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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

jason1637 on 21 November 2017
monocle_layton said:
GribbleGrunger said:

Naa, you're thinking about your own motives for disliking it. I'm talking about their motives for disliking it because they apply to phone games too:

 "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling," the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium's Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child." 

And there have been numerous stories over the years of children costing parents hundreds of dollars/pounds because of mobile game transactions. So why now? 

Regulation is key. Not many people know Pokemon Shuffle and other Nintendo games force a limit on money spent a month to follow Japanese law. The US probably doesn't give a shit, but the EU should establish similar regulations. Putting a limit at X dollars a month will stop skinner box-like games from abusing the vulnerability of people with control issues.

If they do that for gaming would they will have to make that regulation apply to gambling in casinos.



Around the Network
Gamer147 on 21 November 2017

I hate loot boxes. But I am not sure it constitutes gambling. I do think they hurt gaming though.



Zkuq on 21 November 2017
jason1637 said:
monocle_layton said:

Regulation is key. Not many people know Pokemon Shuffle and other Nintendo games force a limit on money spent a month to follow Japanese law. The US probably doesn't give a shit, but the EU should establish similar regulations. Putting a limit at X dollars a month will stop skinner box-like games from abusing the vulnerability of people with control issues.

If they do that for gaming would they will have to make that regulation apply to gambling in casinos.

That ought to be really easy to get around because casino is a place meant for gamling, but it's not the same for games. For example, having to mark a product or a place meant for gambling mainly could lift the restriction, and I bet game publishers wouldn't like to do that.



Zkuq on 21 November 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
jason1637 said:

Most console and PC gamers are over 18. And kids still find ways to get their hands on mature games anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO-rated_video_games

See how small that list is? Publishers know that age ratings can and will affect their sales, especially with games that want tonnes of xmas sales. Removing loot boxes is a small price to pay for access to a much larger audience. Not to mention it may not even be up to the publisher. With licensed properties (Star Wars for example) the licence holder may only agree to the game if it fits in to the age range they are going after for the franchise.

AO-rated games aren't really relevant in this discussion because a similar age rating doesn't exist in Europe and it doesn't seem like lootboxes are going to be considered gambling in the US. M-rated games are the group you want.



jason1637 on 21 November 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
jason1637 said:

Most console and PC gamers are over 18. And kids still find ways to get their hands on mature games anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO-rated_video_games

See how small that list is? Publishers know that age ratings can and will affect their sales, especially with games that want tonnes of xmas sales. Removing loot boxes is a small price to pay for access to a much larger audience. Not to mention it may not even be up to the publisher. With licensed properties (Star Wars for example) the licence holder may only agree to the game if it fits in to the age range they are going after for the franchise.

Most games aren't AO because publishers don't allow them and retailers won't stock them. This can easily change IMO. For one Sony and Microsoft make games with loot boxes so they will just change their regulations. And retailers will follow because they will miss out on big blockbusters like CoD.



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz on 21 November 2017
GribbleGrunger said:
SecondWar said:

Because it's passable when the initial game is free - people get that the developer has to get their money from somewhere. But most people take issue when its tacked onto full-priced console games, as its a sneaky way to boost margins.

Naa, you're thinking about your own motives for disliking it. I'm talking about their motives for disliking it because they apply to phone games too:

 "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling," the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium's Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child." 

And there have been numerous stories over the years of children costing parents hundreds of dollars/pounds because of mobile game transactions. So why now? 

Because that's not gambling. In-app purchases and buying 'energy' is not gambling as there is no element of chance created by spending real life money. 

 

If a mobile game had a loot box system it would count under the ban.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

ArchangelMadzz on 21 November 2017

Making any game with lootboxes an 18 is a small victory but I would take it.

Especially if it is written on the front about elements of gambling, parents will be less inclined to buy them for their kids I would assume.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

jason1637 on 21 November 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
jason1637 said:

Most games aren't AO because publishers don't allow them and retailers won't stock them. This can easily change IMO. For one Sony and Microsoft make games with loot boxes so they will just change their regulations. And retailers will follow because they will miss out on big blockbusters like CoD.

Why would retailers change their regulations instead of publishers? We've had decades without loot boxes in games... it's not exactly hard to start making games without them again...

If publishers change their regulations then gamers would just buy all the AO games digital and I doubt retailers like GameStop would want something like that to happen because it would destroy their business so they would have to follow what the publishers are doing.



TallSilhouette on 21 November 2017
shikamaru317 said:
Bristow9091 said:
... But I like the lootboxes in Overwatch :(

Yeah, the Overwatch implementation is perfect. Cosmetics only; only takes about 2 hours per loot box during normal play with 3 extra per week for 9 arcade wins; allows all map, hero, and game mode DLC to be free for the life of the game.

No it's not. Duplicates, tiny credit consolations for those duplicates, hundreds of nearly worthless sprays, limited time skins with exorbitant buyout prices, not to mention unbalanced content per hero. Last time I checked many heroes still didn't even have a basic sit or dance emote (bad enough that they're paywalled) while Tracer gets her umpteenth cosmetic. It's even suspected that they manipulate the drop rates depending on the player since they'd rather completely rework their system for specific regions than divulge their official drop rates to the public or regulatory agencies.

OT: Excellent. One step toward regulating this easily and increasingly abused practice.

Last edited by TallSilhouette - on 21 November 2017

SuperNova on 21 November 2017

Yes! Take that to the EU. (I mean Brussels is right there... ;P) The EU actually has a history of pushing consumer friendly, privacy protecting legislation. They are far from perfect, but they can be a powerful instrument when used correctly.
We don't have much of a campaigning culture in Europe though. Once this goes into session and is discussed you could actually call/email your respective reps, to let them know what you want.