Most of Europe (and Washington State) bands together to tackle the lootbox problem

[Master Disaster]

I will fully admit, I saw this on Techlinked earlier however its not posted here and it is gaming news so let's discuss it.

 

15 European Countries, namely

Quote

• Austria: Alfred Hacker, Director, Federal Ministry of Finance
• Czech Republic: Karel Blaha, Director of the State Oversight Over Gambling Department
• France: Charles Coppolani, Chair of the French Online Gaming Regulatory Authority
• Gibraltar: Andrew Lyman, Executive Director, Gambling Division, HM Government of Gibraltar
• Ireland: Brendan Mac Namara, Principal Officer, Gambling Policy Division, Department of Justice and Equality of Ireland
• Isle of Man: Steve Brennan, Chief Executive, Gambling Supervision Commission
• Jersey: Jason Lane, Chief Executive, Jersey Gambling Commission
• Latvia: Signe Birne, Director of Lotteries and Gambling Supervisory Inspection of Latvia
• Malta: Heathcliff Farrugia, Chief Executive Officer, Malta Gaming Authority
• The Netherlands: Jan Suyver, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Netherlands Gambling Authority
• Norway: Henrik Nordal, Director Deputy General, Norwegian Gaming Authority
• Poland: Paweł Gruza, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Finance
• Portugal: Teresa Monteiro, Vice-President of Turismo de Portugal, I.P
• Spain: Juan Espinosa García, CEO, Directorate General for Gambling Regulation
• UK: Neil McArthur, Chief Executive Officer, UK Gambling Commission

As well as

• Washington State: David Trujillo, Director, Washington State Gambling Commission

have all joined forces to try and tackle the issue of lootboxes once and for all.

Quote

Less than a week after Belgium began a criminal investigation into FIFA's loot boxes, 15 gambling regulators from Europe and one from the US have together announced they will "address the risks created by the blurring of lines between gaming and gambling".

 

The collaborative effort, organised at the 2018 Gambling Regulators European Forum, includes signatories from the UK, France, Ireland, Spain, and even the US (via the Washington State Gambling Commission).

The main point of contention appears to be "skin gambling" sites skin to CSGO Lounge as in most countries offering a cash out service is where lootboxes cross the legal line.

Quote

The key focus for the parties involved appears to be "tackling unlicensed third-party websites offering illegal gambling linked to popular video games". If you're wondering what this is, think back to skin betting site CS:GO Lounge, which allowed users to bet real money on a pot of their CS:GO items until Valve cracked down on the site in 2016. Many of these still exist, and regulators want both the video games industry and technology platforms "to play their part in helping crack down on these websites".

However they aren't stopping just as skin betting, they'll also be looking at lootboxes in games again and more so the impact they have on the vulnerable and on children.

Quote

The effort appears to be motivated by concerns about consumer protection and the safety of children online. Neil McArthur, chief executive of the UK Gambling Commission, said regulators "want parents to be aware of the risks and to talk to their children about how to stay safe".

Right now they appear to be asking publishers to work with them to tackle this issue, there no talk of mass legislation as of yet.

Quote

"Unlicensed websites offering skins betting can pop up at any time and children could be gambling with money intended for computer game products," McArthur stated. "We encourage video games companies to work with their gambling regulators and take action now to address those concerns to make sure that consumers, and particularly children, are protected."

 

Although no solid action has yet been taken, the international effort signals a major shift in the loot box regulation debate. The move comes in the wake of a crackdown on loot boxes by several European countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, indicating pressure is mounting on publishers who continue to include loot boxes in their games.

 

The wording of the statement also shows regulators expect game companies to be more cooperative. In context, this is probably a direct response to Blizzard's recent statement claiming it disagreed with the Belgian Gaming Commission's "interpretation of Belgian law," and EA's complete refusal to remove loot boxes from FIFA in Belgium.

It appears as though they're looking for the industry to create a self regulation authority, similar to the ESRB for ratings.

Quote

The international nature of the agreement is also significant. Previous attempts at regulation have been taken by individual countries, while this approach may bring about coordinated and wide-spread regulatory changes: ones which could potentially be harsher than those taken by individual nations. It hints some countries which previously stated they did not consider loot boxes to be gambling, such as the UK, may now re-evaluate the issue. Will we soon see more countries change their position?

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-17-15-european-gambling-regulators-unite-to-tackle-loot-box-threat

 

Great idea in principle however unlike rating systems, gambling laws vary hugely from country to country. Any regulation authority is going to have to be either an international effort or split into multiple different regions.

 

Still it's progress, I sense the end is near for lootboxes.

[voiha]

Depends. For example there is country laws and there is EU laws that countries in the EU must obey as they are in the union. The problem is spreading the gambling law outside of EU.

[Deus Voltage]

Good, this is great progress. I also find it illogical when people try to use the "big government" argument against loot boxes. Some people are quite irrational and fail to realize that in order to protect certain freedoms, including financial ones, they need to support regulatory practices.

[Master Disaster]

12 minutes ago, voiha said:

Depends. For example there is country laws and there is EU laws that countries in the EU must obey as they are in the union. The problem is spreading the gambling law outside of EU.

Gaming laws are decided on a country by country basis, the EU probably has some guidelines but AFAIK they don't mandate anything, it's up to individual countries to decide whats best for them hence why we have Belgium & Finland working to ban them why everyone else is looking to regulate.

[Master Disaster]

14 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

It will just boil down to a new way of govt getting money (i.e fines) and have no lasting impact in effective regulation

For the rest of us, just a big waste of time.

I can't disagree however I think in this case the motivation is more the simultaneous mass public appeals, from all walks of life and all countries, for government to actually do something.

 

There's comes a point where the chants get loud enough that government can't be seen to ignore the issue any longer. SW Battlefront was that point for video game lootboxes.

[suicidalfranco]

>resisting temptation to open a bottle of champagne

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

I can't disagree however I think in this case the motivation is more the simultaneous mass public appeals, from all walks of life and all countries, for government to actually do something.

 

There's comes a point where the chants get loud enough that government can't be seen to ignore the issue any longer. SW Battlefront was that point for video game lootboxes.

I really hope it goes this way and not the "well you need a gaming license or some such" that amounts to the government just saying "where's our fucking cut?".

[mr moose]

Governments intervene for two reasons:

1. the problem poses a financial risk to them

2. the problem poses a voter endorsement if they fix the "problem"

 

Sometimes government intervention is helpful and sometimes it fails, but for the most part regulations  that only damage an enterprise also damage an income stream (tax revenue) so they tread carefully. 

 

If the vast majority tend to err toward banning lootboxes then it is because that will net them votes or the outcome is likely to have a net positive effect on the economy.

 

 

[Bouzoo]

Oh look, we're not up there. What a shocker. 

[Arika]

What worries me is the extent in which this can stretch. Who determines when it becomes gambling?

 

As someone mentioned in another thread; trading card games like Pokemon, magic the gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh etc how will these be effected? Or services like lootcrate and even the mobile gaming niche of gacha games.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

Good, this is great progress. I also find it illogical when people try to use the "big government" argument against loot boxes. Some people are quite irrational and fail to realize that in order to protect certain freedoms, including financial ones, they need to support regulatory practices.

How does this protect freedom though? It seems more like them trying to protect people from themselves which honestly isn't really the job of a goverment, It's to protect the people from other people. I mean I am unsure how the idea that the lootboxes are detrimental to children makes sense tbh. Usually gambling is an issue about spending all your money on it and having nothing left. It's not like a child is going to spend all 20 dollars of their money and suddenly have their life ruined. Also why are all these kids buying a bunch of in game items in the first place? It seems like a parenting issue to me. I am unsure how lootboxes are even remotely similar to real gambling. I have done both and the experience is much different. Anyways I am against parent states where the government feels the need to parent it's citizens. 

[asus killer]

from what i read they aren't exactly after the lootboxes. They are concerned mostly with 3rd party websites like the csgo lounge and that lootboxes don't go against countries gambling laws. They aren't tackling the "lootbox problems" as the OP has it in the title, but more the gambling associated to gaming. It's not the same.

 

pay 2 win for example doesn't seem to be a concern for them at all.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

How does this protect freedom though?

Protecting freedom by removing it, duh.

 

Get your double think on bruh.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

How does this protect freedom though? It seems more like them trying to protect people from themselves which honestly isn't really the job of a goverment, It's to protect the people from other people. I mean I am unsure how the idea that the lootboxes are detrimental to children makes sense tbh. Usually gambling is an issue about spending all your money on it and having nothing left. It's not like a child is going to spend all 20 dollars of their money and suddenly have their life ruined. Also why are all these kids buying a bunch of in game items in the first place? It seems like a parenting issue to me. I am unsure how lootboxes are even remotely similar to real gambling. I have done both and the experience is much different. Anyways I am against parent states where the government feels the need to parent it's citizens. 

No but a child who spends their $20 every week for a year on flashing lootboxes is probably going to end up addicted to gambling before their even legally old enough to gamble.

 

You actually refuted your own argument, you've done both and you understand the difference. A child can't legally gamble so doesn't understand the difference between the 2 things.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

from what i read they aren't exactly after the lootboxes. They are concerned mostly with 3rd party websites like the csgo lounge and that lootboxes don't go against countries gambling laws. They aren't tackling the "lootbox problems" as the OP has it in the title, but more the gambling associated to gaming. It's not the same.

So lootbox gambling can exist without lootboxes? The 2 things are different sides of the same coin and to quote you...

Quote

and that lootboxes don't go against countries gambling laws

How is that not tackling the lootbox problem?

[asus killer]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

 

my bad i didn't put all that i wanted at first, i then edit the last part.

 

pay 2 win for example doesn't seem to be a concern for them at all. As long as it doesn't enter the gambling aspect. So i see a distinction, between what they are discussing and the "lootbox problem" that is much larger. I remember you that the all Star Wars backlash came because of P2W not exactly the gambling aspect of the thing.

[The Benjamins]

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

How does this protect freedom though? It seems more like them trying to protect people from themselves which honestly isn't really the job of a goverment, It's to protect the people from other people. I mean I am unsure how the idea that the lootboxes are detrimental to children makes sense tbh. Usually gambling is an issue about spending all your money on it and having nothing left. It's not like a child is going to spend all 20 dollars of their money and suddenly have their life ruined. Also why are all these kids buying a bunch of in game items in the first place? It seems like a parenting issue to me. I am unsure how lootboxes are even remotely similar to real gambling. I have done both and the experience is much different. Anyways I am against parent states where the government feels the need to parent it's citizens. 

They are protecting people from the people that make games that are designed to feed into peoples physiology to entice them spend more money. The people spending the money are not the ones who make the game.

 

Gambling is seen as something addictive, just like drugs, the dealer is the game dev and the user is the crack head.

[Misanthrope]

I would like to call this group the ESEAA for Eat Shit EA Alliance.

[Tcrumpen]

"My name is legion for we are many"

 

Never has a Mass Effect quote been more appropriate

[Doobeedoo]

Is so called DLCs that are revealed months before game launch next? 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

No but a child who spends their $20 every week for a year on flashing lootboxes is probably going to end up addicted to gambling before their even legally old enough to gamble.

 

You actually refuted your own argument, you've done both and you understand the difference. A child can't legally gamble so doesn't understand the difference between the 2 things.

I am so confused by that dumb logic. I know the difference between apple juice and alcohol because a I have drank both but a child hasn't so apple juice must be bad right? No that makes no sense just like your statement. My entire point about telling the difference is because they are different and shouldn't be treated like they are the same thing. You talk about a kid having issues when they grow up form spending 20 dollars a week on lootbox like it is the lootbox that's the problem. The problem is the spending and can be seen in general shopping addiction. You let your child spend 20 bucks a week on anything and they will have issues. The parent needs to parent there kids to not do such things not ban lootboxes because that isn't the problem. You go to pure pay microtransactions that aren't lootboxes and the same issue will happen with kids spending a ton of money on microtransactions and becoming addicted just the same. Government laws aren't a good replacement for proper parenting. 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

They are protecting people from the people that make games that are designed to feed into peoples physiology to entice them spend more money. The people spending the money are not the ones who make the game.

 

Gambling is seen as something addictive, just like drugs, the dealer is the game dev and the user is the crack head.

Are you comparing gambling addiction to a strong physiological addiction? Gambling addiction is a mental addiction. Anything can turn into a mental addiction and normal microtransactions would just as addictive as lootboxes. At the end if the day parenting is the only real solution to this issue. At this point we need the government to protect us from all retail stores and fast food chains and all the other things that can negatively affect people with addiction issues. A company is going to make a product that people want to buy that's just the nature of the game. If you can't restrain yourself then that's your issue not the companies. If you are a child then the parents should be involved and hopefully stop them from buying into it all together.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

They are protecting people from the people that make games that are designed to feed into peoples physiology to entice them spend more money. The people spending the money are not the ones who make the game.

 

Gambling is seen as something addictive, just like drugs, the dealer is the game dev and the user is the crack head.

I know many people with addiction issues and alot of them are mental ones but if you try to create laws to prevent mental addictions you will get nowhere because there are so many different types. The best thing to prevent them is to have good parenting and teach them moderation. Also promoting good mental health helps tremendously as many mental addictions are coupong mechanisms for other mental issues. I mean this loot box thing is basically a shopping addiction more so that gambling. That isn't something you can prevent with this law. 

[Master Disaster]

30 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am so confused by that dumb logic. I know the difference between apple juice and alcohol because a I have drank both but a child hasn't so apple juice must be bad right? No that makes no sense just like your statement. My entire point about telling the difference is because they are different and shouldn't be treated like they are the same thing. You talk about a kid having issues when they grow up form spending 20 dollars a week on lootbox like it is the lootbox that's the problem. The problem is the spending and can be seen in general shopping addiction. You let your child spend 20 bucks a week on anything and they will have issues. The parent needs to parent there kids to not do such things not ban lootboxes because that isn't the problem. You go to pure pay microtransactions that aren't lootboxes and the same issue will happen with kids spending a ton of money on microtransactions and becoming addicted just the same. Government laws aren't a good replacement for proper parenting. 

Then you have no idea how a child's mind works.

 

Until they turn into adults children have very little understanding of the difference between cause and consequence (it's actually worse in boys, girls reach maturity at a younger age than boys do).

 

This is why you very often find teenagers doing very dumb things for fun, they don't associate the risks with the situation and also the reason why young male drivers are infinitely more likely to crash a car than any other age groups.

 

A child would understand the difference between apple juice and cider by the taste of it, they wouldn't understand the effect the cider is going to have on them nor the consequences. Same with lootboxes and gambling, a child could understand the difference if it was explained to them, they wouldn't understand the effects properly even if it was explained to them.

 

This is precisely why so many laws exist to protect children and why they're classed as vulnerable.

 

And no, the child wouldn't develop a gambling addiction from microtransactions because they're not inherently designed to look, act and feel like gambling.

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I know many people with addiction issues and alot of them are mental ones but if you try to create laws to prevent mental addictions you will get nowhere because there are so many different types. The best thing to prevent them is to have good parenting and teach them moderation. Also promoting good mental health helps tremendously as many mental addictions are coupong mechanisms for other mental issues. I mean this loot box thing is basically a shopping addiction more so that gambling. That isn't something you can prevent with this law. 

I am more point out that it's targeted by the initiator. And it also effects minors, they shouldn't be exposed to gambling so young.