FTC to investigate lootboxes

[NightRusticDawn]

To bring it back a little to the OP.

 

I think it's good that they are doing investigations about gaming related content, companies shouldn't be allowed to sell whatever they want without someone

keeping some form of "quality" check on them, I don't really trust Sony or Micro would without being bias so it's good people actual get to it after long overdue!

[Wavergray]

I find lootboxes to be fine as long as you can obtain them with in-game means that are fair from at Gameplay = Time factor. I always use Mass Effect 3 MP as the example of a good lootbox system. In that game the 4 difficulties of the MP gave you enough In-game points to "buy" a lootbox of the equal level to the difficulty you played if you won the match. (Bronze = Recruit Pack, Silver = Veteran Pack, Gold = Spectre Pack, Platinum = Premium Spectre Pack.)

Sure you could buy the packs with real money if you wanted to save time, but there was really no need to do so. 

 

However, at the end of the day this is still a hot button issue for some, and like always people with let fear convince them that government intervention is needed in things that really are not as bad as people think they are. If you personally don't like lootboxes then just don't buy them or games with them. There are thousand's of games that don't have lootboxes in them so play those games. Video Games are luxury items like most hobby items and If a person can't control themselves with a luxury item that's their problem and no one else.

Edited November 29, 2018 by soultaker655

[Brawler]

Government involvement doesn't make me feel better when it comes to games, I imagine there are better things they could be doing .

 

I'm of the mind that retail games with genuinely egregious lootbox systems will inevitably fail much like Battlefront did and the ones that aren't too bad might as well be left alone.

[starcrunch061]

5 minutes ago, Brawler said:

Government involvement doesn't make me feel better when it comes to games, I imagine there are better things they could be doing .

 

Probably. In the US, there's always the War on Christmas to worry about. Also kneeling during the national anthem. Going back, we can't forget slave reparations, and of course there's always the latest advances in identity politics, or...

...

...now that I think about it, games might actually top the list of things our government should worry about. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by starcrunch061

[majob]

2 hours 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. 

What bothers me most when people bring up children in this issue is that the parenting aspect is completely ignored. The problem isn't children gambling, it's parents and their faulty parenting. I'd rather a parent actually do what they're supposed to do as a responsible adult instead of trying to pass their duties off to the government. 

[Nieird]

3 hours 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. 

Tencent stock also took a hit because game publisher will have to implement a way to limit teen to 2 hours of gameplay / per day( 1 hour for children under 13) Also because they had to take out game from the market 1 week after release. (monster Hunter being to violent). The article you are refering is just incomplete.

 

2 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

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. 

Adult represent 75% of the population so it just logical that most gamers are adults. Also  a huge chunk of the 25% of all children live in africa.(Unicef) Which can't afford the lux of gaming.

 

The government is suppose to prevent the access of gambling to all kid and this have nothing to do with parenting. When you are a teen you can't buy alcohol even if your parent are really bad at raising children.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Nieird

[starcrunch061]

41 minutes ago, Nieird said:

Tencent stock also took a hit because game publisher will have to implement a way to limit teen to 2 hours of gameplay / per day( 1 hour for children under 13) Also because they had to take out game from the market 1 week after release. (monster Hunter being to violent). The article you are refering is just incomplete.

 

Well, it just mentions the official response. The problem is, China is very careful about giving "official" responses (look how long it took for them to admit to the Uighur prison). 

 

It's clear that China worries about the effects of video games on its young male population (terms like the "moral fiber" and "physical well-being" have been thrown around in unofficial circles). It's equally clear that China is clamping down on video games. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Nuh uh - look what gamasutra says!" doesn't change this. 

 

A more salient point might have been to question whether a comparison between the government response in China and the response in America wasn't just apples and oranges. But I'd hate to make the argument for someone else.

Edited November 29, 2018 by starcrunch061

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

Tencent stock also took a hit because game publisher will have to implement a way to limit teen to 2 hours of gameplay / per day( 1 hour for children under 13) Also because they had to take out game from the market 1 week after release. (monster Hunter being to violent). The article you are refering is just incomplete.

 

Well that would be a different subject for the article. These articles aren't deep dives or full case studies.  The article is about the reason behind all recent license freezes not game hours per person or clamping down on gacha mechanics.

 

I'm not the one twisting and manipulating information because I'm unable to argue my own opinion. 

 

Quote

 

 unofficial circles

 

 

 

• Quote

  Location: Ames, Iowa

Yeah. Huh.

Edited November 29, 2018 by TJ_Solo

[JonAutomates]

3 hours ago, NightRusticDawn said:

To bring it back a little to the OP.

 

I think it's good that they are doing investigations about gaming related content, companies shouldn't be allowed to sell whatever they want without someone

keeping some form of "quality" check on them, I don't really trust Sony or Micro would without being bias so it's good people actual get to it after long overdue!

 

Have to agree. We're talking about making sure they aren't doing deceptive practices, not necessarily that they shouldn't have them. If a business wants to make more and give the option fine. But don't cheat people. There have been some pretty trashy practices over the last couple years. 

 

2 hours ago, majob said:

What bothers me most when people bring up children in this issue is that the parenting aspect is completely ignored. The problem isn't children gambling, it's parents and their faulty parenting. I'd rather a parent actually do what they're supposed to do as a responsible adult instead of trying to pass their duties off to the government. 

 

Pretty much!

[Conor]

Corporate bootlickers defending the shitty fuckery that publishers have been pulling make me laugh.

 

[Nieird]

Edit: The op wasn't about China gaming market

Edited November 29, 2018 by Nieird

[Helmet_time]

The FTC does not regulate gambling or gaming in the U.S. (which is, in any case, a purely state issue).  Not that lootboxes would fall within the definition of gaming (gambling) under most state statutes I've read, but that a dead horse I really don't want to beat. 

 

In this case it is functioning as (ostensibly) consumer advocate and congressional advisory body.  All they can really do is issue an opinion on whether or not something improper is going on.

 

Of course, I assume all the companies involved have already spoken to all the regulatory bodies, and have multiple opinions from legal experts that they aren't anything wrong. 

[dmland12]

I very much doubt the US will consider something like this to be gambling unless there's either a chance to win real money or if there's a chance to receive nothing.  As long as you get some known quantity of random stuff of various value every time you spend money, it looks very similar to stuff that's been sold and marketed to kids here for decades (packs of baseball cards, pokemon cards, etc.).

 

I could be wrong of course, and I guess we'll find out eventually.

[starcrunch061]

12 hours ago, dmland12 said:

I very much doubt the US will consider something like this to be gambling unless there's either a chance to win real money or if there's a chance to receive nothing.  As long as you get some known quantity of random stuff of various value every time you spend money, it looks very similar to stuff that's been sold and marketed to kids here for decades (packs of baseball cards, pokemon cards, etc.).

 

I could be wrong of course, and I guess we'll find out eventually.

 

The baseball card model is another good analogy here, and I think this would be another great fix for loot boxes. With baseball cards, your purchase price is for, say, 15 cards at a couple of bucks. However, it's also possible that you could pull an additional card of significantly smaller supply. However, that is above and beyond what you actually pay for in the box.

 

I think loot boxes should also go to this model. Make it so that every loot box buys a particular (and common) item. However, have some loot boxes contain an additional (much rarer) item. In this way, you could say that the cost spent was for the common item, and the rare item was above and beyond.

 

There are still some issues (particularly if, say, a loot box spits out a weapon that is completely useless for your character), but it moves in the right direction. I also think that allowing players to trade their items would alleviate some of this problem, but this might cause other issues regarding digital rights that companies don't want to fiddle with.

[Dr_Mayus]

17 hours ago, dmland12 said:

I very much doubt the US will consider something like this to be gambling unless there's either a chance to win real money or if there's a chance to receive nothing.  As long as you get some known quantity of random stuff of various value every time you spend money, it looks very similar to stuff that's been sold and marketed to kids here for decades (packs of baseball cards, pokemon cards, etc.).

 

I could be wrong of course, and I guess we'll find out eventually.

 

I agree with this. People keep saying it is gambling and it sort of is but at the same time it really isn't.

 

Stores have been selling Surprise Packs or Blind Bags for forever. There have been tons of youtube videos where people get hyped because they don't know what they are going to get...which is no different than LPs today hyping up Loot Boxes.

 

https://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/family/blind-pack-surprise-toys-1.15428582

 

I remember when I was a kid the thing was these sticker packs you buy trying to complete the book you had to buy (each page had like 10 stickers on it that would make a story or whatever and you bought the sticker packs to complete the page). As an adult I realize how stupid those things were but you didn't as a kid.

 

So the only real difference between a Loot Box and a Kinder Surprise egg is the Kinder Egg at least gives you a physical item BUT in today's age everyone wants things to be digital anyways so really, once again, it is no different.

 

Are Loot Boxes sleazy as fuck...of course they are...are they gambling and illegal? No.

 

It would be different if you bought a Loot Box and either something or nothing came out, but as long as you get some sort of item out of those boxes then it is no different than any other physical item that offers the same thing. 

 

 

 

 

[Helmet_time]

The problem is people try to apply vernacular definitions to legal issues.  Yeah, buying tons of lootboxes to try to get a specific item is sort of gambling in the everyday meaning of the word.  However, of you crack open the law books, it isn't anywhere close to the statutory definition of gaming (in the U.S. at least).  So, you end up with an argument that is beside the point.  Regulators and lawyers don't care what Webster's says.   

 

But, that's why grab bags, blind bags, raffles, surprise packs, and trading cards are legal.  The law doesn't consider those games of chance. 

 

I'm against pay-to-win on principle.  And if I'm going to buy something, I'd like to know what exactly I'm buying.

 

That said trying to tie lootboxes to children gambling is only going to trigger moral hysteria and convince more people that something has to be done about those 'horrible, evil, devil video games.'  And that's the last thing we need right now.

[Nieird]

1 hour ago, Helmet_time said:

The problem is people try to apply vernacular definitions to legal issues.  Yeah, buying tons of lootboxes to try to get a specific item is sort of gambling in the everyday meaning of the word.  However, of you crack open the law books, it isn't anywhere close to the statutory definition of gaming (in the U.S. at least).  So, you end up with an argument that is beside the point.  Regulators and lawyers don't care what Webster's says.   

 

Thats good...

 

1 hour ago, Helmet_time said:

That said trying to tie lootboxes to children gambling is only going to trigger moral hysteria and convince more people that something has to be done about those 'horrible, evil, devil video games.'  And that's the last thing we need right now.

 

In France they are already looking into it. The president of the gaming regulation (Arjel) said this :Le phénomène des “loot boxes” qui tendent à se généraliser dans les jeux vidéo me préoccupe (…). Il présente des risques pour nos concitoyens et notamment les plus jeunes. Ces risques sont très proches de ceux qui caractérisent l’addiction aux jeux d’argent. Which mean it present risk for people and notably the younger one. Those risk are close to the one that caracterise gambling addiction

https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/11/23/loot-boxes-les-autorites-se-penchent-sur-les-pochettes-surprises-du-jeu-video_5219359_4408996.html

 

Also in the state of Victoria, Australia,  the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) has revealed that, yes, loot boxes constitute a form of gambling. Jarrod Wolfe, a strategic analyst in the Victorian regulators compliance division said this "They're also particularly concerned with the proliferation of gambling-based mechanics being targeted at minors, which Wolfe said was "not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable"

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/victorias-gambling-regulator-loot-boxes-constitute-gambling/

 

But like you said we will have to see how the US define lootbox.

 

Edit:Just found this on reddit: The State of Hawaii announces action to address predatory practices at Electronic Arts and other companies

 

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Nieird

[Helmet_time]

The U.S. doesn't really have gambling laws, each state does.  What is gambling in New York might not be in Alabama.  So, there won't be a "U.S. definition" and there is no agency empowered to make that decision.  Even if there was, each county can choose whether or not to outlaw gambling.  This is why you can have casinos on Indian Tribal land, or in Las Vegas.