Wait, this may be semantics, but can it be considered gambling if you can't walk away with nothing?

Don't get me wrong, as a self-identified whale in games with predatory mechanics like Fate Grand Order and Fire Emblem Heroes, I'm not trying to defend the system, but it's not gambling (unless there's a legal definition for gambling I'm unaware of that completely contradicts me).

Ideally, I think I'd like it if under age kids couldn't even see, let alone get access to microtransaction sections in games. Everyone over 18 (like my weak willed self) should just 'gamble' responsibly.

I don't know how you enforce that though.

 

I agree with you there; it's not really gambling. However, it is an easy argument to make as everyone (usually) has negative views on gambling, especially if it involves children. By equating loot boxes to gambling, someone automatically assumes the moral high ground as we all believe that minors should not be allowed to gamble. And, therefore, it is an easy win for their side.

 

I don't mind the gambling aspect, it's a fun game to waste time in for a while, definelty not one of my favourites but still a decent game

 

Technically, lootboxes are not legally gambling, as I understand it. There's a number of reasons for this, such as they typically require using in-game currencies with no inherent value and there's a guarantee of getting something with every box.

However, going by the spirit instead of the letter of the law, it very definitely is. Lootboxes are designed from the ground up to stimulate the same portions of human psychology as a roulette wheel or a dice game. They're skinner boxes through and through, and are only not regulated because they're a) new and lawmakers are notoriously slow to respond and b) very carefully navigating existing legal loopholes and praying go one looks closer.

It's why I kinda appreciate EA's gross overstep here. People are actually looking closer. I doubt we'll see any immediate action come of this, but it's got the ball rolling. I'm eager to see what happens next.

 

It's got like 2 stars on Amazon. As much as it pleases me to see an EA game tank hard, I'm also severely disappointed that it's Battlefront. Hopefully this is just enough impetus for Disney to hand over Star Wars game rights to a better company, and not enough to tank the IP for the next decade.

 

I get all that, and there should be regulations and mechanics to protect kids from such practises - and maybe that means they remove the mechanic entirely - but I don't like the idea of governments regulating adults from being able to participate in such practises.

 

You mean the same way they do for roulette or slots?

Like it or not, the government had been controlling that for decades, if not longer. You can argue whether or not they should but they do, and for a variety of reasons that are equally applicable to lootbox bullshit

 

I'm not arguing that they don't? They obviously regulate gambling, my point was that loot boxes aren't gambling, and they shouldn't be allowed to widen that definition to scoop up loot boxes.

The exception is with children. There are a myriad of ways to handle that in 2017 and I think it's genuinely worthwhile.

We've seen here how the market fantastically self-regulates, EA pushed too far and not only are they gonna take a massive hit on BF2, I'd imagine they're being removed from every one of their fellow publishers' Christmas Card lists.

 

That's my point though: lootboxes are gambling, in every sense but the strictest, most literal legal definition.

Lootboxes are designed and built on gambling principles, rooted in the same elements as gambling, stimulate the same portions of the human brain as gambling, and use the exact same psychological principles to encourage, if not outright manipulate, the customer to spend as much as they possibly can as gambling.

It's just as manipulative and predatory as a slot machine, with exactly the same lack of regard for the customer.

 

I don't mind lootboxes - and I assume many of us don't. I love and basically throw my entire wallet at CDPR's Gwent game, and I used to do the same with Overwatch. F2P and cosmetics is awesome and fine, as we all can agree.

But EA was pushing for people to pay for loot boxes in a full-blown game. Will it ruin the company? No. Will they stop? Heck no - they made more money on micro-transactions last year than from full game sales.

But just MAYBE they'll take a sensible step back and look at what they're doing.

 

EA will not back down. They'll look for and find a thousand ways to dress up lootboxes so they're not covered by whatever regulations might be put in place in the future.

You know what, have lootboxes, but if you're gonna push F2P mechanics, then make the game F2P and all of its DLC free as well. If you're asking for $60 upfront and more for DLC/season passes, then fuck off with lootboxes.

You can't fucking do both.

I want EA to just die. Then Activision. Then Ubisoft. Then a few more. Burn it all to the ground. Nothing else will force a change.

 

Lol. RuneScape 3 players have been fighting this battle against MTX against Jagex for a few years now. The players aren't going to win - and that's just using Jagex - an entity far smaller than EA. The main argument is always when the MTX directly fucks with gameplay/balance/that stuff. OFC nobody minds cosmetic only MTX - buy that shit if you want, but I hate when it goes beyond that.

 

Yeah, and gambling itself is actually fun. When publishers fuck up and go too far, it blows up in the their faces.

When done right - imo, like in Overwatch, which has an upfront cost and lootboxes btw - it allows me to look forward to leveling up, or to participating in the arcade, to get some boxes.

Why get the government involved when the situation so obviously self regulates? They don't need to be involved with everything.

You know what else is designed to prey on our weaknesses and isn't healthy for us at all? Sugar. Do you want the government to regulate pizza too?

(My health would probably benefit massively if they did, lol, but you get my point).

Shadow of War and BF2 had stupid AF microtransactions, and they paid for it. Look at the latest Assassin's Creed, you will struggle to even find the store it's so out of the way. It wasn't always like that. They learned.

 

Food is actually heavily regulated and controlled in the large majority of countries for exactly the reasons you are mentioning so your argument doesn't really work. And I really don't agree with your statement that the industry self-regulates since that is obviously not the case.

 

So you agree that lootboxes are a form of gambling, which is currently heavily regulated and kept away from children?

-------

In what way is the situation currently self-regulating? Lootboxes, pay to win/pay to hugely shortcut, extended DLC catering to whales, etc has been increasing non stop for years without any real decrease.

Self-regulation is a nice buzzword but in general it does absolutely nothing unless there is a third party checking that companies are actually acting and not just claiming they are. There is no feasible way to create a separate organisation to check self-regulation covering all companies making games for mobile phones, PCs, all consoles, etc, so the best option is for governments to do it.

Finally, companies only start to self-regulate when forced to by public backlash or pushed to do so by customers. Even if governments around the world decide not to get involved keeping a public backlash is more likely to push companies into self-regulation.

 

That's exactly what I mean by self regulating... EA screwed up. Bad. Now, anecdotally, it looks like the game they likely spent maybe a couple hundred million on is going to tank hard. Is maybe the issue in the wording? Call it market regulating then.

And no, lootboxes aren't gambling. They don't need to be though to be harmful to children - though there's a huge part of me that rails even against that. Why are parents giving their kids their credit cards and letting them to nuts?

In most situations like this, I guess I'm always falling on the side of people needing to take more personal responsibility. It's why I'm so ecstatic that so many refused to buy the game. It's the best example to date of gamers using their greatest weapon against publishers. It's brilliant.

 

I don't think EA really put that bad of a model in their game. Like is completely unfun, and it is not very good for consumers, but other games have used similar models to even some moderate/good success. The big difference was that they did this to a franchise people cherished which caused outrage.

 

Agayek says that lootboxes are gambling, and you quote him and say "Yeah", and go on to say that it's fun and it's fine as long as there isn't too much gambling. How is that not agreeing that lootboxes are gambling?

---

About self-regulation- it works when there are clear and verifiable claims about what will and won't be done, backed up by a third party, and when that isn't the case there is no difference between organisations that claim to be self-regulating and those that don't bother to claim that.

So, in this case, in what specific ways are EA and other companies self-regulating lootboxes other than saying that they will temporarily remove them to avoid backlash but will put them back again?

 

Yeah, historically most forms of corporate self-regulation are done as an 11th hour measure when it looks like if they don't do something soon the government is going to take over (the video game and movie ratings systems a great example of this).

Quite so. Most of the arguments I've seen for lootboxes not counting as gambling fall apart if you apply that same logic to an actual gambling scenario.

"It's not using real money, but virtual currency!" So ... like casino chips?

"It's not gambling since you'll always get something!" So ... a slot machine that'll always pay at least one penny isn't gambling?

And so on...

 

I mean... lootboxes employ chance mechanics yes, but I wouldn't exactly call all lootbox games "gambling". When I hear the word gambling, I infer a situtation in which one is paying to participate in a win-lose scenario. Not all lootbox games fit that description.

For example, with vanity lootbox gacha, everyone is a winner. You are paying for a vanity prize, you just don't know which one you're going to get. Like... I wouldn't call dropping a quarter for the supermarket toy prize balls from which gacha gets its namesake as a form of "gambling". You are initially paying for the toy inside the ball, and you are definitely going to get a toy. Your hopes about getting a rare toy or the toy you really wanted are after the fact.

No different than any other standard exchange of goods and services really. You walk into a restaurant; you pay for a meal that looks tasty but which you've never tried before. It may turn out good, it may turn out terrible. There are chance mechanics at play here, but it is not gambling.

P2W lootboxes are a whole different animal. The reason I consider P2W lootbox mechanics to be quote en quote 'gambling' is because other competitive aspects of the game rely on getting good gacha rewards. If getting a good gacha reward means a distinctly higher success of winning in these other aspects of the game, we must thus assign competitive values to prizes. High value gacha prizes become "wins" and low value gacha prizes become "losses". Like standard gambling, we are now paying to participate in a win-lose scenario.