Support NeoGAF

[llien]

The Entertainment Software Rating Board will begin labeling video games that contain in-game purchases, a response to lawmakers who have noticed the outcry over so-called loot crate systems and have signaled a willingness to legislate them. From a report: The labeling will "be applied to games with in-game offers to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency," the ESRB said in a news release this morning, "including but not limited to bonus levels, skins, surprise items (such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes and upgrades (e.g., to disable ads)." The label will appear separate from the familiar ESRB rating label (T-for-Teen, M-for-Mature, etc.) and not inside it. Additionally, the ESRB has begun an awareness campaign meant to highlight the controls available to parents whose households have a video game console.

slashdot

 

[Petrae]

Toothless move from a toothless organization.

The ESRB won’t talk lootboxes because the people who sign the paychecks (video game publishers) really don’t want them to call major attention to what’s become a source of easy revenue.

It *should* be a bold label, akin to the Surgeon General’s warning label on cigarette packs and cartons:

WARNING: THIS TITLE CONTAINS LOOT BOXES, WHICH MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PURCHASES AND ARE DRIVEN BY ELEMENTS OF CHANCE.

 

[Blam]

This is bullshit and it's the same fucking thing Apple and Google did.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Just show the odds and let's be done with this.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

Pointless. Also, didn't they already publicly do the "nothing to see here, lootboxes are fine" thing?

 

[lukilladog]

Not enough.

 

[michaelius]

Might be first time ever when they do something useful.

 

[Shifty]

So, every game box going forward to have this label as it appears to cover more or less all sorts of DLC providing that an in-game advert or call to purchase is present?

I hate being advertised to in-game so good I guess, but this seems too wide to be effective.

 

[gspat]

This isn't even a step in the right direction...

I guess the gov does need to step in, define the pay-to-win/gambling aspects and mandate age limits for sale.

These asshats just want to add an icon for dlc.

 

[Petrae]

This isn't even a step in the right direction...

I guess the gov does need to step in, define the pay-to-win/gambling aspects and mandate age limits for sale.

These asshats just want to add an icon for dlc.

At this point, I’d love to see the Feds step in and make the industry sweat on Capitol Hill again with threats of governmental regulation unless it grows some balls and commits to policing itself better.

It’s obvious, at this point, that the industry nor the ESRB are going to do anything substantial about this.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

I am not sure what this is supposed to achieve. In many cases parents completely ignore the age classification on games because "they're only video games". I can't imagine another label is going to have a meaningful impact.

Hey, at least the ESRB can say they've now taken steps, I guess.

 

[iconmaster]

From the Kotaku report:

“I’m sure you’re all asking why aren’t we doing something more specific to loot boxes,” [Patricia Vance, president of the ESRB] said. “We’ve done a lot of research over the past several weeks and months, particularly among parents. What we’ve learned is that a large majority of parents don’t know what a loot box is. Even those who claim they do, don’t really understand what a loot box is. So it’s very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, to make sure that we’re capturing loot boxes, but also other in-game transactions.”

As if anyone was asking for a big LOOT BOX sticker on the game cover. Of course you explain in more detail where there's room, just as they already do for the age rating.

Includes in-game purchases
Variable rewards for real money

or whatever. Maybe this really will require regulation.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

This is bullshit and it's the same fucking thing Apple and Google did.

yup

 

[Blam]

yup

It literally does nothing. A label under the title like what they did with online games back in the day.

 

[Masagiwa]

This applies to like every single game that will be released from now and forward. What do you think will the governments be satisfied with this?

 

[Blam]

This applies to like every single game that will be released from now and forward. What do you think will the governments be satisfied with this?

If they are satisfied with it from Apple and Google then they are here.

 

[Ridcully]

This applies to like every single game that will be released from now and forward. What do you think will the governments be satisfied with this?

The people their parent organisation lobby will be satisfied, I'm sure. I imagine that anyone looking to regulate who isn't seeing donations from the industry will see this as the empty concession it is.

 

[ZehDon]

I think this entirely misses the reason that loot boxes in particular have caused such an outcry - ‘chance’. In-game purchases could mean anything from $0.99 costumes, which are fine, and don’t run the risk of addiction or a child racking up $1,000 debt on their patents credit to get the same costume. That’s why it needs to be covered separately and parents need to be made aware of this specifically. There isn’t “$20 of additional content” they need to be aware of - there is literally a potentially unlimited amount of expenditure. “Contains real-money gambling elements” needs to be added, the game restricted to the age required to obtain a credit card necessary to purchase those elements.

If they want users to use their credit card for hundreds of dollars of purchases, they have to label and restrict accordingly.

 

[Barakov]

This will do nothing. I might be crazy but hasn't the words "contains in-game purchases" been on games boxes for awhile?

 

[bitbydeath]

Needs the words - “Will I need to pay more to progress sufficiently - Yes/No”

 

[synce]

"Purchases"... right. That's why a lot of the top-grossing mobile games are literal slot machines. It's almost as if addictions are being exploited.

 

[WaterAstro]

This doesn't differentiate other kinds of microtransactions with lootboxes.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

What's really messed up is with this even games like Witcher 3 will be lumped in with games with lootboxes with this system. Really lame that games with legit massive paid expansions, or like Nier Automata with a single paid add-on pack, will have the same in game purchases label as games with thousands on dollars of microtransactions/lootboxes.

 

[radewagon]

From the Kotaku report:



As if anyone was asking for a big LOOT BOX sticker on the game cover. Of course you explain in more detail where there's room, just as they already do for the age rating.

Includes in-game purchases
Variable rewards for real money

or whatever. Maybe this really will require regulation.

Or just call it gambling. ESRB's response is a joke. They need to wise up and do something before something is done for them. This half-measure will, hopefully, appease no one and further solidify the need for real action.

 

[Petrae]

Or just call it gambling. ESRB's response is a joke. They need to wise up and do something before something is done for them. This half-measure will, hopefully, appease no one and further solidify the need for real action.

Considering that video game publishers are writing the checks for the ESRB, you can bet that there’s not-so-subtle instruction coming from them to ESRB staff about how they want this handled. The ESRB isn’t a neutral party in this, and there’s going to be pushback when it comes to making a rating for or determining a stronger (M or AO) rating for lootboxes since they generate metric tons of cash from prey— I mean, from consumers.

There isn’t someone with the clout of a Joe Lieberman to take the industry to task this time. Moreover, Republicans now control Congress, and conservatives are less likely to back a fight over money like this. Only Democratic folks are talking big about lootboxes, and I don’t see this being an issue to cross the aisle.

It sucks, it it is what it is.

 

[gioGAF]

This sucks. This label applies to any and all purchases. I am SPECIFICALLY interested in regulating the gambling. The issue is not if a company sells costumes or some other crap, it is the fucking lottery that is built into most major releases.

Looks like the ESRB will do nothing, so hopefully the feds will get involved and fuck these companies over. How hard is it to understand?

Loot Boxes (or variations) = GAMBLING = AO rating or GTFO!

 

[MrMorningMan]

This isn't going to do anything at all. I don't know a single person who takes any notice whatsoever of the labels on the back of a game case. No doubt there are some parents that are very clued up on this and will research and check before buying a game for their child, but the majority simply grab the game from the shelf and take it to the counter.

Another thought I had. What about a game that launches with zero loot boxes or online transactions but patches them in 6 months down the line?

 

[WaterAstro]

This sucks. This label applies to any and all purchases. I am SPECIFICALLY interested in regulating the gambling. The issue is not if a company sells costumes or some other crap, it is the fucking lottery that is built into most major releases.

Looks like the ESRB will do nothing, so hopefully the feds will get involved and fuck these companies over. How hard is it to understand?

Loot Boxes (or variations) = GAMBLING = AO rating or GTFO!

I always say this every thread. Loot Boxes aren't gambling unless you can resell the items for real money like Steam Marketplace.

 

[ar0s]

"Includes GAMBLING via random rewards costing real money. Risk of addiction"

This warning should take up at least half of the front cover of titles (with a reversable inside without the warnings) to ensure it is clear and obvious.

 

[gioGAF]

I always say this every thread. Loot Boxes aren't gambling unless you can resell the items for real money like Steam Marketplace.

We can agree to disagree I guess. As far as I'm concerned, they are one and the same. You are wagering your money for something of "value". The mechanics are the same, people like you can argue semantics all you want (desired item is/is not a "material good"), but the same tactics are being employed with these "loot boxes" as any run of the mill casino game. The fundamentals are the same, the psychology is the same.

Just because the scumbags behind these things are circumventing the intent of the law (IMO of course, which I hope enough other people share/voice) because the medium they are using is relatively new does not make what they are doing any less slimy than the whole Joe Camel shit from the 90s.

Again, I am not "against" the existence of loot boxes (though I hate them), they should just be labelled as what they are:

ADULTS ONLY
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.

You ARE gambling with real currency. The physical state of what you are receiving is irrelevant.

 

[Fbh]

Seems pretty meaningless unless it has an effect on the rating

Seems even more meaningless when the description in the OP reads like this would apply to any game with any sort of season pass or DLC

It's putting games with good and straightforward DLC like The Witcher 3 or Bloodborne in the same basket as EA crap.

 

[ar0s]

What do you fellows think about the following?

Contains in game purchases:
Expansion pass ✓
Horse armour ✓
Levels ✓
Skins X
Gambling (with real money to receive virtual items) ✓
Subscription X

I think this is subtle enough that the industry may go for it if enough pressure is piled on to the self-regulation but still keeps it well hidden within a larger list of possible in-game purchases. It's absolutely vital that they are forced to use the combination of 'gambling' and 'real money' in some fashion though.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

Game ratings will now include loot box warnings, ESRB says

Ratings will specify if in-game purchases ‘includes random items’

www.polygon.com