EA gets a thorough ass whooping in the Dutch courts over lootboxes

[TetraSky]

Excellent. Lootbox are clearly a game of chance, even if you can't "cash out" anything. They are just trying to skate through outdated laws in most countries. I'm glad some countries are looking to update their gambling laws.

[CTR640]

2 hours ago, Parideboy said:

Those aren't lootboxes, those are "surprise mechanics"

The comments on this video... majestic

Spoiler

It's not paedophilia, it's early access

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I'm so dead!

 

And seriously, fuck EA. Can't they just get fucking bankrupt or too many idiots rebuying FIFA for like eons??

[Delicieuxz]

Whether a game is legally a "game of chance" in Dutch law and whether it requires a license might be separate matters. But I'm not sure.

 

This overview of the Netherlands' gambling laws also doesn't mention a requirement of monetary value:

https://www.chartattack.com/dutch-gambling-laws/

Quote

As long as the game is considered a game of chance, it should comply with relevant authorities. If a game features these two characteristics, it is referred to as a game of chance;

• If the game provides the participant with a prize to win, and
• If the winner is chosen by a means that doesn’t allow players to show dominance through their abilities.

 

On another site, I found an interpretation of "prizes or premiums" that cites another act:

 

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/gambling-laws-and-regulations/netherlands

Quote

The notion 'prizes or premiums' is interpreted widely, and although the BGA (Betting and Gaming Act) is silent on the legal definition, Article 3(2) Betting and Gaming Tax Act 1961 provides that prizes and premiums include "all goods to which an economic value can be attached, which accrue to the participants in the games of change by virtue of their participation".

 

However, that information doesn't appear to suggest that the Betting and Gaming Tax Act's definition of "prizes or premiums" is the only possible definition. And the fact that it's a tax act makes me think it defines "prizes or premiums" as 'goods to which an economic value can be attached' specifically for the act's purpose, which is taxing winnings. Winnings without economic value aren't taxable, and so a gambling tax act wouldn't be concerned with them.

 

Also, loot box rewards certainly have economic value at the time a person pays for a chance to win them.

 

 

Here, the court addresses the plaintiff's (EA's) argument that their FIFA loot boxes can't be converted into real money:

 

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:10428

Quote

7.7
The claimants' argument that the criterion: 'price or premium' is not met because there is no direct convertibility into money, but only an internal tradability of the goods from Packs, does not follow the court. For the explanation of the term 'prize', the respondent has followed the “Guidelines for the assessment of games of chance” (Guidelines) and the KSB Act published on 30 March 2018. It cannot be seen that the defendant has used an incorrect assessment standard, now that the Betting and Gaming Act, as previously considered, requires a broad interpretation of the conceptual framework in Article 1, paragraph 1, opening lines and under a, of the Betting and Gaming Act. The fact that the KSB Act, which aims to levy and collect gambling tax, is based on a more limited concept of price is therefore irrelevant. Based on a broad price concept, and with reference to the Runescape judgment6 and the Attorney General's Opinion on that judgment 7showing that the internal, virtual game economy can be regarded as a real economy and that the value of virtual items can be valued for real money on the basis of trade outside of a game, defendant did not take the position wrongly that virtual objects can also be regarded as prices or premiums within the meaning of the Betting and Gaming Act. In the present case, the value of the soccer players to be won is determined by supply and demand in the transfer market, where participants can transfer the goods to each other against FUT tokens. Its economic value is reflected in the fact that FUT coins can be converted to FUT points and then to euros. With Packs, the economic value of the football player in question on the internal market is decisive for the question of whether there is a 'price'.can be converted into real money, is an additional indication that there is a real economic value. According to defendant, and plaintiffs have not specifically contradicted this, the goods have a significant market value: 5,000 FUT coins are approximately equal to € 1, and so was a special version of the virtual player Gullit as a “ buy-it-now option. ”(Minimum) worth 9,970,000 FUT Coins (€ 1,994).

 

7.8
On the basis of the foregoing, the court is of the opinion that all requirements of article 1, first paragraph, opening words and under a, of the Betting and Gaming Act have been met. Plaintiffs offer Packs, players can participate by (buying and) opening Packs, players can win items from Packs that represent a (possibly high) economic value, participants cannot in any way influence the (buying and) opening of Packs. exercise on winning a prize and the items from Packs can be traded on the internal transfer market as well as on the black market. This gives the qualification of Packs as a game of chance.

 

[Mark Kaine]

17 hours ago, Rauten said:

Hrm; what of the Steam marketplace?

Can CS:GO, Dota2 etc. skins be bought/sold on the Steam marketplace in Belgium/Netherlands?

Yes, same thing. Very illegal in theory someone just has to sue I guess... 

[Beskamir]

Good to see their "surprise mechanics" bs relabeling didn't save them.

[SolarNova]

So long as people keep buying EA products, they'll continue this sh*t till governments intervene.

 

If u dislike EA for doing this stuff, STOP BUYING THEIR GAMES !.

Any game under the EA publishing banner.. dont buy it.. period. No matter how good it is, no matter how nice the devs are ..if its under EA, DONT BUY IT.

 

I havnt bought an EA game for over 10 years. its not that there havnt been some i liked the look of, i did. But on principle  I will not give that scummy company money.

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, SolarNova said:

So long as people keep buying EA products, they'll continue this sh*t till governments intervene.

 

If u dislike EA for doing this stuff, STOP BUYING THEIR GAMES !.

Any game under the EA publishing banner.. dont buy it.. period. No matter how good it is, no matter how nice the devs are ..if its under EA, DONT BUY IT.

 

I havnt bought an EA game for over 10 years. its not that there havnt been some i liked the look of, i did. But on principle  I will not give that scummy company money.

 

I can't honestly think of an EA game that I wanted to buy, knowing it's an EA game. There are games that I bought because the studio (eg Bioware, Maxis) but neither of those studios really exist in the shape they were before when they produced games people wanted to buy. Sims 4? Mass Effect 3? The "Sims" games at least still functions without buying all the expansion packs. 

 

However games like Star Wars and FIFA... are basically license pinata's that EA tries to milk for as much money as possible because presumably they are expensive licenses. Personally I think people who gamble or buy into lootbox/gachapon and start experiencing gambling addiction symptoms should not play "live service" games that have any kind of purchasable random-prize mechanic. If you can't play game without spending money, don't play it.

 

A lot of games force the gachapon/lootbox mechanics (for example, download the Dr.Mario World mobile game) into a game that really has no reason to have them. You can't start the game without being shown 10 nags to purchase things, and although you can get through the game without paying for anything, many stages require failing them repeatedly just to get the "looks like you suck at this level, here's a bonus to help". Since the time you can play is artificially gated, you also are encouraged to spend the premium currency to keep playing longer. Like really, the time gating mechanic had a reason to exist in farmville-like games, since there was a time cost to build things, but why does it exist in match-3 games?

 

[leadeater]

16 hours ago, Beskamir said:

Good to see their "surprise mechanics" bs relabeling didn't save them.

What a surprise

 

Spoiler

 

[Kawaii Koneko]

Not sure why this would make you smile. It's just another example of over-regulation. These laws are way too strict and unnecessary.

 

A company should be able to offer just about any product or service they want with a few stipulations such as the product being clear as to what it is and it not causing harm to anyone against their will or knowledge. It should be left up to the consumer to choose whether or not they support it. If you don't like loot boxes, then don't use them.  

 

Gambling should be legal anyway. I'm an adult, if I want to play a game with loot boxes, I should have that right. The government shouldn't be stepping in because of parent's who can't parent and gamers who just want everything without having to take personal responsibility and deprive themselves of playing a game.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

harm to anyone against their will or knowledge

Which is exactly why gambling is age restricted, just because "it's a video game" shouldn't make it exempt from the very reason why such a thing is age restricted in the first place, because it is harmful and is why gambling laws exist.

 

This hasn't at all made it illegal or unable to place in to games, it makes it a legal requirement for such games to comply with gambling laws which they currently do not. You can have your loot boxes if you want, in compliance with gambling laws.

 

Because for example Poker Stars is perfectly legal to play, because it is complaint.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Gambling should be legal anyway.

Gambling is legal anyway... Not sure you know what kind of rabbit hole you're going if you're trying to say video games that mostly get played by children should be free to do whatever they want because *you* are an adult, based on the misconception that gambling somehow would be illegal lol. 

 

3 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

The government shouldn't be stepping in because of parent's who can't parent and gamers who just want everything without having to take personal responsibility and deprive themselves of playing a game.

 SMH you're arguing exactly that... OOF 

 

 

In Germany it's called fremdschämen I don't think English has the proper equivalent for how I feel... 

[Delicieuxz]

3 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Not sure why this would make you smile. It's just another example of over-regulation. These laws are way too strict and unnecessary.

 

A company should be able to offer just about any product or service they want with a few stipulations such as the product being clear as to what it is and it not causing harm to anyone against their will or knowledge. It should be left up to the consumer to choose whether or not they support it. If you don't like loot boxes, then don't use them.  

 

Gambling should be legal anyway. I'm an adult, if I want to play a game with loot boxes, I should have that right. The government shouldn't be stepping in because of parent's who can't parent and gamers who just want everything without having to take personal responsibility and deprive themselves of playing a game.

Should it also be legal to carry and discharge firearms at all times and in all situations, arguing that people are adults and if they want to do something potentially harmful, they should be able to without exceptions? Parents who 'didn't raise their kids right' shouldn't be taking-away privileges of the rest? How about driving without seatbelts? False advertising?

 

EA being chastised over loot boxes is a positive thing because, in addition to being predatory, loot boxes undermine good game design by enticing publishers to make shallow, repetitive, grindy games where the gameplay is hollowed-out and rigged to encourage people to spend money rather than enjoy the game as it is. And if you're arguing in favour of paid-for loot boxes, then you're precisely a gamer who just wants everything without having to actually play a game for it.

 

So, unless you like having worse and imbalanced games which bother you to keep spending money, sometimes just to have a competitive footing, you should be pleased with this news, too.

 

And maybe read-up on the harms of gambling even when it's regulated, let alone what they would be if it was unregulated.

[Sauron]

On 10/30/2020 at 10:51 AM, Master Disaster said:

10 million euros

Pennies... if you compare this to the illicit earnings EA made by ignoring the ultimatum it's obvious they'll drag this on for as long as they can. The fine should have been proportional to the number of FIFA copies sold or even individual microtransactions, that way EA would have faced a real threat if they didn't comply and lost the court appeal.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

A company should be able to offer just about any product or service they want with a few stipulations such as the product being clear as to what it is and it not causing harm to anyone against their will or knowledge.

That's exactly the complaint here. EA refuses to acknowledge their game contains gambling when it obviously does (therefore not making it "clear as to what it is") and are therefore causing harm to people against their will or knowledge. A lot of kids don't know the harmful effects of gambling and parents don't always understand that a videogame like FIFA can contain an entire casino, not to mention gambling addicts who relapse after seeing gambling in a game they bought to distract themselves from gambling.

 

This is all happening because EA refuses to be clear about what they're selling. By your own standard your argument is invalid.

[IkeaGnome]

8 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Not sure why this would make you smile. It's just another example of over-regulation. These laws are way too strict and unnecessary.

 

A company should be able to offer just about any product or service they want with a few stipulations such as the product being clear as to what it is and it not causing harm to anyone against their will or knowledge. It should be left up to the consumer to choose whether or not they support it. If you don't like loot boxes, then don't use them.  

 

Gambling should be legal anyway. I'm an adult, if I want to play a game with loot boxes, I should have that right. The government shouldn't be stepping in because of parent's who can't parent and gamers who just want everything without having to take personal responsibility and deprive themselves of playing a game.

That's like going to a casino is your choice. However, there are laws and regulations casinos have to follow. What makes loot boxes different? 

I hate loot boxes. However, regulate them the same as gambling, which is what they are, and it's still crappy to have them in games, but developers have to make money. If it's regulated as what it is, I'm more okay with it. Still wont buy them, but that's my choice. 

[Kawaii Koneko]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Which is exactly why gambling is age restricted, just because "it's a video game" shouldn't make it exempt from the very reason why such a thing is age restricted in the first place, because it is harmful and is why gambling laws exist.

 

This hasn't at all made it illegal or unable to place in to games, it makes it a legal requirement for such games to comply with gambling laws which they currently do not. You can have your loot boxes if you want, in compliance with gambling laws.

 

Because for example Poker Stars is perfectly legal to play, because it is complaint.

Except that isn't what a lot of gamers are pushing for. They don't want compliance. Most of the comments I see are gamers wanting this mechanic to be removed entirely, by government force if necessary.

 

And whether it is gambling is really up for debate. Should the courts decide it is or laws target these mechanics specifically it puts the business model of a lot of games in danger. There are a lot of places where gambling is illegal entirely and it isn't just a matter of these games complying. Hell, there are two US states in which it is entirely illegal in all forms. And a lot of other states have various bans and restrictions on certain types of gambling.

 

And besides, a parent giving their kid $10 to do a handful of rolls for that rare item or character isn't really the same as sitting them down at a poker table in a casino.

 

8 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Gambling is legal anyway... Not sure you know what kind of rabbit hole you're going if you're trying to say video games that mostly get played by children should be free to do whatever they want because *you* are an adult, based on the misconception that gambling somehow would be illegal lol. 

 

 SMH you're arguing exactly that... OOF 

 

 

In Germany it's called fremdschämen I don't think English has the proper equivalent for how I feel... 

It isn't legal everywhere and even where it is, there are a lot of anti-free market regulations placed upon it.

 

And yes, I am arguing that because I believe in freedom, full personal and market freedom. And along with that comes personal responsibility which applies to parents monitoring their children, children who generally have no disposable income without the parents giving them money or being fools in linking their debit/credit cards to a device they let their kids use.

 

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Should it also be legal to carry and discharge firearms at all times and in all situations, arguing that people are adults and if they want to do something potentially harmful, they should be able to without exceptions? Parents who 'didn't raise their kids right' shouldn't be taking-away privileges of the rest? How about driving without seatbelts? False advertising?

No offense but oh, come on. Be realistic in your comparison. Firing gungs into the air whenever you feel like it puts the public in danger against their will. Of course its not okay to do something harmful to another person without their consent. I made that clear. But no, you shouldn't be required to wear seatbelts if you don't want to. It's your body. If you want to be an idiot and take that risk, that should be your right.

 

Also, like I said, false advertising clearly shouldn't be allowed. I mean, I didn't say it in those exact words but I thought that message came across. Maybe I wasn't clear with my wording but no, a company can't just outright lie about a product or the consumer can't really make a choice. 

 

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

EA being chastised over loot boxes is a positive thing because, in addition to being predatory, loot boxes undermine good game design by enticing publishers to make shallow, repetitive, grindy games where the gameplay is hollowed-out and rigged to encourage people to spend money rather than enjoy the game as it is.

"Predatory". Lol.  This word is overused just like anti-consumer. 

 

Whether or not they undermine good game design is a separate issue. If you want to make that argument fine but it has nothing to do with their legality and whether they should be allowed. Surely you aren't saying they should be illegal to force game design to go in a direction you want?

 

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

And if you're arguing in favour of paid-for loot boxes, then you're precisely a gamer who just wants everything without having to actually play a game for it.

Quite the opposite. I'm the type of gamer who rarely pays for loot boxes because I do prefer to work and earn my items. The most I have ever spent on loot boxes was for School Idol Festival and it was only a couple hundred of bucks over the course of nearly two years playing the game. I really only did it then because there were some special events and I couldn't possibly have grinded enough rolls in time before the event ended. Even Killing Floor 2, I always wait to open the loot boxes until I earn keys through game play.

 

Hell, I'm the type of gamer who if I really get stuck in a game, I won't use mods or cheats. I'd rather not finish the game than do so by cheating. So yeah, I'm definitely not the type of gamer who likes things handed to me. 

 

Please don't confuse my advocacy of free market principles to mean I like everything you find in it. I don't really care for loot boxes in particular but I believe devs should have the right to choose how they will monetize their games. If I don't like it, I just walk away.

 

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, unless you like having worse and imbalanced games which bother you to keep spending money, sometimes just to have a competitive footing, you should be pleased with this news, too.

I just don't play P2W games. I make that choice as a consumer in this joke of a free market system I live in. Plenty of people do play those games for some reason so let them eat cake.

 

There are a lot of games with loot boxes that are actually fair and don't go beyond cosmetic items. It isn't like every game with loot boxes forces you to pay money if you want to compete.

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

And maybe read-up on the harms of gambling even when it's regulated, let alone what they would be if it was unregulated.

That's the same argument anti-drug people use to justify telling adults they can't choose what to put into their body. It's irrelevant. Your body, your choice. Your life, your choice.

 

And of course, I am aware there is a certain effect felt by those surrounding someone with a drug or gambling problem but there are secondary effects felt for every decision you make, good or bad. We shouldn't be restricting choice of adults because some of them will make bad choices.

 

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

That's exactly the complaint here. EA refuses to acknowledge their game contains gambling when it obviously does (therefore not making it "clear as to what it is") and are therefore causing harm to people against their will or knowledge. A lot of kids don't know the harmful effects of gambling and parents don't always understand that a videogame like FIFA can contain an entire casino, not to mention gambling addicts who relapse after seeing gambling in a game they bought to distract themselves from gambling.

 

This is all happening because EA refuses to be clear about what they're selling. By your own standard your argument is invalid.

By harm, I mean physical harm. Not "mental harm" which is kind of ambiguous anyway and a rabbit hole we don't want to go down from a legislation standpoint. Gambling effects everyone differently. I've only gambled like twice in my life at a casino. It was meh for me. Other people get sucked into it. But it's still a choice. Yeah, yeah, I get that there is a psychological component to it all but ultimately, you choose to overcome your addiction. It's still a choice at the end of the day. We can't deprive the many of their freedom to freely choose because of the few who choose poorly.

 

Besides, I don't think this is the same as normal gambling anyway.

 

Also, I don't buy this argument that EA or anyone isn't being clear about what loot boxes are. A monkey could see that there is only a chance you will get what you want. Anyone who doesn't get that going in is an idiot.

 

3 hours ago, Voluspa said:

That's like going to a casino is your choice. However, there are laws and regulations casinos have to follow. What makes loot boxes different? 

I hate loot boxes. However, regulate them the same as gambling, which is what they are, and it's still crappy to have them in games, but developers have to make money. If it's regulated as what it is, I'm more okay with it. Still wont buy them, but that's my choice. 

Well, I don't really think they are gambling in the same way as actual gambling. MAYBE you could make that argument if there is a mechanic in place to officially sell such items but even then, it is "gambling light'.

 

Besides, isn't it the ESRB's or Pegi's job to put gambling under the rating? 

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Except that isn't what a lot of gamers are pushing for. They don't want compliance. Most of the comments I see are gamers wanting this mechanic to be removed entirely, by government force if necessary.

Well they are entitled to their opinion. Some despise them enough to want them to be removed from games forever by what ever means. I'm not going to tell them how they feel about something.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

And whether it is gambling is really up for debate. Should the courts decide it is or laws target these mechanics specifically it puts the business model of a lot of games in danger.

Games survived for decades without it, they 100% can now.

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

By harm, I mean physical harm. Not "mental harm" which is kind of ambiguous anyway and a rabbit hole we don't want to go down from a legislation standpoint.

Uhh yes we do, psychological harm is a well established scientifically backed concept by now and there's nothing ambiguous about how harmful gambling can be. Psychological harm can also lead to physical harm in a number of ways so trying to place a hard line between the two is absurd. Also again, this is just about applying existing regulation to games that unquestionably qualify as gambling.

28 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

But it's still a choice.

A choice you can't make when you're a kid. Children and teenagers are on average more susceptible to manipulation and may not be aware of the dangers of gambling, hence they're protected from it until they reach a sufficient age to make that choice for themselves.

30 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

We can't deprive the many of their freedom to freely choose because of the few who choose poorly.

Again, nobody is making gambling illegal. If you want to make an online casino you can do that. You just need to comply with gambling laws.

31 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Besides, I don't think this is the same as normal gambling anyway.

That's a completely different argument, one in which you are also wrong.

31 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Also, I don't buy this argument that EA or anyone isn't being clear about what loot boxes are. A monkey could see that there is only a chance you will get what you want. Anyone who doesn't get that going in is an idiot.

If it's gambling then it needs to follow gambling regulations. EA denies it is gambling and sells it as not containing any gambling despite it obviously being gambling and the court ruling that it is gambling. This is really easy to understand, I don't get why you're struggling so much.

33 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Besides, isn't it the ESRB's or Pegi's job to put gambling under the rating? 

The ESRB and PEGI are not governmental bodies. They are an industry effort to appear as though they are self regulating to avoid actual regulation. In this instance neither organization has taken steps to stifle or even clearly identify titles containing gambling so clearly it's not working (not really surprising).

37 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Well, I don't really think they are gambling in the same way as actual gambling. MAYBE you could make that argument if there is a mechanic in place to officially sell such items but even then, it is "gambling light'.

This was addressed and completely debunked by the court:

Quote

The court was unswayed by those arguments, noting that there are ways for people to profit from Ultimate Team cards that can be valued at nearly €2,000, and that people can ignore the proper FIFA gameplay and "play" the Ultimate Team packs as their own sort of game.

 

[leadeater]

38 minutes ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

And besides, a parent giving their kid $10 to do a handful of rolls for that rare item or character isn't really the same as sitting them down at a poker table in a casino.

Sure, try telling that to a parent that is unaware that for certain games they save payment details and their child can and has run up hundreds to thousands of dollars within the game with zero oversight or limits to prevent this. Online gabling games are obligated to detect problem users and offer assistance, where is that right now for loot boxes? Nowhere.

[Master Delta Chief]

1 hour ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

-snip-

I'm sorry, but I can't take you serious at all and nor should anyone else with your takes that isn't in the best interest of the majority of the public. Loot boxes have been criticized all over the place and created a bad image over the years towards the gaming industry. Corporations like EA should never have the full-freedom that you apparently are advocating for because that will literally cause a nightmare scenario for the consumers. But regardless, I have to agree with someone else's take about loot boxes that cause devs to make repetitive-like games that are just not that innovative at all. It's just a money-making machine, that's all. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Typically saving that information is optional, and if a parent leaves that information on their account that's their own fault/negligence.   The prevention is reading and making sure it's not saving it for the child to do as the parent/guardian.   Why does the company have to babysit the child?

Except it's not always made that clear, it's really not much to ask that for games targeted more towards minors to not by default save payment information and make it abundantly clear that when the option to do so is ticked before form completion and processing. Not every parent will pick up on it and not every child is a saint, some of them are lying asses intentionally trying to tick their parents.

 

And no it is my experience that the vast majority of everything will default to saving payment information, some it's not even optional you have to go remove it after the fact.

 

It's not that controversial to ask for some pretty basic common sense that will not negatively impact anyone. It's a lot more reliable to have the product not be flawed than to count on thousands to millions of parents to not make a mistake, only takes once. Why advocate to allow companies to actually be useless? Or more realistically intentionally not do these things because they know it will result in more money.

 

Why don't we just go back to allowing lead based paint to be used on children's toys? It's the parent/guardian fault if they allow the child to shallow the paint chip. Not all regulation is bad, some like lead paint are pretty damn  good and obvious and again hurt exactly nobody.

[ravenshrike]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Games survived for decades without it, they 100% can now.

They survived for decades because the console companies refused to allow adult only products in their ecosystems. Gambling is legally an adult only product. Had the ESRB/PEGI boards classified it properly in the first place it never would have been allowed on the platforms in the first place.

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

They survived for decades because the console companies refused to allow adult only products in their ecosystems. Gambling is legally an adult only product. Had the ESRB/PEGI boards classified it properly in the first place it never would have been allowed on the platforms in the first place.

 

Games exists and survived for decades before lootboxs where a thing. it might make some style of games impractical and i don't doubt it will hurt profit margins. But it's not the death knell of the overwhelming majority of things.

[Master Disaster]

6 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

They survived for decades because the console companies refused to allow adult only products in their ecosystems. Gambling is legally an adult only product. Had the ESRB/PEGI boards classified it properly in the first place it never would have been allowed on the platforms in the first place.

What? The ERSB only exist because Sega allowed some controversial games onto the Mega Drive/Mega CD. Both Nintendo & Sega were dragged into a court case in the mid 90s because of the content they allowed on their platforms and the ESRB was the outcome of that court case. The industry agreed to self regulation and the ESRB was set up.

 

The difference between that and this is pretty simple. Violence & sex are prohibited for underagers where as gambling is actually regulated by law. There's no law that says a parent cannot allow a child to watch a horror movie (though there are laws preventing retailers from selling them to kids) where as it is straight up illegal for kids to gamble under any circumstance.