-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Polygon: Anti-loot box bill gathers bipartisan support in Senate
- Thread starter Sectorseven
- Start date
Loss of player choice, loss of revenue which presumably developers would try to find other ways to make which gamers may or may not like, loss of additional content given for free to everyone which is funded by optional purchases, etc. Again, if the issue is kids becoming gamblers, where is the evidence? Where are the countless anecdotes in topics like this about kids being addicted to lootboxes and P2W purchases? If the concern is addiction, then what about games like Diablo, WoW, Destiny, Borderlands, etc? In those you play a mission over and over, some times timed to once per week or whatever, in the hopes of getting a certain drop. Conceptually that's not much different to opening a lootbox, except instead of watching an animation you're sprinting through the same old level and same old boss for the 50th time. In FIFA, FUT is a fun mode, I guess that would need to be completely changed. Why not prove there's a problem first before looking for Big Govt to get involved?
They lose their free (note: not actually free, just paid for by other players) skins and maps and such.
The horror.
The current situation is a disaster. But empathy isn't easy for some.
Hmm, I'm not sure if the concern is "kids may get addicted to gambling". The concern is that gambling as a general concept is illegal for minors, and lootboxes by most definitions would be categorized as gambling. The addictive nature of it is a seperate converstaion.
And "loss of player choice" is a bigger issue when lootboxes ARE present, because players do not get to choose what loot they get.
As for loss of revenue... I guess there will be that. Getting rid of gambling mechanics in games will indeed give publishers less revenue.
Write a good bill and this would be easy to support. Make a bad one and it wouldn't. Simple as that. It's a toss up at this point, but already focusing primarily on children isn't good enough in my eyes for some games. Random loot that can be purchased with real money shouldn't be allowed no matter the age or if it's "just cosmetic".
Won't someone please think of the poor hard working super-yacht and private jet companies? Without aggressive methods of extracting money from children, some of the gaming executives will have to limit themselves to only one private jet or super-yacht a year! I bet next you are going to ask the companies to pay taxes.
You entitled entitled consumers.
You entitled entitled consumers.
If lootboxes are gambling, then so are trading cards... which are directly marketed to kids, and good cards are worth a lot of money, and they're perfectly legal. Where is the regulation against Pokemon and Magic cards? Again, afaik only one country says it's gambling, or maybe it's two (?), and that's not the US.
This practice has been ugly, and abused, and some sort of action is long overdue.
Hope it also targets F2P cell games that charge for quicker times, etc, that kids spend a ton of money on. That shit just shouldn't fly.
Hope it also targets F2P cell games that charge for quicker times, etc, that kids spend a ton of money on. That shit just shouldn't fly.
How much has Activision or EA earned from lootboxes or P2W item sales to kids?
So lets say we get a hypothetical "worst case scenario" for mobile gaming, and basically most major scummy F2P mechanics get banned. How would the marketplace react to that? I'm admitly curious since I tend to usually buy games that you just buy once on the appstores specfically because most F2P games annoy the shit out of me, but with how even Super Mario Run fared, I'm not sure if gaming on mobile would survive it.
(Admitly even though I actually like mobile gaming, I wouldn't mind it being far more niche as a consequence if it got rid of the gacha shit I hate lol)
Note I don't expect this to happen either, theres a TON of different mechanics in f2p games that get money out of you, many of which are pretty unfun (such as those awfiul stamina meters), stuff that isn't really lootboxes.
(Admitly even though I actually like mobile gaming, I wouldn't mind it being far more niche as a consequence if it got rid of the gacha shit I hate lol)
Note I don't expect this to happen either, theres a TON of different mechanics in f2p games that get money out of you, many of which are pretty unfun (such as those awfiul stamina meters), stuff that isn't really lootboxes.
EA earns almost a billion dollars a year from FIFA Ultimate Team alone.
The poster was referring to money extracted from kids. I'm aware of FIFA's total earnings.
Are you fine with EA preying on people's addictive tendencies, children or not?
You can't be serious. Regulating a trade and how it makes money is not an issue of violating free speech.
If we're going to talk about addiction, then let's talk about Diablo, Destiny, Fortnite, Call of Duty, Borderlands, MMO's, and countless other loot based or MP games that people get addicted to. Or rather, let's not, since that would probably be off topic.
You'd see the business model change to a pay model like how things were before F2P. Some would go under, others would thrive, games would actually have to be good instead of using addiction as a mechanic.
If this bill steps too far I would oppose it, so far I see nothing that looks like censorship- just banning an odious business model. I support payday loan bans because it's an odious practice. Also, being able to regulate business models will make it easier for Congress down the road to ban data caps- which is my holy grail for internet rights.
Looking at the bill, it perhaps leans in the other direction of not going far enough, but it's a good start.
Last edited:
Of course it would. Companies engaging in these acts would become a liability to those that host the product. Could even become a liability to Paypal as well, and other such services. It's an attempt to stop it not only in its tracks, but also give it almost no room to escape.
Is this really what you want to go with here? I sense you pointing out what you did was an attempt to deflect in any case. I suggest reflecting on how many people are affected in making companies like EA as big as they are.
As far as your actual post, here's something relevant in case you're actually concerned: https://www.resetera.com/threads/ga...condition-by-world-health-organisation.49860/
Last edited:
I wouldn't be against regulating trading cards either tbh.
Mobile game on the west wouldn't exist or use different types of monetization. For western companies, focus on Asia with China and so on. For japanese companies, focus in Japan. The last ones I can totally see shutting down the mobile games and just leaving it on Asia/Japan as that's their major market by far and Asia is the biggest market for mobile. It can survive, maybe just no in the west with those models if this thing ever pass on, considering that we're on this cesspoll for two years already.
Right? I'd buy more trading cards if it wasn't a blind box. As it is, it feels like a waste not knowing if I'll be getting a new card or Pikachu #38
The difference is that you're talking about a physical good, with clearly labeled contents. You can't buy the individual cards directly from the company either, therefore a value cannot be defined.
Living card games have failed time and time again, which is why this model persists.
Well yeah, there it is. I dont understand why some posters get so emotional about defending loot boxes. Just make relevant arguments and stop deflecting.
Dont take the bait. Just ingnore the cards (deflection) and talk about the boxes which is the current topic.
Of course it's about exploiting the human psyche, doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Once companies that sell trading cards can track every detail of your purchase, bombard you with audiovisual stimuli, block trading and reselling and come to your house to destroy your dupes, we can talk about how they're comparable to lootboxes.
Until then you're just making yourself look like a fool.
Until then you're just making yourself look like a fool.
Yeah that´s something many people seem to overlook. I mean preying on children is bad but preying on gullible adults isn´t much better.
Yeah that particular comparison was always ridiculous.
(This would be pretty much all green for all card games aimed at minors)
The industry had every opportunity to get ahead of this and let people who know what they're talking about handle it. Instead we parroted the "it's technically not gambling, so it's technically fine" excuses, and dusted off our hands. If a self-regulating industry doesn't regulate itself, this was always going to be the natural conclusion. Now it's in the hands of outsiders whose solutions might far exceed the scope of the lootbox issue. The knock-on effects might suck, but I can't say we don't deserve it at this point.
This is where I am too
It's the industries own fault this is happening though, they had all the time in the world to not exploit people and they decided money mattered more
I'd distinguish this in two ways.
First, the California law prevented purchase to prevent children seeing the content. The purchase/method of purchase itself was not the issue being targeted, but was merely used to prevent kids seeing the speech. Conversely, a law aimed at loot boxes is not worried about harmful content/images, but rather harmful commerce. Instead of getting at hiding speech by limiting the purchase, the purpose of this law would be that the method of the exchange of goods itself is the harm.
Second, even if the court did find it to be protected speech, I think a law targeting loot boxes has a much better chance of surviving strict scrutiny than a law targeting violent images. The psychological and monetary harmful affects of gambling-type games of chance are extremely well documented, unlike the supposed harmful nature of violent images. Showing that the state has a compelling interest in keeping kids from addictive loot boxes should be much, much easier. Now it would be up to the actual bill to be narrowly tailored and to be as least speech-restrictive as possible. But getting past the compelling interest aspect should be much simpler.
I can't say it'd be a slam dunk, but I think this is distinguishable enough from Brown to at least give a law along these lines a shot.
Does make me wonder what's going to be the result of all this for ESA, this, the revelation they treat their workers like crap and that E3 this years seems to be an utter s*** show behind the scene and more and more companies skipping it. Given that they've failed to what it was made to do, will something else be formed or the publishers just give up on it?
I'm at the point where I honestly don't give a shit, this industry didn't seem to care either when people were raising red flags over it. Everyone was saying the same thing too, if you don't regulate, you're going to end up with someone in government regulating.
The situation we are in now has earned my complete and well deserved antipathy.
The situation we are in now has earned my complete and well deserved antipathy.
ESA answer
"Why do you want to rob players of the feeling of pride and accomplishment coming from lootboxes?"
Is that you answering, EA?
"Why do you want to rob players of the feeling of pride and accomplishment coming from lootboxes?"
Is that you answering, EA?
That's because E3 is bad in 2019 when you can control the message (Directs) and avoid extreme costs.
What a weak-ass answer, as expected. ESA decided to be reactive rather than proactive on this issue and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
