• 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.

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
Summary:

1.) Not legally gambling if you can't cash out of the system. This is defined by parliamentary law.

2.) They suggest developers put in parental controls around this stuff to avoid upset parents given the amount of complaints they're hearing. Mind, this is literally a suggestion (though I think you can already block in app purchases on console and mobile?)

3.) They will go after websites such as third party FIFA card sites that let you trade out for money.

Loot boxes within video games

In recent weeks there's been much interest in loot boxes within video games. Loot boxes provide players with the opportunity to pay to open a box and acquire an unknown quantity and quality of in-game items for use within the game. Here Tim Miller, Gambling Commission Executive Director, explains our stance on this matter.

In early 2016 we identified loot boxes as a potential risk to children and young people as part of a wider review on our concerns around video games and gambling themes, resulting in publication of a position paper.

Our starting point in deciding our position with any product is to look closely at whether or not it falls under UK gambling law. The definition of what is legally classed as gambling is set by Parliament rather than by us. Our role is to apply that definition to activities that we see and any changes to that definition need to be made by Parliament.

The law sets a line between what is and is not gambling. As the regulator we patrol that line and where an activity crosses it and presents a risk to people, especially children, we have and will take robust action. Earlier this year we successfully brought the first criminal prosecution in this area in relation to Futgalaxy - a website for providing skins gambling to children (skins gambling is explained within the position paper).

A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired 'via a game of chance' can be considered money or money's worth. In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.

However, many parents are not interested in whether an activity meets a legal definition of 'gambling'. Their main concern is whether there is a product out there that could present a risk to their children. We are concerned with the growth in examples where the line between video gaming and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred. Where it does meet the definition of gambling it is our job to ensure that children are protected and we have lots of rules in place, like age verification requirements, to do that.

Where a product does not meet that test to be classed as gambling but could potentially cause harm to children, parents will undoubtedly expect proper protections to be put in place by those that create, sell and regulate those products. We have a long track record in keeping children safe and we are keen to share our experiences and expertise with others that have a similar responsibility. Whether gambling or not, we all have a responsibility to keep children and young people safe.
Source: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u.../news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx
 

-shadow-

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,110
They can suggest ideas all they want, but unless they start making demands that can actively affect the publishers, I highly doubt any developer will put any kind of protection against them in place.
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
I think the issue here is the fact that, in colloquial terms, it is obviously possible to gamble with things that are not legal tender currency, which the outdated laws have not caught up to. For example, the Pokemon games famously came under gambling restrictions in Europe because of the slot machines that solely use in-game currency with no ability to create a real-world transaction. If those can be considered gambling (which I actually don't agree with) then loot boxes involving real legal tender in exchange for in-game virtual objects is obviously gambling too.

This is just the UK's position based on their legal definition of gambling so I'd be curious to see how the US or EU classify gambling activities.
 

Butch

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,438
Outdated law. It clearly is gambling even if you can't cash out, people get addicted the same kind of way and it can hurt just as bad. But I get it, I guess this is all they can do at the moment.
 

Stilton Disco

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
581
UK
They're just reiterating what we already know.

Laws written before digital gambling existed are outdated and the legal definitions need to be rewritten to reflect reality. Hopefully once more governments actually update their laws, the rest will follow.
 

spineduke

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
8,754
Disappointing and one sided - not even an attempt to create transparency by enforcing visible probability rates at which you could earn items via lootboxes.
 

Homeworkfilms

Member
Oct 25, 2017
116
Toronto
My main concern is all the rhetoric about children, though they open by stating the law applies to all people. The boxes are so pernicious because they can affect people of all ages and backgrounds with their ability to influence purchasing and exploit addiction. They have a responsibility to keep all people safe.
 

Pandy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,026
Scotland
I disagree with the definition, but even if we go with that then all the Steam games where you can sell shit would fall under this and be regulated here, and you can bet they won't be bothering their arse with that any time soon.
 

Abriael

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,605
Milano - Italy
My main concern is all the rhetoric about children, though they open by stating the law applies to all people. The boxes are so pernicious because they can affect people of all ages and backgrounds with their ability to influence purchasing and exploit addiction. They have a responsibility to keep all people safe.

People have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. Children are singled out because their ability to do so independently is weaker.
 
Oct 27, 2017
977
Similar to the ecigs situation a couple of years ago, lootboxes are distinct enough from gambling to be legally separate, but also close enough in nature that they should be given their own legal definition and regulations which (like ecigs to cigarettes) will be broadly in line with the definitions and regulations for gambling.
 

Tecnniqe

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,743
Antarctica
Reads like "We can't do anything because the law wont allow us to since you cant cash out but we're concerned about its effects on children" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Aldi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,634
United Kingdom
I agree with them. The issue i see with those wanting this practice labelled as gambling is that it opens up a whole can of worms in other departments as well. If, for example, packs in Fifa Ultimate team are seen as gambling then I'd assume that the same
must go for mystery packed toys too such as sealed packs of cards (YuGiHo and Pokemon) and Lego mini figures.
 

BocoDragon

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,207
I'm never buying a game with loot boxes so have fun, publishers. You're a tobacco company to me now :)
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
We only need a handful of countries to legislate drop rate conditions and all will be known. Unless Blizzard attempt to squirm their way out of regulation in even more countries.

Relying on the UK in 2017 was always going to be a crap shoot.
 

joe_zazen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,490
I agree with them. The issue i see with those wanting this practice labelled as gambling is that it opens up a whole can of worms in other departments as well. If, for example, packs in Fifa Ultimate team are seen as gambling then I'd assume that the same
must go for mystery packed toys too such as sealed packs of cards (YuGiHo and Pokemon) and Lego mini figures.

What would be lost in that scenario?

But no, it doesn't have to be the same. Laws can be written to target virtual gambling without killing baseball cards or whatever.
 

Fawz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,660
Montreal
I get that legally putting in limitations and sanctions will be hard and complicated, it'll take time to do it properly and make it consistently widespread especially when things haven't been set-up for the digital age.

But more than anything I hope we at least get a clear messaging/labeling system to outline the details around Lootboxes and eventually also Micro-Transactions within games, particularly full-priced titles.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,896
Not much else they can do at this point, law needs to be updated. People most definitely put value into virtual goods in this day and age.
 

Ahasverus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,599
Colombia
I agree with them. The issue i see with those wanting this practice labelled as gambling is that it opens up a whole can of worms in other departments as well. If, for example, packs in Fifa Ultimate team are seen as gambling then I'd assume that the same
must go for mystery packed toys too such as sealed packs of cards (YuGiHo and Pokemon) and Lego mini figures.
Physical goods are restrained by quantities (they can go saying that they just make fewer "rare cards).

Digital goods are not, and such any randomized mechanism is a form of exploitation.
 

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,032
UK
They're just reiterating what we already know.

Laws written before digital gambling existed are outdated and the legal definitions need to be rewritten to reflect reality. Hopefully once more governments actually update their laws, the rest will follow.

I have a feeling this will take years :/
 
OP
OP
Nirolak

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
The cash out note almost assuredly revolves around this common scenario.

Say you have a $4000 paycheck, $2000 in living expenses, and $2000 in spare cash. You go to a casino and bet your $2000 in spare cash on Blackjack and lose it all. Technically you're still okay at the moment. However, certain types of people will then proceed to spend $2000 more hoping to win back all their lost income. If you can't cash our, you can't actually do that, and know that anything you do just puts you further in debt.

Now, the game equivalent would be not getting the skin or character you want and spending more money to try and get them, even if you can't afford it. In mobile games, this is usually a pretty notable issue since there's no mitigation system in place that lets you get the character regardless. In the console and PC space however, you usually are awarded dust or credits or something of that nature that lets you go pick up the specific thing you wanted, along with a scaling factor that increases your odds of getting something good if you haven't in a while. I do think the industry would benefit from standardizing systems like that along with listing rates and ensuring that parental controls are in place, even if just from a PR perspective. It's also much better business to ensure someone is spending within their means so that they can keep spending later. Similarly, it keeps customers happy and sticking around instead of upset and leaving.
 

Stilton Disco

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
581
UK
I agree with them. The issue i see with those wanting this practice labelled as gambling is that it opens up a whole can of worms in other departments as well. If, for example, packs in Fifa Ultimate team are seen as gambling then I'd assume that the same
must go for mystery packed toys too such as sealed packs of cards (YuGiHo and Pokemon) and Lego mini figures.

Well, yes, and we the consumer would be better off with those things being either more tightly regulated or forced to sell us goods without random chance causing us to potential waste our money trying to buy what we want.

Honestly, so many people arguing against regulations and updating laws to reflect reality are the equivelant of the classic "What if Climate Change isn't real and we improve the world for nothing!?".

There are literally no downsides for us as consumers and players in getting loot boxes completely banned or at least discouraged and controlled with heavy regulation.

The only people that lose out are big businesses and their shareholders.

And fuck those guys. We're just a resource to bleed dry to them.
 

joe_zazen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,490
The cash out note almost assuredly revolves around this common scenario.

Say you have a $4000 paycheck, $2000 in living expenses, and $2000 in spare cash. You go to a casino and bet your $2000 in spare cash on Blackjack and lose it all. Technically you're still okay at the moment. However, certain types of people will then proceed to spend $2000 more hoping to win back all their lost income. If you can't cash our, you can't actually do that, and know that anything you do just puts you further in debt.

Now, the game equivalent would be not getting the skin or character you want and spending more money to try and get them, even if you can't afford it. In mobile games, this is usually a pretty notable issue since there's no mitigation system in place that lets you get the character regardless. In the console and PC space however, you usually are awarded dust or credits or something of that nature that lets you go pick up the specific thing you wanted, along with a scaling factor that increases your odds of getting something good if you haven't in a while. I do think the industry would benefit from standardizing systems like that along with listing rates and ensuring that parental controls are in place, even if just from a PR perspective. It's also much better business to ensure someone is spending within their means so that they can keep spending later. Similarly, it keeps customers happy and sticking around instead of upset and leaving.

There is also the issue of not exposing developing brains to gambling or faux gambling because age of exposure is one of the risk factors for gambling addiction later in life. That is why 8 year olds cannot buy lotto tickets or play the slots along with their grandma. & the younger one is, the less rational self control.

The restrictions will be about labelling and preventing under 18/21's from playing these games, which of course will kill loot boxes because those are who these companies target.
 

Aldi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,634
United Kingdom
Physical goods are restrained by quantities (they can go saying that they just make fewer "rare cards).

Digital goods are not, and such any randomized mechanism is a form of exploitation.

Thanks for this explanation.

Having children myself that have loved the excitement of the mystery of toys growing up, such as Moshi Monsters, Lego Mini Figures and Pokemon I've always thought that these toys were a gamble in themselves so have found it difficult to see the differences between them and online gambling, but you are right, thinking about it, there are quantities involved that make the two differ.

Ultimate team should be the first to see the hammer IMO. Game has a market place that sells players for coins that then can be used to open packs, those same packs can be opened for real money and although you still can't cash out i do think that the players and packs have real world value.

Hopefully more gets done to regulate this.
 

Militaratus

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,212
So does this means UK Players will have the former pre-scandal settings restored and can be exploited to ESA's content since the UKGC is all GLHF with this system?

Future releases is gonna be confusing if certain countries do ban lootboxes and others like UK don't. Will this lead to people importing versions that don't have lootboxes and normal progression rates, or will publishers simply not sell to countries that have banned lootboxes?

Imagine if only mainland US and UK are cool with lootboxes, would EA still have 14m copies sold in their projections for BF2 by 2018, even if all other countries ban the game including France (home of Disney)?
 
OP
OP
Nirolak

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
There is also the issue of not exposing developing brains to gambling or faux gambling because age of exposure is one of the risk factors for gambling addiction later in life. That is why 8 year olds cannot buy lotto tickets or play the slots along with their grandma. & the younger one is, the less rational self control.
Would the slot machines in Dragon Quest and Mario not be problematic by this measure?

The restrictions will be about labelling and preventing under 18/21's from playing these games, which of course will kill loot boxes because those are who these companies target.
That's usually not who the loot box paying audience is.

Even in Japan, where basically every game operates on the least friendly forms of lootboxes possible, the payers are overwhelmingly in their 30s and 40s.

 
Last edited:

Tecnniqe

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,743
Antarctica
There is also the issue of not exposing developing brains to gambling or faux gambling because age of exposure is one of the risk factors for gambling addiction later in life. That is why 8 year olds cannot buy lotto tickets or play the slots along with their grandma. & the younger one is, the less rational self control.

The restrictions will be about labelling and preventing under 18/21's from playing these games, which of course will kill loot boxes because those are who these companies target.
This is the entire point of it all.
This "stimulation" or gambling "simulation" (or perhaps both) people get from lootboxes when being paid rather than earned is dangerous and could cause societal damage down the line.

It should be avoided or heavily regulated.

Of course not only children is the concern, adults struggle too, but keeping developing brains away from the "rush" of uncertainty surely is for the better.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Would the slot machines in Dragon Quest and Mario not be problematic by this measure?


That's usually not who the loot box paying audience is.

Even in Japan, where basically every game operates on the least friendly forms of lootboxes possible, the payers are all in their 30s and 40s.

Not as much as they do not introduce the concept of handing over real money for paid RNG.

Look up PEGI ratings anyway, even Pokemon got a warning about teaching gambling mechanics. Rated 12 though. PEGI is inconsistent. Other games with the teaches gambling mechanics warning get rated 18.

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/global_id/505/?searchString=Pokemon+

You cannot spend real money for paid RNG in Pokemon Red, Blue or Yellow.
 

Abriael

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,605
Milano - Italy
There is also the issue of not exposing developing brains to gambling or faux gambling because age of exposure is one of the risk factors for gambling addiction later in life. That is why 8 year olds cannot buy lotto tickets or play the slots along with their grandma. & the younger one is, the less rational self control.

The restrictions will be about labelling and preventing under 18/21's from playing these games, which of course will kill loot boxes because those are who these companies target.

There is absolutely no need to restrict anyone from playing the game. Applying parental controls limited to the loot boxes is just as effective.

Also, these companies mostly target whales, which are normally not underage.
 
OP
OP
Nirolak

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
Not as much as they do not introduce the concept of handing over real money for paid RNG.

Look up PEGI ratings anyway, even Pokemon got a warning about teaching gambling mechanics. Rated 12 though. PEGI is inconsistent.
I mean, the Skull guys in Mario Odyssey ask you to hand over 10 gold coins to play and then explicitly tell you gambling is fun, and Mario is unquestionably sold to young kids.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
I mean, the Skull guys in Mario Odyssey ask you to hand over 10 gold coins to play and then explicitly tell you gambling is fun, and Mario is unquestionably sold to young kids.

You'd need to ask PEGI why they care about some titles then and not others.

Starting to hand over real money is still different than simply being told something via text.
 

Deleted member 25108

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
2,877
It's not gambling, and no amount of screaming at empty air is going to change that.

That being said, it is incredibly predatory and still needs some form of oversight, if not outright regulation.

I think a better more appropriate fight is making any lootbox game have to display it on the box/before the download and that you have sign a separate deceleration that you understand this.
 

joe_zazen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,490
Would the slot machines in Dragon Quest and Mario not be problematic by this measure?


That's usually not who the loot box paying audience is.

Even in Japan, where basically every game operates on the least friendly forms of lootboxes possible, the payers are all in their 30s and 40s.



All of them? I don't trust industry numbers that aren't transparent. Are those?

However, I was talking about Star Wars and other big console games, sorry if that wasn't clear. And yes, if govts are going to tackle this, they won't be leaving f2p games out.
 

RalchAC

Member
Oct 27, 2017
825
Makes sense. They don't make the law but have to oversee it and make sure it's applied. At the end of the day, the Legislative Branch of the Government is the one that should take a stance.

Not as much as they do not introduce the concept of handing over real money for paid RNG.

Look up PEGI ratings anyway, even Pokemon got a warning about teaching gambling mechanics. Rated 12 though. PEGI is inconsistent. Other games with the teaches gambling mechanics warning get rated 18.

http://www.pegi.info/en/index/global_id/505/?searchString=Pokemon+

You cannot spend real money for paid RNG in Pokemon Red, Blue or Yellow.

One of the dungeons in Persona 5 was a Casino with rigged slot machines. It's PEGI 16+ and the summary states that the game includes "realistic looking violence - Strong language - Content that teaches or encourages gambling". The game has the dice icon for gambling. The dungeon is a metaphor that
compared the Japanese judicial system with a Casino where you can't win no matter how much you spend.

If you're going to slap the "gambling" icon for something like that, you may as well slap it in Overwatch for its lootboxes. Or maybe have a slightly different icon. But they should definitely tell in the ratings that a game features microtransactions that apply the same psichological principles that are used in sot machines, even if they're cosmetic. I honestly don't expect a parent to know that the PEGI 12+ game they have bought for 40$ has RNG elements accompanied by shining lights to encourage people to drop money in the game.
 

Deleted member 19218

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,323
What would be lost in that scenario?

But no, it doesn't have to be the same. Laws can be written to target virtual gambling without killing baseball cards or whatever.

But then if the legal definition for gambling is updated to include loot boxes, it might be difficult to seperate trading cards and the like from the new definition.

Are kinder eggs gambling? Of course not, it's just a fun little surprise but I can imagine someone being uptight and on a technicality they will sue the kinder company.

I'm fully aware what I am saying is ridiculous but that is why this is such a tricky legal discussion at the moment when we talk about whether or not loot boxes are gambling.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Makes sense. They don't make the law but have to oversee it and make sure it's applied. At the end of the day, the Legislative Branch of the Government is the one that should take a stance.



One of the dungeons in Persona 5 was a Casino with rigged slot machines. It's PEGI 16+ and the summary states that the game includes "realistic looking violence - Strong language - Content that teaches or encourages gambling". The game has the dice icon for gambling. The dungeon is a metaphor that
compared the Japanese judicial system with a Casino where you can't win no matter how much you spend.

If you're going to slap the "gambling" icon for something like that, you may as well slap it in Overwatch for its lootboxes. Or maybe have a slightly different icon. But they should definitely tell in the ratings that a game features microtransactions that apply the same psichological principles that are used in sot machines, even if they're cosmetic. I honestly don't expect a parent to know that the PEGI 12+ game they have bought for 40$ has RNG elements accompanied by shining lights to encourage people to drop money in the game.

I'm supporting PEGI using their... own system, all I'm saying is someone would need to ask PEGI why they are inconsistent and hit some titles with the warning and icon, but not others. Nirolak was asking me about Mario, but I can't answer why PEGI didn't put a warning on it.

The main point I was making is text in a game is far different than $99.99 payment options to hand over that sum of money for paid RNG. You can't swipe your credit card in Pokemon red or Persona 5 to roll the dice on desired outcomes. You can in Overwatch and Battlefront 2.

Games get rated 18 for violence, but games aren't responsible if you decide to kidnap someone like Trevor in GTA and torture them. Games with paid RNG are asking you to pay and roll the dice within the confines of their own environment/product. They're directly responsible for that.

You can't buy a map pack or season pass 5 times. You can spend $99.99 5 times. You can spend it as much as you can click the button and drain your bank account. As its going to paid RNG that's what causing all this debate.
 
Last edited:

Symphony

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,361
If people want something enough to attach a real world value to it, you can "cash out" (even if that requires selling your account). In addition something like PUBG would be clearly defined as gambling under the law as you can sell your loot on the Steam Marketplace for currency to purchase other goods. The gambling laws in this country, just like a lot of other ones, are incredibly outdated and have not adapted to the digital era. Regardless of how lootboxes ultimately are defined, this should be a wake up call that the laws need to be looked at as there clearly is no protection in place for customers.
 
OP
OP
Nirolak

Nirolak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,660
Parents will somehow know Star Wars = Timmy's first gambling sim?



I'd love to see the age/revenue breakdown from fifa.
I mean, this is basic parental control functionality on almost every platform.

Xbox: https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/security/prevent-unauthorized-purchases

PlayStation: https://www.playstation.com/en-au/g...child-spending-money-on-playstation-network-/

iOS: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204396

Android: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.di.../how-to-disable-android-in-app-purchases/amp/

Nintendo: http://en-americas-support.nintendo...2444/~/how-to-set-nintendo-eshop-restrictions

EA Origin: https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing/

You'll notice with EA child accounts, in-app purchases are automatically disabled:

You can also create a child EA Account for your child. When logged into a child's EA Account, in-game purchases are disabled automatically.

I think Valve is the only one without child protections, but EA pulled their games from Steam.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
If people want something enough to attach a real world value to it, you can "cash out" (even if that requires selling your account). In addition something like PUBG would be clearly defined as gambling under the law as you can sell your loot on the Steam Marketplace for currency to purchase other goods. The gambling laws in this country, just like a lot of other ones, are incredibly outdated and have not adapted to the digital era. Regardless of how lootboxes ultimately are defined, this should be a wake up call that the laws need to be looked at as there clearly is no protection in place for customers.

The fact that the article ends with this

Miller went on to acknowledge "many parents are not interested in whether an activity meets a legal definition of 'gambling'" and suggested the responsibility to regulate loot box lies with the video game developers themselves.

"We are concerned with the growth in examples where the line between video gaming and gambling is becoming increasingly blurred," continued Miller. "Where it does meet the definition of gambling it is our job to ensure that children are protected and we have lots of rules in place, like age verification requirements, to do that."

"Where a product does not meet that test to be classed as gambling but could potentially cause harm to children, parents will undoubtedly expect proper protections to be put in place by those that create, sell and regulate those products."

Is precisely the problem in the first place /facepalm

The industry isn't self-regulating which is why there is such a backlash. Not one dev other than the F2P Path of Exile devs in my experience tells you your winning odds. That is unfuckingacceptable. Regulation needs to be produced so that paid RNG in games displays winning odds.

Like China, but without the possibility for Blizzard to get around it. Blizzard worming their way out of that speaks volumes for how these massive devs and pubs view and treat the consumers handing them hundreds if not thousands. There's Bungie being caught out with their XP nonsense just the other day. Not as nefarious as loot box drop rates but again showing how the big guys view the consumer.

Your initial expenditure and time isn't valued, only being able to leech your wallet into oblivion.
 
Last edited:

Alek

Games User Researcher
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
8,471
The problem is that it doesn't matter if you can't cash out if the items in the system hold real value in the eyes of the user. The system operates in the same manner as real gambling, they put money in, and get a variable amount of value out. In this instance it doesn't matter if you can't cash out because the user perceives the items in the system as having monetary value (otherwise, they wouldn't put money in to attain them).

It's very likely that this is operating in the same manner as typical gambling within players who spend a lot of money on the system, and if so, it should be treated in the same way.

Seems like a good avenue of research also. Would be good to see if lootboxes are the same as gambling at a cognitive and neurological level.

I mean, this is basic parental control functionality on almost every platform.

Xbox: https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/security/prevent-unauthorized-purchases

PlayStation: https://www.playstation.com/en-au/g...child-spending-money-on-playstation-network-/

iOS: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204396

Android: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.di.../how-to-disable-android-in-app-purchases/amp/

Nintendo: http://en-americas-support.nintendo...2444/~/how-to-set-nintendo-eshop-restrictions

EA Origin: https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/account/take-control-of-in-game-purchasing/

You'll notice with EA child accounts, in-app purchases are automatically disabled:



I think Valve is the only one without child protections, but EA pulled their games from Steam.

It still puts those children into a system that encourages them to spend money. Just because they can't doesn't mean that they aren't being incentivised to do so. It's not unlikely that a child will ask a family member for small purchases here and there, thereby engaging with the system. I imagine most parents are unlikely to be aware that what they're buying is a variable reward.

Ideally, children shouldn't partake in that system altogether. The transactions and advertisements for them shouldn't take place in-game.

On another note, one particularly recent offender of this that no one mentions is Skylanders Imaginations. A game specifically targetted towards kids, with RNG based lootbox systems embedded. It's hard to avoid the idea that these systems are deliberately targetting children when embedded into games that have children as their primary demographic.