By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 5 more US states are joining the fight against Lootboxes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xURhmqwhpc

According to Chris Lee so far we have legislators from

Hawaii 

Connecticut

North Carolina

Minnesota

Georgia

Washington state



Around the Network

Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the-

FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

The people have spoken, we now shall fight back!!



Only EA could so botch the implementation of "pay-to-play" features lol

Seriously, this sort of thing has existed for years, and not just in video games... Think back to Pokemon Cards, for instance, that made a fortune via encouraging kids to essentially gamble on packs of cards that might occasionally contain a rare card. I remember absolutely loving it back then, and you got the same rush from opening card packs that I now recognize as being the gambler's rush of a scratch off card or a slot machine.

These tactics have been challenged in the past for the same reasons they state they're challenging lootboxes without success in the past (in the US at least), but this time it feels like they'll actually succeed. There's growing support for it and, with the primary instigator being one of the least popular companies in the country, this may actually succeed this time.

I certainly think it would be nice if they did, but also hope legislators are exceedingly careful in how they attempt to stem "lootboxes". If you aren't careful in how it is worded, after all, you could quickly see any system akin to the "roll for loot" of World of Warcraft suddenly subject to lawsuits by overzealous lawyers looking to take a leadership role in a new front for class action lawsuits.

I'm quite interested in seeing how it pans out... this is almost certainly something that will wind up in a higher court of some kind eventually.

I think this response ultimately teaches us two things:
1. EA sucks
2. Don't fuck with Star Wars



Johnw1104 said:
Only EA could so botch the implementation of "pay-to-play" features lol

Seriously, this sort of thing has existed for years, and not just in video games... Think back to Pokemon Cards, for instance, that made a fortune via encouraging kids to essentially gamble on packs of cards that might occasionally contain a rare card. I remember absolutely loving it back then, and you got the same rush from opening card packs that I now recognize as being the gambler's rush of a scratch off card or a slot machine.

These tactics have been challenged in the past for the same reasons they state they're challenging lootboxes without success in the past (in the US at least), but this time it feels like they'll actually succeed. There's growing support for it and, with the primary instigator being one of the least popular companies in the country, this may actually succeed this time.

I certainly think it would be nice if they did, but also hope legislators are exceedingly careful in how they attempt to stem "lootboxes". If you aren't careful in how it is worded, after all, you could quickly see any system akin to the "roll for loot" of World of Warcraft suddenly subject to lawsuits by overzealous lawyers looking to take a leadership role in a new front for class action lawsuits.

I'm quite interested in seeing how it pans out... this is almost certainly something that will wind up in a higher court of some kind eventually.

I think this response ultimately teaches us two things:
1. EA sucks
2. Don't fuck with Star Wars

Just want to point out there's an important difference in the example you gave with Pokemon cards. There is a gambling aspect there, but one important difference is that you are guaranteed something of value. Something tangible that you can hold, that you can trade in for money, or for different cards.
This is a criticism I often hear in regards to lootboxes in games. That you're not guaranteed something of value that you can trade off or sell.



Hiku said:
Johnw1104 said:
Seriously, this sort of thing has existed for years, and not just in video games... Think back to Pokemon Cards, for instance, that made a fortune via encouraging kids to essentially gamble on packs of cards that might occasionally contain a rare card. I remember absolutely loving it back then, and you got the same rush from opening card packs that I now recognize as being the gambler's rush of a scratch off card or a slot machine.

Just want to point out there's an important difference in the example you gave with Pokemon cards. There is a gambling aspect there, but one important difference is that you are guaranteed something of value. Something tangible that you can hold, that you can trade in for money, or for different cards.

Huh. I came here to say the exact same thing about trading card games, but you make a good point.

Not that I'm not against this, of course. It just sounds kind of silly to me when TCGs have been around forever.



Around the Network
mZuzek said:
Hiku said:

Just want to point out there's an important difference in the example you gave with Pokemon cards. There is a gambling aspect there, but one important difference is that you are guaranteed something of value. Something tangible that you can hold, that you can trade in for money, or for different cards.

Huh. I came here to say the exact same thing about trading card games, but you make a good point.

Not that I'm not against this, of course. It just sounds kind of silly to me when TCGs have been around forever.

Yeah, it's not something I thought of, but I heard others mention it in videos about this topic, and that made some sense to me as well. I don't know if that necessarily makes it ok, but it is a difference to consider. And it reminded me of a time when my friend was in need for some quick money and sold off some of his cards.

Some games like Shadowverse let you sacrifice cards you don't want to craft a new one of your choice. So that's one form of compromise at least. And it makes every card you get count toward your progression.

Last edited by Hiku - on 21 December 2017

Hiku said:
mZuzek said:

Huh. I came here to say the exact same thing about trading card games, but you make a good point.

Not that I'm not against this, of course. It just sounds kind of silly to me when TCGs have been around forever.

Yeah, it's not something I thought of, but I heard others mention it in videos about this topic, and that made some sense to me as well. I don't know if that necessarily makes it ok, but it is a difference to consider. And it reminded me of a time when my friend was in need for some quick money and sold off some of his cards.

Some games like Shadowverse let you sacrifice cards you don't want to craft a new one of your choice. So that's one form of compromise at least. And it makes every card you get count toward your progression.

You can open a pack of physical cards and make your money back and then some instantly, comparing this to the value of dusting cards in a game like hearthstone is ridiculous imo



andyy

Johnw1104 said:
Only EA could so botch the implementation of "pay-to-play" features lol

Seriously, this sort of thing has existed for years, and not just in video games... Think back to Pokemon Cards, for instance, that made a fortune via encouraging kids to essentially gamble on packs of cards that might occasionally contain a rare card. I remember absolutely loving it back then, and you got the same rush from opening card packs that I now recognize as being the gambler's rush of a scratch off card or a slot machine.

These tactics have been challenged in the past for the same reasons they state they're challenging lootboxes without success in the past (in the US at least), but this time it feels like they'll actually succeed. There's growing support for it and, with the primary instigator being one of the least popular companies in the country, this may actually succeed this time.

I certainly think it would be nice if they did, but also hope legislators are exceedingly careful in how they attempt to stem "lootboxes". If you aren't careful in how it is worded, after all, you could quickly see any system akin to the "roll for loot" of World of Warcraft suddenly subject to lawsuits by overzealous lawyers looking to take a leadership role in a new front for class action lawsuits.

I'm quite interested in seeing how it pans out... this is almost certainly something that will wind up in a higher court of some kind eventually.

I think this response ultimately teaches us two things:
1. EA sucks
2. Don't fuck with Star Wars

True but maybe trading cards should also be regulated. I remember how i wasted all my money as a kid for Pokemon cards, what was it? 15, 20€ for 10 or 7 cards? and There were like 2 or 3 energy cards you were always getting? That was a lot of money for a kid.



So will rocket league be banned?



https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2017/12/21/apple-developers-must-disclose-odds-of-getting-legendaries-in-hearthstone/#55da59b448da

Apparantly Apple is putting in some new laws that should hurt loot boxes some.

Btw, I read the article and this line confuses me. "
Going forward, this will effect some of the biggest titles on the app store, including Hearthstone, Clash Royale and arguably Pokemon GO."

What loot boxes does pokemon Go have? I haven't played since it came out, but I don't recall any loot boxes. I thought you could just straight up purchase the products you wanted in game.