21 ms·

Belgium declares loot boxes gambling and therefore illegal

• amingilani 9y ago
  What are loot boxes?
  • Someone 9y ago
    Virtual things without value you buy without knowing what other virtual thing(s) that may have value are stored inside them. For example, you might buy a box that may or may not contain a power-up in a game.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Those things in (computer) games which, when opened, offer up a random item or items.
    • Yeri 9y ago
      This refers to in-app purchased loot boxes: you pay $x and have a chance to win an epic mount/weapon/bonus/whatever
      • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        Thanks for clarifying
    • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Random? Are you sure, presumably the algorithm for choosing the item can be anything the dev wants - for example hold back rare items for people more willing to spend to get them. They want to reward you just enough, no more, so as to get the maximum money out of you. Even if they say it's random and "X chance" who's auditing the code to check.
      • madeofpalk 9y ago
        And that's actually kind of half the point.
      • astura 9y ago
        Which kinda is the point, gambling is highly regulated (and highly taxed). The code is required to be audited by state gambling authorities and meet a certain criteria. Basically, the argument is they are running a gambling operation without meeting the gambling regulations.
  • wiz21c 9y ago
    If I'm not mistaken it's in game "boxes" that you can buy. These boxes contains items that may help your progression in the game. The trick is that you don't know what's in the box when you buy it. I didn't read the judgement though. I think it's the progfression thing that is the problem. There are games where you can buy loot boxes but they don't influence your progression, that's just a "surprise", like "Kinder's eggs". Im' fine with that I think it's a good thing because loot boxes are bought by children and they don't realize that it's a game of luck. But at the same time, there are things such as "Panini figures", stickers that you collect that work the same. When you buy a pack of stickers, you don't know what you'll get. And since the aim of the stickers is to fill a stickers' book, well, that's comparable to me... Dunno... Not sure...
    • larkeith 9y ago
      Skimming the article, it mentions they banned Overwatch, which has only cosmetic rewards from lootboxes ("skins" which change what your in-game character looks like slightly), so it would seem they're banning even non-progression related lootboxes. Personally, I'm rather happy to see this action being taken; loot boxes are a predatory and frequently deceptive business model.
      • wiz21c 9y ago
        In case the game progression is not affected by the content of the boxes, how is it deceptive (honestly, I have that talk with my kids) ?
        • candiodari 9y ago
          It's not that it's deceptive, it's that it's a game of chance. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you're part of the government mandated monopoly on such games or have a license.
        • larkeith 9y ago
          Frequently, viewing the "contents" of a box (the potential rewards) displays each item in a row, with no indicator of a difference in drop chance except the background colour, despite some items being twenty or so times more likely to be rewarded. If there is text indicating the variable probability, it is usually subdued and easily overlooked. Furthermore, some games silently vary the probability of drops based on prior results (without informing the player), a strategy designed to reinforce the Gambler's Fallacy and ensure users continue to open loot boxes after the first few.
• keyle 9y ago
  Isn't this mostly about targeting in-app purchases that offer random awards?
  • Yeri 9y ago
    It is
• ghostcluster 9y ago
  The entire mobile app store economy needs major regulation. The platform operators have shown they are willing to allow hugely profitable apps whose business models prey on gambling tendencies in children and they will look the other way, while bragging about their curation of their stores in some cases. It's shameful hypocrisy. The entire industry knows this is going on. Parents have complained for years, but nothing's changed.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    So if we assume gambling should be regulated, and that pay-to-play loot boxes are gambling... Why haven’t the licensed gambling venues (casinos, lotto, and what have you) pressured the regulators to stop the unlicensed gambling? Or have they and I’m not aware / the regulator is dragging its feet? Do the licensed gambling entities not perceive this as a threat? Or has gambling revenue increase overall because these games / apps basically groom young people in to being habitual gamblers as they age?
    • JackCh 9y ago
      > "Do the licensed gambling entities not perceive this as a threat? Or has gambling revenue increase overall because these games / apps basically groom young people in to being habitual gamblers as they age?" Probably a little of column A, a little of column B. The kids gambling with these games aren't potential customers for casinos since they're underage, but the habits they form as children may translate into willingness to gamble as adults. Maybe those kids-turned-adults will continue to gamble with video games instead of casinos, but I'd wager those casinos expect it to be a net positive for them overall. After all casinos offer "perks" that video games can't; free drinks, buffets, etc..
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • lagadu 9y ago
      Presumably because the regulator has nothing to do with the issue before a court determines that loot box providers fall under their jurisdiction.
• baxtr 9y ago
  I’ve never heard about loot boxes before. But I wonder: how is this any different from “Kinder Surprise” (a chocolate egg with a small surprise toy inside that you can buy in supermarkets)?
  • Doxin 9y ago
    It's different in that the prices in these loot boxes can be sold for hundreds of (real) dollars.
    • wastedhours 9y ago
      The Beanie Babies in McDonald's Happy Meals did too - regulating these away from kids is a good idea, but for adults, I don't see how the digital equivalent of collecting (and maybe selling) random stuffed toys is gambling.
      • freehunter 9y ago
        Difference is, the Teenie Babies from the Happy Meals weren't worth anything. Regular Beanie Babies were supposed to have enormous value as a collector's item, but you could order all 12 Teenie Babies as a box set and complete the whole collection without ever ordering a single Happy Meal. They were just toys, not collectors items.
        • wastedhours 9y ago
          But people did pay outsized amounts for the McDonald's ones.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I think because with the Kinder Surprise you’re always purchasing pretty much the same worthless piece of plastic.
    • majewsky 9y ago
      Not really. At least here (in Germany), they have promotional toy lines derived from well-known brands (e.g. I saw a store display promoting Powerpuff Girls toys in Kinder eggs a few days ago). The ads tout a guaranteed probability of finding one of these promoted toys in the egg (every 7th egg wins). There is a vivid aftermarket for these promoted toys. They're worth more if you collect a full set. You're right insofar as the non-promotional toys are pretty much only worthless plastic.
• DoctorOetker 9y ago
  Not sure when chance is considered gambling, I presume artificial chance? Does that include bitcin mining, the probability that your facebook post is visible for your friends, the probability that an advertisement is shown to a specific user, is sortition illegal?
  • baddox 9y ago
    I assume that their definition of gambling also requires a payment to be sent to some party who is offering the probabilistic reward. I doubt that bitcoin mining and Facebook posting would qualify.
    • anvandare 9y ago
      The gambling commission which made this report/recommendation apparently uses four criteria: (1) It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ (2) There's a (financial) stake (3) The player can win or lose (i.e. they're not guaranteed a specific return) (4) An element of chance is involved
      • thaumasiotes 9y ago
        > It's a game /* hello, Wittgenstein */ This element is generally included more to avoid accidentally outlawing insurance and financial securities than out of an idea that fun is inherently evil. Which is to say, they don't care if something IS a game; they care that it ISN'T something they consider productive.
        • anvandare 9y ago
          Oh I understand why that's there, it's just another amusing instance of "I'll know it when I see it" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
          • DoctorOetker 9y ago
• nukeop 9y ago
  Why not simply regulate it like gambling, instead of outright banning? Are cosmetic item lootboxes affected too, and if so, why, if they're completely optional and offer no advantage? Are "lootboxes" that can be purchased with in-game resources affected as well, even when the game offers no option to purchase them for real money?
  • dingo_bat 9y ago
    I guess gambling is illegal in Belgium.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      Nope, and in fact it's not even rare. Ladbrokes shops (for sports betting) are widespread, and casinos are not hard to find.
    • anvandare 9y ago
      It's illegal, but legal if licensed (quantum physics has nothing on legal systems) or on a temporary basis and small scale (town fairs, hobby club raffles, etc.). The main issue is that the games allow (and target) minors to play, which is never allowed, and that they do not provide any measures to protect players against themselves (such as maximum gambling limits).
    • PeterStuer 9y ago
      It is not 'illegal', but it is regulated. Hence the importance of them ruling those three games 'games of chance', as that means they have to comply with the regulation. https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/opencms/jhksweb_en/law/ https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/opencms/jhksweb_en/l...
  • justonepost 9y ago
    Because it preys on kids.
    • nukeop 9y ago
      That's why I'm asking why shouldn't it just be regulated like normal gambling and made inaccessible to kids.
• justonepost 9y ago
  So, like, pokemon card packs and lego packs and friends should be illegal too. There are you tube videos my kids liked to watch of people just literally opening pokemon packs. I'd actually be OK with making this illegal. Especially considered the frenzied buying and selling of pokemon cards at their school.. This is actually pretty huge. There is a very massive industry both virtual and non that relies on preying on kids and their gambling instinct. Steam makes a lot of money on Counter Strike via this.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    Lego packs? Don't all boxes of a lego set include the same pieces?
    • justonepost 9y ago
      https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Movie-71004-Random-Pack/dp/B00GSI56IO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1524728870&sr=8-2&keywords=mystery+lego+packs https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Movie-71004-Random-Pack/dp/B00GS...
    • BigCatStuff 9y ago
      There are Lego 'blind bags' for mini figurines, which do not let you see the content of the bag before opening it. The bag contains one mini figure from a predefined set, and some characters in the set are more rare than others. All blind bags cost the same amount, but the rarity aspect could encourage kids to buy more bags in an effort get lucky and find the rare figure. This could be construed as gambling.
      • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        Wow, way to destroy your credibility there Lego. I thought they were above shithead tactics like this.
      • megaman22 9y ago
        The people that are buying the Lego collectible minifigure packs are not typically children. It's clearly targeted at the AFOL audience.
• Matt3o12_ 9y ago
  On the one side I am glad that they banned such in-app purchases because sometimes it can get ridiculous on how much people (especially young children without realizing the cost) spend on them but I can't help but feel the irony because many "more legacy" things offer similar system. I remember spending far more then $100 for soccer stickers. You would basically buy a pack of maybe 10 stickers and you didn't know if you needed them or not. There were also stickers that were less common so in the end you ended up with over 300 excess stickers just to complete a book and you ended up doing that every other year for the euro and world championship. I don't think there is much of a difference and both cases should be more regulated (especially those catering to children who do not know any better).
  • bobthepanda 9y ago
    The issue with lootboxes specifically is twofold; one, lootboxes generally hold much less content than a pack of cards or stickers. Overwatch, for example, has four items a pack. The second issue is that a physical object, like cards or stickers, does at least feel like a physical object, in that it's very easy to tell if you start having an excessive amount of them. On the other hand, on a lootbox, there isn't really a innate difference in response to buying one vs buying one hundred. So it eases some of the friction as well.
    • Matt3o12_ 9y ago
      But the difference between 10 cards and a virtual object is very small. At least for small children. They can understand that a big object (a bike, a big Lego building, etc) must be expensive but I believe children are not really able to understand that a few cards are so expensive. Even rational people can't understand the physical value of a very small pack of cards -- they can only appreciate the virtual or artificial value, so the difference between a few cards (which hold a virtual value) and virtual loot boxes is very tiny.
  • wastedhours 9y ago
    I was thinking exactly this - I'm not massively clear on where loot boxes and blind-pack card games/sticker collectables differ. Both are fixed price products where you don't know the contents, with the value of said contents varying massively from the invested cost, along with the ability to trade/sell the contents on secondary markets. Trading Pokemon cards, I reckon I spent more on booster packs trying to get a Charizard than I've spent on all of the chests, loot boxes and packs in games, for nothing more than a piece of card that (sadly) eventually gets water damaged...
• IkmoIkmo 9y ago
  Netherlands is close to drawing similar conclusions. And it makes sense. You can buy, using real money, a virtual ticket for a virtual item. Then that virtual item can in turn often be sold to others for real money. In other words, players can participate by gambling real money in return for less or more real money. In short, it is gambling. Not all countries make gambling illegal, but those who do, should treat loot boxes the same. And virtually all countries make gambling illegal for minors, and there's currently no working mechanism in play for 15 year olds not to be able to play these games. Currently in the Netherlands it's required for the proceeds of loot boxes to be tradeable in the real world, giving them economic value, for it to be considered gambling. If it's purely virtual, it's not gambling but just part of the game. (you can question this of course.) The problem is that it didn't matter for the Dutch government whether the items were traded on external platforms (which are often in violation of the games EULA itself), or on a platform of the game itself. What would help stay legit is for the games to prevent loot box items from being traded between characters at all. Here's the weird thing though. My entire childhood was filled with opaque plastic packs of cards, pokemon cards, football cards etc. You didn't know which 5 cards were in there. The cards were semi-randomly distributed in the packs in the factory, just like these loot boxes are semi-randomly generated by an algorithm. And you'd pay, not knowing what you'd get. And indeed, sometimes you paid $10 for a pack with a rare pokemon you could sell for $100. That was gambling too under this definition.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    Netherlands is close to drawing similar conclusions. The article says they already did: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherlands-declares-some-loot-boxes-are-gambling https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherland...
  • JackCh 9y ago
    > "Here's the weird thing though. My entire childhood was filled with opaque plastic packs of cards, pokemon cards, football cards etc. You didn't know which 5 cards were in there. The cards were semi-randomly distributed in the packs in the factory, just like these loot boxes are semi-randomly generated by an algorithm. And you'd pay, not knowing what you'd get. And indeed, sometimes you paid $10 for a pack with a rare pokemon you could sell for $100. That was gambling too under this definition." Is that so weird? I came to the conclusion that industry was gambling when I was a kid. I saw my friends spend their allowance on those packs of cards, open them up, then become disappointed because they only received "trash". Yet again and again they'd do it. It seemed totally irrational to me.
• Asgardr 9y ago
  Serious question; why isn't Magic the Gathering illegal? Don't booster packs perform the same function.
  • JackCh 9y ago
    Just a guess, but perhaps these card collecting games haven't received the same degree of negative attention because to outsiders the card game aspect obscures the collecting/gambling aspect. With CS:Go skins it may be more obvious to people since skins are something completely extraneous tacked onto the 'real' game, whereas with the card collecting games the cards are an essential component of playing the 'real' game. Another hypothesis is that video game players who don't partake in loot boxe gambling have become ticked off (perhaps because they perceive the gameplay to be neglected by companies who make their real money from these loot boxes.) These anti-loot video game players may then become activists against loot boxes, drawing broader public attention to the issue. Card collection games probably don't attract/create as many motivated activists calling for regulation and reform.
  • bobthepanda 9y ago
    In my childhood, trading cards were often banned in schools because they caused issues related to the gambling aspect.
  • wccrawford 9y ago
    Someone above did some Googling and concluded that Loot Boxes have 10x the spending that MtG does. It's already a bigger market, despite its relative newness. This suddenly boom in popularity and the discussions that it has caused has likely caused it to be brought to light more strongly. It's very possible that we'll see them start to aim at physical grab-bags soon as well.
  • PeterStuer 9y ago
    At the time it was considered, but the randomness in the packs was considered a 'sales tactic', not gambling. (I'm not sure wether Carta Mundi, the printer for a.o Magic the Gathering being a Belgian company had anything to do with it). Loot boxes otoh are compared to slot machines. I know it sounds 'illogical', as they both at first glance seem alike, but there are aspects of difference to consider. Loot boxes are generally packaged with 'addiction triggering' opening ceremonies. Furthermore, the probabilities are not publishes (afaik they are for trading card games), and the digital platform also enables for far more ingenious addiction/purchase/retention inducing psychological gaming than physical card packs.
• belorn 9y ago
  Like with much in law things exist in an context. In order to compare physical card packs to loot boxes one has to first figure out the market size of each. So I took a glance doing a few Google searches and it seems that physical card packs has a global market of a few billions. The number varies a lot since some of the data include card trade as well as pack sells. One data point argued a 450 million from news packs and 3 billions from card trade, specific for sport cards. For loot boxes I would estimate the number to be around 100x of that, give or take. For every $10 in the past there is $1000 dollar being spent on virtual packs. It seems reasonable to me that a government body might not care too much about a $450 million industry, but do care a lot when it is a $100 billion industry.
  • Thiez 9y ago
    On which numbers is your 100x estimation based? Or is it just some number you made up.
    • belorn 9y ago
      I did say that I took a glance at google search. This is not a academic paper with careful study with tight citations from the last 100 years. If you want that, go and do the work yourself. Here is a few new random google glances: https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/28/newzoo-game-industry-growing-faster-than-expected-up-10-7-to-116-billion-2017/ https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/28/newzoo-game-industry-grow... $116 billion in total video game market, $50 billion for just the mobile market. How much of that is micro transaction? Don't know. How much is loot boxes. Don't know. Blizzard reported more than half their revenue, $4 billion, was from micro-transactions. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-blizzard-made-4-billion-on-microtransac/1100-6456669/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-blizzard-made-4... EA reported similar $2 billion, almost half of their revenue, from micro-transactions. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/57475/ea-earns-1-68-billion-microtransactions-fy2017/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/57475/ea-earns-1-68-billion-m... According to this random article, loot boxes are around $30 billion this year and expected to reach $50 billions in 4 years. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-04-17-loot-boxes-skins-gambling-to-hit-usd50-billion-by-2022-report https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-04-17-loot-boxes...)
• lifeisstillgood 9y ago
  I have goggles around a bit but I don't quite get it - what is a loot box, and what are they doing in what i would consider "safe for my kids" games like FIFA and Starwars ?
  • GyYZTfWBfQw 9y ago
    Your kids won't be able to use your money to buy loot crates which contain items that are either unknown or known, but have no way of knowing which you'll receive after opening the crate. Look, they say it's for the safety of your kids and vulnerable individuals: it must be good and do not dissent! The Government has good intentions. /s
  • ergothus 9y ago
    Look up battlefront 2 for a good explanation. Generally a loot box may be "dropped" as a reward during play, just as games have long given gear or in-game currency. But in this case the loot boxes (which contain gear, in-game currency, or other in-game items of value such as skill ups) cannot be opened without something extra. That something extra is available for a real money fee. In some games the boxes are just bought and open when bought (perhaps the only way to get them), in others you can also open them with time (always slower that your rate of acquisition) or perhaps you can get keys to open them as random drops (always at a lower rate than box acquisition). End result is that in addition to any price you paid for the game itself you can pay to open these which each have a chance to be "worth it", but usually arent. A few common objections: Pay-to-win: for those that are focused on skill and competition it sucks to be beaten and taunted by those that beat you because they paid extra to essentially make the game easier. Balance: many games build their progression curve under the assumption that your stats are improving at a rate that can only be achieved by buying boxes, so the game may be fun but new content frustratingly out of reach unless you pay up. And in both cases, if you decide to pay up...you probably don't get what you need because of the random and unbalanced design. So you pay again. And again. It is designed to hammer dopamine triggers, so you get just enough of happy payoffs to not stop, but not enough of a payoff to stop either. Some are fine with the model but object to it hitting children who may not be able to recognize the cost/benefit balance. Me? I'm glad to see it discouraged as gambling because it is just not fun for the base game. Skill or even just time invested in playing is replaced not only by money, but an unknown amount of money. This distorts game options - think of how many mobile games are time gated constantly with the option to buy stuff (gems, coins, etc) that will let you skip the waiting. Absent the profit, who would make a game where you can play for a few minutes and then have to wait hours to play again? But we fall for it. Or if we don't, we just don't get to play at all. That's my beef with the "no one makes you play" argument. If i don't play, I'm the one that loses out. If the abuse human weaknesses and make bank (and they do! Unbelievably so), there are no equivalent competing products. But short story long, that's what loot boxes are and why people object. They aren't a new concept, but they are so successful and profitable that each wave is more extreme.
• Aissen 9y ago
  I don't honestly know if lootboxes are gambling or not, but it's time to be honest with the mechanisms behind them, and follow Chinese and Japanese regulations: be transparent and open about the probabilities behind them. Yes, even if it includes pity counters, etc. Apple has started mandating this: https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/21/16805392/loot-box-odds-rules-apple-app-store https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/21/16805392/loot-box-odds-ru... But Steam, Google Play, PlayStation, XBox, and smaller platforms all need to follow suite, very quickly. Or they'll face even harsher legislations around the world.
  • duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Was your use of the phrase "follow suite" intentional? Because if so, bravo, that's the funniest thing I've read all day :)
    • Aissen 9y ago
      Classical typo, enhanced by non-native writer skills ;-)
      • duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Haha! I actually missed the typo altogether. I thought you were intentionally using a phrase originating in gambling ("follow suit") as a joke, given the context.
        • Aissen 9y ago
          I didn't know this idiom's etymology, but I'll remember now that it originated from card games :-) https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-expression-to-follow-suit https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-expression-t...
        • caf 9y ago
          Games in which you follow suit are not generally gambling games.
• jrq 9y ago
  Are toys in cereal boxes gambling? Are fortune cookies gambling? Are mystery flavor candy gambling? I find this a mind boggling decision Disclaimer: I don't know jack shit about Belgian legislature history
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • GyYZTfWBfQw 9y ago
    It is unfortunate that you have been down-voted. It seems that thinking is a luxury these days. Prohibition supposedly works even though a pile of empirical evidence suggests otherwise, and the Government supposedly has good intentions. All they have to do is claim it's (whatever the heck they want) for the safety of you, your kids, and vulnerable people, and they can do virtually anything. They are doing just exactly that. It's OK though, in this case they give you the illusion of safety at the cost of other people without said other people even realizing it, and you can shift the blame: you no longer have to admit to yourself that you are a horrible parent and keep continuing the terrible parenting. I wonder if the same people who have down-voted you and I also spoke out against Facebook and its anti-privacy issues. EDIT: my friend just bought a bag of chips assuming it will taste good but it really doesn't. I guess if he's not allowed to taste it before buying, then it's gambling! Did you know that eating chips could contribute to numerous health and financial issues? Ban chips effective immediately! Think about the children! :)
    • def_true_false 9y ago
      > Did you know that eating chips could contribute to numerous health and financial issues? Ban chips effective immediately! Not sure about wherever you are from, but in Europe there is an expectation that food you can buy in stores is reasonably safe (milk is pasteurized, etc). It wouldn't be much of a stretch to regulate unhealthy ingredients. In fact, they do regulate stuff like this, it just takes time, see trans-fats.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
• yAnonymous 9y ago
  It's important to note that there's a distinct difference between virtual and physical loot box systems. I've seen collecting MtG cards turn into quite considerable theft, but virtual systems are worse, because * there's no physical item involved * the distribution in virtual systems can be changed to the customer's disadvantage When a kid buys 30 card packs in a store, people notice. Also, holding 30 packs in your hands is very different from opening 30 virtual loot boxes, because the packs and contents don't just disappear into some virtual table. And then, you can be sure that the distribution of cards has been decided before the packs have been put in the store and not changed on the fly to prey on the customer's addiction and make them buy even more. Physical loot box systems are still addictive and borderline gambling, but the limits are much more defined.
• PeterStuer 9y ago
  For those that can read Dutch: Google turned up a copy of a study they did November last year on the issue. Note that this is not the report in which they looked at the four titles in depth, but a broader study looking into 'social gaming', 'Loot boxes', 'Skin gambling' and 'eSports betting' https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/uploader/pdf/d/d/b/rtbfinfo_5c742f9b8996afe274e39ad9b4acb453.pdf https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/uploader/pdf/d/d/b/rtbfinfo_5c742... [pdf]
• tokyodude 9y ago
  I mostly agree with the idea. Many F2P apps prey on people and something should be done. That said I'm curious what happened and why these things are so addictive. As a kid I collected Wacky Packages. They were parody stickers that came in a pack of like 3 or 5 with a stick of gum just like Baseball Cards. While I probably owned 150 stickers or so I would never have considered myself addicted nor my friends. We were into them for a couple of months, probably spent no more than $20 total each. Compare to my nephew who was into Pokemon Cards and spent hundreds of dollars. Of course I new a few kids that seriously into baseball cards but they were the exception. With Pokemon cards it seemed much much better. Also before that a large percentage of my adult friend spent hundreds on Magic the Gathering cards. Some spent thousands. Now we have IAP in apps and some people are spending like crazy. What happened? What made Magic the Gathering and Pokemon so big compared to Baseball Cards? What made IAP so big? I can only guess 2 things about IAP. One that it's super each to buy being connected directly to your account. Two that being a video game they can more easily use psychological techniques to manipulate people. That might explain the IAP issues. Not sure it explains Pokemon + Magic the Gathering vs Baseball Cards. Any ideas?
  • cncrnd 9y ago
    Is there a game you can play with baseball cards? If not, then I'd say this is the reason. People like to win.
  • yomly 9y ago
    I see this as a result of the evolution of data-driven optimisation (as a methodology) in concert with data becoming increasingly more available. Back in the day of stickers/baseball cards your data granularity was probably down to state/city-level sales by month. Now in the world of F2P gaming, you have per-minute per-user level of data. You're able to A/B the uplift in sales: - for introducing slot-machine like sound effects when opening the loot box - adding flashes when you open the loot box - giving out fewer lootboxes per hour - introducing more rare and powerful things in the lootbox You have "engagement" people who's sole job is to make stuff addictive nowadays, no longer is it a few people's job to dream up something fun to use and collect. It's now a cynical and scientific exercise to ruthlessly optimise IAP.
  • 9y ago
• xendo 9y ago
  What about Kinder Surprise? Are they going to make it illegal?
  • freehunter 9y ago
    Is there anything of value in a Kinder Surprise? In my experience it's always been a tiny plastic toy with no (even perceived) monetary value. I think the point is to ban things where people are paying money for random items in the hopes that those random items are worth lots of money so they can resell them.
  • epanchin 9y ago
    I would contend that all kinder egg prizes are of equal value, therefore it is not gambling.
• simias 9y ago
  I see other posters saying that it has to do with probabilities and the way they're designed or how you can play a game with the cards etc... and I disagree. I think what triggered the problem with lootboxes is that the monetary value of the items is immediately obvious and you can trade those items without any friction over the internet at any moment. For many games an item is just equivalent to some amount of money. It's not a good, it's casino tokens that you can exchange for real money at the counter. Selling cards, especially before the internet, was way more complicated and most 12yo at the time probably wouldn't bother unless they were extremely lucky and managed to acquire a very expensive card "charlie and the chocolate factory" style. Cards have pretty limited liquidity, unlike digital goods that can be traded quickly and safely across continents in an instant. I don't play a ton of games featuring random item drops but if I look at my Steam inventory for instance I can get the immediate value at which any item is trading (including loot boxes and their keys, but also skins, cards, emoticons, profile backgrounds...). Valve itself plays into this by tracking the price and making it easily available to anybody. You can directly, from Steam, trade these items for money (well, money locked into your Steam account, but money nonetheless). On the other hand when I was a teen and played Magic: The Gattering most of the time I had no idea of the value of an individual card and checking it would have involved buying specialized magazines (the internet was only in its infancy at the time). We traded cards only for other cards and based mostly on our own subjective assessment of their relative values and how they fit into our decks (or even if the drawing looked cool), not based on some global card exchange with real-time trading. On top of this there are a huge number of 3rd party "casino" sites for these in-game items who add another layer of gambling on top of the lootbox concept. Those websites don't hesitate to pay Twitch streamers to "play" on their site, sometimes even tweaking the odds to make them win more than average to make it even more enticing for the (often very young) watchers. It's scummy as hell and while Valve & friend don't directly partake in this they very clearly enable this behavior with their policies (and they APIs). I could see the point of somebody arguing that MtG and Pokemon are gambling but these video game economies are on a whole other level.
  • cableshaft 9y ago
    > Those websites don't hesitate to pay Twitch streamers to "play" on their site, sometimes even tweaking the odds to make them win more than average to make it even more enticing for the (often very young) watchers. I doubt it was only sometimes. I bet it was pretty much every time. A few have actually been caught red-handed doing just that.
• scotty79 9y ago
  If you pay fixed price for unknown outcome it should be clasified as gambling/investment and regulated. Odds should be published (if known) or past performance if known, expected value and such. Deviation from any information stated at the moment of sale should nullify the sale and give you your money back. If the company hesitates, funds should be seized immediately and put on hold until people who bought the tickets come for their money. I have no hard rule about which kinds of gambling/investment should be completely forbidden but all should be scrutinised and some limitations should be imposed. Like a ban on advertising. App economy is now gambling economy and at some point it will trigger heavy regulations.
  • rwmj 9y ago
    How do you foresee this working with insurance policies?
    • gpderetta 9y ago
      isn't that already regulated?
    • Tactic 9y ago
      Insurance != Gambling. You will not get more out than you lose. It will only make you whole. You may get more money out than you put in, but they are compensating you for a loss. You are paying for risk mitigation, not potential profits.
• Shivetya 9y ago
  Now I am curious if a method used by Wargaming Inc will get a pass and be adopted elsewhere. Their "boxes" always return a reward of equal or higher value than what the box cost. The key is that the publisher defines the value. So in WGs case what dollar amount the assign to a reward may not be what players perceive as correct. However they were not one of the companies investigated.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• damontal 9y ago
  What about buying card packs in a digital card game like Hearthstone? Does that count as a loot box?
  • magicmu 9y ago
    I don't think it does, since you can't sell individual Hearthstone cards for money or trade them between accounts. It's still an ethically questionable business model imo, but it's in a somewhat different category than loot boxes (or physical trading cards).
    • throwaway321546 9y ago
      but they banned Overwatch lootboxes, a purely cosmetic addition to the game that cannot be resold or traded between accounts and has no impact on gameplay. the legislation seems to just be a knee jerk reaction to something that someone told them is bad, without fully understanding the ecosystem. there are definitely some predatory systems out there, but identifying those wrong from the onset makes me think they aren't fully informed here
• mherrmann 9y ago
  "A loot box is a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomised selection of further virtual items." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• nske 9y ago
  I'd find it fair for these games to be classified only for adults. As for adults however, my philosophy is that we should stop treating them as kids that need to be told what they are and aren't allowed to do. Loot boxes are addictive? So is sugar, alcohol, sex and 1000 other things. Do we want to go down that road? If someone wants to gamble a percentage of his income, that should be his choice. If he wants to gamble away all his money or even put himself into debt, also his choice.
  • onion2k 9y ago
    Belgium has declared loot boxes are illegal because they violate Belgian gambling laws, not because all gambling is outlawed there. They could be implemented in ways that don't, and people would be able to spend their money on them again. Your suggestion that 'these games to be classified only for adults' is exactly what the gambling law says is necessary.
    • nske 9y ago
      Requiring you to get a gambling license is a bit different than just requiring your games to be classed as adult-only. For starters there are limits to how many gambling licenses are available from the government each year and companies have to apply and pay for them. But my comment was mostly targeted to several other comments here that seemed over-eager to accept something should be rendered illegal simply because it's addictive and some people can't control themselves.
• Sevii 9y ago
  Loot boxes are a great way to get teenagers to gamble away all of their money.
• delecti 9y ago
  Threads on these kinds of posts (both here and on other websites) always result in large number of "but what about <other thing>, why isn't that gambling too?" It always just seems like an attempt at a gotcha and not a genuine point of discussion.
• Noos 9y ago
  Now the issue is whether or not many F2P titles can find some form of monetization that satisfies the increasing regulation, or if they will just shutter the Eu market entirely. Apparently Jagex is shuttering the EU runescape servers because of the GDPR, but this is going to make it even more difficult for surviving games to monetize. I have the feeling europeans are going to wake up one day and find the end result of all this legislation is to make a market very unfriendly to exist in.
• tialaramex 9y ago
  The thing we didn't realise / understand when countries outlawed or restricted gambling is that gambling isn't about the tangible reward per se. Psychologically some humans receive a very powerful reward sensation specifically for gambles that pay off. It doesn't matter what the "reward" is so much as that they gambled and won, they get their buzz if they win a slice of cake for guessing how many puppies the secretary's greyhound would have, for a $50 win on the scratch-offs, or for finding the rare Pink Darth Vader in the loot box. This compulsion is very powerful, and when harnessed it can be good for society - ordinary people do not try to fly faster than the speed of sound for the first time - and it can take individuals to the height of high-risk activities most of us wouldn't have the nerve to try, all the very good Poker players are gamblers for example. But it's also potentially catastrophic for the individual, because they can't stop - or at least they don't want to, and gambles never pay off forever. This means that restricting gambling for money only worked because that was the most harmful practice available that triggered off this harmful pattern. Once video games began to rely on it too, offering $10 "loot boxes", there was a new way for problem gamblers to destroy their lives, even when you can't "cash out" your winnings, because the psychological compulsion doesn't care about that.
• tzakrajs 9y ago
  I think the biggest issue here isn't the money spent on loot boxes but how variable rewards are addicting and can change children's minds about how they percieve value in the world more generally.
• GuB-42 9y ago
  I understand the idea but what apply to loot boxes may apply to a lot of things. The first ones are trading cards, including games like "Magic: the Gathering". If you are lucky, you can sell a card you got from a booster pack for way more than what you originally paid. And chances that you can don't even have to leave the shop to do it. What makes gambling is that you get money for money, not worthless prizes like in the case of most loot boxes. It is an additional risk because there is always hope that you will be able to recover your losses and you may spend more than you can afford. With loot boxes and most other random prizes, it is clear that while you may get something nice, that money will be gone for good. As for game developers, they don't lack options for Skinner box schemes. Loot boxes are just one among others, there are things like energy systems that are popular on mobile games that don't involve chance but have the same effect of making you spend more money than originally intended. It is just that loot boxes look more like gambling, even though it isn't really, and are disliked by the majority. The rest is politics.
• petre 9y ago
  Maybe next Belgian legislators will declare the stock market gambling and therefore illegal.
• SmallDeadGuy 9y ago
  Loot boxes which have actually different values should be illegal, but the loot boxes in overwatch don't. They don't change the gameplay of the game at all, having a legendary skin just makes you look cooler and doesn't change your abilities or damage. It also isn't possible to sell/trade the skins, so they don't have any inherent value. That being said, what about card packs in games like hearthstone? The cards can't be traded or sold, but they do change the gameplay and some cards are inherently stronger than others so gambling and getting "lucky" can give players an advantage. This is definitely closer to gambling than loot boxes in overwatch. Opening 20 loot boxes in overwatch and getting no legendary skins feels bad but isn't frustrating, you don't need the skins. But opening 20 card packs for a new hearthstone expansion and getting none of the strong legendary cards feels super frustrating, you're at a disadvantage to players that did open those cards.
• SocratesV 9y ago
  So where does this leave sticker albums (Panini, etc) or any other collectable that does not serve what is seen as a generally practical purpose in the World? (don't think that digital vs. physical should play a part in this) In gambling you are mostly doing it for a clear financial gain: you play for money/fiat. Loot boxes, sticker albums, and so on, the primary purpose is not a financial gain. That is a byproduct and secondary, which some elect to make it their primary purpose for engaging in it. IMO this is a symptom of people not being able to manage their finances properly and identify potentially destructive behaviours. This would push the solution for the problem to Education, how schools should help people in learning the skills necessary to both manage their money and notice when a certain behaviour they are about to engage in, or repeat one too many times, will produce a generally negative outcome for their mental and financial health. And no, I'm not a fan of loot boxes. Never bought one and think they are mostly used by the publishers in a very bad, and silly, way.
• hokus 9y ago
  Great stuff, let them get back to game mechanics.