EA Stands up....for Gambling

[SolarNova]

24 minutes ago, Devin92 said:

I play League of legend. And there's loot box thing as well, but the thing you unlock is basically skins and visual effect that doesnt give you edge over others. So does Belgium ban this as well?

Yes, ANY gambling mechanics (regardless of impact to the game the item has) that require real life currency in some form, be it via buying ingame currency then spending that currency on the lootbox, or spending reall life money directly, it doesnt matter.

[Drak3]

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I have no intention of buying a game with these practices, but thats the thing. Me not buying the  game changes nothing. You not buying the game changes nothing. There are larger societal issues at hand with loot boxes that the average consumer isn't going to react to because the average consumer doesn't care. Abusive practices are abusive practices, even if the victims are willing to continue supporting their abuser.

It's a personal problem. Not a societal problem.

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

People think laws should come after something heinous occurs. We're becoming hyper-capitalists and future generations are going to be brought up harboring that behavior. If the issue isn't remedied preemptively, we can kiss our wages goodbye. Also, this is what happens when a model becomes so large it's unsustainable by previous norms. 

Shitty business practices have nothing to do with Capitalism, they exist under every economic system.

[Sniperfox47]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's a personal problem. Not a societal problem.

Shitty business practices have nothing to do with Capitalism, they exist under every economic system.

Umm no.

 

Abusive bussiness practices that literally condition youth into addictive behaviors are very much a societal problem. It's no different from "Tobacco Culture" or alcoholic products targeted at youth. Those were cracked down on and deserve to be cracked down on because they were highly predatory and abusive.

 

There is plenty of evidence that the more you expose a person to addictive behaviors as a youth the more likely they are to become an addict in the future. And the worst part is that pretty much all problem-gambling outreach programs target adults.

 

If this game was marked as containing gambling and required age verification to purchase and play... Maybe I could see your point of view, but when it's a product that *is* sold to children there's certain lines that shouldn't be crossed. Predatory abuse and conditioning is one of those.

[Doobeedoo]

Pft. Either way. Loot boxes shouldn't even be in payed games, just make things unlockable with gameplay, yoou know, the actual core important thing. Like it once was both of these. 

[HarryNyquist]

I fully expected EA to fight this, but I didn't expect them to outright refuse to remove them during the fight. Hopefully this backfires.

[Master Delta Chief]

To be fair, I'm quite happy that my government is taking action on EA and for that matter on the entire lootbox system. Though we aren't the only country that has taken action in the EU. The Netherlands I believe did take similar actions a few months back. Whether if EA will comply, is still debatable, but they have to eventually regardless. Besides, such 'lootboxes' shouldn't be in actual payed games, unless they are earned free and don't require any sorts of money to unlock or even buy. 

[Tech Enthusiast]

12 hours ago, Semper said:

but this is subject matter that I've never understood. I suppose it's the libertarian in me; I believe in self responsibility. 

2

It is not a matter of self-responsibility, but a matter of following the law. You could argue that it is our responsibility to act like decent human beings. Yet it almost never works, so we need laws for every little step in our life. Gambling in games is just one of those.

 

Games are usually not rated for adults only, yet they have gambling in them. So it makes sense to remove gambling from games.

If it needs to be removed from games rated for adults is debatable, but in this case, I would argue yes. Yes, it should. Which kid cared for an age rating, ever?

 

[Semper]

13 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

It is not a matter of self-responsibility, but a matter of following the law. You could argue that it is our responsibility to act like decent human beings. Yet it almost never works, so we need laws for every little step in our life. Gambling in games is just one of those.

 

Games are usually not rated for adults only, yet they have gambling in them. So it makes sense to remove gambling from games.

If it needs to be removed from games rated for adults is debatable, but in this case, I would argue yes. Yes, it should. Which kid cared for an age rating, ever?

 

Again, loot boxes are not forced upon you under threat of punishment. It is the person that decides to pay for them that.... decides to pay for them. There are arguments to be made against the definition of gambling as EA has stated. You are paying for "X" amount of items with the understanding that you may or may not get what you want. You will get the amount of items ("X") that you paid for. Traditional gambling is a game of risk where you input something, usually holding monetary value expecting to get more based upon a given outcome, but often lose. There is the potential to walk away with nothing, and it happens often. You could even make the argument that buying a video game that is reliant on the parent company to host servers, Battlefield with DICE/EA as a basic example, it's a gamble. If I'm not mistaken, contractually, they're obligated to keep their online servers active for no longer than 60 days post launch day. There are examples of EA discontinuing services in order to encourage new sales. In fact, anything that's DRM licensed (read; nearly ALL modern games), could be considered a gamble, because you own the license to use the game, their service, not your actual copy itself. That license can be revoked. They're all games of chance.

Stateside, the ESRB is self-regulated Perhaps it's time they evolve their rating system which hasn't changed since 1994 in nearly all cases. It's not a government entity, but can be lawfully enforced by retailers as such. They can deny the sale, refuse service to anyone, based upon the rating system. Most do. All three modern consoles (and several generations dating back, if I'm not mistaken) have parental controls that can age restrict content based upon this rating. Steam has parental controls as well. I can't speak for certainty, but if I were a gambling man (see what I did there?) I'd go all in that Uplay, Battlenet, Origin, a large number of the other distribution platforms have similar functions as well. This brings it full circle back to self responsibility. If you're going to use video games as a babysitter for your child, as despicable as that already is, there are controls in place that allow you to regulate it. If you don't care enough to be engaged in what your child is playing, or at the bare minimum, control the content they have access to, that falls on you, the irresponsible fool of a parent, who will soon be parted with his money. Then, let's assume that you don't engage in any of the above and you come across a bill where Johnny Little has totaled up several hundred or thousands of dollars in payments. If you decide to not take action at that point and put an end to it, that is again, somehow, even more your own doing than before, but make no mistake, that it's your own doing that got you there. As a parent or legal guardian, you are legally responsible for what your children do, which again, still covers that one-year gap between adulthood and the ability to purchase Mature rated games.
 

[asus killer]

it's potentially addictive, they are selling to kids. who cares about the definition of gambling, its wrong, it can be disastrous for the future of this kids, there is no mechanism to prevent or studies effects of this. 

grow a conscience EA

[NotKalo]

I still believe that Loot-Boxes like those in FIFA are straight up P2W. If you get Messi and your player has Emil Grigorov you will be kinda at an advantage. <- This, I believe, is wrong.

Now let's take Hearthstone for example, they guarantee you the 1 Rare  and 4 Commons per pack.
There is also this thing called PITY TIMER, every 40 packs you are guaranteed to open a Legendary card. Every 10 packs you are guaranteed to open a Epic card. 

Cards go by Common -> Rare -> Epic -> Legendary /for clarification/

Now this pity timer gives you the minimum pull for your money (those same packs can be bought by in-game currency as well). 

The thing about EA is that they have no such feature.
I believe Blizzard are simply doing it correct, unlike EA.
So yes, what EA does is not only Gambling, but Pay-to-win /In FIFA specifically./

When was the last time you went to a casino and they told you - You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks? 

It really depends on the type of loot-boxes that are implemented into a game. 

- NotKalo
 

[asus killer]

5 minutes ago, NotKalo said:

I still believe that Loot-Boxes like those in FIFA are straight up P2W. If you get Messi and your player has Emil Grigorov you will be kinda at an advantage. <- This, I believe, is wrong.

Now let's take Hearthstone for example, they guarantee you the 1 Rare  and 4 Commons per pack.
There is also this thing called PITY TIMER, every 40 packs you are guaranteed to open a Legendary card. Every 10 packs you are guaranteed to open a Epic card. 

Cards go by Common -> Rare -> Epic -> Legendary /for clarification/

Now this pity timer gives you the minimum pull for your money (those same packs can be bought by in-game currency as well). 

The thing about EA is that they have no such feature.
I believe Blizzard are simply doing it correct, unlike EA.
So yes, what EA does is not only Gambling, but Pay-to-win /In FIFA specifically./

When was the last time you went to a casino and they told you - You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks? 

It really depends on the type of loot-boxes that are implemented into a game. 

- NotKalo
 

no country cares if you are paying to win, the discussion is about gambling.

Gambling is an addiction, you can't quit.

If you play a broken game were someone pays to win, just don't play it, don't buy it, don't support it, still it's your choice, i don't see why any government such care about that.

They are completely different subjects.

[Carclis]

1 hour ago, Semper said:

Again, loot boxes are not forced upon you under threat of punishment. It is the person that decides to pay for them that.... decides to pay for them. There are arguments to be made against the definition of gambling as EA has stated. You are paying for "X" amount of items with the understanding that you may or may not get what you want. You will get the amount of items ("X") that you paid for.

That's a complete lie. Games now, particularly from EA and Activision are including loot boxes which are unlocked by playing the game normally but drip-fed to try and get people to buy them since the process of unlocking them via gameplay is so slow. One example of this is Destiny 2:
 

Quote

In the wake of that event, some players noticed that the longer they played, the slower they'd progress, despite the fact that they were repeating the same activities. The first time a player would earn 5000 XP, they'd see a large chunk of their XP bar fill. The second or third (or fifteenth) time they earned the same number of XP, the bar would get a much smaller chunk.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/bungie-changes-destiny-2-xp-system-after-players-discover-it-was-rigged/

 

Overwatch and Star Wars: Battlefront 2 also have loot systems that are as pervasive and force players to grind for insane amounts of time to spin the slot machine one more time. Sure, you're not forced to buy the loot boxes, but it's extremely dishonest to say that the content that was advertised to be included in the game was ever ever in the game or obtainable through conventional means. In most cases the desired items may not even be unlocked by a player before they choose to move on from the game.

2 hours ago, Semper said:

You could even make the argument that buying a video game that is reliant on the parent company to host servers, Battlefield with DICE/EA as a basic example, it's a gamble. If I'm not mistaken, contractually, they're obligated to keep their online servers active for no longer than 60 days post launch day. There are examples of EA discontinuing services in order to encourage new sales. In fact, anything that's DRM licensed (read; nearly ALL modern games), could be considered a gamble, because you own the license to use the game, their service, not your actual copy itself. That license can be revoked. They're all games of chance.

This doesn't even remotely come close to the type of gambling being discussed here. You can buy a game and discover its online servers have been shut down, but you aren't going to then repeatedly purchase it in the hope that one of the copies magically gives you working servers. There are also consumer protections that exist in this case, such as Steam refunds. Doesn't work as advertised or just don't like it? Then refund it. Buying a game has a risk sometimes, but doesn't require a potentially unlimited number of purchases to provide you what you actually want. You can also alleviate this risk by doing research to find out if the servers will be shut down soon or if the game is exactly as it was promised. Research will do NOTHING for you in regards to loot boxes since they are completely random and odds aren't even disclosed. Also you completely ignore that these loot boxes rely on preying on peoples gambling tendencies, something which has no relation to the risk you take in purchasing a product that has a clearly advertised and guaranteed set of content.

2 hours ago, Semper said:

Stateside, the ESRB is self-regulated Perhaps it's time they evolve their rating system which hasn't changed since 1994 in nearly all cases. It's not a government entity, but can be lawfully enforced by retailers as such. They can deny the sale, refuse service to anyone, based upon the rating system. Most do. All three modern consoles (and several generations dating back, if I'm not mistaken) have parental controls that can age restrict content based upon this rating. Steam has parental controls as well. I can't speak for certainty, but if I were a gambling man (see what I did there?) I'd go all in that Uplay, Battlenet, Origin, a large number of the other distribution platforms have similar functions as well.

The ESRB is a toothless organisation that was set up by game publishers themselves to avoid being regulated(may even have been EA). They have shown that they are unwilling or unable to regulate loot boxes which is demonstrated here or even by their bizarre move to brand all additional content as "in-game purchases", be it substantial expansions, individual skins or loot boxes. Until the industry is actually regulated it will probably remain difficult to identify which games contain "in-game purchases" that actually mimic your more traditional gambling instead of just being a normal game (since they basically all contain "in-game purchases").

2 hours ago, Semper said:

This brings it full circle back to self responsibility. If you're going to use video games as a babysitter for your child, as despicable as that already is, there are controls in place that allow you to regulate it. If you don't care enough to be engaged in what your child is playing, or at the bare minimum, control the content they have access to, that falls on you, the irresponsible fool of a parent, who will soon be parted with his money. Then, let's assume that you don't engage in any of the above and you come across a bill where Johnny Little has totaled up several hundred or thousands of dollars in payments. If you decide to not take action at that point and put an end to it, that is again, somehow, even more your own doing than before, but make no mistake, that it's your own doing that got you there. As a parent or legal guardian, you are legally responsible for what your children do, which again, still covers that one-year gap between adulthood and the ability to purchase Mature rated games.

Responsibility goes both ways. You cannot expect a game that is intended for children which also receives a G rating to contain gambling (unless it says it does). Even Pokemon Gold Version is advertised as containing gambling, so why aren't games that allow you to spend real money in the same way? obviously you have some level of control over money being spent in the case of a minor, but with PSN credit and similar currencies and gift cards it can become difficult.

[NotKalo]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

no country cares if you are paying to win, the discussion is about gambling.

Gambling is an addiction, you can't quit.

If you play a broken game were someone pays to win, just don't play it, don't buy it, don't support it, still it's your choice, i don't see why any government such care about that.

They are completely different subjects.

Okay, let me simplify it for you: "When was the last time you went to a casino and they told you - You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks? "

Simple version: When you gamble you can loose everything. 

When the lootbox system has a pity timer like in Hearthstone i don't think it is classified as gambling. 
If there is no pity timer system or nothing in general that guarantees you a decent pull - that is worse. 
Still not considered gambling. Furthermore, you get no real-life value of the items as EA has stated. 

LootBoxes are not gambling. And don't give me the definition of gambling. I am aware that it can be "classified" as so.  

It is the crap mentality of EA /and other companies for that matter/ that made a shit-show. 
If lootboxes are gambling, then what happens at a casino should be classified as something else in the law. 
 

If you can't see the difference between a casino game and a lootbox, I got some bad news for you. 
They should not be both classified under gambling for that matter. 

Let me know what you think @asus killer and by no means I am trying to be disrespectful - just defending my own view for that matter.

[asus killer]

12 minutes ago, NotKalo said:

Okay, let me simplify it for you: "When was the last time you went to a casino and they told you - You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks? "

Simple version: When you gamble you can loose everything. 

When the lootbox system has a pity timer like in Hearthstone i don't think it is classified as gambling. 
If there is no pity timer system or nothing in general that guarantees you a decent pull - that is worse. 
Still not considered gambling. Furthermore, you get no real-life value of the items as EA has stated. 

LootBoxes are not gambling. And don't give me the definition of gambling. I am aware that it can be "classified" as so.  

It is the crap mentality of EA /and other companies for that matter/ that made a shit-show. 
If lootboxes are gambling, then what happens at a casino should be classified as something else in the law. 
 

If you can't see the difference between a casino game and a lootbox, I got some bad news for you. 
They should not be both classified under gambling for that matter. 

Let me know what you think @asus killer and by no means I am trying to be disrespectful - just defending my own view for that matter.

i even looked in the dictionary, there is no such thing as "only gambling when you loose everything" that i can see. And there are gamble when you always win something, even if it's crap, like some raffles.

 

But i really don't care about the definition, the problem is the addiction part and especially involving kids.

If you "You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks?" that's gambling for me, that has the potential to be addictive and make people loose money.

 

Still what i just said is the P2W is not the issue, this is a side discussion. But hey you think it's not gambling, that's fine. Still in this case it's the law they are disrespecting, you're opinion as to the law is good or not is really not that relevant, it's the law. You don't get to abide only by the laws you agree with.

[ARikozuM]

Instead of taking Merriam-Webster’s definition of gambling, we should be looking at psych, socio, and legal definitions. 

 

Does buying a loot box cause psychological changes? Yes, hence gambling addiction. Regulate it as such.

 

Are loot boxes producing a societal change within the gaming community? Yes, especially when everyone is trying to get the same thing. People are seeing it as a norm just like a casino’s slot machine. Regulate it as such.

 

What’s the legal definition in Belgium? It’s gambling. 

 

Just because you’re not acquiring anything tangible doesn’t make it lesser to gambling. You choosing a random plumber is a gamble, he isn’t giving you a wrench. He’s giving you a service, you aren’t paying him for the pipe or the wrench he uses. 

 

Here you’re getting an electronic item based on a gamble. It isn’t tangible, but it’s still an exchange based on probability. Having core gameplay mechanics behind a probabilistic paywall aka loot box (heroes in Star Wars and high-level players in FIFA and other sports) is gambling. There’s nothing that allows me to buy the toy that I want.

 

And I don’t trust any developer with disclosures of chance as the underlying functions could still contain an RNG multiplier to negate the shown % or ratio. 

[NotKalo]

58 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i even looked in the dictionary, there is no such thing as "only gambling when you loose everything" that i can see. And there are gamble when you always win something, even if it's crap, like some raffles.

 

But i really don't care about the definition, the problem is the addiction part and especially involving kids.

If you "You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks?" that's gambling for me, that has the potential to be addictive and make people loose money.

 

Still what i just said is the P2W is not the issue, this is a side discussion. But hey you think it's not gambling, that's fine. Still in this case it's the law they are disrespecting, you're opinion as to the law is good or not is really not that relevant, it's the law. You don't get to abide only by the laws you agree with.

I do see your point, it can be indeed addictive. 

What I was saying is that there is difference between the way casino gambling works and the way lootbox gambling works. 
I never said that P2W is the issue, i was giving examples of lootbox mentality, one being harmful and another being at least decent. 

Never have I ever said that I get to abide only by the laws I agree with, i was stating that the laws for gambling and lootboxes should not be in the same category. 

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, NotKalo said:

Okay, let me simplify it for you: "When was the last time you went to a casino and they told you - You play with 20 bucks and you will get rewards at minimum of 15 bucks? "

Simple version: When you gamble you can loose everything. 

When the lootbox system has a pity timer like in Hearthstone i don't think it is classified as gambling. 
If there is no pity timer system or nothing in general that guarantees you a decent pull - that is worse. 
Still not considered gambling. Furthermore, you get no real-life value of the items as EA has stated. 

LootBoxes are not gambling. And don't give me the definition of gambling. I am aware that it can be "classified" as so.  

It is the crap mentality of EA /and other companies for that matter/ that made a shit-show. 
If lootboxes are gambling, then what happens at a casino should be classified as something else in the law. 
 

If you can't see the difference between a casino game and a lootbox, I got some bad news for you. 
They should not be both classified under gambling for that matter. 

Let me know what you think @asus killer and by no means I am trying to be disrespectful - just defending my own view for that matter.

by that definition: slot machines are not gambling cause they have an algorithm that makes them drop the jackpot at regular intervals 

[NotKalo]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

by that definition: slot machines are not gambling cause they have an algorithm that makes them drop the jackpot at regular intervals 

Check my previous comment, please

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, NotKalo said:

Check my previous comment, please

 

6 minutes ago, NotKalo said:

I never said that P2W is the issue, i was giving examples of lootbox mentality, one being harmful and another being at least decent. 

Never have I ever said that I get to abide only by the laws I agree with, i was stating that the laws for gambling and lootboxes should not be in the same category. 

The slot machine analogy still stands

[NotKalo]

19 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

The slot machine analogy still stands

Actually yes, it does! 

To think of it, slot machines do have an algorithm, despite being way more complex than lootboxes, it is still rewarding you at given intervals it decides. 
I could argue that at least in Hearthstone you know what your minimal odds are, unlike in slot machines. With slot machines you can end up winning nothing, taking something back or winning a prize eventually, but the odd are still unknown. 

Still you have a pretty solid point. Definitely making me double-thinking here, thanks. 

[WolfDeville]

Jesus Christ, they are fucking deluded

[Semper]

4 hours ago, Carclis said:

That's a complete lie. Games now, particularly from EA and Activision are including loot boxes which are unlocked by playing the game normally but drip-fed to try and get people to buy them since the process of unlocking them via gameplay is so slow. One example of this is Destiny 2

How is it a lie to state that there is legally an argument to be had that loot boxes aren't gambling? Do you not buy a crate that offers four items, and get those four items? Because if not, then that transitions to a discussion of theft. All it takes is a play on words, perhaps a slight adjustment to the system, and a court can deem that loot boxes aren't, in fact, gambling.

I've never said that they weren't designed to encourage people to buy them. If you read my original post, I actually state much the opposite. I make the very claim of; capitalism. EA is a for-profit entity. That's their entire goal. They do a fantastic job at it, much to my dismay. I don't like their practices, I don't like loot box systems, with particular note when they impact game play like they did with Battlefield 4, so far as I'm to understand, Battlefront 2 and their sports titles. I can not speak to the latter two, however, because I refuse to purchase an EA title any further. Their own doing. Capitalism allows me to do this just as much as it allows them to lock half their game behind loot boxes.

4 hours ago, Carclis said:

Overwatch and Star Wars: Battlefront 2 also have loot systems that are as pervasive and force players to grind for insane amounts of time to spin the slot machine one more time. Sure, you're not forced to buy the loot boxes, but it's extremely dishonest to say that the content that was advertised to be included in the game was ever ever in the game or obtainable through conventional means. In most cases the desired items may not even be unlocked by a player before they choose to move on from the game.

You've made my argument in your very claim here "force players to grind for insane amounts of time to spin the slot machine one more time." Self control. Self responsibility.
I've made it through a thousand+ hours of overwatch, including every seasonal event, without a single crate purchase. If you're so compelled as to consider yourself forced to do something in a video game, it's time to evaluate what you're doing to yourself, what your life consists of.

If you have to spin "one more time" you've got to get a grip on your life. It may be your personality, something you may not have control over, but it still sits squarely on your shoulders that you don't seek help for it. If all the talk and hate that EA gets was more walk than talk, it would be EA who were the fool soon parted with their money, and I can guarantee you, things are going to change faster than you can say "it". The reality is, however, that it's "RABBLE RABBLE HATE EA RABBLE RABBLE letmegobuybf5 RABBLE RABBLE EVIL EA RABBLE RABBLE".

Knowing full well that this new title is going to be more shovel-ware. It's still going to have those loot boxes that are so despised, it's still going to be everything that's hated about battlefield, people still go out and purchase it. They then complain when the lootboxes that are so readily available, and you knew were going to be there, are there.

Let me make it very clear again:
I do not like loot box systems. I don't partake in purchasing them.
I do not like EA.  I do not partake in purchasing their titles.
I do not like Call of Duty. I do not partake in purchasing Call of Duty titles.

I have never played a Destiny title, after seeing how Bungie has developed the game, and so readily, willingly, and happliy ignored their players, I never intend to purchase a Destiny title because of their actions.

4 hours ago, Carclis said:

This doesn't even remotely come close to the type of gambling being discussed here. You can buy a game and discover its online servers have been shut down, but you aren't going to then repeatedly purchase it in the hope that one of the copies magically gives you working servers. There are also consumer protections that exist in this case, such as Steam refunds. Doesn't work as advertised or just don't like it? Then refund it. Buying a game has a risk sometimes, but doesn't require a potentially unlimited number of purchases to provide you what you actually want. You can also alleviate this risk by doing research to find out if the servers will be shut down soon or if the game is exactly as it was promised. Research will do NOTHING for you in regards to loot boxes since they are completely random and odds aren't even disclosed. Also you completely ignore that these loot boxes rely on preying on peoples gambling tendencies, something which has no relation to the risk you take in purchasing a product that has a clearly advertised and guaranteed set of content.

"I hate Battlefield 3" *Buys battlefield 4 hoping it's better* | "I hate Battlefield 4" *Buys Battlefield 1 hoping it's better* | "I hate Battlefield 1" *Buys battlefield 5 hoping it's better*
This is, by very definition, repeatedly buying something hoping it's better. Many of the same people that partake in lootboxes, also partake in this self-destructive behavior. Self control is going to tell you it's not going to improve. Self control will tell you to wait for critics that you trust to review it (or, for the late John Bain to let you know how much of a moron you are for pre-ordering, or for that matter, trusting EA)

I don't believe Steam refunds qualify in this situation, as again, contractually, I believe you agree to the EULA/TOS that says that they "we're only required to offer "x" number of days to online access". When you address a game that has a single player aspect to it as well, you cross some very murky water when it comes to "non functioning" and legal definition. I'm not able to find a ToS at the moment that has listed contractually obligated durations listed for server access, but I'm going to go out on a limb that they also include a cause with "without prior notice", meaning they could take the Battlefield 4 servers and shut them down tonight if they so desired. Yes, it would be terrible PR for them, but then again, that doesn't seem to be something that's hurting them all too much. The fact remains though, that if you agree to those binding statements, you have no say past whatever duration they guarantee.

EA's general terms read as such:

Quote

We do not guarantee that any EA Service, Content or Entitlement will be available at all times, in all locations, or at any given time or that we will continue to offer a particular EA Service, Content or Entitlements for any particular length of time. EA does not guarantee that EA Services can be accessed on all devices, by means of a specific Internet or connection provider, or in all geographic locations.

From time to time, EA may update, change or modify an EA Service, Content or Entitlements, without notice to you. These updates and modifications may be required in order to continue to use EA Services.

EA may need to update, or reset certain parameters to balance game play and usage of EA Services. These updates or "resets" may cause you setbacks within the relevant game world and may affect characters, games, groups or other Entitlements under your control.
 

I can give you the summation of loot boxes right now, and you can take this one to the bank. If you're doing research on your chances of getting what you want from a loot box: don't expect to get it. Expect to get duplicate items and common-level junk that you don't really care for. Don't be disappointed when this happens, and don't buy more expecting the result to change. That's all the research that ever need be done. That short paragraph has told you EVERYTHING (contrary to your "nothing" claim) you need to know about them. This again, I believe is an issue of self control. Whoever decided to implement the loot boxes as a system has one goal: make money. These loot boxes have one goal: get you to buy them. The scale of chance for these loot boxes has one goal: Keep you interested enough in them to keep buying them. This means throwing you a bone every so often, but locking the desirable content behind a much more rare scale. It still boils down to self control on first if you partake in the practice, and second, how much you partake in in if you decide that it's appropriate.

Quote

The ESRB is a toothless organisation that was set up by game publishers themselves to avoid being regulated(may even have been EA). They have shown that they are unwilling or unable to regulate loot boxes which is demonstrated here or even by their bizarre move to brand all additional content as "in-game purchases", be it substantial expansions, individual skins or loot boxes. Until the industry is actually regulated it will probably remain difficult to identify which games contain "in-game purchases" that actually mimic your more traditional gambling instead of just being a normal game (since they basically all contain "in-game purchases").

Responsibility goes both ways. You cannot expect a game that is intended for children which also receives a G rating to contain gambling (unless it says it does). Even Pokemon Gold Version is advertised as containing gambling, so why aren't games that allow you to spend real money in the same way? obviously you have some level of control over money being spent in the case of a minor, but with PSN credit and similar currencies and gift cards it can become difficult.

 

I don't know enough about the ESRB, who founded it, or how it operates to make claims beyond what I already have, so I won't comment on this aspect.

Loot boxes have become the norm. Before them, it was micro-transactions. Before that It was DLC. before even those, it was Expansions. These all still exist in one form or another. I still don't understand how it has a bearing on self responsibility. They all include exchanging your local currency for items. What these items are vary by type, but are generally things partially, largely, or completely developed post shipment. All of them have had cries of foul play screamed from the rooftops. People have partaken in them in unreasonable manners because of a lack of self control. It then becomes an issue because these same people do not have self responsibility - "They made me do it". I don't know of a single instance where someone was forced, under imminent threat of some description, to partake in the purchases they did, particularly when it comes to the developers and/or publishers being the ones doing so. Them preying upon "gambling tendencies" is, by very definition, self control, or lack therein. Loot crates contain "x" number of items. You buy a loot crate, you get them. It may not be what you want (very likely, it's not going to be what you want). This is the entire crux of my stance.

 

I have a love of chocolate. Were I to not have some self-control, there's a propensity for it to very easily become an out-of-control addiction. I have a love for chocolate because I under-produce serotonin, what this translates to is a pseudo-psychological dependency upon chocolate - "I need it to make me happier" (If you haven't put two and two together, this also means that I am a depressive-natured person - technically diagnosed with severe recurring clinical depression). I feel a lot better when I do allow myself to indulge in some, but for every bit of good it's doing for my mood, it's also doing harm in other ways. Before I sought help for my issue, I found that the high was followed by a very hard crash and a much less stable mental mindset.

The note my doctor gave to me on a personal level (my doctor also happens to be a very longtime good friend) reads a little (or... verbatim) like this:

 

Quote

 

When Stress   Sor sadness strikes, your first impulse may be to pick up a cookie or piece of candy to help you cope. But overindulging in sweets can lead to weight gain, guilt, and further depressed feelings. What can you do to cope with these urges? Here are a few tips from the experts:

 

• Be honest with yourself about how deep your problems with food go. If overeating has become a way of life you may have an eating disorder that requires professional assistance to overcome.

 

The first point in that list is self control, self responsibility.

 

I believe in small government, and I believe that a large government, given overreaching power to control and regulate creates for a world of sheep. A government creating laws and regulations for something they don't understand, and has very little or no impact on them, potentially being having their decisions being driven by financial compensation from interested parties.

The EU's current debacle with their Copyright Directive, particular note to Articles 11/13, Is what I see when you encourage large government. Moronic decisions for reasons of "because I said so". It's also why I believe in small government, and why I hate the two-party system that the U.S. has fallen into. That's a different discussion in a different topic, however.

I'm not a Belgian citizen, I don't have a right to decide what's best for their country. If this is what they've voted for, and have deemed necessary, than that's their prerogative. That doesn't change my stance on the subject matter however. Telling a government to regulate something because you can't regulate yourself is an all-around negative situation in my eyes. All it does is reduce your options. If that's what you find necessary to live your life in an acceptable way, that's your prerogative. I have no choice but to respect your viewpoint, it's not my life to live, even if i don't understand it.

Relative to the world market, Belgium has to be but a drop in the bucket (7 states here in the U.S. individually having a larger population). With such strong regulation, it won't surprise me in the least if this type of regulation (or further advancement of it) ultimately leads to publishers and/or developers just excluding them from the marketable populous. I've seen it in my city; tax increases were approved, and businesses left or were put out of business by the dozens. Outside of a few one-offs, the only things left here are the necessities. On a larger spectrum, my County/District as a whole consists of over-reaching government with absurd rules and regulations in place for businesses that has stifled economic growth. We sit at more than double the national average for unemployment numbers.

[dtaflorida]

On 9/10/2018 at 7:00 PM, Trik'Stari said:

If it provides a clear advantage (I say if because I don't know, I don't play FIFA or sports games at all because I view them and sports as pointless, purely my opinion and not the point of this thread at all) over other players, or in some way provides a (potential) benefit to the player, in exchange for real world currency, does that not count as gambling?

That's pay-to-win, not gambling.

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, dtaflorida said:

That's pay-to-win, not gambling.

If you read the rest of my post, I've explained further.

 

Do loot boxes constitute gambling, only if they provide a clear advantage over other players, thus defining "cosmetic only" loot boxes as having no intrinsic value, or does the "perceived value" of a cosmetic item also constitute gambling in the case of loot boxes?

 

EA's argument, AFAIK, is that loot boxes, and the contents of said loot boxes, are not redeemable for cash, therefor they do not constitute gambling. Nevermind that this argument essentially defines loot boxes as actually worth $00.00. (you can't redeem it for cash, it is thus worthless. The only value is that which you assign to it. Which should also be $00.00)

 

And trading cards, physical trading cards, are not a meaningful allegory to loot boxes, as the possessor of a rare trading card can trade it for cash. No such option exists for the contents of loot boxes in any games that I know of.

[Carclis]

9 hours ago, Semper said:

How is it a lie to state that there is legally an argument to be had that loot boxes aren't gambling? Do you not buy a crate that offers four items, and get those four items? Because if not, then that transitions to a discussion of theft. All it takes is a play on words, perhaps a slight adjustment to the system, and a court can deem that loot boxes aren't, in fact, gambling.

I've never said that they weren't designed to encourage people to buy them. If you read my original post, I actually state much the opposite. I make the very claim of; capitalism. EA is a for-profit entity. That's their entire goal. They do a fantastic job at it, much to my dismay. I don't like their practices, I don't like loot box systems, with particular note when they impact game play like they did with Battlefield 4, so far as I'm to understand, Battlefront 2 and their sports titles. I can not speak to the latter two, however, because I refuse to purchase an EA title any further. Their own doing. Capitalism allows me to do this just as much as it allows them to lock half their game behind loot boxes.

That's not what I was claiming to be a lie. My apologies for not stating it clearly. I was responding to this statement specifically:

15 hours ago, Semper said:

Again, loot boxes are not forced upon you under threat of punishment. It is the person that decides to pay for them that.... decides to pay for them.

I provided reasons above why this is the case since most, if not all games that contain these loot boxes include them as rewards within the game. There is no option to play a loot box-free version of it or an iteration where you are able to unlock things in the more traditional sense.

This goes into point two where I mentioned that that they are aimed at encouraging people to buy them, which you agree with. That is how you get people addicted to gambling. As long as there is segregated content within the game that has no realistic means to be obtained outside of gambling mechanics it is predatory and you can't really argue that the system wasn't thrust upon you, just like the gambling mechanics which you are forced to take part in.

 

9 hours ago, Semper said:

You've made my argument in your very claim here "force players to grind for insane amounts of time to spin the slot machine one more time." Self control. Self responsibility.
I've made it through a thousand+ hours of overwatch, including every seasonal event, without a single crate purchase. If you're so compelled as to consider yourself forced to do something in a video game, it's time to evaluate what you're doing to yourself, what your life consists of.

If you have to spin "one more time" you've got to get a grip on your life. It may be your personality, something you may not have control over, but it still sits squarely on your shoulders that you don't seek help for it. If all the talk and hate that EA gets was more walk than talk, it would be EA who were the fool soon parted with their money, and I can guarantee you, things are going to change faster than you can say "it". The reality is, however, that it's "RABBLE RABBLE HATE EA RABBLE RABBLE letmegobuybf5 RABBLE RABBLE EVIL EA RABBLE RABBLE".

Knowing full well that this new title is going to be more shovel-ware. It's still going to have those loot boxes that are so despised, it's still going to be everything that's hated about battlefield, people still go out and purchase it. They then complain when the lootboxes that are so readily available, and you knew were going to be there, are there.

Of course people need self control and many people are aware that they have a gambling problem or are more susceptible to these kinds of gambling mechanics. As a result they will go out of their way to avoid getting invested in a game that is extremely likely to prove too tempting. But the problem, as I mentioned in my previous post, is that nobody is willing to recognise it as gambling or inform customers that paid purchases utilise gambling-like mechanics. Self-control only goes so far when everything is exposing you to something you're actively trying to avoid.

 

9 hours ago, Semper said:

"I hate Battlefield 3" *Buys battlefield 4 hoping it's better* | "I hate Battlefield 4" *Buys Battlefield 1 hoping it's better* | "I hate Battlefield 1" *Buys battlefield 5 hoping it's better*
This is, by very definition, repeatedly buying something hoping it's better. Many of the same people that partake in lootboxes, also partake in this self-destructive behavior. Self control is going to tell you it's not going to improve. Self control will tell you to wait for critics that you trust to review it (or, for the late John Bain to let you know how much of a moron you are for pre-ordering, or for that matter, trusting EA)

I don't believe Steam refunds qualify in this situation, as again, contractually, I believe you agree to the EULA/TOS that says that they "we're only required to offer "x" number of days to online access". When you address a game that has a single player aspect to it as well, you cross some very murky water when it comes to "non functioning" and legal definition. I'm not able to find a ToS at the moment that has listed contractually obligated durations listed for server access, but I'm going to go out on a limb that they also include a cause with "without prior notice", meaning they could take the Battlefield 4 servers and shut them down tonight if they so desired. Yes, it would be terrible PR for them, but then again, that doesn't seem to be something that's hurting them all too much. The fact remains though, that if you agree to those binding statements, you have no say past whatever duration they guarantee.

I don't agree with this part at all. I already mentioned previously that you have enough tools at your disposal to get a pretty good idea of whether or not a game will be to your liking or not. The sale of games is not predatory in nature, unless it is something along the lines of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare where purchase of the remastered Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is locked to the most expensive bundle edition (but not included in it), as well as injecting loot boxes and micro-transactions into what was previously a game that was free of them. Sure, pre-ordering games and buying them in the hope that they are better than previous installments just out of faith is silly. But buying the next installment in a series on faith is more about love for the series than addiction. Furthermore, a $60 game purchase every year or second year is not nearly on the same level as spending that amount multiple times a year to unlock something that is gated behind actual gambling mechanics.

 

9 hours ago, Semper said:

I can give you the summation of loot boxes right now, and you can take this one to the bank. If you're doing research on your chances of getting what you want from a loot box: don't expect to get it. Expect to get duplicate items and common-level junk that you don't really care for. Don't be disappointed when this happens, and don't buy more expecting the result to change. That's all the research that ever need be done. That short paragraph has told you EVERYTHING (contrary to your "nothing" claim) you need to know about them. This again, I believe is an issue of self control. Whoever decided to implement the loot boxes as a system has one goal: make money. These loot boxes have one goal: get you to buy them. The scale of chance for these loot boxes has one goal: Keep you interested enough in them to keep buying them. This means throwing you a bone every so often, but locking the desirable content behind a much more rare scale. It still boils down to self control on first if you partake in the practice, and second, how much you partake in in if you decide that it's appropriate.

As said above. most people are capable of self-control, some more so than others. The problem is that mechanisms do not exist to allow them to identify and avoid mechanisms within games that are illegal or heavily regulated outside of them.

 

9 hours ago, Semper said:

Loot boxes have become the norm. Before them, it was micro-transactions. Before that It was DLC. before even those, it was Expansions. These all still exist in one form or another. I still don't understand how it has a bearing on self responsibility. They all include exchanging your local currency for items. What these items are vary by type, but are generally things partially, largely, or completely developed post shipment. All of them have had cries of foul play screamed from the rooftops. People have partaken in them in unreasonable manners because of a lack of self control. It then becomes an issue because these same people do not have self responsibility - "They made me do it". I don't know of a single instance where someone was forced, under imminent threat of some description, to partake in the purchases they did, particularly when it comes to the developers and/or publishers being the ones doing so. Them preying upon "gambling tendencies" is, by very definition, self control, or lack therein. Loot crates contain "x" number of items. You buy a loot crate, you get them. It may not be what you want (very likely, it's not going to be what you want). This is the entire crux of my stance.

Everything that has come before loot boxes has not faced as much criticism because you knew exactly what you were getting. I can pay $5 etc and be guaranteed a skin etc. I know which skin I'm getting, how much it costs and everything that is included in that purchase. The backlash surrounding the other practices before loot boxes was regarding content that was supposedly cut from the game, funded by the game itself and already on disc and shipped content, but that's not related to loot boxes. As I mentioned before people have varying levels of self-control/responsibility, some more developed than others. That is the reason gambling is regulated. Another example is the road rules/laws. Not everybody is of the same skill level or as able as somebody else under different conditions. Some people have poorer eyesight than others, poorer reflexes, judgement or perhaps even driving skill itself. That is why these road rules and laws exist. We have to drive to the weakest link otherwise they become a larger burden on society, just like somebody who has a gambling addiction. That's why I think the "not my problem" approach that publishers seem to be taking doesn't really fly with me. They're perfectly happy to take all the money, but none of the responsibility for problems they're creating or worsening.

 

10 hours ago, Semper said:

I believe in small government, and I believe that a large government, given overreaching power to control and regulate creates for a world of sheep. A government creating laws and regulations for something they don't understand, and has very little or no impact on them, potentially being having their decisions being driven by financial compensation from interested parties.

I agree here completely but there always has to be some sensibility. I mean we already have regulation of games, just not by the government. The only real issue I have with it is that the current regulating bodies seem unable to provide what consumers are asking for; clear labeling on products that sell randomized items or loot boxes. We're not asking for censorship, just a means to avoid the bullshit. I can guarantee you that if the relevant bodies aren't able to do this we'll see the government come down harder in a less desirable way that will possibly amount to some form of censorship.

As for the rest, I haven't yet had the time to look into what is going on in the EU regarding Article 11 and 13, but I just hope silly decisions don't catch on here and that the gaming industry in particular is able to see sense and realize that it would most likely be more profitable for them in the end to actually address present concerns instead of waiting for higher powers to step in.