Loot boxes have long been a contentious topic of conversation in the gaming industry, and the UK government has warned companies that restrictive legislation may be enforced in the future if the culture surrounding these purchases doesn't change.
The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport launched an investigation into loot boxes in 2020, concluding with a comparison between these in-game purchases and gambling. Although no formal repercussions have come of this report, the UK government announced yesterday that it may introduce legislation.
Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries had this to say on the topic:
"We want to stop children going on spending sprees online without parental consent, spurred on by in-game purchases like loot-boxes.
"Games companies and platforms need to do more to ensure that controls and age-restrictions are applied so that players are protected from the risk of gambling harms. Children should be free to enjoy gaming safely, whilst giving parents and guardians the peace of mind they need."
The government's recommendations are dominantly focused on the role of parental permission in loot box purchases. This comes after Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft pledged to disclose loot box odds in 2019, though this information has seemingly not had the desired effect of deterring players from the risks of randomised item purchases — at least not sufficiently to appease the UK government.
A similar movement has taken place in both Germany and Belgium, with their respective governments' increasing concern over the dangers of loot box culture also linking the practice to gambling habits. Nintendo's free-to-play titles Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes are unavailable to download in Belgium as a result.
Although the full repercussions of the UK government's statement remain to be seen, it seems the industry will soon have little choice but to change its approach if it wishes to continue operating in certain territories.
[source gamesindustry.biz, via eurogamer.net]
Comments 178
Well... technically the parents are already giving enough consent to their kids spending a lot of money if PEGI already warns consumers of in-game purchases... I'm not sure if anything else is necessary, other than maybe making 2FA mandatory for all digital payments.
If we can't have the game corner in Pokemon anymore then we shouldn't have loot boxes >: (
I get that these things take time but legislation is needed- lootboxes are gambling and it’s the only form of gambling kids can regularly take part in
I swear i will take legal action if they ban Mario Kart Tour
Whatever happened to parental controls, or just saying "no" to the kid? Weird that the UK government feels the need to step in for something like that.
I avoid games with loot boxes whenever I can, unless they can be obtained for free and are more of a gimmick than anything else. I think change is needed. Loot boxes, F2P, they're all models for games that were purely designed with making money in mind, nothing else.
This is too lenient, we're already in a position that legislation should be enforced and action should be taken, not threats of such.
As a parent of 2 sons, I find this to be the stupidest things I've ever read regarding video games. How about parenting and doing your jobs instead of needed the government or someone else to do it for you! There are already many ways to prevent this. I 100% know that my country waste a ton of money and resources and we are far from perfect, but this seems really silly of the UK government to waste time and resources on.
@dkxcalibur I agree if your child asks can I buy this book whatever, you can just tell them no. You don’t need the government doing it for you!
If that idiot Nadine meant it then they would have already done because they have been looking at this for years. This is just Uk politicians making poor excuses for not doing their jobs
I think the real issue is that showing the odds isn't the same as pity timers. If the odds are 1/10, buying 10 of the thing doesn't give you a 100% change to get the top prize. It's 1/10 for each one purchased. Forced pity timer, say if you don't get the drop after 20 opens, or whatever, is the only way to curb the spend.
Off-hand, I can't think of any effective way to implement parental controls that would be effective. It would require parent/child accounts where the parent is asked to hit ok on every purchase. Most kids are going to circumvent that, and I suspect parents are too because they won't want to be hassle with being bugged by their kid to hit ok for any and every prompt that is required (purchase or not).
Just end the practice of loot boxes all together.
They shouldn't consider it they should just go ahead and ban them altogether. Regardless of what anyone here thinks Loot Boxes are a form of gambling and exposing young people to that is just unacceptable.
EA: "Let's worry about this after we see whether or not the UK can form a functioning government."
'We won't hesitate to consider possibly looking into prospects about the feasibility of maybe thinking about legislation.'
To be fair to the British government, they're currently too busy to legislate against gambling in games. Backstabbing each other, eating the country alive, and giving backhanders to their mates all takes a lot of time!
@BloodNinja It's more than just lazy parents. Kids are more likely to fall into gambling addictions than adults. It's the same reason why real casinos don't allow any minors under their roofs.
@JohnnyC Ooooh! BURN!
@BloodNinja as a parent myself, I have never, and would never, let my child get into loot boxes.
The link it causes in their still not fully developed brains can be potentially catastrophic if it leads to links to ‘adult’ gambling. The risk of it all tells me that it NEEDS to be regulated in some form.
Banning these is a fantastic idea. Pity it's the current government which promises the earth then decides it's better to demonise poor and infirm.
@NatiaAdamo Indeed! Our formative years are key, and have a heavy impact on our adult lives.
@AndyMK84 There's no need to regulate something that is 100% in the parent's control, imo!
I'm surprised they haven't banned mystery bag toys or pokemon cards. Same concepts there for the most part. Edit: not advocating for banning those things. Just saying
@Mattock1987 "lootboxes are gambling and it’s the only form of gambling kids can regularly take part in"
Unfortunately this is where you are wrong. Lootbox mechanics have been around for far longer than gaming and have been used in toys (gacha machines and more recently blind bags), sweets (hidden collectables), trading cards and other things I am likely forgetting.
Sure lootboxes are probably the most predatory, but they are not the ONLY gambling children are exposed to.
@Kiz3000 toys (gacha machines and more recently blind bags), sweets (hidden collectables), trading cards and other things have a value and can be resold/traded. Digital items have no value. Its just gambling with no way to regain lost investment for duplicates or unwanted 'items'
@Kiz3000 that’s an excellent point, I didn’t think of that
@VancouverVelocityFan That's not comparable at all. If your child says they want a book and you say no, you just don't take them to the book shop, or don't give them card details to buy one online.
With game microtransactions, they don't need any card details and they don't need to go anywhere. They just tap a button in a game they're playing (usually one very specifically designed to be tempting for kids) and it's done.
Not to mention, most of the cases of accidental overspending with microtransactions have been by toddlers too young to even understand the concept of buying something.
Maybe parents should keep a better on eye on their kids. There is parental control for a reason.
@dkxcalibur This is a really poorly thought out viewpoint. Yes it's the parents job first and that should be the priority but why are we allowing companies to create software specifically designed to manipulate children into rinsing their parents bank accounts? If they were selling something of value it wouldn't be a problem.
Also you say "waste time and resources" but the government is discussing all relevant topics 24/7, it takes close to nothing for them to go "yeah ban that"
@Shade_Koopa
Gambling laws exist to protect vulnerable adults, as we don't allow children to gamble for obvious reasons.
We want lootboxes to be considered gambling for both these reasons.
@RupeeClock Unfortunately the definition of gambling is playing something with the chance of winning money. Since these games never have cash prizes, it will never officially be considered gambling. However that shouldn't matter. It is just as predatory as gambling and could easily have it's own similar category.
@Shade_Koopa You could make the same argument for kids buying drugs off a dodgy guy in an alley. Yes it's the parent's responsibility first, and no they shouldn't take their kids near the drug dealer or leave them in the alley unintended. But do we need to leave the guy there in the alley selling his wares? Why is it necessary to make it one or the other when tackling both can be fairly trivial?
Yeah, let's blame the ***** parents!! If the video game industry hasn't made loot boxes, then the parents would've! Dead obvious.
@dkxcalibur - I have noticed a lot of parents my age aren't willing to be that involved in their kids gaming habits now because they either gamed before or they simply don't need more headache watching every bit of their content to regulate it inside the house.
I detest lootboxes, but I am willing to accept them if they were in-game currency driven. So them being forced out isn't too much a loss for me. However, this can set a precedent of what the governments can regulate as far as content outright in games, it definitely reads like a foot in the door legislative threat.
And most those parents I mentioned would accept it if it means less mental hassle with their kids.
Unpopular opinion: I don’t mind loot boxes in free games.
I’m gonna get an angry mob am I?
@PorllM - Should the government also be regulating the parent's spending as well? Since a child has such easy access in your claim to just "drain the wallet" then lootboxes aren't the only genuine threat to that end result. And since the parent cannot be fiscally responsible around a child to have such lush access, maybe regulating expenditures will also curb this dilemma.
Totalitarian much?
@Mando44646 Some games do allow the sale / trading of digital items, Rocket League and FIFA as examples, but I understand your point.
@PorllM On the contrary, I think your viewpoint of how a typical government works is naïve. Also, your comment that loot boxes have no "value" is fully your opinion too. To someone else, those loot boxes present a value in some compacity.
I'll stick to my opinion that lazy or bad parents allow for kids to empty their bank accounts, there are many systems already in place to prevent children from doing so.
@Paraka Great point!
From a personal account, I 100% monitor spending because it's as simple as not giving my children access to either my bank account or credit cards. As much as it's a pain at times, it's part of my responsibility of being a parent.
@Greatluigi Not from me! No one is forcing anyone into buying loot boxes. I occasionally buy them. I occasionally permit my children to buy them. We've done it minimally, but when we have, we are fully aware that it's a blind experience and we're grunted nothing!
Man, I really hope enough governments ban loot boxes to the point that publishers stop doing them. Their only purpose is to prey on vulnerable people with poor impulse control, and they actively hinder game design. I want them out of gaming completely.
I think most people's opinions are based on the facts that they don't like them.
......next up sports card/stickers and CCGs! Then we can eliminate contest on the back of a cereal box. Then we'll wipe the world of carnival games. Which are waaaaaay more of gamble. But isn't it just fun to play them sometimes or open them?
But I agree that they may hinder development; and I agree that I prefer the old days where a games had all the content already in the games.
@dkxcalibur
"I'll stick to my opinion that lazy or bad parents allow for kids to empty their bank accounts, there are many systems already in place to prevent children from doing so."
And if the child becomes addicted to gambling due to this lack of oversight from the parents?
It's not that they are actively encouraging the child to gamble - the video game companies, by actively making these, are.
It also prays on adults. I think it should be banned altogether.
The day my 11 years old nephew asks for a game with lootboxes, I'm gonna be there and say "Hell no!".
It’s from the UK though so empty threat. They are still imploding from within.
Lootboxes aren't just predatory for children - adults are impacted as well, possibly even worse.
@BloodNinja there SHOULDN’T be a need to regulate something that’s 100% in an adults control, but you’re over estimating the intelligence of a lot of people.
I mean, the temperatures over in the U.K. are absolutely sweltering today, yet the government still needs to tell people not to be out in the sun, to drink water, to keep shaded etc…
Common sense evades a lot of people, which is why we need regulations!
@Rambler If you want to be a parent, do your job. No one is perfect, but this is a very preventable problem already.
Part of the problem is that everyone wants someone else to fix their problems or monitor their family.
Next should the UK government circle back around and make further laws against violent video games?
Honestly, I'm okay having the discussion. I just feel that there are waaaaaaaay bigger issues in the world that should be the priority then loot boxes because dumb parents give their children access to their bank accounts and credit cards to buy anything!
@dkxcalibur you raise an extremely valid point..
As a kid, I used to love collecting stickers and cards (still have most of my old sets to this day), but they fall into exactly the same category of not knowing what you’ll get until you pay for the product first.
EDIT
POGS definitely came under that bracket too..
@AndyMK84 That's only the tip of the iceberg these days. In every Target, in the toy isles, there are many blind pack toys; including Lego.
Screw lootboxes in general. Children and parents should not be pitted against scumbag behavioural psychologists funded by a billion pound gaming industry.
People can talk about "responsibility" of the gamers or parents all they like. But why isn't there any responsibility for big companies to not attempt to take advantage of players?
Should companies be absolved of any responsibility as they try to chip away at the players, some vulnerable until they cave in to their lootbox system?
I don't even like microtransactions and have never, and will never spend a penny on a lootbox. I think they are shameless.
@Balladeer No kidding, I'd sooner assume Nadine Dorries is threatening it so that the videogame industry throws a few coins her way to mysteriously forget about the legislation.
@dkxcalibur absolutely. I loved collecting and swapping cards and stickers as a kid, but I guess with blind boxes in video games that social element of playing ‘swaps’ with your mates is gone.
And also, when a loot box in a game can get you items that improve your chances of winning it also feeds into a very different kind of ‘want’ than the more innocent card collecting of my youth..I think when blind boxes can alter your enjoyment of a gaming experience, that’s when it can become an issue.
@AndyMK84 Great point. I agree. Pay to win is/can be a problem for sure.
@dkxcalibur if banning loot boxes altogether isn’t viable, maybe limiting the amount a player can buy per day, or how many different items a game can offer, would be a more sensible in-between.
I’m not fully aware of how loot boxes work, as I’ve thankfully steered clear of them, but having a fair way to earn the items through playing the game wouldn’t be a bad idea either..
@westman98 absolutely. Any game that you purchase and then have to pay more towards in order to be competitive online should be banned IMO.
@Rambler - Should the government be responsible for children becoming alcoholics too due to the lack of parental oversight?
It's not encouraging drinking, but the breweries that are making them, are.
@AndyMK84 There's no such thing as common sense. All knowledge is taught and either learned or not learned. That being said, if a parent can't figure out their child's game the government doesn't need to step in to fix every little mishap. Remember, some people learn by living and falling. Don't try to catch every single person that falls: you'll put them in a position where they may not learn how to catch themselves.
@BloodNinja I respectfully disagree. You’re ignoring the amount of parents who give in to their children’s wants as it’s ‘easier’ than arguing why loot boxes are a bad thing.
It’s the same reason why the U.K. has started banning cartoon characters on sugary kids cereals and won’t allow advertising of fast food before a certain time now.
Is it becoming a nanny state? Possibly. But the reasoning behind it is that if it becomes the norm now, maybe in 10-20 years time we’ll have a healthier population.
Sometimes you need external influences to step in and do the job. It’s an interesting debate all the same, and I do hear you and get what you’re saying too..
@BloodNinja I’m also of the generation where we had masses of sugary sweets and unhealthy cereals, and it didn’t do me any harm, but that’s not what the point here is.
Just because I’m relatively healthy, it doesn’t mean that there are people out there who’s lifestyles have been shaped by the way they lived as children..
Although to counter my own argument, I miss the days when kids could be kids. Bring back prizes in cereals!
@Paraka they are - you can't buy alcohol as a child, you can't buy alcohol for a child, and you will get a knock from the police and social services if your child is drunk
10 years after their introduction and 100s of millions of pounds later….
British government “we won’t hesitate to look at it if they don’t do more”
@Stocksy such is the way with the Tories
@Paraka Thing is, a lot of parents simply aren't experts in video games and can't be expected to be. You and I have grown up with video games and we know what to be careful about, but a lot of parents who are in their 40s and 50s now don't have that experience. As far as they're concerned, if it's got a pokemon on it, it's safe for kids.
Video game companies know there's an opportunity to exploit there.
@AndyMK84 As soon as you said "parents giving in," you acknowledged their power in this situation, meaning the government isn't needed for this instance. I'm not against regulation, but it should be used for the right things. If parents choose to give in or enforce lootboxes (of all things) that's their business. I think too many triggered gamers are afraid of lootboxes, so they argue from that standpoint. That's a general hypothetical, and not a suggestion as to your mindset.
Governments should only have to step in when the behavior is destructive or risks the child's well-being. If a parent can't manage a credit card, no government is going to stop that problem lol. Doesn't matter what context it's in. If they screw up with lootboxes, they are probably screwing the pooch, elsewhere. Plug one hole, another appears, so to speak.
@Screen @dkxcalibur @BloodNinja genuinely confused why anyone would want loot boxes to stay? Why do you feel so strongly about them? You like paying more for content in games?
@Rambler true that. I’m not sure why people here are so offended at the prospect of loot boxes vanishing.
@BloodNinja ‘ I think too many triggered gamers are afraid of lootboxes’
Well, yeah. I think any reasonable gamer would oppose the notion of playing to win. Why should you pay for a full priced game and then have to pay extra (blindly at that) to keep up with other people who have given in to loot boxes, for fear of being left behind?
@Paraka I don't know what it's like in the UK, but the US has tons of government aid and programs, as well as local, non-government ones, that help people recover from alcohol-related issues. Yes, that's an issue the government should step in on. No, they should not step in with lootboxes.
@Stocksy genuinely astonishes me that anyone can defend the practise of greedy companies asking you to pay X amount extra in a game you’ve already brought, to gain a competitive advantage.
Literally no advantages whatsoever to wanting to pay to win.
@BloodNinja so, because alcoholic anonymous is a well known organisation, it stops alcoholism? Absolutely not. It only stops people who admit they have a problem and want to stop.
The whole notion of being okay with paying extra in a game to gain competitive advantages is absolutely nonsensical in my opinion..
@AndyMK84 Because it clouds the argument about government regulation. They're arguing from the standpoint that it hurts their gameplay. They don't give a rats ass about how it affects a stranger, let alone a child. Pure selfishness, is what that is. It doesn't have a place in the argument.
And honestly, so what? To draw a parallel: if you're a woodworker, there are going to be people out there that can afford precise laser cutters, and people who can only afford a jig-saw. The end result will show. Haves and have-nots and what have you.
@AndyMK84 Alcoholic programs DO stop the problem for individuals, but I can see that you are automatically thinking of people as groups. There are no groups. Only individuals. If an alcoholic program helped someone, it did it's job. They work, and people's lives have changed as a result of their use. There are literal tonnes of people that have reaped the benefits of such programs.
You can only solve societal problems a single individual at a time.
@AndyMK84 I hate loot boxes, but "we don't like it" isn't a good reason to get the government to take them away. "They're harmful to people or property" is a good reason.
@BloodNinja not regulating it allows a frankly disgusting practise to continue.
I don’t know why you’d oppose such a thing..
@BloodNinja >There are no groups. Only individuals. If an alcoholic program helped someone, it did it's job.
Nonsense. If the program does more harm than good across the community then it should be stopped.
@AndyMK84 some people like being milked and making the super rich even richer. Whilst the poorest get poorer the rich get richer and have record profits.
In Britain people love making the rich richer and themselves poorer.
@AndyMK84 Again, arguing from the gamers perspective (it's disgusting) doesn't make sense. Smoking is disgusting. Alcohol (can be) disgusting. But buying a digital item just isn't on that same radar.
@BreathingMiit Wouldn't that require you to investigate individuals who have taken the program, and then look at individual programs to see how they are run, instead of just blanket-painting them as all bad? If a local community has found that a particular center for alcohol treatment isn't working, remove that facility and keep the ones that are helping. All programs that are run by people are not going to be any better than the people that run them/researched them/set them up, etc.
@Rambler - But a child can still acquire alcohol just as easily as a parents' credit card. And alcohol is still not outright banned, which is what you're advocating for, in defense of poor upbringing of the child.
The regulation isn't working in that regard, so would that be the brewer's fault?
@Paraka I don't know what type of community you live in that alcohol is easy access for kids..?
@BreathingMiit - Underaged drinking is often very encouraged by companies, look at most frat movies and youths. Drinking is the "cool thing." And many parents in their 40s and 50s, as you listed, have the same ideology about their child and how they technically should respond to booze.
Remember, in the 80s the youth alcoholism was huge. And most of it tied back to the upbringing. When has a recovering addict ever blamed Smirnoff for making the booze in the first place over their own childhood?
@BloodNinja Agree with that point.
But what I will say is that there are regulations in the tobacco and smoking industries due to them both being harmful.
I’d argue the same could be said over something that could create financial and/or mental health issues which is why regulation wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO.
Interestingly enough, Pinball was banned in the United States for about 40 years, because it was considered a form of gambling. It wasn't until a famous court case was held in where a player told the judge what shots he was going to make before making them to prove that it was skill based. Anyways, the bsn was lifted.
There isn't any skill involved with loot boxes. There isn't a way to get "better" at it to improve your odds. Loot boxes don't make games more fun to play, and they don't add any value to the gaming community.
@AndyMK84 I don't oppose the regulation of loot boxes. Though it pains me to say it, Mad Nad is right to raise concerns.
I oppose imposing regulation on things when we don't like them. All this "how can gamers not want loot boxes when they're so icky?" is the wrong rhetoric and it's missing the point.
@Stocksy I'm not saying they need to stay or go. I'm literally saying they don't need government regulation. I just said to other people that lootboxes need PARENTAL regulation, so I figured it would be obvious that I'm not in full support of them. Totally separate argument.
@AndyMK84 I don't compare lootboxes to alcohol or smoking. They have the potential to cause totally different problems, and should be viewed each in their own lens.
@BloodNinja - Always has been, actually. We are also seeing a rise in child addiction and alcoholism due to the lockdowns and shut downs of almost every extracurricular activity a child can do (while also leaving the most destructive adults activities open). Leaving kids to discover access to things kids shouldn't essentially access from their parents or other individuals.
Also; I use this example not because it's different and leads to different problems, but the same defense comes up can be applied to both due to the ideal of protecting the child. Gambling addiction can lead to people wanting outright bans but alcoholism is perfectly regulated?
The theory of people wanting them ban by simple fact they don't like them personally holds weight here.
@BloodNinja whereas I disagree.
Mental health issues and the implications of being addicted to something that could create financial ruin and depression is a very real issue, regardless of it not being a visible issue in the same way as liver failure or lung cancer is.
@Paraka If it's always been easy to access, why didn't I physically see my first alcoholic beverage until I was of drinking age? I have met others who have had similar upbringings. As to your comment...Proof/data. Sounds like opinion.
To address your edit, gaming has been ruled out by modern psychology as a form of addiction. So putting loot-boxes in that same position seems disingenuous to their research.
Again, so you and others can hear it and so we can be on topic: let parents regulate their children's consumption of loot-boxes. Government doesn't need to step in.
@AndyMK84 You're disagreeing because you keep bringing different problems that aren't related to the discussion. We're talking about whether or not a government should regulate a gaming niche; not the adverse health effects of addiction. For that matter, gaming has been ruled OUT by modern psychology in terms of being a source of addiction. A gaming lootbox doesn't seem to fit the bill.
Again, let the parents sort that kind of stuff out. It's their money, their time, their children. To bring it back to topic, the government doesn't need to step in for this particular issue.
@BloodNinja video game addiction hasn’t been recognised as a diagnosable condition, but it has been ear marked as an area that requires further studying. If you really want to split hairs, here’s an article:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200513143803.htm
Addiction is classed as : ‘ Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you.’
I’m not sure what the minimum required percentage is until something is legally recognised as being ‘addiction worthy’ as you could throw absolutely any inane action into the list and say it’s a medical addiction, when in theory, it wouldn’t be.
And the problems that I’m bringing up are extremely relevant. If loot boxes weren’t addictive, they wouldn’t be an issue. If people weren’t out there wasting hundreds or thousands on trying to earn a competitive advantage in a game on these things, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
The fact that there are YT videos of people paying money to win good players on FIFA and promoting the practise, which is then viewed by hundreds of thousands of people tells me it needs regulating.
You can argue all you want, but the fact that you can’t see that these things have the potential to cause financial and mental issues is alarming.
@BloodNinja the very reason WHY loot boxes would be regulated is because of the adverse reactions that are associated with them.
If they weren’t seen as having the potential to cause the mindset of gambling then this whole point wouldn’t be up for discussion.
And it doesn’t even concern children - plenty of young adults out there are spending vast amounts of money on loot boxes.
@BloodNinja - Well more factors come in, do you see your parents as neglectful? Was the area you're born in highly strict or clean? You may be a good example of how parents should function (which was my clarification edit of my previous post). But sadly, a great deal of parents aren't yours, and want others to essentially come in and take their reigns.
Like this family example;
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781738
Mixed with reports that young adults are seeing a massive spike in alcohol use;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8509511/
And not to mention almost every state has made public announcements about childhood drinking since the reports started coming in, such as this;
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/small-talks/underage-drinking-facts.htm
It's of no surprise you can connect dots to see that it is rising, and probably for a myriad of reasons where lockdowns served as a catalyst.
Edit: Mind you, I absolutely agree parents should be in charge of lootboxes, in spite of my great disdain for them. Just used alcoholism as an outside example of how well regulation isn't working when parents are still the ultimate fault in both scenarios.
The addiction doesn't begin if the child is denied the loot box.
@AndyMK84 Sounds like the way a person chooses to play a game (to gain competitive edge) is more of the problem than the loot-box. You never hear stories about casual gamers succumbing to loot boxes. Again, not everyone is spending their life-savings on loot boxes, just like not everyone is out ruining their life with alcohol.
You simply cannot paint problems with the same, broad brush. You must look at individuals, and address the concern in that fashion.
@BloodNinja > There are no groups. Only individuals. If an alcoholic program helped someone, it did it's job.
Gaming changes. When they add elements of gambling, known to be addictive, to games, they change its nature. When they blur the lines between slot machines and video games, they're changing the nature of games. There will have to come a point when games are enough like gambling that we'll have to conclude that they share some features and some dangers.
@Paraka Why are you talking about young adults using alcohol in a discussion about whether or not the government should regulate a gaming niche? Seems like you're trying to conflate the issue into something that it is not. Total apples and oranges.
@BloodNinja the way someone plays a game to gain a competitive advantage is a problem, but that problem is enabled by the fact the system of loot boxes exist. Disable the thing enabling people to pay to win, and you start controlling the issue.
I don’t know how many people spend more money than they should on these things as it would be relative on a person by person basis based on their disposable income, but regulating it so it doesn’t become more predatory can’t be a bad thing.
A lot of us would be happy to see loot boxes gone altogether, but a happy go-between (only allowing players one transaction per day, limiting the amount of items in rotation, making a maximum price per loot box, etc) wouldn’t be a bad idea as it wouldn’t allow people to exploit the system and become dependent on them.
@BloodNinja - Read the edit, you asked me to back up the alcohol claims I made. That's all.
@BreathingMiit "There will have to come a point..." that signifies that for now, we are ok. Let parents regulate loot boxes, leave government out of it.
@Paraka Cool. I need proof as in case studies or something. I'm not interested in opinion pieces that you googled.
@BloodNinja it’s not just a parent/young child thing though. What about young adults who get their first jobs and end up spending 90% of their pay cheques on them? Might be an exaggerated example, but I guarantee that there are people out there who can’t control the temptation of paying for better in game items.
It’s people like those who need help - you might say they’re doing it within their own free will, but I’m saying they’re doing it out of addiction and bad habit and need help.
@AndyMK84 Oh, were people not competitive in gaming until loot-boxes arrived? Tell me more.
@BloodNinja
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54906393
@Stocksy You're making a statement based on your dislike of something. I'm making a statement that wasting government time and recourses on this is not necessary. Just because you personally like them or not, has nothing to do with the reasoning behind this. I'm basically saying that the reasoning behind this is not valid because there are enough stops in place as is.
Removed - inappropriate; user is banned
@AndyMK84 A young adult that has a job and spends their money poorly is the fault of the individual, not the loobox. Again, you're bringing in problems that are off topic, probably to save face. I could be wrong, though.
@AndyMK84 Ad-hominem; the final stance of a person without an argument.
@BloodNinja
So basically, you’re denying that addiction is a thing and is simply down to ill discipline or not being mentally strong enough to know when to quit.
Got it.
@AndyMK84 I'm pointing out that you are really bad at arguing, so you have to resort to ad-hominem. lol. And a bbc link? LOL Come ON.
No. I'm saying that you keep bringing in examples that are pretty wildly off topic. We went from talking about children that should have government vs. parental regulation to full-blown young adults with jobs that choose to spend their money poorly. lmfao...
@BloodNinja plenty of counter arguments, you’ve just being a complete and utter fool here, pretending competitive gaming ore 2010 is the same as playing to win through loot boxes, and that addictions are ‘down to the individual’ and that all addicts are essentially mentally weak.
You keep digging that hole, but you’re showing yourself up to be an EXTREMELY naive and nasty individual.
@AndyMK84 What's next? What if that "young adult" makes any bad life decision? Is it really the government's responsibility to prevent every single mistake? How would that even work?
No one is saying that addiction isn't real either. But it's crazy talk to think that it's someone else's priority to save everyone from themselves.
@BloodNinja so what - the link is nonsense, despite it featuring an interview of someone addicted to loot boxes, just because it doesn’t fit with your own narrative?
Priceless.
Do us all a favour and learn to be humble and admit when you’re wrong.
@BloodNinja - You can probably argue the first link was an opinion. But it covers one family (similarly how you used just yourself as a counter example).
The other 2 are government reports. Not sure how they're allowed opinion pieces on government sites.
Regardless; here is another still undergoing;
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/alcalc/agac024/6576449?redirectedFrom=fulltext
But I think we are both arguing on the same side here, that parents need to be more responsible when it comes to kids access to things can be detrimental to the child and its upbringing.
@AndyMK84 I've only done one thing, which was argue my stance. You, however, have diverted into nonsense at this point.
@dkxcalibur the thing is, young minds are more impressionable than those of adults. Addiction occurs far easier at younger ages than in adulthood, so breaking a potential point that could cause addiction surely should be looked at.
@Paraka THANK YOU, I can actually chew on that lol.
@BloodNinja diverted into nonsense?
All of the points I’ve made you’ve ignored, because it doesn’t fit with your point of view.
@AndyMK84 I didn't know you sought after my attention so much that now, you feel ignored.
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
Removed - trolling/baiting; user is banned
@AndyMK84 Can't someone become addicted to anything?
@AndyMK84 You mean I won't get any more replies from you? Holy s*** thank god...
@dkxcalibur Depends on how one defines addiction. In common language between everyday people, sure, you can be addicted to anything. But medically/psychologically speaking, some things are deemed as addictive, and others are not. It's an interesting study, to be sure.
@dkxcalibur - Problem is we are currently in a cultural stage where "addiction" has a very broad terminology. Mostly it is tied to how the brain and body chemically reacts to a substance that it suffers violent responses when deprived of such that can be tangibly tracked in studies.
Currently, however, psychological studies show similar responses to stimulants people use as a vice, such as gaming, and attaching addiction labels to them as well. Simply because the people studied are types who may or may not been taught self-gorvning practices or restraint. This is applied to various things such as eating too much, because they were never really taught that one can essentially stop enjoying too much of a good thing.
@RupeeClock @PorllM If the parent isn't going to be responsible with their kid or if they have no self control when it comes to gambling, it's their problem. Not the company fault. One of the problems with having free will.
@SuperCharr > We don't need the government making good decisions for us. Anytime I see a loot box mechanic in a game for real money, I opt out of that game. I've done this for a few games that I wanted to play but it's worth it to me to stand up against these grimey business practices.
Agreed, as far as you or I are concerned, the appropriate response is to not buy the games. Which I find super easy, because games with loot box mechanics are designed to be frustrating not fun. This business with the government is nothing to do with us as players.
The issue at hand here is one between the government, children and parents. As a parent, I know there are many of my peers who don't understand the predatory nature of loot boxes. Dorries is raising these issues, and the prospect of government oversight, to help those parents determine inappropriate material for their kids.
Not sure why so many non-parent adults have so much to say here.
@BloodNinja @Paraka great responses. Addiction is definitely a real thing and a tough thing. I feel for any person, family, friend who is dealing with it in any form, for any reason.
The reason I asked Andy the question, was to support my opinion that the governments could use addiction as a reason to regulate anything; and when would that stop? Seems silly that we're this deep into "loot boxes" because some parents fail to fully take on the responsibility of being a parent.
@dkxcalibur That's a really thoughtful response. I didn't think of that...but now that you mention it, the government could decide to try to manipulate people into thinking it's an addict-issue!
I'll add maybe a different thing to this discussion. In the 80's and 90's, many of the arcade games we all love were fully designed to make us want to keep feeding quarters into them. X-man Arcade anyone? Technically, Overwatch isn't forcing anyone into buying loot boxes; nor is a game like Clash. Overwatch boxes contain cosmetic items only, clash technically is a pay to win to a certain point; but it's not necessary either. Maybe I'm off subject at this point.
@dkxcalibur I left the arcade with empty pockets, many-a-time, due to X-Men hahahah
@BloodNinja Did you ever spend thousands of dollars of your parents' money on X-Men Whateverblast? Or just a few coins?
Although I usually don't like governments interfering into our personal lives, this is not exactly personal liberty at stake. It is like capitalists actively trying to screw people over through monetisation designs instead of gameplay designs. I don't understand why some of us are batting in its favour - I mean, what's there to like about microtransactions and lootboxes?
@BreathingMiit My parents actually raised me, so I didn't have any issues, there. Is this some weird "gotcha" you're trying to set up? lol
@BloodNinja Yup, you're deliberately ignoring the point I was making about the potential and scale of the problem. And you're carrying on as if the gub'mint is gunna come in your house and take your precious loot boxes away. They're not; they're just trying to help parents.
@BreathingMiit I don't think the issue is great enough for government to step in. There are much worse things that I would love for them to handle, rather than a clumsy parent that can't google anything about a game their kids are playing.
It’s a bit late for this isn’t it?
@BloodNinja @BreathingMiit I agree with BloodNinja here.
For me this isn't some antigovernment agenda. I just want them to concentrate efforts on a more serious problem besides bad parenting in regard to video game spending.
@BloodNinja I don't know how much you know about the UK government, but honestly it would be much better for them to spend their time on this than literally anything else on their awful buckshot cruel populist authoritative ignorant agenda. The only pity is that it is destined to come to nothing.
@dkxcalibur The culture Secretary has literally nothing better to do.
“will not hesitate to consider”!
I mean, they’ve already hesitated. And “consider”. Not “introduce legislation”. Consider.
@BreathingMiit As a dirty Brit that lives in America now, I have to say I haven't kept up with what's been going on in my mother-land. If the worst of Britain's problems are loot-boxes, I may have to move back!
@BloodNinja > If the worst of Britain's problems are loot-boxes, I may have to move back!
Sorry to disappoint. But Dorries is not the talent to solve our bigger ones.
@BreathingMiit Dorries?
@dkxcalibur ah I think we're approaching this from different angles.
If it's about kids rinsing their parents' accounts, I totally agree with you. You wouldn't give them your actual credit card, so you shouldn't give them your unsecured card on your gaming machine. This has been around for a bit now, so should be quite well known. There should be mechanics to ensure that things are a secure as the user wants them to be, but it's up to them, ultimately.
However, loot boxes are classed as gambling, and are the only form available to children, and are unregulated. Hence these noises about legislation.
@BloodNinja well no, as this is a gaming site and not a political journal - hence the story about loot boxes and not about lebedev, corruption during the pandemic, law-breaking by government, etc
@Paraka
Please quote the actual sentence where I said that drinking should be banned outright, as I'm sure I didn't advocate that?
@Rambler - No, you advocated for a ban on loot boxes, for the reasons based that it can be addicting to kids and their behavior. But see no problem with the same problems with alcohol access.
That's was my point.
@Rambler isn't opening Pokemon cards the same? You don't know what you're going to get. They target children too.
@Paraka
Alcohol access is restricted by government Gambling other than loot boxes is restricted by government Loot boxes are gambling and are not restricted by government
@Stocksy
More governmental control over things that the consumer can simply just not interact with is always a bad thing, this is a job for sef control and good parenting, not governmental overreach.
I'm completly ok with something like Overwatch's cosmetic only system, so any game that "sells power" will merely pull a diablo immortal and do it anyway.
So much keyboard parenting going on here.
@dkxcalibur
Tbh - you've kinda got me on that. Football stickers, those Lego bags where you get a figure, etc.
However, you are getting a tangible object with those, whereas with loot boxes, you are not (semantics aside).
This looks interesting for the contrast:
https://www.thorntons-law.co.uk/knowledge/loot-boxes-in-the-line-of-fire
Is it really the game company’s fault if said person (not children) if said person doesn’t have self control? Granted that’s what they want, your money, but that can literally go for any in game purchase, if said person want to buy every skin that comes into the shop, said company gets more money, there not making you, the. Again none of what I said might not even make sense.
However in the case of kids, it’s definitely a problem.
Wow so many comments already. I just came to say that "the will not hesitate" is an absolute joke. They've been hesitating for the best part of a decade.
It is gambling. It should be limited to over 18s. The company's should be held to account.
@NatiaAdamo It's the opposite for me. As a kid I wasn't a gambling addict. (I also found no harm in the gambling with the game corners in the Pokemon games. <- Putting this in my comment because someone mention it here in the comments.) And now I am a Adult.... and I have gambling urges... (At least my gambling urges are not crazy severe. So that's good.)
So I am not sure if your statement is really 100% true.
@Rambler the sticker / minifigure comparison gets thrown about all the time.
Here's the difference.
Stickers have the same amount of each sticker packed at random.
Minifigures have the same amount of each minifigure packed at random.
Ergo, you'll get some duplicates on your way to getting them all, but you would be very unlucky to have too many duplicates. Also, you have the duplicates to trade/sell as you please.
Pokemon cards are a better comparison. They do have limited cards. But again, they are printed and distributed so you know your odds and you can trade/sell duplicates again.
Loot boxes, just like online casinos have the odds stacked against you. They do now at least tell you the odds (can you believe they didn't originally?!), but I tell you something for nothing... those odds are not to be trusted. The whole thing stinks and is very difficult to police.
I love gaming and have grown up with it my entire life, but there is no chance my kids will be spending a penny on this nonsense.
@nocdaes
Loot boxes appear to be analogous to Fixed-Odd Betting Terminals, which the govt also seems to have "trouble"with.
With the sticker packs, you are getting something tangible (and fixed, as you say) each time, which is what marks them as being different from gambling, I think
You also have the chance to buy the ones missing from your collection.
However, I am intrigued in finding a "My Pannini sticker collection lead to a life of blackjack" story. No dice (as it were) so far. Quick searches seem to lead to discussions like this, which is interesting. There doesn't indeed appear to be a link.
Those minifig bags are rubbish though.
Anyone who defends lootboxes must be invested in a company that uses them just like NFTs 🤷♂️
If gambling is considered "very mature content" in games (RIP slot machine in Pokemon), then I don't see what's holding governments back from doing the same for loot-boxes and microtransactional purchases
I can't believe anyone is actually supporting loot boxes here. What good do they bring our society?
It should be the parent's responsibility? That's a really lame excuse, and it doesn't solve the issue at all.
2 solid reasons loot boxes (and the like) should be illegal:
(1) To remove social pressure for kids to have a gambling addiction. (Can you really be against this?)
Saying "parents should just stop their kids" is not a valid solution at all. It doesn't stop the kids from wanting to do it because their friends are doing it. That social pressure is what starts the addiction. And parents saying "no" can be counter-productive... it can also feed that addiction because it becomes the "forbidden fruit".
(2) The existence (and major success) of loot boxes in the gaming industry... can you honestly believe that's a good influence for fun, creative games to be made in the future? The more successful these loot boxes are, the more future games are doomed to be addicting, but not fun.
The general population seems to be forgetting the difference between those two terms lately... but "addicting" and "fun" are very different concepts, and often polar opposites. The more loot boxes are financially successful and the gaming industry leans into them, the more the games produced become more "addicting" and less "fun".
This 2nd reason may be less important to law makers, but should be very important to gamers.
We want to stop children going on spending sprees without their parents consent.
I dislike loot boxes and all its ilk. If it disappeared tomorrow forever I'd cheer. But frankly it's up to the kids parents to set rules about that and discipline the little brats when they try to use it behind their backs.
@BloodNinja You know how it is Blood Ninja, there's always those parents who demand that everything be banned instead of them actually doing their job. Although some kids are incredibly sneaky even when they do. I agree with you for the record.
@PorllM Still on the parent for not supervising. Don't give kids that young electronics anyway.
I could die a happy man if microtransactions were completely outlawed from all games that cost any money for the initial purchase. I think developers should be fined heavily and forced to withdraw copies of their game to remove microtransactions in $60/70 Titles.
@Tempestryke Indeed! I used to be one of those sneaky kids LOL
@BloodNinja Whelp, you had to start honing your ninja skills at some point!
Does anyone actually enjoy loot boxes? I'd have them banned solely because games are better without them. They are anti-consumer corporate greed and that's never fun.
@steventonysmith yes, it is so shameful to sell a game, then ask for even more money. I bought a star-wars battlefront game once, turned out I just bought the menu for a digital storefront on a disk, and a little demo. This practice should be banned.
@Tempestryke LOL That's right
@BreathingMiit "The culture Secretary has literally nothing better to do". Exactly! This is one of those funny but it's true.
Blaming parents is the same as burying your head in the sand. If class A drugs were legal, would we be blaming parents for kids taking the class A drugs too?
It's a weak argument from people that clearly do not understand parenting or society as a whole. Children are not just brought up by their parents... loot boxes wouldn't even exist if it was all down to parents.
It preys on peer pressure, fear of missing out and other social anxiety. I find it quite shocking that people are defending them on here. Anyone that knows and loves videogames should know that these things bring about nothing good. At all.
@Tempestryke kids what young? No age has been mentioned. The kid could be 3 or 17. Also that doesn’t solve the issue at all anyway. These games are designed to be addictive for everyone including adults, it’s not a child specific issue. Yes you can say in that case it’s the adults fault and they should be careful what they spend, but you can say that for gambling and drug addiction too. The fact is no game developer should be allowed to release a piece of software that is specifically designed to be an addictive “press button to pay more money” machine that offers no actual content or value beyond that, or the content is only designed around that. That’s not comparable to DLC or selling content for games, it exists only to manipulate and drain the wallets of those who are vulnerable to it.
It’s like saying “your kids bought drugs? That’s your fault why did you let them talk to a dealer?” Well yes that’s a major factor and you need to be more careful, nobody should downplay that but we need to go to after the dealer who’s actually victimising people too or it’ll keep happening
@Rambler I feel you're still stuck on the digital ownership versus actual physical object ownership. I see them as the same in the scope of this subject.
@nocdaes Are you a parent?
Big nanny government trying to take the place of sh1tty parenting. Story at 11....
@Screen I'd disagree, should cigarette companies be freely allowed to advertise to children again with mascots like Joe Camel and the Flintstones? On the basis that you can just choose not to smoke?
Regulations are not a bad thing and the moment we lose them you'll see how low corporations will stoop.
@Dr_Lugae
The one difference is that a cigarette is clearly defined, again look at how Diablo immortal skirted around the definition while still including loot boxes.
I'm all for paid DLC for extra story chapters, maps, cosmetic skins etc. But having to roll dice for those items and may or may not get the one im trying to pay for is a huge no no. Let us buy each skin or DLC outright. No random chance BS. Gambling should have absolutely no place in the purchasing of DLC/cosmetics.
Tap here to load 178 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...