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

[Matick.4132]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > It *is* gambling, gambling *is* immoral (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from the overall game experience that it's the only way to earn those skins. Something doesn't need to be "forced" for it to be wrong. And no, I've done nothing to compromise any of those positions.

>

> It's not gambling.

>

 

Seriously, do we need to argue about that?

It's done plenty of times , here, on reddit, youtube, and it's crystal clear that with all these Lootboxes there definitely IS gambling on the table.

It's exploitation, it's preying on the weak (we had a very emotional comment a few weeks ago from someone recovering from a gambling addiction) so this should be off the table. Now we need to talk actions, rather then debating on the core subject over and over again.

 

**It's a pesky thing that spread from CandyCrush BS to AAA titles. Enough is enough.**

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >Right, and notice how different your points would sound if you worded it slightly differently:

> >"It is gambling to me, gambling is immoral to me (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from MY overall game experience..."

>

> Well, ok, morality is subjective, but I think most agree that psychologically exploiting people into spending more than they would rationally spend is an immoral pratice. You can disagree, but you would be an outlier. As for whether it's gambling, it meets most definitions of the word, so while it ma not be gambling *to you,* it is gambling to the rest of the world, and you aren't allowed to apply your own meaning to words when in discussion with others.

 

I've come to understand that being in sales requires what I would consider to be "a lack of ethics". At its base, you have to be willing to overprice for your good/service so that you turn a profit or even be willing to sell said good/service despite the customer not needing or wanting that good/service. I lack these capabilities. I cannot sell something to someone I am not willing to buy myself nor am I willing to over-hype something to fool someone into purchasing things will less knowledge of the product/service. In essence, all sales is exploitation in one manner or the other.

 

So I don't disagree with you that it is exploitation. But so is the waiter at Denny's who offers you good service so that you can give them more money than their service is worth (most non-US countries do not tip and find it rude) or the department store that purchases their goods in bulk so they can sell them individually at a higher price. To make a profit and expand requires either a monopoly or exploitation of the consumer. You've just run into a type of exploitation you do not agree with, in which case, you don't buy the product. If enough people view it as exploitation, it won't sell and thus the price/good/service changes or further exploitation is applied.

 

But these are just my observations, I didn't major in economics or anything.

 

As for the definition of gambling, in the loose definition of the word (wager on uncertain outcomes), yes. But then a lot of things that aren't explicitly dangerous, bad or exploitive would be categorized as gambling (picking Starbursts out of the wrapper, looking under the cap of a soda for a prize, going trick-or-treating, etc). The difference I would present to differentiate is the part of the definition is "risk". There is no risk involved in the mount adoption licenses.

 

And please do not speak for the rest of the world.

 

> Your position is no more objective than mine, you're just arguing from the position of your own subjective interpretation.

 

> There have been several studies that this is exactly what loot boxes are designed to do. Anyone in game development who is not aware of this is not deserving of their position.

 

Do you speak from experience?

 

And you're arguing from the standpoint that the licenses are loot boxes which wouldn't reflect the same results since loot boxes and licenses have big fundemental differences.

 

> But again, the mount licenses fully qualify for the definition of a loot box.

 

Well apparently, just like the definition for gambling can be extremely broad, that your definition of loot box is extremely broad. I would say, at the very least, for a loot box to be considered a loot box, it has to always have an element of randomness.

 

> I hate to tell you, but yes, that was pretty much gambling. Fact, not opinion. That you were fine with it, that your teacher was fine with it, that your parents were fine with it, did not make it not gambling. The only thing that would limit its being gambling is that no money was involved on either end, it was direct labor for prize, but it was at least *simulated* gambling, it followed the basic ruleset of a gamble.

 

So I suppose any pack of mixed candy is gambling since you have no idea if the variety within are equal or the distribution ratios are labled. A pack of Starbursts has a random amount of pink Starbursts (the most valuable flavor!), so on and so forth. Under your definition, every license must be random to be considered gambling.

 

> Sure there is, if you wanted one type of prize, and got a different prize, then you lost. That is gambling. It would only not be gambling if you could look in and select the prize you wanted, or choose to hold on to your tickets if none of the prizes inside appealed to you.

 

Regardless of what you *want*, every prize has the same value.

[Drecien.4508]

It's not gambling if you can preview the rewards as you currently can. These boxes/chests/license are totally optional.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > That "solution" was: "there's no problem and we will do nothing about it". That's no solution at all.

>

> Incorrect. Their solution is, for future mount skins, they will not be in the adoption license format.

 

Again, that is not a solution to the current problem. That is a solution to potential *future* problems, but it does nothing to resolve the problem we have right here and now. It's like if someone's house is burning down, and they call the fire department, and the fire department arrives and says "well, next time maybe don't leave the stove on so long." And then they pack up and go, problem solved, won't happen again.

 

An actual solution would need to resolve the *current* situation, that being that the only way to *currently* acquire the 30 mount skins is via gambling.

 

>I've come to understand that being in sales requires what I would consider to be "a lack of ethics". At its base, you have to be willing to overprice for your good/service so that you turn a profit or even be willing to sell said good/service despite the customer not needing or wanting that good/service.

 

That's not true. Of course, the most successful people at it tend to have those qualities, which is why I hated working retail years ago, but it's not *necessary* to the process. You *can* sell products at prices that *both* sides agree is a fair deal, and *both* sides walk away happy. I think that these are the best sorts of deals to go for, because they don't involve mortgaging one's soul to achieve them.

 

>But so is the waiter at Denny's who offers you good service so that you can give them more money than their service is worth (most non-US countries do not tip and find it rude)

 

This is a bit of a misconception. A waiter is not trying to trick you into paying them "more than they deserve," and you'd better kitten well be tipping 20% if you're eating at a decent restaurant. It's true that in most countries they do not tip their waiters, but those waiters are also paid more by the restaurant, and the bill you pay is higher. The same amount of money changes hands. Instead of paying $15 for a steak with a 20% tip, you'd pay $18 even, and instead of the waiter getting paid $5 an hour with $10 in tips, he'd just get $15 an hour (or whatever). It's just a weird cultural thing of how the US restaurant industry developed, and some places are trying to change that, but unless they indicate otherwise, tips are expected, and tips are *justified* in the overall price of your meal.

 

>or the department store that purchases their goods in bulk so they can sell them individually at a higher price.

 

That alone is not really "exploitation." They are taking on certain costs in their operation to make your job more convenient. The basic factors of retail work out to everyone's benefit. You can't get wholesale prices on goods because it would be inefficient for wholesalers to just send one of the items to you. Now, where retail *can* get a bit scummy is when they try to upsell you to something you don't need, or tack on added items, or protection plans or whatever. I'm not making them out to be saints or anything, but the core transactions of retail themselves are not morally compromised, they are providing a service to you that you otherwise could not get, and are receiving payment relative to that service.

 

>As for the definition of gambling, in the loose definition of the word (wager on uncertain outcomes), yes. But then a lot of things that aren't explicitly dangerous, bad or exploitive would be categorized as gambling (picking Starbursts out of the wrapper, looking under the cap of a soda for a prize, going trick-or-treating, etc). The difference I would present to differentiate is the part of the definition is "risk". There is no risk involved in the mount adoption licenses.

 

Soda cap prizes ARE gambling. There are rules against it in certain jurisdictions, and there are rules that force them to give you free bottle caps at request (so that you don't technically have to purchase any). It's just a form of gambling that is typically condoned in most US states. Trick or treating is not gambling because you don't have to ante anything. If you had to slip a quarter through the mail slot before someone would come out and hand you candy *then* it would be gambling.

 

And the "risk" in the mount adoption licenses is that you won't get the skin that you wanted. You might argue that this is subjective, but subjective risk is still risk. Let me put it this way, if each skin were *genuinely* "just as good" as any other skin, if a player has no reason to feel like he has "won" or "lost" based on which skin he ends up with, then what would be the benefit in having the grab bag in the first place? If your theory is correct, then ANet could have just put every skin freely available for 400 gems each, and players would spend the exact same amount of money either way.

 

So why didn't they?

 

>And you're arguing from the standpoint that the licenses are loot boxes which wouldn't reflect the same results since loot boxes and licenses have big fundemental differences.

 

Again, no, the mount licenses ARE loot boxes. To say that they have "fundamental differences" would be like saying that chocolate ice cream has "fundamental differences" from "desert," because you insist that only pie is "desert." Now there are a wide variety of [loot boxes,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loot_box) with a wide variety of traits. Some only drop one item, some several at a time. Some have a progressive system, others do not. Some have scaled rarity, others do not. The "shape" of the box can vary from a literal box to a more abstract form. The core defining trait of a loot box is that you can pay an amount to open one, and that the results of opening one are uncertain. So long as that's true, then the details are not important. Some loot boxes are more exploitative than others, but they are all still loot boxes.

 

>Well apparently, just like the definition for gambling can be extremely broad, that your definition of loot box is extremely broad. I would say, at the very least, for a loot box to be considered a loot box, it has to always have an element of randomness.

 

I would agree, and the mount license *does* have a degree of randomness. On your first pull, you only have a 1:30 chance of getting any specific skin. On your 29th pull, you only have a 50/50 chance of getting any specific skin. That's random.

 

>So I suppose any pack of mixed candy is gambling since you have no idea if the variety within are equal or the distribution ratios are labled. A pack of Starbursts has a random amount of pink Starbursts (the most valuable flavor!), so on and so forth.

 

It is gambling, to a degree. I doubt it would fall under existing gambling laws, or at the very least nobody has bothered to challenge them over it, but it does meet the definition. Most people tend to be fine with it because the distribution is considered even enough, the total purchase price is considered reasonable to most, and if you really want just pink, they *do* make just pink packs.

 

>Under your definition, every license must be random to be considered gambling.

 

And it is.

 

>Regardless of what you want, every prize has the same value.

 

If that were true then they wouldn't need to make the result random.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Drecien.4508 said:

> It's not gambling if you can preview the rewards as you currently can. These boxes/chests/license are totally optional.

 

You can't currently preview the results. You can preview the *potential* results, but which item you actually *get* is still random. That is still gambling. The only way it would not be gambling is if you could preview the results of the *specific* license you were purchasing, and if you didn't like the results you could choose a different one.

[Naurgalen.2374]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > >Right, and notice how different your points would sound if you worded it slightly differently:

> > >"It is gambling to me, gambling is immoral to me (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from MY overall game experience..."

> >

> > Well, ok, morality is subjective, but I think most agree that psychologically exploiting people into spending more than they would rationally spend is an immoral pratice. You can disagree, but you would be an outlier. As for whether it's gambling, it meets most definitions of the word, so while it ma not be gambling *to you,* it is gambling to the rest of the world, and you aren't allowed to apply your own meaning to words when in discussion with others.

>

> I've come to understand that being in sales requires what I would consider to be "a lack of ethics". At its base, you have to be willing to overprice for your good/service so that you turn a profit or even be willing to sell said good/service despite the customer not needing or wanting that good/service. I lack these capabilities. I cannot sell something to someone I am not willing to buy myself nor am I willing to over-hype something to fool someone into purchasing things will less knowledge of the product/service. In essence, all sales is exploitation in one manner or the other.

>

> So I don't disagree with you that it is exploitation. But so is the waiter at Denny's who offers you good service so that you can give them more money than their service is worth (most non-US countries do not tip and find it rude) or the department store that purchases their goods in bulk so they can sell them individually at a higher price. To make a profit and expand requires either a monopoly or exploitation of the consumer. You've just run into a type of exploitation you do not agree with, in which case, you don't buy the product. If enough people view it as exploitation, it won't sell and thus the price/good/service changes or further exploitation is applied.

>

> But these are just my observations, I didn't major in economics or anything.

 

Being in sales doesn't require "lack of ethics" at all:

 

1) As every liberal in the world would say making a good product and/or service is in fact a way to help others by satisfying their needs. (even having fun is a need, just not an essential one) Getting a profit margin is not selfish but needed to let you continue, invest and improve on that product/service or/and maybe even expanding to other products/services. The focus of this mind-set is that you select products/services that you are passionate about and want to do but also help/satisfies the needs of consumers. In this way money is not the end, but the medium to get your goals and the goals of your customers.

 

Sometimes consumers wont perceive that because they don't know how much the productions costs are or you are not communicating well enough with them of what your product/services entails. (And that can bring image problems, that you don't really want) But that doesn't mean you arent being ethic in the end and with real objective proof its relatively easy to solve.

 

2) Most liberals would argue that you can make "getting profit for yourself" as the focus of the mindset and it can incentivize you the same or more and still help others. And it is partially truth as you will want to improve your product/service to get more money. The problem is that without competition, regulation and ethics it can easily devolve into real exploitation (instead of perceived) because your goal is not getting and giving the best product/service anymore. And its usually profitable and tempting to sacrifice those (and other) things to get more money. Overpricing, generating needs instead of solving them, not respecting the law, bad practices etc... are the most common examples in these situations specially where the laws turn gray and are not strictly defined.

 

Edit : In general Ethic business means that you are considering your customers (human beings) as an end and not a medium. And you want them to be happy and the best they can be as they are a part of the society that you too are part off. In the long run, helping them helps yourself as nobody wants to live in a sad world were everyone tries to legally steal from others.... and you want that food, that car, that chair, that shirt or that whatever other produces.

 

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > That "solution" was: "there's no problem and we will do nothing about it". That's no solution at all.

>

> Incorrect. Their solution is, for future mount skins, they will not be in the adoption license format.

That's not what they said. They mentioned only "future _planned_ skins". All that it means is that they don't have next adoption licence planned for release yet. And they did suggest there will be more than one when they said no new skins will get added to the _current_ one.

So, basically, there will be no change - the current license remains as it was, all the new planned releases will go as planned, and after that there's no promise to change anything either.

 

So, if their answer was "we're not going to do anything", why would i consider it a solution to anything?

 

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > I dislike gamble boxes, but if there is a 100% chance of getting what you want then something is not gambling, its variable pricing.

>

> Unless someone commits to spending $120 (more now), then it is gambling. The only way that this would not be gambling would be if the ONLY package ANet made available was the 30-license package. Because they made individual and 10-packs available, they were exploiting human nature to believe that ones' luck will be better than naked chance would dictate.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > >Right, and notice how different your points would sound if you worded it slightly differently:

> > >"It is gambling to me, gambling is immoral to me (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from MY overall game experience..."

> >

> > Well, ok, morality is subjective, but I think most agree that psychologically exploiting people into spending more than they would rationally spend is an immoral pratice. You can disagree, but you would be an outlier. As for whether it's gambling, it meets most definitions of the word, so while it ma not be gambling *to you,* it is gambling to the rest of the world, and you aren't allowed to apply your own meaning to words when in discussion with others.

>

> I've come to understand that being in sales requires what I would consider to be "a lack of ethics". At its base, you have to be willing to overprice for your good/service so that you turn a profit or even be willing to sell said good/service despite the customer not needing or wanting that good/service. I lack these capabilities. I cannot sell something to someone I am not willing to buy myself nor am I willing to over-hype something to fool someone into purchasing things will less knowledge of the product/service. In essence, all sales is exploitation in one manner or the other.

>

> So I don't disagree with you that it is exploitation. But so is the waiter at Denny's who offers you good service so that you can give them more money than their service is worth (most non-US countries do not tip and find it rude) or the department store that purchases their goods in bulk so they can sell them individually at a higher price. To make a profit and expand requires either a monopoly or exploitation of the consumer. You've just run into a type of exploitation you do not agree with, in which case, you don't buy the product. If enough people view it as exploitation, it won't sell and thus the price/good/service changes or further exploitation is applied.

>

> But these are just my observations, I didn't major in economics or anything.

>

> As for the definition of gambling, in the loose definition of the word (wager on uncertain outcomes), yes. But then a lot of things that aren't explicitly dangerous, bad or exploitive would be categorized as gambling (picking Starbursts out of the wrapper, looking under the cap of a soda for a prize, going trick-or-treating, etc). The difference I would present to differentiate is the part of the definition is "risk". There is no risk involved in the mount adoption licenses.

>

> And please do not speak for the rest of the world.

>

> > Your position is no more objective than mine, you're just arguing from the position of your own subjective interpretation.

>

> > There have been several studies that this is exactly what loot boxes are designed to do. Anyone in game development who is not aware of this is not deserving of their position.

>

> Do you speak from experience?

>

> And you're arguing from the standpoint that the licenses are loot boxes which wouldn't reflect the same results since loot boxes and licenses have big fundemental differences.

>

> > But again, the mount licenses fully qualify for the definition of a loot box.

>

> Well apparently, just like the definition for gambling can be extremely broad, that your definition of loot box is extremely broad. I would say, at the very least, for a loot box to be considered a loot box, it has to always have an element of randomness.

>

> > I hate to tell you, but yes, that was pretty much gambling. Fact, not opinion. That you were fine with it, that your teacher was fine with it, that your parents were fine with it, did not make it not gambling. The only thing that would limit its being gambling is that no money was involved on either end, it was direct labor for prize, but it was at least *simulated* gambling, it followed the basic ruleset of a gamble.

>

> So I suppose any pack of mixed candy is gambling since you have no idea if the variety within are equal or the distribution ratios are labled. A pack of Starbursts has a random amount of pink Starbursts (the most valuable flavor!), so on and so forth. Under your definition, every license must be random to be considered gambling.

>

> > Sure there is, if you wanted one type of prize, and got a different prize, then you lost. That is gambling. It would only not be gambling if you could look in and select the prize you wanted, or choose to hold on to your tickets if none of the prizes inside appealed to you.

>

> Regardless of what you *want*, every prize has the same value.

 

I agree with most of what you say but value is subjective and so it is highly unlikely that each prize has the same value. In order for this to be the case every customer would need to have exactly the same desires, aesthetic preferences, and disposable income.

[Erasculio.2914]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > It's not gambling if you can preview the rewards as you currently can. These boxes/chests/license are totally optional.

>

> You can't currently preview the results. You can preview the *potential* results

 

And, we don't know the drop rate. ArenaNet has never said that each mount skin has an equal likehood of coming from the boxes. As far as we are concerned, it's possible that the flashier skins are significantly less common than the most basic skins.

 

In some countries, it's ilegal to offer loot boxes if you don't state what's the drop rate of each possible reward. In Path of Exile, for example, from a company that is not based in the USA, announcements of loot boxes come with specific details about drop rate and the content of the boxes ([example](https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1934998)).

 

[Game of Bones.8975]

Loot boxes are a game of chance the same way carnival games are; you always win a prize, but it may not be what you want or worth anything. That's how they get around the gambling aspect, always give something back.

If there were a chance of opening an empty Loot Box then that would be a gamble.

[Greyraven.4258]

This isn't going to be what a lot of folks want to hear.

 

I keep seeing comments like "any time now" and "getting the ball rolling faster" If (and guys it's a big big if) anything does happen, you are talking a lengthy process with multiple appeals that will take years if not a decade.

 

I happen to understand this better than most as I am a paralegal that specializes in Ancillary Enforcement Strategies with the state of Nevada. We work extremely hard to make sure games of chance, lotteries, and contest are purveyed in a fair non-predatory environment. My state especially our Attorney General believes, that more can be done, and we are investigating the viability of action......however, it is a long road, that may end up nowhere.

 

My suggestion is follow your own ethical compass on this, enjoy your game, but don't expect quick or any results.

 

I'm not going to answer questions on this as I'm here to relax, and have fun, I just wanted you guys to know what to realistically expect.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Game of Bones.8975" said:

> Loot boxes are a game of chance the same way carnival games are; you always win a prize, but it may not be what you want or worth anything. That's how they get around the gambling aspect, always give something back.

> If there were a chance of opening an empty Loot Box then that would be a gamble.

 

It's a gamble either way. "Always get a prize of some kind" does not make a thing *not* a gamble.

 

> @Greyraven.4258 said:

> I keep seeing comments like "any time now" and "getting the ball rolling faster" If (and guys it's a big big if) anything does happen, you are talking a lengthy process with multiple appeals that will take years if not a decade.

 

True, but we're hoping that rather than fighting this tooth and nail to the last, most companies will get ahead of the issue and just *not* have gambling in their game. By various entities taking a stand on this, we hope it will shame at least some of the more ethical companies to do the right thing *before* they are legally forced into doing so.

 

 

[Skobel.6920]

Lootboxes won't be considered gambling. Simply because in gambling you can lose everything but boxes always gives you something. They are more like Kinder Surprise (for US players - look it up on google xD) or booster packs for trading card games.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Skobel.6920 said:

> Lootboxes won't be considered gambling. Simply because in gambling you can lose everything but boxes always gives you something. They are more like Kinder Surprise (for US players - look it up on google xD) or booster packs for trading card games.

 

**That is not a rule.** Why do people keep saying this like it's a thing that is actually true in some way?

 

"Gambling" **does not require that you receive "nothing" if you lose.** If that *was* the guiding principle, then *every* gambling insititution on the planet could claim to "not be gambling" simply by offering a token "prize" whether you win or lose. Gamble $10 on a hand of black jack? If you win, you get $20, if you lose, you get $1. It's not gambling because you "always get something!"

 

A gamble is a gamble whether or not you receive nothing on a loss. What makes it a gamble is whether or not the thing you receive is the *thing you set out to receive.* If that is ever *in doubt,* then the act is an act of gambling. End of story. Now different jurisdictions have different specific rulesets as to what *they* consider to be gambling *for their purposes,* but the core definition typically goes well beyond that.

[Ban Sidhe.9637]

I see this topic has been quiet for a while now. I don't know what the current state of this is in Belgium, but..

 

I just read news in the Netherlands that the authorities concerning gambling in the Netherlands have finished their investigation. They looked into the 10 most popular games on an unnamed popular game streaming service -so probably Twitch- and found that at least 4 of those investigated are in fact breaking the law on gambling in the Netherlands. The games are unnamed for now, but they get 8 weeks to comply to Dutch law concerning gambling. Failing this, the name of the game will be published and the company will either receive a fine or will be prevented from selling their product in the Netherlands.

 

Main problem they seemed to have with it, is whether or not you can trade or sell the winnings (for real money).

I just checked in game, and from the preview list, it seems like about half of the items can not be traded, but the other half can in fact be traded. Tradables are all the weapon skins in the "uncommon" and "rare" section, the new glyphs for the unlimited use gathering tools (rare), and the 6 contracts in the "super rare" section. And there's the problem: One could in fact get lured into trying to get good drops that they are able to sell, and exactly the more and most rare and most wanted items are the ones that can be traded. None of the common items can be traded.

 

Now the fact that there doesn't seem to be a big market for trading virtual items in GW2 for real money, probably doesn't really matter to the law. The problem is that it's possible to do so. I could totally give a Permanent Hair Stylist Contract to my friend and have them compensate me in Euros.

 

They could solve it by removing BLchests (doubt that'll happen any time soon), or making all items including the most rare, account bound on acquire. That would include the permanent hair stylist contract, the permanent bank access contract, etc, which have been tradable (and sold for 2500-4000 gold) since the start of the game as far as I know. That would introduce the problem of what if I get the same contract or skin unlock twice, and can't sell the duplicate? They would have to guarantee a unique drop. If you have a few of them, there's no more incentive to buy more BLkeys, as you have most of the desirable items that could possibly drop, and can no longer trade them/won't get duplicates. This will reduce the number of BLkeys sold, and generate less income for Arenanet. I understand they don't want that, but hey what they're doing now apparently wasn't allowed for the past 5,5 years either.

 

Anyways, for now the authorities limit the scope to tradable items, but they mentioned that the whole loot box phenomenon in games is questionable to them, which might indicate continued future investigations, or perhaps even investigation of the current law whether it's possible to ban lootboxes, and in case they can't, changes to the law to provide that possibility? Who knows..

 

 

 

Extra info and remarks:

 

Gambling laws in the Netherlands are particularly strict. As far as I know, there is one chain of casinos allowed to operate in the Netherlands, one state-lottery, and several lotteries under separate names, but actually governed by one single company behind it, and all linked to charities. I would estimate chances of video game companies getting a "license to offer gambling" at pretty much zero here.

 

Topic is not whether the tradable items were purely cosmetic or granted an in-game advantage (aka pay to win).

Neither does it seem to matter whether you can preview the possible rewards. That might circumvent laws in other countries, I don't think being able to preview matters much in the Netherlands. I mean you also know what your possible winnings are at a roulette table.

Neither does "always winning something" matter. There's still the possibility of winning something more desirable, and being able to sell it for either in-game currency or real money.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

I just read some of today's news reports on the Dutch lootbox investigation. They mention a single aspect that decides whether or not lootboxes are in accordance with Dutch gambling laws: it's illegal if lootboxes can be bought with real money and any of the loot can be sold for real money, either through the game itself or by means of a third party.

 

Given how strict the gambling laws are in the Netherlands, this is no surprise. If you can wager real money for a chance to end up with more real money, it's gambling. The virtual aspect of the loot seems to be wholly immaterial.

 

There's a side note that criticizes the appearance of some lootbox systems for appearing as slot machines, which might entice children to get into real gambling. None of that is breaking any laws though.

[Orpheal.8263]

I could say somethign about this topic.. but my personal opinion won't ever change anything and I doubt that ever anything about loot boxes wil lbe changed - not until some game lobbies have somehow their foul hands in the game to prevent loot box bans from ever happening in this game industry led by companies, which care for only how they can milk out their playerbases like cash cows for as long as possibly with all kinds of unethical greedy methods possible there are - including lootboxes, as long there are some kind of grey loopholes in the laws of the contries, which underlie no international law that is counting for everybody the same in the Internet, which make these shady methods possible and "legal" sadly.

 

Personally I can say only, that it is long overdue, that action is being taken against lootboxes in games

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Ban Sidhe.9637" said:

~snip~

 

Well, if it is only because the items can be sold for real money then GW2 does not have a problem, there's no in game way to trade items for real money nor is there a third party method to do so as well...unless those items where illegally obtained by the third party site in the first place...though I suppose by some convoluted method they could say that by purchasing in-game gold with gems that you bought with real money is being able to trade items for real cash, I find that a stretch of the imagination, in my opinion.

 

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

The article mentioned in the first post leaves out some very important information. The 4 games that had their loot boxes determined to be gambling allowed players to exchange those loot box results with other players for cash.

[MattDu.7123]

 

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is now gaining the same rights and laws as real money.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"MattDu.7123" said:

>

> Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is now gaining the same rights and laws as real money.

 

Can you provide an example of a place where one can insist on paying for one's debt with bitcoin (as one can with legal currency)?

[Adamsdjr.1350]

-Germany doesn't like something

-Tries to change all of Europe

 

That is essentially why Britain left the EU -shrug-

 

I greatly prefer a cosmetic/convenience lootbox business model over a required subscription or OPTIONAL subscription model. I don't want the number of fractals I do locked behind tickets in the gem store, or my mount running out of stamina after 2 hours of use and needs some special food from the gemstore.

[MattDu.7123]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"MattDu.7123" said:

> >

> > Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is now gaining the same rights and laws as real money.

>

> Can you provide an example of a place where one can insist on paying for one's debt with bitcoin (as one can with legal currency)?

 

Scan is an computer online retailer in the uk

https://www.scan.co.uk/info/bitcoin At the checkout simply select Bitcoin as your payment method, and then click the “Complete order with bitcoin” button

Microsofts online game store

https://blogs.microsoft.com/firehose/2014/12/11/now-you-can-exchange-bitcoins-to-buy-apps-games-and-more-for-windows-windows-phone-and-xbox/

Expedia since 2014

Today we announced that Expedia is now accepting bitcoin from customers who want to purchase hotels via Expedia.com.

 

Bitcoin is a virtual currency

Lootboxes are virtual gambling

[Ashen.2907]

> @"MattDu.7123" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"MattDu.7123" said:

> > >

> > > Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is now gaining the same rights and laws as real money.

> >

> > Can you provide an example of a place where one can insist on paying for one's debt with bitcoin (as one can with legal currency)?

>

> Scan is an computer online retailer in the uk

> https://www.scan.co.uk/info/bitcoin At the checkout simply select Bitcoin as your payment method, and then click the “Complete order with bitcoin” button

> Microsofts online game store

> https://blogs.microsoft.com/firehose/2014/12/11/now-you-can-exchange-bitcoins-to-buy-apps-games-and-more-for-windows-windows-phone-and-xbox/

> Expedia since 2014

> Today we announced that Expedia is now accepting bitcoin from customers who want to purchase hotels via Expedia.com.

>

> Bitcoin is a virtual currency

> Lootboxes are virtual gambling

 

I dont mean a specific retailer, or the like. In what country, or at least a province/state, can I walk up to any merchant (or landlord, hospital, babysitter, etc) and have him required to accept bitcoin as payment?

 

 

[MattDu.7123]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

 

> I dont mean a specific retailer, or the like. In what country, or at least a province/state, can I walk up to any merchant (or landlord, hospital, babysitter, etc) and have him required to accept bitcoin as payment?

>

>

In what state in america can i give them a british pound or a japanese yen that is legal tender and have him required to except it as payment? I dont get your point.

 

One pound notes were introduced by the Bank of England for the first time in 1797, its a piece of paper thats used instead of real goods, but dont worry it will never catch on.

Bitcoin is only 10 years old

 

Last time i went to McDonalds I didnt even use money i pressed a card against a machine. You can pay with your phone. I dont have a key for my front door, its a tag. A robot mows the lawn. And there's a ridiculous rumor that one day the motorised carriage will drive itself.

 

The Netherlands has several retail chains which no longer accept cash payments and its not illegal for them to do it.

 

 

 

 

And the news is in FIFA 18, Dota 2, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds and Rocket League loot boxes can now be considered gambling.