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

[SolarNova]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Violence & sex are prohibited for underagers

"Sex is prohibited for underagers"

 

 

There fixed that for you

Honestly the 'violence' isnt a problem for most ratings boards, they are far more lenient with it. But show some underboob, butt crack , bare ass, or otherwise show 'suggestive' content even without any 'actually' nips or genitalia, and its immediately seized on resulting in a high rating or censored (remember Devil may Cry 5?).

 

Western societies have a real 'issue' with sexuality. But have no issue glorifying violence and death .. crazy isnt it.

but i digress ...

 

Gambling should be rated as adult only, as it is in most places. and lootboxes and its many implementations should most certainly be considered gambling.

No need to 'ban' it. Just call it what it is. Thats enough to cause enough 'issues' for the likes of EA to 'hopefully' get rid of them for good.

[jeanluckpiccard]

It brings a smile to my face whenever I see a developer, like EA put in their place.

[tikker]

On 10/30/2020 at 1:16 PM, Arika S said:

Interested to see if this could be extended to Gacha games or even to TCGs Like MTG and pokemon card game booster packs. 

 

I do enjoy Gacha games myself but they are not much different than loot boxes

Yeah this is a front where their reasoning is a bit weak in my opinion, because they check all the same boxes. Basically they are the same thing. Card games and such are just the exception to the rule at the moment, nothing more as far I understand our law. Their answer on the official Dutch website is this:

Quote

Action is now being taken against loot boxes. But why is nothing being done about playing cards, football pictures and surprise eggs?

The Gaming Authority has so far not received any signals that addiction problems arise from opening playing card packs or surprise eggs. This was also explicitly run by addiction care institutions in the investigation that the Gaming Authority conducted. Such products have been on the market for more than twenty years. Whether the Gaming Authority takes action may depend, among other things, on whether there is actually a (potential) risk to its public objectives (addiction prevention, consumer protection and combating illegality and crime).

 

[Trik'Stari]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:00 AM, Ashley said:

i love my country, doing what the USA can't. giving companies what they deserve. 

What, give them a fine that equates to essentially pocket change for a corporation of this size? $5,000,000 or $65,000,000, still equates to almost nothing to a company of this size. That's less a fine and more a tax. That's the government saying "ooh, a few million extra we can line our pockets with through various "contractors" and other BS".

 

I'd like to see a country strip them of licensing rights within their borders. Imagine if the Dutch Government instead said "okay, you can no longer use the FIFA license within our borders".

 

I don't like it when governments do things, but when they do it should actually work and not just be a token representation of doing something.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The reason we don't allow things like lead paint on children's toys has nothing to do with babysitting the child as the product itself is highly likely to harm the consumer. 

And so is gambling which is why it is regulated and age restricted, sure it's not going to medically/chemically kill you from exposure to it. Doesn't negate the need to regulate it however.

 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

If their child isn't a saint and blows through their parents' money because the parent didn't bother to read that's on the parent/guardian.

And this is still a gross over simplification. Fact is it is not this simple and it is the responsibility of the company to act ethically or to be forced to by law when it is necessary, Credit Cards, financial transactions and gambling are ALL 3 directly under the "it is necessary" so all of them are regulated by laws. The difference is some things currently find ways to skirt around these or are not adequately covered which is how problems can happen.

 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Looking over it even more EA/Origin is pretty much straight forward that the info is being saved and you can easily delete it.  Steam, where EA games are now too, asks if you want to save.   It's pretty much no different on the PS Store and MS's store/s.   Pretty sure it's the same on the eshop or whatever Nintendo calls their's too.   So, I don't see how these parents are so vulnerable.

Except none of these are the problem really. It's in app purchases where those save the payment details and you can just keep buying and buying and buying with literally zero measure in place to limit spending even when it is clearly suspicious activity or at least should be followed up by a support agent to check, you know like gabling sites do.....

 

I'm sorry but when gambling websites have the moral/ethical high ground there is a problem.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It literally shows you on each store's page that it is storing it and that it can be deleted! 

On those examples you gave* Remember my original comment was not limited to EA, I said in general most places save payment information by default and often it's not that clear unless you are used to that being a thing. How many services do you think a typical parent uses that does this if that parent is not a gamer? I can name one good example that does and that is Amazon, not many others though. I personally do most of my spending online and default saving of payment information is a rarity except for when it comes to games be it the major stores you mentioned or in-app/game done from within the game itself.

 

Like I said not everything does as you say, and really it's actually not as obvious as you are saying. It might be easy and clear for you to understand, not for everyone however.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48908766

 

This sort of thing actually happens more than you seem to think, or maybe care about? Some are more understanding and accommodating about these situations than others e.g.

Quote

On the PS4: you must set up a separate account for your child. The monthly spending limit is automatically set at zero. Sony says it will not refund purchases made from adult accounts.

 

Yes it's very easy to just stand there and say do better, it's your fault for not understanding but your also assuming they made no effort to when that can in fact not be true. It's also just as easy and more reliable to require the companies involved to not be useless and guess what, it will not impact you personally at all. Well unless you're a baller who pays thousands every month on in-app/loot boxes and will get tired of spending limits and wellness checks to make sure everything is actually ok.

 

None of this really addresses the issue of loot boxes being essentially gambling and is fundamentally not a good game mechanic to be pushing in to games designed for players under the age of 18. If we already accept that minors are incapable of bearing financial pressures why are we pushing these types of mechanics that entice an strong desire to spend money on to them?

 

Corporate reasonability is not negated by personal responsibility.

 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, the parent can buy their kid cards in place of putting their card in.  PSN gift cards are a thing that can be used for in app purchases in place of actual cards. 

Ok and how many do you think know about this?

 

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

especially when it's common knowledge that there are alternative methods

Is it now? And how do you know it is?

 

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, I'm sick of people making excuses for poor parenting skills then blaming everyone/thing for their poor parenting.

Well as someone who has worked their entire career in the education sector so worked with many parents and children I'm am equally sick of what you are also saying, it literally is not as simple as you make out. You are arguing on the basis of your understanding and your behavior habits and those are not equally shared across everyone.

 

Like I added at the end and you probably didn't get to see it while typing your reply, corporate reasonability is not negated by personal responsibility.

 

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

And, again this is literally what the info+what the dad said in the article you linked

Yes I know, this is one of my original points I made about children being deceptive. This is supporting evidence of this being an issue, not just of your own point. These situations would not happen or be far more limited if games were not putting pressure on them to make such purchases.

[CarlBar]

44 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Plenty given the marketing and gift rate of them to their children.   And, unless you don't bother to read the info right in your face it's kinda hard not to know that you can delete the info or have it not saved, methodology varies between the store.

 

See, you just pointed out that you're biased on the matter.   You can not enjoy what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean the parents aren't to blame.  The dad blamed himself.

 

Right, mommy/daddy/whatever guardian is not capable of preventing this.   They are not responsible.   It's the fault of the corporation for being a corporation and using marketing.   If I was ten, daddy bought me a gun, bought me some bullets to go with it, and I shot someone the maker is to blame not the one who gave me the weapon and ammo.   Maybe daddy didn't exactly tell me to do it, maybe society influenced my decision, who knows?. But ya know daddy can't be responsible.   Let's blame say Colt?  Society?  I guess I gave the person a "surprise mechanic".

 

I often run tech support for family members, particularly older ones and not understanding [payment systems and screens is a common occurrence, they often have to ask me to help them make a purchase because they don't understand a lot of whats on screen, it just confuses them instead.

 

And it's not just payment stuff, I've had to, (and in some cases still have to) explain the difference between wifi and internet and e-mail and the devices storage, (as in will wiping this device destroy all my e-mails). In my experiance confront most adults with a new or unfamiliar way of doing somthing and they need the equivalent of about a school weeks worth of instruction to actually understand it. They can learn how to use it in less than an hour, but understanding it and all the implications is more than they can handle in that space of time. 

 

I generally, (provided i don't get so much information at once that i become overwhelmed, thanks to my autism that causes me to completely lock up), don't have issues comprehending new stuff, in fact a whole raft of mental health related tests highlighted me as unusually capable in that area, if i'm remembering correctly around 75-85% of people are worse than me in that area. And i'm only pretty good, i'm far from perfect. The majority of people though simply can't quickly or easily understand this stuff, and in my experiance a goodly percentage need actual tuition to properly understand it. It's a consequence of having systems that are easier to use than they are to understand all the nuances of.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

See, you just pointed out that you're biased on the matter.   You can not enjoy what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean the parents aren't to blame.  The dad blamed himself.

Enjoy? Not sure that fits here? Anyway that really is not the point, yes there are people that could do more, that's a given. If your argument is those people exist then sure but so does my example, so where does that leave us? Right back to my point about corporate responsibility not being good enough and inappropriate game mechanics being placed in to games for age groups that should not be exposed to it.

 

Because here is just one very simple thing everyone could do with very minimal impact to you, me or anyone else that does understand this very well, NOT default to saving payment details. Here in my country as an example you are no longer allowed to default opt-in people for e-mails and mail circulars, gift programs, store benefits etc etc. These opt-in consumer choices have to be made by the consumer under their own direct action, simple right and minimal impact if you do want it, tick the box. Now I can already use my own example of children being deceitful  and them ticking that box before getting the parent but as to your point you can't save everyone, but you can do more, however you could also on screen confirmation prompt on submissions that it is going to save it and have that as the only dialogue and information on the screen at that point.

 

Why are you advocating for people to be better and giving corporations a free pass to not do the same, when it is very clear they can also do better. There is nothing wrong with both sides improving, but don't come to me saying what you are and resting the blame at a single entity group.

 

Also you can call what I have bias and I can call it experience with the subject matter being discussed over a wide population sample i.e. I have a decent understanding of parents and children by nature of my work sector.

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'd like to see a country strip them of licensing rights within their borders. Imagine if the Dutch Government instead said "okay, you can no longer use the FIFA license within our borders".

 

I don't like it when governments do things, but when they do it should actually work and not just be a token representation of doing something.

I agree that would be the best possible outcome, imo. But it's a first step, you need to tell the offender that what they're doing is wrong, fine them and if they keep doing it fine them more, while *also* changing the laws, to make things more clear, which is probably exactly what politicians are incapable of in cases like this because then they have to "discuss" what gambling in games even means for the next 20 years or so lol. 

 

But yes, I agree the best course of action would be simply to disallow gambling mechanics in games, aka "lootboxes" from a personal view its just awful game design regardless of monetary gains... 

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

which is probably exactly what politicians are incapable of in cases like this because then they have to "discuss" what gambling in games even means for the next 20 years or so lol. 

That's called "guaranteed income". They have no real incentive to ever fix anything, because if they did, they can't campaign on being the one to fix it.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because it's not the corporation's responsibility to hold your hand

So how is what I suggested so bad? What makes not defaulting to saving payment details so unquestionably bad? Or is it that you only care about convenience for yourself and want the coaptation to hold your hand so you don't have to tick a box?

 

I think we can spin this however way we like so suit our on view, point is and has always been they can do better and game mechanics that are very similar to gabling is simply not a good idea to put in to games primarily played by minors. You are free to not not agree with that however.

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

See, I'm aware that the parents/guardians are responsible for their kid yet I'm not going throw the company under the bus because of poor parenting, relation, or bias towards the company.

Then do not do it to parents. Either both are fair game or nether are. End of. Nobody gets free passes for anything ever.

 

Your counter argument coming in to what I first said was to rather than consider what the corporations could improve to just blame shift on to parents, I'm sure you could raise counter points without doing that which would have been much more productive.

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Going back to the actual topic, instead of a constant derailing, EA doesn't force you to use a savid credit/digital service you can actually gift currency, same with PSN/eshop/Xbox or MS store, and so on where EA's games are.

Yet again may I point out this is not as common knowledge as you seem to think among parents. If you do not know there is another way to pay then you simply do not know and it's a huge assumption on your part to say that is easily found out, by the person paying.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because it's not the corporation's responsibility to hold your hand.  It's not their responsibility to babysit your kid either.   Do you expect random strangers to protect your child just because you weren't watching them and they ran outside too?  If the kid gets attacked by a wild animal is it suddenly your neighbors fault?  Is it the fault of the company that installed the door?

 

Okay, so now we're arguing about cultural differences?  But, hey this might shock you too.   Here in the US in several areas you actually don't have to save someone that's drowning either.

 

Yes, you the parent/guardian are responsible for your child.   That's the reality of it, and passing blame onto the corporation because of lazy/poor parenting is fucked up.

 

It's a bias because you claimed that you were sick of something due to a relation to it.   That's why they don't let cops work on cases when it involves someone they know or something they can relate to as that's where biases can cloud judgement.   See, I'm aware that the parents/guardians are responsible for their kid yet I'm not going throw the company under the bus because of poor parenting, relation, or bias towards the company.   I don't even like EA, but I'm not going to agree with OP on the matter that, because it's EA, as that's fucked up.  I do agree the "surprise mechanic" argument is kind of a dumb way of wording a defense.   However, using biases to dictate a ruling is not fair to the corporation rather you like them or not.  Going back to the actual topic, instead of a constant derailing, EA doesn't force you to use a savid credit/digital service you can actually gift currency, same with PSN/eshop/Xbox or MS store, and so on where EA's games are.   The fact that the parents are putting their card in for payment is already a bad idea on their part.   EA's own shop shows you up front all of the options including saving and deleting payment methods.   So, we're now back to parents/guardians being the responsible party.  

 

I think you misunderstand the entire discussion. It's not about the government trying to parent kids, its not about parents saving card details, its not about parenting in any way.

 

EA and other publishers are selling games rated as child friendly that contain gambling mechanics. To quote you, "Thats fucked up". Underage gambling is against the law, period, full stop, no argument about it. There shouldn't be an option to buy anything in a game rated as suitable for 3 year olds at all.

 

Its funny because you're accusing us of having bias while focusing on one irrelevant detail and totally ignoring the actual issue.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The point is that the corporation shouldn't be forced through a legal system to do so

I think you may be applying comments someone else has said on to things I have been saying. No where in my first post did I say that my suggestions have to be put in to law. Sure they could, or those changes could be done and agreed upon as new standard industry practice.

 

The only comment that came close to something like that was my point about gambling websites being required to monitor and identify problem spending habits which is not being done for loot boxes in games. If loot boxes are to be deemed as gambling then those same exiting laws would then apply. However this is something they can and should be doing regardless.

 

But depending on what it is, yes they should be forced to through a legal system. (comment entirely and completely in general)

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not about my convience.   The point is that the corporation shouldn't be forced through a legal system to do so.   While you might prefer they have it that should be something handled at the corporate level, and if the parent/guardian doesn't like then maybe tell their child "no, I'm not putting my card info in".

 

Nobody is forcing the parents/guardians to allow their kid to play these games.  On top of that, EA lets you monitor/manage teen account in app purchases and/or you can make your child a child's account which automatically has in-app purchases disabled.

 

https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing

 

I'm sorry but what?

 

Lets imagine a casino was actively encouraging children to participate in gambling knowing full well that it was illegal. Should the casino owners not get dragged through the legal system?

 

The game in question is rated as suitable for 3 year olds, call me crazy but I believe that should mean the game is suitable for 3 year olds.

 

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing

 

You do know unless your child has an unmonitored teen account or an adult account they can't make in-app purchases, right?

 

So, what are you on about?

Do you actually work for EA?

 

Its very simple, there should not be an option to spend money in a game rated as suitable for 3 year olds. There should not be gambling mechanics in a game rated as suitable for 3 year olds.

 

If EA want to include gambling then fine, I have no issue with that however the games should be rated as 18+ and should be restricted at the point of sale just like tobacco and alcohol.

 

The very fact EA have had to create a system to protect kids from the system they themselves created is not a good thing.

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Again, I wasn't specifically only talking about you.  I was talking about the thread and topic at hand.

 

I'm reading EA's own site, and I'm reading over their info.  On the matter.

 

1)  With payments on origin there is actually a box to check if you want it to save your info or not, just like with steam.

 

2)  If you make a child's account, read it wrong again, then your child can't make in-app purchases in the first place.   If you have a teen account for a child they allow you to monitor the purchases and payment methods.   It's only an adult account that is super lax on in-app purchases, but you can still disable it.

 

https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing  Again, the info is here.

And if you want to walk into a casino and play games to have to prove that your old enough to do so.

 

Fun fact: children are not allowed into casinos AT ALL, even with their parents so why is it OK for a child to buy a game containing gambling from an online service with no age check at all? Not only is there no check, the game is rated as OK for them to play.

 

Again your focusing on the parental side of the argument which is moot. Its against the law for children to gamble, parents shouldn't have to protect their children from it because its supposed to be illegal for anyone to expose children to it in the first place.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, the parent gave them the adult account when EA has childrens account to prevent them from gambling.  The game isn't designed for children nor rated by EA, and it's all EA's fault because you don't like EA based on your OP and thread title.   If a parent goes to a liquor store, comes home with booze, and lets their kid drink it all are we now blaming the liquor store?  If the parent gives their kid their credit card, the kid jumps on the site of a liquor store, buys a bunch of booze, and the delivery person shows up then cards them, followed by denying it to the kid.  Is it the liquor store's fault the kid bought the booze?  Liquor stores card on delivery, and EA not only didn't make the game for kids, but they have an age verification system in place to prevent it.   The only one at fault is still the parent/guardian.   So no, my argument is not moot.   You're putting your blame in the wrong place because you clearly have an agenda against EA.

Its like banging your head against a brick wall.

 

Imagine a shop was selling Dora The Explorer DVDs, each DVD box contained a sample of Whiskey and the only warning was a tiny and incredible vague label on the back of the box. A kid is still allowed to buy the rated 3 DVD despite the fact it contains an item restricted to adults only in the box and the shops policy was "its up to the parents to remove it before giving it to their child", The one at fault is the shop for selling the item, not the parent who didn't know about it.

 

Who rated the DVD doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, the shop sold the child an item that was illegal for them to have in the guise of something that its OK for them to have.

 

EA is the shop.

 

And FTR I don't have an agenda against EA, I have an agenda against any publisher knowingly & deliberately exposing children to gambling.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

 

Fun fact: children are not allowed into casinos AT ALL, even with their parents so why is it OK for a child to buy a game containing gambling from an online service with no age check at all? Not only is there no check, the game is rated as OK for them to play.

That doesn't even mention that the odds are not posted anywhere and are in many games explicitly mutable by the devs on a per account basis. So unlike casinos, they are allowed to increase the addiction factor immensely.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

EA also didn't design FIFA for children nor that aspect for them

 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

EA Sports is the publisher, PEGI is the rating group, Origin/eshop/Steam/PS Store/MS or Xbox Store are the stores, and EA Romania and Vancouver are the developers.  EA Romania and Vancouver don't rate nor design the game for children, and EA Sports sends it out to PEGI and stores.  The rating you mentioned is slapped on by PEGI.

 

Quite a few things can be addressed here:

1. The data I've seen has more than 30% of active players below the legal age to gamble
2. When you submit a game for rating you can actually suggest your rating
3. When they are submitting their supporting evidence for a rating it is on the basis that loot boxes are not gambling, PEGI nor ESRB don't themselves have a good basis to declare them as such without supporting evidence either.
4. Having clear aspects of a game designed for older people that are clearly desirable to have and you may also gain an advantage from having in a game rated as "Everyone" and then arguing you don't have to use those aspects or age restrict them isn't a very good argument. EA has the complete ability to request a higher age rating when putting in their rating submission. By not doing so they are implicitly implying that they feel their game does not require any age restrictions at all and therefor designed for all ages. You really think the publishers of Doom went in with a submission based on trying to get an "Everyone" rating, heck no.
5. You have to cater to your customers, no matter how much you want your customers to be you don't get a say in that a lot of the time. Unless your game is age restricted then you have to cater to all, no amount of "we designed it for adults" will change reality.

[Donut417]

31 minutes ago, leadeater said:

When they are submitting their supporting evidence for a rating it is on the basis that loot boxes are not gambling, PEGI nor ESRB don't themselves have a good basis to declare them as such without supporting evidence either.

They probably don't know how to deal with the loot boxes. I mean, the ESRB for instance is an industry created rating agency. They have little to no legal authority. This is likely an issue that will have to be taken to court and or have new laws created. Plus on most games that have online capabilities, The ESRB states they dont rate those interactions. 

 

At the end of the day, its not the ESRB or EA's fault if the game ends up in the hands of someone its not intended for. The parents job is to look at those ratings and decide if its right for their child. To many parents just buy the games, and dont bother looking at the ratings. 

[leadeater]

42 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

EA's fault if the game ends up in the hands of someone its not intended for

Well except they could age restrict their game themselves, if the game requires proof of age to play and a parent goes around that for their child then that is completely on them. But unless they age restrict it then it actually is their fault it ends up in the hands of people they do not intend for, not making an effort isn't an excuse for that.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Well except they could age restrict their game themselves, if the game requires proof of age to play and a parent goes around that for their child then that is completely on them. But unless they age restrict it then it actually is their fault it ends up in the hands of people they do not intend for, not making an effort isn't an excuse for that.

The issue is the gaming industry ( Id suspect that 95% of the US population) doesn't want the government to be involved. Thats why the ESRB was created, because it was create your own rating system or the government will do it for you. Now I can tell you that in the past I have come across select stores that did require age verification for both Video games and Movies. But thats going to be more of a store policy than anything. 

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

5.  Actually, that's not true in countries with artistic freedom because video games are art.   EA already went out of their way as I mentioned several times before on the one aspect.   Parents and guardians also don't typically read what games are meant for their kids.  Should we talk about how many kids globally play games like Grand Theft Auto V?

That wasn't the point, this isn't at all about artistic freedom. If your game is being played by people under the age of something that is legally age restricted and your game is deemed to have such age restricted content in it then it is too bad for you, reality has now hit home. So at that point you either remove the content that is in breach or age restrict your game to remove access to those players.

 

Artistic freedom is not a free for all, bypass all laws card.

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You're assuming two EA developers went in with that, and you're making assumptions yourself.

Well I've never heard of PEGI nor ESRB not giving a game a higher age restriction rating on request, ever. Secondly game publishers always want and try and get the lowest age rating possible as it does effect game sales. Assumption or not EA would have gone in trying to get the lowest age rating they possibly could, fairly basic analysis leads you to that.

 

This is actually something both developers and publishers talk about, the South Park games had to think about this to ensure they got the ESRB M rating they were after because they have clear evidence that if it were to be rated as ESRB AO it would result in lower sales.

 

Publishers and developers go in asking to the exact rating they are after, it is what they do. Doesn't mean they will get what they are asking for, usually that relating to being given a higher rating not lower.

 

If a developer or publisher only wishes adults to be playing their game then maybe, just maybe they should do something about that rather than nothing.

[Semper]

If I've said this once, it's got to be a hundred times by now.

I don't see this as a "win". I see very little regulation and/or government intervention as a "win".

Much like I said to expect "minor tweaks to verbage or mechanics to skirt the laws", it was no sooner that we saw the claim of "surprise mechanics" (it's almost like I can predict the future!), Do I expect this to ultimately result in any positive outcome.

What I see here is one of two things:

1. A very clearly defined means for which EA to comply with to circumvent "comply" with regulations.
 

Quote

Dutch law says that if a game of chance can be cashed out in any way, it doesn't have to be officially sanctioned, as long as the prize can be shown to have a real world market value, its gambling.

Heavily enforce that any goods won through their games of chance, can not be traded by any means. This includes account selling (which I'm certain they already do). The rewards won, belong to that account, on that edition of that game, and have no other intrinsic value, moving forward or backward. If it can't be cashed out, it's not gambling.
 

Quote

They said that players can choose to ignore the rest of Fifa and focus entirely on Ultimate Team which is 100% a game of chance.

 

Make it a requirement that you must play "x" number of games before you unlock Ultimate Team. Add in a requirement that you have to intersperse other game modes with Ultimate Team. "play five games to unlock Ultimate Team. For every Ultimate Team match that you play, you must earn an additional "play" token in... whatever other game modes that Fifa has."
Consumers can no longer completely ignore the rest of the game.

Which still does not solve the issue of

Quote

Dutch law says that all games of chance will automatically be assumed to be harmful.

Those that have a self-destructive nature, or "uncontrollable addiction to gambling" will still be making these bad decisions.
That is entirely, and completely their own fault - "A fool and his money are soon parted". Personal responsibility is the crux here, in my opinion. It's not the responsibility of a government to regulate you out of your own stupidity, nor is it their responsibility to fix your mistakes once you've made them.

Complying with regulations that doesn't result in a desired outcome (for said government) will result in regulations on the regulations.

2. A means to indirectly restrict consumer choice.

I think it's fairly clear at this point that EA's goal is to put absolute minimum effort in year over year to turn max profit, actual retail sales being a small percentage of that total revenue. As it is, all that happens is features are shuffled around, removed, added, touted as "all new" and removed again to restart the cycle. The game is "reskinned" ( the title and some graphics are (sometimes) changed to reflect the sequential year, and the roster names are updated), often times with large volumes of the exact same code, including bugs. I find it unlikely that EA is going to continue to pander to each individual countries' mandates for what is and is not okay. I don't' see it outside the realm of possibility that EA will just decide that it's easier to just completely remove their product from any countries with heavy regulation. Whilst I don't really care what EA is peddling, nor where, there are consumers that do. There are those that are just counting down the days left until they can buy *enter title here*. From an objective standpoint, Belgium and the Netherlands combined market are a tiny fraction of that of the United States. Less than half that of the UK, which is still a small percentage of the United States. Are those lost sales really worth it for EA to comply with regulatory restrictions? Worth spending time creating different versions of their game?

I see the solution to this as personal responsibility, and I see all the regulation and rooting for it as a scapegoat - "I can't control myself, so I need someone else to do it for me, and him, and him, and her, and those people over there, and that squirrel too! I despise lootboxes. I hate the very essence of them. I play games that have them. I do not buy them (with a few very specific exceptions where I actively wanted to support a developer). I do not support companies that heavily push them.
I have absolutely no intention of ever purchasing another EA title, with or without lootboxes.
It's incredibly difficult to convince me to purchase an Ubisoft title.
It's nigh impossible to convince me to purchase an Activision and/or Call of Duty title.
I refuse to support the Epic Games Store, you can offer me all the free games you'd like. I'm not interested in even considering your platform. I refuse to purchase Epic exclusive titles, even once they're on the Steam storefront. I will not support a company that supports those practices. (the exception being Exodus, as it was gifted to me). I have taken a stance on my moral values and weighed those against those of developers and publishers in a free market. They're free to make their decisions, I'm free to make mine.

I have an unhealthy addiction to chocolate. I know that if it's kept in my house, I will eat it. I don't keep chocolate in my house, and on the rare occasion that I do, it's very limited in amount. My brain craves the dopamine rush because of the high stress environments that I operate under regularly. I have taken personal control/responsibility of my medically validated addictions, and held myself personally responsible for my well being.