Britain UK government considers regulating loot boxes as gambling

[FriedCFour]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Basically, a report came out saying a lot of children have used lootboxes before and sometimes people spend a lot of money on these so it needs regulation. Here's a radical thought for solving this though. How about instead of blaming the companies, parents stop giving children full access to their credit cards and allow consoles to raise their kids and keep them occupied so they can continue to be Winos in peace or whatever the UK equivalent is.

 

[Vyor]

Lootboxes are gambling. Regulations exist on gambling.

 

[FriedCFour]

Lootboxes are gambling. Regulations exist on gambling.

What makes them gambling, exactly? Because last I checked the definition is to play a game of chance for money. If the money aspect is eliminated then you need to regulate literally all games of chance as if its the same as a casino. Raffles, those little vending machines you put quarters in and get a random toy, kinder surprise eggs, you name it. All of that's just as much gambling as a loot box is.

 

[Vyor]

What makes them gambling, exactly? Because last I checked the definition is to play a game of chance for money. If the money aspect is eliminated then you need to regulate literally all games of chance as if its the same as a casino. Raffles, those little vending machines you put quarters in and get a random toy, kinder surprise eggs, you name it. All of that's just as much gambling as a loot box is.

That isn't the definition, at least not the legal definition.

Gambling is making a wager(usually with money) on an event with an uncertain outcome for the chance for a prize with a monetary value.

Purchased raffles are gambling, the other 2 you mentioned are not. You buy kinder eggs for the chocolate and the toy is a bonus. You're closer on your vending machine one, but there is no uncertain outcome there: you always get a toy.

The majority of lootboxes don't follow that. You can get nothing and you can get things with actual monetary value(eg: premium currency or CSGO skins).

Therefore, it's gambling.

 

[FriedCFour]

The majority of lootboxes don't follow that. You can get nothing and you can get things with actual monetary value(eg: premium currency or CSGO skins).

Almost every lootbox, as far as I am aware, gives you something. There is a guarantee of a prize, said prize changes in value. Every last CSGO box you get something from it.

 

[Abyssgazer]

Booo! Booo your poll options!

You didn't let the animals have enough time pooping on the straw you used for it! :V

As for considering it gambling, I think the main contention is the that you're paying real money for a RNG game(Within a game.), often without any recourse for earning an in-game currency to use as a substitute. And indeed that is one of my main problems of many current incarnations of lootboxes or Gacha games.(Which is also why I don't play them)

And I don't recall gambling being perfectly defined by the fact that you must earn a monetary prize.

Edit:

If there's a definition being used it would be this one.

bet (a sum of money) on a game of chance.

"he was gambling every penny he had on the spin of a wheel"

 

[Vyor]

Almost every lootbox, as far as I am aware, gives you something. There is a guarantee of a prize, said prize changes in value. Every last CSGO box you get something from it.

Except when you get duplicates sometimes and they self delete because you can only have 1 of something.

 

[khatun]

Its gambling and I'd be less angry about it existing as a function of certain games if 90% of them didn't rely on real life money instead of using in-game currency, and further less angry about it if AAA companies didn't use them as an excuse to limit access to items that should be part of DLCs/Expansions in order to wring every penny out of their customers that is humanly possible instead of actually making decent games outside of their one or two core properties that are only selling based off of cultural inertia.

If they were sold individually in some in-game shop I'd complain less, because free to play games will often have in-game shops to help fund themselves. Some of them even have loot-chests too, but you can get their keys with in-game currency more often than not, or just buy them on in-game player marketplaces, again, with in-game currency.

Screw this 'give us real money for a 1-10000 chance of getting the actual item you want' bullshit.

 

[FriedCFour]

Screw this 'give us real money for a 1-10000 chance of getting the actual item you want' bullshit.

Yeah I absolutely agree. Its why I generally dont play many triple A games. If you dont want to deal with lootboxes thats the solution, just dont. Dont legislate how a company gets to make their games.

 

[Harlock]

Gambling is a huge business, you can't walk 20 yards in most towns without finding a betting shop. The best paid CEO was head of the major online gambling company

The fact she so massively outstrips the other captains of industry should give an idea how much profit betting drags in, and how much influence.

 

[FriedCFour]

The big question I would pose is what is the difference really between packets of trading cards and lootboxes? The only major one I can see is that people tend to like trading cards more, or at the very least there is less dislike for them.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

So long as the terms (and odds) are publicly available, adults should be free to do as they want.

 

[Lightershoulders]

You can gamble goods and favors tho. I do it all the time. Money isn't required to make a gamble.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

The big question I would pose is what is the difference really between packets of trading cards and lootboxes? The only major one I can see is that people tend to like trading cards more, or at the very least there is less dislike for them.

That isn't the definition, at least not the legal definition.

Gambling is making a wager(usually with money) on an event with an uncertain outcome for the chance for a prize with a monetary value.

Purchased raffles are gambling, the other 2 you mentioned are not. You buy kinder eggs for the chocolate and the toy is a bonus. You're closer on your vending machine one, but there is no uncertain outcome there: you always get a toy.

The majority of lootboxes don't follow that. You can get nothing and you can get things with actual monetary value(eg: premium currency or CSGO skins).

Therefore, it's gambling.

Is one of those chocolate balls with a random toy inside gambling? Sometimes you get screwed and you only get candy.

Is a happy meal with a random toy Gambling?

 

[Lightershoulders]

Is one of those chocolate balls with a random toy inside gambling? Sometimes you get screwed and you only get candy.

Is a happy meal with a random toy Gambling?

Nope.

Because you are buying food with a random incentive, you aren't supposed to buy the food just for the random incentive. That's not the point.

Loot boxes are an entirely optional part of any game, not a feature.

 

[FriedCFour]

Loot boxes are an entirely optional part of any game, not a feature.

So if they are optional does that make them more gambling than being a feature?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Nope.

Because you are buying food with a random incentive, you aren't supposed to buy the food just for the random incentive. That's not the point.

Loot boxes are an entirely optional part of any game, not a feature.

But... the toy was why everyone bought wonder ball or whatever it was called. Thats like, the entire gimmick, that was the entire advertisement.

You've saying that if the game company sends you a handful of marshmallows with every purchase of a Lootbox, they no longer count as gambling?

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Here's the thing about lootboxes, to compulsive gamblers they ARE indeed gambling. And worse, it's gambling they CAN'T see coming. Even WORSE, it's gambling that can be introduced into what USED to be spaces where they went to AVOID engaging in addict behavior. And that's not just testimonials. We do, in fact, have data. In places where lootboxes have already BEEN regulated/with companies willing to take a profit hit for PR the ONLY people whose spending habits on a given game changed were compulsive gamblers.

And frankly, it doesn't take a genius to see some pretty strong distinctions between trading cards(at least physical) and lootboxes. One of the REALLY obvious ones is the way most lootboxes make giant shows of it. Another is that trading cards are always worth something to someone, oh, and there's a singles market, if you don't WANT to take risks with card packs you don't have to. EDIT Because Also: And btw, I wouldn't be distraught over TCG's getting regulated in a similar way to gambling, even for the differences they're close enough.

As for "optional"... often they are, then there's the Pay to Win variants, AKA EA's ENTIRE BLOODY BUSINESS MODEL.

As for parental controls... I go looking for them sometimes when I wanna dump a few hours in pointless frustration. Finding them is bloody hard.

 

[FriedCFour]

And frankly, it doesn't take a genius to see some pretty strong distinctions between trading cards(at least physical) and lootboxes. One of the REALLY obvious ones is the way most lootboxes make giant shows of it. Another is that trading cards are always worth something to someone, oh, and there's a singles market, if you don't WANT to take risks with card packs you don't have to.

See, being worth something makes it more like gambling, not less, and if a singles market is enough to make it different than anything that can be traded as a steam item like CSGO is now no longer gambling.

As for "optional"... often they are, then there's the Pay to Win variants, AKA EA's ENTIRE BLOODY BUSINESS MODEL.

So don't play EA games then. Is it that difficult not to?

 

[Lightershoulders]

So if they are optional does that make them more gambling than being a feature?

Yes, because the act of using a lootbox is not essential to beat*/participate* in a game.

*Depending on if the game is a multiplayer game or not.

But... the toy was why everyone bought wonder ball or whatever it was called. Thats like, the entire gimmick, that was the entire advertisement.

That was the gimmick, yeah. But the gimmick was so that people would buy the candy, otherwise they could have just sold the toys in little cardboard boxes with question marks on it.

You've saying that if the game company sends you a handful of marshmallows with every purchase of a Lootbox, they no longer count as gambling?

No, because there is a difference of intent.

The wonderball was so that people would buy the candy. They need the gimmick to sell.

Adding marshmallows to lootboxes would defeat the purpose of them, which is to sell a digital good for real currency. It would mess with their nearly 100% profit gain*. That might even cost more than gambling regulation.

*since they already made the digital good, paying the costs to make it upfront. Once they break even on it, it's all profit from there.