US lawmaker lays out plans for anti-loot box law

[Frankenburger]

 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/us-lawmaker-who-called-out-star-wars-battlefront-2-lays-out-plans-for-anti-loot-box-law/

 

Quote

The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts. 

It's unfortunate that we're at the point where we need government intervention, but egregious practices like this certainly can't go on. While the threat of government intervention is far from my first choice, at least it's something for publishers to start considering in the future. This is especially true when you consider the ESA, the parent company to the ESRB, is made up of many of the big time companies (such as Activision/Blizzard and EA) pushing towards lootbox systems. http://www.theesa.com/about-esa/members/

[TVwazhere]

11 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

The video lays out the basics of what Lee has in mind, which includes prohibiting the sale of videogames containing "gambling mechanisms" to anyone under the age of 21. That restriction would cover any situation in which players are purchasing a "percentage chance" to get an in-game item, rather than the item itself, and would apply not just to games sold at retail but also those available via digital distribution channels like Steam and GOG—a relevant point because ESRB ratings are not mandatory for digital storefronts.

My issue with this is that the ESRB will then have to have a new rating for specifically gambing, because right now Overwatch is T for teens and would otherwise require someone over 21 to sign off on the purchase, as is with M rated games with gore, sex, swearing and exceeding violence (GTAV)

Actually prohibiting would imply that they cant even buy the game regardless of parental/guardian consent... 

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

My issue with this is that the ESRB will then have to have a new rating for specifically gambing, because right now Overwatch is T for teens and would otherwise require someone over 21 to sign off on the purchase, as is with M rated games with gore, sex, swearing and exceeding violence (GTAV)

Actually prohibiting would imply that they cant even buy the game regardless of parental/guardian consent... 

all games with loot boxes will have to be rated A for adult, which means they can't be sold in major stores. (most stores have a policy to not sell A games)

[Frankenburger]

3 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

Actually prohibiting would imply that they cant even buy the game regardless of parental/guardian consent...

That's basically what the "AO" rating is for, which sounds a lot like what Chris Lee is pushing towards. To him, loot boxes are no better than gambling, and I don't necessarily disagree. After all, you can't go into a casino, even if you're with a parent or guardian, unless you're legally considered an adult.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Tedny said:

Interesting how EU will do this law and what will do games with cosmetics lootboxes 

all loot boxes would need to be player earned not paid for

[TVwazhere]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

all games with loot boxes will have to be rated A for adult, which means they can't be sold in major stores. (most stores have a policy to not sell A games)

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

That's basically what the "AO" rating is for, which sounds a lot like what Chris Lee is pushing towards. To him, loot boxes are no better than gambling, and I don't necessarily disagree. After all, you can't go into a casino, even if you're with a parent or guardian, unless you're legally considered an adult.

Which IIRC the only games that ever had AO ratings were games that had explicit sex scenes, that showed partial or full acts. Games like God of War still had sex scenes but they were off screen.

 

Kinda sad the only two things that earn AO ratings is hentai and lootboxes

[TVwazhere]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

all loot boxes would need to be player earned not paid for

In theory. OW would be able to be excluded from this regulation if that was the case, but I dont know. I think they will try to push for removal of all lootboxes in titles like that. 

[TacoSenpai]

Ok look I hate EA and even hate the loot box system even more but do we really need the government coming in and intervening.  We could just you know not buy their shit...

[Frankenburger]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

all loot boxes would need to be player earned not paid for

This. 100% this. Especially if in game currency cannot be paid for (I'm looking at you, GTAV).

 

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

Which IIRC the only games that ever had AO ratings were games that had explicit sex scenes, that showed partial or full acts. Games like God of War still had sex scenes but they were off screen.

 

Kinda sad the only two things that earn AO ratings is hentai and lootboxes

The gaming industry, and gaming as a whole, is a relatively new form of media/entertainment. Games are growing with the times and branching out in more and more ways. That being said, I personally don't find it at all surprising that games are now starting to host elements that many consider should be for adults only outside of full blown sex.

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, LordTaco42 said:

We could just you know not buy their shit...

The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely flimsy and holds no water. If it did hold water, we wouldn't be here right now. The problem is the vast majority of people are OK with micro transactions. People like me and you who boycott egregious practices are in the minority.

[MrTiC]

8 minutes ago, Tedny said:

Interesting how EU will do this law and what will do games with cosmetics lootboxes 

Very simple, ban any form of lootboxes in games

And games that have a cosmetic lootbox system will have to go with a micro transaction store 

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

The whole "vote with your wallet" argument is extremely flimsy and holds no water. If it did hold water, we wouldn't be here right now. The problem is the vast majority of people are OK with micro transactions. People like me and you who boycott egregious practices are in the minority.

Which then begs the question of "if the majority of people are okay with it, why ban or regulate it?".

 

Note, I'm not defending it, just saying that society seems to do a lot of protecting dumb people from themselves, and I have to wonder if that's part of why society is getting dumber and dumber.

[MrTiC]

8 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

all loot boxes would need to be player earned not paid for

Loot boxes are in any form (payed or free) gambling 

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, MrTiC said:

Very simple, ban any form of lootboxes in games

And games that have a cosmetic lootbox system will have to go with a micro transaction store 

That's the ideal scenario, as long as the micro transactions aren't price gougey. Unfortunately, there's currently nothing stopping publishers from including loot boxes in games.

[MrTiC]

1 minute ago, Frankenburger said:

That's the ideal scenario, as long as the micro transactions aren't price gougey. Unfortunately, there's currently nothing stopping publishers from including loot boxes in games.

Its the ONLY scenario .... There is no way to police age restricted games that are digital ... (How many kids play GTAV for example?)

[sof006]

One issue I can see this having is that developers and publishers would then have to have the rating of the game increased... Plus side to this is the limiting of the potential audience it targets. Meaning a lot of lost revenue.

[Frankenburger]

6 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Which then begs the question of "if the majority of people are okay with it, why ban or regulate it?".

 

Note, I'm not defending it, just saying that society seems to do a lot of protecting dumb people from themselves, and I have to wonder if that's part of why society is getting dumber and dumber.

A lot of it deals with ignorance. For a long time it wasn't known that smoking can lead to cancer. Back in 1989 there were a few states that didn't enforce a legal smoking age. Fast forward to 2017 and now we have states looking to raise the legal smoking age to 21. Gaming being as young as it is means there's a lot of unknowns in the eyes of the general populace. We can't make people learn about these issues, but we can enforce regulation if people refuse to become educated on controversial topics.

[MrTiC]

1 minute ago, sof006 said:

One issue I can see this having is that developers and publishers would then have to have the rating of the game increased... Plus side to this is the limiting of the potential audience it targets. Meaning a lot of lost revenue.

Rating means shit

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, Frankenburger said:

A lot of it deals with ignorance. For a long time it wasn't known that smoking can lead to cancer. Back in 1989 there were a few states that didn't enforce a legal smoking age. Fast forward to 2017 and now we have states looking to raise the legal smoking age to 21. Gaming being as young as it is means there's a lot of unknowns in the eyes of the general populace. We can't make people learn about these issues, but we can enforce regulation if people refuse to become educated on controversial topics.

Yeah, but what's even the point? Even with education and legal restrictions, people still smoke cigarettes. Hell young teens smoking cigarettes isn't even particularly uncommon.

 

You can regulate it all you want, but fact is dumb people are still going to do dumb things, even if you try to push them away from it.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I hate microtransacations but this is retarded.

[Frankenburger]

17 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Yeah, but what's even the point? Even with education and legal restrictions, people still smoke cigarettes. Hell young teens smoking cigarettes isn't even particularly uncommon.

 

You can regulate it all you want, but fact is dumb people are still going to do dumb things, even if you try to push them away from it.

True, but it's a tad different with games. Games with an AO rating means most retailers won't carry physical copies of the game. Even though you can still buy them digitially, it's going to cut into the sales, thus discourage publishers from putting in these systems.

[mynameisjuan]

Just dont charge real money for loot boxes or the currency to buy them and this would be all fixed. Or how about just rid of micro transactions and increase cost of game. 

[Zodiark1593]

Wonder how this would effect mobile platforms?

[bimmerman]

I'm ok with this. As it currently exists, paid loot box-esque mechanisms absolutely are gambling because you are spending real money for a chance to win (in this case, an item), albeit a digital one, and all other forms of gambling are heavily regulated. You are literally betting that if you spend $X you will get Y reward and return on investment, with zero guarantee of successful outcome.

 

I don't have an issue with random lootboxes when there is no real-world money associated with it. If you're wasting hours of your life grinding for in-game credits, and then choose to spend them on a chance to win an item in a lootbox, you're an idiot but it's not true gambling in the currency-for-chance regulation definition. When you introduce actual currency, then it's actual gambling exactly like a slot machine at a casino.

 

I'm also ok with microtransactions as a concept. If you want a cosmetic skin, or a super duper awesome weapon, or a stats multiplier, it makes sense to be able to buy it or grind in-game for it, with some sort of parity between time-to-grind and time-to-earn-real-money. That is NOT gambling because you are spending money on specific items, not on chance.

 

Mixing microtransactions for the lazy/time-limited with lootboxes for the games-of-chance thrill is absolutely gambling, and has no place in games targeted to children who don't understand (or care) that mommy's credit card isn't an unlimited money tree. That is for adults, just like other physical forms of gambling.

[Ryujin2003]

As a parent, I already see the damage from very occasional lootbox in free to play games. My 8 year old plays a couple free mobile games when he is at his grandparents, and he's already getting desensitized to the idea of gambling, even if it's with his in game currency that he earned from playing. The free daily lot box tries is another online casino gambling technique. It's horrible that or society is becoming socially numb to this behavior.

 

35 minutes ago, LordTaco42 said:

Ok look I hate EA and even hate the loot box system even more but do we really need the government coming in and intervening.  We could just you know not buy their shit...

Yes, the government is needed because people will stop spend money on gambling. It's bigger than EA. Nearly every mobile game incorporates these techniques. And it's the presence and the pressing from corporations that needs to stop. Don't but EA.. got it. But for everything game out there that contains these tactics, there's a group of people being taken advantage of. Gambling needs to be regulated because the corporations won't do it themselves.

28 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Which then begs the question of "if the majority of people are okay with it, why ban or regulate it?".

 

Note, I'm not defending it, just saying that society seems to do a lot of protecting dumb people from themselves, and I have to wonder if that's part of why society is getting dumber and dumber.

There is a difference between tolerate and supporting. There are rules for handling gambling. Why should a casino be handled differently than a game developer?

 

Unfortunately, society has to defend the "dumb" people; however in this case, I don't think it's dumb people. These games are using developed and proceed techniques to prey on and explore children and vulnerable adults ( those with "addictive" style personalities it mentally diminished).

28 minutes ago, Tedny said:

I don't think that thing will make more tax money, yea, law can be just about taxes, not about full banning of idea 

You cannot bad an idea. It's intangible. You can regulate the manifestation of that idea. Taking the hell out of these companies will hopefully get them to decide it's not financially feasible... However, some may capitalize on it just as casinos do.