4 ms·

This is interesting. What's the difference between a lootbox earned in game, vs the act of killing a mob or raid boss and having the RNG determine what drop you

This is interesting. What's the difference between a lootbox earned in game, vs the act of killing a mob or raid boss and having the RNG determine what drop you get? You can't pay for the latter with real money, but you do need to put in more gaming hours (and thus pay more real money for a subscription) in order to get good drops. So in effect you still have to indirectly pay for the chance to get loot. Would this make all forms of random drops gambling?

ThrowawayR2 9y ago
Can't speak to Belgian law but in the US, the definition of gambling has 3 elements IIRC: consideration (i.e. something of value the player offers up for the chance to win, usually money), prize(s) (i.e. something of value the player wants to win), and chance (i.e. whether the player wins a prize is primarily determined randomly rather than though application of some skill). Online games dodge these three elements: -In terms of consideration, the subscription fee doesn't count because it grants players access to the game world, which includes much more play elements than just the drop system, and the player's time doesn't really count since nothing of value to anyone else results from their play time. Note that this gets more murky for Asian-style gachapon-monetized games where the player directly spends virtual currency purchased with real money to roll for virtual items. -In terms of prize, the fine print of most online games' TOS say quite explicitly that the player has no property rights or ownership of any items they get within the game.(If this weren't the case, they would have to compensate players for the loss of property when the game closed down or if the player were banned.) Since one doesn't "own" a drop, there's technically no prize per se. -In terms of chance, most likely gaming companies would argue that killing a mob or raid boss counts as some sort of skill. Again, Asian-style gachapon-monetized games are on much shakier ground here. That being said, it's not impossible that new legislation could expand these definitions to include online games and it's arguable that they should be; you have to admit that there's something unsavory about intentionally exposing minors to gambling-like systems to hook them into playing your game. (I am not a lawyer and nothing said above should be construed as legal advice.)
- kunimu 9y ago
  I'm usually a strong proponent of regulation to protect people, but only where the harm can be studied and analysed. If games are not marketed to minors, I do not think it is reasonable to restrict the content of the games lest minors see or interact with them. If the content is aimed at children, then a case may be made (as gambling can develop extremely harmful addictions and tendencies) for their restriction. Many things which adults may freely consume within society, including pornography (and certain genres therein), alcohol, tobacco, etc. are regulated, but these "vices" are not illegalised for the sake that a child may engage in it, and I think that an effort to do so would be very disappointing. Although this reads like a typical libertarian argument, I want to note that I simply don't consider myself to be an advocate of illegalising something because it has a bad effect on some users, or it is used for nefarious purposes. Encryption can be used for terrorists to communicate, the Internet can be used for revenge porn, and a baseball bat can be used to bludgeon someone to death.
lithos 9y ago
Loot boxes explicitly use the same associations of slot machines: sight, sound, timing, and color associations combined with having a low cost action (hitting one button) to potentially have a highly desirable reward. While killing a mob/boss is likely to have associations to the actual play and learning of the game.
- infogulch 9y ago
  These are (quite reasonable) psychological arguments, not legal. It might make a good case for additional legislation though.
  - hrktb 9y ago
    As a data point, Japan set restrictions on Gatcha games. It doesn’t mean anything for EU law, but at least there’s a precedent if we ever need one, and they have tangible evidence that led them to go that route.

ThrowawayR2 9y ago

Can't speak to Belgian law but in the US, the definition of gambling has 3 elements IIRC: consideration (i.e. something of value the player offers up for the chance to win, usually money), prize(s) (i.e. something of value the player wants to win), and chance (i.e. whether the player wins a prize is primarily determined randomly rather than though application of some skill). Online games dodge these three elements: -In terms of consideration, the subscription fee doesn't count because it grants players access to the game world, which includes much more play elements than just the drop system, and the player's time doesn't really count since nothing of value to anyone else results from their play time. Note that this gets more murky for Asian-style gachapon-monetized games where the player directly spends virtual currency purchased with real money to roll for virtual items. -In terms of prize, the fine print of most online games' TOS say quite explicitly that the player has no property rights or ownership of any items they get within the game.(If this weren't the case, they would have to compensate players for the loss of property when the game closed down or if the player were banned.) Since one doesn't "own" a drop, there's technically no prize per se. -In terms of chance, most likely gaming companies would argue that killing a mob or raid boss counts as some sort of skill. Again, Asian-style gachapon-monetized games are on much shakier ground here. That being said, it's not impossible that new legislation could expand these definitions to include online games and it's arguable that they should be; you have to admit that there's something unsavory about intentionally exposing minors to gambling-like systems to hook them into playing your game. (I am not a lawyer and nothing said above should be construed as legal advice.)

kunimu 9y ago
I'm usually a strong proponent of regulation to protect people, but only where the harm can be studied and analysed. If games are not marketed to minors, I do not think it is reasonable to restrict the content of the games lest minors see or interact with them. If the content is aimed at children, then a case may be made (as gambling can develop extremely harmful addictions and tendencies) for their restriction. Many things which adults may freely consume within society, including pornography (and certain genres therein), alcohol, tobacco, etc. are regulated, but these "vices" are not illegalised for the sake that a child may engage in it, and I think that an effort to do so would be very disappointing. Although this reads like a typical libertarian argument, I want to note that I simply don't consider myself to be an advocate of illegalising something because it has a bad effect on some users, or it is used for nefarious purposes. Encryption can be used for terrorists to communicate, the Internet can be used for revenge porn, and a baseball bat can be used to bludgeon someone to death.

lithos 9y ago

Loot boxes explicitly use the same associations of slot machines: sight, sound, timing, and color associations combined with having a low cost action (hitting one button) to potentially have a highly desirable reward. While killing a mob/boss is likely to have associations to the actual play and learning of the game.

infogulch 9y ago
These are (quite reasonable) psychological arguments, not legal. It might make a good case for additional legislation though.
- hrktb 9y ago
  As a data point, Japan set restrictions on Gatcha games. It doesn’t mean anything for EU law, but at least there’s a precedent if we ever need one, and they have tangible evidence that led them to go that route.