Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

[Ok I Did It.2854]

If Anet put on the BLC the % chance of getting said item then you would know the odds,

 

Marking something as common, uncommon, rare, or very rare, doesn't mean anything, common could be 98% of the time to very rare being 0.00001% and the way RNG in this game works no one but Anet knows,

 

But from reading reddit, it does look like EA's greed has blown this issue wide open across the gaming community, it will be interesting to see what comes of this, if Anet made BLK's 50 gems a pop would people still be complaining about the whole thing?

[Shirlias.8104]

BLC does not provvide advantages.

Standard tools from GS > Advantage

The same tools with fun skin on BLC > no Advantage, since they can be purchased with standard skin on GS.

 

Same goes for skins.

Mounts are avaible and you know when you buy one of them.

Skins could be random, but they don't provvide any advantage, so no problem at all.

 

Though ofc it could be unfair towards community.

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

States are starting to look into this to http://www.pcgamer.com/us-legislator-calls-out-eas-predatory-practices-in-star-wars-battlefront-2/

[zombyturtle.5980]

 

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> BLC does not provvide advantages.

> Standard tools from GS > Advantage

> The same tools with fun skin on BLC > no Advantage, since they can be purchased with standard skin on GS.

>

> Same goes for skins.

> Mounts are avaible and you know when you buy one of them.

> Skins could be random, but they don't provvide any advantage, so no problem at all.

>

> Though ofc it could be unfair towards community.

 

The statements from Belgium and now hawaii dont make the distinction between p2w advantages and cosmetic only though. They are only concerned about if you can clearly see what you are purchasing, and if these boxes are being sold to minors. Overwatch is a cosmetic only box game, but Belgium have expressed a desire to ban their lootboxes.

 

This indicated that cosmetic only boxes ARENT ok for Belgium at least. France seems to be ok with them though.

[Shirlias.8104]

On the posted article an user posted a more accurate translation which said it was only in game advantages related. Are there different articles?

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

>

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > BLC does not provvide advantages.

> > Standard tools from GS > Advantage

> > The same tools with fun skin on BLC > no Advantage, since they can be purchased with standard skin on GS.

> >

> > Same goes for skins.

> > Mounts are avaible and you know when you buy one of them.

> > Skins could be random, but they don't provvide any advantage, so no problem at all.

> >

> > Though ofc it could be unfair towards community.

>

> The statements from Belgium and now hawaii dont make the distinction between p2w advantages and cosmetic only though. They are only concerned about if you can clearly see what you are purchasing, and if these boxes are being sold to minors. Overwatch is a cosmetic only box game, but Belgium have expressed a desire to ban their lootboxes.

>

> This indicated that cosmetic only boxes ARENT ok for Belgium at least. France seems to be ok with them though.

 

Exactly, they don't care if the lootboxes p2w or not, they are just looking at the rng factor.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

I'm happy this stuff is going to be revied and hopefully regualted. Gaming became gambling in last 2 decades. It was a slow process to make people feel it's okay to pay money and not get things they wanted. Games don't need to use malicious practices, like recent gw2 mount boxes, to earn money. Those companies who are going to adapt and treat their customers fair will stay on market. Rest of them may bankrupt.

[Ok I Did It.2854]

The loot box system does bring in $ for the developer, its the sneaky RNG system they hide it behind is the problem, if they started putting the % chance of the items on the box, people might start to think different,

 

ATM if a nice item is in an RNG lootbox people think ooooh I have a chance at getting that, ill give it a try, if that same person seen that the % chance before trying was 0.0001% they would think very differently.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> [...]

> Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

 

I had put this in another thread, because I assumed that ANet would close a topic like this. Thanks for the credit, by the way. ;)

 

> @costepj.5120 said:

> Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

 

You must know little about economics to make such a statement. You will see how "Yay!" it will be for the UK.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

Personally I'm a fan of a market regulating itself. EA's stock tanked after Battlefront 2's microtransactions blew up in their face. I don't see a need for government regulation after that.

[apharma.3741]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> I'm happy this stuff is going to be revied and hopefully regualted. Gaming became gambling in last 2 decades. It was a slow process to make people feel it's okay to pay money and not get things they wanted. Games don't need to use malicious practices, like recent gw2 mount boxes, to earn money. Those companies who are going to adapt and treat their customers fair will stay on market. Rest of them may bankrupt.

 

The worst part about all this ANet stuff is that many players would happily through money at ANet for non RNG gemstore skins. Even if you convert gold to gems to buy it someone payed money for those gems.

[Feanor.2358]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > I'm happy this stuff is going to be revied and hopefully regualted. Gaming became gambling in last 2 decades. It was a slow process to make people feel it's okay to pay money and not get things they wanted. Games don't need to use malicious practices, like recent gw2 mount boxes, to earn money. Those companies who are going to adapt and treat their customers fair will stay on market. Rest of them may bankrupt.

>

> The worst part about all this ANet stuff is that many players would happily through money at ANet for non RNG gemstore skins. Even if you convert gold to gems to buy it someone payed money for those gems.

 

We'll see how happy the players are when the prices rise. Which they will.

[Liefizul.6574]

Actually, I'm more worried about what it means for the gem-gold conversion system. Depending on how it is worded and since there are lootboxes purchasable via Gold + other currency... Not to mention salvaging could be seen as a form of gambling..

[ImTasty.2163]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> Personally I'm a fan of a market regulating itself. EA's stock tanked after Battlefront 2's microtransactions blew up in their face. I don't see a need for government regulation after that.

 

Not really actually. Since the lootbox thing they went down by 2.3%(May be different now) but overall their stocks have gone up by about 7% for this year.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ok I Did It.2854" said:

> The loot box system does bring in $ for the developer, its the sneaky RNG system they hide it behind is the problem, if they started putting the % chance of the items on the box, people might start to think different,

>

> ATM if a nice item is in an RNG lootbox people think ooooh I have a chance at getting that, ill give it a try, if that same person seen that the % chance before trying was 0.0001% they would think very differently.

 

But that would still affect the profits and force the dev to re-evaluate their sales model, likely ending up in higher prices, lower quality, or both.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> GW2 loot box can be bought with gem which bought with in game gold, it is not limited to cash only. Also like the other said, game progression is not blocked by these rng, player also gain very limited and close to none advantage over the one who do not use the box.

>

> For me, mount skin is okay, but i would like blacklion chest to be reworked to the favor of players.

 

The gems you buy with gold are paid for with real money, just not yours. Someone still paid cash for whatever you got with the gems you traded for.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Lambent.6375 said:

> Toy vending machines have been what mount licenses are for years in the US.

> As a kid, I remember frequently seeing tv shows that would dedicate an episode to this, people using tons of quarters trying to get that one specific toy.

 

At least you can give the crappy toy away or trade it. They're not glued to you once you open them. :p

[Crossaber.8934]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Lambent.6375 said:

> > Toy vending machines have been what mount licenses are for years in the US.

> > As a kid, I remember frequently seeing tv shows that would dedicate an episode to this, people using tons of quarters trying to get that one specific toy.

>

> At least you can give the crappy toy away or trade it. They're not glued to you once you open them. :p

 

You don’t get junk out of the mount box, just skin that you don’t like and you don’t already have. So it is even better than toy vendoring mechine actually.

 

Yes you can’t give away that’s true.

[Crossaber.8934]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Crossaber.8934 said:

> > GW2 loot box can be bought with gem which bought with in game gold, it is not limited to cash only. Also like the other said, game progression is not blocked by these rng, player also gain very limited and close to none advantage over the one who do not use the box.

> >

> > For me, mount skin is okay, but i would like blacklion chest to be reworked to the favor of players.

>

> The gems you buy with gold are paid for with real money, just not yours. Someone still paid cash for whatever you got with the gems you traded for.

 

Do you think it is possible to drain out all gems for nobody selling gem anymore? I don’t know really, but even the gem is sold by someone buy with cash, there is nothing to do with the one play the game and trade gold to gem.

 

What i mean is the box is not limited to cash trade only, it is a fact.

 

[Erasculio.2914]

The thing is, it will be very hard to define exactly are "loot boxes".

 

If they claim that loot boxes are anything that is "pay to win"... What does "win" mean in a game like Guild Wars? Considering how the end reward of most PvE activities is to get new skins (see legendary armor in raids as an example), would "win" include getting better skins? Or would it be restricted to things that make characters more powerful? People in this forum can easily tell the difference, but would a judge at court or a politician creating new laws bother with that kind of detail?

 

Would a system in which people know the possible results and the odds of each of them be acceptable, like in some countries? What about if the value of each possible outcome is at least the value of what has been paid, like, again, some countries already do? Or would the idea be to block anything that offers a random reward for paying money?

 

It's hard to define those things in a language that easily fits into laws and regulations.

[apharma.3741]

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @"Ok I Did It.2854" said:

> > The loot box system does bring in $ for the developer, its the sneaky RNG system they hide it behind is the problem, if they started putting the % chance of the items on the box, people might start to think different,

> >

> > ATM if a nice item is in an RNG lootbox people think ooooh I have a chance at getting that, ill give it a try, if that same person seen that the % chance before trying was 0.0001% they would think very differently.

>

> But that would still affect the profits and force the dev to re-evaluate their sales model, likely ending up in higher prices, lower quality, or both.

 

Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

 

Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

 

Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

 

The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @killermanjaro.5670 said:

> > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > Im also really curious how it will affect trading cards, since im a semi-collector. But I guess thats not really for GW2 forum.

>

> Personally I don't see trading cards as falling into this sort of thing. Because any you get that are unwanted can be traded with other people for ones that are of use to you, or of course sold to recoup a bit of value etc. So it's still luck what you get, but at least whatever you get gives you some option of having unwanted items contribute toward something you do want.

>

> If all skins were tradeable on the TP like (I think all) of the weapon skins in BLCs are then it would be more tolerable, because at least you could recoup some gold and put it toward the skin you actually want. It's the fact everything is account bound that I think makes these stupid skin licenses an issue. Any you get that you don't want are dead weight and money down the drain as you can't do anything with them.

 

Actually trading cards are closer to the definition of gambling than loot boxes. The reason is you can sell trading cards legally. You can't legally sell things from loot boxes.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> The thing is, it will be very hard to define exactly are "loot boxes".

>

> If they claim that loot boxes are anything that is "pay to win"... What does "win" mean in a game like Guild Wars? Considering how the end reward of most PvE activities is to get new skins (see legendary armor in raids as an example), would "win" include getting better skins? Or would it be restricted to things that make characters more powerful? People in this forum can easily tell the difference, but would a judge at court or a politician creating new laws bother with that kind of detail?

>

> Would a system in which people know the possible results and the odds of each of them be acceptable, like in some countries? What about if the value of each possible outcome is at least the value of what has been paid, like, again, some countries already do? Or would the idea be to block anything that offers a random reward for paying money?

>

> It's hard to define those things in a language that easily fits into laws and regulations.

 

Your looking at this wrong. It's not the pay to win aspect of loot boxes that make people think they are gambling. It's the random nature of the loot. Also, in my opinion, the mount skin sales technique won't be affected by any law and may be the way loot boxes are handled in the future. It's not so much rng as it is a down payment on a complete set.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I'm all for banning these RNG loot boxes for real-world money. It is poison.

 

And yes, I consider myself a well-paying customer for ArenaNet/NCSOFT. Buying the game, the expansions, some gems>gold, and more gems for lots of storage, char slots, crafting licences and a few cosmetics like the angel wings. Hundreds of euros.

[Belorn.2659]

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> GW2 loot box can be bought with gem which bought with in game gold, it is not limited to cash only. Also like the other said, game progression is not blocked by these rng, player also gain very limited and close to none advantage over the one who do not use the box.

>

> For me, mount skin is okay, but i would like blacklion chest to be reworked to the favor of players.

 

Technicalities like that is not very relevant to the law. If there is a law targeting gambling-like activity, gambling addiction, and gambling targeting children, then a judge has a rather free range to make the judgment call and declare it as equivalent to gambling.

 

A rather similar case is when employes are taxed for non-monetary benefits and payments. Traditionally only money based income got income taxed, but companies started to go around this and gave non-monetary payments to employes. The state caught up to by defining any payment from the employer to the employee as equivalent form of income.