Lootboxes court ruling in the Netherlands

[ewenness.6482]

> @"Zok.4956" said:

> Not every gambling is illegal. But to be allowed to provide gambling and online gambling in a lot of european countries, you have to apply for a gambling license. This gambling license does usually include, that you must not allow minors to gamble and that you must follow the other rules for the online gambling license.

 

Excuse me but do you have a license for making forum threads?

 

 

Jokes aside, this is about power play and nothing else. The regulations aren't protecting people but of course those campaigning for these laws will frame it as a humanitarian effort. In reality some old dogs in power are learning new tricks now that they finally realized the kind of money that can be made through these means and how exactly it works so they want a slice of that pie for themselves. Notice they don't ban lootboxes or even try to regulate it in any meaningful way but merely require these gaming companies to cough up some cash to continue with their business model.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"ewenness.6482" said:

> > @"Zok.4956" said:

> > Not every gambling is illegal. But to be allowed to provide gambling and online gambling in a lot of european countries, you have to apply for a gambling license. This gambling license does usually include, that you must not allow minors to gamble and that you must follow the other rules for the online gambling license.

>

> Jokes aside, this is about power play and nothing else. The regulations aren't protecting people but of course those campaigning for these laws will frame it as a humanitarian effort. In reality some old dogs in power are learning new tricks now that they finally realized the kind of money that can be made through these means and how exactly it works so they want a slice of that pie for themselves. Notice they don't ban lootboxes or even try to regulate it in any meaningful way but merely require these gaming companies to cough up some cash to continue with their business model.

Having loot boxes fall under gambling regulations will help people. I for one would love to see the actual, verified odds for specific loot box drops instead of gaming communities having to approximate them. The guarantee that odds never change without notification would also be nice.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

>

> If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

 

That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

 

The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> >

> > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

>

> That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

>

> The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

 

This.

 

The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > >

> > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> >

> > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> >

> > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

>

> This.

>

> The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > > >

> > > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> > >

> > > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> > >

> > > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

> >

> > This.

> >

> > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

 

Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > >

> > > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> > No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

>

> Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

Sure. Why would they tax and regulate businesses like online casinos and not do the same with businesses that tick the same boxes?

 

Then again, getting an online gambling license in Belgium is probably never going to happen for gaming companies because you can only apply for one if you already run a licensed brick-and-mortar gambling establishment in the country. There's ways around that, like partnering with a licensed company, but I don't see that happening with gaming companies.

 

So, until Belgium introduces some new, lootbox specific laws, they can only ban them.

 

 

[Super Hayes.6890]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > > > >

> > > > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> > > >

> > > > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> > > >

> > > > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

> > >

> > > This.

> > >

> > > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> > No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

>

> Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

 

These things are always about the money.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

>

> These things are always about the money.

 

Completely agree

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it".

For Belgium? sure, which is why Anet did what they did. For the whole EU however, it would no longer be so. Cutting off that market would be way too costly.

 

> Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

No. Actually, it was Belgium looking at the system, and saying "oh, hey, it looks like gambling, works like gambling, so it seems it _is_ gambling. And since we already have some gambling laws, perhaps they should apply here as well, instead of this one type of gambling being an exception for no legal reason."

Remember, Belgium did not change any of their laws. They just recognized that lootboxes were _always_ gambling, and just got overlooked.

 

> The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted.

What if it _isn't_ dealt with in the home or with the family of the afflicted? The problem won't suddenly disappear then.

 

> So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win.

Nah. Not being able to sell stuff is always a loss to the business. Sometimes it can still be a sound business decision (when the cost of adjusting to new market situation is higher than the projected loss), but if that were to result in losing too big of a market share, then a business usually can only adjust, or _go out of business_.

 

When market situation changes, it's the businesses that are able to adjust that will ultimately remain. Those too unflexible to make necessary changes will eventually disappear. Withdrawing from a part of market might be sensible short-term, but longterm it is a business equivalent of hiding your head in the sand, or covering your ears and singing loudly "la la la" while hoping the problem will miraculously disappear on its own as long as you'll pretend not to notice it.

[Haishao.6851]

> @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > > > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> > > > >

> > > > > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> > > > >

> > > > > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

> > > >

> > > > This.

> > > >

> > > > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> > > No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

> >

> > Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

>

> These things are always about the money.

 

Turns out exploiting diseased and children cost money to society and the responsible should at the very least pay their part.

 

 

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Haishao.6851" said:

> > @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > > > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > > > > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

> > > > >

> > > > > This.

> > > > >

> > > > > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> > > > No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

> > >

> > > Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

> >

> > These things are always about the money.

>

> Turns out exploiting diseased and children cost money to society and the responsible should at the very least pay their part.

>

>

 

Who is responsible?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Who is responsible?

The ones doing the exploiting, obviously.

 

 

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > Who is responsible?

> The ones doing the exploiting, obviously.

>

>

 

Respectfully, I disagree. But, I've been down this path before on previous threads so I'll just leave it at that.

[Haishao.6851]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > Who is responsible?

> > The ones doing the exploiting, obviously.

> >

> >

>

> Respectfully, I disagree. But, I've been down this path before on previous threads so I'll just leave it at that.

 

Companies chose to exploit the vulnerability of diseased and children for profit. They are entirely responsible.

It cost a fortune to society and so it's the bare minimum to make them pay for the damage they cause.

 

 

 

[Super Hayes.6890]

People can avoid being exploited by large companies if they pay attention. Anet is hardly a company that concerns me in this regard. Let's get some perspective people. We tend to put the blame anywhere but ourselves and big companies are simply easy targets.

[ewenness.6482]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

 

> Having loot boxes fall under gambling regulations will help people. I for one would love to see the actual, verified odds for specific loot box drops instead of gaming communities having to approximate them. The guarantee that odds never change without notification would also be nice.

 

The odds being disclosed won't stop people falling victim to the exploitative nature of gambling. If it did, casinos and bookies would have gone out of business by now. Those who are vulnerable will continue to get preyed on regardless of how many licenses a company pays for.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"ewenness.6482" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

>

> > Having loot boxes fall under gambling regulations will help people. I for one would love to see the actual, verified odds for specific loot box drops instead of gaming communities having to approximate them. The guarantee that odds never change without notification would also be nice.

>

> The odds being disclosed won't stop people falling victim to the exploitative nature of gambling. If it did, casinos and bookies would have gone out of business by now. Those who are vulnerable will continue to get preyed on regardless of how many licenses a company pays for.

Those who are not vulnerable will be able to make more informed decisions. The obvious fact that things will never be perfect is no reason to stop trying to improve things altogether.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > Easy solution. Created a version of the black lion chest for those countries ruling against loot boxes and have all items be account bound.

> > > >

> > > > Or Anet can calculate the amount to sell each of the tradeable items from the chest by taking the average number of keys that it would take and use the cost for those keys. If it would take $100 in keys for an item then it sells for $100.

> > >

> > > That's not really an easy solution, because there's no single set of rules that applies. In Belgium, for instance, the resellability of acquired items isn't a factor like it is in the Netherlands. Until the EU introduces universal rules for the whole block, expect every country to come up with its own rules with their own particular quirks.

> > >

> > > Also worth noting, neither the Netherlands nor Belgium have passed any laws specific to loot boxes. Both countries just have had existing laws tested against loot box systems.

> >

> > But the second option can apply to all situations. You assign prices to all items not already available on the TP at the cost it would take on average to obtain them by buying keys. You of course make the black lion chest unavailable to those individuals. No RNG. No Loot boxes. You acquire the items at the cost you would have otherwise spent on average.

> They could, true, but they'll never do that because the insane prices they'd have to put on things like the permanent contracts would make them the talk of the town, and not in a good way. They could make those drops less rare of course.

>

> Edit: I guess by TP you mean the trading post instead of the BL store for direct purchase. If so, ignore the above.

 

I dont think the price would need to be 1 tot 1 with some sort of average in order for things to work out.

 

The Black Lion Chest contents would need to be reassessed completely. Some will be ingame RNG and other will be bought directly for a price that works, which isnt dependant on how much players would have spent, but rather on how many people are likely to buy it at a certain price.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it".

> For Belgium? sure, which is why Anet did what they did. For the whole EU however, it would no longer be so. Cutting off that market would be way too costly.

>

> > Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> No. Actually, it was Belgium looking at the system, and saying "oh, hey, it looks like gambling, works like gambling, so it seems it _is_ gambling. And since we already have some gambling laws, perhaps they should apply here as well, instead of this one type of gambling being an exception for no legal reason."

> Remember, Belgium did not change any of their laws. They just recognized that lootboxes were _always_ gambling, and just got overlooked.

>

> > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted.

> What if it _isn't_ dealt with in the home or with the family of the afflicted? The problem won't suddenly disappear then.

>

> > So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win.

> Nah. Not being able to sell stuff is always a loss to the business. Sometimes it can still be a sound business decision (when the cost of adjusting to new market situation is higher than the projected loss), but if that were to result in losing too big of a market share, then a business usually can only adjust, or _go out of business_.

>

> When market situation changes, it's the businesses that are able to adjust that will ultimately remain. Those too unflexible to make necessary changes will eventually disappear. Withdrawing from a part of market might be sensible short-term, but longterm it is a business equivalent of hiding your head in the sand, or covering your ears and singing loudly "la la la" while hoping the problem will miraculously disappear on its own as long as you'll pretend not to notice it.

 

Until it turns into a class action suit? Better to cut the losses, and not have to worry about it. You see, the flaw I'm seeing with your logic is that we're discussing loot boxes. If they're so wildly unpopular that people are petitioning their governments to get them removed, then there's no cost at all, is there? Surely people that have such strong objections to them aren't spending a lot of money on them, right?

 

There are billions of people around the world dealing with life threatening issues. How many of them are you supporting? I have my own issues to deal with, most of them already government related, I don't need to be dealing with my neighbor's issues too. In other words, if their family doesn't care enough to step in and deal with it, where does it suddenly become a Publisher/Game Dev problem? Are you protesting the impulse buy items in super markets and other stores too? I get that someone may not like loot boxes, I don't like them. However, don't try to emotionally blackmail me into caring about what's going on in someone else's private life.

 

Again, if enough people aren't buying it, and have tacitly agreed, or passively so by not saying "hey, we don't need another law", then there's not such a big loss as you're trying to claim here. Again, you can't lose money by not selling something to someone who isn't buying it. "But some people are", well, they need to get busy then, right? They need to take the same personal responsibility their counterparts did, and start hammering their local governments to leave their hobbies alone.

 

When a market situation changes, such as in this case, by making something illegal, you remove the illegal stuff from the market. That's not even hard to figure out, "this is illegal now, we must stop doing it". That's just common sense, don't break the law.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Haishao.6851" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > Who is responsible?

> > > The ones doing the exploiting, obviously.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Respectfully, I disagree. But, I've been down this path before on previous threads so I'll just leave it at that.

>

> Companies chose to exploit the vulnerability of diseased and children for profit. They are entirely responsible.

> It cost a fortune to society and so it's the bare minimum to make them pay for the damage they cause.

>

>

>

 

Why aren't their families stepping in to prevent it? How are children gaining access to their parent's credit cards/debit cards? If a parent can't be bothered to supervise what their children are doing, and it's such a severe circumstance that the government needs to be involved, I'd say that the government is going at the wrong parties. If they aren't investigating what it is that the parents are doing with their kids, or not doing?

 

So let me put it another way. How many times a week are you going to drop what you're doing to come to my house and make sure I'm preparing my meals on a regular basis? I'm on disability because I can't remember what I had for dinner last night, if I did. Is it suddenly your responsibility to step in and take care of me? If so, where have you been for the last 15 years? If not, how is it that you feel it's someone else's problem to step in and take care of someone that can't, or won't monitor where their money is being spent? You see, when you hold these people out as sacrificial lambs to the cause of removing loot boxes, your arguments fall flat. I can attest that you have not been by my house several times a week to verify that I'm eating properly. I can attest that, in fact, you haven't been by once.

 

Even my mom, who is pretty diligent about this, only calls once or twice a week to make sure I'm still eating. She comes by once or twice a month and takes me out to lunch. I'd be embarrassed to admit it, if I weren't so grateful that she doesn't just assume that, because I did such a stellar job before my disability, that I'll be fine now. I mean, I'm kicking 60 dead in the ass, the last thing I want to say is that I'm still be taken care of by my mother. But, in context with this topic, she is doing far more to monitor what I am doing in my apartment, despite living half way across town, than the parent/spouse that finds that their child/spouse has maxed out their card, or overdrawn their bank account, especially if said spouse knows their significant other has a problem with that kind of thing.

[Fuchslein.8639]

What would be so bad if blk disappeared, that so many react so dramatically here?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> Until it turns into a class action suit? Better to cut the losses, and not have to worry about it.

Or, even better, try to find a different, less controversial avenue of selling stuff than through lootboxes - in which case you not only avoid lawsuits, but also _still keep earning money_.

 

> You see, the flaw I'm seeing with your logic is that we're discussing loot boxes. If they're so wildly unpopular that people are petitioning their governments to get them removed, then there's no cost at all, is there? Surely people that have such strong objections to them aren't spending a lot of money on them, right?

Oh, i have absolutely no problem in lootboxes disappearing. In fact, i _want_ them to disappear. I'm just talking about the flaw in _your_ logic. Namely, that you think that selling a certain range of items through lootboxes is the _only_ method Anet can use. And that, if they can't use lootboxes, then the only option is to not sell at all. Which is completely untrue.

 

> When a market situation changes, such as in this case, by making something illegal, you remove the illegal stuff from the market. That's not even hard to figure out, "this is illegal now, we must stop doing it". That's just common sense, don't break the law.

"Regulated" is not the same thing as "illegal". There's a ton of regulated stuff (like tobacco, or alcohol) that are still being sold in the regulated markets. Are you suggesting that the sellers of those things should just stop selling altogether, instead of adjusting to said regulations? That's... not smart from the business point of view.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Fuchslein.8639" said:

> What would be so bad if blk disappeared, that so many react so dramatically here?

This is how I see it. There are things in the BLC that people want, but they don't want to buy keys for them (or, in some countries, are now unable to buy keys). They want an easier, less expensive and less RNG method to obtain them. BLK are perhaps one of the larger income streams for Anet. Eliminating them completely might well cut the revenue for Anet which might severely impact their bottom line.

 

Personally, I find the entire thing silly. Items in the BLC are not required to play the game.

 

[Fuchslein.8639]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Fuchslein.8639" said:

> > What would be so bad if blk disappeared, that so many react so dramatically here?

> This is how I see it. There are things in the BLC that people want, but they don't want to buy keys for them (or, in some countries, are now unable to buy keys). They want an easier, less expensive and less RNG method to obtain them. BLK are perhaps one of the larger income streams for Anet. Eliminating them completely might well cut the revenue for Anet which might severely impact their bottom line.

>

> Personally, I find the entire thing silly. Items in the BLC are not required to play the game.

>

 

So Anet survival depends on lootboxes?

I have written a contribution like this somewhere else here ... sarcastically. But if anet really depends on lootboxes it would be really sad. And it's really sad that you guys are supporting this in my opinion.