When I was a teen we all wanted the card “Ali from Cairo”, and hoped every booster we could afford had one. My rich friend went and bought several boxes of boosters because he (his dad) could and was rewarded for it. (This is a true story, I swear). Both of those are predatory businesses and gambling. Just because they are established doesn’t make them healthy for kids.
A major difference of course is that you don’t pay $60 for the privilege of starting to buy baseball cards, but I don’t see that as changing the reward loop from buying loot boxes - which is effectively a Skinner box.
@naruball Yes regardless of my opinion the argument that physical cards "have value" is laughable. I wasted a (young boys) fortune trying to get missing cards, pogs and stickers as a kid. They weren't worth any money then, and I didn't think to put them in a catalogue to save for 25 years to sell now. Was I taken advantage of as a child? Who knows. Damn, who even cares :')
Proverbs 13:11
11 Wealth gained hastily will dwindle,
but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
@Mega-Gazz my point was that Lootboxes are not OK just since they share some similarities. My point was that there are multiple ways to obtain what you want in an CCG.
But what can get in a lootbox is only available from that lootbox.
Now onto CCG in particular, I do think that they should be considered a form of gambling that targets children exclusively.
The solution to this is that they could let people purchase the cards they wanted rather than pay for a chance to get you want to get. There are places that sell certain cards individually, so that exists as an option.
@naruball if the same practice is in a game, then that means the option to sell, or trade it for the card you want, or purchase the card you want outright then I would consider it to be gambling.
imho the key differences is that there are alternatives to just buying card packs or lootboxes.
I will say that I do think that CCG do need to some form of regulation.
But if they give people multiple ways of getting a certain card then the chance of getting what you want is less of a gamble but more of an option.
I hope that makes sense
@kyleforrester87 Horizon: Zero Dawn does lootboxes. All can be bought using in-game currency or obtained as Quest rewards.
That's a way to have the lootbox mechanic & not nickel and dime the consumer.
However, I understand that this is a industry & just like any industry it's driven by money. I don't begrudge anyone for making money, as long as it doesn't affect me. When micro transactions lead to a change in game design as evidenced by NFS Payback & SWB2, that's when it becomes a problem.
EA have overstepped their bounds, the ESRB doesn't care & now we have government involvement.
It doesn't matter if you or I aren't susceptible to gambling (loot boxes). NFS Payback is rated for 12+ same as Overwatch & SWB2 is 16+. 'Kids' are exposed to this environment at a early age, which is not ok.
It's the whole Nature vs Nurture argument.
I spent £2000+ on Yu-Gi-Oh cards from 14-19. 6 years later I still have them & they still retain value.
What do you have to show once the servers are gone? How do you get rid of duplicates?
I guess with the physical card games randomness is part of the joy i.e. you get together with friends and exchange cards, that's what we used to do as kids. If that was enabled for online, I wouldn't have an issue.
I'm still not personally sure if I have an issue with random loot boxes - you know you will get SOMETHING every time, whereas gambling to me is 'something sometimes' vs 'nothing most of the time'. I guess this falls in the middle.
I guess the point they are trying to make is that it can be as addictive as gambling, the same 'hook' is there as garbage loot could represents the 'nothing' of gambling and that's when you could start getting into trouble buying 'just one more loot box'.
I use to buy trading cards to collect things and trade. Simple. Plus some had bubblegum in them. And I bought them when I got pocket money and me and mates would awe at each others collection. Loot boxes are different... Have you tried playing a play-to-win multiplayer match without spending anything or grinding on loot boxes? It's ruddy frustrating! I have self control and no need to buy mts. But... And here's the big but. Young kids or those who are susceptible to gambling tactics are more likely to splurge out on a game they want to win or to even stay in the race. Hence I believe this loot box trick psychologically is PREYING on the weak. So as a society do we not protect our weaker gamer members anymore? And how much do you need to spend to randomly increase your performance? £10 or £500? I think it is a gamble (chance) using your hard earned cash in the hope (addiction kicks in) to earn a great win (just like casino gambling). Don't win this time? Just a few more coins and hope for that epic loot.
@Fight_Teza_Fight So stick an 18 label on the front of such games, a disclaimer in the intro and job done If people enjoy spending real world money on loot box driven games, more power to them.
Of course, the issue for us as dedicated gamers is that we don't want to see all releases bogged down with loot boxes and microtransactions. If the next Nier game comes along with loot boxes, sure, I'm gunna get annoyed. So will what EA is doing, if left unchecked, lead to ALL publishers and developers taking note and trying the same? I'd hope not, and if it means this whole thing has to be considered a form of gambling that requires regulation to make it go away, then that's fair enough I suppose. But maybe both can exist, and everyone'll be happy, and EA can carry on being EA, and I'll carry on not buying their games anyway.
@kyleforrester87 It's both. Gambling is definitely an issue as long as the customer isn't aware. The least they should do is label them with an 18+ rating and slab a big sticker on the front of the box warning any potential buyer about the gambling aspects of the game. And as someone else mentioned, at least give the odds of obtaining certain cards/loot.
Pay-to-win is obviously an entirely different issue on its own. I don't like it, because it's unfair. However, I find it difficult to come up with a good reason why they should get banned, because I don't think they're doing anything illegal. In theory a game like that would get low reviews and people wouldn't buy it, but that's not the world we live in. Maybe a label warning about in-game purchases would be in its place as well.
Whether gambling in video games should be banned entirely... Well, we also ban the use of certain drugs, and very few have problem with that. The reasoning behind that is the same, and there's no concrete answer either. There's probably a social-philosophical answer to that; In the end we all partake in a society, and some form of rules and laws are required to keep everything in check, the real question is how far they should go.
TL;DR I like transparency, and I'm not a fan of shady practices, so the the least they should do is be more transparent when it comes to in-game purchases and loot-boxes. And provided loot-boxes trigger the same response as gambling, I think it's also fair if it gets labeled as such.
Hmm pulling the plug on something that was decided upon in an direct democratic vote? Besides that, that seems to be one of the very few good ideas the EU has come forth with in recent years.
@Octane Makes sense. Clearly there are moral considerations, and they do need some attention. There is also the typical push back you'd expect, generally from the hardcore fan base, when any kind of change is forced on us - much like the original concept for the XB1, it's where games are heading, they just tried to push it too quickly and in the wrong way. Some of this push back is obviously legitimate, but some of it is over reaction too in my opinion.
@kyleforrester87 It's an interesting conversation to be had. I just wished the ESRB had stepped in, before it got so bad. I don't want government intervention, but here we are.
I honestly think these kinds of games will be bumped up to 18/AO & that'll be it.
Hopefully that'll discourage publishers to not take the p***.
Micro transactions aren't going away though.
@kyleforrester87 Well, you could argue that it's the ''over reaction'' that lead to the action we see countries take right now. If we politely asked EA on Twitter if they could reconsider their business, nothing would've happened at all.
@Octane No doubt, I've never really been one to think about joining the picket lines myself. Fair play to those who do, though.
@get2sammyb "Ultimately, this will go nowhere."
I don't know, this one may have legs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/22/state-legislators-call-eas-game-a-star-wars-themed-online-casino-preying-on-kids-vow-action.html
Legislators get a lot of brownie points in the US for saving kids from themselves. The whole Apple "Smurfberry" fiasco isn't all that long go, and while it wasn't about gambling, just kids buying virtual berries, I do think there is going to be a connection made to this at some point. And then add "Gambling" to in game currency, well that's ripe for political exploitation. Those govt officials need to do something good to distract their constituents from all of the sexual assault issues of late. Gambling in a Star Wars game may be just the ticket.
Something may actually come of this one.
FYI "smurfberries" and "Publisher greed".
https://www.digitaltrends.com/android/publisher-greed-little-girl-amasses-1400-iphone-bill-playing-smurfs-village/
https://www.cultofmac.com/271437/apple-wants-refund-parents-smurfberries/
Sure it didn't change the industry, but Apple did issue some refunds and try to tighten up it's security to keep kids from bankrupting their parents. I could see a limit put on blind-pack lootboxes in games. Or it could go nowhere like you said, but it may take a long time to get there now that the spotlight is on it.
Loot boxes are literally the bane of the game society and whilst I'd love to see them banished they're not gambling they're just like collectable cards and sticker sets.
@solocapers Lol no I don't hae shares in Activision and yes I am a parent but it doesn't worry me. Why, because I taught my son about the risk of them and the value of money. It's just like dugs and alcohol or anything else that's bad, you teach the kid the negatives and hope that they make the right choices. Having government coming in and taking that away from us is never a good thing and that's what everyone is asking. At what point do we the parents stop being parents and the government becomes society's parents? All because people don't want to be parents themselves?
@get2sammyb "Ultimately, this will go nowhere." I think you're right, though I don't rule out the possibility of some form of restrictive legislation in Belgium, which has quite restrictive rules on gambling.
@Tasuki I don't think it's nice to say "you never get it" to a member of of the site. Nor do I think it's okay to, especially as a moderator, call the opposers of loot boxes "crybabies".
That being said, I can see very well the point you're trying to get accross in the comparison with alcohol and drugs. However, alcohol and drugs have an age restriction. Would you then agree with the age for games with loot boxes being raised to 18 or 21, like alcohol and cigarettes in your country?
@Tasuki No its because we have ways to allow people to make a reasonable informed choice along with parenting on these things at a suitable age and safeguards in place for problem users who are over 18. None of this happens at the moment.
Thats not taking parenting away and creating a nanny state by looking at it, its for providing safe guards for people who slip through the net via a system thats being deliberately created purely to extract money from said users.
Yes, loot boxes are gambling. Yes, trading cards and sticker packs are gambling. No, gambling is not always a bad thing. Yes, gambling can be circumstancially dangerous. Yes, loot boxes probably qualify as such.
Gambling is basically the sugar of (generalized) gaming. It’s a fundamental component of games that can add good flavor naturally and in moderation, but is dangerously and temptingly easy to artificially concentrate to harmful and addictive levels. Saying “trading cards are fine for kids, so loot boxes must be ok too” is like saying boxed apple juice is fine for kids, so installing free and unrestricted soda fountains in schools must be ok too.
A lot of people would say our society still has problems with sugar, but there are at least two approaches that obviously don’t work, and the same lessons could be applied to gambling: banning it outright, and pretending it doesn’t exist or isn’t dangerous. With sugar, we’ve at least been able to get to a point in society where these two extremes are obvious fallacies. We’re a long way from that point yet on gambling when it comes to loot boxes, but in the meantime, at least we should be able to see that just as dumping in spoonfuls of pure sugar can cheapen and ruin a fine dish, so too can injecting artificial gambling ruin an otherwise good game.
@Fath Good post. Clearly, loot boxes are gambling, as are card packs. But the process of raiding the piggy bank, walking to the shop and buying a pack of cards needs to be considered against the process of saving your credit card details and clicking a button.
@Kidfried I apologize, but I just tell at as it is, and being a mod s doesn't change my ideas or how I see things.
That being said that's why there's ratings on games but then again does that stop kids from playing GTA or other violent games. No that's the parents job, same with loot boxes.
@solocapers They are a business of course they are trying to extract money from people. That's what businesses do. So everything should be free is what your saying because a small amount of people have a problem with money and buying stuff? That makes alot of sense.
Spending money on randomized outcomes? Sure sounds like gambling to me.
@Tasuki Honestly I give up trying to engage you. You keep twisting what's being said to extremes just to make your argument stick. Who's saying anything about getting everything or anything for that matter for free?
If you dont see how loot boxes are gambling (notice how all these games use their own "currency" rather than buying with actual money, thats not done just for the sake of it thats to avoid gambling laws )and you dont see the difference between playing cards (which you can freely trade and are difficult to rack up extreme amounts of money, hell even in rocket league you can trade) and I say the term very loosely here, totally 'random lootcrates' thus leaving you with worthless content which has no monetary or even entertainment value which are also not tradeable then fine.
Even the 'pay to win' side on an already full priced title is bad enough but if none of that bothers you then fair play.
The backlash to the recent EA titles and the Activision patent show that at-least a large amount of people care about level playing fields and decent business practices.
Total "im all right, Jack" attitude though.
@kyleforrester87 Kyle, your comment (the one where you ask gamers if they're ok with MTs but not with gambling) was 100% gold. Loved it.
@Tasuki "Lol no I don't hae shares in Activision and yes I am a parent but it doesn't worry me. Why, because I taught my son about the risk of them and the value of money. It's just like dugs and alcohol or anything else that's bad, you teach the kid the negatives and hope that they make the right choices. Having government coming in and taking that away from us is never a good thing and that's what everyone is asking. At what point do we the parents stop being parents and the government becomes society's parents? All because people don't want to be parents themselves?"
... Did you just say that if you raise your child's awareness (the rights and wrongs) the governments shouldn't monitor and/or prohibit potentially harmful and addictive substances or practices like drugs, alcohol and gambling?
Kill loot boxes. Kill them dead.
@bbq_boy @bbq_boy @bbq_boy @Tasuki I'm really on the fence with this topic, but I agree with regards to personal freedom and such, of which I am a huge proponent like you.
@Fath This is a really good post on the subject by the way.
@bbq_boy Trading cards aren't all that different. I played stuff like the Pokemon Trading Card and you can bet that the rarest cards were the best. You had to buy boosters to get them and I spent a lot of money on those, because I wanted to play in tournaments. I spent more money than my parents allowed and knew about. Kids can get really creative.
@Nickolaidas you sound like a cool parent and lucky with a son who listens. But what about the not thousands but millions of kids who don't listen to their parents, and even tougher pressure on a single parent. Do you believe majority of families in America are debt free at the moment? And living without financial worry? There's that sick phrase called 'keeping up with the joneses' and parents do buckle to keep kids happy. You know most parents love their kids and spending a little here and there to keep the peace. Games are meant to be fun aren't they? Doesn't fun = mentally happy healthy kids and adults? Instead here we are in 2017 worried about financial addiction. Sure taken the fun out of gaming in my opinion.
@bbq_boy I take it that response was for Tasuki, not me.
hopefuly now we can see movements after 2 years. It's not enough , companies should payback every $ that gamers got them.
I see that EA is thinking about closing more studios and ideas but why? Where that big money gone?!!
P.s: if lootbox is not gambling so ... Can anyone tell me what is it ?! I just don't get it some people defense it even in this topic. You want spend more money just for pay 2 win things?! Oh come on
@kyleforrester87 More a problem with pay 2 win. I never had a problem with good DLC like first party titles at Sony and Nintendo. I really like the Infamous/Uncharted approach a stand alone game expansion.
@Kidfried I had Pokemoncards i traded and sold some. The soccer cards from panini i just collected/traded and bought the last remaining from panini. The cards are good for the social part trading/playing with other kids. And the cards have value DLC not, no preasure but pleasure when completing my collection.
@KingdomHeartsFan There are people going to psychologists and therapies over loot box addiction.
By coincidence I saw two posts on Reddit about it the last few days:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/7ely6e/belgium_says_loot_boxes_are_gambling_wants_them/dq626uh/?st=jacpo7td&sh=08b8d4bc
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7ek2ho/belgium_and_possibly_europe_to_ban_all_games_with/dq79tz2/?st=jacpmtcc&sh=832e5349
@Constable_What Sorry but shouldn't the actual sale of Overwatch over three platforms be enough to cover the cost for post release content? The game has clearly done well enough to do so. I'm sorry you feel my argument comes across as "entitled" but when there's certain skins you want that are only available for one month of the year and most of the time the only boxes you get are through levelling up, you want some meaningful rewards and sorry voices and sprays will never be worth the trouble.
There's no reason why Blizzard can do what Injustice 2 recently did with the Justice League themed gear (win a bunch of matches, get the gear you want).
@Tasuki The thing is a lot of these games are a full pricd yet consumers get charged MTX for content that's already in the game, some without the guarantee that you can get the content you want because of the RNG system.
@adf86 Do you know how much server fees cost (A ton of people have the game as you know that is a very big server load) ? Do you know how much employees salaries are (They still have to get paid while working on the game right)? They still all work on the game for balancing, updates, skins, new heroes and maps (THAT COME OUT FOR FREE), and events! Do you even play the game or do you just blindly follow what Jim Sterling says? You bring up Injustice, but they're lootboxes are even more egregious than Overwatch, and the bloody characters in that game are DLC unlike Overwatch! There's even an RPG-like slot machine in that game for more powerful gear that you take into player matches. Isn't that pay to win? By your logic that should trigger some kind of psychological response in a player to by crates right? What it's only player matches? Why should that matter, right?
See what I mean about conflating your argument? There's a bunch of holes in it! And you've (or rather Mr. Sterling has) gone out of your way to be disingenuous about the subjext. If you really wanted to attack lootboxes you would have used Titanfall 2 as an example... They had free content, and had cosmetic DLC that wasn't in the form of lootboxes. Although that game sadly didn't do well...
You can also buy the event skins with currency (To be fair they are 300% of the price!) They've patched the game due to player feedback to give less duplicates, and make skins that were available in previous events 1/3 of the price they were (back to non-event the skin price) . They also are set to release new skins that aren't event related when the Blizzard World map drops.
In Overwatch you get lootboxes from every hour of Quick Play, Competitive, and every mode in the server browser except Skirmish, and also three extra lootboxes a week from playing arcade. Again unlike Injustice 2's "gear" Overwatch's skins don't give any competitive advantage in ANY game mode.
Yeah sure voice lines and sprays aren't as cool as skins and emotes, but they still take time and money to make. I'd rather have lootboxes where I'm not forced to buy them to be on an even competitive playing field than have the game split up with DLC packs and season passes. That's just me though, maybe some people like having their game experience held hostage until they shell out an extra $49.99 so they can finally play with their friends again!
To clarify I'm not saying Overwatch's lootboxes are perfect, but to put them in them in the same group as P2W and SP lootboxes like BF2, and Shadow of War, and yeah, Injustice 2, which is also pay to win in Player Matches, puts too many arguable points in an otherwise solid argument.
TL; DR Supporting a multi-player game costs money. Injustice 2 is even worse than Overwatch when it comes to loot boxes. Overwatch lootboxes aren't perfect. There are multiple perspectives to think about.
Tap here to load 123 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...