
US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm - thg
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/02/us-senator-demands-review-of-loot-box-policies-citing-potential-harm/
======
lsmarigo
This is good and long overdue, hopefully we can come up with something
effective unlike the regulations in China/Korea which are skirted by
publishers gifting the loot boxes with other purchases instead of outright
selling them. The amount of money at play here is no joke, Activision/Blizzard
alone earns $13.4m daily revenue (2017) on just in-game microtransactions.
They've even re-organized their financial results to downplay the dominance of
microtransaction loot box revenue if you compare 2016 to 2017.

[http://investor.activision.com/results.cfm](http://investor.activision.com/results.cfm)

Should be framed as an extension of existing laws regarding child gambling.

------
eveningcoffee
It is actually a very good point.

Now that I look into it, I think we should also ban all the booster packages
for the board games.

These packages can contain or may not contain valuable card and you are
effectively gambling when you buy one.

It can also become very addictive.

~~~
jdietrich
Unlike the US, the UK has quite liberal gambling legislation. You can legally
bet online, there's a casino in every town, there's a betting shop on every
high street, pubs can legally install slot machines, you'll see adverts for
bookmakers during football matches.

Crucially, it's all _regulated_. You have to be 18 to enter a betting shop or
a casino. A slot machine has to be inspected by the Gambling Commission and
must clearly state the payout ratio. Every business and employee involved in
gambling has to be licensed. There's a voluntary self-exclusion scheme, so
problem gamblers can ban themselves from being able to place a bet.

Lootboxes are effectively a form of gambling - you pay x, but you get a prize
worth anything from 0.01x to 1000x based on a random number generator. That
RNG isn't audited. Customers don't know the odds. There's no age restriction
or controls on advertising. Nobody involved in the business is licensed or
subject to scrutiny by a suitable regulator. The operators have no social
responsibility obligations.

I'm a gambler myself. I think that US gambling laws are a bit weird. I don't
want to ban gambling, but it needs to be properly regulated, regardless of the
form it takes. I don't want to see children being stealthily introduced to
gambling by predatory game developers.

~~~
nkrisc
I don't disagree with you, but what about cases where the contents of the loot
box can't be traded or sold? Or I suppose one could sell their account with
the desirable item but that may be disallowed by ToS and get the account
banned.

I dislike loot boxes but I have a hard time seeing it as gambling if you
explicitly can not liquidate the assets you receive from it. Then it's just a
grab bag.

~~~
shakna
You pay $x, with a chance to receive items worth between $0.1x and $10x.

It's true that x might not be able to converted to fiat or resold.

That makes it effectively equivalent to a raffle, which often put restrictions
on reselling similar to these cases.

Raffles are considered a form of gambling, and are heavily regulated, in the
UK[0] and Australia [1].

[0] [http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-
public/Fundrais...](http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-
public/Fundraising-and-promotions/Fundraising/Lotteries-at-events.aspx)

[1] [https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/raffle/licensee-
resour...](https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/gambling/raffle/licensee-
resources/faqs)

~~~
ubernostrum
Is Mario Kart regulated as a gambling game in the UK?

Sure, you can't convert its items into money, but you can convert them into
wins in the game. And it has a "random" item drop system that's known to be
rigged.

~~~
shakna
That's a disingenuous comparison at best.

No exchange takes place. No fiat is given for a chance to open a box.

~~~
ubernostrum
Is the game sold for free?

If I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get loot boxes that may
have ultra-powerful items or may not, that's gambling. But if I buy a video
game and play it and occasionally get items that aren't called loot boxes but
may be ultra-powerful or may not, that's not gambling?

~~~
shakna
> If I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get loot boxes

Why do you hide the repeated purchase?

The game is bought, once.

Loot-boxes require another purchase - an uninformed one. You purchase an item
for a chance at something else, a chance that you don't actually know.

Mario Kart would be gambling, if you had to buy every crate as you hit it. As
it is, with no additional purchase, it is simply a randomised strategic
feature. Currency of some form needs to be exchanged to create gambling.

------
ficklepickle
The biggest issue with the games kids are playing is that they are now
specifically designed to exploit the young brains reward system, effectively
engraining addictive behavior. Getting rid of loot boxes won't change that.

I would say the biggest group at risk are under-stimulated, under-supervised
children that may spend 8 hours a day hunched over a smartphone.

It will be interesting to see the long term implications of that behavior.

~~~
scarface74
Where are kids getting the money from?

~~~
emodendroket
From their parents, often without their parents' knowledge or consent.
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-
runs...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9928381/Boy-runs-
up-1000-bill-buying-virtual-doughnuts-on-iPad.html)

~~~
scarface74
How are they doing that? Are they taking their parents credit cards?

~~~
emodendroket
No. Haven't you ever used an iOS or Android device? Your credit card
information is saved. The default setting is that the password doesn't need to
be entered again if you buy something in the next ten minutes or so after you
last did (and were prompted for your password), so I guess what's probably
happening in some cases is they're buying the game and giving the kid the iPad
and then he's able to order a ton of DLC. Or maybe they have looser settings
or the kids know the password.

~~~
scarface74
If you have Touch ID or Face ID turned on, you are prompted to authenticate
for every purchase ([https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT204030](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204030)). I doubt too many
people who own an iPhone don't have Touch ID enabled.

~~~
emodendroket
I have been using Android for the past several years, so things may have
changed on iOS. Nevertheless, it does seem like parents are getting hit with
unexpected, huge bills from these games

------
subroutine
Not taking a stance for or against this policy. But based on personal
experience, I always spend the most money on these damn random draw "loot
boxes", especially if I get a crappy draw my first turn (specifically thinking
about puzzle and dragons).

~~~
Shivetya
wargaming, a Russian company who puts out World of Tanks/Warplanes/Warships
seems to skirt the issue but insuring the value of the other items; not the
most desired; is equal to the cost of the loot box. This turns the issue into,
they decide the value of all items but players may not agree.

I do believe the recent EA dust up is a clearer indication of when loot boxes
cross the line into gambling. however if they guaranteed an item of specific
value you could buy otherwise "but with other items" they might technically
not be gambling. Its gambling when you have a chance to lose your money. (at
least how I understand it)

------
wpasc
Not always the biggest fan of regulation, but man do I hate loot boxes... They
are really egregious in many games. If the industry hadn't taken it way, way
too far, it might not be necessary. However, I think it's way past time
they're looked at

------
empath75
Yeah just give them an ESRB rating of ‘mature’ if they have gambling elements.

------
catdograbbit
How do you define what is and isn't a loot box? Elements of chance are a fact
of life. If you remove them from games, video games will be indistinguishable
from movies.

------
chimeracoder
This is a stunning display of ignorance about how the games industry actually
works today.

Loot boxes, like how Blizzard implements them in Overwatch, are the absolute
best business model in an industry that's otherwise filled with predatory pay-
to-play DLC business models.

With Overwatch, you pay $30 up-front for the game, and that's it. You don't
have to pay a cent more, no matter how often or how long you play it. The more
you play, the more XP you get. Every 20,000 XP[0], you get a free loot box
that has purely cosmetic items with no impact on game play. If you want to,
yes, you can buy extra loot boxes, if you really want a particular skin, but
again, it has no impact on gameplay whatsoever. They also give out free loot
boxes during promotional events, as well as an additional 3 free loot boxes
each week for winning arcade games[1]. I play Overwatch, and I've never even
thought to purchase loot boxes, partly because there are already so many ways
to get free boxes that there's almost no point.

There's no pressure to buy boxes, no in-game reminders, no dark patterns -
really, nothing. Last I checked, you have to click through three menus from
the home screen to even get to the place to buy boxes. It's not particularly
prominent.

For that $30, you get access to Overwatch for as long as they run servers
(which, looking at Blizzard's track record, is probably years after you will
stop caring). You get frequent upgrades to characters and maps, as well as
free game lore (like the online comics).

The alternative to this business model is to have either a pay-to-win model,
where you can spend extra money for superior items and weapons. Or, you can
have people pay based on the amount of time they play. The latter is
unsustainable for a multiplayer game that receives frequent updates. The
former is what most other companies do, and it's _incredibly_ predatory.
Almost all the big published, from Zynga to EA to King, practice this heavily.

Actually, there is a third option: provide no support for the game after it
ships. Once a player has paid for it, the game is sold, and it doesn't matter
if it's so buggy that it's unplayable or if the game is imbalanced. This is by
far the most common business model, as evidenced by the sea of Steam reviews
for games like these. This may be the most manipulative model of all: release
a game that's just tolerable enough that people will buy it, but insist that
they buy next year's version at full price to fix any bugs or mechanical
issues. EA is one of the worst offenders here.

I'm pretty disgusted with the fact that people like Hassan are zeroing in on
the one games company that is _actually executing successfully on a rather
ethical business model_ , when pretty much every other company around is
actively trying to optimize outright predatory business strategies.

[0] The XP rate depends on a lot of factors (such as how well you personally
do), but that's somewhere between 5-10 Quick Play games (which usually take
about 10 minutes).

[1] Which is pretty easy. The matchups are generally pretty balanced, so your
winrate is usually around 50%. In other words, you get additional loot boxes
by playing 6 arcade games, up to a total of 3 boxes per week.

~~~
fzeroracer
First off, she never mentioned Overwatch. She mentioned lootboxes as a whole.
When you view the greater picture of lootboxes, arguing that they're somehow
more ethical because one game does it better than others isn't a particularly
strong argument. Assuming that her attack on lootboxes is a focused attack on
Overwatch would be categorically incorrect.

Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes. You have various event-
limited lootboxes designed to encourage people buying on impulse, else they
miss out. There's constant feedback into that desire loop through a dripfeed
of free lootboxes designed to get you hooked.

Third, lootboxes do not prevent P2W behavior. You can see this in various
Gacha games whose functionality is similar to lootboxes as well as games like
Battlefront 2 where the player was encouraged to buy more to be stronger.

And the option for 'no support' did not seem to be a problem for say, League
of Legends. Which until recently was surviving without any sort of lootbox
paradigm based off of buying cosmetics. SFV is also similar. You create a
bunch of contrived scenarios where the only end result is 'lootboxes or death'
which we can see is false, given how many games seem to do just fine without
them.

~~~
chimeracoder
> First off, she never mentioned Overwatch.

My apologies, I should have explained the context. Perhaps you don't follow
gaming news, but the whole reason that this is an issue on Hassan's radar is
that there has been a lot of criticism recently targeted at Overwatch
specifically over their use of lootboxes, even though other games use
lootboxes too.

So no, Hassan doesn't mention Overwatch by name, but in the current context,
it's pretty relevant to discuss.

> And the option for 'no support' did not seem to be a problem for say, League
> of Legends. Which until recently was surviving without any sort of lootbox
> paradigm based off of buying cosmetics. SFV is also similar.

...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost
the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have
an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly
worse than what Overwatch does. SFV uses a DLC model.

 _That 's_ what actual pressure to spend money looks like - "If you spend more
money, you will literally be a better player".

> Second, there is constant pressure to buy boxes.

Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned -
there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free
boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to
obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance
_and_ spending money.

I can't imagine a better system that still provides a revenue stream for the
company without affecting the game quality, and both of the games you've
mentioned are strictly worse.

~~~
fzeroracer
>...you're using League of Legends as a point of comparison? LoL uses almost
the exact same system as Overwatch, except some of the items do actually have
an impact on the gameplay, introducing a pay-to-win dynamic. It's strictly
worse than what Overwatch does

I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that
you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the newest
ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay money in
this case is to avoid grinding. I don't particularly care for League of
Legends either, but their dynamic is not any more P2W than SFV, considering
they both have very similar models.

>Compared to any other game of its ilk - including the ones you mentioned -
there's basically zero pressure. You're complaining that they give out free
boxes, except the alternative to that would mean that there is no free way to
obtain the items, and also no other way to obtain them except by random chance
and spending money.

The free boxes are given out for the sole purpose of getting you hooked. It's
not out of good will. Every single Gacha game on the planet does similar
things, they dole out small amounts of currency so that players can play the
game without paying money, but the incentive is to pay to have a higher chance
of getting something they want.

I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory, and that
every aspect of it is carefully designed to appeal to you, the player. That's
why loot is colorized by rarity with special sounds depending on how
rare/awesome your loot is. It wants to induce a dopamine hit, then reinforce
it through encouraging the player to pull. More and more and more.

That's Gacha Game Design 101.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I'm complaining that the whole concept of lootboxes is predatory

When there's no pay-to-win dynamic, it is literally the least predatory
business model out of all games of that ilk. All of the alternatives for
producing a recurring revenue stream, such as abandonware and direct PTW, are
far more predatory.

I don't actually think it's predatory at all, but you're complaining about the
weakest possible conception of the problem (and even the alternatives you
named are worse), which implies that you don't think the alternative models
like abandonware are a problem.

> I mean, this is objectively incorrect. League of Legends is not P2W, in that
> you can't buy your way to victory. You can get champions, but even the
> newest ones are not strictly better than earlier ones. The pressure to pay
> money in this case is to avoid grinding

You are literally paying money for the chance at something that will impact
your chances of victory, as opposed to something that is entirely superfluous
to the gameplay in every way. That is the definition of pay-to-win, even if
it's a less extreme form than most King games.

If you _don 't_ see that as pressure to keep spending money, or if you _don
't_ see abandonware as a direct cash grab designed to exploit people's
impulses, then I don't know how to continue this discussion.

------
thomastjeffery
"The rating board will fix this for us."

Ugh.

------
c3534l
Why not make it illegal to make randomness a component of games entirely? Ban
the possession of dice. Make it illegal to be rewarded with in-game content
just for doing well. Games should be like movies. The idea of manipulating
people with feelings of achievement is clearly abusive and addictive. No more
winning teddy bears for your girl at carnivals. Don't let people unlock things
like high scores and new levels, new dialogue, your name on a high-score list.
Ban pinball machines, too.

I mean, as long as we're ignoring the fact the loot boxes:

1\. Don't require you risk anything of monetary value.

2\. Don't reward you with anything that can be sold for cash.*

3\. Are randomized, but based on skill.

4\. Are entirely digital goods with no real-world value.

5\. Are philosophically indistinguishable from other forms of procedural
content.

6\. The ability to purchase a substitute for in-game content requires access
to a credit card.

Also, f * * * EA. I'm not defending EA. But I'm also not for out-of-touch
Senators urging us all to think of children when the "children" in question
need to have a bank account.

*typically. I know things like "trading cards" on steam can be sold for monetary value. So let's outlaw Pokemon and Baseball Cards, too, just to be safe.

~~~
DanBC
> But I'm also not for out-of-touch Senators urging us all to think of
> children when the "children" in question need to have a bank account.

It's not just out of touch senators, it's experts in problem gambling who
think loot boxes need to be looked at.

~~~
pfisch
The truth is this is really a populist movement of gamers who don't like
lootboxes for reasons unrelated to gambling or addiction. They only latched on
to this addiction/gambling argument because it suits their purpose. Very
similar how child porn laws are pushed and abused by the copyright lobby
because it suits their purposes.

Gaming as an addiction is a much much larger problem than lootboxes as an
addiction. If this is truly about addiction then where is the movement to
restrict the amount of time people spend playing video games everyday?

