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

[MMDE]

I don't care about ESRB rating, but if they are going to rate these games based on anything, it should definitely be things like this, not if there's some fake looking CGI blood.

[Sundr0wn_]

Lootboxes are not technically gambling. But like Jim Sterling says: it functions similarely and profits of off people with addictive personalities. For most people it wont be a problem, but some people are gonna get drawn in by it like a slot machine. And that's what publishers want.

[Ric]

It's not seen as gambling because the act of opening lootboxes does not require direct real money. You need to use points. Buying the points with real money is a separate transaction. And the's the loophole the entire gaming industry is crawling through.

 

Googling "gambling definition" gives the following

 

gamble

/ˈɡamb(ə)l/

verb

1. play games of chance for money; bet.

   "he gambles on football"

    
2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

   "he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel"

 

Loot Boxes are number 2. They're just shrouded in technicallities (like the one I mentioned above) to allow publishers to prey on people's addiction tendencies. This should be classified as gambling and if that means they're calssified as AO then so be it. The less sales they get the more likely it will become that they will stop with this crap.

 

Apparently it's ok now to classify it as "kid-friendly" even though they're indoctrinating these impressionable kids into spending their hard earned money into meaningless crap that you used to get for achievements in game (before they were called achievements).

 

[Sir_Bee]

14 hours 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. 

 

That is the whole point.  Hurt the sales of games with these predatory practices in them, and companies will stop using them.  Loot Boxes provide no benefit to the end user, and only serve to benefit the content creator, and thus every user should be upset they exist and not want them used anymore.

4 hours ago, Ric said:

It's not seen as gambling because the act of opening lootboxes does not require direct real money. You need to use points. Buying the points with real money is a separate transaction. And the's the loophole the entire gaming industry is crawling through.

 

Googling "gambling definition" gives the following

 

gamble

/ˈɡamb(ə)l/

verb

1. play games of chance for money; bet.

   "he gambles on football"

    
2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

   "he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel"

 

Loot Boxes are number 2. They're just shrouded in technicallities (like the one I mentioned above) to allow publishers to prey on people's addiction tendencies. This should be classified as gambling and if that means they're calssified as AO then so be it. The less sales they get the more likely it will become that they will stop with this crap.

 

Apparently it's ok now to classify it as "kid-friendly" even though they're indoctrinating these impressionable kids into spending their hard earned money into meaningless crap that you used to get for achievements in game (before they were called achievements).

 

 

The problem with putting Loot Boxes in the second definition of gambling is the total vagueness of the definition.  Every time you make a hailmary pass in a sports game, or you try to pass someone on the outside on the corner in a racing game, or you run through open space to get to better cover in a FPS you are technically meeting that second definition of gambling.  We all gamble like that in almost every game we have ever played.  If it fits into that definition, you would lose every argument ever brought up about it.

[starcrunch061]

21 hours ago, Avatar_Of_Battle said:

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. 

 

In fact, the trading card game had some pretty nasty legal wrangles over this very problem. For MTG, at least, it was decided that this did not constitute gambling because you were always guaranteed one rare card and three uncommons in any pack. However, once they added the new rarity, I don't know how that precedent applies anymore.

 

I actually think this loot box controversy might have legs.

Edited October 13, 2017 by starcrunch061

[MMDE]

6 hours ago, Ric said:

It's not seen as gambling because the act of opening lootboxes does not require direct real money. You need to use points. Buying the points with real money is a separate transaction. And the's the loophole the entire gaming industry is crawling through.

 

Googling "gambling definition" gives the following

 

gamble

/ˈɡamb(ə)l/

verb

1. play games of chance for money; bet.

   "he gambles on football"

    
2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

   "he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel"

 

Loot Boxes are number 2. They're just shrouded in technicallities (like the one I mentioned above) to allow publishers to prey on people's addiction tendencies. This should be classified as gambling and if that means they're calssified as AO then so be it. The less sales they get the more likely it will become that they will stop with this crap.

 

Apparently it's ok now to classify it as "kid-friendly" even though they're indoctrinating these impressionable kids into spending their hard earned money into meaningless crap that you used to get for achievements in game (before they were called achievements).

 

 

 

Using another currency doesn't make it less gambling btw. Many casinos have you buy their currency to use in their casino.

 

But it's more like those gum machines, where you put in some money and get a random gum or collectible item or something.

Edited October 13, 2017 by MMDE

[starcrunch061]

12 hours ago, FielVeredus said:

I don't know, if this is accetpable now casino would just return 1c for everyone who failed and this will not considered gambling by this meaning. They just create loophole to exploit. Gambling should get a better definition.

 

This is exactly right. 

[AndresLionheart]

If it would mean an AO rating then thats perfect. They would have to either get rid of that shit, release it only on PC (cause consoles do not accept AO games) or make it a proper DLC section where people know what they buy.

[stu_0089]

I agree that it is a predatory practice that needs to be gotten rid of.  There is no place for it and it is putting the idea into kids heads that gambling is an okay thing to spend your/parents money on and that IS NOT okay.  I also agree that they add very little value to the game itself which therefore furthers the argument that they have no place on games.  I think the ESRB should start rating these games as AO as that is the only way that these big money companies are going to change, when they start loosing money.

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

1 hour ago, starcrunch061 said:

In fact, the trading card game had some pretty nasty legal wrangles over this very problem. For MTG, at least, it was decided that this did not constitute gambling because you were always guaranteed one rare card and three uncommons in any pack. However, once they added the new rarity, I don't know how that precedent applies anymore.

 

I actually think this loot box controversy might have legs.

 

Never played/followed MTG. And it's been so long since I collected pokemon/yugioh cards that I don't even know if there were guaranteed things like that.

[GR1Mshadow]

2 hours ago, Sir_Bee said:

The problem with putting Loot Boxes in the second definition of gambling is the total vagueness of the definition.

Great point. I rescind my focus on that definition in favor of emphasizing the casino comparison.

 

If you can pay "real" money for a game's virtual currency, that v¢ has a real world monetary value, even if you can't trade it back for real money; loot boxes that give v¢ or dupes (which are converted to v¢) are practically paying out money on the basis that the more v¢ you get, the less money or effort you have to put in to buy another loot box.

It could be argued that players who haven't spent any money on v¢ makes my comparison moot, but I feel that the inherent disadvantage they have in drops due to not paying extra only reinforces how insidious and anti-consumer the practice is.

 

This has been a good discussion and I'm glad to see everyone sharing their viewpoints in a civil manner, even if the subject manner is making my stomach queasy.
Loot boxes are an awful can of worms that are dragging AAA gaming down to the level of low effort mobile cash cows, but convincing the government to step in and moderate such practices would only make the situation worse, which is why we as gamers and consumers of the industry need to stand together and say "enough's enough." 

 

Refuse to buy games with such transparent money grabs built into them (unless it's secondhand), never reward this absurd unending corporate greed by buying drops, try to convince whoever you know to do the same, and shame the companies responsible on social media. Heck, shame the payers as well. We might be drowned out by the guy who bought a megaphone to say he doesn't mind it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. On the contrary, they're exactly why everyone and anyone who cares about the videogame industry should do their part in killing this awful practice before it gets any worse.

[Doomsdayman]

12 minutes ago, GR1Mshadow said:

Great point. I rescind my focus on that definition in favor of emphasizing the casino comparison.

 

If you can pay "real" money for a game's virtual currency, that v¢ has a real world monetary value, even if you can't trade it back for real money; loot boxes that give v¢ or dupes (which are converted to v¢) are practically paying out money on the basis that the more v¢ you get, the less money or effort you have to put in to buy another loot box.

It could be argued that players who haven't spent any money on v¢ makes my comparison moot, but I feel that the inherent disadvantage they have in drops due to not paying extra only reinforces how insidious and anti-consumer the practice is.

 

This has been a good discussion and I'm glad to see everyone sharing their viewpoints in a civil manner, even if the subject manner is making my stomach queasy.
Loot boxes are an awful can of worms that are dragging AAA gaming down to the level of low effort mobile cash cows, but convincing the government to step in and moderate such practices would only make the situation worse, which is why we as gamers and consumers of the industry need to stand together and say "enough's enough." 

 

Refuse to buy games with such transparent money grabs built into them (unless it's secondhand), never reward this absurd unending corporate greed by buying drops, try to convince whoever you know to do the same, and shame the companies responsible on social media. Heck, shame the payers as well. We might be drowned out by the guy who bought a megaphone to say he doesn't mind it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. On the contrary, they're exactly why everyone and anyone who cares about the videogame industry should do their part in killing this awful practice before it gets any worse.

 

Except the largest portion of consumers are casuals and they don't care at all for it.

[AJ_Radio]

Our government won't do jack shit, and it's currently run by a bunch of assholes and imbeciles who have no political skills or discipline. Anybody who has followed the American Government over the past 10 - 15 years knows they will usually make a situation worse before they will try to fix it. And by then, it will be too late.

 

Again, I have to ask you guys why you are just now arguing over loot boxes. A number of mobile games have had this feature for years on smartphones and iPads. Should we now remove them from the stores and give them an AO (Adults Only) rating simply because they contain some form of gambling?

 

That's a lot of time and resources spend on changing the ratings. I really don't know if that is worth all the trouble.

 

When Jagex came out with Squeal of Fortune (a form of lootboxes/gambling) on Runescape I was one of the more outspoken people against it. Because it was outright spending real money on XP lamps and the such to buy your way to more XP instead of simply playing the game normally. A lot of online only games have some form of microtransaction. Should we take a stand and force the companies to put a warning label saying this has a gambling feature?

 

Should ESRB change the rating of Star Wars Battlefront 2 if it has lootboxes that greatly increase the amount of XP you earn with each multiplayer match? It's not guaranteed you will get the same reward, but it's the very principle of addiction that gets people hooked. Not just kids, in fact a good majority of those who decide to use lootboxes are probably adults. Maybe some kids out there have the disposable income to spend some bucks on a couple lootboxes, but I don't really expect them to have the money and freedom to buy what they want as opposed to grownups, who have gambled for years.

 

Hell I played a few gambling games online before I was probably supposed to (18+) but I simply played them for fun. That's a different story as opposed to poker rooms and whatnot that you can spend your hard earned cash on. In that case, yes, giving kids that kind of access to a game that takes away their money is very bad.

 

The best you guys can do for now is write en masse to the companies implementing this practice. Maybe the hurting of sales will convince them to change their ways.

 

We all like to say we have to "protect our children". But I often see a lot of grownups failing to "protect their children", do you guys think a lot of children are being monitored by their parents online? I don't really think so. So if the child is caught gambling or paying for lootboxes with real cash, it's not only the child's fault but also the parents fault.

[AffectatiousDonk]

This is an interesting thread but for those against this what is the alternative. Obviously you can't expect a publisher / dev to leave money on the table so how would they re-coop this lost revenue. The only way I can see is by significantly rising the price of games (to be honest this is probably not such a bad idea) but judging from the general whinging of many gamers about the cost an unpopular one. Perhaps this is a case of careful what you wish for. 

[wackt1]

8 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

In fact, the trading card game had some pretty nasty legal wrangles over this very problem. For MTG, at least, it was decided that this did not constitute gambling because you were always guaranteed one rare card and three uncommons in any pack. However, once they added the new rarity, I don't know how that precedent applies anymore.

 

I actually think this loot box controversy might have legs.

At least with trading cards people can buy the individual cards they want for decks on ebay, for lootboxes, they should allow players to purchase what they want. However, microtransactions are another problem all together. 

There should be at least some control to how much loot boxes affect gameplay because in the case of star wars battlefront 2, they can steer which side wins.

[starcrunch061]

On 10/13/2017 at 6:10 PM, CjShai said:

This is an interesting thread but for those against this what is the alternative. Obviously you can't expect a publisher / dev to leave money on the table so how would they re-coop this lost revenue. The only way I can see is by significantly rising the price of games (to be honest this is probably not such a bad idea) but judging from the general whinging of many gamers about the cost an unpopular one. Perhaps this is a case of careful what you wish for. 

 

This is only if you believe the hobo narrative coming out of developers offices. Game publishing accounting is very much like movie accounting. The number of dollars, taken off the top, by administration is absolutely ridiculous. 

 

I swear - you'd think that management at EA and Squeenix go straight from the office to the bread line or the homeless shelter. What really needs to happen is for stockholders to start holding these people accountable for their costs.

 

 

[FawltyPowers]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 0:10 AM, CjShai said:

This is an interesting thread but for those against this what is the alternative. Obviously you can't expect a publisher / dev to leave money on the table so how would they re-coop this lost revenue. The only way I can see is by significantly rising the price of games (to be honest this is probably not such a bad idea) but judging from the general whinging of many gamers about the cost an unpopular one. Perhaps this is a case of careful what you wish for. 

 

An alternative? Re-coop this lost revenue? This is quite humorous to me as someone who's been gaming for over 30 years.

 

Anyone else remember when a game was released you would go into the shop, buy it and it was the finished article. What you brought on day one would be the same game if you brought it a year after release.

 

For some reason now everyone accepts that when a game is released at full price that we have to test it for the first couple of months, report the bugs so they can fix them with various patches. Not only is it not properly tested it is incomplete too as we wait for numerous DLC content at a further cost to us. But now on top of a buggy, incomplete and costly game we now have to pay even more money to get advantages over others in the game through loot boxes.

 

It's so sickening where this has all headed I can't help but laugh - and now it's so ingrained in people it's becoming an accepted practice.

 

Loot boxes are gambling, plain and simple no matter how you want to wriggle round it. You're paying money for a chance to win something. It isn't guaranteed therefore you're gambling your money for a % chance of winning. You even have Activision who patented and have just had accepted a system to manipulate people even further into spending their money. The sooner this cancer stops in games the better.

[AffectatiousDonk]

4 hours ago, FawltyPowers said:

 

An alternative? Re-coop this lost revenue? This is quite humorous to me as someone who's been gaming for over 30 years.

 

 

 

 

Humorous or not it's a financial reality. Not many companies would ever walk away and leave $ on the table. I understand that most games require day one patches, are often broken or incomplete. But why don't gamers actually stop and seriously consider why rather than continuously moan and whinge. Do you really believe publishers want to release broken products. Perhaps the profit margins are shrinking relative to the costs and corners are just simply being cut to ensure the product can even be viable.

 

To be honest this sense of entitlement amongst many gamers is so out of touch with the real world economy I often wonder how they ever approach ideas of inflation and property prices. Things increase over time, you get what you pay for. $1 or $2 an hour for an enteratinement product is nothing and perhaps that's the problem. 

 

Many posts in this thread seem to personally take offence that a gaming company is making a profit. It's not something I can understand but then many of them are also deluded enough to think that they are the target market for these companies. I think we should all be thankful for the many "non hardcore " gamers that are keeping this industry so financial with their handful of full priced game purchases, no trade in, often buying cosmetics / time saver items or other in game offerings. Because if all gamers were as clued in as trophy hunters then the system would simply be too untenable to sustain.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by CjShai

[Rick_Sanchez]

8 hours ago, CjShai said:

Humorous or not it's a financial reality. Not many companies would ever walk away and leave $ on the table. I understand that most games require day one patches, are often broken or incomplete. But why don't gamers actually stop and seriously consider why rather than continuously moan and whinge. Do you really believe publishers want to release broken products. Perhaps the profit margins are shrinking relative to the costs and corners are just simply being cut to ensure the product can even be viable.

 

To be honest this sense of entitlement amongst many gamers is so out of touch with the real world economy I often wonder how they ever approach ideas of inflation and property prices. Things increase over time, you get what you pay for. $1 or $2 an hour for an enteratinement product is nothing and perhaps that's the problem. 

 

Many posts in this thread seem to personally take offence that a gaming company is making a profit. It's not something I can understand but then many of them are also deluded enough to think that they are the target market for these companies. I think we should all be thankful for the many "non hardcore " gamers that are keeping this industry so financial with their handful of full priced game purchases, no trade in, often buying cosmetics / time saver items or other in game offerings. Because if all gamers were as clued in as trophy hunters then the system would simply be too untenable to sustain.

 

 

No one has a problem with them making a profit, we have problems with how they're doing it. This gambling loot box trash is predatory on not only children, who don't know any better, but people who have gambling addictions and has no self control over spending money to get a chance at what they want.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Rick_Sanchez

[AffectatiousDonk]

22 minutes ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

No one has a problem with them making a profit, we have problems with how they're doing it. This gambling loot box trash is predatory on not only children, who don't know any better, but people who have gambling addictions and has no self control over spending money to get a chance at what they want.

 

I agree with you all very good points but surely you must concede that the loot boxes are keeping the base game price down overall. So what's the solution ? 

[Rick_Sanchez]

2 hours ago, CjShai said:

 

I agree with you all very good points but surely you must concede that the loot boxes are keeping the base game price down overall. So what's the solution ? 

The myth that games are sold in any complete state for $60 is laughable. Companies have been selling delux editions of games that has things people who paid only $60 do not have access to. To get a more complete experience you're now expected to pay between $70 - $100 to get the most experience and that doesn't even include season passes on a few occasions which adds more money you need to pay for a complete edition. Then you have scumbag crap such as microtransactions and loot boxes infesting games that has no business having them.

 

The base game price has indeed gone up and the $60 price tag is just buying a skeleton with some meat on it but it's thin meat that would be thicker and better if the delux edition was purchased instead. The $60 price tag is no longer close to a full experience compared to a delux edition. Taking life is strange before the storm for example, it has a full game unlock price and a delux unlock price that has extra content coming which is currently not available to those that purchased the standard price edition. It may become available as a separate DLC but it's still content not available to those that paid the basic, non delux price. 

 

And yes I know it's not a $60 game, was using it as an example.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Rick_Sanchez

[Beyondthegrave07]

So I read this facinating article from Eurogamer that just sums up the predatory practice of loot boxes and how big companies are ruining the idea of Single player experiences. To sum it up, the big publishers (like EA) don't care about us or what we want, just what's in our wallets.

 

It's a good read on an insider's perspective of loot boxes, multiplayer gaming, and the gaming business as a whole.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

Edited October 24, 2017 by Beyondthegrave07
Formatting

[StrickenBiged]

I grew up in the Middle East. Out there, gambling is illegal due to interpretation of Islamic law. The workaround that gambling companies use is called "pick a winner". You can go to the racetrack in Dubai and bet on horses. Even if your horse comes in dead last, your betting slip is still good for something because, if you look on the back of it, you'll see that you have a coupon for a free cake at some cafe, or a seat at an upcoming football match between two of the local football teams that no-one ever goes to or something. Most people just throw these away - they are worthless prizes that nobody wants. Everyone knows that what they are actually doing is gambling. 

 

If the argument that "you always get something" actually worked, then you might be happy to play my upcoming slot machine? You are not actually gambling because, even if you get the worst possible stroke of luck, it will always dispense a slip of blank paper, sort of like those spools of paper that receipts are printed on in stores. Why not keep going and see how long that piece of paper can get? 

 

Did I mention that I control the odds on my slot machine? I do. I can change the odds of winning whenever I want to, without telling you, and without telling you what the odds were in the first place. The reason I can do this is that it is not gambling, you see, because you're getting that strip of paper. Great system, isn't it. 

 

In fact, I can see your user-data whenever you're sitting playing on my slot machine. If I notice you've had a lucky run, I can dial down your odds of winning. If you start to look frustrated, or the time between your spins has gone up, I can make it more generous. Whatever keeps you playing. 

 

It's still not gambling remember. You've got that long piece of paper by now. You got something for your money after all. 

 

________________

 

The main problem with loot boxes, as I see it, is that the game is controlled by the companies. We are not told the odds. We never know if the odds change. We are not told if the odds are dynamic in response to player data. 

 

A lot of the controversy around loot boxes could be fixed if they would tell us the odds and there was some way of ensuring that the odds were actually as claimed, IMO. Without that assurance, how can consumers be satisfied that they are not just being manipulated in a glorified Skinner box?