Australian gambling analyst says loot boxes 'constitute gambling' by legal definition

[Deleted member 8408]

A few snippets from the article:

The backlash against loot boxes has now reached all the way to Australia: Responding to an inquiry from a redditor named -Caesar, a strategic analyst for the Compliance Division of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation said that "what occurs with 'loot boxes' does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation."

Click to shrink...

...he made no bones about where he stands on the matter: "The normalization of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors) is not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable."

Click to shrink...

...if these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with the Australian Classification Board to ensure than any product that does that and monetizes it gets an immediate R rating," he wrote. "I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling."

Click to shrink...

Wolfe also leveled an unmistakable and rather sinister-sounding warning to anyone in the business hoping that this will all blow over: "It is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found, then we will most definitely pursue it."

Click to shrink...

More at the link:

http://www.pcgamer.com/australian-g...boxes-constitute-gambling-by-legal-definition

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

 

[Nanashrew]

"It is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found, then we will most definitely pursue it."

Click to shrink...

Wew lad

 

[Gold Arsene]

Soooooo all the people who insist it's not gambling what do you have to say?

 

[F4r0_Atak]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

 

[Deleted member 8408]

Wew lad

Click to shrink...

This is a key thing to understand in this ongoing battle against lootboxes. Games are not a niche form of media anymore. There are now people in important places who play videogames or at the very least will have children who play videogames on a regular basis.

The more this is talked about the more likely it will be that something will get done. Positive results are already being seen with EA rebalancing games and removing them from purchase. There was also a small update on the lootboxes in Forza 7 today in terms of the prices (with in game credits at this time) and their contents.

Publishers are currently scrambling around to try and make things better, but the pressure needs to be kept on.

 

[Phonomezer]

Wolfe also leveled an unmistakable and rather sinister-sounding warning to anyone in the business hoping that this will all blow over: "It is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found, then we will most definitely pursue ."

Click to shrink...

 

[srtrestre]

Laaaaawdy

 

[Deleted member 8408]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Yes it would be legal.

However the game would then still have pay to win issues which is a different kettle of fish, especially when you consider it's a full priced game.

 

[Deleted member 16849]

All someone needs to do is tell Senator Nick Xenophon about loot boxes and bye bye loot boxes in Australia.

 

[PogiJones]

How does this affect the F2P market? Are F2P games' MTXs often loot boxes, or your run-of-the-mill MTXs a la Animal Crossing?

 

[Blent]

Get Nick Xenophon on the line.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[F4r0_Atak]

Honestly, for comestic items like in Overwatch, it would have been nice to have the ability to purchase skins individually or in bundles as DLCs.

 

[joecanada]

Soooooo all the people who insist it's not gambling what do you have to say?

Click to shrink...

They never understood in the first place. Legislation can define whatever they want to be gambling. Pulling out examples was never going to change anything, if there's public outcry they will just say loot boxes equals gambling or regulated gaming or anything else they want to define it as to control it

 

[F4r0_Atak]

How does this affect the F2P market? Are F2P games' MTXs often loot boxes, or your run-of-the-mill MTXs a la Animal Crossing?

Click to shrink...

This is my main concern with the recent outrage about MTX in general... Some games will die because of this. :/

 

[ashep]

But that dude on resetera said nah...

 

[Bishop89]

As much as we need to fix this issue, our govt (or ratings board, can't remember which) need to stop censoring and/or banning games.

It rarely happens but when it does..

 

[Dunban]

Get Nick Xenophon on the line.

EDIT: Beaten

Click to shrink...

We need technocrats, not populists.


Pleasant development overall, though I'm mildly surprised it took so long to be posted here. Hoping for more similar rulings elsewhere.

 

[ps3ud0]

Hmm I wonder if this will lead to the eventual resignation by Andrew Wilson. Doesn't look like this is going away and no doubt BF2 will become the precedent that most EA games (aswell as other publishers) won't live upto.

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Deleted member 8408]

This is my main concern with the recent outrage about MTX in general... Some games will die because of this. :/

Click to shrink...

No games will die. They will have to restructure how they monetise their games.

People who want to get their cosmetics will still be able to do so in a more streamlined and consumer friendly manner and those who simply want to throw the developers some extra money as a "thank you" will also be able to do so by purchasing whatever items they see fit.

What it will do is incentivise developers to ensure every item they sell as an extra in a game is of the highest quality possible since every item would then have a clear cash value attributed to it.

 

[endlessflood]

Why are we linking to an article that's linking to another one?

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

 

[Isee]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Sure. BF2 has three mayor problems, that er linked.

1. Lootboxes
2. A slow, unsatisfying, grind heavy ingame progression system, that is designed to help to promote a
3. Pay 2 win atmosphere (or pay to have way better odds of winning)

Devs are free to do number 2 and 3 as much as they want to. I won't support it, but it's their product and they are free to make it as awful as they want to. They can also do number 1 for all I care, but the game shouldn't be buyable by minors. Adults are often targeted by harmful things like alcohol, cigarettes, casinos etc. It's up to them to be responsible about it. Trading card games, panini stickers and co. should also be reinvestigated.

 

[Deleted member 8408]

Why are we linking to an article that's linking to another one?

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

Click to shrink...

I read PC gamer, I don't read Kokatu. I will edit the link in the OP to be this one if that's the original source.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

Soooooo all the people who insist it's not gambling what do you have to say?

Click to shrink...

I'd like to see what part of the legislation actually makes it gambling. Nowhere in the article does the guy cite what parts of the legislation make it fit the legal definition of gambling.

If I go to the pokies and put in $10 I have no guarantee of getting anything back. If I put $10 in to lootboxes I am guaranteed to get stuff. It's not really gambling, it's buying a pack of random things. I also can't play pokies for free to earn pokie-dollars that I can then use on the pokies, but you can play these games as much as you want and earn in game credits to buy lootboxes with.

Looking at the full correspondence, I feel that the original person that asked the question over exaggerated a bit:

this is gambling: players stake money on the chance of receiving a prize. Section 1.3AA of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Cth) defines gambling as: (1) an activity in which— (a) a prize of money or something else of value is offered or can be won; and (b) a person pays or stakes money or some other valuable consideration to participate; and (c) the outcome involves, or is presented as involving, an element of chance. Lootboxes clearly meet (1)(c) as they involve an element of chance. They also meet (1)(b) as players must spend real money on the premium currency to participate. Lastly, I would argue they also meet (1)(a) as I see no reason why 'something else of value' should be read down not to include digital rewards.

Click to shrink...

A few things I disagree with:

1. Players don't stake money on the chance of receiving a prize - you are guaranteed a "prize". It's not even a prize, since you're paying for an assortment of random things. There is no prize, just things that you paid for.

2. Players do not have to spend real money on premium currency to participate. You can participate in lootboxes with in-game earned credits. You don't have to use real money.

3. There is no "prize of money or something else of value" from these lootboxes. They can't be resold, they have no value and are worth $0.

 

[Liam Allen-Miller]

How does this affect the F2P market? Are F2P games' MTXs often loot boxes, or your run-of-the-mill MTXs a la Animal Crossing?

Click to shrink...

If this were to evolve into proper legislation it would surely only affect lootbox style delivery of content. Buying digital currency like in Animal Crossing would be unaffected because there's no gambling element.

If I go to the pokies and put in $10 I have no guarantee of getting anything back. If I put $10 in to lootboxes I am guaranteed to get stuff. It's not really gambling, it's buying a pack of random things. I also can't play pokies for free to earn pokie-dollars that I can then use on the pokies, but you can play these games as much as you want and earn in game credits to buy lootboxes with.

Click to shrink...

I mean, if the slot machine is dropping random junk out of the bottom after you pull the lever I still think it's gambling. Barring that, the conditioning these sorts of monetization platforms apply to people are undeniably negative and reinforce addiction-based tendencies.

 

[mutantmagnet]

"It is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found, then we will most definitely pursue it."

Click to shrink...

For now gamers in government will be more popular than gamers in the financial sector but we all know enough gamers to be morally shitheads that If any of them do hold a prominent government job they are going to suck much more than the financial analysts. :|

But for now I'm happy with this trend.

 

[Raonak]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Yes. DLC means you get exactly what you pay for.
Loot boxes require luck to get what you want, and require higher amounts of luck as you buy more since the chance of getting duplicates increases.

 

[endlessflood]

I read PC gamer, I don't read Kokatu. I will edit the think in the OP to be this one if that's the original source.

Click to shrink...

Thanks GHG. You'll see it is if you check the last line in the PC Gamer article. The Kotaku Australia article was written about 26 hours ago.

 

[Spoder]

Yes yes yes. You have my sword.

 

[IIFloodyII]

I'd like to see what part of the legislation actually makes it gambling. Nowhere in the article does the guy cite what parts of the legislation make it fit the legal definition of gambling.

If I go to the pokies and put in $10 I have no guarantee of getting anything back. If I put $10 in to lootboxes I am guaranteed to get stuff. It's not really gambling, it's buying a pack of random things. I also can't play pokies for free to earn pokie-dollars that I can then use on the pokies, but you can play these games as much as you want and earn in game credits to buy lootboxes with.

Click to shrink...

You're not guaranteed something you don't have though. So if your random drop was a duplicate, would you not consider that a waste of money? Or a gamble? Personally I do.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

I mean, if the slot machine is dropping random junk out of the bottom after you pull the lever I still think it's gambling. Barring that, the conditioning these sorts of monetization platforms apply to people are undeniably negative and reinforce addiction-based tendencies.

Click to shrink...

What about if you could play another game in the casino for free to earn credits that you could then use to play on the slot machines to be guaranteed to get a few items? Is that gambling?

IMO if you're paying and are guaranteed to be receiving some of the items that you know are up for grabs in return, it's not gambling. It's just buying a pack of random things.

You're not guaranteed something you don't have though. So if your random drop was a duplicate, would you not consider that a waste of money? Or a gamble? Personally I do.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't consider it a waste of money because I knew that was a very real possibility. It's a "gamble" if you'll get what you want, but it's not gambling because you will get something.

 

[PogiJones]

If this were to evolve into proper legislation it would surely only affect lootbox style delivery of content. Buying digital currency like in Animal Crossing would be unaffected because there's no gambling element.

Click to shrink...

Right, my question was more a matter of degree, the current prevalent monetization schemes in the F2P market. As in, how big is the loot box tumor that would be removed from the F2P market? Has it spread to huge portions of that market, or are most F2P games still based on digital currency? I assume gacha games would have to go, as well.

 

[Riversands]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Ding dong. Here's a cookie
*offering chocolate vanilla cookie*

And yes, that's supposed to be expected. At the end of the day mostly government put their concern on lootboxes as gambling system, not how lootboxes affect the gameplay

 

[BronzeWolf]

Good. R for lootboxes sounds good.

 

[newmoneytrash]

I've been saying

 

[BAN PUNCHER]

All someone needs to do is tell Senator Nick Xenophon about loot boxes and bye bye loot boxes in Australia.

Click to shrink...

Living in a world with loot boxes or having to be near and talk to Nick Xenophon.

 

[Totoro]

I'm so glad.

The randomising is the gambling. That's how I see it

 

[Deleted member 8408]

Right, my question was more a matter of degree, the current prevalent monetization schemes in the F2P market. As in, how big is the loot box tumor that would be removed from the F2P market? Has it spread to huge portions of that market, or are most F2P games still based on digital currency? I assume gacha games would have to go, as well.

Click to shrink...

Under any new rulings that come out of this no games will have to go. They will have the following options:

• Accept that if the game has lootboxes the new rating system will apply and the game will have an adults only sticker slapped on it
• If they don't want the adults only sticker then they can remove lootboxes and enable all items that would have previously been attainable from lootboxes to be bought with real world/in-game cash at a set price

The lootboxes themselves are highly unlikely to be banned. All in all the move would discourage a lot of developers from including lootboxes in their games because they won't want the game to end up with compromised marketing and a smaller then necessary target market. However there will still be some developers who will say "screw it" and still include lootboxes since their game was going to be adults only anyway (see GTA and RDR).

Gacha games will still be able to exist but they may need to be reclassified in a number of countries.

 

[XDevil666]

Well looks like 2017 is finally the end of loot boxes, will be interesting to see how this effects the not so much talked about mobile space also

 

[endlessflood]

However there will still be some developers who will say "screw it" and still include lootboxes since their game was going to be adults only anyway (see GTA and RDR).

Click to shrink...

It's interesting to note that GTA Online doesn't have loot boxes, but is still making money hand over fist.

 

[Interested Observer]

I'm happy for them to legislate for loot boxes. Loot boxes can get fucked. I still don't think they're gambling though tbh.

 

[blueredandgold]

Just something to remember:

Kotaku AU and the other Australian outlets of these larger games sites serve their Australian readers first and foremost, and it mostly goes unsaid here in Australia that each state and territory differs somewhat on lots of different rules and regulations.

Separation of federal and state powers, one jurisdiction doing something, another jurisdiction doing another, that kind of thing.

That doesn't always translate across to international readers - just because one state said something about loot boxes doesn't mean the whole country's legal framework may agree. It bears further investigation.

What's the outcome if something I write on the internet is interpreted as slander/libel by someone elsewhere in another country? Does my country's laws apply or does theirs? I think that's the closest parable.

 

[Demacabre]

Soooooo all the people who insist it's not gambling what do you have to say?

Click to shrink...

They will cling to their copy and paste from a website definition and then tell you about CCG. And then tell you it's okay when it's cosmetic. And then tell you they like the free DLC and maps at the exploitation of others. And then tell you games will be $100. And well... that's the checklist.

 

[Deleted member 8408]

They will cling to their copy and paste from a website definition and then tell you about CCG. And then tell you it's okay when it's cosmetic. And then tell you they like the free DLC and maps at the exploitation of others. And then tell you games will be $100. And well... that's the checklist.

Click to shrink...

Buying fruit is also gambling.

Just an FYI.

It's interesting to note that GTA Online doesn't have loot boxes, but is still making money hand over fist.

Click to shrink...

That's because the game is actually good and they add content that people deem to be worth purchasing. Rocket science, I know.

 

[Demacabre]

Buying fruit is also gambling.

Just an FYI.

Click to shrink...

Lies! Fruit is optional! You will always get something of value from apples! Grapefruits are no different than baseball card packs!

 

[OléGunner]

It's actually amazing how EA will have fucked it up for all other publishers across mobile and console gaming.

With one marquee game, they burst open the dam of public consciousness on loot boxes.

 

[IIFloodyII]

I wouldn't consider it a waste of money because I knew that was a very real possibility. It's a "gamble" if you'll get what you want, but it's not gambling because you will get something.

Click to shrink...

So if a casino gave you some junk you didn't want, as they took you're money, it suddenly wouldn't be gambling? You'll get something, it might be something you already have or something you don't want, but you'd be guaranteed something.

I guess it's debatable, but for me if you are paying money to something you have no control over and it can (and likely will) give you something you already have or don't want, that's gambling.
If you were guaranteed an item of equal value, then I think your point is a lot stronger, but you aren't guaranteed that.

 

[Asmodai48]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Of course it would be legal. What is illegal about that?

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Lootboxes are like getting a free coffee from the automatic coffee machine in the corner of the pokie lounge.

 

[Demacabre]

Hmmm.... so let me get this straight, if publishers were selling those "pay-to-win" items as actual DLCs instead of lootboxes, it would be legal then?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's just shit design, greedy, and god awful. There is nothing gambling about that though. It's only redeeming feature is that it is a direct and honest sale. You know exactly what you are buying. It's complete bullshit just not gambling bullshit.

 

[LAA]

Question I have though.
Would this only stop paid loot boxes with real money, or would it also affect loot boxes that are obtained by in-game currency only?