Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the microtransaction-fail dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:34PM (#600855) Journal
    I guess I'm not quite getting your point. Just because our institutions are imperfect doesn't mean that we have to try to make them more imperfect (and powerful) by creating a bunch of bogus laws for them to enforce.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 24 2017, @04:41AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 24 2017, @04:41AM (#600924)

    Agreed, we already have plenty of bogus laws - so many that most of them are enforced on whim rather than any kind of consistently.

    But, this is our system - and when something is getting "out of hand" according to the contemporary ethic, then "there ought to be a law" - it's how elected officials get elected, empowering their electorate by passing laws that please enough voters to hopefully get them re-elected. Then, when it all blows over, enforcement is dropped and there's another handy law on the book to whip out whenever something is pissing somebody off.

    One thing I've heard from the office of the great orange that I actually like is the "regulation reduction" proclamation that - in sound bite terms - requires two regulations abolished for each new regulation passed. If that could take hold long enough to result in simplification of the tax codes and other laws, reducing dependency on accountants and lawyers, I would call it progress.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]