UK Officials Say Loot Boxes Are Gambling

Astralporing.1957 · September 22, 2019

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:It's only hidden from people who dont play the game. You're also forgetting dye kits and mount liscences, and the mystic forge which everyone is ok with, not aware of because they dont play.Yes, dye kits and mount licenses are also a problem (not so incidentally, they would also qualify as gambling under those new UK proposals, by the way)
Also everything in a black lion chest can be obtained off the TP or with black lion statues. So none of it is even exclusive to black lion chests.Actually, yes, there definitely are things not available through black lion statues. You might want to look it up a little better next time.
@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:They never will fit the definition, because you are not gambling for equal or higher value. Not in the us either way, and people like me will continue to disagree with it.Notice that, first, value is subjective (seriously - the people gambling evidently consider what they could get to be more worth than the money they are spending on a single lootbox, or they wouldn't have gambled in the first place), second, you are talking about current US definition only. Incidentally, in many EU countries, the requirement you speak of is not part of the gambling definition. In fact, in my country, it is clearly mentioned that it is not necessary for the goods to have any assigned monetary value.So, again, in US this will not fit the current definition. That is exactly the reason why a lot of people want to have that definition changed. Because it is obviously way too narrow, and doesn't tak in consideration that we're now in 21th century and there are several technologies now that weren't present whan that old definition was being written.
Its entertainment, its no different then paying for a Netflix subscription and hoping that the movies you like will show up in rotation. Why is that not gambling?I don't know, maybe because you know what is currently on rotation before you pay for subscription. And because paying for more subscriptions will not get you a different set of movies in rotation.If what you were receiving was only a small subset of available movies, with good movies being "rare" in chance of showing up, if you didn't know what you will be able to watch until after you paid, and if you could pay to "reshuffle" that rotation, then yes, it would be gambling and something would need to be done with it. Fortunately, that's not what is happening.

ILoveMonotony.1479 · September 22, 2019

Hopefully this becomes a trend.

Trise.2865 · September 22, 2019

The argument being presented is: "everything is random, therefore exploitation cannot exist."

This is an obvious and blatant fallacy of logic, yet elicits powerful and extreme zealotry to the point of deliberately ignoring ironclad evidence of its falsehood. From this, we can derive three possible scenarios, or any combination thereof:

1: Said person is so far gone in their addictions they cannot conceive a scenario in which they are not being exploited.2: Said person lacks the rational ability to recognize logical fallacy and/or nuanced discussion.3: Said person is deliberately arguing for the sake of argument (aka "trolling").

I leave it to the people to decide which is correct and act accordingly.

yann.1946 · September 22, 2019

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:
@yann.1946 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.

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:It's pretty funny how everyone is ok with every type of rng, but not specific rng, even though all other forms of rng in the game can pretty much be directly enhanced or straight up bought by cash purchases.

You are assiming. You are the only person in this tread who keeps mentioning he is fine with rng. Most people haven't put forth their stance nor is this relevant. There is a severe difference between simulating random events and directly linking monetization to them.

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:But for some reason the lootbox is the target.
It's even more funny that the vice that everyone focuses on is "gambling addiction," but I guess gaming addiction is one that we let slide? I mean I guess it's fine If someone plays for 12 hrs a day, loses their job, gets divorced, dumps thousands into the cash shop. Because that's an addiction that requires no regulation or laws, but GAMBLING!! Oh noo role out the laws.

I already mentioned this. Two weongs to bot make a right. Gaming addiction is a serious issue and has its own challenges and needs its own attention.

What I find funny is how you keep repeating the same points over and over, get some reponses, go silent only to then return and repeat what you've stated in the past. Almost like a broke taperecorder hoping people who listend have moved on.

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:I mean, is the argument that, gaming addiction require self moderation, and parental supervision, but gambling addiction needs laws and regulations and restrictions? The hypocrisy is amazing.

Again, both need addressing. Gambling addiction and gambling already have precedent in that they are deemed regulation necessary.

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:And if you think gaming addiction needs laws and regulations too, then why play a game with so much vice in it?

Because a big part of these games playerbase, not GW2 but cellphone games for example, have no idea or concept of what game they are getting into? When was the ladt time you saw a 5 or 6 year old read about lootboxes in their cellphone game?

A small nitpick, but their have been different acceptances of RNG in the tread.

Everyone I saw was okay with unid gear

Some where for some where against ectogambling.

More then the previous where against keys.

To me the more interesting talking point was whether it would be okay if we removed keys from the gemstore. But made a vendor which sold them for gold.

They already are obtainable with gold. This shows how little people are aware. Everyone in this thread says, you can only buy keys with cash, that rng is not ok!

Here let me help

Farm gold > convert to gems > buy keys.

People know that though. It's a question about whether things which are not explicitly in the gemstore are OK.

Their is a difference their.

yann.1946 · September 22, 2019

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:
@yann.1946 said:
@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:
@yann.1946 said:
@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:Yet another recent story illustrating how innocent and totally not exploitative "surprise mechanics" are. It originates in the same report from the OP.
https://kotaku.com/player-spends-62-000-in-runescape-reigniting-communit-1838227818

To be fair, this is more a problem of bad parenting. People shouldn't make the parents blamefree because lootboxes are involved.

I would have thought it obvious already but on the slim chance this not an attempt to the same tired strawman, I will repeat it. Nobody is saying parents are blame free. But under the same logic other addictive activities should be left unregulated too. Kids buying alcohol and drugs under their parents nose. Should we let them do it? There is only one sane answer to this.

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.

I'm merely saying that you're example is badly chosen because it is almost entirely a parenting problem in this case.

We heard stories of children overspending before lootboxes were a thing. Buying all the emotes etc.

Their is little in what I read that suggested that if their were no lootboxes in that cash shop that he wouldn't have overspend.

The article under Alex's post was a much better example of the problems of gambling addiction.

Even if it hasn't been proven that lootboxes "encourage" spending more than regular microtransactions, one could have easily surmised that by how popular they have become within the industry. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion or this thread at all.

So yes, we heard stories of kids overspending before. But never to that extent and frequency.

Are we hearing more if it recently, I honestly can not tell. But that is why statistics are important.

And why you better use anacdotes which actually say what you want them to say. And their are better examples out their.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108 · September 22, 2019

This whole thing is nonsense. I wonder what the demographics are of those who purchase black lion chests with cash.

If I had to guess its probabily 80% over age 18 since the last time they did demographics on the playerbase the avg age of the population was like 21-29. I would say about 15% is below 18 but their parents know what their kids are doing since it's their credit card they are using and children cannot even get credit cards. And maybe 1-2% is kids under 18, who took their parents cards, in which case it gets charged back.

So we want to pass legislation that will either raise the age of the game to 18+ or remove black lion chests. Guarantee gw2 will opt to remove the chests. So because of 1-2% were going to remove a game feature that tons of people enjoy. So instead of saying regulate you really should all be saying eliminate because that's what you want and that's what your advocating does.

In addition it will level the gatcha game cell phone market which millions play, and enjoy responsibly and their accounts and playtime will be completely wiped out. As well as tons of other games that have chance based mechanics.

This coming from fellow "gamers" who have no problem with eliminating the enjoyment of other gamers as well as having them lose their accounts and progress, all because a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase is underage and unsupervised.

IndigoSundown.5419 · September 22, 2019

Dopamine is, at least according to current science, a neurotransmitter that confers motivational salience. What this means is that dopamine is involved in whether peoples' behavior moves them toward or away from specific objects or activities. Since the human brain functions by association, dopamine will propel one towards things that are desirable, and away from things that aren't. In the context of RNG, what this means is that the greater the person's psychological investment in the process, the more likely it is that dopamine will influence motivation, which can lead to long-term changes in a person's behavior.

In GW2, the pay-off from unid'd gear is small, and the investment in getting it is trivial. That means that the act of ID'ing it -- if it produces any response at all -- is going to produce a vastly lesser response than RNG associated with greater perceived payoff and greater investment in obtaining the chance to roll on the RNG tables. Ectos represent a greater investment in game play than unid'd gear, and the payoff is perhaps more desirable than with unid'd gear. However, farming the gold or spending RL money for Black Lion Keys represents a much greater investment, and the gewgaw of the month in the BLC's is a much greater payoff than anything one would expect to get from unid'd gear or ectos. For instance, the amount of gold needed to get one key at the current exchange rate would purchase close to a stack of ectos.

So, if there is greater distaste for loot boxes -- and I'm certain there is -- this is likely at least in part because loot boxes represent a much greater investment in both obtaining the die roll and the desired outcome. Remove the highly desirable gewgaw of the moment, and BLC's would move much closer to the other forms of RNG in the game. That would, of course, gut the BLK's as a source of revenue.

The topic of addiction is extremely complex and not something that will be resolved in a game forum. That said, since this topic keeps coming up, it does seem worthwhile to point out that greater investment in either games or RNG mechanics is more likely to result in addictive behavior than lesser investment. Assertions that anyone unhappy with loot boxes but not other in-game RNG is being hypocritical does not take this fact into account.

So, should loot boxes be banned? To begin, countries seeking to regulate loot boxes are not looking to ban them. The hysterical assertion that that is the case is an over-dramatized straw man. So, as much as I would prefer businesses offering goods for an open price, I can avoid patronizing loot boxes. That may have to be enough, although I do believe that games were more consumer-friendly before corporations decided to monetize them more heavily. So, a ban seems unlikely.

Edit: If game developers choose to act as if regulation were a ban, that's the developer's choice, and will likely be because they believe that they will make more money without them, but with a larger target audience, than they would make with them, but with a smaller target audience. That's less likely to be the case when/if the country which chooses to regulate is large enough that the lost loot box sales would be more significant than might be the case in, say,Belgium. Also, if they accept theregulation, they're acknowledging that the boxes are gambling, and they won't do that until they have no choice. So, that is going to figure in as well.

So, what about regulation? Buying MTG packs or other, similar, collectibles is not regulated. Gambling is in most places. Perhaps this is because the regulators are more concerned about gambling because much greater investment is likely (and stands to be lost) and because the payoff is likely greater. While opening a single loot box is likely a trivial investment, the fact is that most "surprise mechanics" involve opening a lot of them to get a desired item. This stands to increase investment. That leaves payoff. Any value in virtual gewgaws is purely subjective. However, asserting that this makes them valueless, and thus not worthy of being considered a payoff, flies in the face of the fact that players can and do spend huge amounts of cash on these things. So, money is going to be a bigger factor than psychology, whatever politicians or anyone else might say.

Yamazuki.6073 · September 22, 2019

I personally would prefer if loot boxes had a cap on how many were needed in order to get rewards, and in the case of duplicate rewards being worthless, no duplicates. This is why I had no issue with how mounts were done for GW2, but I don't like the BLCs.

One of the reasons why loot boxes are so common is because people refuse to pay more than 10$ or 20$ for some items. In fact, I've seen multiple publishers experiment with selling loot box items in the shop directly for ~30-50$ with the option of either buying it directly or just spending a couple dollars per loot box. Guess what happened? People whined the price was too high, and the majority opted for the loot box, and were "content" with the loot box route even if it took 80-100$+ to get the reward.

Just look at how often people complain cosmetics are "over priced" for GW2, despite it being one of the cheapest. How many games even charge 8-20$ for account wide cosmetics with a one time purchase of unlimited dyes that work for everything? It's really no surprise publishers/developers just shove rare items into loot boxes.

No matter what, they'll find a way to make you pay more than what they wanted to charge. See DLCs as another example. Publishers couldn't increase the price to 80$, people complained; don't worry though, now it's 60$ for the base game and another 60-180$+ for the rest of the game.

Erasculio.2914 · September 23, 2019

@"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.

AlexxxDelta.1806 · September 23, 2019

@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.

Zaklex.6308 · September 23, 2019

@Astralporing.1957 said:You make it sound as if government trying to protect their citizens from the excesses of unregulated capitalism is a bad thing.
Although i do find it funny, that in this case it's the communist china that is more progressive than US that are apparently still those 70 years behind and haven't even noticed we live in computer era yet, and some laws might need to be adjusted due to the advancements of the technology.

I prefer unregulated capitalism personally, but that's just my opinion and I know it's not held by many...besides I wouldn't trust anyone in Congress to even be able to comprehend the computer era and reasonably update the laws to reflect that(which would also include Fair Use laws for copyright issues, should be set in law at 1 minute of use or for specific purposes, like modded material, etc., a lot needs to be updated, but who's smart enough to understand how to update expect those that use it).

Zaklex.6308 · September 23, 2019

@yann.1946 said:
@"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:Yet another recent story illustrating how innocent and totally not exploitative "surprise mechanics" are. It originates in the same report from the OP.
https://kotaku.com/player-spends-62-000-in-runescape-reigniting-communit-1838227818

To be fair, this is more a problem of bad parenting. People shouldn't make the parents blame free because loot boxes are involved.

It's not even the parents fault, why should the parents be responsible for something their ADULT son did on his own, it's no ones fault but the ADULT son's.

AlexxxDelta.1806 · September 23, 2019

@yann.1946 said:
@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:
@yann.1946 said:
@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:
@yann.1946 said:
@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:Yet another recent story illustrating how innocent and totally not exploitative "surprise mechanics" are. It originates in the same report from the OP.
https://kotaku.com/player-spends-62-000-in-runescape-reigniting-communit-1838227818