UK Gambling Commission gives updated statement on lootboxes

[Deleted member 888]

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.

Click to shrink...

If you have some time, read about the Skinner box (especially commercial applications)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

Also

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

 

[Nilaul]

Disappointing, hopefully, the rest of the world will be stricter. It's basically a "fuck costumers" statement.

 

[Alek]

If you have some time, read about the Skinner box

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

Also

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

Click to shrink...

Cheers man. I already have, I'm a Psych / Clinical Neuropsych graduate and my Masters dissertation focused on obsessive compulsive disorders and gambling behaviours.

On a theoretical level yeah it operates with the same mechanisms, but it would be good to see that corroborated with behavioural/neurological data from actual players.

 

[Deleted member 11038]

I don't agree. Anyway no matter what the UK says i hope more people will open their eyes and make this kind of practice fail.

 

[Deleted member 888]

Cheers man. I already have, I'm a Psych / Clinical Neuropsych graduate and my Masters dissertation focused on obsessive compulsive disorders and gambling behaviours.

On a theoretical level yeah it operates with the same mechanisms, but it would be good to see that corroborated with behavioural/neurological data from actual players.

Click to shrink...

True. We'll maybe start seeing more research funded into it now that there has been an explosion of popularity of such methods in the industry, and also now that media attention is swarming around.

This is a good quick read https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/28/15702686/overwatch-blizzard-loot-box-business-model-masterpiece

Note how it links to reddit. While in no way a lab testing setting, a lot of the number crunching that has been going on via crowd initiatives is impressive. From Overwatch to BF2 redditers have been putting in the effort to display estimated costs and amount of time needed to unlock things.

Some of the figures can be quite scary, especially around time needed to unlock by playing, and that obviously ties into the push to manipulate people to spend. Overwatch has mastered that too with the limited time gated Halloween costumes, when players only have a short window of time to obtain legendary skins. With no drop rate transparency we also have no idea if there is any manipulation of winnings odds going on either.

Bungie has now been caught manipulating XP gain behind the scenes. Yet again by Reddit. I'm genuinely incredibly frustrated and disappointed by why the gaming media/journalists have not spent more time going to devs and pubs to ask them about drop rates and why they conceal. Especially when Blizzard wormed its way out of Chinese regulations. The response from the journalists, or should I say lack of response, in this industry, was almost frightening. Terrible investigatory work/response. Almost has you wondering if some are more concerned about being blacklisted/biting the hand that feeds. Considering not blaming them when TheSixthAxis takes a stand against NBA 2K18 and almost has the Mafia turn up at their doorstep.

Overall, you only really see a few gaming journalists these days do any investigatory work. Kotaku/Jason for one, but there's not many others now. Largely we'll just have to rely on Reddit, here and other hardcore communities to put in the effort around consumer friendly advocacy. Some journalists even showed their asses doing free PR for EA and Battlefront 2.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Seem's pretty similar to their first statement. They aren't the one's who decide if a new scheme is gambling or not, they only enforce current laws.

Obviously modern day schemes are going to be built to get around existing laws.

 

[OG_Thrills]

Electronic Arts has lobbied the UK government to the tune of millions over a number of years. This statement is actually far harsher than I thought but ultimately, and as expected, does NOTHING to rain in this practice. I'm a UK Citizen and resident. My current government and it's MP's have a history of siding with corporations.

We have to look to those countries where EA/Gaming hasn't felt the need to spend millions in lobbying. Places like Belgium. My hope is that once action is taken the Publishers like EA wont bother to make two different versions of games. One that adheres to EU laws and nother specifically for the UK... Since we made the decision to leave the EU by 2020.

That said, EA has spent a lot more in millions lobbying the US government and I suspect that while they might adhere to changes in EU law. The version our US cousins get will still be egregious.

PEGI & ESRB are extensions of the gaming industry. Bought and paid for. You should expect ESRB to make an updated statement soon which is just as non committal to doing anything about the freemium pay 2 win model.

 

[Principate]

The UK commission is notoriously among the laxest in the EU so this was expected and it's leaving the EU anyway so there was little chance it was going to do anything regardless of what the findings were.

More interesting to what finding countries like France and Belgium are since they still have a reasonable amount of sway within the EU and are generally stricter.

 

[Bleedgreen007]

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..

Click to shrink...

Then tell them no if you don't want them purchasing anything. Sony, Nintendo and Apple all have great parental controls if you know how to use them. All that's left for the parent or guardian is to do.. parenting.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm also kind of surprised that they only seem to be acknowledging children as potential victims, millions of adults are gambling addicts or are susceptible to gambling addiction.

 

[Botenks]

Based on this gambling law (legal gambling = only if the acquired items are money's worth) couldn't just any establishment add a "gambling corner" and get away with it? For example:

A supermarket has a gambling corner with roulette wheels and slot machines where you can play for "supermarket credits" with real money. Those credits (= the acquired items) can then only be used within the supermarket to pay your groceries with. Like, for example, you can get a loaf of bread for 500 credits then.

You als can't trade your own credits with other customers since your credit amount is stored within your loyalty card. An identification system could also be in place so that it's not possible to simply give your card to a friend.

Sure, now there is the issue that you could just sell your groceries outside of the supermarket. But the same issue appears with Fifa cards or CSGO skins that can be traded for real money outside of the game on third party sites. In this case the gambling commission goes after the third party sites. In video games where you can't trade items, there is still the option to trade game accounts for real money.

A hair salon or tattoo studio on the other hand wouldn't have this issue, since you can't resell your haircut or tattoo.

 

[Avatar Korra]

I was actually having a conversation with someone about this, and the fact that you couldn't "cash out", is what we kept coming back to, as to the "legal" reasons why it wasnt regulated. Still, I think when you look at the way Loot Boxes can affect the brain (and that it can trigger the same impulses when gambling), I think this is what should matter more then the ability to cash out.

The other issue I have is, digital currency/goods, are a form of cashing out. I mean to people, those things have worth/value. Even if they are in game (even more so, if you can trade them or sell them).

I get it legally, it's not cashing out in most cases. But if it's affecting people all the same ways gambling is, I still think there is a serious problem.

 

[1984]

The danger of gambling is not that you can cash out. You can cash out on eBay, or the stock market.

The danger of gambling is that you can ruin yourself and your family.

 

[Stone Ocean]

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.

Click to shrink...

They don't consider it legally gambling but it sounds like they aren't gonna turn a blind eye. Sounds like the UK wants to do PEGI's job for them. I dig it.

 

[Chris.]

I'd love to know what other publishers think of EA right now, they must be furious

 

[ec0ec0]

So, even though they can't deny that paid loot boxes share many of the dangers than gambling does, they can't do anything about it.

Is that the end of it, or is the UK going to look into making new regulation with this issue in mind?

I understand that, if it isn't tecnically gambling by the current definition, it's not the gambling commision business.

 

[Chris.]

So, even though the can't deny that paid loot boxes share many of the dangers than gambling does, they can't do anything about it.

Is that the end of it, or is the UK going to look into making new regulation with this issue in mind?

I understand that, if it isn't tecnically gambling by the current definition, it's not the gamblings commision business.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't say it's the end of it, because it doesn't seem to be losing steam & will no doubt only get worse as more games release with lootboxes and I'm sure the gambling comission will put pressure on the government to do something about it (and statements like this basically calling it gambling isn't good for the government). But it also doesn't mean the government will do anything about it either yet, or if at all. There's also countries like Belgium (Europe?) and Hawaii looking into it aswell so if they do anything about it, that could apply further pressure to the UK and other regions.

At this point it's just louder noise, and the volume needs to be turned up even further for something to be done about it but we're on the right track. Until the definition by law of 'Gambling' is changed, the GC don't seem to be able to do very much.

 

[kpaadet]

The danger of gambling is not that you can cash out. You can cash out on eBay, or the stock market.

The danger of gambling is that you can ruin yourself and your family.

Click to shrink...

Exactly, loot boxes are like a slot machine that will never give you any money back. That doesn't stop people with gambling tendencies to get addicted though, but obviously publishers should just self regulate lmao. All thanks to some outdated definition of gambling.

 

[ec0ec0]

Like, if psychologists or other experts look into it, and tell you that loot boxes affect an individual in a similar way as gambling does... sure saying "it isn't technically gambling by the current definition" is not enought?

 

[Deleted member 135]

People have a responsibility to keep themselves safe. Children are singled out because their ability to do so independently is weaker.

Click to shrink...

Greater society also has a responsibility to help and protect those who can't help themselves.

 

[Alek]

Then tell them no if you don't want them purchasing anything. Sony, Nintendo and Apple all have great parental controls if you know how to use them. All that's left for the parent or guardian is to do.. parenting.

Click to shrink...

They've still been exposed to a system that incentivises them to find gambling appealing. It's like walking into a betting shop every day before school, it's weird, even if the children can't make a bet, and I imagine it's not something that parents want their children exposed to day to day when playing games certified for children.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

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.

Click to shrink...

There are laws around digital gambling though, and going by those laws they determined that lootboxes are not gambling, which I 100% agree with because you are not gambling, you are buying a product.

 

[mutantmagnet]

Disappointing and one sided - not even an attempt to create transparency by enforcing visible probability rates at which you could earn items via lootboxes.

Click to shrink...

Disappointing sure but It's not one sided.


It's there job to act within the confines of the law. It's not their job to make it. For practical purposes they are just as responsible as we are in lobbying those who do make it.

 

[djinnEXE]

Old law that needs to be updated

It's telling when Nintendo had to take the GameCorner out of Pokemon games "so children wouldn't be exposed to the nature of gambling"
But games where you spend real money for the chance to get something get a free pass

 

[Wise]

This is disappointing news to be honest

 

[djinnEXE]

There are laws around digital gambling though, and going by those laws they determined that lootboxes are not gambling, which I 100% agree with because you are not gambling, you are buying a product.

Click to shrink...

No they're not. Lootboxes are like lottery tickets, you buy them for the chance to win something I.e gambling

 

[Funny Valentine]

I see nothing wrong with suggesting lootbox games add baked-in parental controls (even I believe the "think of the children" is just a disingenuous argument as it always is).

 

[BernardoOne]

Good, exactly as it should be. It's not fucking gambling, same as any fucking blind bag, Kinder Egg or booster packs.

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.

Click to shrink...

That would be ridiculously hypocritical. Trading cards ain't different from lootboxes.

 

[K Samedi]

There most certainly are gambling aspects in lootboxes. But in general, I think its more an issue with developers designing hidden systems to manipulate the player into buying microtransactions. Its too easy. I dont think the gambling regulators are the right people
to look into this.

 

[Deleted member 18379]

Good outcome. The people who are trying to paint happy customers as victims need to take a step back. You also need to let parents raise their children how they like without trying to enforce your views on to them through means of the law.

There is more gambling associated with playing a claw machine that doesn't guarantee anything in return for your money then there is with loot boxes. That is how ridiculous the argument of lootboxes as gambling really is.

These laws and comissions are partially in place to protect us from people like you who would seek to tell other people what is and isn't legal to pass your own agenda. It reminds me of the war on marijuana. Lots of over concern about the so called victims who enjoyed it. Lots of utilizing children safety to push agenda. It's disgusting really.

If you don't like loot boxes in games. Don't support them. That is really where this battle should end. Stop trying to enforce your agenda on others.

 

[spineduke]

Lots of utilizing children safety to push agenda. It's disgusting really.

If you don't like loot boxes in games. Don't support them. That is really where this battle should end. Stop trying to enforce your agenda on others.

Click to shrink...

And what agenda would that be?

 

[itchi]

I remember collecting football stickers as a kid and that was as much gambling as loot boxes are and was clearly marketed towards children. Loot boxes have a negative impact on gameplay so I think people are just trying to claim they are gambling to get them removed because they don't like them.

 

[ApeEscaper]

Easy for kids to buy prepaid topup cards from stores nowadays no need for credit cards to buy lootboxes


Also not fair towards other games which do not have lootboxes MT shit in them

 

[AuthenticM]

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.

Click to shrink...

yep

 

[SapientWolf]

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.

Click to shrink...

It's simulated gambling, which is covered under different codes. Otherwise, Chuck E Cheese would be 21 and over only.

 

[freakybj]

I still think it's gambling. Even though you're receiving a digital item in exchange for money you're still taking a chance. The fact you can't cash out is even worse for the consumer since a duplicate item or something you don't want is essentially worthless. The house (the publisher) takes the loser's stakes (the player paying). At least with a game like PUBG, I can sell the loot crate on Steam Marketplace to make a few cents that can add up. Or if I choose to, buy the items outright from other sellers. The fact you can't cash out just makes it a worse deal for the consumer, not better.

 

[DavidDesu]

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.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, in a world where digital currency exists being able to collect worth in £ into your bank account shouldn't be the gatekeeper rule as to what gambling is. People are using real money to gamble to win something that THEY deem valuable to them in the game. To me that's enough to consider it gambling and it should be treated as seriously as "real" gambling, it does all the same things.

 

[spineduke]

-whoops wrong thread

 

[funky]

Seems fair


I do think trying to compare it to gambling is a mistake though. It has a lot in common for sure but its not actually gambling.


At the very least I want to see Loot Boxes have the same regulations as card collecting. The odds need to be made public.

You could also make a argument that any game with them needs to have a 18+ rating due to how exploitative and predatory they are.

 

[Helloween]

So what about this then? :/ - 18 rated due to Gambling

 

[Trace]

This just in, surprise eggs, card packs, blind bags, arcade games and anything with an uncertain outcome classified as gambling by the experts at ResetEra.

 

[Deleted member 888]

So what about this then? :/ - 18 rated due to Gambling

Click to shrink...

PEGI is inconsistent as fuck around their gambling ratings.

Pokemon only gets a 12

The UK Government aren't going to do shit, it'll be somewhere else in Europe that forces the devs and pubs to cough up and reveal winnings odds/rate games for adults only.

 

[Helloween]

PEGI is inconsistent as fuck around their gambling ratings.

Pokemon only gets a 12

The UK Government aren't going to do shit, it'll be somewhere else in Europe that forces the devs and pubs to cough up and reveal winnings odds/rate games for adults only.

Click to shrink...

Ah right yeah, i looked up some others, one of the poker games got a +3 heh

 

[freakybj]

This just in, surprise eggs, card packs, blind bags, arcade games and anything with an uncertain outcome classified as gambling by the experts at ResetEra.

Click to shrink...

The examples you list are not really the same as what's going on here though.

I think most people aren't saying that loot boxes should be removed from games because they are gambling. They are saying it closely resembles gambling and should be regulated so that the publishers are more transparent which would help prevent people from being taken advantage of. But I hope that the threat of regulation and bad publicity makes developers and publishers think twice before implementing these systems in their games; especially ones targeted to kids.

Currently the loot boxes have all the characteristics of a rigged shell game. Publishers like EA and Activision are looking to manipulate players into spending more money. Call of Duty WW2 was the most blatant example of this by having a lobby where you can open loot crates in front of everyone. This is almost like when you had con artists running these rigged shell games that had a secret partner appear to win big to entice more people to try their luck. Publishers are designing these systems to be more pervasive and intrinsic to the core game which is tantamount to defrauding the consumer. It's not about providing more value to the consumer, it's about manipulating people to empty their pockets without providing anything in return. It's gambling, but the even bigger issue for me is that this is a consumer rights violation.

 

[Kirblar]

Response is perfect.

 

[Deleted member 11995]

That's the kind of statement we all should've expected.

At this moment in time, in the eyes of the law, technically it's not gambling.

But, again, the fact that various government officials (from separate countries) are feeling the need to speak on this subject at all will hopefully give certain people pause for thought. Hopefully we can get a rethink on how (if at all) loot boxes and micro-transactions are implemented, moving forwards.

 

[Deleted member 26104]

No they're not. Lootboxes are like lottery tickets, you buy them for the chance to win something I.e gambling

Click to shrink...

They're not like lottery tickets either. You are buying them to get X number of random items. With a lottery you win something of monetary value or you can lose and get nothing. You get neither of those outcomes with lootboxes.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Based on this gambling law (legal gambling = only if the acquired items are money's worth) couldn't just any establishment add a "gambling corner" and get away with it? For example:

A supermarket has a gambling corner with roulette wheels and slot machines where you can play for "supermarket credits" with real money. Those credits (= the acquired items) can then only be used within the supermarket to pay your groceries with. Like, for example, you can get a loaf of bread for 500 credits then.

You als can't trade your own credits with other customers since your credit amount is stored within your loyalty card. An identification system could also be in place so that it's not possible to simply give your card to a friend.

Sure, now there is the issue that you could just sell your groceries outside of the supermarket. But the same issue appears with Fifa cards or CSGO skins that can be traded for real money outside of the game on third party sites. In this case the gambling commission goes after the third party sites. In video games where you can't trade items, there is still the option to trade game accounts for real money.

A hair salon or tattoo studio on the other hand wouldn't have this issue, since you can't resell your haircut or tattoo.

Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure what you're describing is essentially how pachinko parlors in Japan sidestep their gambling laws lol

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

This just in, surprise eggs, card packs, blind bags, arcade games and anything with an uncertain outcome classified as gambling by the experts at ResetEra.

Click to shrink...

Card Packs have to show odds. But yes, i think its pretty obvious that blind purchases should be regulated, whether you want to officially call them gambling or not.

 

[ZangBa]

Sounds good. Consoles already have parental controls so that part of it has been taken care of awhile ago.