"The drums of war have sounded against loot boxes"

If a Casino gave you a drink or a sandwich when you loose a round of poker would it still be gambling? It's not what you were after but at least you are getting something in return.

I've heard people compare loot boxes to sports sticker books but you can actually buy any cards you are missing direct from the manufacturer (in the UK anyway), you don't need to keep buying sticker packs to complete your book. You can't buy the exact item you want with loot boxes.

@goldenelementxl: It is 100% gambling. Sure you're guaranteed a prize, but that prize isn't worth the price you paid 95% of the time. Loot boxes are designed to give you junk on almost every roll so you keep buying more.

Would gambling stop being gambling if the slot machine gave you a plastic coin that said "thank you for playing" every time you struck out? You'd technically be getting "something" on every roll!

I’d rather not have government regulators stepping into the gaming industry either however if the videogame industry can’t clean up their own shit then this is what’s going to ultimately happen.

While loot boxes may not be “technically” classified as gambling it sure as hell feels that way. Also there are some games where there is an online market for the stuff you win in these loot boxes to be sold at ridiculous prices so now you have people chasing after the idea of making money by getting lucky and pulling rare items from these loot boxes.

I dont mind the loot boxes as long as the game modes n maps arent locked by paid dlc. Love how star wars battlefront 2 and RB6 Seige do it. I can just buy base game and enjoy all the content.

Fair point. To be honest, it's really not that hard just to not play games that have them.

black segregation and the holocaust are vastly different than acting like a clown when opening fifa packs. Way to go with the hyperbole again.

Who cares it's for personal gain, the world is based on capitalism, especially in the usa. No income in the usa is pretty much homelessness.

Sure the law isn't infallible, but forbidding this for kids isn't priority, it's not even known what the effects are. When I was a kid I spend my allowence on cigarettes, I rather have my kids spending it on fifa packs or watch his stupid videos.

I do know kids kill themselves because they get harrassed through social media, maybe solve the bigger problems first before we go nitpicking how puritan we want to be.

I was agreeing with your post until I read this last part. The solution for "online harassment"? Stay off the internet. If you're implying that we need laws to prevent this but not "gambling" then you're out of your mind.

@Johnny-n-Roger: Yeah you can avoid playing games that have these monetized loot box mechanics but I think that the industry would be much better off without making people have to consider that option. I feel that they are harming the long term health of the industry for the short term gain.

I don’t care if loot boxes are a thing in games. I do have a problem with them when it makes the game pay 2 win like Star Wars battlefront 2. If it’s just cosmetic items then they are fine with me.

but my point is that if reasonable people stay away from these games, eventually publishers will realize that people don't want to buy games designed around them.

@Johnny-n-Roger: The flaw there though is that if companies make more money from the people who are spending money on loot boxes then by how many copies of the game that actually sold then that is what will matter most to them.

I don't think the equation is that simple. They dont want their major IPs to have the reputation of having a toxic, pay2win, and elitist community. Besides, if you don't want to legislate against these practices, and simply opting to not buy the game isn't a solution, then what exactly do you propose? A petition? Good luck.

@Johnny-n-Roger: Greed is a very powerful motivator and can make many companies focus on the quick short term gains. I prefer that government legislation need not happen however if that’s what it takes because the gaming industry can’t self regulate then so be it.

It's a slippery slope, but I can't say I outright disagree. There needs to be restrictions, and I think clearly marking any marketing materials, as well as the game box itself is sufficient. Limiting sales to those over 21? Eh, that's a tough call.

These situations are a direct result of people being unable to exercise restraint. They bitch about microtransactions and l00t boxes but buy the shit anyway. It's like the Iphone, Apple is going to continue ripping idiots off because consumers have made it abundantly clear that they'll pay whatever it takes to have the latest Iphone.

@Johnny-n-Roger: Who exactly are these people who are complaining about these loot boxes but buying them anyway? I haven’t really seen them around here. Let’s not get off on a tangent about apples and oranges here with comparisons about iPhones and loot boxes, let’s try to keep focused on monetizing loot boxes and how they are affecting the games and consumers.

People falling back to the argument that "lootboxes aren't gambling" are completely missing the point. Lootboxes aren't gambling in the same way that a pet wolf isn't the same as a pet mountain lion. They're right, its not the same, but they're terrible ideas for the exact same reasons. Lootboxes aren't gambling, but they need to be regulated like gambling for nearly identical reasons.

SWBF2 is pretty much the poster boy of the WORST way to do lootboxes.

That's probably the best analogy I've seen in the debate around loot boxes.

By "buy them" I mean people that buy the games. Even if you don't buy loot boxes, if you pay any money towards a title that uses them, you're supporting them period.

The iphone is tangential, but not entirely irrelevant. Throwing your money at a corporation doesn't make them more consumer friendly. You can't make it illegal for consumers to be idiots.

The problem with legislation is that once it's passed, with all of the necessary caveats that are anti-consumer and pro corporatism to get it through, it's done. The effect that the legislation has on the industry is effectively permanent. It's not a passing fad. Publishers will do away with loot boxes but double down on all the other shit that is cancerous to the industry until people stop buying their games. Don't put up with it and refuse to buy the game or buy the games and deal with it. You can't do both.

IMO, it takes either a weak or ignorant individual to conclude that the loot box situation is so desperate that we have no choice but to introduce legislation to the gaming industry. Maybe if the shit continues at the current rate for the next 2 or 3 years. Right now? You're out of your mind.

@Johnny-n-Roger: Well I have no problem with people buying the games but complaining about the loot boxes. Complain away loud and clear as far as I’m concerned. It’s gotten to the point that actual game sales are becoming less important then the amount of money that monetized loot boxes brings in.

Not saying that Apple is any more or less consumer friendly then companies that employ loot boxes in games just that it’s an apples to oranges comparison and doesn’t lend itself to the topic at hand.

I know that there are most certainly problems with government regulation however if the game industry can’t or won’t regulate itself in this matter then I feel that it will be a necessary measure.

Sure that works well enough for adults but kids go onto social media because of peer pressure and also because they not know what they're getting into.

Besides, they don't need to be online to be harrassed for this. All the kids have phones with camera's and share pictures of whatever they want, including pictures from classmates.

Kids are basically living in the ddr of the eighties only now everyone is in on it. I'm glad I'm not a kid in this day and age, there's not much room for error, and it's just that that kids need room for, so that they can learn.

I don't think it's a good analogy especially for lootboxes, when you gamble you gamble to win money, now you gamble to beef up your characters, team or whatever. Gaining money is not the goal here. It's the money part that makes it dangerous, not because it's a game of chance.

I wonder. They seem to be making a stand here. The big publishers were one for one speaking out in different words, but the same message basically, that they are going to use MTX tactics in all future games no matter the response. I fear they are going to go as far as they can, just to see how far that is exactly. That is why I am fiercely against all of this. If we give them any space then that is how much worse games will be. The patents for future plans outright scared me as someone who has loved gaming for 30 years now.

We can avoid loot boxes for now, in most cases. But if they can stay without a critical blow to their income, then most if not all AAA games will have these systems in place. Is that a bit too speculative? I don't see why these companies would care about a reputation if this push of theirs pays off. It's a combined assault on our standards.

Right now these companies seem to be feeling things out still. EA pulling out MTX for a while must have cost them a lot of money. Wallstreet got angry at them for stepping back, because now we know that they're vulnerable. EA, they are worried about our response, to some degree. If we don't stop AAA from making games way worse with EA/Activisions new matchmaking systems and lootbox shenanigans, then maybe we will indeed never again have a voice as a gamer when it comes to video game practices. It takes a lot for passionate gamers, for whom this is a lifestyle, to willingly involve the government. But even I don't see any other way because the publishers have made this the most important battle of gaming history.

It's the consoles fault for lootboxes like it's the "SJW's" for lacking "sexyiness" and bashing obvious evils in our games. :roll:

@commander:

the "chance" aspect is whats anticonsumer. There's nothing inherently anticonsumer about "pay to win". Its shitty game design, but there's nothing deceptive about it.

Wtf, you conservatives have low I.Q. I'm a liberal and am against this legislation.

@needhealing: Oh, I’m not a conservative. I’m just saying that only the Liberals wanna regulate video games to death. Then again, they want to regulate most things to death...

@nintendoboy16:

No, it's the SJWs fault that every form of entertainment prioritizes infusing far left political messages into every form of media at the expense of product quality. Nice straw man and attempt to deflect though.

Really now? Because look what came up after the most recent mass shooting.

Sounds to me like f***wits in both of the US major political parties want regulation on video games. An infamous example being Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat until he went independent for practically throwing a fit over Obama's victory.

I find the comparison crude at best, but I'l accept it.

"Obvious evils in our games"? what?

Anyway, I've seen enough s*itty effects from increased popularity of PC concepts on console gaming in my lifetime to know that yea, if any group will cross that line and wreck it for everyone else, it will be the average console peasant that will make it the norm for everyone.

Ofcourse, mobile gamers beat them to it this time.

@nintendoboy16: you are by far the most petty individual on SW. Well done.

Winning money is not intrinsic to gambling nor is spending money. It is placing something of value on a chance of winning something else, just because most people usually gamble with money does not mean it has to involve money at all.

Loot boxes involve you placing a set stake on getting the item you want, that item has odds of dropping (some of them are ridiculously low). There is no other way to get that item apart from placing a stake in a game of chance, therefore it absolutely is gambling in its' rawest form.

I'm not left, right or centre, I'm from the school of common sense. Unfortunately that is something that seems to missing from a lot of people these days, especially once they get on the internet.

I compared them because of one common factor: both have to find their "boogeyman" to blame.

"Obvious evils?" Hint: What you fight in the Wolfenstein games, but didn't become a major problem until recently with TNC.

Unless it agrees with your viewpoints, then it's not pandering, right? For your sake, stay away from classic Simpsons episodes or other Fox comedies like Last Man on Earth,

@nintendoboy16:

Whether it agrees with my views or not, sacrificing quality to infuse propaganda and check all the boxes? Bad for the industry. Anticonsumer.

Keep deflecting. It only makes your argument look worse.

I have some beliefs that are more center or even conservative for example I'm pro death penalty, but for the most part i guess can't deny i'm a hardcore liberal. Can't deny it.

Aren't republicans the ones who are regulating the internet with their Net Neutrality legislation?

@needhealing:

No. Republicans rolled back the regulations.

something of value can be exchanged for money, outside the game it doesn't have much value or you have to be able to sell it like with fifa, but then you need a lot of workarounds, like selling your whole account. Not to mention with fifa the value drops steadily during the year and at the end of the season the value pretty much nullifies.

There's defenitely similarities with gambling, but it's not the same thing, especially when it comes to lootboxes.

Believe it or not but "value" is subjective, some people place a lot of value in digital items, there are even instances of people being prosecuted for "stealing" them. Whether or not the value drops or increases over time is irrelevant.

I'll go back to @PraetorianMan's analogy

"Lootboxes aren't gambling in the same way that a pet wolf isn't the same as a pet mountain lion. They're right, its not the same, but they're terrible ideas for the exact same reasons. Lootboxes aren't gambling, but they need to be regulated like gambling for nearly identical reasons."

Which is what you disagreed with in the first place.

Which is exactly the original point I was making. Lootboxes aren't the exact same thing as gambling, but it has all the same problems as gambling and the same insidious subliminal hooks as gambling, and deserves regulation just like actual gambling.

Battlefront 2 is my first experience with them, since I don't play "free to play" games or mobile crap.

My first take was "what's the big deal", maybe it'll force some variety rather than just leveling up and sticking with one character-class, hero, or vehicle. But after playing like 50+ hours, and seeing how slow the progressions are across the board (I still haven't "maxed out" any character). My god is it annoying to have to level up using these things only to see "Duplicate Item","Duplicate Item"and then being rewarded tiny fraction of points back. It must take thousands of hours to get all the characters maxed out. I just can't imagine BUYING a loot box, having no idea what I was getting, then upon opening the lootbox seeing "Duplicate Item".

The game itself is still fun to me. But these lootboxes need to be purged out of AAA gaming IMO.

I'm guessing in the end the states will not try to eliminate loot boxes but instead regulate and tax them for revenue sources. Considering the amount of money involved, it wouldn't surprise me.

First off, it's DIGITAL. You get nothing of value back even if you "win" with a lootbox. We are talking about unlocking things that should be unlocked by progressing through the game anyway, a game which you just paid for (possibly full value for many)..

But let's say that we are treating these "points" as currency. Lets take Battlefront as an example. A Crate costs 4000. When you get a duplicate item, you only get 200 points back. Sometimes you get 2 our 3 "duplicate items" out of 5, and the other two awards are 50 points and 30 crafting parts. Basically put in 4000, get back 650. I don't even get the point of what is going on, but I do know that getting "duplicate item" for crates is hella annoying since that is one of the main ways to level up characters and classes. Having it randomized is actively annoying rather than just leveling up whatever character you are using, the only purpose is transparently to get people hooked on gambling.

The way they have it, you could dominate a match with a character or class you want to level up. But because the loot crates are randomized and the only thing you get from a match is points to spend on loot crates, you have no idea which attributes will be leveled up (sometimes nothing at all gets leveled up because of the "duplicate item" nonsense). It is just so obviously designed to get people to keep buying and buying loot crates until they get the attributes they want...and that is by definition gambling. This type of thing should be shut down IMO.

I think we're getting a little lost in semantics. It doesn't need to be considered gambling for it to be bad. In some ways it's worse than gambling, and in some ways it's better. It's not exactly gambling as we know it. (What you can win is worse, but therefore the draw can be less, which is good. The way they get to you is worse, and the gating is worse. Aside from that the way it works its 'magic' on you is pretty much the same.) I guess we need a new word for it. Maybe 'gamebling'? XD

And the problem is twofold. I see a lot of people write off the hate because they aren't feeling one of the two but not because they're not feeling both. One is that it may be bad for people's (financial) health if these systems become popular in games. (And looking at the profit margins it is 100% going to be in most games if we don't kick them hard enough/it won't be regulated.)

And two is it is starting to make games worse. Loot boxes are becoming part of the gameplay because why would you get into them if they are not? They really want your money too. They want the loot boxes to become the core gameplay. That is where all the money is made. What's stopping them? That is another good reason to do something about it. If this system gets through you won't have many games left with good progression, difficulty or fights with a somewhat fair setup.

The laws of gambling are not up to date, that is for sure, and the skinnerbox effect (which partly make gambling so addictive) will play a role here too. But there still three major difference that makes that effect less powerfull .

The first one is that you always get something. It may not hold much value, or medium value, but you always get something out of lootboxes or packs. With gambling this is not the case.

The second part is that lootboxes and packs are not the base of the game, playing cal of duty or fifa won't make you lose money. This is not the case with gambling, with gambling you need money to enter the game, every single time.

The third part and the most powerfull part is of course the money. There's a major difference when you spend 20$ and the return can be a 1000$ or just ingame content that has maximum value of 200$, which is hard to sell as well. With the early fifa's this effect was defintely stronger, since you could sell your players pretty much directly to third parties. but the rules are much stricter now and selling something pretty much means selling your whole account.

Loot from lootboxes is even much harder too sell, so I can't see why it would ever be considered gambling. It changes the game , but this has been going on for quite some time, as long as people are willing to pay up against each other to win the game, the devs are not going to stop this. It surely is addictive as well, and if that would need to be regulated then it's not going to be for the same reasons as gambling. People with gambling addictions follow another pattern and a much worse one at that.

IF people start selling their cars and houses to go play callof duty or fifa then I agree , but I can't see that happening.

This will have an impact because how game companies are scared of that adult only rating. And this would be even worse. Some retailers even refuse to sell AO rated games. It took a public outcry before Hatred was allowed on Steam. Though, now Steam seems to be more open to AO games.

Where did I say they weren't? I even said ALL types of gamers.

I'm not sure that loot boxes are gambling because no matter how little/much you spend you always receive something, whereas gambling requires one to put up money and accept that they may not receive anything in return.

I think you're only half right, as in these people know exactly what they will/won't get so they are informed, but yet they are impulsive which to me is because of being time poor due to work etc.

Once again gambling does not require money, either for the stake or the winnings, that's a fallacy. I'll ask you the same question I asked in an earlier post, If a casino gave you a drink or a sandwich every time you 'lost' a round of poker, would it still be gambling? You're not getting what you wanted but you are getting something in return. I doubt there are any Casinos that would get away without needing a gaming license because they gave everyone who loses free sandwiches.

Have a look at the definition of gambling and tell me that loot boxes do not, under any circumstances, fit into it.

I can only think of a few ways that loot boxes are not gambling.

• If they are given free as a reward or gained through game play or game progression.
• If they can only be bought with in game currency and in game currency cannot be bought with real money
• If someone buys them with absolutely no predetermined ideas of getting, or hoping for, a specific item. (They couldn't care less if they got a new skin or a new scope) This I think would be very hard to prove though.