That has always been my biggest fear.
However, i see lobbyst companies salivating that now the biggest industry in the word has a reason to pay for its services.
-
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
However, i see lobbyst companies salivating that now the biggest industry in the word has a reason to pay for its services.
I support regulation, especially a ban on loot boxes, i'm just telling you that this bill isn't what we need.
I listened to a lawyer break down all the issues with this bills language for 50 minutes, he just dismantles it's arguments brick by brick.
They need to toss the language about children, it's pointless and distracts from the real issues with blind purchases. There's already protections in place, it's not the publishers, the developers, or the platform holders fault that parents aren't paying attention to their children. Stories like these are what they should be focused on https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/12/14...0-on-final-fantasy-and-nearly-lost-his-family
Seeing the announcement that Fire Emblem Heroes would be shutting down in Belgium did make me wonder if it was a canary in the coal mine kind of moment.
But the mobile gaming industry absolutely rakes in cash, one has to think they'd lobby the hell out of congress so this doesn't happen, right?
But the mobile gaming industry absolutely rakes in cash, one has to think they'd lobby the hell out of congress so this doesn't happen, right?
I'd take it a step further and ban premium currencies whose only purpose is to obfuscate how much the things you're buying in game actually cost.
It won't just be the mobile industry, companies like EA and Activision make shit tons of money from MTX. I don't know that EA would even be profitable without Fifa UT.
OP should be updated to include a link to the actual bill.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/Loot-Box-Bill-Text.pdf
I remember reading this story and it makes me cry. I too, fucked up and spent a few thousand dollars on Exvius. Due to a terrible gambling problem and major nostalgia for the final fantasy series, I was a lost cause when it came to pulling for certain characters. I completely relate to everyone who thinks, " just one more pull and I'll get what I desire, it HAS to happen if I keep trying". Then the feeling of investment sets in and before you know it you feel stuck where the only ounce of satisfaction you can possibly obtain is if you see that disgusting little sprite pop up on your screen. It's a stupid, stupid thought process and I feel like an idiot for behaving that way. I was able to get away from it all but every game with a loot box/gatcha is looking to prey on people like myself and that person in the article. Despite the wording of this bill, loot boxes need to be regulated because not every consumer has the will power to know when to quit. The sooner they go away the better.
Yes, but those shares aren't worth nothing.
It's just another pretense to downplay the argument that CEOs make ridiculous amounts of money, with these bonuses on top.
So let's talk about skipping spaces and jumping to wrong conclusions: this all started with a claim that this bill could kill all pay-to-win DLC, to which Linkura said "if we have to choose between both, I'd rather have no lootboxes and no DLC than having both". Somehow from that you've misrepresented them as saying "all DLC is bad, no exceptions".
"The existence of DLC, good and bad, on aggregate, is a worse situation than when we didn't have DLC" =/= "All individual DLC is a bad thing". You cannot cherry pick the actually good examples of DLC like Dark Souls' or Bloodborne's to justify the entirety of DLC as a concept, any more than I can cherry pick, well, lootboxes, or any game cut and sold piecemeal like Mass Effect 3, to justify the exact opposite.
I've been reading a lot of your posts over the last few weeks and I've come to the conclusion that you are batshit crazy. But also highly entertaining. So keep 'em coming.
If you're a small mobile dev relying on exploitative gross tactics you don't deserve to get by. Don't design your product to be a scammy piece of shit.
Now that we have the bill text, my quick and dirty non-lawyer read would indicate that, on the Fortnite example, the bill doesn't seem like it would impact their Battle Pass, but it sounds like the microtransaction to purchase levels of the Battle Pass would be prohibited.
Also there's a carveout to protect DLC, with the caveats that it'd be prohibited if if the DLC gave access to items that impact multiplayer balance or if the DLC includes content that makes it easier to unlock achievements.
EDIT: Also significant, one of the types of microtransactions that gets called out significantly is mobile game energy mechanics, where gameplay is limited to a certain pace for free and then purchases can be used to eliminate or shorten timers.
Also there's a carveout to protect DLC, with the caveats that it'd be prohibited if if the DLC gave access to items that impact multiplayer balance or if the DLC includes content that makes it easier to unlock achievements.
EDIT: Also significant, one of the types of microtransactions that gets called out significantly is mobile game energy mechanics, where gameplay is limited to a certain pace for free and then purchases can be used to eliminate or shorten timers.
This should also be a thing. You can really ban one or the other independently, but yeah, fuck this, especially when it's entirely purpose is strictly predatory.
I'm ok with this. If video game companies need these whale's money to stay afloat than bye. Companies need to start focusing on making good games again and not trying to nickel and dime their customers. You can also make good video games without insane budgets and marketing.
Only if it actually passes, capitalism/greed is an incredible motivator for hubris.
Yeah, the bill itself seems pretty reasonable and focused on pay2win (in multiplayer) and timers/pay2continue.
Here's the link again if OP or mods want to add it: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/Loot-Box-Bill-Text.pdf
Absolutely ban these straight to hell. They serve literally no purpose outside of exploitative mechanisms aimed at increasing spending.
I'm a small, indie developer and I simply refuse to make a game that exploits gambling addictions; I literally would rather go back to office dev jobs. I'd say empathy towards the portion of developers, no matter how small and indie, that are perfectly OK with predatory practices, is very much misplaced; all you're doing is rewarding them, and you cannot reward them without punishing the devs who would rather make non-exploitative games.
The thing all of you seem to forget is that regulations that impact a business strategy negatively will almost always impact competing strategies positively. The market is finite and so is customers' money: banning predatory microtransaction games makes the mobile arena much more viable for non-predatory games. The entire reason customers are used not to pay for mobile games is because "free with predatory microtransactions" has become the norm. Remove the actual legality of these games and games need to follow a traditional business model again to make any money. And they will make money, because there won't be any freemium games to compete with them, and this will become the new normal. The only thing you have to decide is if you like this better or worse than the current ecosystem.
it would be interesting if this actually took off, and instead of giving up on it, everyone just started focusing on japan
I think this section is the bit I was most interested in seeing:
They elsewhere suggest that "minor-oriented game" is a definition based on subject matter, content, specifically characters or activities meant to appeal to those <18, the use of celebrities who are or appeal to those <18, and where it's advertised. Nothing really surprising here or particularly controversial as such (though quite open to interpretation), but nothing that strictly prohibits microtransactions from appearing in games.
Like I originally surmised, the pay to win piece, which would include things like time savers, seem unconstitutional.
The lootbox piece definitely has room to be litigated on its status as gambling, but a dev choosing to include time savers would most likely fall under first amendment rights.
The lootbox piece definitely has room to be litigated on its status as gambling, but a dev choosing to include time savers would most likely fall under first amendment rights.
An interesting bit of the bill is that it doesn't just draw it's prohibitions against the game's publisher, but also against digital game distributors.
So imagine EA looked at this bill and went "Fuck it, we're just gonna release our game anyway" and attempted to publish a game with forbidden microtransactions on PS4, Xbox One, and Origin on PC. If Sony and Microsoft went along with it and distributed the game with those banned microtransactions in place, Sony and MS would be breaking the law to do so in addition to EA.
That means that Steam, EGS, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, GOG, Humble, all of them are going to have to do something to implement this bill to avoid liability falling on them from publishers looking to still make use of the prohibited microtransactions.
So imagine EA looked at this bill and went "Fuck it, we're just gonna release our game anyway" and attempted to publish a game with forbidden microtransactions on PS4, Xbox One, and Origin on PC. If Sony and Microsoft went along with it and distributed the game with those banned microtransactions in place, Sony and MS would be breaking the law to do so in addition to EA.
That means that Steam, EGS, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, GOG, Humble, all of them are going to have to do something to implement this bill to avoid liability falling on them from publishers looking to still make use of the prohibited microtransactions.
I'm not from the US so I might be bit out of the loop, but isn't first amendment about freedom of speech, press and religion? I don't see the connection.
Until the lobbyists $ start pouring in. Does the us government actually do things for the interest of the average person any more?
It's a pretty broad amendment, you saw it brought up in the lawsuit with Rockstar and the Pinkertons.
Video games get first amendment protections just like books, movies, tv shows etc.
It's like saying I couldn't write and publish and book and my profit model was:
1. Read ten pages a day for free
2. Read the whole book at once for $5
It seems like to me that wouldn't fly.
1st Amendment is a protection for content. The SCOTUS case that people like to cite that involved video games went down because the bill at question regulated games differently based on the content contained within the game.
This bill doesn't discriminate on content, and instead is just a regulation of commerce practices.
I'd say the strongest case for an argument about the law based on the 1st Amendment would probably be that the bill restricts games based on whether they are targeted at or market to kids, where the law would probably be on stronger ground if it just prohibited these practices across the board no matter who they're targeted at or marketed to.
Yeah, i'm all for banning lootboxes because they're very obviously built to exploit, but F2P is a legitimate business model that billions of people really like.
What the fuck does that have to do with the First Amendment of all things? How in the hell is your freedom of expression being vulnerated by the government telling you to fuck off with your predatory business model? :D
Honestly, the ESRB had a chance to address this two or so years ago and failed to do so. They should have known this would escalate to a civil / legal battle with the end goal targeting congressional laws.
The ESA has been very complacent with loot box and micro transactional 'gambling' mechanics, finding no need to implement a self-inforced age restriction. People who are parents have the right to be concerned with their children being introduced at an early age to gambling before they have a full grasp of what exactly they're doing. Parents also have the right to know when that type of content is in a game they want to buy for their child. The unwillingness of the ESA to add these to their ESRB rating system is a real joke, especially when simply enforcing a 'Chance Based Microtransactions = T+' would have simply made this problem go away.
When the industry fails to self regulate, it's only a matter of time before the government finds the need to step into the problem.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is the fact it's a Republican bill and, because of that, will likely have a whole load of pork shoved in there to appease other industries who see the gaming industry as a threat to their bottom line. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
The ESA has been very complacent with loot box and micro transactional 'gambling' mechanics, finding no need to implement a self-inforced age restriction. People who are parents have the right to be concerned with their children being introduced at an early age to gambling before they have a full grasp of what exactly they're doing. Parents also have the right to know when that type of content is in a game they want to buy for their child. The unwillingness of the ESA to add these to their ESRB rating system is a real joke, especially when simply enforcing a 'Chance Based Microtransactions = T+' would have simply made this problem go away.
When the industry fails to self regulate, it's only a matter of time before the government finds the need to step into the problem.
My biggest problem with this whole thing is the fact it's a Republican bill and, because of that, will likely have a whole load of pork shoved in there to appease other industries who see the gaming industry as a threat to their bottom line. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
I want to make it clear that i'm absolutely in favor of regulations for MTX, and the outright banning of lootboxes. But children are not an issue here, every digital storefront has parental controls that block purchases. (doesn't matter if they steal a credit card or a PSN card, they can't use it with these features). This solves the children argument, there's no regulation because it's a problem that's already been solved.
This is the type of problem the industry should be focused on https://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/12/14...0-on-final-fantasy-and-nearly-lost-his-family This person is not a child, this person very clearly has a form of addiction that the publisher is preying on, whenever you bring up children it distracts from stories like this and even implies that it's ok because he's not a child and adults can take care of themselves.
But yes, you're absolutely correct that we want the industry to regulate itself, rather than a bunch of people who don't know anything about video games doing it for them, who very likely have outside motivations for the bills they're passing. The industry isn't going to make any type of meaningful regulation for lootboxes/MTX though because it's a critical part of their business model, or soon will be. So we need to make sure we pass the right type of regulation, this bill is a decent step in the right direction, but it's not the bill we want or need.
Completely agree with this. Passing this through as "save the children" isn't helping much except absolving responsibility from parents (unless the kids are geniuses and crack their passwords or something, but that's probably indicative of other problems at home). But the addictive nature of these things is what needs to be looked at, and mainly for adults who can actually spend their own money on them.
This emend has the example of Candy Crush so no, it's not EA. lol
It's cosponsored by two Democrats. And again, you can read the bill for yourself: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/Loot-Box-Bill-Text.pdf
In the case of japanese mobile games, if something indeed happens in US, they probably will shut down the games there and just leave all of them on Asia and Japan. It's where the majority of the revenue comes.
For western mobile games, the situation is very different as the majority of the revenue for them comes from the west.
Did you watch some of the google and Facebook hearings? They are so out of touch when it comes to all this. ESA fucked up bad.
If this keeps devs/pubs from trying to sell me their stupid loot boxes and points while I'm trying to play games I'm all for it. Get your wannabe gambling garbage out of my face and shove it parasites.
I know, I know, broader repercussions and all but these shitheels brought it upon themselves.
I know, I know, broader repercussions and all but these shitheels brought it upon themselves.
Battlefront 2 put lootboxes and these types of business models into the mainstream press, they absolutely kickstarted these types of bills. Star Wars is the most popular IP in the world, if you say something like "Player spent a bunch of money trying to unlock a powerful sword/magic wielder in an FPS", parents and non-gamers don't know or care about what they're talking about.
But saying something like "Darth Vader is expensive to unlock even though he already spent $60 on the new star wars game" is pretty easy to understand.
It's hard to put into words how badly EA fucked up.
From my interpretation regulating which pieces of your art you can sell will force the govt to prove that it has an interest in regulating it.
Minor oriented games does offer a protection for the bill because the govt has interest in protecting minors. What's missing from this here will be what's "minor oriented" and what's not. Things like Fortnite or FIFA or Rocket League are not minor oriented.
A good look at actual minor oriented games would be licensed games based on children's cartoons. And there's already a lot of self regulation that goes on there.
If whatever final form of this bill gets passed, when it gets to litigation it will be on the govt to defend its constitutionality.
lol Maybe the western mobile industry. But that won't happen to the japanese and asian mobile industry which will go on normally as what is happening here on the west already happened there for ages and gacha was normally allowed as the only problem is kompu gacha. At best in that situation, all japanese companies will just stop to release their mobile games on the west and use them on Asia and Japan, which is where the majority of the money comes by far.
I know all of that. I was talking about this very thing which cites Candy Crush but not EA.
The industry has had so many opportunities to rein this in, and refused to do so. A bill being bad or overreaching is kinda beside the point, you know that is how the government operates, so you apply some moderation yourself before it gets to that point. You don't need to be a Wharton alumnus to know that "gambling" and "children" getting thrown around in the same sentences was going to invite problems.