Video game "loot boxes" may become federally illegal??......

[jonovid]

pay to win is killing video gaming  . to cheat, just buy what you need.    everybody gets a trophy

[wraper]

pay to win is killing video gaming  . to cheat, just buy what you need.    everybody gets a trophy

If it was just pay to win, it would not be that bad. Often it's more like won't pay, you'll suck, even in some full priced games. Games get designed in a way that  it becomes pain to not pay, and particularly loot boxes make it 5x worse.

[KL27x]

Again, how is that different from packs of baseball cards?

What the difference between internet porn and going to the shady DVD store?

Social stigma and instant gratification.

When you have to go to a brick and mortar store to buy packs of cards, the guy behind the counter will be there watching you buy pack after pack, opening them right there, looking for your super rare Pokemon Pigaloo and not finding it, buying more. If you are a child, the guy behind the counter might start asking questions. He might start to worry about you. He might offer some friendly advice or try to distract you from your mission out of empathy. Other customers might also give you funny looks. Plus you have to actually at least leave the house and go somewhere, so you have to at least be competent enough to eat and dress and physically make it to the store. You'll have to wait in line when those other bothersome customers want to check out. And plus the store will eventually run out of cards, lol.

I'm usually all about personal liberties, but parents had a hard enough time to watch their kids when the internet didn't exist. This stuff has a permanent affect on the dopamine reward circuitry of a developing brain, even if the parents are able to get a refund/chargeback after the fact.

[SparkyFX]

Again, how is that different from packs of baseball cards?

There are usually no unprinted, weightless, white cards in the pack - all of them have a minimum value and market price. By investing a lot of effort you are able to select, collect and score rare ones with higher value. Effort does directly influence the outcome.
Now the problem is that a single game has a single manufacturer who appoints a value to the white, weightless, unprinted card and is therefore defining the market price/value of something that could be seen like currency and took him practically no effort to copy. He is the only place where you can spend the money, there is usually no free market for it. It would be like printing money in their own created market.

And even baseball cards can be seen as an asset and relevant for tax or debt. They are in many ways similar, but at least a physical good.

MMOs are usually highly addiction focused, with a certain pace in which lifts happen as long as you put effort in.
People like lifts, people can buy lifts or premium content in these games with real money (also no effort to copy there), but selling random rewards for money makes it unregulated gambling. I struggle a bit to see differences to raffles, but well... there you have a limited amount of lots and raffle prizes per draw so anyone can calculate his chances before purchasing a lot. Even basic gambling machines need a certain payout rate to be legal here, next to age restrictions and a permit to operate them. Gambling addictions are hard, btw.

EU law was changed in this regard recently as well, the MMOs i know then just declared what rewards are guaranteed when purchasing such packs (same value as for the usual premium content), added random extra prizes and the problem was solved. You were getting a guaranteed service for the price, not worthless items or promises without a given lots/prize ratio. Btw. i occasionally pay some money in such games, not to buy an item, but to extend a service contract ("virtual goods"), therefore keep their business running and can play the otherwise free2play game in the next few years. If i don´t play it, i don´t pay for it.

I approach such questions usually as: if it was no problem, i can not be affected by it being regulated. In other cases it probably is a problem to me or someone else and needs regulation.

[jmelson]

"Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan (N.H.), who said the practice of paying for random loot had a “close link to gambling.”"

HMMM, Amazing!  So, investing in real estate or the stock market is gambling, too, and clearly ought to be outlawed!

Jon

[Cyberdragon]

"Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan (N.H.), who said the practice of paying for random loot had a “close link to gambling.”"

HMMM, Amazing!  So, investing in real estate or the stock market is gambling, too, and clearly ought to be outlawed!

Jon

Oh dear, we'll definately have to get rid of crypto too!

[Brumby]

Sigh...

As I said before:

This sort of argument is never going to have consensus, because a line has to be drawn somewhere - and there will always be one problem ... getting everyone to agree where that line gets drawn.

[tszaboo]

except the game doesn't do anything useful. it's just timepass ....

Well, you would think that.
First there are people trying to make a living on twitch and other steaming platforms, where this is practically necessary to run competitively.
Then there is the group belonging. I played Word of Tanks a few years ago. A group of 8 people are required to play a certain strategic game type. They literally kicked people out of the group, because they didnt had the certain type of "required" tank, which gave a certain edge in the game. The tank was 50 EUR, the price of a full game.
Imagine, that they place it in a lootbox, 2 EUR each, 2% chance of getting the tank.Putting math aside, after 100 trials, you have 87% chance of getting the tank.

So if you dont have it, sorry. Go and play something else, while we the big boys go and play the interesting part of the game.

[GlennSprigg]

Speaking about adults here, where does that thinking end?
You can try to make the case that all alcohol should be illegal for everyone because some people are addicted to it.  I don't think that's a good idea, but it's probably the least controversial example. 

Fine.  How about another extreme?

What about donuts, or sugary drinks, or just food in general?  Do we ban food that our bodies tell us tastes REALLY good but isn't the most healty?  Give people a government approved daily food allowance?  A significant number of people are legitimately addicted to food.

It's impossible to rid the world of all things that some people will feel compelled to do.  Trying that only punishes the majority of people with a normal level of self restraint.....  [etc]...

I don't know about the U.S.A., but here in Australia (in W.A. at least?), Primary School & Kindy is like being
run by the NAZI's now !!   Teachers/officials can/do go through kids lunch-boxes, and ban them from having
anything they feel is unhealthy...  And some have actually BANNED kids from having HAM in a sandwich or
whatever, as it may cause offense to a 'certain' (ahemm..) religious group....  %$&# off !!   

[SparkyFX]

They literally kicked people out of the group, because they didnt had the certain type of "required" tank, which gave a certain edge in the game. The tank was 50 EUR, the price of a full game.[...]So if you dont have it, sorry. Go and play something else, while we the big boys go and play the interesting part of the game.

Well, that is what users do with other users... don´t play with them. There is of course this social component to it and people can act like 12 year olds.

You can try to make the case that all alcohol should be illegal for everyone because some people are addicted to it.  I don't think that's a good idea, but it's probably the least controversial example.

It was banned in the US at some point - which gave an uprise to a completely unregulated black market, no taxes on sales, no limits on consumption, no control (food safety, health insurance cost). Then the ban was lifted, but with somewhat regulation.

But guess what, it´s still illegal/punished to drive drunk, you get problems trying to work drunk. Which means it is not as "free" as free can be, which would make it practically illegal by the definition of some users here in this thread, but only if you come in conflict with the regulation. Alcohol is a good example in which personal freedom, social acceptance, avoidance of damage, implications for the society and lawmaking comes together.

I don´t think we need to talk about nanny-ing adult people to see that the problems are wider than just the directly affected person and this is not a political question either, as there is money funneled out of an economy - whichever form it has - without exchange of any value and it crosses the line between purchase of goods and paying for a service. If a problem gets big enough, it can ruin any economy. The addiction component of it is what causes loss to societies, if everyone would stop when the personal budget is gone it would not be that big of a problem.

And some have actually BANNED kids from having HAM in a sandwich

Some kids are little idiots and just by guessing this story has probably something more to it than just a potential offense.    Bureaucrats usual move too slow for potential dangers. Unfortunately no one made it so far to ban idiots, so it must have been the ham. But thats not the topic here.

Well... paying for the consequences that some people cause is unavoidable for anyone in a society, which implies damages need at some point be limited, as the budget is equally limited.

[Zero999]

Note:
This is actually relevant here because we all have an interest in the tech world and this is an example of a stupid legislative reaction to a problem of scary new technology that's really a result of bad parenting, which is not going away any time soon and a slippery slope further down the road to anything "new" "digital" and "technology" being considered "bad for the children". 
For example, how about making all Youtube videos illegal since you don't know what ads you are going to see and kids might click them and buy something?

As this is electronics forum, imagine this. You purchase an oscilloscope. Start measuring signals, then it shows you a message: either you run 1000 loops around me before I do particular job properly, or pay 5 bucks and it might fix the problem. In small letters: there is 1 in 500 chance that you will win necessary option to do the job properly. Otherwise you get something useless Other oscilloscope manufacturers see it actually works and good way how to extort money out of customers, and all start doing same shit. In the end you cannot buy oscilloscope which is comfortable to use out of the box.

Good example.  Here is my answer:
If that requirement was in the spec for the scope before I bought it, then it's my fault for still buying that scope.  Again, personal responsibility. I can then chose to pay the $5, or not use the scope any more.  Now, if they do a firmware update which, after the sale, instates such silliness then that's a legal violation and completely different issue.
If other scope manufactures all start doing that sillyness and building scopes with such as noted in the spec at time of purchase, then that opens the market to another company that isn't being stupid.  No one forces you to buy that OWon scope.

If I have a requirement to measure pico-second jitter on some signal, and I still buy a cheap OWon scope now, it won't work and that's my fault.  I can't then try to get OWon scopes made illegal because I didn't read the spec or understand it or don't agree with it.

My response it this. In the spec you read: "In oscilloscope purchases available", nothing else.

I can then chose to pay the $5, or not use the scope any more

Only you likely will end up paying that for hundreds of times before you get what you need.
Look at freaking FIFA games. It's a full blown 60 dollar game, not free to play. Yet 2/3 of money EA collects comes from stupid micro transactions. If people don't know what's bad for them, then comes legislation.

If you sign a contract without reading it, that's your problem.  Just like the scope example, you better make sure the thing you are willing to spend your money on actually does what you need it to do before you buy it.  If you are unsure about how something will work but buy it anyway and it doesn't work as you hope then that's your problem.  By the way, that's a good life lesson on it's own and applies to much more than kids and oscilloscopes.  Good luck returning the car to the dealer when you get it home and realize it doesn't actually go 400mph like you hoped.

How about world of warcraft.  It's $15 a month.  Now consider starting out in wow that there is a certain game time investment just to get your character leveled up to the point that you can start doing stuff like raiding with your friends.  Say it takes you 1 month of game time to level up to the cap.  Fine.  Some people find that fun.  Others just want to get it over with.  Blizzard offers a "boost" for $60 to just skip that part of the game and have your character max out their level (at least they used to.)  That would save the person that doesn't want to grind for a full month all that time and makes their game experience much more pleasurable without effecting anyone else.  It's not required but it's an "in game purchase".  Should that be illegal too?

Not everyone is a lawyer, which is why we have consumer law. Most jurisdictions restrict what constitutes a legally binding contract and guarantees the purchaser certain statutory rights, which cannot be simply signed away. There are also regulations which forbid misleading advertising. It would be unacceptable for a garage to advertise a car as capable for 400mph, even if the small print in the brochure says it'll only go that fast off a cliff. If a someone were to buy the car and discover it can't go 400mph, the garage would be legally obliged either to fix it so it does or give them a full refund.

At the moment game developers have to state in game purchases are required to access extra goodies, but there is clearly a need for more rules.

[KL27x]

You can say it's up to the parents. But it IS parents (legislators with kids) who are fighting for these changes. 

[cdev]

Q.) What are "loot boxes"?

A.) Free money!

God, people are so gullible..

[SilverSolder]

The Government is totally missing a trick here.  They should insist on virtual income tax, virtual sales tax, and the rest of it, to be paid by all participants in the "virtual economy" of the game, just like in the real world!   Very educational for the youngsters:  you cannot escape death, or taxes! 

[John B]

While I can respect the libertarian and personal responsibility argument, I believe that some of these AAA game developers deliberately obscured the fact that in game gambling and "virtual" currency actually resulted in real money being billed to cards. So these companies have done themselves no favours on the ethics front, only on the profit front.

[coppercone2]

except the game doesn't do anything useful. it's just timepass ....

Well, you would think that.
First there are people trying to make a living on twitch and other steaming platforms, where this is practically necessary to run competitively.
Then there is the group belonging. I played Word of Tanks a few years ago. A group of 8 people are required to play a certain strategic game type. They literally kicked people out of the group, because they didnt had the certain type of "required" tank, which gave a certain edge in the game. The tank was 50 EUR, the price of a full game.
Imagine, that they place it in a lootbox, 2 EUR each, 2% chance of getting the tank.Putting math aside, after 100 trials, you have 87% chance of getting the tank.

So if you dont have it, sorry. Go and play something else, while we the big boys go and play the interesting part of the game.

For some reason I imagined something kind of epic, like dream team, epic strategy, shock and awe vigour that would impress the entire community, being held back by a digital purchase of 60 euro. Then some guy with his life setup for living on zero budget for the next 20 years has to do something crazy for some pocket before next week so the whole thing does not fall apart. Like the guild leader from that MMO based show called 'the guild'.

I think its more epic without the lootbox option since it gets rid of the gamblers and you will get a go getter instead at 60 euro. I can imagine next skype meeting some 18 year old living in the slums is heard yelling at eastern european gangsters that lent him money to get off his property and that he will have it next week...

I noticed alot of videogame stuff sounds extremely pathetic unless someone understands how being in a guild or clan that is serious feels. Kind of have to be there..

[CatalinaWOW]

Drawing a line somewhere, even when you somehow get agreement on where the line should be drawn.  Because the problem isn't a line.  None of these addictive problems affect everyone the same way.  And the folks with a real problem don't stop because of some silly line wherever it is.

I would suggest a two part bandage on the problem.  Make the vendors of these gambling/addictive devices only sell any individual a fraction of their income.  And make the penalties for violation fall upon the vendor, not the user.  This second part makes it a more responsible party avoiding the penalties (remember the problem is the extreme addicts who over use the product.  They are the last ones to worry about penalties). 

The first part has real problems.  Agreement on an appropriate number, but more importantly, how to deal with someone with multiple addictive outlets.  It is hard, but conceivable to get a percentage of income that is relatively harmless.  And perhaps a reasonable social contract to exchange financial information for the right to access of your narcotic (oops I mean game) of choice.  But really, really difficult to control the multi-stream problem (and to allocate penalties for violation).

But at least this seems on a path to a solution which could control the excesses, while allowing the majority of responsible actors access to a variety of entertainments.

[julianhigginson]

Smokey, you're missing a lot of points here.. I'm not sure where to even begin.
But I'll start by saying I'm pretty sure you are not, and have never been, a parent. And if you are, well, yikes...

Also. Buying loot boxes in a game is nothing like physical packets of baseball cards. As much as buying them can involve chance in what you get, that's about where the similarity ends.... For a start, kids will trade the cards. if there's something they want, they will normally get it through their friends if they don't get it directly... The other thing is that in the context of a game, the presentation of the rewards is done with very polished cues involving animation and music, designed *exactly* to enhance expectation and tension and resolve it with the chance rewards in exactly the right way to manipulate human minds, and cause addiction to the process of receiving the rewards. Baseball cards can't and don't do that, even with their pretty shiny foil wrappers. Now this doesn't mean nobody ever went crazy on baseball cards and sold their house to buy them (I'm sure someone must have, it's a big crazy world afterall) But the mental pressure that games with loot boxes put on people is far worse than the mental pressure packs of baseball cards exert.

I think we should definitely be talking about video games that kids play becoming more and more like poker machines - an industry that uses hard psychological data on the human perceptions of risks and rewards and pleasure to hook in and literally milk money out of adults, with no concern at all for any mental damage they may cause along the way.

And yeah, while we are at that we should also be talking about poker machines.... even though they are LOCKED AWAY FROM KIDS in licensed venues (damn big brother govimint inserting themselves into my kids recreational activities!) because even when used by adults they've evolved into something over the last 25 years or so that they never historically were (or at least a much more concentrated form of it) and they are causing far more damage as a result.

And maybe we should even be talking about advertising and marketing.... another industry that abuses research on regular human weaknesses and susceptibilities in order to try and exploit people.

This is how regulations work. We, as citizens see that something that keeps happening is not something we want to keep happening. so we get laws to stop that happening... If we can't do that, I guess there's direct action. But if, god forbid, someone went and organised a big loud proper boycott and protests over a game dev company and any company that supports them, over their use of loot boxes.... well, I get the feeling you'd scream about that too.

[David Hess]

... instead of buying certain a item, you buy a cat in the sack hoping there is something good in it.

Instead of cat, sack contained chlorine trifluoride.  Would not buy again.

https://xkcd.com/325/

[jh15]

on the phone app for my tesla s I have a loot box.

[coppercone2]

someone in the factory left a drill in the trunk?

[james_s]

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or another. I hate the "freemium" model, but should it be illegal? That's less clear.

I don't gamble, that's a personal choice. I view gambling as a tax on people who don't understand math. I don't necessarily think gambling should be illegal though, as the old saying goes "a fool and his money are soon parted" and if you block somebody from one vice they'll find something else to spend their money on.

Rather than a law this strikes me as something where a public education campaign could be beneficial. If people are aware of the risks going in they may be less likely to get into it in the first place or to let their kids play it.

[Smokey]

Smokey, you're missing a lot of points here..

Correct.  I'm just some dude on the internet with an opinion. 

But I'll start by saying I'm pretty sure you are not, and have never been, a parent.

Again, Correct.  I actually have a feeling kids and loot boxes have a lot more in common than people think.  Your genetics and the chemistry in your brain make it essentially biologically compelling to roll the kids dice and you have zero guarantees how your kids roll will turn out.  You may be hoping for an "epic", but that's far from certain and there are no re-rolls.  Maybe if more people had a clearer understanding of the small print that comes along with kids they would make different decisions up front about if that's their best investment.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child


And I feel like you are making some of my points with the comparisons to casino gambling and pervasive advertising and other "adult" influences.  You either learn how to navigate the difficult parts of the world early or you learn it later, and the later you learn these things the more serious and costly the lessons become.  When there is too much of an artificial shelter from all perceived dangers early on (parental or legislative), then you get people who think "adulting" is something that you start learning how to do after you turn 25. 

[David Hess]

Lawmakers do not have a problem with gambling as long as they get a cut.  Witness the shenanigans with various state lotteries in the US.

[SilverSolder]

Smokey, you're missing a lot of points here..

Correct.  I'm just some dude on the internet with an opinion. 

But I'll start by saying I'm pretty sure you are not, and have never been, a parent.

Again, Correct.  I actually have a feeling kids and loot boxes have a lot more in common than people think.  Your genetics and the chemistry in your brain make it essentially biologically compelling to roll the kids dice and you have zero guarantees how your kids roll will turn out.  You may be hoping for an "epic", but that's far from certain and there are no re-rolls.  Maybe if more people had a clearer understanding of the small print that comes along with kids they would make different decisions up front about if that's their best investment.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child


And I feel like you are making some of my points with the comparisons to casino gambling and pervasive advertising and other "adult" influences.  You either learn how to navigate the difficult parts of the world early or you learn it later, and the later you learn these things the more serious and costly the lessons become.  When there is too much of an artificial shelter from all perceived dangers early on (parental or legislative), then you get people who think "adulting" is something that you start learning how to do after you turn 25.

You try to raise kids to be as smart as us, here, on this forum!  then they'll be OK.