EA: They're not loot boxes, they're "surprise mechanics," and they're "quite ethical"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/ea-loot-boxes

No, this isn't an Onion piece.

"We do agree with the UK gambling commission, the Australian gambling commission, and many other gambling commissions that they aren't gambling, and we also disagree that there's evidence that shows it leads to gambling. Instead we think it's like many other products that people enjoy in a healthy way, and like the element of surprise."

Edit: The enter key continues to be my greatest enemy

The AAA industry has made such an habit of rebranding their worst practices (macro-transactions anyone?) that it isn't funny anymore.

They also compare them to Kinder Eggs. Just check the video in that tweet...

PS: BTW, Kinder Eggs are banned in America.

Well this is going to be a meme

"I'm not a drug dealer; I'm a freelance pharmaceutical retailer."

As much as I dislike loot box and what they do to game, I really hope that government don't start making rule about this stuff. Politician aren't gamer and they don't consider gamer a key demographic, they'll probably end up making draconian rule that could encompass way more stuff than they should. Imagine if the law is worded in a way that diablo/bordeland style game with random loot become illegal.

Meiam:
As much as I dislike loot box and what they do to game, I really hope that government don't start making rule about this stuff. Politician aren't gamer and they don't consider gamer a key demographic, they'll probably end up making draconian rule that could encompass way more stuff than they should. Imagine if the law is worded in a way that diablo/bordeland style game with random loot become illegal.

Nope. I'm with the law on this one. Games are not exempt from breaking existing laws, certainly not just because it's in a new medium. If games are using gambling to get players (including children) hooked on spending money, then that's an utter scum move to do no matter what they rebrand it as, and like Jim Sterling says- if the gaming industry doesn't self regulate itself, it will be governments that have to come down on them for doing this. I hope they come down hard.

Meiam:
I really hope that government don't start making rule about this stuff.

If the industry could self-regulate, the government wouldn't have to step in. But the industry has demonstrated that it will just keep pushing and pushing against the boundaries.

Reminds me of that one very tasteless joke:

"It's not r--e[1], it's 'surprise sex'! And guess what? We're throwing you a 'surprise' party!"

[1] normally I wouldn't censor myself, but I don't know/remember how strict the mods are about that word

These PR people are like evil geniuses or something. What scares me is that they are talking to old men as most politcians are, which is a demographic which is highly unlikely to understand videogames, they might believe the lies that seem obvious to us.

Fieldy409:
These PR people are like evil geniuses or something. What scares me is that they are talking to old men as most politcians are, which is a demographic which is highly unlikely to understand videogames, they might believe the lies that seem obvious to us.

Which part is genius? They're just evil idiots.

How are kids even getting credit cards to buy lootboxes? Oh yeah parents. Shitty parents.

I hate lootboxes probably more than anyone on this website, but the gambling aspect isn't the problem.

Got a kick out of this comment.

I'm not robbing a bank. I'm acquiring currency through surprise mechanics and it's quite ethical.

Lufia Erim:
How are kids even getting credit cards to buy lootboxes? Oh yeah parents. Shitty parents.

I hate lootboxes probably more than anyone on this website, but the gambling aspect isn't the problem.

More specifically, shit society that makes enabling bad parenting too common. Also I miss simpler times, before "smart" everything and people actually had to think for themselves to get by.

Had a minor giggle at their strange quizzical consistency...

...neither Pence nor his colleague, director of marketing Matthew Weissinger, could answer more direct questions about how many users were playing the game an unhealthy amount.

"We think it's difficult to have a categorical understanding of what that is given it varies from time to time and person to person," Pence said.

Weissinger declined to reveal the game's average revenue per player, arguing that it was a trade secret, but then appeared to confuse himself over other data points. At one point, when committee chair Damian Collins asked how Epic defined frequent players, Weissinger said they were "someone who's played within the last two weeks, or 30 days".

When Collins then asked how much time frequent players spent playing Fortnite, Weissinger said that it was "difficult" to define a frequent player, leaving the MP baffled.

Collins declared his disbelief at Epic's claims of ignorance. "This is a game which makes money out of people playing it," he said, "and this sort of basic information is something that will be gathered and analysed all the time, so I don't believe that you don't know it. For me, it arouses the suspicion that this is not something we can discuss. Of course it will vary, but I'm sure you have an idea of what the answer to these questions are."

The MP looked more surprised when Pence responded by taking issue with his choice of words. Pence said: "I don't think it's accurate to define Epic as making money from people playing the game." "You're not a charity," responded Collins.

The Labour MP Ian Lucas pressed Pence on why the company did not collect dates of birth from its users.

"You don't think it's necessary to abide by data regulations by establishing the age of the people who play your game?" Lucas asked.

"We don't," said Pence. Later in the hearing, Pence denied giving that response, prompting Lucas to suggest he check the record of the hearing.

Well, they brought it upon themselves.

Tinydeals. Picosells. Nanotrades.

1. Does the activity involve a monetary transaction for a randomized or semi-randomized payout of value?

2. Is the activity habituating?

3. Is the mechanic presented in a way that maximizes habituation?

If the answers to the above question are "yes", then indeed it is gambling and should be regulated as gambling. EA's ridiculous semantic games do nothing other than tip their hand.

In this we can compare Magic the Gathering to loot boxes.

Players buy starter and booster packs with real money. Each pack has a semi-randomized payout of cards; X amount of commons, Y amount of uncommons, Z amount of rares, with W chance of any given card being a foil and Z-sub 1 chance for the guaranteed rare to be a mythic. Individual cards within each rarity grouping have a randomized chance of being in the pack. The activity is habituating, and given semi-randomized pack purchases are the sole primary market, indeed the activity maximizes habituation.

What stops MtG from being considered gambling, is the secondary market. Cards can be traded or purchased individually from vendors. The secondary market dictates single price, in accordance with supply (print rarity) and demand (card power); the only control the producer (WotC) has over the secondary market, is to dictate card rarity.

Eacaraxe:
1. Does the activity involve a monetary transaction for a randomized or semi-randomized payout of value?

2. Is the activity habituating?

3. Is the mechanic presented in a way that maximizes habituation?

If the answers to the above question are "yes", then indeed it is gambling and should be regulated as gambling. EA's ridiculous semantic games do nothing other than tip their hand.

Do you need the second 2 questions there? I mean, yeah, makes things increasing worse, but if you answer yes to the first, that's some form of gambling.

Eacaraxe:
In this we can compare Magic the Gathering to loot boxes.

Players buy starter and booster packs with real money. Each pack has a semi-randomized payout of cards; X amount of commons, Y amount of uncommons, Z amount of rares, with W chance of any given card being a foil and Z-sub 1 chance for the guaranteed rare to be a mythic. Individual cards within each rarity grouping have a randomized chance of being in the pack. The activity is habituating, and given semi-randomized pack purchases are the sole primary market, indeed the activity maximizes habituation.

What stops MtG from being considered gambling, is the secondary market. Cards can be traded or purchased individually from vendors. The secondary market dictates single price, in accordance with supply (print rarity) and demand (card power); the only control the producer (WotC) has over the secondary market, is to dictate card rarity.

I dunno, I (briefly) was into getting trading cards as a form of gambling back when I was very young.

The Rogue Wolf:

Meiam:
I really hope that government don't start making rule about this stuff.

If the industry could self-regulate, the government wouldn't have to step in. But the industry has demonstrated that it will just keep pushing and pushing against the boundaries.

They have the ESRB, so the can self-regulate... as long as it doesn't directly affect the amount they can squirrel away to their coffers.

Thaluikhain:
Do you need the second 2 questions there? I mean, yeah, makes things increasing worse, but if you answer yes to the first, that's some form of gambling.

Really, that part is more about the ethics of gambling as a business, and the extent to which the gambling business can and should be regulated. Look, for example, at how heavily casinos are regulated, and despite this are constantly on the lookout for any and every advantage that can be seized to ensure gamblers are encouraged and habituated to continue gambling. Comps are the most obvious example, especially compensatory booze because alcohol impairs judgment and inhibitions, but other strategies are prevalent such as courting high rollers as a loss-leading strategy to draw in spectators and aspirants. Hell, despite the practice having fallen out of popularity, that was the entire idea behind having showgirls walk the gambling floor.

As much as I think EA is a genuine spawn of evil, we really do not want Government getting involved in games. We managed to make a rating system that is better followed by retail outlets than the one we have for films, we got the Supreme Court to tell California to eat shit and that games are speech and even got some recognition for the rights of children in relation to speech, and now we're asking these same dickweeds to walk into our house? Guys, vote with your wallets. Please.

Xprimentyl:

The Rogue Wolf:

Meiam:
I really hope that government don't start making rule about this stuff.

If the industry could self-regulate, the government wouldn't have to step in. But the industry has demonstrated that it will just keep pushing and pushing against the boundaries.

They have the ESRB, so the can self-regulate... as long as it doesn't directly affect the amount they can squirrel away to their coffers.

The can, but they chose not to; and now the whole industry will pay for their decision.

Leg End:
As much as I think EA is a genuine spawn of evil, we really do not want Government getting involved in games.

I agree, but it's too late now.

We managed to make a rating system that is better followed by retail outlets than the one we have for films

We did not. That was the gaming industry choosing to be reasonable. I hoped they would do it again for the loot boxes; but despite people constantly telling and warning them to do so, it didn't happen. Instead of playing smart and avoiding this situation like before, they played dumb. They made their bed, and now all of us will have to lay on it.

It just so happens that those bullshit commissions EA mentioned are the most money-hungry, and greedy in the modern world.

CaitSeith:
I agree, but it's too late now.

Is it though? We've clearly pushed back against loot box fuckery regarding stuff like Battlefront II, and EA is genuinely beginning to suffer because of how stupid they're being.

We did not. That was the gaming industry choosing to be reasonable.

Was speaking of people in the industry and those with a strong association with it, i.e Gamers.

I hoped they would do it again for the loot boxes; but despite people constantly telling and warning them to do so, it didn't happen. Instead of playing smart and avoiding this situation like before, they played dumb. They made their bed, and now all of us will have to lay on it.

Not really. Bills are failing and we're in a situation where, legally speaking and to my understanding, this is not in fact Gambling, as defined in US law. The territory we're going into is regulating things with any element of chance, and that has a mountain of potential issues going along with it. The best bet is to continue to shitsmear companies that are selling basically nothing, and not buy their products, or 'products'. If we give the government an inch, they're taking the mile and never giving it back. They want nothing more than to get their foot in the door. If people want to be stupid with their money, that is their decision.

Leg End:
If people want to be stupid with their money, that is their decision.

If publishers and developers had any self-restrain, I'd agree with you. But they don't, and because of that they have attracted unwanted attention (and at this point well-deserved) from the governments. Sorry, but when it comes to intrusive lootboxes designed to be a psychological trap, the onus is no longer in the consumer.

PS: Belgium and the Netherlands disagree with your understanding. This isn't schadenfreude, this is Casandra Effect reaching its worst conclusion.

Leg End:
As much as I think EA is a genuine spawn of evil, we really do not want Government getting involved in games. We managed to make a rating system that is better followed by retail outlets than the one we have for films, we got the Supreme Court to tell California to eat shit and that games are speech and even got some recognition for the rights of children in relation to speech, and now we're asking these same dickweeds to walk into our house? Guys, vote with your wallets. Please.

This is industry regulatory practices being discussed. Nothing to do with your personal liberty or the art of games. This is the mechanical underpinnings and commercial overreach by the purveyors of said art.

Can we stop with the 'never involve the government' thinking? Governments are not inherently evil or incompetent, they can craft good laws and policy as well as bad. Especially if they actually consult relevant experts and listen to feedback.

I don't understand why some people always react this way to ideas of regulation, what you think rules are bad and we should all be anarchists?

RelativityMan:
Reminds me of that one very tasteless joke:

"It's not r--enormally I wouldn't censor myself, but I don't know/remember how strict the mods are about that word, it's 'surprise sex'! And guess what? We're throwing you a 'surprise' party!"

I appreciate the caution, but you needn't worry, we tend to look at the context in which things are written rather than individual words. Rape, curse words etc, are all fine to say when not being used in an offensive manner or aimed at other users.

Fieldy409:
Can we stop with the 'never involve the government' thinking? Governments are not inherently evil or incompetent, they can craft good laws and policy as well as bad. Especially if they actually consult relevant experts and listen to feedback.

I don't understand why some people always react this way to ideas of regulation, what you think rules are bad and we should all be anarchists?

Because the government is made up of people who have absolutely no idea how tech work, pandering to voter who are old and for the most part uninterested in this aspect? Have you already forgotten every moral panic about banning violent video game? They'll see something that's consider gambling so they'll consult people who are expert on gambling and never worked with video game. Gambling law are already a nonsensical mess, I don't see why anyone would think gambling+video game would be any easier to regulate than gambling by itself. This isn't a personal belief thing, this is just a question of noticing obvious pattern.

Ultimately I think adult are adult and should be allowed to do what they want with there money (and that involed giving there kid unlimited access to it), it's very clear that there's a demand for lootbox because people buy them. Best case scenario would see the government craft a law that would only affect lootbox by itself, but that would still involves taking away something that people enjoy. Look at overwatch, it's still being supported to this day by blizzard, they add new map, character, costume and so on. This is because lootbox are in the game and people buy them, which give them incentive to keep supporting the game. Without lootbox the game would still be as it was at launch. So even people who don't buy lootbox would be affected by a law that was very well crafted and only touched lootbox themselves.

So really, if you don't like lootbox, just don't buy game with them. It's that easy. Just because you don't personally like it I don't think it should be made illegal for people who enjoy it.

Meiam:

Fieldy409:
Can we stop with the 'never involve the government' thinking? Governments are not inherently evil or incompetent, they can craft good laws and policy as well as bad. Especially if they actually consult relevant experts and listen to feedback.

I don't understand why some people always react this way to ideas of regulation, what you think rules are bad and we should all be anarchists?

Because the government is made up of people who have absolutely no idea how tech work, pandering to voter who are old and for the most part uninterested in this aspect? Have you already forgotten every moral panic about banning violent video game? They'll see something that's consider gambling so they'll consult people who are expert on gambling and never worked with video game.

I remember, I also remember there were those in the government who believed that video games shouldn't be censored because they saw them as being no different that books or movies and therefore deserved the same protection under the first amendment. In 2011, the supreme court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. So maybe the government isn't as incompetent as you think? Also if video game publishers don't want to be subjected to gambling restrictions then maybe they should not have gambling in them.
Edit: changed the year from 2005 to 2011

Meiam:

Gambling law are already a nonsensical mess, I don't see why anyone would think gambling+video game would be any easier to regulate than gambling by itself. This isn't a personal belief thing, this is just a question of noticing obvious pattern.

Current gambling laws are not perfect but its better than letting Casinos and the gambling industry as a whole have free reign to do what ever they want. And while writing laws for loot boxes in video games may not be easy i think that's a poor excuse to not do anything.

Meiam:

Ultimately I think adult are adult and should be allowed to do what they want with there money (and that involed giving there kid unlimited access to it), it's very clear that there's a demand for lootbox because people buy them. Best case scenario would see the government craft a law that would only affect lootbox by itself, but that would still involves taking away something that people enjoy.

I disagree about the demand for loot boxes. Sale of loots boxes just means that the majority of people tolerate them and people buy them because its usually the only way to get cosmetics. Nobody was demanding loot boxes before they became widespread and I highly doubt people will miss them if they were to disappear over night. Also, aren't the vast majority of loot box and micro transaction purchases done by like 5%-10% of any given player base?

Meiam:

Look at overwatch, it's still being supported to this day by blizzard, they add new map, character, costume and so on. This is because lootbox are in the game and people buy them, which give them incentive to keep supporting the game. Without lootbox the game would still be as it was at launch. So even people who don't buy lootbox would be affected by a law that was very well crafted and only touched lootbox themselves.

Overwatch required $60 when it first launched and given that this was Blizzards first original IP in several years I have no doubt that it made more than enough to fund future characters and maps without the help of loot boxes. If there were no lootboxes and blizzard decided to not add additional content then it would because they are greedy and not because they are barely making a profit. This whole argument that AAA companies need loot boxes to remain profitable is bullshit especially when you consider that a company like Activision is storing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax havens. Besides there are other kinds of mirco transactions that they could employ like allowing you to directly purchase cosmetics.

Meiam:

So really, if you don't like lootbox, just don't buy game with them. It's that easy. Just because you don't personally like it I don't think it should be made illegal for people who enjoy it.

Maybe if loot boxes offered some kind of benefit to the players, but i honestly don't see one. Loot boxes have led to nothing but an inferior product and if people love the act of opening loot boxes so much then they can go play actual gambling games. No need to drag the rest of the industry down with them.

CaitSeith:
Sorry, but when it comes to intrusive lootboxes designed to be a psychological trap, the onus is no longer in the consumer.

Sure it is. Shame EA into the depths of hell with it. Shine the light on their greed to the average joe, boycott their products. Not like they have anything worth buying anyway.

PS: Belgium and the Netherlands disagree with your understanding. This isn't schadenfreude, this is Casandra Effect reaching its worst conclusion.

They can disagree with my understanding all they like. It means absolutely nothing to United States law and to me as a US citizen.

Gordon_4:

This is industry regulatory practices being discussed. Nothing to do with your personal liberty or the art of games. This is the mechanical underpinnings and commercial overreach by the purveyors of said art.

It's a foot in the door. With what happened only a decade ago, and the way the US is swinging about politically, I'm seeing flashbacks.

Fieldy409:
Can we stop with the 'never involve the government' thinking? Governments are not inherently evil or incompetent, they can craft good laws and policy as well as bad. Especially if they actually consult relevant experts and listen to feedback.

Because historically, Video Games and Government have never, ever mixed well, and it might be a great example as to how Government leans far more heavily on crafting bad law and aiming for Nanny State than anything else. Video related, and basically what Meiam said.

I don't understand why some people always react this way to ideas of regulation, what you think rules are bad and we should all be anarchists?

Not Anarchism, and some people just tend to see Government as bloated, wasteful, and being useful for a very select group of things, if anything at all. Games have done fine without the Government rectal examination.

Zetatrain:

I remember, I also remember there were those in the government who believed that video games shouldn't be censored because they saw them as being no different that books or movies and therefore deserved the same protection under the first amendment. In 2005, the supreme court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors.

The law was from 2005, but the SCOTUS case was heard in 2010 and decided in 2011.

So maybe the government isn't as incompetent as you think?

No, that's pretty incompetent. You had the bill as sponsored by Leland Yee, a guy who was much later tried and convicted for trying to sell full-auto firearms and anti-armor weapons to Triads, endorsed by Hillary Clinton in a heated fervor, and signed in by the Terminator himself in the most beautiful case of Irony ever. No concerns at all regarding speech implications and Hillary was full-bore comparing violent games to alcohol, tobacco, porn, ect. That the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech's favor was nothing short of an amazing miracle, but when was the last time a SCOTUS ruling on rights actually mattered to the Government? See: pretty much any case involving firearms, speech in general(or even the Miller Test existing which spits on the very concept, also approved by the Court), ect.

Also if video game publishers don't want to be subjected to gambling restrictions then maybe they should not have gambling in them.

Not legally gambling. Legislation as crafted for this case would be affecting things down to TCG packs and pretty much any scenario with any hint of randomness. With the history of the US Government in regards to both actual Gambling and Video Games or even Games period, such as that whole hubbub with fucking pinball machines, yeah, I really don't see this as a good step in any direction. The difference here is, people are asking the incredibly inept out-of-touch people to stick their hand in, not realizing what that actually means. Does everyone in support of regulating Loot Boxes really want these idiots involved in anything?

Really doesn't fill me with confidence either that the same guy so many people were backing to introduce his anti-loot box bill and his cadre involved moral panicking with children, and demonstrated his understanding as describing Battlefront II as a "Star Wars-themed Casino".

Zetatrain:

I remember, I also remember there were those in the government who believed that video games shouldn't be censored because they saw them as being no different that books or movies and therefore deserved the same protection under the first amendment. In 2011, the supreme court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. So maybe the government isn't as incompetent as you think? Also if video game publishers don't want to be subjected to gambling restrictions then maybe they should not have gambling in them.
Edit: changed the year from 2005 to 2011

It took the supreme court involvement to change the law... the law made it trough every level of government except the very last one. How is this suppose to reassure anyone as to the competence of the government?

Zetatrain:

I disagree about the demand for loot boxes. Sale of loots boxes just means that the majority of people tolerate them and people buy them because its usually the only way to get cosmetics. Nobody was demanding loot boxes before they became widespread and I highly doubt people will miss them if they were to disappear over night. Also, aren't the vast majority of loot box and micro transaction purchases done by like 5%-10% of any given player base?

So just because a few people buy them they should be illegal? Clearly people are okay with it, the cosmetic that they want to obtain are literally only being made because they can sell them trough loot box. If loot box didn't exist those cosmetic wouldn't have been made. People who don't care about cosmetic can simply not buy loot box, people who like cosmetic should be happy loot box exist because otherwise they wouldn't be made in the first place, even if they themselves don't spent money buying loot box.

Meiam:

Overwatch required $60 when it first launched and given that this was Blizzards first original IP in several years I have no doubt that it made more than enough to fund future characters and maps without the help of loot boxes. If there were no lootboxes and blizzard decided to not add additional content then it would because they are greedy and not because they are barely making a profit. This whole argument that AAA companies need loot boxes to remain profitable is bullshit especially when you consider that a company like Activision is storing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax havens. Besides there are other kinds of mirco transactions that they could employ like allowing you to directly purchase cosmetics.

Ever notice how additional content like cosmetic and such aren't being release for most single player game? Ever notice how cosmetic became much more common in most game after the concept of loot box was really launched? Those aren't unrelated. Loot box created a market worth exploiting when there wasn't one before. Part of the reason why loot box work is because you can obtain them for free playing, this is something that wouldn't work if they sold cosmetic directly.

Leg End:

CaitSeith:
Sorry, but when it comes to intrusive lootboxes designed to be a psychological trap, the onus is no longer in the consumer.

Sure it is. Shame EA into the depths of hell with it. Shine the light on their greed to the average joe, boycott their products. Not like they have anything worth buying anyway.

PS: Belgium and the Netherlands disagree with your understanding. This isn't schadenfreude, this is Casandra Effect reaching its worst conclusion.

They can disagree with my understanding all they like. It means absolutely nothing to United States law and to me as a US citizen.

Gordon_4:

This is industry regulatory practices being discussed. Nothing to do with your personal liberty or the art of games. This is the mechanical underpinnings and commercial overreach by the purveyors of said art.

It's a foot in the door. With what happened only a decade ago, and the way the US is swinging about politically, I'm seeing flashbacks.

Fieldy409:
Can we stop with the 'never involve the government' thinking? Governments are not inherently evil or incompetent, they can craft good laws and policy as well as bad. Especially if they actually consult relevant experts and listen to feedback.

Because historically, Video Games and Government have never, ever mixed well, and it might be a great example as to how Government leans far more heavily on crafting bad law and aiming for Nanny State than anything else. Video related, and basically what Meiam said.

I don't understand why some people always react this way to ideas of regulation, what you think rules are bad and we should all be anarchists?

Not Anarchism, and some people just tend to see Government as bloated, wasteful, and being useful for a very select group of things, if anything at all. Games have done fine without the Government rectal examination.

Zetatrain:

I remember, I also remember there were those in the government who believed that video games shouldn't be censored because they saw them as being no different that books or movies and therefore deserved the same protection under the first amendment. In 2005, the supreme court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors.

The law was from 2005, but the SCOTUS case was heard in 2010 and decided in 2011.

So maybe the government isn't as incompetent as you think?

No, that's pretty incompetent. You had the bill as sponsored by Leland Yee, a guy who was much later tried and convicted for trying to sell full-auto firearms and anti-armor weapons to Triads, endorsed by Hillary Clinton in a heated fervor, and signed in by the Terminator himself in the most beautiful case of Irony ever. No concerns at all regarding speech implications and Hillary was full-bore comparing violent games to alcohol, tobacco, porn, ect. That the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech's favor was nothing short of an amazing miracle, but when was the last time a SCOTUS ruling on rights actually mattered to the Government? See: pretty much any case involving firearms, speech in general(or even the Miller Test existing which spits on the very concept, also approved by the Court), ect.

Also if video game publishers don't want to be subjected to gambling restrictions then maybe they should not have gambling in them.

Not legally gambling. Legislation as crafted for this case would be affecting things down to TCG packs and pretty much any scenario with any hint of randomness. With the history of the US Government in regards to both actual Gambling and Video Games or even Games period, such as that whole hubbub with fucking pinball machines, yeah, I really don't see this as a good step in any direction. The difference here is, people are asking the incredibly inept out-of-touch people to stick their hand in, not realizing what that actually means. Does everyone in support of regulating Loot Boxes really want these idiots involved in anything?

Really doesn't fill me with confidence either that the same guy so many people were backing to introduce his anti-loot box bill and his cadre involved moral panicking with children, and demonstrated his understanding as describing Battlefront II as a "Star Wars-themed Casino".

The boxes need not be made illegal. If they constitute gambling, then games that contain them may be restricted to adults only. As gambling is currently and enjoying legal status and profitable existence.

Gordon_4:

The boxes need not be made illegal. If they constitute gambling, then games that contain them may be restricted to adults only. As gambling is currently and enjoying legal status and profitable existence.

Alright then. Assuming that under current definitions within the law, they legally qualify as gambling and they are to be regulated as such. All that happens and the Government steps in.

What happens to this game?
image

Hell, what happens to this game then?
image

Or literally any Trading Card Game under the sun? Pokemon TCG suddenly goes into the same category as Poker and you can't even play it online in a shitload of states. That makes absolutely no sense to me in any conceivable way.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here