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

[Reverze.7180]

My country"s politicians are like the biggest idiots of europe don't get you're hope up

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @costepj.5120 said:

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

 

Raises a glass, tips hat and shouts .. HELL YEAH! :)

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @costepj.5120 said:

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

>

> Raises a glass, tips hat and shouts .. HELL YEAH! :)

 

Really, really dumb.

 

[kharmin.7683]

This kind of decision (the Belgian one) takes time. To believe that Anet was not aware that it was coming, and hadn't planned accordingly, is naive. They have plenty of lawyers to consult to ensure that their RNG is outside of the scope. With regards to the mount licenses, we all knew what skins were available (you could see them in the hero panel) and even though you didn't know which ones you would get, by making them known (and non-repeatable) Anet positioned their sales model in a manner that clears this decision. Other BLTC items being trade-able probably lumps those in with the CCG argument.

 

Do I believe that this is still a form of gambling? In the strictest definition: perhaps. I'm not a legal scholar. However, it appears to me that by making RNG items known and not tying them to advantage or completion, Anet is probably in the clear. For now.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> > @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.

>

 

The amount of people buying gems dictates the price for the conversion rate of gems to gold.

 

I am not sure if there is a baseline conversion rate, but I do know that when people dont buy gems, the price of converting gold to gems goes up. It could easily be the case that, if nobody bought gems, the cost of gold to gem conversion would become so high it would be unfeasible to even do the conversion.

 

So they do have something to do with one another. Don't ignore that.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @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.

 

Higher prices are already here. Every bundle represents a higher price if all one wants is one of the items. 2K gems for one mount skin. 3k gems for the latest not-worth-the-price bundle. The store is already offering new things mostly to big spenders. Seems like ANet is trying to redefine micro-transaction.

 

Could it get even more pronounced? Maybe so. If the game can survive with only the whales spending, I guess that would say something -- though I am not entirely sure what.

[MMAI.5892]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @apharma.3741 said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

> >

> > What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

> >

> > I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

> >

> >

>

> Really good analysis though you missed out that the mount idea sort of blew up in their face and has probably cost them more (not just sales of mount skins but player approval) even if people did get twice as many skins as they normally would. Like you say though we will have to wait and see what’s next however I have categorically told them to kitten themselves if they think I will pay 2000 gems for a single mount skin.

 

It did, but I'm leery to quantify how much it blew it up in their faces and the overall effect it will have on player retention and other gem store purchases just because of the 'softer' factors involved. Such as: are the mount loot boxes controversial enough to put enough people off from buying them at all? Buying from the gem store all? Leave the game all together? Will LS4 smooth over some of the ill will? Those are the immediate questions that pop into mind and I've no idea how to answer them. That's not at all to say that player approval isn't important; it definitely is. But, take EA for example, it's a new game and thus players aren't as invested in it. They don't have months or years spent, communities built, etc. The chances of them simply not buying the game and thus not getting into the whole loot box cycle is higher than for GW2 that has communities spanning years, and high individual investment for many players. So they're going to have to address the matter more aggressively than Anet might (but certainly not a definite.)

 

But I'm with you on the single mount skin. 2000 gems is too pricey for me.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Rhiannon.1726 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> >

> > I seriously doubt that the loot boxes are really causing issues with children. People are just using that as an “appeal to emotion” argument to support banning the loot boxes. Children are not being targeted (how could companies single them out?) and they’re not the primary ones purchasing them solely based on their limited income.

> >

> > This is just people that dislike loot boxes doing everything that they can to get them banned. Little do they know that companies will just find and alternative which will probably not be any more favorable.

>

> I don't mind loot boxes. My comment was only directed at the post from DarcShriek, which sounded like restricting age **in general** is censorship.

>

 

According to the ESRB age restriction of software is censorship. There is no government enforcement of ESRB ratings in the US.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

Is this a perfect system.. no, but its a lot better than pretty much any other loot box system out there which absolutely does prey on the game of chance.

In all seriousness is this really worth all the hot air when there is no unfair advantage over having say a Jackal Stardust skin to someone having just a standard skin. Yeah you might want that and you will eventually... that is what players have been asking for years here.. just like old style MMO's used to play the "loot X boss chest Y times and you will guarantee the shiny you need".

So now we get something looking like that except it has a gem price to it and increasing odds attached as opposed to the previous "play the game of chance" and never get that oooohlala skin.

Now all that's going to happen is the skins will become a higher priced gem store sale.. so those "kids" that might be underage to so say gamble for a cosmetic item now just have to go play with moms credit card and pay big for it and then where does it stop.. the focus now becomes gemstore content rather than game content, cos I will hazard a guess less skins will be sold individually so revenue stream will reduce and more stuff developed to fill the holes.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> Seriously..

> There is no unfair advantage over me having A Jackal stardust skin to someone having just a standard skin. Yeah you might want that and you will eventually.

> Previously you could play the game of chance and never get that oooohlala skin. Now all that's going to happen is the skins will become a higher priced gem store sale.. so those "kids" that might be underage to so say gamble for a cosmetic item now just have to go play with moms credit card and pay big for it and then where does it stop.. the focus now becomes gemstore content rather than game content, cos I will hazard a guess less skins will be sold individually so revenue stream will reduce and more stuff developed to fill the holes.

 

The issue in Belgium has nothing to do with GW2's mount boxes. It's entirely EA's and Disney's fault for their loot boxes in Battlefront 2.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

 

No, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Nobody is upset about that. What people are upset about is that there is RNG in the process at all, that you aren't guaranteed to get the thing that you want on the *first* purchase.

 

What made you think anyone was upset about the progressive drop rate element of it? That seems silly.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> Curious as to how this will affect gw2. Since overwatch was mentioned specifically in their decision making, which only has cosmetic loot boxes, its possible GW2 wont be able to sell them either. "According to the report, (the gaming commussion) wants to ban in-game purchases outright (correction: if you don't know exactly what you're purchasing)"

>

> Maybe the preview feature of BLC's can circumvent this?

>

> Granted this will take years to pass if it even managed to get legislative approval. Just something worth debating IMO.

>

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

>

>

 

you beat me to it lol

 

more

 

https://www.pcinvasion.com/star-wars-battlefront-2-prompts-state-of-hawaii-to-address-ea-predatory-practices

http://technology.inquirer.net/69496/loot-boxes-in-star-wars-battlefront-ii-are-gambling-traps-says-us-congressman

http://theweek.com/articles/731592/how-video-game-industry-tricks-players-money

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/video-game-addiction-how-the-industry-is-learning-from-casinos/8941114

 

Interesting articles

 

 

[Ayakaru.6583]

Curious how it will affect gw2? Don't be. Theres no law or any movement yet. This will go for at least another whole year.. if you're optimistic.

[Yargesh.4965]

The question for me is, so what? If they draft a new law it would take at least a year to draft. To pass that law could take months to years. For the rest of Europe to be willing to enforce it would be years after that. So the only problem would be for citizens of Belgium, in the short and fairly long term.

This does not take into account the lawsuits and legal challenges that every single online game in existence will launch which will stall any implementation for many decades.

[notebene.3190]

Maybe yes, maybe no. They do waffle.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBQlofDpalo

[Teratus.2859]

I've been a long time boycotter of screw you features in video games.. going as far back as mandatory subscription fees in World of Warcraft which is a game I wanted but refused to play purely because of them.. not to mention Xbox live which I blame for mandatory subs being normalized on all consoles these days which has forced me to exclusively game online only on PC.

 

Cashgrab DLC, Micro transactions and lootboxes are just evolution's of the same basic concept subscriptions are founded on.. How much money can we make people pay after they've already bought our game..

 

As far as Guildwars 2 goes.. I'm willing to tolerate and sometimes support some systems that demand payment for certain things.. because unlike many games these days Guildwars 2 mostly doesn't abuse them.. the keyword there being mostly.

But when Gw2 does abuse these systems.. the biggest example I'll note being a mount skin that costs as much as an expansion pack.. there is no way in hell I'll defend it or censor my opinion about how repulsive that ripoff was.

 

Gw2 gives a lot to the player for free.. and that's a hard thing to ignore when trying to criticize their lootbox system.. I'll also like to point out that until mount licences came into the game which are NOT! the same thing as lootboxes.. people generally didn't care or complain much about Black Lion Chests which are lootboxes and have been in the game since it's launch.

I do understand many of the complaints.. 30 new mount skins but no in game reward ones.. valid argument.

Licences having RNG instead of choice.. valid argument.

Exclusive skins being locked behind RNG black lion lootboxes (example Hydra Staff).. valid argument.

 

But I don't agree with the outrage and claims around licences being a complete rip off..

400 gems for a new mount skin is a bargain.. and frankly so was 1600 gems for a set of 5.

I see people saying they would pay 1000 for a single cool skin.. and I struggle to find any sense in that what so ever.. and frankly I don't believe them at all.

I wouldn't dump 20 euros on gems for one mount skin.. no way in hell..

10 euros for 2.. 20 euros for 4.. yeah I don't have much issue with that aside from not being able to choose the ones I want.

I'm ok with dropping that into the game for a few months.. Devs get some money which supports the game.. I get some cosmetic items i'm willing to pay for.. and I still won't have my account taken away if I stop paying like I would with Netflix or Subfee MMO..

 

Personally I think this outrage is doing far more harm than good due to peoples priorities being focused on the wrong things.. and I'm genuinely concerned that people screaming about cheap mount skins being locked behind RNG are going to end up bringing about a reality where singular skins are put into the store instead with ridiculous prices.. again looking at the Reforged Warhound as a shining example of that.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> > Seriously..

> > There is no unfair advantage over me having A Jackal stardust skin to someone having just a standard skin. Yeah you might want that and you will eventually.

> > Previously you could play the game of chance and never get that oooohlala skin. Now all that's going to happen is the skins will become a higher priced gem store sale.. so those "kids" that might be underage to so say gamble for a cosmetic item now just have to go play with moms credit card and pay big for it and then where does it stop.. the focus now becomes gemstore content rather than game content, cos I will hazard a guess less skins will be sold individually so revenue stream will reduce and more stuff developed to fill the holes.

>

> The issue in Belgium has nothing to do with GW2's mount boxes. It's entirely EA's and Disney's fault for their loot boxes in Battlefront 2.

 

This thread has everything to do with GW2 and the mount boxes and BLC's.. otherwise why post about A N Others game here... its to try and incite another "we hate mount adoption licences cos I didn't get what I wanted.

You can try to put a smokescreen up all you like but it's not fooling anyone.

[FOX.3582]

In this game you can buy everything for 100% with in-game currency. I can’t believe the intelligence of some people and how they keep comparing apples and ants...

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

>

> No, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Nobody is upset about that. What people are upset about is that there is RNG in the process at all, that you aren't guaranteed to get the thing that you want on the *first* purchase.

>

> What made you think anyone was upset about the progressive drop rate element of it? That seems silly.

 

O please.. you know as well as anyone else here this thread is centred around "I didn't get my shiny skin, its not fair".. just wait and read all those same whiners complaining at the price of an individual skin and the number that get released to fill the hole in the coffers.

I did not say anyone was upset with the progressive drop rate.. I merely said ANET guarantee a skin and additional they progress the drop rate for a specific skin each time you purchase.

If your trying to say this thread is not motivated by the plethora of "Adoption Licence, and I didn't get what I want"... then maybe it's you who is being silly.

ANET wont win no matter what they do .. some rng is healthy for the game because it generates income, unless you think the lights stay on for free.

Aggressive RNG is bad for the game.. yes we all know what's happened in recent times with the likes of Battlefront2 so trying to make the RNG system a little faire but still maintaining a revenue stream seems a smart move to me.. what's the alternative - subscription. So maybe they do away with loot boxes and introduce subscription then lets see the forums light up.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> >

> > No, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Nobody is upset about that. What people are upset about is that there is RNG in the process at all, that you aren't guaranteed to get the thing that you want on the *first* purchase.

> >

> > What made you think anyone was upset about the progressive drop rate element of it? That seems silly.

>

> O please.. you know as well as anyone else here this thread is centred around "I didn't get my shiny skin, its not fair".. just wait and read all those same whiners complaining at the price of an individual skin and the number that get released to fill the hole in the coffers.

> I did not say anyone was upset with the progressive drop rate.. I merely said ANET guarantee a skin and additional they progress the drop rate for a specific skin each time you purchase.

> If your trying to say this thread is not motivated by the plethora of "Adoption Licence, and I didn't get what I want"... then maybe it's you who is being silly.

> ANET wont win no matter what they do .. some rng is healthy for the game because it generates income, unless you think the lights stay on for free.

> Aggressive RNG is bad for the game.. yes we all know what's happened in recent times with the likes of Battlefront2 so trying to make the RNG system a little faire but still maintaining a revenue stream seems a smart move to me.. what's the alternative - subscription. So maybe they do away with loot boxes and introduce subscription then lets see the forums light up.

 

Both systems were wrong.

 

Is no one else going to bring up that no Glider skin cost more than 1000 gems. Meanwhile mounts are being squeezed harder than your average junkie looking for his next quick fix.

 

Both practices are disturbing and both should be looked down on.

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> >

> > No, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Nobody is upset about that. What people are upset about is that there is RNG in the process at all, that you aren't guaranteed to get the thing that you want on the *first* purchase.

> >

> > What made you think anyone was upset about the progressive drop rate element of it? That seems silly.

>

> O please.. you know as well as anyone else here this thread is centred around "I didn't get my shiny skin, its not fair".. just wait and read all those same whiners complaining at the price of an individual skin and the number that get released to fill the hole in the coffers.

> I did not say anyone was upset with the progressive drop rate.. I merely said ANET guarantee a skin and additional they progress the drop rate for a specific skin each time you purchase.

> If your trying to say this thread is not motivated by the plethora of "Adoption Licence, and I didn't get what I want"... then maybe it's you who is being silly.

> ANET wont win no matter what they do .. some rng is healthy for the game because it generates income, unless you think the lights stay on for free.

> Aggressive RNG is bad for the game.. yes we all know what's happened in recent times with the likes of Battlefront2 so trying to make the RNG system a little faire but still maintaining a revenue stream seems a smart move to me.. what's the alternative - subscription. So maybe they do away with loot boxes and introduce subscription then lets see the forums light up.

 

It wasnt motivated by that at all. I saw this on a different image sharing site and thought it was a relevant discusssion considering GW2 has most of its revenue from lootboxes. Its an issue that will affect the entire video game industry and I thought it was worth talking about on a video game site..

 

Im sure most people are aware the whole lootbox controversy which drove governments to discuss legislation was starwars battlefront 2 not mount boxes.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> > > Seriously..

> > > There is no unfair advantage over me having A Jackal stardust skin to someone having just a standard skin. Yeah you might want that and you will eventually.

> > > Previously you could play the game of chance and never get that oooohlala skin. Now all that's going to happen is the skins will become a higher priced gem store sale.. so those "kids" that might be underage to so say gamble for a cosmetic item now just have to go play with moms credit card and pay big for it and then where does it stop.. the focus now becomes gemstore content rather than game content, cos I will hazard a guess less skins will be sold individually so revenue stream will reduce and more stuff developed to fill the holes.

> >

> > The issue in Belgium has nothing to do with GW2's mount boxes. It's entirely EA's and Disney's fault for their loot boxes in Battlefront 2.

>

> This thread has everything to do with GW2 and the mount boxes and BLC's.. otherwise why post about A N Others game here... its to try and incite another "we hate mount adoption licences cos I didn't get what I wanted.

> You can try to put a smokescreen up all you like but it's not fooling anyone.

 

You need to take a chill pill and quit accusing me of nefarious schemes. The guy in Belgium is not doing this because of GW2. He probably doesn't even know GW2 exists.

[Nikal.4921]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > > All this just because ANET tried to make loot boxes a little more agreeable in their mechanics and provide a means to guaranteeing getting something every time you buy one.. as well as improving the odds on getting what you really want each time you buy another.

> > >

> > > No, that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Nobody is upset about that. What people are upset about is that there is RNG in the process at all, that you aren't guaranteed to get the thing that you want on the *first* purchase.

> > >

> > > What made you think anyone was upset about the progressive drop rate element of it? That seems silly.

> >

> > O please.. you know as well as anyone else here this thread is centred around "I didn't get my shiny skin, its not fair".. just wait and read all those same whiners complaining at the price of an individual skin and the number that get released to fill the hole in the coffers.

> > I did not say anyone was upset with the progressive drop rate.. I merely said ANET guarantee a skin and additional they progress the drop rate for a specific skin each time you purchase.

> > If your trying to say this thread is not motivated by the plethora of "Adoption Licence, and I didn't get what I want"... then maybe it's you who is being silly.

> > ANET wont win no matter what they do .. some rng is healthy for the game because it generates income, unless you think the lights stay on for free.

> > Aggressive RNG is bad for the game.. yes we all know what's happened in recent times with the likes of Battlefront2 so trying to make the RNG system a little faire but still maintaining a revenue stream seems a smart move to me.. what's the alternative - subscription. So maybe they do away with loot boxes and introduce subscription then lets see the forums light up.

>

> Both systems were wrong.

>

> Is no one else going to bring up that no Glider skin cost more than 1000 gems. Meanwhile mounts are being squeezed harder than your average junkie looking for his next quick fix.

>

> Both practices are disturbing and both should be looked down on.

To my knowledge, no glider skin costs more than 500 gems (some cost 400), except the ones bundled with backpieces, and those are 700. So, are mount skins more resource-intensive to create?

[Danikat.8537]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Rhiannon.1726 said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > Yes it is censorship. Alcohol isn't speech. What the heck are you talking about? People die from alcohol poisoning. No one has ever died from looking at too many naked breasts.

> >

> > Protecting children isn't censorship.

> >

> >

> It's Art. It's censorship. Even the ESRB says the government can't enforce the AO rating because of censorship issues. Stop pushing ignorance. The ESRB rating system is entirely voluntary. The government has nothing to do with it. It was created to keep the government out of video games. There will be no laws against loot boxes. The industry will prevent that by including loot boxes in their ESRB ratings.

 

Except the issue in this topic is that the Belgian government wants the EU to ban gambling in games, which is nothing to do with the ESRB or the American government.

 

Over here the main age rating system is PEGI (Pan European Game Information) with some countries also having their own, like Germany's USK system. In most (maybe all?) EU countries it's a legal requirement to have either a PEGI rating or classification from the same board that rates films in that country. In many countries those age ratings are legally enforced and in others retailers may choose to enforce it themselves. (Incidentally the UK appears to be one of the strictest here, so whoever was hoping Brexit would put an end to it is probably going to be disappointed.)

 

Gambling is already included in PEGI ratings, and (surprisingly to me) can be included in a game rated as low as 12. I can't seem to find much info on what specifically counts as gambling but the general description seems to be that it needs to mirror real-life gambling. Some of the examples given are teaching card games typically played for cash in real-life or how to pick a horse in a race. I assume the lower age ratings would be for games where there's a mini game where you play something very similar to poker but no money is involved and the higher rating would be for more explicit things. Although looking through the games I have at home for examples all the 18 rated ones with a gambling symbol have other things that would earn it the 18 rating (like Yakuza 0 where you can walk into a virtual casino and bet in-game money on real casino games, but you also beat people to death, so it's hard to say if the gambling on it's own is enough to get the 18 rating).

 

Apparently PEGI doesn't currently consider loot boxes gambling because they don't fit the descriptions in European gambling laws - mainly because you always get something and none of the items can (legally) be sold for real money. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-11-are-loot-boxes-gambling (relevant bit is about 1/2 way down the article, next to the picture of the PEGI symbols). But that's why some people want the definition of gambling changed. It was created before loot boxes, or microtransactions generally, existed and it's starting to look like it needs to be updated.

 

But it's likely to be years before anything happens officially, if it ever does.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> O please.. you know as well as anyone else here this thread is centred around "I didn't get my shiny skin, its not fair".. just wait and read all those same whiners complaining at the price of an individual skin and the number that get released to fill the hole in the coffers.

 

I'm not saying that people aren't upset about not getting the skin they want, I'm just noting that you seemed to frame it at them being upset by the progressive nature of the system, rather than about it being an RNG system in the first place. People are upset that it would take $120+ to clear out the shop, and that clearing out the shop is the only way to guarantee that you'll get the skin that you want. Yes, a progressive system in which each skin you buy increases the odds on the next one is better than a pure RNG system where your odds are as bad on pull 29 as they were on pull 1, but even so, even under this system, your odds on pull 29 never rise above 50/50 that you'll actually get the thing you wanted.

 

The point is, when you give ANet money, your odds of getting the thing you want should *always* be 1:1.

 

>ANET wont win no matter what they do .. some rng is healthy for the game because it generates income, unless you think the lights stay on for free.

 

This is a non-sequitor argument. While there are some people that object to any sort fo microtransactions, most are fine with there being microtransactions, so long as they are non-random in nature. Randomization is in NO way necessary to this process, there are millions of businesses out there that operate at a profit without any gambling as part of their business model. All you need to do is offer desirable products at a fair price. If ANet had taken these same skins and offered them at a fair range of prices, then players would have purchased them for those prices, and they would have made money.