UK Officials Say Loot Boxes Are Gambling

[Zaklex.6308]

@Potatoface.1287 said:

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:The good news, is these laws will most likely never come to the states, as they arent anywhere near close to what is legally considered "gambling"

Legal definitions can and have been changed.

Then again, there is no need for this to change in the states. The US is not the only, nor is it biggest market for videp games. If enough of the global market shifts, game companies will be forced to adapt. What this means for the states? Who knows, either players there will be stuck with lootboxes while in other countries players get alternate means to acquire rewards or lootboxes get removed entirely.

That's their fear actually. They know the current political climate in the US is unfavorable to any change threatening the corporate overlords. That's why they keep repeating the mantra about the "lEgaL deFiniTion of GambLinG". They know any type of change to that there is facing an uphill struggle.

But they fear change elsewhere. Because they know the more countries decide to regulate, the bigger the financial hit for the studios becomes. Especially with a market like UK. And that might force the industry to change their ways including the US, and take away their favourite "poison". Not from regulation but because it's not as profitable anymore to justify the horrible PR.

Funny that you think you're fighting the good fight, when you're advocating taking games and entertainment away from millions. Even more hypocritical, a game you play.

I'm pretty sure I can't take away anyone's enjoyment alone. If something changes it will be because the voice of many prompted authorities from

democratically

elected governments to take action. You know democracy...the rule of the

majority

.

I enjoy playing GW2 (maybe a bit less these days but still enough). If I was told its only option to keep the service going, was to keep exploiting players with its gambleboxes, I'd sign its demise with both hands.

It's called "having principles". Even when upholding them might hurt your own enjoyment. I fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

But then again I fail to see a lot of things the way you do, with your...unique perspective.

Principles like religious morals. Which is really all this is about.

People need to keep their own personal religious beliefs out of these things, same with principles(not everyone has the same principles)...we has humans were created to be exploited, it's part of our nature, you either learn to control who exploits you...or you fall into the group that just doesn't know better or care.

This guy knows his argument is invalid, and brings religion to the game, the desperation!

Not sure who you're referring to, me or the person I quoted...though neither of us really brought religion into it...and if anyone ever asked what my beliefs where...they get this answer: I believe what I believe...and that's it, I'll repeat that same answer as many times as people ask, it's really no ones business. Besides, most peoples principles are formed from what ever religion they happen to follow, and if you don't follow one then you're smarter than most and can decide for yourself what is moral and what isn't(which again is also a personal decision, one person might think something is immoral and the person next to them just the opposite).

[yann.1946]

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:The good news, is these laws will most likely never come to the states, as they arent anywhere near close to what is legally considered "gambling"

Legal definitions can and have been changed.

Then again, there is no need for this to change in the states. The US is not the only, nor is it biggest market for videp games. If enough of the global market shifts, game companies will be forced to adapt. What this means for the states? Who knows, either players there will be stuck with lootboxes while in other countries players get alternate means to acquire rewards or lootboxes get removed entirely.

That's their fear actually. They know the current political climate in the US is unfavorable to any change threatening the corporate overlords. That's why they keep repeating the mantra about the "lEgaL deFiniTion of GambLinG". They know any type of change to that there is facing an uphill struggle.

But they fear change elsewhere. Because they know the more countries decide to regulate, the bigger the financial hit for the studios becomes. Especially with a market like UK. And that might force the industry to change their ways including the US, and take away their favourite "poison". Not from regulation but because it's not as profitable anymore to justify the horrible PR.

Funny that you think you're fighting the good fight, when you're advocating taking games and entertainment away from millions. Even more hypocritical, a game you play.

I'm pretty sure I can't take away anyone's enjoyment alone. If something changes it will be because the voice of many prompted authorities from

democratically

elected governments to take action. You know democracy...the rule of the

majority

.

I enjoy playing GW2 (maybe a bit less these days but still enough). If I was told its only option to keep the service going, was to keep exploiting players with its gambleboxes, I'd sign its demise with both hands.

It's called "having principles". Even when upholding them might hurt your own enjoyment. I fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

But then again I fail to see a lot of things the way you do, with your...unique perspective.

Principles like religious morals. Which is really all this is about.

Are you implying agnostics and atheists can't have principles in their life doc? That's where we are going now?

@yann.1946 said:

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:And should we turn a blind eye to an obviously exploitative, unethical and manipulative practice because some parents don't have their kids on a tight leash? I refuse to let the thief off the hook because the home owner left the door unlocked. The main problem is the thief, not the unlocked door.

And this is the main argument, IMO.

We

know

loot boxes are predatory. We know everything about them - the user interface when opening them, the "limited offer"-kind of deals, the fact they're bought with points and not directly with money, and so on - has been designed to promote impulsive buying and spending more money than a person would rationally be willing to spend. We also know how obtuse and dense gaming companies' representatives were during the UK hearings about loot boxes, because said representatives know very well what they're doing is exploiting people.

There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative.

You do realise that this argument also holds about sales in general. The oranges are 20% of are also meant to increase impulse buying.

Ofcourse their are differences with lootboxes. Mostly in regards to addiction.

But most people have no problem with being exploited as long as it are steams ales for example.

The limited offer thing was just one of the points addresed in that post.

Comparing the "exploitation" of steam sales with the exploitation of lootboxes is comparing apples and oranges at best. Probably because oranges are 20% off.

So you are against sales also? I'm not comparing sales with lootboxes though. I'm merely pointing out that some exploitation is generally accepted.

So if you want to argue merely from an exploitation perspective you have to argue either the ban on all exploitation or why some are acceptable and others not.

In lootboxes, gambling addiction is one of the points you could bring up then.

I did enjoy the orange joke though thank you.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

@yann.1946 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:The good news, is these laws will most likely never come to the states, as they arent anywhere near close to what is legally considered "gambling"

Legal definitions can and have been changed.

Then again, there is no need for this to change in the states. The US is not the only, nor is it biggest market for videp games. If enough of the global market shifts, game companies will be forced to adapt. What this means for the states? Who knows, either players there will be stuck with lootboxes while in other countries players get alternate means to acquire rewards or lootboxes get removed entirely.

That's their fear actually. They know the current political climate in the US is unfavorable to any change threatening the corporate overlords. That's why they keep repeating the mantra about the "lEgaL deFiniTion of GambLinG". They know any type of change to that there is facing an uphill struggle.

But they fear change elsewhere. Because they know the more countries decide to regulate, the bigger the financial hit for the studios becomes. Especially with a market like UK. And that might force the industry to change their ways including the US, and take away their favourite "poison". Not from regulation but because it's not as profitable anymore to justify the horrible PR.

Funny that you think you're fighting the good fight, when you're advocating taking games and entertainment away from millions. Even more hypocritical, a game you play.

I'm pretty sure I can't take away anyone's enjoyment alone. If something changes it will be because the voice of many prompted authorities from

democratically

elected governments to take action. You know democracy...the rule of the

majority

.

I enjoy playing GW2 (maybe a bit less these days but still enough). If I was told its only option to keep the service going, was to keep exploiting players with its gambleboxes, I'd sign its demise with both hands.

It's called "having principles". Even when upholding them might hurt your own enjoyment. I fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

But then again I fail to see a lot of things the way you do, with your...unique perspective.

Principles like religious morals. Which is really all this is about.

Are you implying agnostics and atheists can't have principles in their life doc? That's where we are going now?

@yann.1946 said:

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:And should we turn a blind eye to an obviously exploitative, unethical and manipulative practice because some parents don't have their kids on a tight leash? I refuse to let the thief off the hook because the home owner left the door unlocked. The main problem is the thief, not the unlocked door.

And this is the main argument, IMO.

We

know

loot boxes are predatory. We know everything about them - the user interface when opening them, the "limited offer"-kind of deals, the fact they're bought with points and not directly with money, and so on - has been designed to promote impulsive buying and spending more money than a person would rationally be willing to spend. We also know how obtuse and dense gaming companies' representatives were during the UK hearings about loot boxes, because said representatives know very well what they're doing is exploiting people.

There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative.

You do realise that this argument also holds about sales in general. The oranges are 20% of are also meant to increase impulse buying.

Ofcourse their are differences with lootboxes. Mostly in regards to addiction.

But most people have no problem with being exploited as long as it are steams ales for example.

The limited offer thing was just one of the points addresed in that post.

Comparing the "exploitation" of steam sales with the exploitation of lootboxes is comparing apples and oranges at best. Probably because oranges are 20% off.

So you are against sales also? I'm not comparing sales with lootboxes though. I'm merely pointing out that some exploitation is generally accepted.

So if you want to argue merely from an exploitation perspective you have to argue either the ban on all exploitation or why some are acceptable and others not.

In lootboxes, gambling addiction is one of the points you could bring up then.

I did enjoy the orange joke though thank you.

Limited time sales is a simple market ploy as old as capitalism . Not every market ploy is as manipulative and as exploitative. That's false equivalence.

On the other hand, we have an insidious practice that is intentionally designed to exploit and even encourage addiction. That's true exploitation.

[yann.1946]

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:The good news, is these laws will most likely never come to the states, as they arent anywhere near close to what is legally considered "gambling"

Legal definitions can and have been changed.

Then again, there is no need for this to change in the states. The US is not the only, nor is it biggest market for videp games. If enough of the global market shifts, game companies will be forced to adapt. What this means for the states? Who knows, either players there will be stuck with lootboxes while in other countries players get alternate means to acquire rewards or lootboxes get removed entirely.

That's their fear actually. They know the current political climate in the US is unfavorable to any change threatening the corporate overlords. That's why they keep repeating the mantra about the "lEgaL deFiniTion of GambLinG". They know any type of change to that there is facing an uphill struggle.

But they fear change elsewhere. Because they know the more countries decide to regulate, the bigger the financial hit for the studios becomes. Especially with a market like UK. And that might force the industry to change their ways including the US, and take away their favourite "poison". Not from regulation but because it's not as profitable anymore to justify the horrible PR.

Funny that you think you're fighting the good fight, when you're advocating taking games and entertainment away from millions. Even more hypocritical, a game you play.

I'm pretty sure I can't take away anyone's enjoyment alone. If something changes it will be because the voice of many prompted authorities from

democratically

elected governments to take action. You know democracy...the rule of the

majority

.

I enjoy playing GW2 (maybe a bit less these days but still enough). If I was told its only option to keep the service going, was to keep exploiting players with its gambleboxes, I'd sign its demise with both hands.

It's called "having principles". Even when upholding them might hurt your own enjoyment. I fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

But then again I fail to see a lot of things the way you do, with your...unique perspective.

Principles like religious morals. Which is really all this is about.

Are you implying agnostics and atheists can't have principles in their life doc? That's where we are going now?

@yann.1946 said:

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:And should we turn a blind eye to an obviously exploitative, unethical and manipulative practice because some parents don't have their kids on a tight leash? I refuse to let the thief off the hook because the home owner left the door unlocked. The main problem is the thief, not the unlocked door.

And this is the main argument, IMO.

We

know

loot boxes are predatory. We know everything about them - the user interface when opening them, the "limited offer"-kind of deals, the fact they're bought with points and not directly with money, and so on - has been designed to promote impulsive buying and spending more money than a person would rationally be willing to spend. We also know how obtuse and dense gaming companies' representatives were during the UK hearings about loot boxes, because said representatives know very well what they're doing is exploiting people.

There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative.

You do realise that this argument also holds about sales in general. The oranges are 20% of are also meant to increase impulse buying.

Ofcourse their are differences with lootboxes. Mostly in regards to addiction.

But most people have no problem with being exploited as long as it are steams ales for example.

The limited offer thing was just one of the points addresed in that post.

Comparing the "exploitation" of steam sales with the exploitation of lootboxes is comparing apples and oranges at best. Probably because oranges are 20% off.

So you are against sales also? I'm not comparing sales with lootboxes though. I'm merely pointing out that some exploitation is generally accepted.

So if you want to argue merely from an exploitation perspective you have to argue either the ban on all exploitation or why some are acceptable and others not.

In lootboxes, gambling addiction is one of the points you could bring up then.

I did enjoy the orange joke though thank you.

Limited time sales is a simple market ploy as old as capitalism . Not every market ploy is as manipulative and as exploitative. That's false equivalence.

On the other hand, we have an insidious practice that is intentionally designed to exploit and even encourage addiction. That's true exploitation.

The argument the poster was making i originally responded to is

"There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative."

This argumention does not differentiate between small and big cases of exploitative behavior. I just used a Reductio ad absurdum to show that this argument is at best an incomplete argument.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"yann.1946" said:The argument the poster was making i originally responded to is

"There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative."

This argumention does not differentiate between small and big cases of exploitative behavior. I just used a Reductio ad absurdum to show that this argument is at best an incomplete argument.Yes, the double negative is completely unnecessary here. It would be better to frame it as"there is a reason to forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative."

[yann.1946]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"yann.1946" said:The argument the poster was making i originally responded to is

"There isn't a reason to not forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative."

This argumention does not differentiate between small and big cases of exploitative behavior. I just used a Reductio ad absurdum to show that this argument is at best an incomplete argument.Yes, the double negative is completely unnecessary here. It would be better to frame it as"there is a reason to forbid gaming companies from exploiting people, when everyone involved knows they're being exploitative."

We'll the differention between small and big cases of exploitative behavior is still not being made. Plus, no reason not to forbid, is a stronger statement then, is a reason to forbid.

But your version does sound better though. Although still incomplete in my opinion.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@yann.1946 said:As far as I remember everything eventually comes to statuettes or am I mistaken?You are. For example, permanent contracts were never obtainable using statuettes, and i am sure they never will.

You can buy them off the TP from other players, leaving the rng up to other players.

[Stephane Lo Presti.7258]

While we want to allow players to discuss topics that are related to the game, even if loosely, this discussion is a good reminder that it can take a bad turn when real-life considerations (e.g. politics) start creeping in and people argue back and forth, leading to warnings being issued to some. I'm now closing this discussion and kindly asking that nobody creates another one on this topic (or we will remove it and issue a warning).