
EA reportedly under criminal investigation in Belgium due to FIFA's loot boxes - Mustafabei
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-10-ea-reportedly-under-criminal-investigation-in-belgium-due-to-fifas-loot-boxes
======
Agentlien
_Mandatory disclosure: I am a programmer working for EA and the following are
my personal opinions. I do not represent EA in any official capacity._

It's my strong opinion that the whole loot box phenomenon makes games as a
whole worse.

For me, it's not the gambling aspects of it, per se. I am an avid Magic: the
Gathering player and never decried the way its loot boxes (boosters) work.
It's the fact that, the way these boxes have been handled by many games
noticeably warps the design goals of the game from "make an engaging
experience" to "motivate the player to buy more loot boxes".

What I mean is that many modern games have loot boxes or microtransactions
permeating its design to such a degree that most features seem planned around
how they motivate players to spend more money in-game.

This has been at its worst in mobile games, but there are plenty of console
and PC titles with this issue as well. It's even gotten so far that big titles
with no microtransactions include a heavy focus on loot boxes which can only
be gained as quest rewards or bought using in-game currency (Horizon Zero Dawn
comes to mind).

I really don't like it. I get no joy from wading through mountains of useless
items in the hope of finding that one rare gem I actually want. This applies
to ordinary loot in RPGs as well. So, seeing that the global trend has been
for games to evolve in this direction has been very frustrating for me. As
such, this recent pushback - both these legal actions as well as the player
backlash of recent loot box controversies - have been very interesting
developments which I hope will lead to market-wide improvements in overall
game design.

To elaborate: I do not mind microtransactions in general. There are a few
games which have plenty of ways to spend real money in-game but which do not
bother me (Fortnite, Elder Scrolls Online). The key difference, here, is that
those are games in which the core game loop does not heavily incentivize you
to spend money and where in-game transactions will mainly get you cosmetic
content or additional story campaigns.

~~~
pharrington
Here's my anecdote.

I tried playing Quake Champions, because I remember enjoying Quake 3 as a mid-
to-late teenager, and on paper, that type of game should be incredibly up my
alley. I found the experience of the initial load screen dumping you directly
into the daily loot box screen so offputting that I actually couldn't even
enjoy playing the game proper. The very act of just opening the game was so
nakedly manipulative and felt so unfun that I simply uninstalled it; I just
cannot be assed to expend the energy trying to ignore the loot box mechanics
to play the game on it's own merits.

~~~
Taylor_OD
This. When I launch a game I want to play the game. I don't want to crawl
through screens of advertising for loot boxes and daily deals. I understand if
it's a MMO or something but why does firing up a basketball game now force me
to navigate through loads of ad screens before I can ever play the game?

~~~
georgeecollins
I WONT BUY YOUR GAME!

\- I wont buy your game unless you let me try a demo. (PC-CDROM days)

\- I won't buy your game if the demo is too short.

\- I won't buy your game if I played your demo for hours and now I am bored of
it.

\- I won't buy your game unless it has online multiplayer.

\- I won't buy your game unless it has twenty hours of single player content.

\- I won't buy your game if it has licensed content.

\- I won't buy your game unless I can get it used. (Console days)

\- I won't buy your game unless it has split screen mode (OK only dumb
marketing people ever told me this)

\- I won't buy your game if it has online content that can't be unlocked for
free used.

\- I won't buy your game if it doesn't have X players in multiplayer.

\- I won't buy your game if it has paid dlc.

\- I won't buy your game if it is free to play (so true).

I won't buy your game!

~~~
al_chemist
Those are valid reasons to not to buy a game. You sound offended by customers
voicing their opinions what they want.

~~~
georgeecollins
I didn't mean to sound offended if I did. I was joking.

But I guess if I were trying to be more serious I would point out that people
who develop games are extremely aware of the pain points of gamers.

------
kgilpin
I’m the parent of a teenager who has struggled with an unhealthy obsession
with features like this. A kid who is 14 or 15 is able to intellectually
understand how to use these game systems, but at the same time he or she is
often lacking the type of sophisticated understanding that an adult would have
(e.g. that gambling can be addictive and therefore restraint and self-
observation is required). They greatly overestimate their ability to
participate in a safe and healthy way.

I would like to see loot boxes out of games for players under 18. Loot boxes
are not a real part of the game anyway, they are a way for the publisher add
the types of subconscious psychological rewards to “increase engagement” that
are now rightfully criticized in platforms like Facebook.

~~~
village-idiot
This is another area where the arbitrariness of the 18 year majority limit is
exposed: 18 year olds are not neurologically adults. That doesn’t happen until
like 25-29.

~~~
molf
Agreed; this should be made illegal entirely – this mechanic benefits no one
except the game publisher.

~~~
pitaj
Except that it lowers game cost for everyone else when whales buy a bunch of
cosmetic items.

~~~
larrik
These games aren't lower in price. Freemium games may have that aspect, but
the games in the article are all AAA $60+ games with deluxe editions for $80
or over $100, _and still have loot boxes_.

~~~
pitaj
Games have been $60 for decades despite growing scope and inflation. Why do
you think that is? It's because of alternative monetization strategies.

~~~
larrik
The market size been growing too, while distribution costs have dropped to
next to nothing. Games used to be physical cartridges, after all.

------
Insanity
When playing Battlefield 5 beta last weekend, I was actually thinking about
this. I'm wondering how they'll approach it in that game.

I have a bit of a double feeling about this as a Belgian - on the one hand I
think it's a good direction for the industry. We didn't have that crap a
decade ago and I'll be happy to see it removed. OTOH, I hope they don't just
remove content for the Belgian market as it'd potentially create an unfair
system.

It is EA after all, a company I don't have a lot of faith in.

~~~
chinathrow
> It is EA after all, a company I don't have a lot of faith in.

Why are you playing their games then?

~~~
xg15
Arguments like this is what I find entertaining about (pure) free-market
advocates.

They argue that regulation is not needed because, if there is a problem,
consumers would vote with their wallets to remove it - and when the consumers
inexplicably fail to do so, the advocates get mad and blame the consumers
instead of adjusting their theory.

~~~
swebs
Who specifically? You're just building a strawman to attack, while framing it
as us-vs-them.

Comments like these lower the quality of discussion by removing nuance and
pushing people into tribalism.

~~~
s73v3r_
I don't think it counts as a "strawman" if it's reflecting the way reality
actually is, and shows a huge hole in their philosophy.

------
beezischillin
Video game publishers have been trying consistently to implement a "less for
more" attitude when it comes to their products. The whole lootbox trend on a
whole was the peak of having their cake and eating it (wanting to "chase
whales" like the free to play model but charging full price for the product).
The only surprising thing about this is that there hasn't been a lot more
push-back a way earlier.

~~~
mbel
> Video game publishers have been trying consistently to implement a "less for
> more" attitude when it comes to their products.

Isn't maximizing profits just a natural consequence of having a for-profit
business? It's not just evil video game publishers, everybody wants to sell
less for more.

~~~
daemin
The problem is that in their pursuit of profit they are creating slot machines
with the actual game on the side. Then they are crippling the game so that you
have to use the slot machine to have any sense of fun while playing the game.

Therefore there are two choices:

Either they get regulated as other slot machine makers around the world,
including being taxed as both a slot machine maker and as a slot machine
operator.

Or alternatively just make a video game and sell that and not have to deal
with all the regulation.

~~~
dx87
Which games are you talking about that require you to open loot boxes in order
to have fun in the game? The most popular games that I can think of with loot
boxes, Hearthstone, Dota 2, Overwatch, CS:GO, PUBG, all either have strictly
cosmetic items in the loot boxes, or have ways of getting the loot boxes free
through gameplay. Saying that major developers are creating games that require
you to buy loot boxes in order to have any fun in the game sounds like
unnecessary hyperbole.

~~~
totony
I feel like Hearthstone is the outlier in your list

Card games are gambling. True, you can get gambling credits by grinding a lot
in Hearthstone, but I feel this is despicable especially for a card game
catering to mostly underage or very young people.

This applies to non-virtual card games too (e.g. Magic, Pokemon, Yugiho).
Pack-opening is kid's gambling. They are made to encourage people to open more
packs/make a deck/etc. At least in real-life card games you can trade cards
(EDIT: hearthstone has dust - which acts the same).

------
lelima
I'm so happy with this, it will create a precedent.

I know people that have spent a lot of money in counter-strike boxes, it works
like slots machines, designed to keep you exited while you get a reward. The
worst thing is now is the rule in every game (pubg, heartstone and so on..).

Good job Belgium!

~~~
Ntrails
Counterstrike boxes contain purely cosmetics. I can't get wound up about that.
You can even buy the thing you actually want on the open market.

CS:GO is not a game using lots of shitty in game mechanics/restrictions etc to
drive people to spend money in order to play/compete. Same with Dota2.

~~~
kazagistar
It's still gambling... even more so if you can exchange the cosmetics back for
real money. Which means it's still exploiting some people's gambling addition
tendencies, which is the justification for gambling regulations in the first
place. They don't regulate video poker because the gambling is making that
arcade machine less fun.

~~~
Ntrails
The thing I actually care about is computer games. Good ones, well made, and
designed around being fun. I enjoy opening my dota2 chests - but they have
(basically) no negative impact on the game.

I actually agree - it's "pure" gambling in that sense. You're spinning a wheel
and getting a random payoff. I just don't think that's an inherently bad thing

------
lechiffre10
They were also heavily criticized for adopting this game mechanic in star wars
battlefront and eventually decided to drop it. I don't even understand the
appeal of wanting to play games that have this sort of predatory feature.

It's been around for a while and I've honestly never even been remotely
attracted to games like that.

I definitely feel like this has exponentially increased since iOS games called
'freemium'. Generally, the game will be free but then things can take
30minutes to be accomplished unless you buy diamonds that cost 1$ and you get
instant gratification.

~~~
s73v3r_
" I don't even understand the appeal of wanting to play games that have this
sort of predatory feature."

I mean, it's not like you get to choose between the version of the game that
has this vs the one that doesn't.

~~~
m000z0rz
But you can choose to play games that don't have the feature. When Android was
first starting, I wanted to get into gaming on my phone - but these days I
don't bother, even if I hear good things about a game, because the odds are
too great that it's ruined with freemium crap if it's on mobile.

~~~
pixl97
Social pressures are another problem though with multiplayer games.

Your friends play _x_

You dont like _x_ for reason _y_

Which is stronger, your dislike of _y_ or the enjoyment of playing _x_ with
friends.

------
petercooper
I'm a FIFA player and this is a complex situation. "Packs" in FIFA are not
solely used for cosmetic items but for actual virtual players with distinct
play characteristics.

EA are trying to turn FIFA into a eSports game (see the recent FIFA eWorld
Cup) and the majority of play takes place in the "Ultimate Team" mode. To get
the high calibre players you'd use to build up your experience and reputation
in UT you either need to make a ton of coins to buy them or buy "FIFA points"
with real money and open the packs.

It's pretty standard practice for the higher end players to throw money at
these packs to build up teams early on, so I suspect this move will put
Belgian players at a disadvantage (it's not a _total_ nightmare as you can buy
most players in 'standard' varieties for a lot less, just not the in-form ones
you'd use in competition play).

Of course, at the end of the day, it's still just a game.. :-D

~~~
daemin
I don't see how they can have it both ways. Either the game is an eSport where
the most skillful person wins, or they can have lootboxes where the person
that spends the most wins.

So in the first case there is no super significant difference between the
players on the field, which means there is no point to buy loot boxes to get
better players.

Or in the second case it isn't really an eSport because the person that spends
the most money (and is luckiest with the players that they get) will more
likely win.

~~~
edcarter
What you are essentially describing is "pay to compete". Many sports have a
barrier to entry to compete at the top levels. For example, take a look at
Magic the Gathering. A top tier deck can cost thousands of dollars, but it
only puts you on an even playing field with other top players. Past that point
your success as a Magic player is based upon your skill and consistency.

~~~
daemin
Yes, but you can buy those cards and decks directly without having to pay
thousands of dollars more in boosters in order to find those cards.

It's the difference between going to the shop and buying the thing you want
versus going to a casino and pulling a slot machine handle until you get lucky
and win the prize that you want.

------
DonHopkins
Peter Molyneux's "Curiosity: What's Inside the Cube?" is the paradigm of loot
boxes gone bad, taken to an absurd extreme.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity:_What%27s_Inside_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity:_What%27s_Inside_the_Cube%3F)

Curiosity - what's inside the cube winner video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhzb9OUWrXU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhzb9OUWrXU)

>"I said there's something amazing inside. Something life changing inside.
Well, this is what this video is about. After 25 BILLION cubelets have been
destroyed, over 150 days, after 4 million people have downloaded it onto their
various devices, and after hosting tens of thousands of simultaneous
concurrent users, we have reached the end, and one lucky person has reached
the rewards of their hard efforts. How can anything be worth all that effort?"

Well what was in the cube? A broken promise.

Curiosity Winner Has Received Nothing - 2 Years Later:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SejMdncxbnk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SejMdncxbnk)

>Curiosity Winner, Once Promised a "Life Changing" Prize by Peter Molyneux,
Has Received Nothing:

[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/curiosity-winner-once-
prom...](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/curiosity-winner-once-promised-a-
life-changing-pri/1100-6425241/)

Peter Molyneux A Pathological Liar? | Feature Creep:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeq_9XwU7s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeq_9XwU7s)

>"This week on Feature Creep I discuss the recent controversy about 22Cans
head Peter Molyneux, the failure of the GODUS God of Gods plan and how Bryan
Henderson, the winner of the Curiosity competition has been ignored."

------
kakarot
This is a growing problem in the gaming industry.

I've been boycotting EA since the dawn of modern DLC with Battlefield: Bad
Company, which was 10 years ago.

Every single gamer who has not stood on this side of the line since then is a
part of the problem.

If you have purchased a single EA game directly from the publisher in the last
decade, instead of aftermarket, then you have absolutely no right to complain
about loot boxes because we live in a time where all of the information about
EA's destruction of the gaming industry has been freely available for anyone
to find.

You chose to feed the beast for your own selfish desires and now you act like
it's someone else's fault that the beast has gotten so big.

------
Luc
Cartamundi in Belgium must have printed billions of cards for collectible card
games by now (Magic the Gathering etc.). It would be interesting to see an
analysis of why that doesn’t run afoul of the law.

~~~
tialaramex
To the extent that these card games rest on "winning" a good card by luck in
the blind purchase packs they're clearly in the same ball park.

The psychological quirk these games exploit is that some humans get a
disproportionate internal reward for taking chances that come off. This quirk
gets you polar explorers, and a man on the moon, but it also gets you
financial crashes and people losing their life savings on the turn of a card.
So, you know, maybe not something we want under the control of a for-profit
company.

Traditional gambling laws assume the rewards must be financial, but this psych
quirk doesn't care what the reward is, shiny Pokémon cards, virtual currency,
anything you perceive as desirable. What's important is that you took a risk
and it paid off, if you have this quirk your body rewards you for this
entirely luck-based success, of course you want it again.

Note that although Magic itself is going nowhere, this game design trope has
been somewhat displaced by designs where players buy fixed decks with fixed
boosters - no blind buy. Android Netrunner is an example of that. You know
going in that to be competitive you're buying so-and-so many packs to have the
best cards, a few extreme choices might mean buying one extra copy of
something, but there are no truly "rare" cards.

------
pimmen
I hope EA loses and appeals all the way to the European Court. Once it’s
settled there EA loses a market of more than 450 million people for its
unregulated casinos.

------
LiterallyDoge
Remember when we made good games that people played for the sheer enjoyment of
it and didn't need marketing witchcraft to hand-hold lazy designers?

------
arnvald
Lootboxes and the general virtual in-game currencies are what pushed me away
from NBA2K. I really enjoy the game, but I don't want to be constantly told to
pay more and more for the game that I've just paid $70 for. I stopped playing
after a few weeks and I don't think I'll be buying this year's edition.

------
cyanbane
Other than being digital, how are loot boxes different than being M:TG cards
or baseball card packs?

~~~
gambiting
With MTG you can skip the whole booster buying and just get the cards you want
from people who have them. The rarest most desirable cards in standard are
$10-$50 at most. If you want a rare overwatch skin you have no option but keep
buying boxes until you get it.

~~~
totony
This is more nuanced. You get in-game currency for skins/cards you already
have in both Hearthstone and Overwatch, which is equivalent to being able to
sell your cards

~~~
ihuman
With hearthstone, can't you also "sell" any card you have for in-game
currency, in addition to getting currency when you obtain a duplicate? In
overwatch, you just get currency for duplicates (or randomly from a box).

~~~
s73v3r_
I believe in Hearthstone, the only option you have is to turn the card to
Dust, and then it takes so much Dust to craft other cards, based on their
power and rarity.

------
yAnonymous
Ultimately, most publishers will probably handle it like Valve, who have found
a brilliant workaround:

Show players the contents of the next box they buy, which makes it not
gambling.

I hate it, but it's a very elegant solution to avoid any legal problems.

~~~
dtech
That seems like a hack that won't hold up in court. Now it's still loot box
gambling, but with the n+1 th box instead.

~~~
s3m4j
Actually I think that's a common salesman trick ? Put the product in the hand
of the customer, so that they feel they already have it, then they have to
pay.

~~~
kazagistar
Its that too, but that aspect of it isnt gambling. It's the part where buying
the existing loot box gives you access to a second, yet unknown, gambling
outcome.

------
taobility
China already released an enforced regulation about this last year:
[https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/2/15517962/china-new-law-
dot...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/2/15517962/china-new-law-dota-league-
of-legends-odds-loot-box-random)

------
Buffodecon
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm a libertarian and don't like
regulations. On the second hand, these kinda regulations make sense.

~~~
pdpi
Beliefs don't have to be black and white. You're allowed to be mostly for
deregulation, while still finding that some key bits of regulation make sense.

------
comboy
Should all gambling be illegal then? I fail to see the problem with it. If
somebody feels that's where she wants to put her money - great. If you arguing
that's poor use of somebody's money then you may also want to ban whole lot of
foods and gadgets. Those can be addictive too.

~~~
nicktelford
Gambling is tightly controlled and age-restricted in most countries, usually
only available to those aged 18+.

Publishers have been using the argument that loot boxes aren't gambling in
order to justify making them available to minors. As far as I'm aware,
Belgiums' decision to ban them is more a recognition that they are, in fact,
gambling, and therefore should not be available to minors.

------
Crpt774
Pretty sure Valve haven't actually removed lootboxes, they just show which
common reward you will get if you are in Belgium, Rares are still random.

When you consider that the above is enough that Valve haven't been touched
yet, it just feels like EA are digging their heels for the sake of it.

On the other hand, these are the same people who gave us BF2 and have been
releasing a near identical game every year since the 90's so they may have
just gotten lazy and not even noticed the law. Far too used to no effort money
making that lot.

~~~
dtech
> it just feels like EA are digging their heels for the sake of it.

That's exactly it. They are challenging this in court because they don't want
to lose their loot boxes by this enforcement spreading to other countries.

They could pursue it all the way up to EU supreme court. That would set a
binding legal precedent for the EU, hopefully not in favor of EA.

------
golergka
So, once again a government tries to dictate what people can and cannot spend
their money on.

I don't like games with lootboxes. I don't buy lootboxes. I don't buy games
that have them. As a game developer, I don't work on games with lootboxes.

But this is my personal preference, and I am an adult who is capable of making
such a decision. I respect other people who decide to buy lootboxes, even if I
wouldn't do it myself. Why is it so hard to just live and let live?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Either make all games 18+ so adults can be making such decisions, or restrict
gambling within games available without age restriction.

Promoting gambling to minors is something I find completely unethical.

