[UPDATED V2] Several countries respond to Loot Box outrage in SWBF2

[ItsMitch]

Preface: I'm sorry that this is another EA thread, but it appears they can't get out of the spotlight.

Belgium Ministry of Justice has called upon Europe after an investigation into Electronic Arts and Star Wars Battlefront 2 saying that it's detrimental to children's mental health with gambling, Can we just put a law on loot boxes in children's games and just fine the living hell out of EA for what they've done. I think they're trying to go for some kind of record of bad publicity of the year. 

Snippet from PC Gamer

Quote

Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes. 

The Google translation is a little sloppy, as usual, but the message is clear enough. "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." 

 

 

Translation from Reddit user H_O_T_S_H_O_T

Quote

I'm Dutch and this is my translation of the article they used (sorry for the terrible formatting I'm on my phone):

 

The minister of Justice wants to ban in-game purchases if you don't know exactly what it will contain. "Combining gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child.

 

The commotion started last week with the new game Star Wars: Battlefront in the game you could buy so-called "loot boxes", virtual boxes which could contain advantages for the game. You don't know however what it contains beforehand.

 

"The combination of money and addiction is gambling", ruled the gambling committee. VTM News brought the news and a few days later EA withdrew the function from the game, partially because Disney complained, which has the rights to the Star Wars merchandise.

 

Geens now wants to prevent that these kinds of functions will be in any games going forward. "But that takes time because we'll have to make a proposal to the EU. We will definitely try to ban it."

 

 Another translation in case theres issues from forum user @samcool55

Quote

Battlefront II will release Friday, basically all characters from Star Wars will appear in the game. You can them, if you play a lot, upgrade them. They can get new weapons for example.

 

Who doesn’t want to spend time (to get the upgrades) can also buy them but, and this is where the problem lies, you do it via lootboxes, a sort of virtual chest where you don’t know from beforehand what’s in them.

 

You indeed need to pay for an item and you don’t know always know beforehand what’s in the chest. Even tho it matters what’s in the chest to continue playing the game with more energy, more powers or more powers to complete the game. We have to investigate this because if this is indeed gambling it can’t be done (it can’t be available) without a permit from the “kansspeelcommissie” (basically the the gambling commission that keeps an eye on everything that’s related to gambling and also the group that’s investigating it.)

 

The game costs 60 euro's but some people spend hundreds of euro’s on extra’s, according to the “kansspeelcommissie” this is mainly a danger for minors that can spend a lot of money due to social pressure.

 

They (minors) look of course on the internet what other teenagers do and if they see them using game elements (like a specific character) that they don’t have, are they more easily inclined to buy the same thing.

 

At Electronic Arts, the creators of Battlefront II are currently not reacting (they basically don't want to comment on this). The investigation of the “kansspeelcommissie” has only just begun but can cause in the worst case that EA needs to pay hundred thousands of euro’s as a fine and the game being pulled from the shelves.

7

 

Total Biscuit took to Twitter firing shots at EA for their practices,  

 

Source: FIRST SOURCE http://aliveforfootball.com/2017/11/belgium-finished-investigation-on-loot-boxes-deems-them/ | http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/ | https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7em7xi/belgium_says_loot_boxes_are_gambling_wants_them/

On 11/23/2017 at 5:01 PM, SC2Mitch said:

After some more scouting around for more news relating to this, France has jumped into the mix a few days ago which went well under the radar with it's French Senator Jérôme Durain with the following tweet. 

 

 

UK gambling commission has released a statement in regards to the loot box problem and how if it can be regulated.  Snippet of the statement

Quote

In early 2016 we identified loot boxes as a potential risk to children and young people as part of a wider review on our concerns around video games and gambling themes, resulting in publication of a position paper.  

Preface: I'm sorry that this is another EA thread, but it appears they can't get out of the spotlight.

Belgium Ministry of Justice has called upon Europe after an investigation into Electronic Arts and Star Wars Battlefront 2 saying that it's detrimental to children's mental health with gambling, Can we just put a law on loot boxes in children's games and just fine the living hell out of EA for what they've done. I think they're trying to go for some kind of record of bad publicity of the year. 

1

Full link to the statement is: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx

[ARikozuM]

Why does the spelling of labor look weird? Damn it, Britain, you didn't invent English, but you're okay making a mockoury of it. 

 

On topic: I'm totally fine with this, but I know that EA will just make the loot boxes in-game achievable with Darth Vader being an exceptionally likely occurrence at 0.0001%. 

[ItsMitch]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Why does the spelling of labor look weird? Damn it, Britain, you didn't invent English, but you're okay making a mockoury of it. 

 

On topic: I'm totally fine with this, but I know that EA will just make the loot boxes in-game achievable with Darth Vader being an exceptionally likely occurrence at 0.0001%. 

Labour is our main political party so people get a bit funked out with either Labour or labor.

[PopReference]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

mockoury

lol

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, SC2Mitch said:

Labour is our main political party

... https://labour.org.uk

 

Okay, then. 

[Beowulff83]

#1 EA deserves every bit of this.

 

#2 Anyone who contacted a government official about EA's actions are complete Idiots.

Once you start down the Governmental control path, for ever will it dominate your gaming future.   We just gave the governments of the world reason to get their fingers in the gamming industry.  Everything Government controls usually fails hard.  In a few years we will probably be begging for Loot Boxes back.  

[aisle9]

Oh good, loot boxes are going to be banned now. Since we no longer have a way to let the stupid few subsidize the game for the rest of us, I hope everyone enjoys paying $80 for the non-DLC base copy of games going forwards.

[Bensemus]

14 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

 

Oh good, loot boxes are going to be banned now. Since we no longer have a way to let the stupid few subsidize the game for the rest of us, I hope everyone enjoys paying $80 for the non-DLC base copy of games going forwards.

 

That’s what tons of people wanted. They don’t want games cantered around loot boxes. They want to pay once for a complete game. 

[Drak3]

Just now, Bensemus said:

That’s what tons of people wanted. They don’t want games cantered around loot boxes. They want to pay once for a complete game. 

Tons of people also think that $60 is borderline too much for the same games that are subsidized by idiots with fat wallets.

[NumLock21]

1 hour ago, Beowulff83 said:

#1 EA deserves every bit of this.

 

#2 Anyone who contacted a government official about EA's actions are complete Idiots.

Once you start down the Governmental control path, for ever will it dominate your gaming future.   We just gave the governments of the world reason to get their fingers in the gamming industry.  Everything Government controls usually fails hard.  In a few years we will probably be begging for Loot Boxes back.  

Go back to your cave.

 

1 hour ago, aisle9 said:

Oh good, loot boxes are going to be banned now. Since we no longer have a way to let the stupid few subsidize the game for the rest of us, I hope everyone enjoys paying $80 for the non-DLC base copy of games going forwards.

It's better than those stupid loot boxes, where you spend real money, by putting your hand into a mystery bag and then grabbing out the item you don't want. And there are different versions of the game, so those that want extra stuffs can pay more for it.

[Cookybiscuit]

It's only Belgium for now, and they've only called for it, not banned them. I don't doubt that the EU will soon follow suit, but loot boxes and microtransactions are here to stay for another few years at least, enacting laws against this stuff isn't going to be a swift process.

 

Whatever happens, more regulation isn't a good thing.

[Drak3]

25 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

It's better than those stupid loot boxes

Not really. Outside of EA, games with loot boxes don't really contribute to P2W, as its either just cosmetic or balanced out that the new weapon/skill/etc. is different, but not better. Keeps prices lower for those that can't afford $80-120 for a game, and those that want to throw money at the developers and publishers still can.

[aisle9]

41 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

It's better than those stupid loot boxes, where you spend real money, by putting your hand into a mystery bag and then grabbing out the item you don't want. And there are different versions of the game, so those that want extra stuffs can pay more for it.

I actually prefer that loot boxes be allowed so long as the purchase of loot boxes is not a prerequisite to unlocking key features of the game. The Overwatch style loot box is fine. Let those idiots keep purchase prices low by buying hundreds of loot boxes so they can get a sexy Mercy costume or a seductive D. Va line. I'm completely good with that, because it allows me to get the full game experience at a reasonable price courtesy of someone else spending money on dumb shit.

 

In fact, I would rather see a model where your $20-60 purchase (depending on the game/platform/publisher) lands you the basic version of the full game as it exists at the time of release. All missions, maps and/or levels are unlocked, all characters are playable. Microtransactions that affect the appearance of the game, its characters, its items and all that fun stuff are fine by me. Those who want a rare carbon fiber knife that will be used up after seven days anyway can have it while I go chugging along with the basic game textures, having as much fun as they do but not looking as 1337 in the process.

 

My real issue with how EA implemented this is that they made microtransactions a necessity to access the character that literally everyone who has ever watched Star Wars wants to play as. To me, restricting access to main characters via a loot box system of any kind is ridiculous and unfair. Charge me a base price for the base game. If you want to release day one DLC that adds a second storyline to the game independent of the main one, cool. If you want microtransactions that place a "pretty tax" on those who want certain items and skins, cool, by all means, let them pay you $80 for the same game that I just gave you $50 for. The thick red line is when you start requiring day one DLC to finish the main storyline (not unheard of) or put key characters behind a loot box wall.

[Rune]

Nothing wrong with lootboxes themselves. Overwatch does it fine. Everything is cosmetic.

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Why does the spelling of labor look weird? Damn it, Britain, you didn't invent English, but you're okay making a mockoury of it. 

 

On topic: I'm totally fine with this, but I know that EA will just make the loot boxes in-game achievable with Darth Vader being an exceptionally likely occurrence at 0.0001%. 

To be fair, you Yanks are the only ones that use labor. Canada uses labour as well.

2 hours ago, Beowulff83 said:

#1 EA deserves every bit of this.

 

#2 Anyone who contacted a government official about EA's actions are complete Idiots.

Once you start down the Governmental control path, for ever will it dominate your gaming future.   We just gave the governments of the world reason to get their fingers in the gamming industry.  Everything Government controls usually fails hard.  In a few years we will probably be begging for Loot Boxes back.  

Haha, what? That makes no sense at all. Them having a problem with loot boxes doesn't mean they'll start diving into games and making demands all over the place.

41 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's only Belgium for now, and they've only called for it, not banned them. I don't doubt that the EU will soon follow suit, but loot boxes and microtransactions are here to stay for another few years at least, enacting laws against this stuff isn't going to be a swift process.

 

Whatever happens, more regulation isn't a good thing.

This has nothing to do with micro transactions, only loot boxes.

Actually, it can be. Not only that once enacted, since it's a digital item, change will be near immediate.

13 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

I actually prefer that loot boxes be allowed so long as the purchase of loot boxes is not a prerequisite to unlocking key features of the game. The Overwatch style loot box is fine. Let those idiots keep purchase prices low by buying hundreds of loot boxes so they can get a sexy Mercy costume or a seductive D. Va line. I'm completely good with that, because it allows me to get the full game experience at a reasonable price courtesy of someone else spending money on dumb shit.

-snip-

Agreed. I actually like loot boxes, I think it adds another element to the game. It can, however, be done horribly wrong, and that's what EA has proven. Guess we'll see what comes of it.

[NumLock21]

34 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Not really. Outside of EA, games with loot boxes don't really contribute to P2W, as its either just cosmetic or balanced out that the new weapon/skill/etc. is different, but not better. Keeps prices lower for those that can't afford $80-120 for a game, and those that want to throw money at the developers and publishers still can.

I guess they better start telling the government there are 2 types of loot boxes before it's too late.

 

11 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Spoiler

 

I actually prefer that loot boxes be allowed so long as the purchase of loot boxes is not a prerequisite to unlocking key features of the game. The Overwatch style loot box is fine. Let those idiots keep purchase prices low by buying hundreds of loot boxes so they can get a sexy Mercy costume or a seductive D. Va line. I'm completely good with that, because it allows me to get the full game experience at a reasonable price courtesy of someone else spending money on dumb shit.

 

In fact, I would rather see a model where your $20-60 purchase (depending on the game/platform/publisher) lands you the basic version of the full game as it exists at the time of release. All missions, maps and/or levels are unlocked, all characters are playable. Microtransactions that affect the appearance of the game, its characters, its items and all that fun stuff are fine by me. Those who want a rare carbon fiber knife that will be used up after seven days anyway can have it while I go chugging along with the basic game textures, having as much fun as they do but not looking as 1337 in the process.

 

My real issue with how EA implemented this is that they made microtransactions a necessity to access the character that literally everyone who has ever watched Star Wars wants to play as. To me, restricting access to main characters via a loot box system of any kind is ridiculous and unfair. Charge me a base price for the base game. If you want to release day one DLC that adds a second storyline to the game independent of the main one, cool. If you want microtransactions that place a "pretty tax" on those who want certain items and skins, cool, by all means, let them pay you $80 for the same game that I just gave you $50 for. The thick red line is when you start requiring day one DLC to finish the main storyline (not unheard of) or put key characters behind a loot box wall.

 

 

Yeah those loot boxes from Overwatch are fine, when everyone still have access to the full game, but now it needs a new name because loot boxes is automatically associated with gambling. Cities: Skylines don't have loot boxes, players can buy add-ons, where you get new features, but everyone still has access to the full basic game.

[Drak3]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

I guess they better start telling the government there are 2 types of loot boxes before it's too late.

Or the government could keep its nose out of where it doesn't fucking belong.

[NumLock21]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Or the government could keep its nose out of where it doesn't fucking belong.

Sometimes the government needs to step in, especially in this case with EA. Cause the consumer wallet won't do sh*t, when you have idiots that actually spends money on it.

[Beowulff83]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

Sometimes the government needs to step in, especially in this case with EA. Cause the consumer wallet won't do sh*t, when you have idiots that actually spends money on it.

LOL, yeah like praying to the devil to save you from Hitler.

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Beowulff83 said:

LOL, yeah like praying to the devil to save you from Hitler.

When people complained, all EA did was lower the price/requirements to unlock those characters and powers. The complains did squat.

[Beowulff83]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

When people complained, all EA did was lower the price/requirements to unlock those characters and powers. The complains did squat

I know,  EA didn't respond any where near to the level they should have to make this right.  Governmental pressure more than likely will cause a far more beneficial reaction from EA in the short term.  My fear is Government is like Tar, once it sticks to something its hard to remove and stains everything it touches.

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Sometimes the government needs to step in, especially in this case with EA. Cause the consumer wallet won't do sh*t, when you have idiots that actually spends money on it.

This is not the time for the government to step in. They're over stepping their boundaries.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

This is not the time for the government to step in. They're over stepping their boundaries.

Then when is it?

[JAKEBAB]

Im not understanding the difference between loot boxes and a pack of pokemon cards. Someone explain?

 

Also people bitching over loot boxes but are fine paying as much for a season pass as a full game what?  

 

Loot boxes are optional, DLC literally fragment the player base and can make a game unplayable.

 

What am i missing here?!?!

[NumLock21]

10 minutes ago, Beowulff83 said:

I know,  EA didn't respond any where near to the level they should have to make this right.  Governmental pressure more than likely will cause a far more beneficial reaction from EA in the short term.  My fear is Government is like Tar, once it sticks to something its hard to remove and stains everything it touches.

If EA didn't went this route, the government would never have to stepped in.

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

This is not the time for the government to step in. They're over stepping their boundaries.

You not buying that game means nothing to EA, when there are those who are actually spending money on those loot crates. The way EA sees it is, if one person can has the money to spend on loot crates, then everyone must have money to spend on loot crates too.