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

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Wouldn't that be a bit of a conflict of interest, and also why they let ESRB/PEGI do it?

Why would it be a conflict of interest? If as you say they only want adults playing their game they can themselves implement age restriction in to the game itself and clearly market as for adults only. This is a completely independent action from industry ratings boards and they could even choose to not submit their game to be rated at all. Should they wish to they can submit it and in their application for rating indicate it is a game for adults only, neither ESRB or PEGI will go against this as they would have no reason to unless they either want to refuse to rate it or give it an even higher rating.

 

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

EA literally has accounts designated for children and teenagers that prevent/restrict online access, in-app purchases/the gambling portion, and they even mention which games have that sorta stuff, including FIFA.

Except those aspects are still in the game and the game is designed to give you a strong desire to use those features. And the issue there is those age restrictions only work if the parent knows about them.

 

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

but you're acting like the company has to cater to children because the parents/guardians didn't do what they are supposed to do aka fucking parent! 

No I'm acting like a game that has inappropriate mechanics for an age group should not exist in the game at all or the game be restricted to players at or above that age group. Sorry but corporate ineptitude is not an excuse here. Either the game is for adults or it's not, once you've picked one then it is on you to make sure it is actually appropriate for which ever one you have selected. That is not a parental issue. Like I said if a parent wants to bypass an age restriction for their child that is on them, but as it is without any additional measures by the parent or child the game is available in all it's features and functions.

 

You're acting like developers and publishers can't do better, they can. You are the one that raised the parent counter point not me, it's a bad counter argument and repeating it won't make it not so. Bad parenting exist, what is your point? How does this exempt corporations from improving? It doesn't.

 

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

You used one example to cover one of, if not the largest, entertainment industry?

 

Citation needed that they all do this.

So you want me to fill entire pages worth of this thread with other examples? Why? Yes other examples do exist, many. I invite you to go research this topic more or you can choose not to.

 

Your parental counter argument to my original points are thus not going to be discussed anymore for the above reasons I have given. It is a dead end and not valid.

[Master Disaster]

10 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Dora the Explorer was designed for children, and for the other part the company put in place age verification methods and account types to prevent it.  It's not vague at all there's an entire 2 pages explaining what to do by EA.  https://help.ea.com/en/help/account/online-access-for-child-accounts/ and https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing/ are not vague at all.  They have pretty clear info on the topic incase a parent decided that they want their kid playing a video game not meant for a minor.  It disables the "gambling aspect" and more!   EA also didn't design FIFA for children nor that aspect for them.  You're using PEGI's rating system to claim that EA purposely designed it for children.  If Doom was rated the same are you going to blame id, ms, or zenimax?  The publisher simply sends a copy to the rating people, and the rating people dictate what rating they slap on there.   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.  It is sent to stores after the rating by PEGI Are starting to follow?  You should blame PEGI if you don't want to blame the parents or guardians.  Because you said it was suitable for children as young as 3, but no branch of EA claimed that, PEGI did.  EA Romania and Vancouver designed and developed it for adults.  Would you prefer some Mortal Kombat like gore for PEGI to change their rating?

You're missing one point in this argument.

 

Both the ESRB & PEGI do not take into account portions of a single player product that are online only. This warning is shown clearly at the start of any game that features online modes and FUT is? You guessed it, an online only mode. Have you ever stopped to consider why they only ever shove lootboxes into MP portions of a product? (and not just EA either, 2K, Activision and all the big studios who employ lootboxes do the same thing). Its to avoid them getting slapped with an 18+ rating and having the product restricted.

 

FTR none of us are under any illusions that the ESRB & PEGI are not every bit a corrupt as greedy publishers.

 

I find it kind of funny that you're defending them in the face of, pretty much the entire of Europe, Australia and Northern America all being concerned over lootboxes being in childrens game. Do you believe that Holland and Belgium have laws which are unlawful? Lets not forget that judges in both countries have ruled that these items are gambling and should be restricted under gambling laws. Are those's judges wrong? The UK gambling commission has told the Government to amend our laws to include lootboxes because they should be restricted. Are they wrong? Politicians in both the US & Australia have called for urgent review of current laws because lootboxes are exploiting a loophole and IIRC (though maybe I'm misremembering) California has already acted state wide against lootboxes. Governments right across the globe are all saying these items should not exist and you still maintain that its the parents fault.

 

Normally I'm not in the habit of advocating government interference in an adult choice however in this case the issue is that the current laws that should protect from this don't apply because they were drawn up in the 1920s when the digital world didn't even exist. The publishers are fully aware of this fact and are exploiting a loophole, selling products that should be restricted by law to children and reaping the rewards from that, all with zero consequence.

 

I'll say it once more, your parental control argument it a moot point. Gambling for children is illegal, nobody should be selling a game rated as suitable for children that has gambling in it just like shops cannot sell tobacco or alcohol to children. If something is age restricted under law then it means exactly that.

 

There shouldn't be a need to apply parental controls to a game suitable for children to prevent them from spending money, children are not allowed to do that by law and should not even be given that opportunity, at all. They don't understand the dangers or consequences of their actions. Your argument assumes that parents must understand the risks and how to protect their children from them however the government has already made that choice and restricted it under law. Its not up to parents to ensure their kids don't buy alcohol or go into casinos, its up to the people running those businesses to make sure they don't break the law. The same SHOULD be true of lootboxes, parents shouldn't have to know how to protect their kids from something they should never be exposed to in the first place.

[dual290x]

Who else clicked on this thread thinking the title was "EA eats @$$..."?

[Master Disaster]

52 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not a children's game you just keep calling it one because of the PEGI rating.   Most children are playing games like Grand Theft Auto V and Fortnite, and guess what?  GTA V is rated M for mature, and parents are still allowing their children to have their credit card for in app purchases.

 

It's not moot because you say it is.   The parent shouldn't be allowing their kid to do it either.   So, because PEGI rates it one way while they design it the otherway they suddenly have no freedom with their product?   Games aren't age restricted under law.  Gambling is, yes, but EA removes it with a child's account.   The fact that the parent allows their kid to bypass the age verification, by basically giving them a fake id for the internet, is still on the parent.

 

The game isn't designed for them it was designed for adults, again you are arguing what PEGI claims.   Yes, they should as they are the parent!   Parents are responsibile for the safety and well being of their child. 

It is a game suitable for children, the rating the game has governs who should and should not be playing it. The game is rated as suitable for 3 year olds therefore it is, by definition, a game suitable for children. EA can call it whatever they want, its the rating on the box parents see when choosing a game and retailers use to decide who to sell it to and who to refuse.

 

Games rated M for Mature are not legally restricted. Is it irresponsible parenting to allow your kids to play them? Absolutely. Is it illegal? No.

 

Its moot because the decision as to whether children can gamble or not is not the parents choice. There's a reason why its full title is "restricted at the point of sale", the onus is on the retailer to not sell it to children at all. The parents job is to educate the children on its existence and why it is bad but the ultimate decision on them being allowed to participate is a matter of law. Lootboxes are gambling and its against the law for retailers to expose children to gambling, that's a fact you cannot refute.

 

You got any sources for parents providing fake IDs so kids can play online? I'm going to guess you don't.

 

No, the game is designed to be sold and EA have proven that they don't care who buys the game or who buys the lootboxes it contains. How easy would it be for EA to make in app purchases opt in rather than opt out? Have they done that? No, instead they've spent millions fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo in multiple countries around the world. How about breaking Ultimate Team out of Fifa and selling it as a standalone? Never going to happen because they know it would instantly be classed as gambling and restricted to 18s or older. They're using the broken system to sell a product that's not fit for its intended audience. And before you repeat that "it was intended for adults", no it wasn't. As you've already been told, EA can apply for a rating when they submit the product, they could easily ask for it to be rated for teenagers or mature audiences yet they didn't proving they very much are targeting anybody from 3 to adult.

 

Again, no they shouldn't. That decision has been removed from them by a law. Its their job to inform and educate their children however this assumes that parents themselves understand the mechanics at play.

 

You keep repeating the same old arguments over and over again. The truth of the matter is most parents don't fully understand what games contain or how to setup protection methods, they pick up a game, see PEGI 3 on the box and assume its fine for little Timmy to play. EA are fully aware of this fact and are exploiting a loophole in laws designed to govern tabletop games in a physical location drawn up in the era of prohibition.

 

Also to be clear, I'm not asking for lootboxes to be banned, far from it. Only that the current laws be amended to account for their existence and games that contain them be rated according to those laws. This will almost certainly result in a different outcome depending on the country which is fine.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not really, the point of the those is a suggestion by a 3rd party, not the dev/publishers.   You can't get a game on most stores without a rating. 

 

 

Because companies "suggesting" ratings has gone so well for us. Boeing suggests to the FAA that their planes are ready, and even does a big majority of the testing for the FAA. When the 737 Max were having their issues, did we blame the people that were on the plane? They surely didn't have much say in what rating the plane had. They were told it was safe for them to use. Just like parents are told the game is safe for their children. The fact that all this is hidden by "surprise mechanics" and "online interactions not rated by ESRB(in very very fine print) doesn't absolve the developer from this. In fact, it shows that they know it's not rated for children and it's all to sell more and make more money. Granted this is a very drastic example, but it's a fairly recent one still fresh in peoples' minds.

 

[Parideboy]

1 hour ago, dual290x said:

Who else clicked on this thread thinking the title was "EA eats @$$..."?

Thanks, you made my day

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not really, the point of the those is a suggestion by a 3rd party, not the dev/publishers.   You can't get a game on most stores without a rating.

Yes really. The rating on the box is the information the purchaser has about the product they're buying.

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It is because the child account the kid is supposed to have, which prevents the gambling, is not given to the child by the parent.   The parent didn't bother to give the child the account which prevents such activity.   The aspect isn't available to a child if the parent bothered to go through the proper age verification process by giving their a child's account.

No. Just like I cannot send my kid to the shop to buy whiskey or lottery tickets on my behalf, the onus is on EA to not sell gambling games to children. I can't go to my shop and say its OK for my 12 year old to buy beer for me, that's illegal and so is EA selling games containing gambling to children. I'm really confused as to why that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. Its written in law that children cannot buy or participate in anything gambling related.

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not moot because the prevention process by EA is there, and it's the parent not using the method, like they're supposed to, which puts the parent at fault.  EA isn't telling the kid to gamble, the parent is.   Why?   EA has child accounts, and the parent gave the kid instead the options to gamble.

It is moot because children gambling is illegal. Offering protection against a service you created is as good as admitting the service is flawed. It is wasn't there would be no need to protect children from it in the first place.

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

They shouldn't have to care if the parent is the one not using a child's account for their child as that's the fault of the parent.   Would like EA to send a special  agent to sit next to every parent and every child to make sure this doesn't happen?

 

So, blindly letting your kid do things is not bad parenting?

Holy shit dude. Its EA responsibility to not sell a gambling product to children, they're the retailer. OFC they have to care about it.

14 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because it's the fault of the parent.   Ignorance doesn't give the parents a free pass just because you feel bad for them.   Well, see that's lazy parenting right there that you described.   The parent doesn't seem to give a fuck nor bothers to research things for their child.   That's parental negligence.   I mean high fructose corn syrup is so delicious and highly marketed to children, and it's suddenly the fault of the MARS company that little Timmy has type 2 diabetes.   We can't blame the parents for their own ignorance.

I will agree that, in some cases, it is negligence on the part of the parents but to suggest that every parent should be familiar with their kids gaming systems is living in cuckoo land with the fairies.

 

On your last point, here in the UK our government has started to tax sweets, chocolate and soft drinks based on the amount of sugar they contain. This has given the manufacturers 2 options, reduce the amount of sugar/use alternatives or increase the price of their product. Also last time I checked, sugar isn't age restricted, underage gambling very much is.

[Energycore]

On 10/30/2020 at 5:19 AM, Master Disaster said:

The difference is you don't have to buy the rewards from Valve games, they're given to players for free as a reward for playing. Thats not a game of chance since there's no chance of you losing anything.

Dota 2 has its fair share of loot boxes, in fact they have two "Immortal Crate" (read: loot box) seasons per year, and these can definitely be sold for real money. Some skins go for as much as $3k US

[Kisai]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Let's reframe this, since I think some people in the thread don't understand the problem.

 

Replace every time "gambling" and "loot boxes" was mentioned with "sex acts" and "frontal nudity"

 

Both of these carry the exact same rating issues, where if there was frontal nudity it might slip into an M rating depending on context, but if there were actual visible sex acts it would be rated even above an M rating.

 

As far as film ratings are concerned, there is no tolerance for sex acts in a film or tv show because that means it's porn and can't be shown in theaters. In games however "erotic games" can only be purchased (in Japan) by those old enough to buy them. That doesn't mean teens don't play them. However there's not a lot of evidence that being exposed to that content damages a teen. Erotic games produced outside of Japan tend to just not exist outside of one game brand, because there is no way to sell them here unless they cut out most of the nudity and all the sex scenes.

 

The problem with loot boxes is that they aren't just in "M rated" games, they are in games expressly targeted at kids, and not even teens, 8 year olds.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349003/Apple-loses-100MILLION-class-action-suit-parents-kids-went-unauthorized-app-spending-sprees.html

Quote

Apple has settled a $100 million class action suit with parents who demanded the return of money their kids blew on app store spending splurges they never authorized.

 

The settlement stems from a suit first filed in 2011 in the wake of a Washington Post report about naughty kids using parents’ hard-earned money to buy games and game add-ons for their iPhones and iPads.

...

ABC News gives the ‘highly publicized’ example of an 8-year-old who managed to spend $1,400 on ‘Smurfberries’ within the ‘free to play’ app of Smurf Village, available on iTunes.

 

Blaming the parent for what the kid or teen does, is seriously misguided when the software itself was designed to sink money into it. Gacha and Loot box mechanics do away with the pretense of "buy more time" in these games and go directly to "spend money on random prizes", why even have anything else in the game, I'm sure EA would love to just develop games that are nothing but "surprise mechanics" and have no actual game play. It just becomes a collect-em-all trading card game.

 

Like look at any game that utilizes any kind of gacha or loot box mechanic and ask if it really adds any value to a game, because not single game out there does. These are all mechanics designed to make the player spend money on perceived value inside the game, and trading mechanics instantly turns it into the realm of gambling because people can then sell or be scammed out of tradeables. 

 

Where it gets even more insidious is that entire criminal industries sprung up around "gaming" limited gacha/lootbox systems inside game economies where things can be traded, or accounts can be traded/hacked. Games that didn't initially have such mechanics such as MMORPG's started having them, and then players spent money on "unlock keys" for what were a second level of RNG prizes. "Here's your gold treasure chest, add them to the pile since you got one with every gacha pull, but if you want to unlock the randomly generated prize inside, you have to pay 1.99 each" 

 

RPG games really have no need for lootbox mechanics, these are things that should be lootables in the game's main combat mechanics, and it really competes with the core gameplay. One person might spend 30 hours farming a rare item, where as someone else might sink $1000 into the gacha system and get the item that way. Real fair /s

 

We've gone from "random prize" boxes, where say someone buying a kinder surprise egg or a capsule (literately what gachapon are) in machine prize where there is no skill involved, and if you spent $1000 you likely would have to go to 20 different stores to buy the entire capsule inventory, assuming the owner of the machine didn't just keep the rares for themselves. Where as digital gachapon you can quite literately spend $10,000 in one minute and get nothing but garbage.

 

One would be better off playing a skill game like a crane game. However if you've been to any arcade recently, most of the games have been replaced with ticket redemption games that are also designed to make you sink money into them to "Continue playing the RNG".

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

How is it not a conflict of interest?  You're giving full control to the maker.

It's their product. If I make a game and I only wish adults to be playing it then I can damn well do what I like with my game to make sure only adults can play it, PEGI nor ESRB have anything to do with that and they cannot dictate anything to me and my game, regardless of what rating they may want to give it. My product, my rules.

 

So if I am designing a game for adults, I only wish adults to be playing it then it is my responsibility to make sure that is enforced. If it has age restricted content in it then I am liable. The retailer who also sold it is also liable for selling age restricted content to under age as well, but we both can be fined not just the retailer.

 

Kids can't access games for adults if developers and publishers did a better job, which they can do, so your parental counter argument like I have repeatedly said is not valid to this issue. It does not exempt them in any single way ever from doing better or being criticized.

 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, it's not dead nor invalid.  You just think parents shouldn't be responsible for their child, and that the company should be.

No I do not. See your problem here is you think the bad parenting that does exists exempts corporate bad conduct and them improving, it doesn't. This is why I have said it's a dead end, it very clearly is a dead end.

 

It's your bad counter argument to my raised issues, better parenting isn't going to magically solve everything and it is far more effective at the corporate level to make improvements there than to hope that millions of parents never make a mistake ever in their life. When companies are responsible for millions of customers they are and should be held to a high standard and that is where things will be most effective.

 

In no other setting are age restrictions voluntary like they are currently with the games being discussed. Casinos don't assume you are of legal age they ask for proof, they do not rely on you tagging yourself as a child. Age restricted content should not be based on assumptions, either prove or no access.

 

So if lootboxes are to be legally classified as gambling the current method are inadequate, and you know it.

[Master Disaster]

53 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

SNIP

Its clear we're never going to agree so I'm out. You're entitled to your opinion just as much as I am mine.

 

Can I just say though, it was nice having an adult discussion with someone which didn't end in us throwing around ad hominem and flaming each other.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The parent is the one who gave them the adult account, and the parent is the one who put their card info in.

No the default for everything is an adult account, you have to know that it is possible to create a child account to do that. Without that knowledge that's not going to happen is it? 

 

And your solution is to know everything about everything always all the time? Great idea there.

 

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

At an actual casino it's far easier to manage because typically a child is going to look like a child and they can just not let them in or throw them out

Online gambling websites are a thing as I have pointed out and they actually do age verification, not assume you are an adult unless you say otherwise. If something is for an adult then check they are an adult, not wait for them to tell you they are not. Simple right?

 

How about like, you know, do the same? Crazy idea right? Actually put some kind of verification of age, they don't even do a token gesture like pornographic sites where you just click "Yes I am 18 or over". 

 

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Underage drinking is also illegal, and if the parent is the one who gives the kid the booze that's on them.

So stop requiring proof of age at point of sale? This happens so we don't need to do it right?

 

These examples of bad parenting DO NOT exempt corporations from doing better.

 

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

EA, like porn sites, have age verification processes.

No they have an optional voluntary process where you can tell them you are a child, that is not age verification. At not point do they require you to verify your age so it is not age verification.

 

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, why are we throwing EA under the bus when they're doing their part?

Because they are not doing a good enough job to prevent inappropriate game mechanics being exposed to children/youths or intentionally putting them in to games that they know and intend for people of a younger age to play. Or more obviously, the topic is about EA so we are talking about EA.

[Mark Kaine]

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because they are not doing a good enough job to prevent inappropriate game mechanics being exposed to children

Which is precisely why these games need huge warnings all over them about gambling mechanics, potential addiction, and "in app purchases" (I don't think that's a thing for consoles for example where the majority of kids playing "adult" games will be)

 

 

I thought some countries have such regulations in place, or are planning them, but I totally don't remember which... Belgium maybe? 

 

 

Regardless *that* has to happen, and imo across the board, not just a few fifa games. 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The age verification is the child's account.   That's the point of them. 

It's not verification if you are not required to do it, period. There is no other situation where something that is supposed to be or is intended to be age restricted where it is voluntary to confirm your age, even when it is simply a token gesture with no real check, you are still required to actually say if you are or not. What you are talking about is something completely and utterly optional therefore not verification for something that is supposed to be or intended to be age restricted.

 

That is not the point of them, they can be used to limit and lock down features as they are designed to do but it is not equivalent to age verification for content access restriction. Just because it can be used to restrict access to something does not make it age verification, end result does not equal functional purpose. Just because you end up at the same outcome does not make two different things the same.

 

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Making assumptions and hoping for success is rather lazy parenting

No it does not make them lazy, how can you know to look something up if you have zero idea that something is at all possible. Unless EA instigates an education program targeted to parents at point of sale for their games that presents them with this information then all you are relying on is hope that they do find this, which they may not.

 

A parent buying a game console they believe is for children who is buying games they also believe are for children and have no cause to believe otherwise may not instinctively think that there may be account type options and restrictions possible at all. Why would such a thing exist on a product for children? Not everyone is going to be thinking about these things the same way you or I are. That is not laziness, lack of education and knowledge does not make you lazy.

 

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Why is it everyone, but the parent's, fault?

Where I have I said it can't or is never the parent's fault? Nowhere, blaming parents is simply a weak argument. The existence of bad parenting will never stop me from criticizing and suggesting possible improvements from these game industry companies. So if you have any comments not about parenting then I'll gladly discuss those.

 

So no the issue here is you are posing the position that it is only the parents fault and nothing needs improving or could be improved on the game developers or publisher side. Your rebuttal has only ever been this is purely and only a parental issue which is just plain wrong. So my question would be to you is why is it only the parents fault? But to be honest I'm really not interested in this line of discussion anymore. Either you believe these companies are faultless and perfect and have nothing to improve and exempt from criticism, or you don't. If you believe the former rather than the latter then we have nothing more to discuss.

[Moonzy]

On 10/30/2020 at 5:51 PM, Master Disaster said:

Unlike in other countries, 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. Essentially EA created the game and by extension facilitated the creation of the market for the games prizes.

does the definition of gambling involve monetary value?

game of chance = gambling, imo, regardless if you get money out of it, the adrenaline and desire to want is enough to get a gambling addiction

[kirashi]

I really do miss the days when games were released as finished as possible on launch day without any additional expectation that the consumer needs to continue sinking hundreds of dollars into the game just to enjoy content that should have been included to begin with. To be clear, expansion packs for The Sims and some of the DLC for the Borderlands series of games make sense to be sold as add-ons, but after Starwars Battlefront II (2017), I just can't trust game companies won't screw consumers over.

 

On 10/30/2020 at 3:00 AM, Ashley said:

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

 

Though it's not technically my country, I identify strongly with the Dutch due to their sane logic around matters like these, their cities designed in ways that allow citizens to actually LIVE life without being stuck in a car for hours on end, and probably because my grandfather fled Holland during WWII eons ago. I too fully wish more countries would look into all industries where exploitation may be occurring to appropriately address issues that otherwise negatively impact human existence.

 

On 10/30/2020 at 3:12 AM, Master Disaster said:

There has to be a way of selling the prizes for real world money.

On 11/3/2020 at 9:34 PM, Semper said:

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless companies offering online services are going to verify accounts upon creation by way of collecting fingerprints, passports, and birth certificates, there will ALWAYS be the possibility of reselling accounts, and guess what those accounts might contain? High tier loot items from random-chance boxes! GASP

Essentially, even if you can't "cash out" the items on an account, reselling the account means the account has some kind of intrinsic real-world value, and thus fits the criteria of gambling according to Dutch law.

 

[Kisai]

15 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Unless companies offering online services are going to verify accounts upon creation by way of collecting fingerprints, passports, and birth certificates, there will ALWAYS be the possibility of reselling accounts, and guess what those accounts might contain? High tier loot items from random-chance boxes! GASP

Essentially, even if you can't "cash out" the items on an account, reselling the account means the account has some kind of intrinsic real-world value, and thus fits the criteria of gambling according to Dutch law.

 

Yeah, that's basically 1/2 of how MMORPG blackmarket operates. 

 

Step 1: Run bots to collect game gold

Step 2. Trade gold for real money from idiots

OR

Step 1: Be an idiot game player

Step 2: Scam your friends for time/premium currency cards from 7-11, pay them with the worthless game gold that you can buy cheaply from chinese gold farmers.

 

Step 3. Complain you got hacked and get the game developer to give your stuff back.

 

You can always cash out, maybe not in a way that doesn't violate the game's ToS. eBay finally had to ban digital goods on their platform because it was a source of feedback farming. Again another way to engage in criminal activity. Sell 1000's of digital goods like eBooks and trinkets in MMO games, and then move up to selling counterfeit LVMH merchandise from Chinese drop shippers.

 

Loot boxes, weather EA or any other game dev wants them to, have a tradeable value, and that value is both in the game as "rare" items and outside the game by having blackmarket values beyond any internal legitimate market that is part of the game if it exists at all.

 

[Donut417]

On 11/4/2020 at 11:31 AM, dual290x said:

Who else clicked on this thread thinking the title was "EA eats @$$..."?

We don’t judge around here what you do in your spare time. LOL. 

[Fnige]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

We don’t judge around here what you do in your spare time. LOL. 

EA x Ubisoft

[Mark Kaine]

18 hours ago, Moonzy said:

does the definition of gambling involve monetary value?

game of chance = gambling, imo, regardless if you get money out of it, the adrenaline and desire to want is enough to get a gambling addiction

Yes, but most countries laws have this absurd "requirement" of needing "monetary gains" for something to count as gambling, legally. 

 

Which is what the companies like EA & Co. are currently abusing to hell and back. 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not a weak argument because the parent is responsible for their child.   They are responsible for the child's safety and well being.

Yes it is a weak argument for pointing out improvements they could make. "No don't bother making basic UI improvements because bad parenting exists", this is a great example of a bad argument.

 

"No don't improve age verification process so it is not flawed and readily fails because it is actually not age verification at all because bad parenting exists", another example of a bad argument. And remember I'm only saying this part because you made the claim that EA only intends for adults to be playing FIFA, which I strongly do not agree with.

 

"No don't monitor for abnormal or suspicious spending activity and proactively act on it because bad parenting exists", another example of a bad argument and also fails to recognize this will help adults as well.

 

Now I'm not saying that thinking they don't need to make these improvements or they shouldn't be required to make them is not a legitimate opinion, you're very welcome to have that. However trying to justify that position on the basis of bad parenting existing very much is a bad argument. The fact that this exists doesn't just suddenly mean that improvements can't or don't need to be made.

 

Some of my suggestions I made are very basic and minor changes that will cost very little. Not defaulting to saving new card payments details is extremely low cost of change, new warning dialogue screen on form submission if save payment details is ticked to get confirmation again to do so is a very low cost and users will only see this once so low impact.

 

So yea, simply weak rebuttal that is irreverent to making possible suggestions of improvements.

 

7 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I mean it's technically "optional".

In what word do you think something you must interact with is optional?

 

Honestly do not follow your logic here.

[Donut417]

59 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

monetary gains

Digital goods are worth what people believe they are worth. So in a way they could consider digital goods in this regard. At the end of the day the courts will either make a decision on if this is against the law (at least in the US judges can interpret the spirt of the law) and OR the legislature will update the law to reflect what they believe to be the right course of action. 

[vorticalbox]

On 10/30/2020 at 3:07 PM, Master Disaster said:

As far as the law is concerned, a game of chance is only gambling if prizes can be converted into real money.

It should not matter if it can be converted to money.

 

If you are putting up real world value, in this case your money, for a chance of a thing That is gambling in my book.

 

This effectively stops loot boxes but allows everything else such as DLC because there is no game of chance.

 

Think about it this way. if you went into a super market to by a box of fruit, but you had no idea what fruit you were getting when you by it.

 

That's a game of chance.

 

Maybe my view is wrong but that's how I feel the law should work.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, vorticalbox said:

 

Think about it this way. if you went into a super market to by a box of fruit, but you had no idea what fruit you were getting when you by it.

 

You jest, but that's exactly how it works with Avocados, Bananas, Carrots, Cucumbers, Oranges (particularly Mandarin and Clementine's sold in boxes.) You often can't buy "just one", you have to buy the packaged bundle, and you can't open the box and make a box of good oranges from the dozens of boxes already picked over.

 

Anyway, the appropriate analogy already exists. Kinder eggs. You don't know what prize is inside. Hockey Cards/Baseball Cards, Pokemon cards, MTG cards, and so forth are literately what the lootbox model is based on. You aren't buying the kinder egg or the stick of gum for the snack. Heck I'm not even sure what baseball cards are acquired by. I think the stick of gum or candy was designed to make the item not gambling as well as you were buying a consumable food that just so happened to come with a tradable item.

[Semper]

On 11/4/2020 at 11:45 PM, kirashi said:

Unless companies offering online services are going to verify accounts upon creation by way of collecting fingerprints, passports, and birth certificates, there will ALWAYS be the possibility of reselling accounts, and guess what those accounts might contain? High tier loot items from random-chance boxes! GASP

Essentially, even if you can't "cash out" the items on an account, reselling the account means the account has some kind of intrinsic real-world value, and thus fits the criteria of gambling according to Dutch law.

 

This still harkens back to the fool soon parting with his money. If you take responsibility for your own actions, you’re no longer being exploited, taken advantage of, or any of these other blame shields; you’re being a fool - stupid.

Someone who is forced into a situation without their consent, sex trafficking as a blunt example, is being exploited. Those who willingly participate in sex acts, such as the porn industry, aren’t being exploited.

someone buying an account, that’s already against the TOS to sell, isn’t being exploited - they're being a fool. They’re buying something that carries high risk and has no meaningful value.

 

EA shouldn’t be responsible for what the public does with their product, within reason. We don’t hold car manufacturers liable if someone crashes through a building, unless they’re truly at fault. EA shouldn’t be held liable for two parties (three if a marketplace of some kind is used) breaking their TOS to create a situation where you falsely create the definition of gambling.

 

I get it, loot boxes suck. EA sucks, what sports games have become because of EA and loot boxes sucks. We all hate them, the significant minority are a majority of their revenue, but cheering for regulation, for government control, is how you end up in situations where you have no control. The more power you hand over to a government, the more things they take control of. The more things they take control of, the shorter the timeframe where they regulate something that you don’t agree with. The more power they have to “give”, the more power they have to “take”. The choice is made for you on the subject. If the game doesn’t exist, the option to play it without purchasing loot boxes goes with it as well.

I’ll point you in the direction of article 13 and the UK’s attempted porn ban” as a shining example. I hold no stake in the porn ban two fold; I’m not a UK citizen, and I don’t engage in watching porn, I believe it’s morally wrong in fact. I’d be perfectly fine if porn ceased to exist tomorrow, but I don’t feel it necessary, right, or in any way beneficial to anybody, with the plans that they had to regulate it.

If it’s going to cease (which we all know it will never do) to exist, it shouldn’t be at the hands of regulation by a government.

you can switch around some words in this statement, and have an exact definition of how I feel about loot boxes.