Jim Sterling: US Senator's Bill Proposes Ban On Loot Boxes And Egregious Microtransactions

[Deleted member 21601]

Also on Kotaku:
https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226

 

[Tokyo_Funk]

Jim's shrill voice when imitating people who pass legislation or try to justify shitty practices never fails to get a laugh out of me. Also after all that supposed research in Australia, I am surprised at their children conclusion that loot boxes aren't a form of gambling.

 

[Illusion]

Jim's shrill voice when imitating people who pass legislation or try to justify shitty practices never fails to get a laugh out of me. Also after all that supposed research in Australia, I am surprised at their children conclusion that loot boxes aren't a form of gambling.

Click to shrink...

It's one of my favorite bits he does.

That and when he dresses up as a fancy "upper class" shmoe quoting gaming elitists. Jim definitely an expert at showcasing the stupidity and absurdity of the world into an entertaining spectacle.

 

[JimmyJacking]

Jim's shrill voice when imitating people who pass legislation or try to justify shitty practices never fails to get a laugh out of me. Also after all that supposed research in Australia, I am surprised at their children conclusion that loot boxes aren't a form of gambling.

Click to shrink...

Just to point out, Australia did indeed find enough evidence that lootboxes share enough mechanics to define them as 'a form of gambling';

5.5 In particular, it has been argued that even where loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling, many loot boxes meet the five established psychological criteria for gambling, and as such, players may be at risk of developing gambling related harms.

5.6 Regulators, both in Australia and around the world, have considered whether loot boxes meet the legal definition of gambling, and have formulated a variety of responses to the issue. These responses have ranged from determining that loot boxes do not constitute gambling to determining that loot boxes contravene gambling regulation and the sale or provision of loot boxes is therefore prohibited. Other regulators have introduced the requirement that games must publish the odds associated with loot boxes, and others have introduced labelling requirements.

5.7 It is important to note that loot boxes are not a homogenous entity and many variations of the mechanism exist. In particular, there are a variety of ways in which loot boxes can be acquired including through game-play achievements and through direct purchase using real-world currency. Loot boxes can also differ according to whether the virtual items contained within can be monetised.

5.8 As such, definitive statements regarding the operation and effect of loot boxes in general are difficult. A range of stakeholders including regulatory agencies, and academics told the committee that loot boxes should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, there was broad consensus that where real-world currency is exchanged (that is, when loot boxes are purchased, where virtual items are bought and sold, or where both occur) loot boxes may most closely meet the definitions of gambling (both regulatory and psychological), and therefore a range of risks to players may exist

Click to shrink...

The report also goes on to point out that, like most other jurisdictions the ESA quoted in their statement, they do not fall under the legal definition as such, because essentially there is no payout. Also changing legislation is difficult because you would need to legally define a 'lootbox' and as the report noted; they can be very different from game to game. 'Unattended consequence' was also discussed in the hearings.

5.12 The committee also acknowledges the advice of the ACMA that it has not considered that loot boxes meet the definition of gambling as contained in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA), as virtual items redeemed from loot boxes do not have any monetary or other value. The ACMA told the committee that the Explanatory Memorandum for the IGA explicitly stated that to be considered a gambling service, a game must be played for a prize of monetary value.

5.13 The committee notes that the ACMA qualified this advice by stating that the particular features of a game or service must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that statements about loot boxes more generally, are difficult.

Click to shrink...

 

[JayC3]

This topic is already being discussed here: https://www.resetera.com/threads/u-...oxes-and-pay-to-win-microtransactions.115834/