Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

[Bullstomp]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

As well as it should. I'm all up for freedom to be douche bags, but if they want to be lazy and not register or get licensed, that's on them. I, for one, will never support any game that has a pay-to-win system. I think just not buying the game is the way to go. It's too bad there are too many FIFA and NFL shills for EA to give two fucks about losing Star Wars.

Thank you for that. I agree, bring back transparency. There should be disclosures on the box that say "pay2win" or "lootboxes", just like they say "multi player " or "online required."

 

I stopped playing Madden because of their player card system. Sucks because I love football but I hate MTX.

 

BTW, I read Belgium is not requiring an outright ban. They are requiring the copies to be pulled until EA gets the game licensed w/ the gaming commission AND EA can expect fines of several hundred thousand euros for selling the game prior to getting that license.

 

Additionally,  it is rumored France will make a similar announcement shortly.

 

Update:https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-2-french-senator-writes-lett/1100-6455112/ 

 

And to those who keep saying "but EA NEEDS that money to make games" , I have this to share with you . -

 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Bullstomp

[Zenpai]

On 22/11/2017 at 8:39 AM, DrBloodmoney said:

Banning lootboxes is not necessarily a good thing - by charging money for loot boxes the publishers and developers were able to make a lot of money from stupid/rich people without increasing the price for normal players.

 

I never bought any, as I am neither rich nor stupid, and so they never affected me. If they disappear that makes no difference to me, but I am sure it will lead either to a general increase in game prices, or some new profit maximisation avenues to cover the revenue reduction.

 

 

The problem is, it did affect you. From the moment microtransactions go beyond the merely cosmetic and start affecting pacing and progression, the game was purposely made more sluggish to incentivize you to pay up for the opportunity to progress faster - ergo, the game was made worse to accommodate the publisher's greed.

 

 

On 22/11/2017 at 9:35 AM, cam_wick said:

1. I am worried about any legislation that may result from this PR disaster though. Knowing Congress (in the US at least), they’ll pass some ridiculously restrictive laws with gross oversight that ends up banning all forms of looting and micro-transactions in and shape or form. (...) and I can almost guarantee, if Congress gets there thick’s heads involved in this mess, we will all be sorry we ever complained. Think of all the things they’ve regulated through laws to “protect the youth”.

 

2. Game prices are cheaper now than they were 20 years ago with higher production value and this cost.

 

3. (...) and when all is said and done people want them to stay in business, even if that means paying more.

 

 

1. Well, I for one am not sorry for EA or any publisher that decided to indulge in this gambling fest. At all. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it. And I couldn't possibly care less. This is the one time I'm actually glad politicians got involved in gaming matters.

 

If it does go beyond just regulating loot boxes, we'll deal with that when and if we get there. Any other thing politicians might want to regulate we can easily fight against. Just as we can easily support them in their fight against loot boxes, since I'm sure pretty much no one (except greedy publishers) actually like them.

 

And to be honest, no one is saying that they absolutely have to get rid of loot boxes. They just have to be legally labeled for what they are: gambling. And if it is indeed gambling, then games including them have to be correctly labeled as "Adults Only". Which will make them unsuitable for release on all major consoles (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all forbid the publishing of Adults Only games on their platforms). If they REALLY want to include loot boxes, then they can just release the game as a PC exclusive, as something not suitable for children. Now whether they actually want to resort to that... ?

 

And you act like literally anyone (besides the publishers) will actually mourn the demise of loot boxes. If they go away... so what? We played for literal decades without them and we did so just fine. At least I didn't see anyone clamor for the chance to pay more for their game or for it turn it into a grind fest.

 

 

2. Okay... Did anyone actually ask for games to be this expensive? Look back at the Playstation 2 era, the last "simple" era of gaming. Sure, we didn't have the crazy amount of visual fidelity we have today, but games could still look gorgeous (just look at any Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts game), not to mention we had just as much, if not even more fun than we do today, since games could only rely on one thing to sell themselves - being fun. And that's the bottom line we're all looking for, I believe. We had no Season Passes, no excessive amounts of DLC, no microtransactions and no loot boxes, and obviously games were all the better for it.

 

If games are getting so expensive that the only way to make them profitable is to use these awful measures... then by all means, reduce the budget. Make cheaper games. I believe Minecraft and Undertale still sold a boatload of money despite having extremely small teams and very limited graphic capabilities. And why? Because the games were fun. They were creative. They showed what we all truly crave from games. And while visuals are certainly pleasing, games can still look great, and most importantly, play great without needing to animate single strands of hair.

 

 

3. No. No, I don't. Why should I care if a publisher burns if clearly all they care about is taking the most money out of me, no matter what it takes? Go ahead and burn. I'll be here supporting companies that actually care more about delivering a great experience without dollar signs showing up in their eyes at all times.

 

 

 

On 22/11/2017 at 10:22 AM, cam_wick said:

Give EA Aand DICE a chance to breathe and fix the problem before getting gov entities involved.

 

 

I believe companies (and anyone, really) needs only one chance to show basic decency.

 

 

11 hours ago, cam_wick said:

1. You keep calling EA money grubbers and compare them to car salesmen jacking up prices. Let me ask you this: have you ever seen a brand new car model go down 91% a little over a year after release?

 

2. If that’s shady then I suppose going to the movies is shady, too. Because guess what: it’s like $10+ to go see a movie plus for the “full experience” you have to pay another $10 for popcorn and soda. And I guess listening to the regular version of an album is a rip off, too. Because the deluxe version costs $5 more.

 

 

1. No, but I also don't see any car dealership promising to sell me a full car and then, only after buying it, do they reveal I need to enter a paid lottery to gain access to the tires and the seats, or that I need to drive around for a few months before gaining access to any speed beyond 70 km/h.

 

2. The thing is, even if you don't pay for popcorn and soda, the movie is still the same to everyone. We don't have the picture playing at 0.4 speed for those that didn't buy them.

 

The popcorn and soda are truly optional. If you don't buy into the microtransactions, then you're stuck with a slog fest of a game.

 

 

10 hours ago, cam_wick said:

All this nonsense about lootboxes targeting people with addiction and kids is a total conspiracy theory. Kids need to be parented and you can’t buy anything on a ps sub acct without credit card access. And if you have a gambling addiction, seek help, EA isn’t trying to exploit you. Just like if you’re an alcoholic, Budweiser isn’t trying to prey on you with super bowl commercials every year.

 

 

You do realize that the life of a parent is extremely busy and tiring, don't you? They cannot go around checking every single thing their children have access to. It's already bad enough with 5-year old kids stealing their parent's phones and spending thousands of dollars on free-to-play games. And many parents grew up on the idea that when you actually buy a premium game, you don't need to spend any more money, it's all in there from the beginning. They could certainly use the help in preventing any unexpected expenses on the part of their kids.

 

(And, you know, again... it's not like anyone will mourn loot boxes' demise).

 

 

2 hours ago, cam_wick said:

I disagree, (1) I don't think MTX are greedy. They're not greedy in GTA 5, they're not greedy in The Last of Us and they aren't greedy in Assassin's Creed. So what exactly makes them greedy here? If someone wants to superficially accelerate their progress in a game, why not allow/offer it? Then, of course, one could argue that the feature should be free, so why charge money for it? (2) But then why charge more money for prioritizing mail? Why charge more money to let people stream in 4k vs full HD? Why charge more money for street parking in some cities than in others? Is it all greed? If profit = greed then yes, yes it is. But if the company is trying to maximize profits in order to be able to reinvest in future projects, how is that greed? It's called business and EA is a business just like Rockstar, Ubisoft and Naughty Dog/Sony. You can't make SWBF3, if half your audience waits until BF2 and BF1 are on sale for 80%, or even worse, buy it used. And that is the absolute truth that everyone conveniently "forgets". Yeah retail price for the standard edition is 60 USD. And if 1 million people buy it, that's 60mio in their pocket. But the reality is, that since it's a Star Wars license, probably 50% is Disney's cut, then you have brick and mortar distributors skimming off the top. Ad campaigns. Employee salaries. Development hardware and software. Insurances. Patents. Development of new engines. All costs coming out of that 60$. Now another 5 Mio buy it, but on Black Friday for half off, another half mio buy it used after half a year. and people just upgrading to PS4 (yes, really) buy it in  a year for $10. At this point you're not sure whether you can break even on this project. Shit happens to movies all the time, studios write it off as a bad investment, there is no patch or removal of functions to fix it. Done deal. So why would you not have some sort of additional system in place cushion the transition into the next project, if available? Oh I almost forgot all the people still downloading cracked versions of games on pc, jesus, talk about sticking it to the man. Maybe you should be mad at them, too, since everyone buying used games and downloading games illegally or driving up prices and turning the games industry into a money grubbing machine.

 

 

1 - Then why are loot boxes only present on the biggest games, from the biggest publishers? On the ones that are pretty much certain to make a killing (like Battlefront II was)? And why are there plenty of (even AAA) games that still make a killing without having to resort to this bullshit (just look at pretty much every game from Spring 2017).

 

Simple. Because Season Passes, excessive DLC, microtransactions and especially loot boxes are greed. Because they're an easy way for developers to make more money without actually making more content.

 

 

2 - Priority mail and 4K streaming aren't predatory practices, they're just a premium service. Whenever microtransactions are present in a game, it gets a lot more sluggish - unless you actually pay to progress faster, of course. Priority mail doesn't make regular mail get to its destination more slowly, nor does 4K streaming suddenly make 1080p downgrade to 720p or 480p.

 

 

2 hours ago, cam_wick said:

but you are correct, drinking, driving having sex does not make you an adult legally speaking. but neither does being 18 for that matter. being an adult has to do with maturity.

 

Um... that is the literal definition of being a legal adult.

 

----------------------------------------------------------     ----------------------------------------------------------        ---------------------------------------------------

 

I'm a huge Dragon Ball fan. I bought Dragon Ball Xenoverse. But I didn't buy Xenoverse 2. Why? Because the first game was so RNG-heavy that it turned into a grind-fest.

 

You know what Dragon Ball Xenoverse didn't have? Loot Boxes and microtransactions. You also know what Xenoverse was? Not very fun, on account of all the grindiness (it would be "okay" otherwise).

 

This is exactly what happens when you buy a game with microtransactions and keep deluding yourself, saying they're optional - the game turns into a slog fest, since the developers need to give you an incentive to actually purchase the damn things.

 

I don't want slog fest games, with or without microtransactions. If games don't have them, they're very likely to have much better pacing. If they do include them, however, then the progression is pretty much guaranteed to slow down to a near grinding halt.

 

 

Some people made the case for loot boxes, saying that they're well implemented in some games. The problem is, I don't think there's any game where they actually add to the experience. I'm pretty sure no one will miss them terribly if they're gone. Not to mention, the gaming industry has a tendency to take your entire arm when you try to give them a hand. That's how we ended up with this infestation of excessive DLC, Season Passes and microtransactions.

 

I, for one, am not willing to stand by and defend practices whose sole purpose is to squeeze as much money out of you as possible.

[that_dude_cam_ps]

9 hours ago, jrdemr said:

 

 

The problem is, it did affect you. From the moment microtransactions go beyond the merely cosmetic and start affecting pacing and progression, the game was purposely made more sluggish to incentivize you to pay up for the opportunity to progress faster - ergo, the game was made worse to accommodate the publisher's greed.

 

 

 

 

1. Well, I for one am not sorry for EA or any publisher that decided to indulge in this gambling fest. At all. They made their bed, now they can sleep in it. And I couldn't possibly care less. This is the one time I'm actually glad politicians got involved in gaming matters.

 

If it does go beyond just regulating loot boxes, we'll deal with that when and if we get there. Any other thing politicians might want to regulate we can easily fight against. Just as we can easily support them in their fight against loot boxes, since I'm sure pretty much no one (except greedy publishers) actually like them.

 

And to be honest, no one is saying that they absolutely have to get rid of loot boxes. They just have to be legally labeled for what they are: gambling. And if it is indeed gambling, then games including them have to be correctly labeled as "Adults Only". Which will make them unsuitable for release on all major consoles (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all forbid the publishing of Adults Only games on their platforms). If they REALLY want to include loot boxes, then they can just release the game as a PC exclusive, as something not suitable for children. Now whether they actually want to resort to that...

 

And you act like literally anyone (besides the publishers) will actually mourn the demise of loot boxes. If they go away... so what? We played for literal decades without them and we did so just fine. At least I didn't see anyone clamor for the chance to pay more for their game or for it turn it into a grind fest.

 

 

2. Okay... Did anyone actually ask for games to be this expensive? Look back at the Playstation 2 era, the last "simple" era of gaming. Sure, we didn't have the crazy amount of visual fidelity we have today, but games could still look gorgeous (just look at any Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts game), not to mention we had just as much, if not even more fun than we do today, since games could only rely on one thing to sell themselves - being fun. And that's the bottom line we're all looking for, I believe. We had no Season Passes, no excessive amounts of DLC, no microtransactions and no loot boxes, and obviously games were all the better for it.

 

If games are getting so expensive that the only way to make them profitable is to use these awful measures... then by all means, reduce the budget. Make cheaper games. I believe Minecraft and Undertale still sold a boatload of money despite having extremely small teams and very limited graphic capabilities. And why? Because the games were fun. They were creative. They showed what we all truly crave from games. And while visuals are certainly pleasing, games can still look great, and most importantly, play great without needing to animate single strands of hair.

 

 

3. No. No, I don't. Why should I care if a publisher burns if clearly all they care about is taking the most money out of me, no matter what it takes? Go ahead and burn. I'll be here supporting companies that actually care more about delivering a great experience without dollar signs showing up in their eyes at all times.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe companies (and anyone, really) needs only one chance to show basic decency.

 

 

 

 

1. No, but I also don't see any car dealership promising to sell me a full car and then, only after buying it, do they reveal I need to enter a paid lottery to gain access to the tires and the seats, or that I need to drive around for a few months before gaining access to any speed beyond 70 km/h.

 

2. The thing is, even if you don't pay for popcorn and soda, the movie is still the same to everyone. We don't have the picture playing at 0.4 speed for those that didn't buy them.

 

The popcorn and soda are truly optional. If you don't buy into the microtransactions, then you're stuck with a slog fest of a game.

 

 

 

 

You do realize that the life of a parent is extremely busy and tiring, don't you? They cannot go around checking every single thing their children have access to. It's already bad enough with 5-year old kids stealing their parent's phones and spending thousands of dollars on free-to-play games. And many parents grew up on the idea that when you actually buy a premium game, you don't need to spend any more money, it's all in there from the beginning. They could certainly use the help in preventing any unexpected expenses on the part of their kids.

 

(And, you know, again... it's not like anyone will mourn loot boxes' demise).

 

 

 

 

1 - Then why are loot boxes only present on the biggest games, from the biggest publishers? On the ones that are pretty much certain to make a killing (like Battlefront II was)? And why are there plenty of (even AAA) games that still make a killing without having to resort to this bullshit (just look at pretty much every game from Spring 2017).

 

Simple. Because Season Passes, excessive DLC, microtransactions and especially loot boxes are greed. Because they're an easy way for developers to make more money without actually making more content.

 

 

2 - Priority mail and 4K streaming aren't predatory practices, they're just a premium service. Whenever microtransactions are present in a game, it gets a lot more sluggish - unless you actually pay to progress faster, of course. Priority mail doesn't make regular mail get to its destination more slowly, nor does 4K streaming suddenly make 1080p downgrade to 720p or 480p.

 

 

 

Um... that is the literal definition of being a legal adult.

 

----------------------------------------------------------     ----------------------------------------------------------        ---------------------------------------------------

 

I'm a huge Dragon Ball fan. I bought Dragon Ball Xenoverse. But I didn't buy Xenoverse 2. Why? Because the first game was so RNG-heavy that it turned into a grind-fest.

 

You know what Dragon Ball Xenoverse didn't have? Loot Boxes and microtransactions. You also know what Xenoverse was? Not very fun, on account of all the grindiness (it would be "okay" otherwise).

 

This is exactly what happens when you buy a game with microtransactions and keep deluding yourself, saying they're optional - the game turns into a slog fest, since the developers need to give you an incentive to actually purchase the damn things.

 

I don't want slog fest games, with or without microtransactions. If games don't have them, they're very likely to have much better pacing. If they do include them, however, then the progression is pretty much guaranteed to slow down to a near grinding halt.

 

 

Some people made the case for loot boxes, saying that they're well implemented in some games. The problem is, I don't think there's any game where they actually add to the experience. I'm pretty sure no one will miss them terribly if they're gone. Not to mention, the gaming industry has a tendency to take your entire arm when you try to give them a hand. That's how we ended up with this infestation of excessive DLC, Season Passes and microtransactions.

 

I, for one, am not willing to stand by and defend practices whose sole purpose is to squeeze as much money out of you as possible.

Wow yeah so I actually have a life

 

oh and: “If it does go beyond just regulating loot boxes, we'll deal with that when and if we get there. Any other thing politicians might want to regulate we can easily fight against.”

 

LOL

[ddracarys]

On 11/22/2017 at 8:12 PM, BlueBerry_1337 said:

Lmao, at least some countries got brains. Tbh I hope it gets banned... I don't mind loot boxes but not when you gotta pay real money for it

 

That won't really change much though. Take Overwatch for example, you can earn loot boxes slowly by leveling up or playing in the Arcade. or you can just buy them from the PlayStation Store. In this case they're treating both player bases. Microtransactions need to be removed all together. In Blizzard's case, if they stopped selling loot boxes to us they could focus more on creating fun events for players to earn bonus boxes. Like the Heroes of the Storm x Overwatch event that happened earlier this year. Even though I dislike PC gaming and Heroes of the Storm in general, at the end of that event I realised how much fun I actually had. I participated in playing a game I disliked for about an hour every week to unlock rewards in a game I like very much. Except at the event's conclusion I found myself liking another game, and that was Heroes of the Storm.

 

Blizzard, and all other developers in the gaming industry that are currently supporting microtransactions, need to know there are other ways to get more people hooked into their games. 

[theSpirae]

 

On 11/23/2017 at 0:50 AM, cam_wick said:

Just gonna start at the bottom here. That is the lamest phrase I’ve ever heard. Ever.

 

Nobody is stealing your money, nobody is forcing you to pay them anymore than you're willing to and nobody, not even EAvil EA, is responsible, if you purchase something without researching what you are getting. If you don’t want to pay so much, then just wait till it’s on sale. Over the past year I’ve seen the SWBF ultimate edition (incl. season pass) for $10 on the ps store, multiple times. That’s 91% off the original price.

 

You keep calling EA money grubbers and compare them to car salesmen jacking up prices. Let me ask you this: have you ever seen a brand new car model go down 91% a little over a year after release?

 

I honestly think gamers are the whiniest, most spoilt bunch of overprivileged juveniles on the face of the planet.

 

“The game is way too expensive!” 

“EA is ripping me off!!”

”Micro-transactions are the evil that will consume the last flickering light humanity!!!”

 

Games are NOT expensive, not even EA’s retail price $110 SWBF incl. season pass. Because news flash: games are the cheapest digital media you could possibly buy.

 

If that’s shady then I suppose going to the movies is shady, too. Because guess what: it’s like $10+ to go see a movie plus for the “full experience” you have to pay another $10 for popcorn and soda. And I guess listening to the regular version of an album is a rip off, too. Because the deluxe version costs $5 more.

 

Besides the fact that games are less expensive now that’s they were 20 years ago, even with season passes. Adjusted for inflation games like Super Mario Bros would cost about $115 today. It’s a side scroller, a hand full of levels, no multiplayer, no full hd/4K, no first and third person views in 3 dimensional space.

 

EA already drastically reduced the amount of credits necessary to purchase heroes and promised to adjust the progression system. And leveling up is fast as all hell, I would know. Because now, even without MTX, I already have all heroes and am level 20 after a week. So wooooow, yeah it’s all evil and shady. And the game is terrible. And I hate EA for forcing me to pre-order it at full price. And I totally feel coerced into buying lootcrates. And the government needs to come save me from this horrible fate. Not

What's the point buying a few years old MP games for $10 if the servers are almost empty?

Yes, games were expensive back in the 90s, but companies weren't profiting as much as they are now. Just check how much the EA makes annually from microtransactions; it's ridiculous and doesn't justify their prices.

There's a big difference between cosmetic/visual paid content and stuff EA tried to pull out with BF2, if you don't see the difference, you're the part of the problem.

Edited November 24, 2017 by theSpirae

[AJ_Radio]

On 11/23/2017 at 9:11 AM, Phil said:

EA doesn't need lootboxes or microtransactions. They've admitted it themselves. The $60 they get up front almost always makes them a huge profit. The extra stuff is just that. So no, if there weren't any MTs or lootboxes, EA would not need to raise the launch price. 

 

Btw, if you buy the game at all, whether it be at launch or two years later for $20, you're still supporting them. You're still telling them that the way they do business at all is ok. If you are really against this practice, stop supporting these companies at all.

 

My stance against EA mostly comes from their long history of butchering companies like Maxis and then shutting them down completely.

 

Back in the early 2000s I bought The Sims and Simcity 4, both of which were developed by Maxis but published by EA. Every game I recall that had the EA label on it would force players into their DRM crap. You get a code that was unique to your copy of the game, if you didn't have the code or somebody else already used it then you couldn't install the game. It was EA's way of trying to fight pirating and fight people who burned CDs then gave them to a friend. That mostly backfired on them which forced them to change things.

 

Then of course there's all the sports games EA has made where they shut down the servers prematurely, or force you to buy online passes that were expensive. People still bought them anyway because they wanted to play online and those passes were the only way to do so.

 

There was that infamous case back in 2004 where a worker at EA was working a lot of overtime with no extra pay. His wife made the story public and that caused a whole lot of criticism towards EA.

 

That along with being voted Worst Company of America at least twice.

 

If you're buying Star Wars Battlefront II at full price, you're still helping EA. I don't know if anyone is helping them if they buy older games developed/published by EA though. I bought Dead Space last Thanksgiving for very cheap for a used copy.

[ChickenExotic]

Games with Lootboxes for money should automatically be rated M or AO, in some areas people cant gamble until they are 21. I really hope this is the beginning of the end of lootboxes.

[SnowxSakura]

31 minutes ago, HARD_ANGEL_FAN said:

Games with Lootboxes for money should automatically be rated M or AO, in some areas people cant gamble until they are 21. I really hope this is the beginning of the end of lootboxes.

I don't know about other countries, but if they are labeled as gambling, the ESRB is required to give them an automatic AO rating,  and all titles with them have to be recalled(Just like San andreas) and re-released with the reflected rating

[ChickenExotic]

29 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

I don't know about other countries, but if they are labeled as gambling, the ESRB is required to give them an automatic AO rating,  and all titles with them have to be recalled(Just like San andreas) and re-released with the reflected rating

 

hahaha I remember when San Andreas was recalled... those were some times we had. 

[that_dude_cam_ps]

UK just decided it’s not gambling. And so did ESRB so far FYI 

Edited November 26, 2017 by cam_wick
typo

[You]

OUCH!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html

 

$3 billion sounds like a lot of money lost. It's surreal to see Jim Sterling because quoted (not the first time this week) on main stream news.

[Bullstomp]

2 hours ago, enaysoft said:

OUCH!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html

 

$3 billion sounds like a lot of money lost. It's surreal to see Jim Sterling because quoted (not the first time this week) on main stream news.

This part of the article was eye opening -

 

EA chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen told investors in February its "Ultimate Team" sports micro-transactions business generated $800 million in high-profit margin sales for the company during the previous year. He added EA intended to extend a "similar mechanic" to its other franchises such as "Battlefield" and "Battlefront."

 

And people are crying for EA, asking how will they survive. One has to wonder. . .

[You]

Angry Joe was also mentioned. Which reminds me back to the prerelease of the XBone and it's always online camera required machine.

 

 

It's nice that gamers can try and change bad things if there is enough backlash.

But yeah I have no love for EA, even less so because two months ago, I watched this

 

 

I sometimes wonder if certain genres would still be made today if EA hadn't bought up various talented companies and then prevented them from making hit games.