Jump to content

ESRB does not see loot boxes as gambling (thoughts?)


Beyondthegrave07

Recommended Posts

I found this interesting article and thought I would share and get everyone's opinions on this. I know loot boxes can bring a lot of heated debate, so let's try to keep this on point and not blast anyone's views.

 

Article: https://kotaku.com/esrb-says-it-doesnt-see-loot-boxes-as-gambling-1819363091/amp

 

Essentially, the ESRB will not label games with loot boxes as gambling. The main reason for this I believe is because it would either ruin AAA companies retail agreements or more likely, ruin the ESRB rating system currently in place. Why? Because if you gamble with real money in a game, it's instantly rated as Adult only. The problem with this is that most retailers will not sell AO games and parents aren't likely to buy AO games for their kids and will prevent teenagers from buying them on their own. Therefore, calling loot boxes gambling with real money would ruin the current ESRB system in place. They would have to change how gambling is looked at.

 

I agree with the ESRB though. Loot boxes are not gambling. You always win something, even if it is completely randomised and by chance. I get the slot machine comparisons, but you don't always win in a slot machine. Even if you get a duplicate item, you still technically got something. 

 

Though honestly, I think that loot boxes should just go and let people buy what they want via add-ons. But of course, studies show somewhere that chance increases profits and that's what counts in the ends. The bottom line.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't believe it should be labeled because IT DEFINITELY SHOULD. Not as gambling and not as simulated gambling either. I think it should be called something along the lines of loot box purchases or something similar to that. I think it should be listed as a caution in case people use a family account.

 

What are your thoughts? Do you see it as gambling? Should ESRB include loot boxes in their rating system?

Edited by Beyondthegrave07
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know much about this particular topic, but could it be because the lootboxes don't offer real life money as a reward? (unless they do and I just didn't know.)

 

It's sorta like any trading card game no? Pay real money for whatever's inside, but some cards are better than others with varying levels of "rarity". If you could find a $100 bill inside one of the packs they'd probably have to see it as a gambling. 

Edited by Avatar_Of_Battle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambling would suggest you can lose. You always walk away with something even if it sucks and you know that going in. So its effectively a regular purchase. I'm not surprised regardless of if its a crap system. Other wise buying football stickers or yugioh cards would be considered gambling too.

Edited by Superbuu3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres how I see it:

 

Games where you can't receive duplicates = Not gambling. Essentially I view this as a free alternative to paid dlc where you don't receive all the content at once, not necessarily in the order you desire and in most cases at such a stretched amount of time that when you finally unlock it all chances are it won't interest you anymore, game has died out or newer dlc has come out for you to start all over on

 

Games with duplicates: Yeah this shit is definitely gambling if you ask me. Your point of "at least with duplicates you still earn something" I would disagree with since with duplicates even though it might seem like you earn something, in most cases you really don't. 

Take BF1 for example. While I don't remember the exact exchange rate in the game (yeah I know sue me ;) ) lets say the cheapest pack cost you 200 something scrap (which is the in game currency) and this pack would cost you say 2 bucks in real life. Alright now to simply break even you would have to earn something in this pack worth at least 200 scrap right? Well too bad the rarest items in this type of loot crate, which you are very unlikely to receive btw, only nets you the sorry amount of 270 scrap. The more average type of duplicates you are likely to receive only give you 30 and 90 scrap respectively. This basically mean that in BF1 every dupe that isn't a "Legendary" item (basically what you call a "jackpot" in gambling terms) won't even give you back half of what you paid for it. Essentially every dupe in this game cost you either 1,70 dollars or 1,10 dollars, which, while I can't speak for you, I'd hardly specify as earning something ?

Edited by Rune2303
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the whole "indefinite money pit with random rewards" system should be enough to qualify it as gambling. While gambling is defined primarily and legally by money as reward, "risky action hoping for a particular result" is also a valid definition; buying a bunch loot boxes during an event with any bias whatsoever on what you get (skins for characters you play vs ones you don't, sprays you're never going to use) is still a form of gambling. You're shoving your money into a box *hoping* it gives you what you want.

That said I'm glad it wasn't decided to be within the realm of government intervention. The less non-videogame playing agenda pushers trying to shove their way into the medium the better.

 

Where it really matters, loot boxes are just a more overtly hostile form of DLC. At least DLC has set prices and you can grab the packs with what you want, instead loot boxes get you to spend more money on less of what you wanted. Sure, gambling is a choice, but there are people with gambling problems.

Duplicates and special events with unique low chance drops make it outright abusive to the consumer. They know there are people who feel compelled to drop hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them when they roll around.

 

The only proper solution is boycotting the developers responsible, but how do you convince the guy who wants to dump all his money into loot boxes not to? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by GR1Mshadow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter if a game is 18+ or 17+?

Well, ESRB rating is the only thing that many people care of when they are about to purchase a game.

And a game with AO rating means pornographic for people like Ned Flanders, and there are a lot of Flanders in America.

 

In Europe, PEGI rates games and gambling does not make the game  automaticly an adults game ( 18 ) 

 

For example: Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End has Dice game & poker. Also, sword fighting and PEGI rated 12 which I consider a good rating for the game.

On ESRB it is Teen ( T )

And gambling is not listed in the rating content, I guess for the same reason you are discussing on this topic.

Edited by charlijaen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

I found this interesting article and thought I would share and get everyone's opinions on this. I know loot boxes can bring a lot of heated debate, so let's try to keep this on point and not blast anyone's views.

 

Article: https://kotaku.com/esrb-says-it-doesnt-see-loot-boxes-as-gambling-1819363091/amp

 

Essentially, the ESRB will not label games with loot boxes as gambling. The main reason for this I believe is because it would either ruin AAA companies or more likely, ruin the ESRB system itself. Why? Because if you gamble with real money in a game, it's instantly rated as Adult only. The problem with this is that most retailers will not sell AO games and parents aren't likely to buy AO games for their kids and will prevent teenagers from buying them on their own. Therefore, calling loot boxes gambling with real money would ruin the current system in place.

 

I agree with the ESRB though. Loot boxes are not gambling. You always win something, even if it is completely randomised and by chance. I get the slot machine comparisons, but you don't always win in a slot machine. Even if you get a duplicate item, you still technically got something. 

 

Though honestly, I think that loot boxes should just go and let people buy what they want via add-ons. But of course, studies show somewhere that chance increases profits and that's what counts in the ends. The bottom line.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't believe it should be labeled because IT DEFINITELY SHOULD. Not as gambling and not as simulated gambling either. I think it should be called something along the lines of loot box purchases or something similar to that. I think it should be listed as a caution in case people use a family account.

 

What are your thoughts? Do you see it as gambling? Should ESRB include loot boxes in their rating system?

 

That is a horrible line of logic lol.  We cannot call this what we think it is, because then stores wouldn't sell games that have loot boxes in them ...

 

The dictionary definitions of gambling:

 

 1 - play games of chance for money; bet/

 2 - Take risky actions in the hope of a desired result.

 

The second option is something everyone does all the time when playing games, and it isn't really the kind of gambling that is being discussed here.  The first option however is a pretty good descriptor of what loot boxes are.  You often spend real money, to buy a fake currency, to roll on a game of chance, trying to get what you want.  Those with more susceptible personalities are then pushed to spend more money, to keep rolling the dice, in the hope of getting lucky on their draw.  The whole loot box system is intrinsically designed to prey on those people.  So by that definition, I 100% believe that these loot box systems are gambling.

 

If the ESRB took a stand, and didn't shy away from it because it may "ruin AAA companies", maybe those same AAA companies would stop preying on the weaker of us to make more money.

 

I know that this is slightly off topic, but I would 100% rather games cost twice as much, and get rid of all microtransactions and F2P practices in full price games.

 

Just my two cents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sir_Bee said:

 

That is a horrible line of logic lol.  We cannot call this what we think it is, because then stores wouldn't sell games that have loot boxes in them ...

 

The dictionary definitions of gambling:

 

 1 - play games of chance for money; bet/

 2 - Take risky actions in the hope of a desired result.

 

The second option is something everyone does all the time when playing games, and it isn't really the kind of gambling that is being discussed here.  The first option however is a pretty good descriptor of what loot boxes are.  You often spend real money, to buy a fake currency, to roll on a game of chance, trying to get what you want.  Those with more susceptible personalities are then pushed to spend more money, to keep rolling the dice, in the hope of getting lucky on their draw.  The whole loot box system is intrinsically designed to prey on those people.  So by that definition, I 100% believe that these loot box systems are gambling.

 

If the ESRB took a stand, and didn't shy away from it because it may "ruin AAA companies", maybe those same AAA companies would stop preying on the weaker of us to make more money.

 

I know that this is slightly off topic, but I would 100% rather games cost twice as much, and get rid of all microtransactions and F2P practices in full price games.

 

Just my two cents.

My point being is that the standard would have to change to avoid gambling as an Adult only aspect. This isn't just baseless opinions. IT'S FACT that if you gamble with real-life money in a video game, it's automatically rated Adult only. Which is why ESRB could not call loot boxes gambling even if they thought it was. Not to mention that companies like Target and Walmart shy away from selling Adult only games to avoid any unwanted attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Beyondthegrave07 said:

My point being is that the standard would have to change to avoid gambling as an Adult only aspect. This isn't just baseless opinions. IT'S FACT that if you gamble with real-life money in a video game, it's automatically rated Adult only. Which is why ESRB could not call loot boxes gambling even if they thought it was. Not to mention that companies like Target and Walmart shy away from selling Adult only games to avoid any unwanted attention.

 

I totally understand that, and that is the whole point.  Maybe we shouldn't be allowing this form of gambling in games that children play.  Maybe they should be restricted or held back.  Not calling something you think is gambling, gambling because it means fewer people will have access to it defeats the whole purpose of the rating system.  It was set up in the first place to protect those who are purchasing the games from things that they or their parents may not want them to experience.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir_Bee said:

 

I totally understand that, and that is the whole point.  Maybe we shouldn't be allowing this form of gambling in games that children play.  Maybe they should be restricted or held back.  Not calling something you think is gambling, gambling because it means fewer people will have access to it defeats the whole purpose of the rating system.  It was set up in the first place to protect those who are purchasing the games from things that they or their parents may not want them to experience.

Right, I agree with you. As I said in my OP, I don't think it is gambling, but I think it should be known to the general public through the ESRB rating system, which it's currently not.

 

@BeautifulTorment mentioned a very good point; it's predatory.

Edited by Beyondthegrave07
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gam·ble

verb

 

1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
 
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

 

Can't argue with a dictionary. Lootboxes definitely equal the second use of "gamble".

 

Edit: I just noticed @Sir_Bee used the definition as well. Although, I feel a little differently on how lootboxes fit in. Either way, there should be no denying that lootboxes fit the definition of gambling. Now, whether the esrb wants to label them AO or not is up to them. You can call a shovel an ice cream cone all day long, it doesn't change the fact that it's a shovel.

Edited by Phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine this decision is because you don't HAVE to pay for them in most games. In most games there's a way to either get the content of the boxes through normal gameplay, or there's a way to earn loot boxes through normal gameplay. It makes them a weird gray area. Since you don't HAVE to spend money on them, they can say that you aren't technically gambling.

 

I imagine that's the thought process they had when making this decision. Of course, I completely disagree with it, because loot boxes are 100% gambling. Whether you spend money or not, it's literally a game of chance, like all gambling is. Since you're not guaranteed anything, only a chance to get something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loot boxes are those things you can buy & get random add-ons, right (I've never got any myself)? I always thought those things were kind of a underhanded trick you get more money out of addictive/unlucky people, in that aspect, it is kinda like gambling. :unsure: However I can't really see it like that either, like a couple others already said: it's kinda like buying a pack of cards. So if loot boxes were considered gambling, then you should have to be an adult to buy a trading card pack... actually, that might not be a bad idea, I spent so much money on Yugioh/Pokemon cards growing up, it's a little sad if I start thinking about it (I guess you could say I was an addict :P).

 

In the end, I'd say no, it's not gambling. I can see how there's kind of a fine line there though. :hmm: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so now people are pointing out that lootboxes are very much a form of gambling to the point where ESRB has to change the ratings and protect our children from this practice? 

 

Jesus Christ. 

 

This practice has been done for years and people are just now realizing this.

 

I doubt many children have the disposable cash to use many of the lootboxes if they do happen to cost a good amount. Then again, since this topic was probably sparked by Middle Earth Shadow of War's microtransactions, they're playing a game that is M rated. Last time I went into a store to buy a M rated game I had to show my ID. Unless they have their parents buy the games for them, or they have an Amazon account to buy games online. That is a different story.

 

Gambling affects a lot of adults, so lootboxes only serve to fuel the fire for them. 

 

Doing something as change the ESRB rating to potentially be AO (Adults Only) is just outright stupid. That would hurt sales, since a lot of stores don't allow AO rated games and Sony and Microsoft don't have a single AO rated game.

 

People are being too sensitive about this. 

Edited by Spaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Spaz said:

Wait, so now people are pointing out that lootboxes are very much a form of gambling to the point where ESRB has to change the ratings and protect our children from this practice? 

 

Jesus Christ. 

 

This practice has been done for years and people are just now realizing this.

 

I doubt many children have the disposable cash to use many of the lootboxes if they do happen to cost a good amount. Then again, since this topic was probably sparked by Middle Earth Shadow of War's microtransactions, they're playing a game that is M rated. Last time I went into a store to buy a M rated game I had to show my ID. Unless they have their parents buy the games for them, or they have an Amazon account to buy games online. That is a different story.

 

Gambling affects a lot of adults, so lootboxes only serve to fuel the fire for them. 

 

Doing something as change the ESRB rating to potentially be AO (Adults Only) is just outright stupid. That would hurt sales, since a lot of stores don't allow AO rated games and Sony and Microsoft don't have a single AO rated game.

 

People are being too sensitive about this. 

Maybe not this gen, but there have been AO rated titles in the past including 1 GTA title

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

Maybe not this gen, but there have been AO rated titles in the past including 1 GTA title

 

There are a small handful of AO games, none of them have done very well. 

 

GTA was heavily criticized over the "Hot Coffee" incident last decade, but apart from that that's the only time a GTA game was given a AO rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good that loot boxes are not seen as gambling. If they're legally considered a form of online gambling, then you start getting into areas of state and national regulation that no one wants to deal with. Like, we would be tampering with forces we cannot possibly comprehend.

 

But I do think ESRB and similar sites should absolutely list microtransactions/lootboxes/whatever in their description. They've spent all this time, effort, and money to alert the world when someone smokes in a video game or when pixels on your screen might turn red; now let them help us actually fix a real problem here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step is paid for DLC boosters for helping us to cut down on grinding trophies. Let's face it, pay to win fo trophies, that kind of system is already here in some games. Especially very cheap games for easy plats. I see a bleak future unless we boycott these games, or moan to the ends of time. Glad to see that this game is getting an absolute bashing on metacritic. I suggest others leave your negative comments over there as well. We need to nip this industry bullshit before it becomes "normal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything where real money is exchange for something influenced by chance is definitely gambling. Just like recognised gambling I can imagine loot boxes become highly addictive to those susceptible. Of course gambling subsidies many things in life (through government taxation etc ) for those of us that don't gamble. I see no difference in games, without them gamers would have to accept a substantial rise in the price of games ............. now how popular would that be......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...