SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Video game gambling schemes known as "loot boxes" or "loot crates" could be banned or restricted by regulators:
We learned last week that Belgium's gambling authority was investigating loot crates in Star Wars Battlefront II over concerns that they constitute gambling. Now, the decision is in, and the answer is a resounding yes, according to Dutch-language publication VTM Nieuws. The commission claims that purchasable add-on boxes, the contents of which are randomized, mix "money and addiction" and thus are a form of gambling.
Belgian Minister of Justice Koen Geens added: "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child." The commission will now reportedly work through the European Union's process to execute a total ban. We've reached out to Belgium's Gaming Commission for more details on its next steps and the legal implications of the ruling.
The country isn't alone in its stance on loot boxes. Just hours ago, Rep. Chris Lee (D) from Hawaii denounced EA's "predatory behavior" in a speech uploaded to YouTube (first spotted by Kotaku). In the clip, Lee also talks of the detrimental affect micro-transactions have on children, with specific reference to Battlefront II, which he describes as a a "Star Wars-themed online casino, designed to lure kids into spending money".
What Are Loot Boxes? Gaming's Big New Problem, Explained
Press 'F' to pay respects.
Related: Why Call of Duty WW2 Bosses Won't 'Shy Away' from History
Star Wars Game in U-Turn After Player Anger
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:24PM (3 children)
If those are sold on the basis that they might contain items worth a lot more than the price of the package, then (duh!) yes, that would absolutely be "gambling" and maybe, just maybe its not a good idea to sell them to under-16s, and possibly there should be some sort of legal requirement to ensure that the game is not rigged... or maybe businesses should just stick to producing honest products and selling them transparently, as described, at market prices instead of fucking around with devious ways to screw over vulnerable consumers.
I guess trading cards would be OK if the packs contained a truly random collection - but no self-respecting money-grabbing arsehole is going to adopt that business model when they could ensure that the best cards were as rare as chicken lips and the chances of getting one honestly were nil. So, yeah, please do ban trading cards - they're a scam that mostly exploits kids and nothing of value will be lost.
...but they pale into insignificance alongside the cesspit that is "in-game purchases", which not only exploit kids but have also wrecked the market for decent games.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:34AM (2 children)
Such as truth in advertising laws? These already exist.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:37PM (1 child)
Yeah, those work well at ensuring that the cake in the box looks like the picture on the outside... not! and can always be avoided by trying a new variations of weasel words on the package (but it says "serving suggestion" so its not claiming to be a picture of the contents, so that's OK then). The US interpretation of truth seems to be "a lawyer has read it and agrees that it is technically correct". The UK ASA rules are somewhat more savvy about cracking down on advertising that is "misleading" rather than provably false - but their powers are limited to banning the advert not the product.
When the stakes are a bit higher than finding your cookie isn't quite as big as the box, something with a bit more teeth might be required.
...and none of those do much to protect minors from being exploited.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:33PM
So what? It's good enough. Weasel language is a good warning sign for those who care.
So are the eventual payouts for lawsuits. Criminal fraud is another likely outcome, if the loot boxes are rigged.
Seriously, what is supposed to be the danger here? We have laws already. All the story has is some vague talk of kids with mental health issues. Nothing concrete, aside possibly from some p-hacking studies somewhere to back that up.