https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/uk-report-recommends-regulating-all-loot-boxes-as-gambling/
We've had a lot to say about loot boxes in video games, and in the wake of our own reviews and rants about their growing prominence, regulation and public scrutiny have followed. Researchers have entered the loot box conversation in droves as well, but a new report published by researchers on Friday seeks to answer a key question that it claims has been left untouched by other academics: why do gamers buy loot boxes?
In trying to answer that question, the report, commissioned by gambling-protection advocacy group BeGambleAware, suggests that loot box purchasing motivations are directly correlated with "problem gambling" behaviors. That data drives the report's conclusion: regulators should apply the same rules to loot boxes that they do to other forms of gambling, because despite seeming differences, they have enough in common to merit stricter controls.
[...] Enforcing such rules wouldn't be an instant regulatory slam dunk, the report concedes. "At first glance, such observations suggest that regulating all loot boxes as gambling might be a viable solution to avoid the problem of conflicted policy. It would bring all loot boxes under the umbrella of existing gambling regulation—and it is the strategy favored by many, including over 40,000 signatories of a recent UK petition. Such an approach, however, would be a radical overhaul of gambling law—but once again, life is not so easy when it comes to legislative fine-print." Indeed, a 2019 call from UK Parliament to ban loot boxes has so far failed to bring about wide-spread action.
In spite of potential pitfalls, the report argues that such regulations would at least address specific "money's worth" statements by game makers and provide more formal provisions for public research and education on manipulative in-game economies. Better regulation could also remind game companies that "when left with few other options (when an industry does not effectively self-regulate), these types of predatory monetization strategies are not beyond the reaches of national powers."
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday April 07 2021, @09:31AM (12 children)
Is this what we should be worrying about? On one hand, human psychology is being weaponized and used to exploit. On the other hand, why can't people just do what they want if they aren't hurting anyone? If they want to blow all their money on stupid things, let them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WizardFusion on Wednesday April 07 2021, @09:51AM (2 children)
> they aren't hurting anyone
But they are hurting people. They are hurting their friends and family by borrowing money and not paying it back. Gambling is an addiction and needs to be treated.
There have been many studies on its affects.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:55PM (1 child)
Some of them are. However, there are plenty of people who can handle a couple hands of blackjack at the casino for entertainment purposes (myself included).
I think all gambling should be legal but age limits may be appropriate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:59PM
Gambling is the only scam where people willingly fly cross the country to hand over their money knowing that the scammers always win over the long run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:16AM (3 children)
Found the person who doesn't live in a country where the state is tasked with taking care of its populace. Believe it or not, most of those who fully accept the concept of a social contract don't think that taxpayers should be burdonned with having to pay for fixing what happens when everybody's allowed to do every stupid thing. That's *part* of the contract - taking care of the population does mean there has to be some coddling.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:42AM (1 child)
I do not agree with your definition of social contract.
Paraphrasing your comment:
Not quite (at least according to me). Part of the social contract is to accept that people make mistakes, prevent them from undue suffering as a result, help bring them back into the family and clean up the mess.
As for taxpayers being burdened: that's an economic rationalisation that has no place in morality. Wiser heads may point out that it is economically advantageous to avoid getting into stupid situations, but that's not part of the social contract. The reason we help people that need help is not because it costs us less (although that certainly helps)... the reason we help people that need help is because it is the right thing to do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @07:04PM
It has plenty of place in morality. It's odious to dismiss harming a thousand people because one person is helped - maybe. My take is that harming a lot of people because someone has problems is the wrong thing to do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @07:00PM
And apparently some lack of coddling when the stupid thing happens, right?
Just for the record, I don't fully accept the concept of a social contract. There's too much bullshit that is rationalized through it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:21PM (2 children)
But we already are legislating morality. Take nudity laws, for example. In many so called "civilized" nations, simply being naked in your backyard, or on the beach, is considered a crminal act. Yes, criminal, the same as rapists and murderers. What is this if not legislation based on purely subjective, antiquated, cultural prehistory ?
In the west, people screem bloody murder about countries where women are forced to cover their hair in public, and yet the exact same people will call the freaking police is they see a group of topless women sunning in a park with equally topless men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @07:29PM
Not to mention peeing on a wall is liable to get you put on a list, even if there was no intent to expose yourself to children.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @07:20PM
As for me, this sort of thing bothers me a great deal, particularly when I'm trying to concentrate. I see this as getting into my mental space and interrupting my thinking and reflection. It's like walking around with a flashing sign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @06:22AM
Like it or not the gambling industry is already regulated in many countries with the reasons, justifications etc all been done (go look up the relevant ones for your area). So if some companies are doing stuff that is arguably the same with the only difference being "in/with a computer game" or similar then I don't think it should be considered different enough to avoid regulation.
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday April 08 2021, @02:55PM
The loot boxes in video games are targeted at children. Even games for preschoolers have them. Gambling in childhood has been linked to increased rates of addiction later in life, just like cigarettes and other drugs and a five year old can't be expected to make responsible decisions that effect the rest of their life.
If video game publishers were willing to implement real safeguards to keep minors out of their games so only adults were being targeted for gambling that would be one thing but that's not the world we live in. Instead we live in the world where Nintendo gives Kirby Clash [nintendo.com] away for free because they want your child to beg you to pay real money for random rewards. Heck, each pull of the lever is cheep enough they might luck out and you might even do it on the regular as a reward for doing homework that week, or whatever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:07AM (4 children)
Voting in democracy is isomorphic to gambling situation. Politicians are just like gacha boxes, you have no guarantee what you get out from them.
Worse, they come without a binding list of outcome probabilities in their documentation. That makes voting for them unfair gambling.
And, concerning "types of predatory monetization strategies not beyond the reaches of national powers"... well, in history, gambling, organized crime and politics were always two sides of the coin.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:17AM (1 child)
I guess you're an optimist? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:41AM
Fixed.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:03PM (1 child)
> Voting in democracy
and the alternative?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @06:07AM
There are other systems where there's voting but the "normal folk" don't get to vote. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Iraqi_presidential_referendum [wikipedia.org]
The USA is doing a good job convincing the rest of the world that democracy is overrated. The USA has also overthrown democracies or imposed economic sanctions if they really dislike the election results.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @10:56AM (2 children)
I bought one and all it had was a moth-eaten Code of Conduct, a certificate for 10% off blue hair dye, and an "I Love Taxin' Joe" sticker.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:58PM (1 child)
Those aren't moth holes. That damage was caused by Buzzard desperately rifling the pages in order to find a reason to kick Azuma off IRC!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @06:54PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:52AM (1 child)
I always have problems when playing chess, but not because of any loot boxes...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:42PM
Does the Rook always end up eating your Queen too?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:25PM (2 children)
BeGambleAware, while not exactly neutral since they are an anti-gambling organization, do appear to have a few points. That lootboxes are more or less like gambling. That it's not gambling for money but some pixel reward doesn't really matter, since they cost actual money to play. That said most games with lootboxes in them do give some away for free or as rewards for doing various in-game things or trivial achievements. That said pixel items in some cases can be translated back to cash as some kind of second-hand market might be a separate issue. But to not call it gambling would be wrong. There is a cost to play (or gain) and just as with normal gambling most of the plays will be duds.
One of their stronger points tho is if they manage, and I assume they have since I didn't read the entire report but they did highlight it as one of the bullet-points, show that there is just a small percentage of people/players/gamblers that generate the bulk of the revenue. That is a pattern that is valid for most forms of gambling from casino games to lottery tickets. In their case here they seem to note that it's 5% of the base that generate about half the income, that seem a bit extreme and more then normal -- it's usually about 1/5 gamblers that generate something around 50-60% of the revenue. So if anything there seems to be less addicts in the lootbox arena. But then if they generate the same amount of revenue they could just be deeper down the hole.
So if it's the same, or similar, as other gambling I guess it should have to follow the same regulations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday April 07 2021, @03:54PM (1 child)
Everything I've read about it, there is a small percentage of "whales" that bring in the $$$$. The lootbox, microtransactions for in-game currency, etc. monetization schemes are all geared towards making you spend even more money. Not reasonable amounts of money, not a set amount of $60-$100 and then no more. They're designed to get you paying hundreds or thousands of dollars, so you can speed up the game, get these super awesome accessories, etc. The practice is predatory and easily targets kids as well as adults. At least a Casino doesn't let someone in, if they're not old enough. As opposed to letting a 5 year old come in and play the slot machines.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @01:29AM
Casinos also have another difference in that they rely on "randomness" from either chaotic systems or audited PRNGs with odds that are posted on premises. These games can be rigged at will. Sure it says that you have a 1:1000 chance of winning the best prize, but you have no way of knowing that and no one could really check if they wanted to.