Support NeoGAF

[formasymphonic]

EG discusses some legislation around loot box type mechanics in Asian territories, industry moves for self regulation in an attempt to evade government regulation, industry's own attempts to evade self regulation and legal limitations, and some thoughts about Isle of Man's much stronger stance against gaming / gambling-like mechanics as a potential model for the rest of the UK.

The government is dancing around the issue of loot boxes. But it turns out some countries have already had a stab at regulating them - with varied results. Japanese Gacha machines are the seed from which western loot boxes have grown. Gashapons, or Gacha for short, are vending machines which dispense capsule toys when a coin is inserted. The Gacha system began to make its way into Japanese free-to-play mobile games in 2011, essentially as a monetisation mechanic, and it worked. Puzzles and Dragons became the first mobile game to net over $1bn using the system, but it quickly became clear there was a problem with Gacha - it was basically gambling.

Kompu Gacha games offered a grand-prize for players who completed a collection of specific items. This encouraged players to spend more on randomised gacha draws, but with a low probability of ever getting the items they needed (sound familiar?). The system soon came under fire for encouraging gambling, particularly in children, and Kompu Gacha was made illegal by Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency in May 2012.

If government does move to tackle loot boxes, it needs to ensure the legislation is airtight or developers will work around it, as seen in China.

Back in May it became law for publishers in China to "promptly publicly announce information about the name, property, content, quantity, and draw/forge probability of all virtual items and services". In other words, game publishers needed to tell players in China the probability to get certain virtual items. At the same time, the law also banned game publishers from directly selling "lottery tickets" such as loot boxes.

Again, companies found a way around this, with Blizzard China changing the way loot boxes are 'purchased' to bypass the law. In China, Overwatch players can not directly buy loot boxes, instead you purchase the in-game currency with real-life money (for roughly the same price) and get loot boxes as a 'gift'. This just reverses the original system, as currency tends to come in loot boxes anyway, but it was completely legal.

More at the link and definitely worth the read as another part in the ongoing conversation.

Also as a semi related edition I came up with a few suggested ideas for what regulation for loot boxes could look like:

I honestly don't expect loot crates to go anywhere, but I think more can be done to keep people informed and make informed decisions for if they want to play games that include them. I don't expect any of these to be implemented but I've been considering some rough ideas for legislation:

1) Implementations of lootcrates and other pseudo-gambling systems to be included as part of PEGI / ESRB / USK / CERO ratings system. ”This game contains psuedo-gambling elements" / ”This game contains mechanics designed to induce addictive behaviours" - idk, the exact wording can be debated but something along those lines. Perhaps separate definitions for:
- simple RNG mechanisms (random chance to receive an item) akin to CCG packs? (This gets the first warning)
- stronger language / rating for systems intrinsically designed to encourage behaviour? (This would get both warnings)

2) Inclusion will automatically raise the rating of your game. I'm not one of those people who think it should make your game AO but I definitely think Overwatch getting by with a ”12" is too low under proposed scheme. Kids shouldn't be exposed to this stuff at all. If you as a parent want to allow this and think your children can deal with the behavioural psych targeting, then that's up to you. (Yes I can hear the CCG fans groaning)

3) Inclusion of pseudo gambling systems at a later date will require a recertification of your game. This is to deincentivise publishers who like to launch without this stuff to evade it showing in reviews and add them in later.

4) Drop rates for all items must be clearly and easily available for access both in-game and on a company's website. I don't just mean:
- ”bronze items have a 20-30% drop rate"
- ”silver items have a 8-13% drop rate"
- ”gold items have a 0.01-0.7% drop rate"
...I mean you need to be able to go to a page online, and a menu item in-game (like if you want to re-watch credits) and see that ”Mjolnir hammer, Son-of-Odin Limited Winter Exclusive Edition™" is a 0.01% drop. I understand that UI space is at a premium while playing a game and the more general figures may occur there but the full figures must always be disclosed, easily available, and updated whenever the rates are updated.

5) Drop rates must be consistent across all territories a game is available in. No lowering the odds in specific regions except for testing & diagnostic reasons. Eg, right now there are several games that we think we know the rates of because disclosure is required in China. But what is stopping a publisher from improving the rates in regions they are required to disclose in, but lowering them elsewhere?

6) If crate systems can be obtained with real money currency directly, or an intermediary current obtained with real money the game is required to disclose a running total of how much a player has spent. This must be shown both at time of purchase and available for later viewing via a menu item (similar to if a player wishes to re-watch credits).

7) Parental options to limit or block purchases should be implemented by both platform vendors and publishers for best practice. They have collaborated in order to enable these systems — it would not be an undue burden on either side to collaborate to provide monitoring mechanisms. Ideally a global option for blocking with an opt-in system per game to control limits. Eg you can allow a player to limit themselves to say £5/$5 a month increments or something. (I can already see publishers adjusting pricing to get to Incentivise you to go beyond that though).

Anyways those are just some rough ideas. I'm sure you guys can come up with better ones. I'd rather publishers toned this stuff down in the first place but if these systems aren't going to go away, we can at least encourage some more responsibility from publishers on them — as well as ask for some tools to better protect ourselves from their effects.

...but I'm interested in:

A) What you all think is feasible for regulation.
B) What is a reasonable balance for ideas of secondary monetisation?
C) Given the opportunity, many large comapanies will always skirt the law for the sake of increasing margins — So how to realistically keep Publishers/Studios adhering to ”A" while they are supposedly seeking ”B".

EDIT: link added (cheers lordraptor)

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Percentages would be an absolute beautiful first step to this shit.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/33/

PEGI already has consideration for Gambling...

 

[dumbo]

AFAICT, the problem is weird:
- I pay 100 gold and get a random item.
- I pay 100 gold and get a box containing a random item.
- I pay 100 gold and get a ticket for a level which has a box which contains a random item.
- I pay 100 gold and get a ticket for a level with a boss that drops a random item.

You need to 'earn' 100 gold in-game and can then risk it for a reward - I don't think those are problematic...

But if you swap the '100 gold' for $$$, then you're doing something entirely different... basically "real gambling".

Hence, the actual problem is players buying virtual currencies for real-world cash.

 

[formasymphonic]

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/33/

PEGI already has consideration for Gambling...

Yes, you are correct that PEGI has ratings for content that explicitly fits the real-money technical descriptions of gambling.

However, you are also going down the “lootboxes aren’t technically gambling” road. The OP (and the article) are about seeking new regulation to account for these new mechanisms that are designed to induce addictive behaviours associated with gambling, but currently evade the existing legal definitions.

Overwatch for example has lootcrates but is only rated as a 12 by PEGI.

 

[LordofPwn]

just add a disclaimer onto the box, and make drop rates easily accessible in game and on the store front. this is all they need. whether the contents are pay to win or just cosmetic is a different thing entirely. This being said I'd prefer to just buy cosmetics individually or as a collection bundle.

 

[LordRaptor]

More at the link

you didn't provide a link, but is there any actual information about

The government is dancing around the issue of loot boxes

than has already been covered?

Because it seems like the UK government knows exactly what they are doing about lootboxes; nothing.
There's no dancing around an issue or cause for speculating what a hypothetical new legislation might entail.

 

[shimon]

Percentages would be an absolute beautiful first step to this shit.

Indeed.

 

[The Wart]

I generally like your list, but

“This game contains mechanics designed to induce addictive behaviours”

is not workable because it is so broad. Many, many games and forms of recreation generally are designed, intentionally or not, to work on the same reward systems as addictive gambling. So that statement could arguably any consumer product or service that involves repetitive actions.

The specific issue you want to address is gambling elements that involve monetary transactions beyond what you pay to get the game/access the service to begin with. So regulations should be tailored to that issue, or it will cause massive headaches in the future. Worst case scenario, the government ends up with the discretion to penalize anything it chooses to, and so lobbyists rush in to try to direct penalties towards their competitors and deflect penalties from themselves.

 

[formasymphonic]

you didn't provide a link, but is there any actual information about

than has already been covered?

Because it seems like the UK government knows exactly what they are doing about lootboxes; nothing.
There's no dancing around an issue or cause for speculating what a hypothetical new legislation might entail.

Cheers, I am on mobile and thought I'd added the link but hadn't.

 

[LordRaptor]

Tony Jones, e-gaming chief at the Isle of Man Department of Economic Development

I don't know why I find this so funny

 

[formasymphonic]

I generally like your list, but



is not workable because it is so broad. Many, many games and forms of recreation generally are designed, intentionally or not, to work on the same reward systems as addictive gambling. So that statement could arguably any consumer product or service that involves repetitive actions.

The specific issue you want to address is gambling elements that involve monetary transactions beyond what you pay to get the game/access the service to begin with. So regulations should be tailored to that issue, or it will cause massive headaches in the future. Worst case scenario, the government ends up with the discretion to penalize anything it chooses to, and so lobbyists rush in to try to direct penalties towards their competitors and deflect penalties from themselves.

It was just a suggestion, the wording can be adapted — maybe something like “This game contains pseudo gambling mechanics designed to induce addictive behaviours” or something.

And tbh, while there are a variety of factors surrounding loot crates, my personal issues with it is the amount of behavioural psych knowledge being put into inducing th behaviours to get you to spend more. It’s bad to experience it as an adult when you can see these things for what they are, but I really don’t feel that people should be exposed to this stuff without at least:

A) more being done to inform people upfront what they are getting into
B) give people ways to limit see what they are spending and limit it.

The purpose behind a lot of the gambling regulation has never been to remove gambling. Even with all its restrictions, gambling itself is not illegal (It continues to be alive and well after many decades of regulation). — it’s been to provide protection for predatory practices, limit age access to adults, and curb the effects against those who are more prone to falling victim to a negative cycle.

I don’t think there is anything wrong in seeking similar kinds of warnings & protections for these pseudo-gambling systems.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I don't know why I find this so funny

e-gaming chief.

sounds like a parody title.