FTC to investigate lootboxes

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

In all honesty... it's your argument that makes no sense. If you sell a specific card, then that constitutes a regular business transaction, not gambling. It couldn't possibly be considered gambling since you know the outcome of the transaction.

 

 

Do all of you internet people purposefully act dense? 

I did not say that selling a card is a gamble. Don't twist what I say or act like a deceptive politician. Be better.

 

 

For the rest you are still being a hypocrite by making nonsensical allowances that attempt to hold digital to some vague higher standard. No court or legal institution on this planet will be able to uphold any flimsy law the follows your line of "reasoning" just for digital purchases.

Edited November 28, 2018 by TJ_Solo

[FawltyPowers]

1 hour ago, TJ_Solo said:

Gambling might be addictive. So? Addictions are personal problems individuals need to address by seeking help. A store isn't going to deny the sale of alcohol to a alcoholic Nor will a store stop selling cigarettes to a person with lung cancer. If someone wants to stop indulging their addictions then it's on them to seek help not the companies providing the supply.

 

I'm glad people like you are in the minority. You do realise that when people buy games they are buying them to play the game not to gamble with loot boxes.

 

If I buy FIFA (ages 3 and up) I would want to buy it to play football. I don't see a disclaimer on the back of this game saying "If you have a gambling addiction then this game is not for you".

 

If I was in a shop and I had a gambling problem and I wanted to buy this game, how would I know about the gambling contained within it? Somehow it's my fault that I didn't go online and look into this? How dare you put the onus on the individual.

 

Self regulating clearly hasn't worked, it's only gotten worse but regardless of your thoughts, this practice isn't going to last much longer.

[starcrunch061]

Yeah, blah blah blah.

 

Loot boxes are currently legal in some countries, and illegal in others. They may become illegal in this country as well (that is, the United States, which was the point of this thread, just in case some semantic jerk tries to call me out on it). The winds are certainly shifting away from full access, regardless of the libertarian tendencies of our board patriots and the like. 

 

EA and others should get ahead of this now. And if their entire business model revolves around the revenue from loot boxes, they better think of new ways to draw revenue from fans.

 

Also, the TCG analogy was much better about a decade ago. Back then, though certain cards were designated as "rare", "uncommon" or "common", the probabilities of receiving each in your pack of MTG was fixed. The fact that some rares became more valuable than others over time is irrelevant to a gambling aspect (otherwise, we could say that comic collecting was a form of gambling, since some issues will become more valuable than others).

 

The additions of foil, and the ultra-rare planewalkers (or whatever the hell they were called) muddied the waters again. I'm surprised no one kicked about it.

Edited November 28, 2018 by starcrunch061

[Zenpai]

2 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

Do all of you internet people purposefully act dense? 

I did not say that selling a card is a gamble. Don't twist what I say or act like a deceptive politician. Be better.

 

Hmmm...

 

Quote

TGCs are worse since money can be made depending on what cards are received. That "ticks" the gambling and reward psychology too.

 

 

(And if by any chance I misread that... then you need to make your points in a clearer manner. The sentence isn't exactly the most obvious it could be).

 

 

2 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

For the rest you are still being a hypocrite by making nonsensical allowances that attempt to hold digital to some vague higher standard. No court or legal institution on this planet will be able to uphold any flimsy law the follows your line of "reasoning" just for digital purchases.

 

If companies want us to consider digital to be equivalent to physical, then we will hold them to that notion. And digital or not, the money spent is still very real.

 

And if you think I'm being a hypocrite, then tell me exactly where. I see no place in all of my posts where I've been inconsistent. Shooting first and asking questions later isn't exactly the best way to prove you can win an argument by logical reasoning alone. Prove to me where I was wrong or being a hypocrite and then we'll talk.

 

 

And I still have no idea why you want to defend these business practices so much. What benefit do they provide you? What would you lose if they were suddenly gone?

 

I want them gone because I want all games to sell well on the basis of their merits - you know, like they all used to about 10 years ago - not on the basis of exploiting their customers by withholding content away in digital slot machines.

Edited November 28, 2018 by jrdemr

[TJ_Solo]

You're contradicting yourself but not holding physical things like TGCs to the same standards you're holding digital loot crates to.

 

Quote

(And if by any chance I misread that... then you need to make your points in a clearer manner. The sentence isn't exactly the most obvious it could be).

 

 

I see the problem. One would need to have a sufficient attention span to understand that comment was reference to what you said earlier.  Sorry for overestimating your capacities. 

 

Maybe if you made logically consistent statements you'd have an easier time keeping track of the points you've made.

2 hours ago, FawltyPowers said:

 

I'm glad people like you are in the minority. You do realise that when people buy games they are buying them to play the game not to gamble with loot boxes.

 

If I buy FIFA (ages 3 and up) I would want to buy it to play football. I don't see a disclaimer on the back of this game saying "If you have a gambling addiction then this game is not for you".

 

If I was in a shop and I had a gambling problem and I wanted to buy this game, how would I know about the gambling contained within it? Somehow it's my fault that I didn't go online and look into this? How dare you put the onus on the individual.

 

Self regulating clearly hasn't worked, it's only gotten worse but regardless of your thoughts, this practice isn't going to last much longer.

 

Please explain to me how a person is not able to play a game simply because some form of loot box system is present?

I'm in the minority because common sense isn't common.

 

Self regulating hasn't worked? I'm playing games fine and having an excelllent time. I've spent $0 on anything that can be considered a loot box.

Edited November 28, 2018 by TJ_Solo

[Upendo_Vitani]

17 hours ago, Senor_T_Dub said:

It’s not the same thing. Trading cards and such provide a tangible product that can be resold and are typically purchased for a specific hobby/reason, they are not pushed or marketed in a way that resembles gambling to minors.

And if you want a specific card, just buy it off someone else, or online. It's really not the same thing.

[Nieird]

For a specific card yes but opening a pack of card is pretty much the same thing. The outcome is uncertain.

 

The difference is what you can do with the card after (Usually Sell or Trade) while you can do nothing with a digital good you dont want.

[Upendo_Vitani]

All I'm going to add to this convo is why not stop arguing with each other about what constitutes gambling? These investigations are going to happen regardless of your opinions. Why not wait until after to have a more meaningful argument over how wrong or stupid their decision on the outcome is?

[starcrunch061]

2 minutes ago, Nieird said:

For a specific card yes but opening a pack of card is pretty much the same thing. The outcome is uncertain.

 

The difference is what you can do with the card after (Usually Sell or Trade) while you can do nothing with a digital good you dont want.

 

The old TCG model really fixes a lot of things for loot boxes. I don't know why they don't go to it.

1. Have each loot box contain a particular bit of common and rare items (with more common than rare, obviously)
2. Allow people to trade rare items among themselves.

1 minute ago, coldsphinx93 said:

Why not wait until after to have a more meaningful argument over how wrong or stupid their decision on the outcome is?

 

Sarcasm detector is...off the charts!!!

[MooseSketts]

I think most people tend to forget is that children/young teens are impressionable and some games with loot boxes are targeted towards a young audience.  While I do think it is up to the parents/family and school to teach moderation, responsibility, and dangers of addictive behavior, certain measures should to be taken by the government to help regulate a problem when the problem is too great and far-spread.  This is not the first time or the last this will happen.  And who knows?  Perhaps nothing will come of it.

 

 

17 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

The government is wasting my tax dollars and their time because you gamers raised silly and poorly thought out non-issues.

A Senator raised the "silly and poorly thought out non-issues" at a hearing in front of the FTC, according to the article provided in the first post.

 

5 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

Gambling might be addictive. So? Addictions are personal problems individuals need to address by seeking help. A store isn't going to deny the sale of alcohol to a alcoholic Nor will a store stop selling cigarettes to a person with lung cancer. If someone wants to stop indulging their addictions then it's on them to seek help not the companies providing the supply. 

Addictions are a personal problem with individuals.  Unfortunately people with addictions need help and support to stop despite the addict's decision to make poor choices.  Most of the time their addictions also harm their family and/or friends.

[TJ_Solo]

Addictions are a personal problem with individuals.  Unfortunately people with addictions need help and support to stop despite the addict's decision to make poor choices.  Most of the time their addictions also harm their family and/or friends

 

 

None of that blah blah blah changes the fact that retailers aren't the ones responsible for idenfitying addictions or preventing sales. 

 

 

No group built for addicts force addicts to attend. Either the treatment is voluntary or court ordered. 

 

You really don't understand how personal responsibility works. 

56 minutes ago, coldsphinx93 said:

All I'm going to add to this convo is why not stop arguing with each other about what constitutes gambling? These investigations are going to happen regardless of your opinions. Why not wait until after to have a more meaningful argument over how wrong or stupid their decision on the outcome is?

 

Wait for what? This same stuff happened last year. Some governments puffed up but eventually recognized this isn't the sort of gambling they monitor. The biggest development was getting companies to put the odds of items on their chance purchases. 

 

 

The FTC at most will add another disclaimer sticker or age limit. A bandaid for some pretending that children are in harm's way. 

[RevengeancePrime]

I believe the best course of action involving loot boxes is not government intervention, but rather consumers voting with their wallets. These big publishers are concerned with monetary gain and if they see their decisions reflect lower sales, they will have no choice but to reevaluate their business practices.

 

The only issue is that there are individuals with severe gambling addictions that spend excessive amounts of money on these lootboxes. If government regulation is absolutely necessary then it should be done similarly to the regulation we see on cigarettes, in the form of warning labels among other things.

[Upendo_Vitani]

47 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

Addictions are a personal problem with individuals.  Unfortunately people with addictions need help and support to stop despite the addict's decision to make poor choices.  Most of the time their addictions also harm their family and/or friends

 

 

None of that blah blah blah changes the fact that retailers aren't the ones responsible for idenfitying addictions or preventing sales. 

 

 

No group built for addicts force addicts to attend. Either the treatment is voluntary or court ordered. 

 

You really don't understand how personal responsibility works. 

 

Wait for what? This same stuff happened last year. Some governments puffed up but eventually recognized this isn't the sort of gambling they monitor. The biggest development was getting companies to put the odds of items on their chance purchases. 

 

 

The FTC at most will add another disclaimer sticker or age limit. A bandaid for some pretending that children are in harm's way. 

It was sarcasm dude...

[majob]

I can honestly say I've never seen such a mountain out of a molehill on an issue like loot boxes and micotransactions. 

 

Don't buy them if you don't want them

 

Easy. Simple.

 

No government or additional tax wastage necessary . Parents should actually parent if they're afraid of their children gambling money away so I'm sick of the "think of the children" I see parroted so often. I have to wonder what parents are actually doing these days.

[scemopagliaccioh]

Lol I don't know, I don't like where this is going.

I mean lootboxes are  gambling no? Just that instead of real money you always get a virtual content, majority of time trash, not an expert, the only time I faced this was with Injustice's mother boxes and I didn't spend a single euro. But they are just like  card games, both when you open a pack or play. Hell, technically I'm gambling every month on having something decent on my psplus, how do we define the difference? Wouldn't it  be easier if people would stop acting on impulse? Though I suppose this could be a juicy opportunity to add a tax.

Damn this anti lootboxes meme has gone places, why the same didn't happen with the online fee?

 

Though on a serious note I can see a difference that MIGHT anger people.

Due to whales lootboxes are lucratives and so they get added more and more reducing "content"  for "normal" people but having said that, I'm not sure what the government is supposed to do,  another  amusement tax like in Chicago? They could do some 18+limitations for childrens  but that's not the main concern  and frankly, if at the age of 7 I could get my hands on final fantasies who are 16+ in my country I doubt  kids these days would have trouble. Especially now with digital sales, I mean:

"Dad I want the thingy gimme gimme gimme" ok son, but don't talk when the football game is on

Ps4: you need to be 18+ for this purchase

Kid: sure whatever 

Dad: Wtf  what happened on my my credit card

It's just not... feasible, outright banning videogame gambling would do something, until videogame corporation would come up with a new name for the same profits.

Edited November 28, 2018 by scemopagliaccioh

[AJ_Radio]

9 hours ago, Veris-Luna said:

My thoughts are that if companies want to make them, then there need safe points to pass through for players, or create a whole new catagory strictly designed to Loot Boxes.  Some people do like them.  I am against children playing any game that requires money to obtain a loot boxes to keep up with everybody else though.  I didnt have to do that when I was a kid, why should my kids have too.  

 

That was because back when you were a kid loot boxes didn't exist.

 

When I was a kid playing Goldeneye 007, Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the N64 all I had to worry about was the games themselves. Pop in the Playstation 1 disc or N64 cartridge and determine if the games were good or bad.

 

I just hope to God that some of you people on here don't have children. Because I sure as hell wouldn't want you guys to be my parents.

[starcrunch061]

13 hours ago, Spaz said:

I just hope to God that some of you people on here don't have children. Because I sure as hell wouldn't want you guys to be my parents.

 

Amen to that, brother.

 

Unless, of course, you are referring to me, in which case, GOOD DAY, SIR!! ?

[xZoneHunter]

It's perfectly possible for them to change though.

 

We had a similar investigation on it, some time ago that caused for some changes in a couple of games. For example, i can't buy overwatch lootboxes with real money atm. The irony in it though is that i can still buy hearthstone packs (which are basically 'as bad' as overwatch lootboxes (Hearthstone is a CCG, meaning no trading or selling your cards)).

 

Some mobile games were pulled too recently, simply because their publisher (square enix) didn't want to change their policy to our regulation.

 

Honestly, the concept of lootboxes can work, however because of monetization the concept is just too easy to abuse. Recent history has shown both sides. All we can do when the concept does get abused is to rant on reddit about it lol. Personally, i'd still rather buy the skin than gamble for it.

Edited November 29, 2018 by xZoneHunter

[starcrunch061]

7 minutes ago, xZoneHunter said:

We had a similar investigation on it, some time ago that caused for some changes in a couple of games. For example, i can't buy overwatch lootboxes with real money atm. The irony in it though is that i can still buy hearthstone packs (which are basically 'as bad' as overwatch lootboxes (Hearthstone is a CCG, meaning no trading or selling your cards)).

 

Investigations of similar problems have really put the kibosh on game companies in China (Tencent has really felt the hit on their stock since Chinese regulators started looking into it). Japan has long looked askance at such types of gambling. And of course, your home (Belgium) was one of the first to start clamping down on these things.

 

The investigations aren't going away. It doesn't surprise me that Squeenix stayed firm - Japanese companies would rather fall on the sword than admit that they're wrong. But I have a strong feeling that the western companies as well as Tencent will start to toe the line soon. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by starcrunch061

[TJ_Solo]

35 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Investigations of similar problems have really put the kibosh on game companies in China (Tencent has really felt the hit on their stock since Chinese regulators started looking into it). Japan has long looked askance at such types of gambling. And of course, your home (Belgium) was one of the first to start clamping down on these things.

 

The investigations aren't going away. It doesn't surprise me that Squeenix stayed firm - Japanese companies would rather fall on the sword than admit that they're wrong. But I have a strong feeling that the western companies as well as Tencent will start to toe the line soon. 

 

That's misinformation. China's approval office for media has undergone position changes. During that time they were not approving any new content from publishers. That is when and why Tencent's stock took a hit. 

 

 

Please stop lying. Thanks. 

[MooseSketts]

My final thoughts:
 

17 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

None of that blah blah blah changes the fact that retailers aren't the ones responsible for idenfitying addictions or preventing sales. 

 

No group built for addicts force addicts to attend. Either the treatment is voluntary or court ordered. 

 

You really don't understand how personal responsibility works. 

 

The FTC at most will add another disclaimer sticker or age limit. A bandaid for some pretending that children are in harm's way. 

 

You're right about the retailers because depending on what the addiction is it could be the FDA or other organizations/agencies who step in and take responsibility to protect people.  In this case it is the FTC.  

 

There are laws that can force a minor into rehab called involuntary commitment; however, within the United States the laws vary state-to-state.

 

Yes, it is the addict's choice and their personal responsibility, as you put it.  No one can force an addict who is over 18 to go to rehab.  The issue here relates to children - minors - becoming addicted to gambling.  As I mentioned it takes more than just themselves, especially children/teens, to get through their issues.  When problems (addictions), such as gambling, are so wide-spread I do think that certain regulations need to be put in place to help better educate and protect people.  I'm not sure why you are being aggressive to everyone here who came to discuss this issue, but it isn't necessary.  Everyone will have differing opinions and facts are above feelings. 

[starcrunch061]

21 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

That's misinformation. China's approval office for media has undergone position changes. During that time they were not approving any new content from publishers. That is when and why Tencent's stock took a hit. 

 

 

Please stop lying. Thanks. 

 

Take it up with them:

 

https://www.economist.com/business/2018/09/06/tencents-kingdom-is-under-assault-from-chinas-regulators

 

Of course, "regulatory bottlenecks" (as Bloomberg refers to it) is nothing new for China. This often occurs when a company runs afoul of the party line. However you want to put it, though, Tencent will absolutely fall in line over the next few months. I guarantee it.

 

 

15 minutes ago, MooseSketts said:

I'm not sure why you are being aggressive to everyone here who came to discuss this issue, but it isn't necessary.  Everyone will have differing opinions and facts are above feelings. 

 

He took me to task for saying that a game was currently "cheap", and then made some shot about me not liking games that don't "hold my hand", despite the fact that I don't know him from Adam. Strange stuff...

Edited November 29, 2018 by starcrunch061

[TJ_Solo]

2 minutes ago, MooseSketts said:

My final thoughts:
 

 

You're right about the retailers because depending on what the addiction is it could be the FDA or other organizations/agencies who step in and take responsibility to protect people.  In this case it is the FTC.  

 

There are laws that can force a minor into rehab called involuntary commitment; however, within the United States the laws vary state-to-state.

 

Yes, it is the addict's choice and their personal responsibility, as you put it.  No one can force an addict who is over 18 to go to rehab.  The issue here relates to children - minors - becoming addicted to gambling.  As I mentioned it takes more than just themselves, especially children/teens, to get through their issues.  When problems (addictions), such as gambling, are so wide-spread I do think that certain regulations need to be put in place to help better educate and protect people.  I'm not sure why you are being aggressive to everyone here who came to discuss this issue, but it isn't necessary.  Everyone will have differing opinions and facts are above feelings. 

 

None of which cut people off from buying legal products. 

Seeking help and staying clean is 100% the responisbilty of the addict. 

 

Well that's still a court order as I already mentioned. The law can legally force people if a law enforcement agent steps into the picture. That doesn't occur when an addict buys legal products. 

 

The issue being minors is dumb and just a lazy way to get government attention.  Most gamers are adults. Most of the money spent comes from adults. Parental policies on these devices answer any issue with children your whining about.  Make better parents. You don't need the government raising children. 

7 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Take it up with them:

 

https://www.economist.com/business/2018/09/06/tencents-kingdom-is-under-assault-from-chinas-regulators

 

Of course, "regulatory bottlenecks" (as Bloomberg refers to it) is nothing new for China. This often occurs when a company runs afoul of the party line. However you want to put it, though, Tencent will absolutely fall in line over the next few months. I guarantee it.

 

 

 

He took me to task for saying that a game was currently "cheap", and then made some shot about me not liking games that "hold my hand", despite the fact that I don't know him from Adam. Strange stuff...

 

 

Since at least August, and as early as April according to some, the Chinese government has halted this process completely following the restructuring of the internal government office usually in charge of part of that process. However, those official channels have been fairly silent on the reason for the freeze or how long it is expected to last, spelling trouble for companies that rely on revenue from China’s massive mobile and online game market.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/329291/China_ends_green_channel_game_approvals_amid_ongoing_licensing_freeze.php

[starcrunch061]

10 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

Since at least August, and as early as April according to some, the Chinese government has halted this process completely following the restructuring of the internal government office usually in charge of part of that process. However, those official channels have been fairly silent on the reason for the freeze or how long it is expected to last, spelling trouble for companies that rely on revenue from China’s massive mobile and online game market.

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/329291/China_ends_green_channel_game_approvals_amid_ongoing_licensing_freeze.php

 

Like I said, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM:

 

https://www.economist.com/letters/2018/11/24/letters-to-the-editor

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

Like I said, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM:

 

 

I don't read them and you didn't link them in the comment I first replied to. 
I merely pointed out that what YOU said was misinformation. If the information you got came from them then you should complain that they made you look stupid.