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

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> > @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.

 

Go back and read the conversation. The comment I'm responding to is that the ESRB rating of AO is legally enforced by the US govt. It is not.

 

Also as someone that has designed gambling devices for over 12 years and currently works for a very large european company, I know of no gambling regulation that say a game that awards at least a minimum amount is not considered gambling.

 

The main hurdle that defining loot boxes as gambling is going to have is that you have to first determine if there is a winner. If there is no winner, then you are not gambling, you are spending. The main argument against loot boxes as gambling is that there is no winner, no one receives anything of value. The courts will have to be convinced that it's possible to gain monetarily.

[Danikat.8537]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> >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.

 

Exactly right. I've been waiting to buy mount skins from Anet since shortly before PoF was released. (Yes I'd prefer to earn them in-game but I knew that was highly unlikely to happen.)

 

I have the money ready and waiting to be spent and even found 11-15 skins among the current set I'd be happy to pay for. But I haven't bought any and won't be buying any of those currently available for the sole reason that I cannot buy them directly. I have to buy a "chance" at the ones I want and almost certainly get stuck paying for ones I don't want along the way.

 

So here I am, still waiting. As soon as they release skins I can buy directly that don't have skeletons painted on and weird cloud effects around them they'll get my money and I'll be happy to give it to them.

[Sobx.1758]

GOOD!

Sadly, I doubt it will go through.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Nikal.4921 said:

> > @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?

 

Probably. However, they are probably not more work-intensive than outfits, as long as the mount skin is a skin, and not a mount with completely different animations.

[Esquilax.3491]

I could see it might eventually become regulated or restricted in Europe, however I think most people here vastly overestimate the U.S. Government's interest in placing regulations which protect and serve the people as opposed to serving the interest of big business and industry lobby groups.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @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.

 

Actually, this isn't a censorship issue, it's a regulatory issue. The gaming industry has gone through the rating system as a form of self-regulation in order to inform the customer / parent of it's content. The government is ok with this as it doesn't want to spend resources on another regulatory arm. There have been many instances over the years, especially with violence and nudity where the government has come close to stopping this hands off practice. The film industry is exactly like this. Again, not censorship. You can still buy the stuff, but have to be of certain age.

 

One thing that us uptight Americans are staunchly against is nudity. This is why you have to be 18+ to buy porn [lol, not kittens, but rhymes with corn]. It isn't regulated, but there have been a lot of cases which have set precedents on the issue. You can still see it, but you have to be 18. Not censorship. You're just being hyperbolic. Some places like Australia, on the other hand, completely ban games, but for different reasons. They are quite sensitive to violence and you just are not even allowed to buy games that are deemed too violent. That could be considered censorship, but you were referencing ESRB.

 

So, what the Hawaiian representative is potentially doing is creating a scenario where there would be a regulation put in that would require standards that the ESRB would have to abide by, or worse, create a regulatory government arm for. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that if any of this is deemed as gambling (personally I doubt GW2 has much exposure here as nothing is P2W, and everything can be obtained in game, but according to an earlier post, _might_ have exposure in France, as they don't want RNG of any kind P2W or not), we Americans need to be 21, so that would limit any game with a bad loot box system not to the ESRB 18+ but 21.

[TexZero.7910]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @Nikal.4921 said:

> > > @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?

>

> Probably. However, they are probably not more work-intensive than outfits, as long as the mount skin is a skin, and not a mount with completely different animations.

 

Just going to piggy back off this part. I can't say how much extra work went into it. However if we just use the Halloween mount bundle as a point of reference those cost 400 gems each (assuming the shown non-discounted price of 2k instead of the 1.6k it was sold for), lets just compare that to the reforged skin (which is nothing more than a reusing of a texture from the forged warhound event) which was sold for 2k for a single entity.

 

Im just sayin' something really aint right there.

[OneYenShort.3189]

> @"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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have it in my head that some countries only allow the boxes because they actually are required by law to state the % chance of actually getting the item.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @FOX.3582 said:

> 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...

 

And most mobile games let you "earn" rewards using "in-game currency", but are specifically designed to frustrate people into just buying it using primary or secondary currencies instead. If this were translated into a work environment, the "free method" in most games wouldn't meet employment standards in most modern countries, and some can qualify as human rights violations in the more extreme cases. That fact has been only poorly obfuscated, but is so easily bought into because games still have a stigma it had as the 80s of being "not important" and an inherent "waste of time". Given how most games are now designed like second jobs, or even lab experiments, people are starting to realize how ignorant it is to just let a company go unregulated.

[spellchekc.5409]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> Hawaii is also putting together legislation so that might move the ball along faster than anticipated.

>

 

Thank you Hawaii! I hope this trickles down in a way that empowers ArenaNet to produce its creative content in a non-predatory manner. The creative teams here do an amazing job with the quality of their content, I know they can monetize guild wars in a way that is healthy for both the players and the company.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @OneYenShort.3189 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.

>

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have it in my head that some countries only allow the boxes because they actually are required by law to state the % chance of actually getting the item.

 

The last time I've heard about it it was in context of China.

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

> @ThomasC.1056 said:

> On the french side of the Ardennes, the law is quite clear : any kind of lottery is baseline forbidden (with some cultural exceptions). The law states that a lottery is forbideen when the 4 following conditions are met :

> * It's offered to a public ;

> * There's hope for a gain ;

> * Random factor is involved ;

> * The operator asks for a fee, whatever kind it is (money or anything), and even if a refund is promised.

>

> [Here's the source](https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/Publications/Vie-pratique/Fiches-pratiques/Loterie). _French site, baguette speakers only._

>

> Obviously, loot boxes met the 4 criterias : public = gamers, gain = whatever is in it, random outcome, and fee asked (gems, eventhough they can be "no real money", in GW2 case). Legally, the fact that "it's only cosmetic" or "it's only in game" doesn't really matter in french law, just like for theft where it's the very same thing if one steals an egg or a beef.

> On the other hand, a precursor drop can't be considered a lottery because even if it's a random gain, there's no specific fee involved beyond the ISP costs and the game of course (which are excluded in the lottery definition).

>

> Now, I have no clue if French authorities opened an inquiry about the loot boxes topic. If someone knows, please share !

 

I wonder if one could interpret this law to include the precursor drop if they consider the time engaged in the pursuit of the item as a "fee"...

[otto.5684]

I am happy that governments in several countries are aware of the gambling predatory behavior and for minimum are getting out of the hands of kids.

 

It is yet to be determined though if this will only impact pay2win features or also cosmetics.

[Sarge shot Grif.6450]

Hell yes, this is exactly the kind of snowballing I was hoping for. Shit like what EA did and the loot-box mount crap NEED to be cut out of video games like a tumor.

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > > @Bartender.1674 said:

> > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > > >

 

> >

> > AO is not legally enforced. The government can't enforce it, it would be considered censorship.

>

> It’s not censorship if the scenes and content are of an adult nature and so require a more developed mind.

>

> Put it like this, you wouldn’t give alcohol to your kids till they were old enough not only to physically handle it but also be responsible about it, why would you give their brains the same thing in a non physical way, in this context gambling which has been shown to be addictive.

 

I think the point is not whether it should be censored, just that it is not legally enforced; the ESRB is not a government agency, so the government doesn't enforce it's decisions. It is informational and is dependent on the retailer to set their own policy. I would not condone selling an AO game to a 7 year-old, but a retailer wouldn't go to jail or be fined for it (whether they should or not is another discussion).

 

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > @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.

>

> Go back and read the conversation. The comment I'm responding to is that the ESRB rating of AO is legally enforced by the US govt. It is not.

>

> Also as someone that has designed gambling devices for over 12 years and currently works for a very large european company, I know of no gambling regulation that say a game that awards at least a minimum amount is not considered gambling.

>

> The main hurdle that defining loot boxes as gambling is going to have is that you have to first determine if there is a winner. If there is no winner, then you are not gambling, you are spending. The main argument against loot boxes as gambling is that there is no winner, no one receives anything of value. The courts will have to be convinced that it's possible to gain monetarily.

 

This person gets it...

 

Maybe we should stop selling football cards to kids now cos they just cant ever get that Wayne Rooney sticky that they want so bad.... I mean its gambling still in some players eyes cos the winner is the card seller and the dentist while the kiddy screams foul play over and over.

Same thing in GW2 I guess.. Some players just can't face facts it's their own fault if they decide to enter into a purchase and then cry foul when they don't get what they want. The fact we can purchase the licences and chests in game with in-game currency conversion just makes it even more silly for these posts to keep churning over and over, often by the same people I would hazard a guess.

 

Is the system perfect .. nah it can be improved.

 

My idea would be to introduce a range of mystic forge conversions... each selection of 4 skins yields a specific skin. So if you don't get what you want and want to try the better odds next purchase then still not happy.. there is another source of getting the one you want if you have the correct skin combo's... or maybe 3 skins and some other material/currency etc.

That way we still might have to purchase a few licences but now we have other ways to use the skins we don't want - everything now has a use.

 

At the end of the day there still needs to be an element of re-purchase in order to generate a return for ANET..

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> Maybe we should stop selling football cards to kids now cos they just cant ever get that Wayne Rooney sticky that they want so bad.... I mean its gambling still in some players eyes cos the winner is the card seller and the dentist while the kiddy screams foul play over and over.

 

Ideally, yeah, this would lead to across the board improvements like that.

 

>My idea would be to introduce a range of mystic forge conversions... each selection of 4 skins yields a specific skin. So if you don't get what you want and want to try the better odds next purchase then still not happy.. there is another source of getting the one you want if you have the correct skin combo's... or maybe 3 skins and some other material/currency etc.

 

That seems. . . completely pointless.

 

Not only would you have to burn four skins to get the one you want, so the baseline would be 1600 gems, but if you need four *specific* skins to complete the recipe, then you'd have even *worse* luck of getting all four of those specific skins than you would of getting the one you wanted in the first place!

 

No, if they went the Forge route then it should be ONE skin plus some mystic goo-gah, a more or less even exchange.

 

But again, that would just be a dumb patch on a dumb system. What it should *really* be is that either you can buy the specific skin right off the store, just like you can with clothing items or minis, OR that you would be able to buy a "mount skin selector" item, similar to various other chests in the game, where when you activate it you can just pick the skin you want off a list. They can leave the random option in, and in certain cases it would be the more affordable path forward, but it should never be the only path, and players should not be "punished" for not wanting to gamble by having preposterously unfair alternatives.

 

>At the end of the day there still needs to be an element of re-purchase in order to generate a return for ANET..

 

It's called "offering the skins directly at a fair market value." It's a practice that goes back thousands of years.

[jamesg.7128]

It seems Australia has joined the queue -

[smh.com.au/technology/games/loot-boxes-in-video-games-constitute-gambling-regulator-says-20171122-gzr3ek.html](http://www.smh.com.au/technology/games/loot-boxes-in-video-games-constitute-gambling-regulator-says-20171122-gzr3ek.html "smh.com.au/technology/games/loot-boxes-in-video-games-constitute-gambling-regulator-says-20171122-gzr3ek.html")

 

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

Hmm if they ban this will they ban all those stupid mystery box toys that are in fact geared for children. Rng boxes is the latest craze. Or is it. I remember buying packs upon packs of xmen cards trying to get that one hologram weapon x wolverine card. Oh man it felt sooooo good when i got it. How about pokemon card packs is that considered gambling?

At least in gw2 you don't have to use real world cash to get what you want, eventually.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> Hmm if they ban this will they ban all those stupid mystery box toys that are in fact geared for children. Rng boxes is the latest craze. Or is it. I remember buying packs upon packs of xmen cards trying to get that one hologram weapon x wolverine card. Oh man it felt sooooo good when i got it. How about pokemon card packs is that considered gambling?

> At least in gw2 you don't have to use real world cash to get what you want, eventually.

 

Yeah, hopefully.

[spellchekc.5409]

https://powerup-gaming.com/2017/11/22/victorian-gambling-authority-loot-boxes-gambling/

 

This is turning into a world wide effort to help encourage a healthier relationship between businesses and customers

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> > @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.

 

At least I could keep that toy forever.

I'm pretty sure I can't keep that mount skin forever. There IS things called server closure you know.

[goldencenser.7046]

Guild wars loot box I see is no different then a pack of sports cards, Pokémon, or any of those cards hidden behind a foil wrapper you can’t see through and are $3+ dollars, just hoping you get a good card or a player you want or need to complete your set and kids get to buy them too. So according some of you people that is gambleing and needs a 18+ to purchase or get lottery license. Lol that sounds dumb, you don’t want to take a chance then don’t, no one is forcing you to purchase these.

[Tomahawk.7361]

'Gambling: A conscious, deliberate effort to stake valuables, usually but not always currency, on how some event happens to turn out'

 

'Problem gambling (aka compulsive gambling): A progressive disorder characterized by a continuous or periodic loss of control over gambling; a preoccupation with gambling and with obtaining money with which to gamble; irrational thinking; and a continuation of the behavior despite adverse consequences'

 

Found those definitions from a reliable peer-evaluated study. As much as I **hate** paid RNG loot boxes there are some loopholes that might harm the opportunity to end them. Sometimes you can transfer earnable in-game currency to get these boxes (now depending how hard that becomes might make a difference as I mention later). The other being that something like the mounts was a closed system. You could not continue to spend money on RNG boxes like that as there is a finite amount (30 skins for the mounts I think?), leaving you little time to form a 'gambling addiction,' unless of course you start including the black lion chests. The real grey area for me is that fine-studied insidious line of the amount of time someone would want to put into earning something versus the amount of time being long enough to sway people to spend money for convenience. Now I think that falls in the realm of triggering spending addictions, which is just as atrocious imo, but that cannot be attacked from the gambling perspective.

 

I'm slightly relieved Anet stated they will not offer RNG sales like that in the future (talk being cheap however, but I'll take them at their word for now). I won't be spending real money for their RNG mounts, but have gotten 2 via gold earning. As politicians comb through these things, I think the alternative currencies and how fairly they are implemented will need to be discussed.

[Ragnarox.9601]

Imagine that you go into shop and want to buy a new processor, so you buy 5 boxes and in that box might be new Intel processor that you want, and you open those boxes and you get 1 stuffed plastic animal.

 

Imagine that you go to another shop buying food, so you get 10 boxes of food and when you open them you get some random stuff like electric bulb, empty cd, spoon,...

 

Its still gambling, you might get good stuff and you might end up having nothing.

 

Praise for Belgium.