• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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

HoodWinked

Member
ya not a fan of this kneejerk. the blowback that EA received from this is in itself the correction not politicians that barely even understand the subject manner to try to poorly legislate this sort of thing.

all thats going to happen is that they'll make vague laws and arbitrarily and selectively enforce them on some companies while avoiding others as a means collect fee/taxes revenue.

like Supercell will get a pass since its based in finland and they'll go after EA or Blizzard since they're based in the US.

same thing happens with the US going after airbus and VW or the EU going after Google and Facebook.

consumers will just pay more for games to pay for the new taxes/fees that are imposed and offset the overall drop in revenue.

the approach for this stuff should be more of what China/Japan is doing by just being transparent with odds/percentages.
 

Z..

Member
Congratulations internet mob, enjoy the vastly shittier alternatives your knee jerk parroting the opinions of uninformed youtube dickheads is going to now bring

Enjoy being a shortsighted reactionary with warped priorities.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Enjoy being a shortsighted reactionary with warped priorities.

Uhhh.... whats short sighted about not being morally opposed to lootboxes due to false equivalence with real world gambling, and whats reactionary about not having a problem with a new form of monetisation?

Do you understand the words you used, or are you just repeating what someone else used in an argument once?
 

Peroroncino

Member
Go Belgium, hopefully you'll be able to convince rest of the EU.

Uhhh.... whats short sighted about not being morally opposed to lootboxes due to false equivalence with real world gambling, and whats reactionary about not having a problem with a new form of monetisation?

Do you understand the words you used, or are you just repeating what someone else used in an argument once?

Whoa, are you an EA shareholder? Way too salty.

And while lootboxes maybe aren't the exact definition of gambling, they most certainly nurture gambling tendencies, it's predatory, disgusting and very dangerous for younger audience.
 

Dunki

Member
I love when people can not control themselves and instead of not buying lootboxes they whine that they have to play the game they bought for more hours. Seriously. They are not mandatory in any game.

Honestly I like it when you can buy them with ingame money. It is not as predictable and always a nice surprise if you get something cool for it

But I guess to ban them is much easier than control yourself.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Whoa, are you an EA shareholder? Way too salty.

No,but I like games that get continuous ongoing free updates that are paid for by cosmetics only lootcrates that I have literally no obligation to buy if I don't want to, even if its a super sweet limited time skin
 

Zog

Banned
No,but I like games that get continuous ongoing free updates that are paid for by cosmetics only lootcrates that I have literally no obligation to buy if I don't want to, even if its a super sweet limited time skin

Those who can't control themselves subsidize your updates but what happens when those microtransactions negatively affect game design and you can no longer easily ignore them?
 

LordRaptor

Member
Those who can't control themselves subsidize your updates but what happens when those microtransactions negatively affect game design and you can no longer easily ignore them?

What, like that doesn't happen in systems without loot crates?
If loot crates get banned, games that sell P2W lootcrates are just going to sell P2W DLC directly.... so... mission uncomplished?
 

Dunki

Member
Those who can't control themselves subsidize your updates but what happens when those microtransactions negatively affect game design and you can no longer easily ignore them?
Then you get a reaction like with EA. There is no need for the law to ban shit.
 

Zog

Banned
What, like that doesn't happen in systems without loot crates?
If loot crates get banned, games that sell P2W lootcrates are just going to sell P2W DLC directly.... so... mission uncomplished?

I didn't single out loot crates. I said microtransactions.
 

Omoiyari

Member
No,but I like games that get continuous ongoing free updates that are paid for by cosmetics only lootcrates that I have literally no obligation to buy if I don't want to, even if its a super sweet limited time skin

cosmetic only purchasable extra content has existed for a while now and nobody is saying that they should straight up go away and be illegal.
The problem is the major difference between standard transactions and loot boxes: the latter are purposefully addicting and exploitative in nature, that's the only reason why loot boxes are more profitable than direct purchase dlc, the act of opening loot boxes is addicting and makes you want to by more loot boxes and you end up spending more than you would have if the content was available to be purchased directly
 
What, like that doesn't happen in systems without loot crates?
If loot crates get banned, games that sell P2W lootcrates are just going to sell P2W DLC directly.... so... mission uncomplished?

Well then it is easy, dont by these games either. Dont buy shitty games with shitty systems in place that just wants more money money money.
 

LordRaptor

Member
I didn't single out loot crates. I said microtransactions.

Microtransactions aren't going anywhere, and if you have a distaste for them in general, you are going to continue having a distaste for most multiplayer titles from now on.

The problem is the major difference between standard transactions and loot boxes: the latter are purposefully addicting and exploitative in nature, that's the only reason why loot boxes are all the rage now instead of direct purchase dlc.

Games that are fun are purposefully addicting and exploitative in nature.
Like, I don't get how people overlook this when they get so het up about """""gambling""""" when risk vs reward is literally a fundamental tool of non-shit game design.

Well then it is easy, dont by these games either. Dont buy shitty games with shitty systems in place that just wants more money money money.

I don't, but I don't get MORALLY OUTRAGED that WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN about how people play games that I don't GOVERNMENT PLEASE HELP
 
Sad thing is I really liked Forza horizons 3 loot system, paying $10 double drops was genius in a game that gave u a loot box every 10-30mins.

Opposite side of making people buy keys can burn in hell, even tainted games like rocket league.
 
hawaii just proposed something too. for the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os

Watched the video. Looks good. They seem to understand some of the deep rooted issues with the loot box system.

And can I just say that I LOVE EA. I love them because they are so above and beyond everyone in terms of their greed, that while other publishers were more subtly introducing loot boxes into games, EA went all in to capitalise on Star Wars and using the IP to make boatloads of cash. Except, it all backfired in their face and because of their unbridled greed, mainstream media and even governments are now looking into this. Loot boxes can finally be pushed back against.

We should all thank EA for at least that. Other than that - F**K EA!
 

Zog

Banned
Microtransactions aren't going anywhere, and if you have a distaste for them in general, you are going to continue having a distaste for most multiplayer titles from now on.

I am not interested in multiplayer which is why it's been easy for me to ignore paying to play online, DLC, Season Passes and microtransactions. Still though, microtransactions will eventually affect games at the design level if they aren't already and that is the real threat IMO.
 
Microtransactions aren't going anywhere, and if you have a distaste for them in general, you are going to continue having a distaste for most multiplayer titles from now on.



Games that are fun are purposefully addicting and exploitative in nature.
Like, I don't get how people overlook this when they get so het up about """""gambling""""" when risk vs reward is literally a fundamental tool of non-shit game design.



I don't, but I don't get MORALLY OUTRAGED that WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN about how people play games that I don't GOVERNMENT PLEASE HELP

Uh.. what.. i have never even considered children when speaking out against this garbage in gaming.

If you like gambling there are tons of slot machines at an insane amount of online casinos. Why not make a open loot boxes game there??! Do that instead of putting this into full price games.
 

Omoiyari

Member
Microtransactions aren't going anywhere, and if you have a distaste for them in general, you are going to continue having a distaste for most multiplayer titles from now on.



Games that are fun are purposefully addicting and exploitative in nature.
Like, I don't get how people overlook this when they get so het up about """""gambling""""" when risk vs reward is literally a fundamental tool of non-shit game design.

But fun is a tangible and ultimately positive quality of games, yes it's addictive and nobody would buy a boring game BUT fun has substance and meaning beyond that of selling stuff, it can help build friendships, it can sharpen reflexes, it can make you think, fun has art in its DNA, loot boxes addictive qualities have no substance or meaning, they are designed for the sole purpose of exploiting the reward system in your brain, the only reason they exist is to milk more money from the customer.
 
But fun is a tangible and ultimately positive quality of games, yes it's addictive and nobody would buy a boring game BUT fun has substance and meaning, it can help build friendships, it can sharpen reflexes, it can make you think, fun has art in its DNA, loot boxes addictive qualities have no substance or meaning, they are designed for the sole purpose of exploiting the reward system in your brain, the only reason they exist is to milk more money from the customer.

Yeah it is a huge difference playing video games and betting money on sports and playing slot machines for example.

Loot crates is a slot machine pretty much with music and sounds included.
 

LordRaptor

Member
fun has art in its DNA, loot boxes addictive qualities have no substance or meaning, they are designed for the sole purpose of exploiting the reward system in your brain

This is incredibly naive and simplistic.
The literal exact same psychological techniques that makes clicking a potion in Diablo incredibly satisfying, or a WoW levelup ding, or beating a Dark Souls boss with a sliver of health and not losing a previous runs souls are used to make opening a lootcrate satisfying.
 
This is incredibly naive and simplistic.
The literal exact same psychological techniques that makes clicking a potion in Diablo incredibly satisfying, or a WoW levelup ding, or beating a Dark Souls boss with a sliver of health and not losing a previous runs souls are used to make opening a lootcrate satisfying.

Fucking no.
 
I would much rather pay-to-win elements from games goes away, rather than loot boxes.
Im generally pro-loot box, because I want devs to make money, so they can give us more content.
 

ubiblu

Member
Fantastic. Loot boxes are 100% gambling. This doesn't stop continued monetisation (or profitability) of games through cosmetic enhancements, but it does allow people to directly purchase the ones they want.

And don't even get me started on fucking duplicate items in loot boxes. 100% corporate greed right there.

It doesn't take a statistician to tell you that the odds of getting the specific item you are after will almost always cost more through gambling than through direct purchase. Even demand/supply-driven marketplaces are an improvement over what we have.

Im generally pro-loot box, because I want devs to make money, so they can give us more content.

Just imagine if you could purchase the things you actually wanted for a nominal amount. It's almost like you could support the developers you like for providing appealing cosmetic additions, rather than 'Here's $20, randomly allocate me stuff'.
 

Omoiyari

Member
This is incredibly naive and simplistic.
The literal exact same psychological techniques that makes clicking a potion in Diablo incredibly satisfying, or a WoW levelup ding, or beating a Dark Souls boss with a sliver of health and not losing a previous runs souls are used to make opening a lootcrate satisfying.

as I said games are addicting by nature, but addictive fun is woven into the fabric of the game to enrich the whole experience, addictive fun and art work together to create the most memorable and impactful experience possible. By your logic every piece of media should be considered akin to gambling because it has addictive properties to it(cliffhangers at the end of a chapter in books and tv shows for example), peeking people interest so they don't stop experiencing what you made is FUNDAMENTAL when you make art, making a videogame satisfying to play is not like gambling, feeling a rush of adrenaline when a mob is about to drop RNG loot is not like lootboxes because the standard loot system doesn't reward you for investing more real money into it, the fact that real money are involved in lootboxes is the whole problem, addictive stuff is everywhere in everything we consume, but when you are promised a better chance to a reward the more real money you spend, the system becomes sick and perverted.
 
Stupid decision. Lootboxes aren't gambling.

If this ever happens in the US, we will end up with a RMAH like vanilla Diablo 3.
 
In really surprised Canada hasn't done anything yet. Probably just add additional tax though lol

We're already getting fucked with our dollar being shit. New releases are $80 now ffs.

It has had an opposite effect on me though, now ive just gotten pickier and wait for sales. I now spend less because the sticker shock finally made me step back and think about what im spending. 50-60 was impulse territory. 84 after gst has killed all impulse buys for me and i spend less money on video games annualy because of it.

Id be really curious if its had this effect on a lot of canadians.

Also, ill sit at the bottom of the leaderboards getting spanked with my vanilla gun and vanilla attire before i ever pay for a fucking microtransaction, fuck that shit.
 
Just imagine if you could purchase the things you actually wanted for a nominal amount. It's almost like you could support the developers you like for providing appealing cosmetic additions, rather than 'Here's $20, randomly allocate me stuff'.

Yeah, but I worry devs will lose so much money overall, they wont make as much content.
On a lesser note, I do find the luck/surprise element that comes with loot boxes to be fun.
 
Valve gambling thing shows nothing would happen in USA

immorally/illegally turning a blind eye for 5 years, then act like they are the moral ones http://store.steampowered.com/news/22883/

If you read the complaint, the plantiffs don't even argue that the lootboxes are gambling. Rather, that the skins from lootboxes (which have actual monetary value) are used to make wagers on gambling sites that are affiliated with valve, therefore promoting gambling.
 

lefty1117

Gold Member
Interesting. This will have some impact on the games as a service trend I think. Likely to see base game costs increase by up to $20, and perhaps we'll see some titles return to yearly or more frequent full releases rather than one release and ongoing service additions.

It's strange how this has played out, because in reality all the loot boxes ensure is that people with the means will most likely pay more, while those without (or who choose not to pay) will simply devote more time. Either way these are opt-in behaviors, not forced or required. It feels to me like the folks who raised hell over this issue because they didn't want to see those willing to pay more gain a perceived advantage, are going to end up paying more for game releases as this revenue stream dries up. So in the end they may have screwed themselves over without realizing it. Kind of like Trump voters.
 

baphomet

Member
Generally you want the game industry to regulate itself, but with the complete non-issue they have with in game gambling, then they've only brought this shit on themselves.
 

synce

Member
Guys it's not gambling since you always get something back /s

Can you believe a certain company uses that reasoning? I imagine if that's the case we should have casinos everywhere, as long they make sure to give you 1 cent back for every transaction
 
Interesting. This will have some impact on the games as a service trend I think. Likely to see base game costs increase by up to $20, and perhaps we'll see some titles return to yearly or more frequent full releases rather than one release and ongoing service additions.

It's strange how this has played out, because in reality all the loot boxes ensure is that people with the means will most likely pay more, while those without (or who choose not to pay) will simply devote more time. Either way these are opt-in behaviors, not forced or required. It feels to me like the folks who raised hell over this issue because they didn't want to see those willing to pay more gain a perceived advantage, are going to end up paying more for game releases as this revenue stream dries up. So in the end they may have screwed themselves over without realizing it. Kind of like Trump voters.

Or you know you dont buy the games that are going to do this if this is going to happen. You dont have to play the game, it is not required.
 
Guys it's not gambling since you always get something back /s

Can you believe a certain company uses that reasoning? I imagine if that's the case we should have casinos everywhere, as long they make sure to give you 1 cent back for every transaction

Why do people against loot boxes always make this argument. If you spend $1.00 on a slot machine and "win" $0.01 back, you didn't win anything, you lost $0.99.

Like seriously, if casinos could get away with stuff like this, don't you think they would be doing it?
 

ubiblu

Member
Yeah, but I worry devs will lose so much money overall, they wont make as much content.

It's almost like they should make complete, worthwhile base experiences and supplement those with value-add expansions. Why do you think CDPR and Nintendo are so beloved?

On a lesser note, I do find the luck/surprise element that comes with loot boxes to be fun.

We all do. It's called risk/reward, and it's a basic human instinct. As a compulsive gambler myself, it's not something you can just switch off. Organisations like EA capitalise and exploit this, and when you consider how easily influenced children and young teens can be, you start to get into some really murky ethical territory.
 
If you read the complaint, the plantiffs don't even argue that the lootboxes are gambling. Rather, that the skins from lootboxes (which have actual monetary value) are used to make wagers on gambling sites that are affiliated with valve, therefore promoting gambling.

Yes but over a year later, then a dozens of CS GO branded gambling sites, even if they are nolonder steam api linked.
Valve doesnt even care they use there IP now that the news is over.

Fucks they give about there users
 
No,but I like games that get continuous ongoing free updates that are paid for by cosmetics only lootcrates that I have literally no obligation to buy if I don't want to, even if its a super sweet limited time skin

So you would rather make someone with compulsion problems pay for content to be free than paying it yourself? Really classy mate...

Why do people against loot boxes always make this argument. If you spend $1.00 on a slot machine and "win" $0.01 back, you didn't win anything, you lost $0.99.

Like seriously, if casinos could get away with stuff like this, don't you think they would be doing it?

I think it's a problem of evaluation: how much is an Overwatch skin worth? You're giving a $ amount and getting something that doesn't quite have a price tag. That's why so many games don't sell the items directly, because 99% would be worthless junk and then the gambling bit would be easier to apply: You spent $10 for a $0.5 item. You lost Money --> Gambling
Dota 2 is a good example of this: most items sold in crates have a really low value in the community market, so people stopped buying the crates altogether and started to buy the items from the community Market. This was a problem to Valve because their revenue started to drop. What they did? Made the items untradable or had a time window of "untradability" so that as soon as the time limit loot boxes are released the item prices don't plummet. But the whales are special targets: people spent thousands of dollars to get the latest, shiniest piece of equipment and those came from "gambling" the loot boxes. I know people here think that cosmetics are ok but it's not. Loot boxes affects a specific group of people and make them spend a lot of Money on something that, no matter the plataforma or its nature, is worthless. How much is a virtual good worth? Should we be able to trade any and every virtual good? This are importante questions right now and I hope we get some more debate around it.
 

McFadge

Member
I love when people can not control themselves and instead of not buying lootboxes they whine that they have to play the game they bought for more hours. Seriously. They are not mandatory in any game.

Honestly I like it when you can buy them with ingame money. It is not as predictable and always a nice surprise if you get something cool for it

But I guess to ban them is much easier than control yourself.

Do you really think the majority of the backlash is from people who buy lootboxes? I think most people are annoyed that content they want is locked behind a random number generator you have to pay to spin, or spend a long amount of time grinding for.

Even though you don't have to spend money to get the lootbox, these games are designed to make players want to - otherwise the design team has failed in making purchasing lootboxes attractive to players.
 
I think it's a problem of evaluation: how much is an Overwatch skin worth? You're giving a $ amount and getting something that doesn't quite have a price tag. That's why so many games don't sell the items directly, because 99% would be worthless junk and then the gambling bit would be easier to apply: You spent $10 for a $0.5 item. You lost Money --> Gambling

All items from an overwatch crate is worth exactly the same: $0.00. Any value attached to any particular item is purely sentimental.
 

Steroyd

Member
The prices of games will just go up

I'd love to see them try, games have already gone up with selling bronze, gold and mega deluxe editions of their games and it's not like the AAA publisher's games aren't profitable just selling the game standalone.
 

Halfmunch

Member
Soon will have to show our ID to buy a blind pack of Pokémon TCG cards...

Magic: The Gathering cards now come in transparent packs with contents listed on the packaging.

This is just the beginning...
 
People forget Loot Boxes were an evolution of trying to be the most open business model, by giving everyone the option to unlock something instead of putting crap behind pay walls or charging for maps that split player bases. Kind of Bullshit EA is getting hit hardest by these claims now, especially Hawaii saying they are targeting kids to exploit them when there are games that literally target kids to exploit them on Mobile.

EA did a pretty crap job with their structuring of loot boxes in BF2, but it is only par for the course... they don't deserve the majority of attention.

Also loot boxes are not equivalent to Las Vegas gambling, that's just dumb.
 
Top Bottom