"Loot Crates" and GW2

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, that's not how law works. All the skins are equally without value no matter your subjective preference. When buying a license you are aware that any outcome you are about to receive is equally out of value. Thus it's not even gambling (according to current regulation). On top of which, since all results are equal (again without personal preference considered) you are always receiving equal value on your purchase.

Subjective value is still value. So long as the outcome is uncertain, it is gambling.

That's not the point. Subjective value does not count towards the legal definition of gambling.

I'm not talking about if it's an act of gambling but if it currently is covered by the legal definition, the only thing which actually matters when considering if an company will get affected by regulation.

EDIT: forums linked the wrong quotation I wanted to answer to (probably updated right as I was clicking). Corrected now

[Erasculio.2914]

@"mercury ranique.2170" said:Please see this from the perspective of debate. Lootcrates like GW2 and other games have been around for more then a decade. There where some people complaining, but there was no huge debate. No attention in the regular media. No talkshow items.

The way SWBF2 does it did deliver huge debates. A lot of attention in regular media. Items in talkshows. etc. etc.

Banning something that in general has always been accepted, cause one company crossed a line, is bad leadership.

I think you are contradicting yourself. It's not that loot boxes "have always been accepted". Rather, like you said, it's just that there has never been a frank debate about them; they began appearing slowly, without much talk about this subject, until it reached a break point. That break point is now, hopefully. But it doesn't mean the model we have been using until now was accepted, and that it shouldn't be changed.

I doubt very much the law would see any difference between gambling for skins or gambling for items that increase in-game effectiveness. I hope it won't see any difference, by the way. Hopefully, we will have a push strong enough to remove loot boxes from games;

[Astralporing.1957]

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, that's not how law works. All the skins are equally without value no matter your subjective preference. When buying a license you are aware that any outcome you are about to receive is equally out of value. Thus it's not even gambling (according to current regulation).In your country, perhaps. In mine, the result of the lottery does not need to have a monetary value for it to be recognized as a game of chance. All that is required is for you to buy (either for real money or some intermediary) something that gives you a result you can't predict. Specifically, under local law the loot boxes would be considered to be a kind of a raffle lottery (a game where participation occurs by purchasing a coupon or other game ticket and the entity organising the lottery offers only in-kind prizes). And raffles organized here require obtaining a government-issued approval (unless they're done for charity). Which you have to do separately for each raffle.Notice how in that raffle definition there's nothing mentioned about the value of the rewards or about how do you purchase the tickets.

Basically, the only reason why those laws do not apply to GW2 now is because the lawmakers either overlook them or do not consider enforcing them n this case to be that important. All that could change overnight, all that is required is some administrative decision on the higher level - no changes to existing laws are necessary.

That's my country, though. I have no idea how it is in yours - but it's entirely possible that at least some of already existing laws could be interpreted to cover at least some practices in already existing games as well.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, that's not how law works. All the skins are equally without value no matter your subjective preference. When buying a license you are aware that any outcome you are about to receive is equally out of value. Thus it's not even gambling (according to current regulation).In your country, perhaps. In mine, the result of the lottery does not need to have a monetary value for it to be recognized as a game of chance. All that is required is for you to buy (either for real money or some intermediary) something that gives you a result you can't predict. Specifically, under local law the loot boxes would be considered to be a kind of a raffle lottery (a game where participation occurs by purchasing a coupon or other game ticket and the entity organising the lottery offers only in-kind prizes). And raffles organized here require obtaining a government-issued approval (unless they're done for charity). Which you have to do separately for each raffle.Notice how in that raffle definition there's nothing mentioned about the value of the rewards or about

how

do you purchase the tickets.

Basically, the only reason why those laws do not apply to GW2 now is because the lawmakers either overlook them or do not consider enforcing them n this case to be that important. All that could change overnight, all that is required is some administrative decision on the higher level - no changes to existing laws are necessary.

That's my country, though. I have no idea how it is in yours - but it's entirely possible that at least some of already existing laws

could

be interpreted to cover at least some practices in already existing games as well.

Sure, depending on which country we are talking about different legislation applies.

Since Arenanet is a US based company though and a majority of the current loot box controversy happening is US based I was making an analysis based on how legislation in the US would deal with this (and to a great extent the EU).

I don't know how your country deals with online gambling or if it is even going to be affected by any changes in the US.

[Greyraven.4258]

This is nothing more than a few legislator s trying to get face time.....I fully expect that Hawaii gamer kid to become the source of many memes, I've already seen a few "feels bad man" As much as folks dislike loot boxes they really aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

Come on, Loot boxes are an enrichment to ANY game:

[MMAI.5892]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Actually the mount skins are in less danger than BLC. When you buy a mount license you are guaranteed always an equal return (subjective opinion doesn't matter as far as which skin you prefer). Since you can't sell or exchange skins you are literally getting your monies worth plus the total amount of available skins gets reduced.

I don't think the value of mount skin has to be subjective and herein is where - should any of this rise to a court - there could be an argument made. Value in the eyes of the customer is already an acceptable part of pricing even if the actual contents doesn't vary. If you serve the exact same cocktail in a plastic cup, people are less willing to pay a premium than if it's in a nice glass. It's a subjective valuation in the eyes of the customer because they don't get the glass (usually) no matter how many drinks they buy. Anet themselves have set a standard that not all skins are created equal. The original Halloween bundle was 500g per skin/400 with the discount. The reforged is 2000. Gliders sold between 400-500g, outfits between 490-1000g. Single piece armor skins range from 150-500.

Now, it could be said that the base value of any mount skin is 400g-500g so any license purchase guarantees you a skin equal to at least that amount. But I think the argument that could be made is that Anet knows a customer is less likely to value the 3rd, 4th, and 5th skins they get for a particular mount and/or have a preference in skin. The system is designed to keep them rolling for the ones they do. So, at some point, they are no longer getting their 'money's worth'. Otherwise why do a loot box at all? If customers are going to value all skins and thus be likely to purchase all of the skins, then there would be no need to make the mechanic of acquiring them random and Anet could simply offer a buy 4 get the fifth free (essentially the 30 discount package and the halloween "discount"). I can't say whether or not the argument would ultimately be successful and probably depends on the skills of lawyers and case law.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Since Arenanet is a US based company though and a majority of the current loot box controversy happening is US based I was making an analysis based on how legislation in the US would deal with this (and to a great extent the EU).

There is no single definition of "gambling" in the US, there are a variety of state and local laws that restrict gambling activities. So far as I know, the federal law which would be relevant here would be the UIGEA which "prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in a bet or wager that involves the use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any federal or state law."

"The Act defines a bet or wager to include risking something of value on the outcome of a contest, sports event, "or a game subject to chance." "

I would take it from that, that a loot box with uncertain outcome would fall into the latter category. Note that "value" of the result is not considered.

I mean, I'm sure there is a lot of technical details here, and it's possible that GW2's loot boxes do not meet the current definitions to be currently illegal, but that does not mean that they could not be included in future regulations. Further, it wouldn't even have to be a federal regulation, as it appears that making them illegal at the state level would automatically trigger their inclusion in the UIGEA, or at the very least making them illegal in a state or states of sufficient size would just make them too big of a hassle to include, since those elements would need to be carved out for players in those states, or thowse players would have to be banned from the game.

[Loosifah.4738]

Oh for the love of the gods; how many of these threads are we going to see before people quit making duplicates?

[maddoctor.2738]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:A good developer would just abandon rng boxes altogether, no matter ih these are p2w or just cosmetics. Gambling is bad, the game is not rated 18+ so dev should act reasonable to its target audience. Since market was unable to regulate itself with lootboxes, regulators are stepping in. If it hurts anet in the process it's their fault only - they don't need gambling boxes to earn money. But they chose to use them.

Did you read the End User License Agreement?I'll quote the relevant part here:

By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9© below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.

Although the game is not rated 18+, a minor 13-17 (the game is rated for 13+ so can't legally go lower than that) requires consent by an adult in order to play it.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:A good developer would just abandon rng boxes altogether, no matter ih these are p2w or just cosmetics. Gambling is bad, the game is not rated 18+ so dev should act reasonable to its target audience. Since market was unable to regulate itself with lootboxes, regulators are stepping in. If it hurts anet in the process it's their fault only - they don't need gambling boxes to earn money. But they chose to use them.

Did you read the End User License Agreement?I'll quote the relevant part here:

By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9© below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.

Although the game is not rated 18+, a minor 13-17 (the game is rated for 13+ so can't legally go lower than that) requires consent by an adult in order to play it.

The content of UA is worded this way because laws don't follow industry changes in recent years. Gaming industry is exploiting holes in law to milk its customers. Anet can write anything they want in UA but if regional law says otherwise, their silly documents are irrelevant :)

[Matick.4132]

Nobody said that lootboxes are a problem in itself.

Crates, boxes, barrels whatever flavour they may come in are a core of every RPG since, well, the beginning of time! ^^It's the >>> swearword of your delight <<< monetisation of it. Handing keys over only by making YOU handing over cash, THAT is the bummer.

So a good thing that Belgium is actually discussing a ban of this practice and EA was handed over their arses by the community. :)

[Matick.4132]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

The content of UA is worded this way because laws don't follow industry changes in recent years. Gaming industry is exploiting holes in law to milk its customers. Anet can write anything they want in UA but if regional law says otherwise, their silly documents are irrelevant :)

That's right, the law always trumps (doesn't it make you shiver nowadays to even write a word of such kind?!) any contract, if the contract isn't updated to the law.

[RabbitUp.8294]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:No, that's not how law works. All the skins are equally without value no matter your subjective preference. When buying a license you are aware that any outcome you are about to receive is equally out of value. Thus it's not even gambling (according to current regulation).In your country, perhaps. In mine, the result of the lottery does not need to have a monetary value for it to be recognized as a game of chance. All that is required is for you to buy (either for real money or some intermediary) something that gives you a result you can't predict. Specifically, under local law the loot boxes would be considered to be a kind of a raffle lottery (a game where participation occurs by purchasing a coupon or other game ticket and the entity organising the lottery offers only in-kind prizes). And raffles organized here require obtaining a government-issued approval (unless they're done for charity). Which you have to do separately for each raffle.Notice how in that raffle definition there's nothing mentioned about the value of the rewards or about

how

do you purchase the tickets.

Basically, the only reason why those laws do not apply to GW2 now is because the lawmakers either overlook them or do not consider enforcing them n this case to be that important. All that could change overnight, all that is required is some administrative decision on the higher level - no changes to existing laws are necessary.

That's my country, though. I have no idea how it is in yours - but it's entirely possible that at least some of already existing laws

could

be interpreted to cover at least some practices in already existing games as well.

Does your country treat trading card games as gambling, because I'm pretty sure those are legal everywhere. You buy booster packs with random content, and that's exactly how mount adoption licences work. In fact, the licences are more honest, since you are guaranteed no duplicates.

[Matick.4132]

@RabbitUp.8294 said:

In fact, the licences are more honest, since you are guaranteed no duplicates.

Well, if we're getting into THIS topic again. It should be well debated and stated by now, that if you want one you're walking into the likelihood that you have to buy 20/29 lootboxes to get the one desired. By that you'd spend a >>> swearword of your delight <<< of real world money, because as a normal person, you'd have to provided for your family with an IRL job and you can't waste 5 hrs of mind boggling farming each day in GW. So instead you have to have some extra cash besides you, if you wanna actually play the game and not farm it.

And because skins/customising your chars is a huge part of the endgame – and we've been there too by now – this isn't just the easy way of deviating this as 'Oh, it's just skins why even bother? duh!'So. If we agree on the fact that customising is a core part of the game, making a core part of the game only available thru spending real cash IS exploitation by it's best!

[wolfyrik.2017]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@wolfyrik.2017 said:The problem isn't even necessarily that the SWBF2 was pay to win, that was just the last straw. Many people have a problem with the practice in principal. It is gambling, it is encouraging people to gamble. It is encouraging chidren to gamble. So far loot boxes have escaped scrutiny as gambling soley on the fact that they require a digital currency. Despite the fact that real money is required, more of then than not, to get this money. The BL tickets have been a step further away from scrutiny due to the fact that most of what's in the crates can be gained through other means and the currency for them (Black lion keys, rather than gems) can be gained through playing. They're easier to aqcuire than gems, so it's less of an issue.

No mount skin can be gained through play, aside from grinding for gold, then converting to gems and the only way to acquire more than one dye channel for mounts is to gamble using the harder to get gems. This is encourages people to pay with real money. ie gambling, it targeting minors with incentives to gamble.

The mount adoption license is that step too far and that's why GW2 could be in jeopardy from these changes. People think that consumer based laws tend to be black and white. They're not, especially in Europe. Consumer law is designed to be flexible and cover grey areas. The belgian ruling, essentialy seeks to wipe out the distinction between digital currency and real world currency. It makes the two equivelent since one can only be acquired (at a reasonable rate or at all) through the other. This means that gambling with gems is still gambling. Which would mean that GW2 is breaking the law by encouraging minors (people under the age of 18 in the case of gambling) to gamble. Black lion chests are gambling but given the nature of them, they would probably slip by. Mount adoption on the other hand is absolutely a loot box. It is absolutely gambling.

Actually the mount skins are in less danger than BLC. When you buy a mount license you are guaranteed always an equal return (subjective opinion doesn't matter as far as which skin you prefer). Since you can't sell or exchange skins you are literally getting your monies worth plus the total amount of available skins gets reduced.

From a current legal definition, the mount license are not a huge issue.

I disagree, there are specific skins that people would want from the mount adoption crate, an no means to acquire them outside of it. People are pushed to gambling til they get the desired skin, the other skins are tantamount to a loss. We can argue whether or not the 2 channel skins are worth 400 gems, but that isn't really the issue. This is the most psychologically targeted loot crate in the game, that's what makes it objectionable. The problem isn't so much the current legal definiation, but the moral imperetive to change the legal definition to protect consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers from abusive practices. The question where european trade law and gambling is concerned is, is this an abusive practice / unfair cotract? I'm just surprised it isn't already considererd the latter.

Mind you given the types of gambling and unfair practices that are regularly ignored across Europe, such as the sale of snake-oil products like homeopathy and copper bracelets, I doubt that anything will change.

On the other hand politicians have always been a bit knee-jerk, when it comes to video games and minors.....

[wolfyrik.2017]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:A good developer would just abandon rng boxes altogether, no matter ih these are p2w or just cosmetics. Gambling is bad, the game is not rated 18+ so dev should act reasonable to its target audience. Since market was unable to regulate itself with lootboxes, regulators are stepping in. If it hurts anet in the process it's their fault only - they don't need gambling boxes to earn money. But they chose to use them.

Did you read the End User License Agreement?I'll quote the relevant part here:

By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9© below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.

Although the game is not rated 18+, a minor 13-17 (the game is rated for 13+ so can't legally go lower than that) requires consent by an adult in order to play it.

The problem here is that in Europe, no user agreement or contract can nullify statutory rights and protections. Consumer protection laws go by the standard "if it's likely to mislead the average member of the public". It's unreasonable to assume that the average 13-17 year old wouldnt be affected by psychological targetting and it's ureasonable to assume that the average parent would be aware that strong psychological targetting was being used to incite their children to engage in gambling. Thus the user agreement would be rendered an unfair contract and have no legal power.

Frankly I hope this is tested. Loot-boxes need to die a horrible death.

[Silmar Alech.4305]

I despise the BL-chests. I despise them since the beta and express my opinion since then. I despise the rng mechanics connected with it that makes you spend more money on a an item you desire without you realizing this. It is very good that a publisher like EA went over the top with their loot boxes, so this mechanics is discussed by players and consumer agencies/politicians.

I'm all in for a fair shop that just sells all of its items. A shop full of items, all items listed with their price, and all is ok. This is a shop I'd like to see. I will never buy a chance to get an item, and I never ever did in the past. I will only buy an item if it is offered directly, so I know exactly what I will get if I give my money.If I want to buy an apple, I'd like to buy an apple. I don't want to buy the chance to get an apple but actually get one raisin in 90% of my transactions.

If you want to support the game with your money, you don't need any lootboxes. Just buy stuff from the shop directly to your hearts desire.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Regardless of the current legal interpretations in various countries, consumers in general would benefit if businesses were to avoid using tricks to get the consumer to spend more money on a given item than they would be willing to spend without the trick. There are some consumers who like to gamble, and they could be negatively impacted if laws were made/revised and enforced which would require businesses to avoid using such tricks. In the meantime, consumers would be better off if they paid more attention to not only what companies are selling but whether the company is selling those things using a practice which is designed to trick them into spending more money than the market for the item would bear without the trick. Consumers paying attention can avoid such traps. As always, I encourage other consumers to take responsibility for their own spending.

[Biff.5312]

Besides your personal opinion...Please see this from the perspective of debate. Lootcrates like GW2 and other games have been around for more then a decade. There where some people complaining, but there was no huge debate. No attention in the regular media. No talkshow items.

The way SWBF2 does it did deliver huge debates. A lot of attention in regular media. Items in talkshows. etc. etc.

Banning something that in general has always been accepted, cause one company crossed a line, is bad leadership. It is like banning all busses and trucks, just cause a terrorist drove one into a crowd of people.

It is not the lootcrates that are bad, but the way it is utilized. To illustrate this a list of all lootcrates in GW2:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Category:Containers

Yet we only talk about 2 or 3The reason is that those are paid with real money.

How on earth is it supposed to be 'bad' to replace the gambling that's currently in place with purchasing selected items?

Also, whether it's 'called' gambling or not, it is gambling, and games allow and encourage children to engage in it and get hooked on the behavior. Just because it hasn't been a major media focus doesn't mean it's ok.

The problem I have with your position is that you act like we'd be LOSING something if the game didn't screw us as much as it does.

[Turial.1293]

@Loosifah.4738 said:Oh for the love of the gods; how many of these threads are we going to see before people quit making duplicates?

Probably plenty more until Anet have been reprimanded in some way by law or on the very slimmest of chances they offer an apology and revert their lootbox practices. I am just personally waiting for the joint boycott as a protest to all this.

[Laosduude.1690]

@Korval.3751 said:Black Lion Chests are for random vanity items. The loot crate system in SWBF2 was a Pay-2-Win model. My fear is both will be treated as the same.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Material_Bag

Discontinued, but renders your first sentence invalid.

[OneYenShort.3189]

While a lot of talk is being done about how "mmos" are going to be hit by it... really the mmo market for PC is very small. Where it will have a huge effect will be the mobile market.But as yet that whole pay to win aspect seems to be ignored there. Go figure.

[maddoctor.2738]

@OneYenShort.3189 said:While a lot of talk is being done about how "mmos" are going to be hit by it... really the mmo market for PC is very small. Where it will have a huge effect will be the mobile market.But as yet that whole pay to win aspect seems to be ignored there. Go figure.

I'm curious if it will ever affect trading card games. Trading Card Games have been around for years, at least since 1993, they are clear "loot boxes" as you pay real money and it's not sure what you'll get. They are also P2W as the more money you pay, the more boosters you open, the more powerful cards you are likely to get.

Older people might also remember the football/basketball/baseball trading cards that were going on back then. Got random ones from inside booster packs and then stick them in an album to complete the collection. Lots of kids bought those.

I'm not happy with loot boxes at all. However, all this talk about them being illegal is silly given how for decades similar things existed without a care in the world. It's not the loot boxes that are bad, it's how they are used to exploit their customers. If the Mount Adoption License was going for 20 gems (600 gems for the entire collection) I honestly wouldn't care at all.

[Ashen.2907]

@wolfyrik.2017 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:A good developer would just abandon rng boxes altogether, no matter ih these are p2w or just cosmetics. Gambling is bad, the game is not rated 18+ so dev should act reasonable to its target audience. Since market was unable to regulate itself with lootboxes, regulators are stepping in. If it hurts anet in the process it's their fault only - they don't need gambling boxes to earn money. But they chose to use them.

Did you read the End User License Agreement?I'll quote the relevant part here:

By clicking “I ACCEPT” You warrant and represent that You are: 1) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself; 2) at least 18 years of age and otherwise legally competent to read, understand and accept the provisions of this agreement on behalf of Yourself and a minor age 13-17 for whom You are legally permitted to allow access to the Game; or 3) a minor age 13-17 who has been authorized to click “I ACCEPT” under the provisions of Section 9© below. YOU ARE HEREBY FOREWARNED THAT ArenaNet MAY, IN ITS REASONABLE DISCRETION, EXERCISE ITS SECTION 3(b) RIGHT TO TERMINATE BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ABOVE.

Although the game is not rated 18+, a minor 13-17 (the game is rated for 13+ so can't legally go lower than that) requires consent by an adult in order to play it.

The problem here is that in Europe, no user agreement or contract can nullify statutory rights and protections. Consumer protection laws go by the standard "if it's likely to mislead the average member of the public". It's unreasonable to assume that the average 13-17 year old wouldnt be affected by psychological targetting and it's ureasonable to assume that the average parent would be aware that strong psychological targetting was being used to incite their children to engage in gambling. Thus the user agreement would be rendered an unfair contract and have no legal power.

Frankly I hope this is tested. Loot-boxes need to die a horrible death.

Not just in Europe. In California an EULA that isnt available at time of sale may not be binding. If you go into a game store and buy a copy of your favorite game, only to find out, after taking it home and installing it, that there is an EULA that was not present at the time you mad3 the purchase, then the EULA may not be binding.