
Loot box Senate bill gets bipartisan support - mfrommil
https://www.cnet.com/news/loot-box-senate-bill-gets-bipartisan-support/
======
Lazare
I have mixed feelings about this. My gut feelings here are:

1\. Randomness in general is fine. Magic: The Gathering packs or blind bags or
Kinder Surprise eggs should not be banned[1]. Plenty of digital games do have
random drops too. If I pay Blizzard $15 per month for WoW, I can kill a dragon
once per week, which has a chance of dropping an item for me, which has a
chance of being a cosmetic appearance I need to complete a set. But that's
fine, I think. (Right?)

2\. Loot boxes in digital games are...fine...ish? I don't think Overwatch is a
huge problem. Some titles have done this in a way which is fine, but overall
it _does_ feel a bit scarier than the things in example 1. (Although it's not
always clear how it differs from the WoW example...)

3\. In some cases, we have figured out ways to weaponise this in very
dangerous ways (eg, kompu gacha). If you then target children, which some
do...it's not good.

4\. This is a very effective monetization technique. But to put it another
way, it's a way that developers can obtain the resources they need to make
good content (and there are many F2P game which _do_ have good content!)

5\. ....but those resources come from whales, and while some of those are just
wealthy individuals with eccentric hobbies, others are what we'd call in other
contexts "problem gamblers". "I get a cool game for free because other people
have gambling addictions" is not a good argument to be making!

6\. I'm reflexively skeptical of the governments ability to regulate things
like this well, because it's fast moving and highly technical. There is
_every_ incentive for a company who has perfected a new more effective
technique for exploitative monetisation to push for a ban on the methods its
competitor's use. Unintended side effects and regulatory capture are very
real.

So....I dunno. Some people are doing bad things, but I struggle to define it.
We probably all have run across a mobile game doing pretty shady things, but
does that mean _all_ loot boxes should be banned? And would this law really
help, on balance?

[1]: Yes, I know Kinder Surprise eggs are banned in the US due to them being,
allegedly, choking hazards. I don't think they should be, but at any rate,
they shouldn't be banned because they contain a random toy.

~~~
mfrommil
Agree with you on mixed feelings, this is complex in many aspects.

Compared to buying packs of Magic or Pokemon cards, where a couple cards in
some sets are exponentially more desirable than any other card (and valued as
such on the secondary market), loot boxes in many games aren't that different.
Except there is physical/real friction/limits to buying a pack of cards as a
kid- e.g. getting to the store, going to the store with a limited amount of
cash, etc. Compared to a f2p game where, if access to IAP isn't restricted,
there's essentially a limitless amount that can be spent on a credit card
without the kid realizing the impact of doing so.

The gamer inside me hopes this could help get rid of a lot of the cookie
cutter f2p games and possibly encourage more higher quality games to be
developed that are bought upfront like old times.

------
xwdv
I’m a little frightened that the US Senate even knows what loot boxes are.
This level of awareness of the virtual addiction economy seems out of
character for typical congressmen, to the point that it makes me wonder who
might be lobbying for this and what other bans or regulations might they have
in mind in the future?

------
akersten
Feels like the Magic: the Gathering community should be apprehensive and
wondering when their randomized loot packs are going to be put behind the
glass next to the Marlboros.

I'm strongly against this. Not because I like loot boxes (I really hate them
and choose not to play games with them), but because I believe it is
fundamentally the responsibility of a child's guardian to teach good habits
and redirect compulsive behaviors. After all, the credit card is certainly not
in the kid's name, so someone is fueling the addiction.

That's even before we get into what constitutes "a game targeting children"
(which I don't think you can honestly define in good faith) and what
"randomized paid content" means (DLC with a boss that has a random loot
table?).

I mean, it's just ridiculously broad:

> permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously
> been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the
> expiration of a timer or a number of gameplay attempts.

So, we're making arcades 18+?

~~~
skybrian
There is precedent. They don't let kids use slot machines, even with parental
supervision.

There's nothing stopping them from gambling on their own using a deck of
cards, though. If kid-created games saw a comeback, maybe that's not so bad?

~~~
Barrin92
>There is precedent. They don't let kids use slot machines, even with parental
supervision.

Exactly. Lootbox mechanisms are gambling gamified for kids, which makes it
even more peverted than actual gambling. Which can lead to pathological
behaviour and addiction.

This is no small matter. Companies who built business models on abusing the
psychology of adolescents should be held accountable.

------
RickJWagner
I agree with the bill. Using tiny rewards can certainly be used to influence
kids (or adults, really.) Look at the way Facebook and Twitter have influenced
the world.

------
skookumchuck
It's curious how 16 year olds are regarded as incompetent to handle a loot
box, but should be given voting rights.

~~~
crowbahr
16 year olds do not have voting rights.

~~~
sb057
No, but there is a concerted effort in the US to extend voting rights down to
that age (albeit, I don't believe there's much overlap between the proponents
of these two issues).

~~~
skookumchuck
126 members of the House support it:

[https://www.thenation.com/article/voting-age-16-climate-
stri...](https://www.thenation.com/article/voting-age-16-climate-strike-green-
new-deal-ayanna-pressley/)

