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, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:26PM (54 children)
What about LEGO packages that contain random characters?
What about a "grab bag" at the local grocery store?
What about packages of trading cards?
Hell, what about about actually asking someone for a date?
Sometimes I think we should just line up all the legislators, tell them they are fired, and hand them their EBT (food stamp) card.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
You pay for that up front? "Here are ten bucks, what about joining me for dinner?"
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:27PM
On the upside, we've just figured out a potential hot candidate for a low strike-rate in the OP's dating history.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:16AM
I'm pretty sure that IS a crime in most places in the U.S..
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday November 24 2017, @02:51PM
Yes, of course. Everyone pays up front - it's a social risk. You might get a date, you might not. You might suffer snarky gossip, you might not. You might be kissed, you might be sneered at.
There's more than one kind of currency in human interaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @05:51PM (12 children)
Trading cards feel like a similar model and I would totally not mind if they were banned as well. No more stacking up hundreds of useless items.
Games have been highly tuned these days to provide max addiction, and having players do actual gambling is not a good thing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:18PM (11 children)
Nobody forced you to do that.
Then don't do that. At some point we have to accept that some people will make poor decisions and that it is better to let them make those poor decisions rather than ban activities that people like to do - without actually doing anything about the behavioral problems that are the pretext for the ban.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:00PM (5 children)
Like letting them post to SN?
Basically you're wrong and you're too egotistical to realize it.
You gotta be consistent, mate... Either you say: "government should not steer society into any type of direction at all" and then also be hands-off on the economy and the defense and everything else. Basically no police, no military, no governmental subsidies, no taxes, basically no government.
Or you could say "look folks, some of us are dumb-asses, let's try to protect ourselves from ourselves because we're pretty darn dumb if left to our own devices" and accept that some rules are going to be made that you don't like either.
If you want to live in a world that only has rules which you agree with, I recommend you find an uninhabited island and start your own dictatorship - preferably somewhere as far away from everything else (so that they don't impose any international regulations, you wouldn't like, upon you either).
The mentality of "let them make mistakes" works well with kids and when people learn but at some point, people stop learning and 'letting them make mistakes' is the exact same as "fuck you, I got mine"; and people who are advocating for that type of society makes them a set of very unpleasant individuals.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:25PM
So you either accept total anarchy or you agree with my authoritarian policies! Wow! That's not a false dichotomy at all. You can't be in favor of some things while being against others; that's impossible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)
We call that projection.
Let's not be dick-in-the-wall-socket stupid here. Government can manage its basic services without steering society a bit. We don't need to throw you in jail for bullshit in order to pave roads.
I think I've made it painfully clear that I'm not going with that argument.
Or I can struggle to change the rules in the world I actually live in. Stop being a dumbfuck and grow up.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:39PM (2 children)
Maybe, but I doubt you can have a police force without also throwing some people in jail for bullshit. Nature of the beast, needs transparency and monitoring, still screws up but might not screw up as much if we all know when it's happening.
Also, one person's "steering" is another person's "basic decency." Is rape OK? What is rape, anyway? How about masturbation in a public theater? There's a reason gambling is thrown in with other "vice" crimes - it's basically impossible to draw lines on when it gets out of hand, but pretty much everyone does agree that it can get out of hand.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 24 2017, @04:41AM
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]
(Score: 1, Troll) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:19AM (4 children)
So do you serve up Hershy bars and jelly beans to your kids for dinner? Because we're actually talking about kids here.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 24 2017, @02:54PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @07:27PM (2 children)
The proposal in Hawaii is no sales to minors.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:23AM (1 child)
In case it's not clear, I don't read minds. But thank you for the clarification.
Even in that case, you're seeing a decrease in freedom from the efforts to enforce the resulting law (such as the minors in question not being able to buy the game and gratuitous ID checks for young adults above the age minimum) combined with insignificant protection for the minor - they now have to get someone else to buy the game for them and perhaps lying about their age in the game itself. It doesn't stop a kid with a credit card from getting loot boxes. It's not as severe a harm as the Belgium case, but it's still a cost in freedom for little gain.
And really what is supposed to be the problem here? Mommy and daddy can take the credit card away. And if this gets big enough to be an actual financial problem, then it's a learning moment for everyone involved. Not seeing the need for government to nanny this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:48AM
There is already a class of games that are rated for over 18. This would be just one more criterion that could put a game in that category.
I'm not claiming it's some sort of fool proof iron wall, but many parents actually do look at the ratings to decide what games their children can play. The kids that typically know someone over 18 that will buy it for them tend to be at least in their later teens themselves.so it at least slants the curve to older teens.
As for the problem, kids are a bit young to be subjected to stimulus carefully crafted to hijack their reward centers to get them to spend spend spend. There's plenty of time for that once they're more neurologically mature.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:10PM (18 children)
Sometimes I think we should just line up all the legislators, tell them they are fired,
The Americans have the power to do that every two years. Looking at the numbers, I guess everybody's doing okay... I believe legislators can be voted out in Europe also, just might take a little longer, depending on the procedure.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:28PM (17 children)
USians have no single election date on which all legislators are able to be voted out. At the federal level, the biennial elections are for but a fraction of the congressional offices.
Also, what did you mean by "everybody's doing okay"?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:43PM (16 children)
The entire house can be swept clean every two years, and it's a nice big fraction of the legislature. Just gotta do it over two six year seasons for the senate. Maybe you should brush up a bit on the American system.
Also, what did you mean by "everybody's doing okay"?
That is what the 95% reelection rate would indicate. And please, save your breath on the excuses. Already heard them all many times over.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:58PM (12 children)
You are correct that all members of the House of Representatives are up for replacement on Tuesday, November 2-8, of every even-numbered Gregorian year. But even apart from the Senate, I feel the need to remind of these:
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:14PM (11 children)
Yeah, I'm only trying to point out where the power is. Not getting through to most people though.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:27PM (5 children)
Since you recognize that you're not getting through to most people, you may want to change your approach. Otherwise, you're just doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, and you know what is said about that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:41PM (4 children)
What approach should be used?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:40PM (3 children)
You could try any approach but the one you've been using over and over again while expecting different results.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:40PM (2 children)
What other approaches exist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)
Aside from the status quo approaches (voting, running for office, helping with campaigns), there are others: educational [thefreedomline.com]; violence (both moral as self-defense and amoral as terrorism against a mostly-victim populace); dependency overload-and-collapse [wikipedia.org] (aka Cloward-Piven); disassociation; and defunding (primarily by working at limited levels or wages so that you provide no net tax revenue).
All are social tools and have their own good use cases (except for amoral populace terrorism).
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 24 2017, @07:11AM
Oh jeeze! Shoulda known... My bad
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:01PM (4 children)
Sure, the power to kick out one doofus to be replaced by another doofus who will do the exact same thing.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:17PM (3 children)
So, we're supposed to stick with the the old doofus instead? That makes no sense. Why not take the chance? See, that's just proof that the prison door is wide open, yet you choose to stay in the cell. At least you got your 'three hots and a cot', right? Use the nomination process to weed them out. See who finances the campaign and you know who he is going to serve. It's up to us to remind them this is a community service, not a career opportunity. If we don't, we have nobody else to blame. This applies in Europe also. They have representative governments too.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:29PM (2 children)
Usually both candidates have a track record of being evil, and people just keep foolishly voting for the 'lesser evil'. The solution is either a third party, or more likely, having a good candidate win a primary over one of the evil candidates and then actually voting for them.
Our system is so stacked against third parties that it's hard to call it representative at all. Any two party system is inherently undemocratic. We have few viable options at this point, and I listed one of them. Primary enough evil candidates and we might be able to fix the situation with third parties.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:42PM (1 child)
What should Bernie Sanders fans have done to primary Hillary Clinton? What should JEB and John Kasich fans have done to primary Donald Trump?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:40AM
place facebook ads?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 24 2017, @06:25AM (2 children)
Not really. When the choice is between bungee or death, bungee wins every time but it's hard to say the people choosing are happy about it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 24 2017, @06:38AM (1 child)
When the choice is between bungee or death...
Well, the choice isn't between bungee or death, that's just what most people instinctively and irrationally choose. Personally, I feel no obligation to play along [twimg.com].
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:04AM
Big words. So what are you doing to "walk away" from politics? I know you're super-keen on making sure people pay taxes to the point of cheering on the IRS enforcers, so do you pay taxes? You can't logically claim to "walk away" from a system while still spending at least half of your life supporting it financially.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:28PM (9 children)
don't forget to ban stock trading and insurance
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday November 24 2017, @08:47AM (6 children)
I don't know about in the US, but here in Europe not many children get involved with stock trading and insurance. However, gambling at any age is controlled by many countries with varying degrees of effectiveness. Including a form of gambling in computer games means that it should fall under the current legislation if it is appropriate, or should be subject to a new law if it is not. Hence Belgium's proposal.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday November 24 2017, @02:55PM (5 children)
That doesn't make it right. Lots of countries have bad laws. The vast majority of laws that interfere with personal or consensual choice are profoundly wrongheaded.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Friday November 24 2017, @06:31PM (4 children)
Are you really suggesting that encouraging children to gamble is a good idea? I'll have to disagree with you if that is what you believe.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)
I disagree. When is the best time to learn that the house always wins? Younger is better when it comes to that.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:46AM (1 child)
Using your logic, we should also ensure that we inject our children with cocaine, just so that they learn that drug addiction is a thing to be avoided. Oh yes, and also put their hand into boiling water so that they can learn the scalding flesh is very painful.and leaves permanently scarred tissue. I genuinely hope that you are not responsible for raising any children.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:05AM
Or shoot themselves in the head to learn that shooting people in the head is bad? Or nuke a city to show that nuking cities is bad? Sure, that doesn't sound so hot.
I think here the harm isn't significant for video games. It's a cheap way to learn and certainly far more effective than hoping they stumble across the lesson without too much pain at some later date.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:17PM
No. I'm saying (not suggesting) that laws that constrain informed, personal or consensual choice are an incredibly bad idea.
You have kids? That makes you a parent. That means you have a job to do. One that is centered about the meaning of "informed." That job is not see that the government puts your kids into a box where breaching the walls thereof drops them into the arrested-and-convicted-can't-get-a-decent-job level of citizenship. That job is teaching your children how the world works, said task (obviously) including a thorough inculcation of the nature of security, risk and reward. If you don't do that job, it's not that gambling sucks, it's that you suck.
Do your job. Don't try to make (or more precisely, allow) the government do it for you – because they suck at that. In (allegedly) trying to do good, they do huge, huge harm. most gambling laws are classic poster children for those very failings. The vast majority of them should be flushed down the figurative toilet, because they are the legislative equivalent of purest shit.
Outside of that, any game of chance and most life decisions both involve gambling. It is the stakes that differ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @04:15PM (1 child)
Good call! I assume you're being sarcastic, but both of those have major issues. Stocks are useful, but should be updated.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:33AM
Updated for what? To the contrary, I find that the current market is quite ideal. For example, the knowledge that a young company has several tiers of stock [nytimes.com] is a great warning sign.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)
What about the stock market?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @10:37AM
SEC
(Score: 2) by mth on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:59PM
If there is a significant difference in the value of the contents between bags, then yes, grab bags would be gambling.
(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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @08:48AM
In practice, there is a world of difference between online game loot boxes and collectible card games.
Magic the Gathering is very open about its odds. Each booster pack contains exactly one rare card, three uncommons, ten commons, and one land, with a 1/8 chance of the rare being replaced by a mythic rare and a 1/4 chance of one of the commons being replaced by a foil card. All the cards of the same rarity are equally likely. It's still gambling, but you can make a rational decision about what to buy based on statistics.
Online game loot boxes, on the other hand, are not really randomized at all. You get good loot at exactly the rate that the underlying mathematical model, which is tuned to your personal spending habits, determines will keep you hooked. The odds aren't just hidden, they're constantly adapting to extract the maximum amount of money from you. If legally classified as gambling, this would be illegal under just about any country's gambling regulations.