-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Polygon: Anti-loot box bill gathers bipartisan support in Senate
- Thread starter Sectorseven
- Start date
Nobody buys games for cash, not at the level that IAP makes. Free + Microtransactions has always been the model, you can see Nintendo making the shift from stuff like Mario Run to Mario Kart.
Apple is trying to change the model but I wonder if even they can be successful at it.
The invisible hand of the market gave the middle finger to the costumers. Now is time for laws.
Literally always with lootboxes. "Fuck compulsive buyers and gamblers, they got what they deserve". Sometimes shoddily sugarcoated as "they're mentally fucked and would be gambling on something else anyway".
When, in one instance, your brother calls you and tells you that he had to outright stop playing and completely uninstall one of his favorite MMOs because he spent $50 on some nonsense items he didn't need and immediately realized how stupid doing that was and how easily and casually he was sucked into doing so as a natural part of the game you too will cultivate a burning hatred for overpriced DLC and predatory monetization practices.
Not to mention some of my own experiences with certain games in the past. When I say I don't want to play games subsidized by addicts, I'm also thinking about how I too could have been one of those addicts in another lifetime.
Agreed, the effect on players who have addictive tendencies is concerning. That is a significantly negative consequence of paid, random loot boxes that affects some players.
I don't know what percent of "whales" are this category (some people just have money to burn), but certainly some of them are.
And I'm not opposed to any and all regulation, here. Requiring publishers to disclose drop rates, which I think has passed in some countries, would be a good step. And maybe there are other changes that could be made that exist somewhere between the wild west we have now and an outright ban (which some people seem to think would be great).
if new laws make the model illegal, then they can change to a different model
I remember when smartphones first came out, most cellphone games were for purchase
Did you even read the thread? Plenty of people here are pro government intervention on this issue?
ResetEra isn't a hive mind, clearly, considering the number corporate defenders on here.
It's such a stupid stance because even if you don't buy loot boxes the game you are playing is literally being designed around them and it's getting worse with every new game launch. Look at MK11 vs MKX as a prime example.
I don't understand the perspective of adults who are critical of this proposed bill, which would only be passed with wide bi-partisan support. If you're an adult, the bill does not affect how many golden coins you get to purchase for some shit mobile game in order to win it. It's specifically targeting publishers of games where children under 18 are encouraged to make these purchases.
"Congress must send a clear warning to app developers and tech companies: Children are not cash cows to exploit for profit."
- Dick Blumenthal.
Who ... disagrees with this statement?
Now, I get the libertarian skepticism that government never does anything right, but ... that's childish. American government more often than not, is very cautious before cutting into legitimate revenue streams of companies.
"Congress must send a clear warning to app developers and tech companies: Children are not cash cows to exploit for profit."
- Dick Blumenthal.
Who ... disagrees with this statement?
Now, I get the libertarian skepticism that government never does anything right, but ... that's childish. American government more often than not, is very cautious before cutting into legitimate revenue streams of companies.
I know, right? It's literally video games' descent into petty, addictive, get-a-quick-fix slot machine bullshit happening right before our eyes, and people will still defend it tooth and nail.
^ This. Seriously this. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face, "But this means my free stuff subsidized by
For the people defending this...look, I am not even calling for an outright ban on monetized loot boxes although I would personally love nothing more. But regulation on monetization based on chance mechanics, which the industry refused to do on its own, is a modest and sensible answer. You still get your gambling like lootboxes but that shit is taxed, age restricted, and run through legal hoops to be as ethical as they can be.
Last edited:
That would destroy most companies that produce mobile. Not even Mario could find success with this model.
If mario can't, no one will.
All the big mobile games are p2w, microtransactions or lootboxes.
Pokemon go, candy crush, fortnite... I can't think of a single game like final fantasy, mario, doom or god of war. If that's to happen, no microtransactions/loot box, people would go back to gaming like they did in 2008, with nintendo DS.
If it passes in the Senate it'll most likely pass in the House. I see no reason for a veto.
B-but my favorite video game company! how will they make any money now without preying on kids dude...
Mario found success. It made money. It just didn't make what they thought so decided to jump into the F2P loot box shit realm.
Again, that being a response to me, the person just skipped a few spaces on their "jump to conclusions" mat. I said "all DLC being bad is a dumb view", nothing about loot boxes in particular.
I agree with your stance against the banning all DLC. I don't think too many have gone that extreme in that direction.Though some of your responses came precariously close to other people on this topic have said that the poster you quoted is reacting to. Seriously, we have had people take that stance of "Fucking addicts should take personal responsibility"
But again, I agree with you in the respect I believe there are such things as ethical and good value DLC that expand the base gaming. Monetized lootboxes aren't one of them.
So will this also be going after absolutely insanely exploitive games like fortnite as well or is this just loot boxes
It made a profit, just not what Nintendo expected. Expectations for profit on mobile are skewed by some of the few companies that rake in billions from loot boxes and other predatory means.
Also, Nintendo fucked up big time with SMR and not because it was paid. They made it F2P then put a hard $10 gate in front of people. That's a no-no. They also made it always online... for a Mario platformer. Also a no-no. The game could have been a bigger success as a paid product up front at half the price for sure.
bUt ThOsE BoNuSes CEOs gEt aReN't sTrAiGhT MoNeY, OnLy ShAReS.
:lol
fortnight doesn't have pay to win and there is no gambling aspect, yeah?
It didn't make money as good as the exploitative stuff for sure. That's what made mobile such a shitty industry. It's just a race to who can have a sub-decent game with the most exploitative practices.
In a post lootbox world, we could see stuff that's actually good like mario run and such actually do well.
Ah, I thought it was about fighting back video games like Fortnite using psychologically manipulative tactics to suck money from children, guess I shouldn't have expected too much
Torn on this issue. I'm afraid this is gonna have a negative effect on small, indie mobile games just trying to get by.
I don't play fortnite, but does it have loot boxes for sale with real money? The bill would likely target companies that make a percentage of revenue for their game based off of selling loot boxes to minors.
The ESA and videogame publishers have continually stonewalled efforts of regulators and consumer advocacy groups who have asked them to publish odds charts, value charts for loot, and other data so that consumers can make informed choices about what they're buying. If the videogame industry stopped being shady about simple requests like this, then there wouldn't be as much demand by consumers, attorneys general, and representatives to hem them in. They just... can't help being shady.
One of the greatest successes of the gaming industry is leveraging people's extremelly short-term memory to convince them that "they way it is now is the way it's always been; it's the only way that works". What's worse is that they keep moving the Overton window: "the way it is now" changes for the worse from year to year, yet gamers accept it as the new normal without as much as a peep, and ardently defend that this is the only way games can possibly be profitable.
If these small indie mobile games are taking advantage of children, then yes, it would likely affect them.
"They don't understand video games well enough to regulate them"?
Then what do they understand well enough to regulate? I saw an interview with Hawley about this. He seemed knowledgeable on the topic. I'm interested to see what the bill will say. This is a problem worth addressing.
That doesn't mean the law passes. I'd love to see the major players agree to the same sort of thing as the ESRB: voluntary "ratings" indicators, the platform holders refuse to carry certain ratings or unrated games, the major storefronts agree to enforce age restrictions. This could end quite reasonably.
Then what do they understand well enough to regulate? I saw an interview with Hawley about this. He seemed knowledgeable on the topic. I'm interested to see what the bill will say. This is a problem worth addressing.
That doesn't mean the law passes. I'd love to see the major players agree to the same sort of thing as the ESRB: voluntary "ratings" indicators, the platform holders refuse to carry certain ratings or unrated games, the major storefronts agree to enforce age restrictions. This could end quite reasonably.
My only worry is that the category lootboxes fall under will continue to develop and become more insidious, but if we try to raise a stink about it, others will say "there was the lootbox law, what more do you want? Go away."
All the same, full steam ahead into (hopefully) reasonable law.
All the same, full steam ahead into (hopefully) reasonable law.
If you go to enough card shops/flea markets you'll find almost any out of print set of cards. You can also simply buy or trade for that og charizard that someone pulled years ago.
By comparison if you weren't around in the month where x uber rare thing was availbale you have no hope of getting it unless they decide to rerelease it. Even if all my friends got something like witch mercy they can't sell or trade me that single skin.
Congress absolutely has the right to regulate interstate commerce, it's one of its chief responsibilities. The Senator who proposed the bill is probably pretty aware of Supreme Court precedent given that he was the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, is a law professor at the University of Missouri Law School, served as law clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, and successfully argued Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in front of the Supreme Court in 2014. It's probably a safe bet that the sponsor of the bill has a pretty firm grasp on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, as well as the first amendment given that Hobby Lobby -- whether you agree with the ruling or not -- was a first amendment case.
Beyond that, though, the 2011 ruling on the 2005 California law hinged on argument (written by Scalia) that speech about violence is protected speech. Speech about violence is not obscene, lest we would have to ban violent books, television news, or movies. Further, the Supreme Court has upheld congressional authority in the past on regulating sales of products to minors. For instance, SCOTUS upheld a 2010 federal law whereby Congress granted the power to the FDA to regulate cigarette marketing and sales to minors, but prior to that, state governments had widely regulated how companies marketed materials to children since the 50s and 60s. The 2011 videogame ruling hinged on the nature of violence in speech, and speech about violence is protected.
It's a ... difficult argument to make that selling loot boxes or pay to win mechanics in games to minors is speech, no more than a cigarette company would argue that selling cigarettes to minors is speech.
Fortnite doesn't have loot boxes or pay-to-win microtransactions, so they might be unaffected.
Where they might be affected will come down to the text of bill, because what Fortnite does is a Battle Pass. You spend $20 on a battle pass and you get increased rewards out of playing the game. And then, if that's not enough microtransactions for you, you can pay additional money to unlock levels of the battle pass, letting you bypass playing the game in order to buy your way into the higher tier rewards.
Whether something like a Battle Pass would be impacted is yet to be seen. Supposedly Hawley's going to actually introduce the bill soon, which means we should finally have some text to analyze and see what exactly the bill does.
Based on the summary proposal, I'd think that Battle Passes and other clearly detailed microtransactions would not be covered by this bill. Battle passes (At least as I understand them) aren't randomized rewards, but rather they pretty clearly spell out what you're going to get for that $20. Hawley's proposal on his website, when it comes to Loot Boxes, specifically mentions the random nature of loot boxes.
The only battle pass I'm really familiar with is Apex Legends, where Respawn did a pretty good job of clearly showing you what you're going to get if you purchase the Battle Pass. Going through those levels 5-70 or whatever it seems pretty clear that you're going to get special guns, skins, badges, cosmetics, game tags, and other stuff that I don't value, but I'd imagine would have value to someone else.
The most interesting aspect of this for me is how it goes after 'Pay to Win' multiplayer games:
This portion is specifically targeting Ultimate Team modes like Madden Ultimate Team and FIFA, and I completely agree with the proposal .. even from just a petty gamer's perspective. THose modes have ruined simulation sports games. Still, FUT and MUT could still be hugely lucrative for EA, but they'd just have to change how the rewards are dolled out. And, even then, the proposal is specifically around children.
Of course, when the bill is written it could be different, but per the summary proposal, I don't have a problem regulating the sale of random rewards packages to minors in games.
Last edited:
Games are much more likely to go F2P than to go over $60.
I support a ban on loot boxes because they're built explicitly to exploit, i don't support a ban on MTX, and this bill is problematic for many reasons.
1.It's only talking about protecting children (because i guess it's ok to exploit adults with gambling addictions?), and these digital storefronts already have parental controls that can block all digital purchases, so even if a child got ahold of a credit card or a PSN card, it wouldn't go through. If the parents aren't utilizing these features thats on them, and if he feels like these features aren't advertised enough, then he should be writing legislation to address that, not to put a blanket ban on "Pay to win MTX", which brings us to the next point
2.How is going to distinguish between a P2W MTX and a normal MTX? There's probably lots of games that would get hit here when they could make a good argument that they aren't P2W, the bill is far too broad and the writer admits that he doesn't play video games so he probably isn't the best judge of this sort of thing.
Last edited:
They're not randomized rewards, but this part:
could potentially hit Battle Passes based on how the final bill is worded. The Battle Passes are time limited and the amount of rewards scale with how much you play the game over the time period involved. If it were just that, you could maybe make a case that this wouldn't hit them, but the fact that you can buy battle pass levels puts them on shakier ground.
Hopefully we'll be able to see the text of the bill soon and see how that will shake out.
I think the argument that "we shouldn't pursue this because it doesn't go far enough!!" is dishonest argument. You can't be criticizing the proposal and then arguing "I'm against it because it only protects children and not adults!"
But that said, the proposal doesn't ban microtransactions. FIrst, let's be clear, it doesn't ban anything. But, second, it limits the sale of microtransactions that are "pay to win" or "loot boxes" to minors. I think that's a reasonable proposal, and if a videogame company is making their income off of selling manipulative products -- loot boxes or pay to win schemes -- to minors, then I think they should come up with another revenue stream. They can still manipulate adults.
I'd imagine it'd be up to the game developer to make their case that a mechanic is not a pay-to-win mechanic. I'm fine with that. If you're a game developer and you want to make money selling a game that potentially manipulates minors into spending money on the game, and your game comes under scrutiny for that, prove that it doesn't, and then you don't get fined.
Beyond that, I don't think you can really say "The bill is too broad," because ... the bill doesn't exist. It's a proposal that hasn't been written yet. Further, most legislators who sponsor bills use expert testimony when they're written. I don't think that there are any legislators in congress (or very few) who are experts on, say, green house gas emissions and the precise science of how carbon can change the climate, but when legislators propose bills to curb climate change they do so with expert testimony.
Thats one hell of a bad take. There are more ethical ways to implement microtransactions than lootboxes jfc. Just look at fortnite of all things for that and then tell me "it doesn't work"
