Loot Box legislation and the future of RNG items in the BLM

Several states are currently looking at either restricting or removing what are being commonly referred to as "Loot Boxes" via gambling legislation, ie., random in game items gained through purchase with real world money.

Does Anet have a statement on this and how they would deal with such legislation in the states where it is passed.

When will you people get over this topic? Where is your evidence (you know link to a reputable source) for this "legislation". The game is pretty much free to play. You buy the game and you play. No monthly fees. No advantage to what is in the BL Chests except one may look prettier than another. It's a source of income for a no monthly fee game and you want stuff for free...

Why do you think the statuettes got added?

@"Oriens.5630" said:Several states are currently looking at either restricting or removing what are being commonly referred to as "Loot Boxes" via gambling legislation, ie., random in game items gained through purchase with real world money.

Does Anet have a statement on this and how they would deal with such legislation in the states where it is passed.

Technically, you're not buying loot boxes, you're buying keys to loot boxes which can also be earned in-game. And licenses aren't loot boxes, they are grab-bag.

Even if this "legislation" goes through, this will not be enforced in a way that takes immediate action but rather a process that likely will take years AFTER the legislation is passed.

And I hear posters saying "Well, Anet, doncha wanna take a pre-emptive steps before this goes into affect" to which I can only say you individuals are more insidious than the money grubbing companies trying to squeeze money from players.

From ESRB From Forbes article:

“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

@Leo G.4501 A lot of the legislation that I've seen other countries pass consider that the same as buying the box, since you have to spend money to open it. Doesn't reall ymatter if what you get is called the box or the key as long as you have to buy one part of it

@OP Usually when legislation like this is considered, it only refers to loot boxes that cannot be opened without spending money. You can earn black lion keys in game, even if its an astronomically small rate. This would exclude GW2 from a lot of the legislation I've seen proposed about this. About the statuettes, I think that is just Anet being generous really.

@"usnedward.9023" said:From ESRB From Forbes article:

“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”That is an old article I think?

If ESRB doesnt fix their shit themselves, I am fairly certain FTC will tell them to fix their shit themselves or the government will regulate it.

Some of the arguments that its "different" because you are buying keys and not boxes is hilarious, or ESRB argument that you are always getting something so its not gaming is just... mindboggling.

Its fucking identical to a slot machine.

Is GW2s loot boxes of the bad kind? No, they're not. I dont think they are bad. Its a fairly good implementation of loot boxes and the gold to gems option is an excellent icing on the cake. Its what make many people still enjoy GW2, there is no bullshit p2w hidden in the boxes. But thats not really the point, is it? Its still loot boxes. Anet could easily manipulate droprates without oversight and more predatory. How do we know an item that we want is really in them, even if the game goes "huehuehue its a very small chance of drop trust me buy more keys"? What, players are gonna confirm it for us? All well and good because its not my money but imagine if casino regulations was based around the casinos just saying "just come and gamble your money away, you'll find out the win rates" lol.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"usnedward.9023" said:From ESRB From Forbes article:

“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

That is an old article I think?

When you gamble with a slot machine, you either win or you lose. You always get something with Black lion chests.

@"usnedward.9023" said:When will you people get over this topic? Where is your evidence (you know link to a reputable source) for this "legislation".

From which country GW2 is sold and played in do you want to see evidence? Anyway, at least in Germany there isn't any legislation in place right now. The topic made it to the legislators though, and big newspapers started reporting on it. It will take a while until we see legislation, the point is that it's something the publishers need to consider.

It's quite difficult to tell if stuff in this game will fall under gambling regulation, youth protection, or if new regulations have to be created, or if everything will be just fine. Fact is that regulators world wide started investigating, a simple google news search will help you find evidence.

It's possible that buying revive orbs with gems/money is worse than Black Lion Chests. You get a clear advantage in the game with them. You can almost force your group to beat 100cm Arkk with low skill if everybody has just enough revive orbs. It's not "cosmetic" (whatever that really means) and costs money.

Nobody knows yet what exactly will happen, but we know that publishers got the attention of regulators in several countries. It's way too early to ask publishers for a statement and it's too early to condemn or dismiss concerns about specific mechanics based on legislations. It's simply not decided yet if existing legislation will be applied or if new regulations will be created for the new phenomenon. I say new because most other stuff that's regulated exists for many years, decades or even hundreds of years. Gambling was probably already regulated in ancient Rome.

Here are the proposals in Hawaii:

House Bill 2686 and Senate Bill 3024, would prohibit the sale of any game featuring a system wherein players can purchase a randomized reward using real money to anyone younger than 21 years old.The other two bills, House Bill 2727 and Senate Bill 3025, would require video game publishers to prominently label games containing such randomized purchase systems, as well as disclose the probability rates of receiving each loot box reward.

The first pair of bills are "in committee", meaning that they aren't very far along in the legislative process. The second pair of bills was recommended 6-3 by committee for amendments and amended, so it's due to go back to committee. If they did pass, they could only affect games sold in Hawaii, so there's some chance that industry lobbyists would fight it in court, since typically US states cannot pass laws that would impact what happens in other states (and it could easily be argued that such a law would open the door to every gaming company having to learn the laws of every local constituency, which I think everyone can agree is unrealistic).

Near as I can tell, there's even less progress in other parts of the world.

In short, there's nothing for ANet to comment on. It's currently the legislative equivalent of "vaporware:" promised by many, delivered by none (not yet anyhow).

Text of one of the bills.I'm not a lawyer (I've just seen them played on TV), but I've already found parts that seems unenforceable by any reasonable understanding of how online games work:

No video game publisher shall at any time modify a game to contain or otherwise permit the inclusion of additional content for which the game was not appropriately labeled at the time of original sale.(The "labeling" refers to denoting whether the game includes "in-game purchases and gambling-like mechanisms which may be harmful or addictive." )

This is problematic because it would mean that publishers would have to know in advance how they plan to monetize the game. And as we can see with GW2, ANet's strategy has evolved over time. Does Hawaii really think that games remain the same from the moment they are published? Would GW2 (for example) be permitted to sell an expansion with loot boxes, if the original game didn't include them? Would it be forced to prevent people without the expansion from using certain items?

It also contains the following requirement:

The department of commerce and consumer affairs, in consultation with the office of enterprise technology services, is authorized to audit the code of video games sold in this State and subject to this section to ensure that the probability rates for receiving each type of randomized reward or rewards are calculated correctly and working properly. The department may contract with a third party to provide additional assistance as needed. The department shall not publicly disclose proprietary information beyond that which is necessary to fulfill the intent of this section.

There's a number of issues with that section: where is the money coming from to perform the audit? How would 'the department' test "the code"? (And more correctly: isn't the issue about what the results would be in game, rather than what the code is supposed to do?) How would 'the department' ensure that proprietary information isn't leaked? How would they ensure that cheaters (and hackers that create programs to cheat) don't get this information to make it easier to bypass the game's odds?

I don't mean to suggest that governments have no role to play. I do mean to suggest that these particular pieces of legislation seem to be written hastily, without consulting experts in the field of MMOs (and there are many who are sympathetic to the goals). The legislation is better than "just a news conference," but not by much.

If Hawaii's goal is to protect people from being manipulated into spending too much on a game, it seems that there are better ways to go about it. (I also wonder why MMOs are considered a bigger threat than online & smart phone games, which have more customers and all sorts of interesting ways of their own to encourage folks to spend and spend some more.)

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"usnedward.9023" said:From ESRB From Forbes article:

“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

That is an old article I think?

You dont "win or loose". You often win in a manner thats not ideal - less than you wagered, less than you wanted. Thats why they are freaking addictive and a vast majority of casino earnings. Its still a win, maybe next time is a better win. The very purpose of this behaviour is predatory and aimed at keeping the player engaged for a longer time at the slot machine, to make them... enjoy it. Sounds familiar? Here is a hint - "live services".

Again, I do not think BL chest are bad. But its the same mechanics.

I'm actually a bit confounded at the replies to my OP that are so hostile. At no point have I even suggested that GW2 is morally wrong or that they should do away with BLChests, random mount skins, etc.

What I wanted to know is how they plan on handling it if a few states go ahead with enforceable plans, while other states do not. Will they fight this in court with other game companies? Will they simply comply and create a differing set of items for states that do go ahead with these plans. How they fund the game has a direct impact on me and I'd like to be at least moderately prepared.

For those of you who offered rational replies, thank you. A few of your comments gave me some of the insight into the issues I was looking for.

I'm just curious as to what they consider to be their options.

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"usnedward.9023" said:From ESRB From Forbes article:

“ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling,” said an ESRB spokesperson. “While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”

That is an old article I think?

Hmm, last time I was in a Casino, I dropped a dollar into the slot machine. I pushed the button and things spun around. After things spun around, nothing happened. I didn't get any money back. I got nothing, zero. I figured I LOST.

Every single time I opened a black lion chest, I got something! Guess there is a difference after all.

@"usnedward.9023" said:Where is your evidence (you know link to a reputable source) for this "legislation".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2018/02/15/us-senator-confronts-the-esrb-over-loot-box-classification-and-addiction/#2c6c0d835a97

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2018/02/13/ea-activision-and-others-should-be-afraid-of-hawaiis-new-loot-box-bills/#1a701ea6b5ff

https://kotaku.com/this-week-in-the-business-legislators-and-loot-boxes-1823099258

https://www.pcgamer.com/loot-boxes-are-bad-but-new-legislation-could-be-worse/

https://www.pcgamer.com/us-senator-calls-on-esrb-to-take-action-on-loot-boxes-suggests-ftc-could-get-involved/

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/02/us-senator-demands-review-of-loot-box-policies-citing-potential-harm/

https://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-red-responds-to-loot-box-controversy/

This wont happend

@Leo G.4501 said:

@"Oriens.5630" said:

Parts of your reply were helpful for me, thank you.

But I'm unclear as to how simple curiousity is "insidious". That kind of thinking frightens me actually. "You ask questions, you are the enemy!" That simply isn't rational.

@"Oriens.5630" said:Several states are currently looking at either restricting or removing what are being commonly referred to as "Loot Boxes" via gambling legislation, ie., random in game items gained through purchase with real world money.

Does Anet have a statement on this and how they would deal with such legislation in the states where it is passed.

I think this is a reasonable question to ask, even if anet never answers questions like this.It's a typical situation of "the law hasnt caught up with technology" and games publishers (way bigger ones than anet) abuse the hell out of it to make millions and millions of dollars with psychological strategies like you have in casinos, they just call it a lootbox.They dont seem to care whether this can really push people into gambling addiction or not, all thats important is that this makes alooooooooota cash for them. look at blizzards recent numbers for example.So people call out for the ESRB to do something. lol. I'm no american, but as far as I understand the ESRB is an organization handled BY THE INDUSTRY for SELF REGULATION of THE INDUSTRY. Sounds ridiculous to me, because this means nothing is going to change unless law catches up and forces them to stop.Legislation smells publicity here, not just in the US. and its about time they do something about it.How this is going to affect anet? for now not at all. You know politicians, it's not like they want to do stuff quickly. Lobbyists have to do their work first, in order to ensure the industry still gets all the money.But I am getting waay too political here for a games forum, sorry. I hope Anet can find another way to make money, through actual sales for example, if they are ever forced to remove black lion chests and the like from the game. And I hope they wont go down the EA/Blizzard/Ubisoft road of "business".

There will hardly be anything done. Most politicians don't actually care, proposed things are obviously rushed and not thought out all that well. The whole point is for them to look like the good guys when they aren't. Any politician who talks about loot boxes and "protecting children" are stupid and are after attention. Loot boxes are rarely purchased by children and teenagers, especially considering parents have methods of getting their money back if their child got "addicted" to them, game developers and publishers do NOT want children mass buying loot boxes as they lose money when their parents make the claim too. Loot boxes are predominantly purchased by adults, as the average age of gamers are adults and would not be protected by any legislation that aims to protect children.

Look at Asia, they do have legislation put up against loot boxes, and surprise surprise, they are still there anyways.

Even outside of the US, french politicians stated they aren't concerned with cosmetic loot boxes, this means any legislation they passed would only harm EA and mobile games as they're the ones trying to push pay to win boxes. There's a reason why EA and mobile games are referenced a lot, they have games designed specifically to make you feel forced into spending money in order to progress through the game. Even those apart of the industry state loot boxes are fine, just not those that are designed in ways to exploit their customers.

If you truly don't like loot boxes, then I would suggest not praising a bunch of politicians pulling a publicity stunt. They're not gamers, they know very little about games, and they don't care about you. All they want is more money.

It's far too early for Anet, or any company, to release a public statement on this. The lawmakers are still in the very early stages of discussing amongst themselves what legislation they want to propose. Then it has to be presented, gone over in more detail by a larger group of experts (hopefully, there have been cases, especially in the USA recently, where this has been skipped) and voted on before it even has a chance to become law. And a lot can change as it's going through that process.

Anet and other games companies may choose to contact relevant people in government to give their opinions, just like anyone can when they know a law or other legislation is being considered. But asking for a public statement would be like asking for a review of a game that's just started development - even if it was possible for someone to get the info needed to write one what they see and the final version are likely to be so different that it will be meaningless by the time it's released.

@usnedward.9023 said:I want to add one more thing.... I HOPE if legislation like this happens they start charging a monthly fee to the game...people quit and you whiners have ruined a good game.

I wouldn’t quit after a monthly fee, but I know many will.Buy2Play is what drew many to the GW and GW2 universe, and many would leave/not be drawn into the game with a P2P mode.When I was a kid I got to choose between GW1 and WoW.. well.. obvious choice.But the gemstore is a necessity for a Buy2Play game to survive, its their revenue between expansions.

the thing with loot boxes in GW2 is that you always get more then what you payed for, purely looking at gem prices VS item gem prices it's always a win.keys are 125 gems, you can't buy anything for 125 gems you get from chests, there is always something more expensive coming out of it.

Any regulation limiting or removing gambling scam practices from games is good and customer friendly.

@Ayakaru.6583 said:But the gemstore is a necessity for a Buy2Play game to survive, its their revenue between expansions.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the store existing, the problem is it existing in a healthy manner. I'm not saying Anet is guilty of it, but other companies have pretty much ruined the traditional healthy micro-transactions market by implementing some extremely sleezy practices.

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Text of one of the bills.I'm not a lawyer (I've just seen them played on TV), but I've already found parts that seems unenforceable by any reasonable understanding of how online games work:

No video game publisher shall at any time modify a game to contain or otherwise permit the inclusion of additional content for which the game was not appropriately labeled at the time of original sale.(The "labeling" refers to denoting whether the game includes "in-game purchases and gambling-like mechanisms which may be harmful or addictive." )

The department of commerce and consumer affairs, in consultation with the office of enterprise technology services, is authorized to audit the code of video games sold in this State and subject to this section to ensure that the probability rates for receiving each type of randomized reward or rewards are calculated correctly and working properly. The department may contract with a third party to provide additional assistance as needed. The department shall not publicly disclose proprietary information beyond that which is necessary to fulfill the intent of this section.

Seems to me legislation is the wrong way to do things here anyway. They could at least force the ESRB to set a "mature" rating for any games that ask for further monetization (is this a word?) after original purchase...this would include subscriptions. This is in hopes of curbing responsibility, and hopefully dissuade parents from purchasing said games in the first place. Much cheaper then involving something as clumsy or expensive as government (they barely understand vidya games as you pointed out). Then maybe the AAA/mobile industry will actually produce quality instead of "Skinner Boxes" that merely pull psychological strings for easy money.

The alternative is to use inspiration for the next generation when faced with the reality that legistration is slow or fails.

! Example:

P.S. I am aware that children are not necessarily the ones buying all the loot boxes. Gambling isn't allowed for children in casinos so...I applied that reasoning to video games with the "mature rating" suggestion. I am also aware gems can be gained within the game itself without requiring real money (something many games lack).