Are Black Lion Keys "Loot Boxes" ?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

The only marketing I've ever received is the Newsletter, which gives information on major releases.

Anyone else received anything in their emails?

[Pifil.5193]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> I want to know:

> * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> * How did they define "loot box"?

> * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

 

Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

 

> * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> * What age ranges?

> * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

>

> Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

>

> I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

 

Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

 

At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

[yann.1946]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > I want to know:

> > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

>

> Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

>

> > * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> > * What age ranges?

> > * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> > * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

> >

> > Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

> >

> > I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

>

> Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

>

> At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

 

I don't think throwing away the value of alootbox is appropriate. As this might have an influence on if it considered gambling.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > I want to know:

> > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

>

> Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

 

I know it's a bit off-topic but is that a new thing in some parts of the world? In the UK debit cards which can be used to make purchases (as opposed to cash cards which only work in ATMs) have existed since at least the early 90's and have worked for online purchases as long as credit cards have. I was 15 when I got my first debit card and it's worked online as long as I've had it, I remember using it not long after I got it to buy breed packs for Creatures 3.

 

Loot boxes didn't exist back then (as far as I know - I turned 15 in 2000 - maybe they were around then and just not in the games I played) and microtransactions were rare, but if they had I suspect I'd have been buying them - using my own money - long before I turned 18 and was legally allowed to gamble. I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than the things which put me off any form of gambling with real money, but I could definitely see my 15 year old self getting sucked into feeling like I "had to" buy these things even if they were purely cosmetic.

[Van Jango.3074]

A simple solution without considering financial aspects would be, to have BLC and corresponding keys drop in the world at same chance %. If you end up having more chests than keys, you can have the option to buy them in the store, or vice versa, buy chests if you have too many keys.

[Offair.2563]

Technically they are yes. Whether you buy keys with ingame currency or just cash, you pay to have a chance on stuff, so yes lootboxes.

[kharmin.7683]

Holy Kitten, are we going to discuss this AGAIN??

[Lanhelin.3480]

No, the blc would be a loot-box if it was sold directly and opened without a key. But chests aren't sold, only keys are and these do what they're advertised - they open chests and nothing else.

Buying a chest = buying a pig in a poke.

Buying a key = getting a key.

 

 

[Adoninilol.3180]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> No, the blc would be a loot-box if it was sold directly and opened without a key. But chests aren't sold, only keys are and these do what they're advertised - they open chests and nothing else.

> Buying a chest = buying a pig in a poke.

> Buying a key = getting a key.

>

>

 

Lol it's still a loot box because they sell the item to open the boxes, which mind you are quite abundant and yet keys are not.

 

It's the same exact thing as the RNG mount skin boxes, this can be coupled with the games other pay to win schemes such as unlimited tools, and the salvagers.

 

Feel free to quote me and argue that it's not pay to win because it's not required to play. But it's a serious hinder to not have these items, and play this game in regularly to the point that most players buy them because otherwise, it makes for an asinine game experience.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Van Jango.3074" said:

> A simple solution without considering financial aspects would be, to have BLC and corresponding keys drop in the world at same chance %. If you end up having more chests than keys, you can have the option to buy them in the store, or vice versa, buy chests if you have too many keys.

 

That was the case in the earliest versions, or at least keys would drop way more frequently. But then again, back then the BLC was basically the same things you get in the Daily login reward for Black Lion items, plus all the boosters they removed, oh and the Infinite contracts.

 

AN has been adding a ton more stuff to them to make them more appealing when it would have been better if they'd remained a less significant product. Actually, the gem store today compared to the gem store at launch is a lot less consumer friendly.

[Talonblaze.3175]

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> No, the blc would be a loot-box if it was sold directly and opened without a key. But chests aren't sold, only keys are and these do what they're advertised - they open chests and nothing else.

> Buying a chest = buying a pig in a poke.

> Buying a key = getting a key.

>

 

I just need to point out that many games including one's like CSGO and such use the key + box combo, however it didn't stop them from being affected.

It's the purpose of the box and key that matters. Not so much how many pieces they make it to do so.

 

Granted, the interesting thing here is; about a year or two ago I would have laughed at someone saying BLC were gambling with just how downright AWFUL they were at giving anything decent. I doubt many bought them back then. Nowadays though, it's a bit more desirable.

However, Anet COULD get away with it simply due to the fact that most of the stuff can be obtained without the chest (with a few exceptions).

This -may- be enough of a difference to let them get away with it. Since in most games you are forced to, Anet has given choices.

IE: mount adoption; skins in BLC or featured in the gem store.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > I want to know:

> > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

>

> Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

>

> > * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> > * What age ranges?

> > * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> > * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

> >

> > Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

> >

> > I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

>

> Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

>

> At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

 

No. Redefining gambling isn't a way to go. If we want to go there, then it will end up a totally subjective thing, and you can say bye to the beetle races, because you could be considered to be gambling on your skill to finish them in the set time. Any time you have to redefine a term to fit a narrative, there's something wrong with the narrative. As much as I don't buy loot boxes, I have yet to get a key that yielded absolutely nothing in return for the time investment I put in to get it. The "popular" definition is "I didn't get what I wanted, so I didn't get anything", which is closer to an oxymoron than a fact.

 

"But my feelings" isn't a valid argument when it comes to defining gambling either. As we can see by the thread I linked earlier, Belgium considers the mount skin boxes to be gambling, even though you're guaranteed a skin. "It may not be the one I wanted, so it's bad". It's like reading the description of an item doesn't matter, even if you know there's a chance you'll get something else, when you do, it's someone else's fault, and I can't get behind that either. I can't support "predatory because it's aimed at children" either, because this is the excuse of parents that throw the kid the card with "shut up, I'm trying to (insert whatever excuse here), and don't want to be bothered". Especially here, where it's cosmetics we're discussing, laws don't make any sense. If one absolutely cannot live w/out this skin, or that one, then they have a problem that can't be addressed by legislation, unless we're going to start having to pass a personality disorder test before we can install and play a game? I wonder, if that were the case, how many of us would actually be here?

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Adoninilol.3180" said:

> > @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> > No, the blc would be a loot-box if it was sold directly and opened without a key. But chests aren't sold, only keys are and these do what they're advertised - they open chests and nothing else.

> > Buying a chest = buying a pig in a poke.

> > Buying a key = getting a key.

> >

> >

>

> Lol it's still a loot box because they sell the item to open the boxes, which mind you are quite abundant and yet keys are not.

>

> It's the same exact thing as the RNG mount skin boxes, this can be coupled with the games other pay to win schemes such as unlimited tools, and the salvagers.

>

> Feel free to quote me and argue that it's not pay to win because it's not required to play. But it's a serious hinder to not have these items, and play this game in regularly to the point that most players buy them because otherwise, it makes for an asinine game experience.

 

So your subjective view that you must have indestructible tools means the store should be considered P2W, otherwise the player that disagrees is just being asinine? Now, if the only way to get any kind of tools was through the store, you'd have a point. But since I can spend in game currency to buy them in game, your argument falls flat. I can also, through in game means, craft a bag that holds them w/out having them clutter the rest of my bags when I'm managing my inventory. Would it be convenient to have them? Yes. Is it necessary? No. Is not buying them "asinine"? Again, no. Not paying for a convenience is no more asinine than not buying keys for the chests. I'm not sure that saving myself somewhere around 30 silver a week on tools would really be considered "winning" either, and then there's the tools you get as quest rewards.

[Trise.2865]

Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

 

So when people are talking about "key farming" they're talking about getting out their wallet and buying keys?

[Trise.2865]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

>

> So when people are talking about "key farming" they're talking about getting out their wallet and buying keys?

 

Does key farming guarantee, or "lock in" the result of the box? Does key farming remove the product from the cash shop?

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Trise.2865" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

> >

> > So when people are talking about "key farming" they're talking about getting out their wallet and buying keys?

>

> Does key farming guarantee, or "lock in" the result of the box? Does key farming remove the product from the cash shop?

 

Does the fact that I can gain keys in game w/out spending a dime make that irrelevant? Yes, yes it does. It's free, so it's a fun minigame to pass the time. "But my results aren't guaranteed" doesn't matter, when, despite what you claimed, you don't have to spend a dime to play.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> The only marketing I've ever received is the Newsletter, which gives information on major releases.

> Anyone else received anything in their emails?

 

Not yet, but this new sweepstake, is iirc, much like the recent joint promo competition mess, tied in with other companies, not just the ANET newsletter. Let's hope those companies act responsibly with the material they might choose to push out (if any at all) to players who sign/signed up.

 

EDIT - Of course BL keys in a total GW2 sense can't be totally classed as a loot box gamble, being how we can loot keys and chests in game, get awarded with keys through story/levelling/map completion so there is nothing to loose in that regards. I guess one of the arguments in defence of BL keys/chests is the fact you always get a guaranteed return of the statuette and are guaranteed 3 sometimes 4 additional items all of which have a use in game, whether players want it or not.

[Trise.2865]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > > Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

> > >

> > > So when people are talking about "key farming" they're talking about getting out their wallet and buying keys?

> >

> > Does key farming guarantee, or "lock in" the result of the box? Does key farming remove the product from the cash shop?

>

> Does the fact that I can gain keys in game w/out spending a dime make that irrelevant? Yes, yes it does. It's free, so it's a fun minigame to pass the time. "But my results aren't guaranteed" doesn't matter, when, despite what you claimed, you don't have to spend a dime to play.

 

So an item being sold, but also given away for time spent, is suddenly not being sold? and that's irrelevant to the discussion somehow, despite being part of the literal and legal definition, because... you said so?

 

Well, I'm convinced... /sarcasm

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > Though by far one of the more "fair" and "optional" microtransactions in any game, Black Lion Chests are, by definition, loot boxes. Even with the prizes listed along with potential chance of each, it is an unknown, random digital product bought with cash.

>

> So when people are talking about "key farming" they're talking about getting out their wallet and buying keys?

The very idea of microtransactions is to pressure to you give them *money* in exchange for *time*. It applies to pretty much every f2p game. They say it's free and oh you can play it totally for free. And then you have the option between doing something every 24h... or pay $1 to do it right away. Oh and you need to do it at least 3 times a day to compete with the people paying. And you can only pay in $5 increments.

 

Key farming is just another variant of this.

 

There are many different levels of hell and for loot boxes its the same thing. BL chests are *technically* loot boxes, but they arent something that is considered oppressive and hangs like a shadow over the game. Even some things that would be considered "bad" such as bag slots, bank slots and characters werent really designed to be showstoppers from the start, unlike how many games rip features out and basicly force you to pay for them (I say "from the start" because I would argue that Anet went waaaaay overboard with clogging the inventory over the years). Anet has clearly made a game that both we and them enjoy, instead of trying a quick cash grab. And that's great. But BL chests are still *technically* loot boxes.

 

The problem I see with any FTC investigation is that it will be stiff businessmen or so called "experts" doing the investigation, instead of actual gamers playing the actual games. The game industry **clearly** cannot regulate itself since they will just blanket say "its not gambling" even if its a game about gambling that only contain gambling and you're playing it at a casino so in that sense I guess its fine... but I doubt much good will come of it. Maybe it'll dial back the worst game microtransactions but at the same time games like GW2 will suffer for it.

[Pifil.5193]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > > I want to know:

> > > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

> >

> > Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

> >

> > > * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> > > * What age ranges?

> > > * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> > > * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

> > >

> > > Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

> > >

> > > I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

> >

> > Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

> >

> > At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

>

> No. Redefining gambling isn't a way to go. If we want to go there, then it will end up a totally subjective thing, and you can say bye to the beetle races, because you could be considered to be gambling on your skill to finish them in the set time. Any time you have to redefine a term to fit a narrative, there's something wrong with the narrative. As much as I don't buy loot boxes, I have yet to get a key that yielded absolutely nothing in return for the time investment I put in to get it. The "popular" definition is "I didn't get what I wanted, so I didn't get anything", which is closer to an oxymoron than a fact.

 

I'm not talking about you or I redefining what gambling is to suit our own needs, I agree that's a silly thing to do, I'm talking about policy makers possibly having to change their country's _legal_ definition of gambling to cover loot boxes. Changing the legal definition will not result in it being a subjective thing. I personally tend to avoid them because they feel like a mugs game to me but I think they probably should be treated like scratch cards or lottery tickets and I know that where I'm from you can't buy those of you're under 18.

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > The only marketing I've ever received is the Newsletter, which gives information on major releases.

> > Anyone else received anything in their emails?

>

> Not yet, but this new sweepstake, is iirc, much like the recent joint promo competition mess, tied in with other companies, not just the ANET newsletter. Let's hope those companies act responsibly with the material they might choose to push out (if any at all) to players who sign/signed up.

>

> EDIT - Of course BL keys in a total GW2 sense can't be totally classed as a loot box gamble, being how we can loot keys and chests in game, get awarded with keys through story/levelling/map completion so there is nothing to loose in that regards. I guess one of the arguments in defence of BL keys/chests is the fact you always get a guaranteed return of the statuette and are guaranteed 3 sometimes 4 additional items all of which have a use in game, whether players want it or not.

 

It's not the first time ArenaNet has offered sweepstakes/contests with joint partners (Alienware, For Fans By Fans, Razer, etc.). I've always been "opted-in", and still yet to receive anything but the Newsletter. I don't know why these same partners would not have sent promotional material before; or are you suggesting ArenaNet is suddenly going to sell the information now, when they have had the opportunity to do so ever since the first partnership?

 

Besides, the Official Rules state:

 

_By entering this Promotion, any personal information entrants submit will be disclosed to the Administrator and Sponsor and will be used *only* by ArenaNet and Administrator consistent with Sponsor’s privacy policy. Sponsor may use entrants’ personal information, including postal and email addresses, to contact entrants regarding Sponsor related goods and services and any other offers and/or promotions that they believe might be of interest to entrants._

 

Who is the 'Sponsor'?

 

_ArenaNet (“Sponsor”)_

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > > > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > > > I want to know:

> > > > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > > > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > > > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

> > >

> > > Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

> > >

> > > > * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> > > > * What age ranges?

> > > > * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> > > > * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

> > > >

> > > > Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

> > > >

> > > > I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

> > >

> > > Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

> > >

> > > At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

> >

> > No. Redefining gambling isn't a way to go. If we want to go there, then it will end up a totally subjective thing, and you can say bye to the beetle races, because you could be considered to be gambling on your skill to finish them in the set time. Any time you have to redefine a term to fit a narrative, there's something wrong with the narrative. As much as I don't buy loot boxes, I have yet to get a key that yielded absolutely nothing in return for the time investment I put in to get it. The "popular" definition is "I didn't get what I wanted, so I didn't get anything", which is closer to an oxymoron than a fact.

>

> I'm not talking about you or I redefining what gambling is to suit our own needs, I agree that's a silly thing to do, I'm talking about policy makers possibly having to change their country's _legal_ definition of gambling to cover loot boxes. Changing the legal definition will not result in it being a subjective thing. I personally tend to avoid them because they feel like a mugs game to me but I think they probably should be treated like scratch cards or lottery tickets and I know that where I'm from you can't buy those of you're under 18.

>

 

Do you believe that card booster packs, such as for games like Magic the Gathering, or collectible sports cards, or Kinder Eggs, should be similarly restricted to 18+?

[Pifil.5193]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > It's up to each nation's government to decide what is or isn't gambling, what is or isn't a loot box, and whether that's the sort of practice they want to regulate. When I see a headline (or worse, a politician) saying

> > > > > >... Commission that found 31% of children in the country had at one point or another paid money to open a loot box

> > > > > I want to know:

> > > > > * Was this an estimate or did they actually count everyone?

> > > > > * How did they define "loot box"?

> > > > > * Where did the money come from? (Already in the account or using a credit card for the transaction.)

> > > >

> > > > Gamestop and other stores sell gem cards and many other gaming currencies so getting real money onto an account without a credit card isn't that much of a problem. Also, a lot of the ATM cards being issued now are debit cards which can be used for online purchases just like a credit card (however, a debit card doesn't offer credit, you can only spend money that's in the account).

> > > >

> > > > > * What games was this in? PC? Console? Mobile?

> > > > > * What age ranges?

> > > > > * Of those kids who opened one, how many went on to open more?

> > > > > * In what way do the lootboxes affect the outcome of the game? (e.g. many mobile games, lootboxes are required to 'win')

> > > > >

> > > > > Good public policy isn't based on alarming headlines. It requires distinguish those people who can benefit from a change in rules versus those who won't be affected versus those who might be harmed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not suggesting that the FTC shouldn't consider the issue; there's no question in my mind that the various gaming studios (big & small) aren't regulating themselves to prevent this sort of thing, even after Belgium's decision earlier this year. I just hope that people will keep things in perspective and not treat all lootboxes as the same thing, not assume that RNG+money = evil.

> > > >

> > > > Some of that is or should be irrelevant to policy makers, they don't and shouldn't care if one loot box is better value than another or whether a game is pay to win, they should only care if this practice is or should be considered gambling by whatever definition they use (even if it means redefining gambling). If it is then it should be regulated as such.

> > > >

> > > > At the least that means that the company should require a gambling license to operate in any given country and no doubt it will have tax implications for those companies. It would also generally mean that games with loot boxes would have to carry 18+ age ratings.

> > >

> > > No. Redefining gambling isn't a way to go. If we want to go there, then it will end up a totally subjective thing, and you can say bye to the beetle races, because you could be considered to be gambling on your skill to finish them in the set time. Any time you have to redefine a term to fit a narrative, there's something wrong with the narrative. As much as I don't buy loot boxes, I have yet to get a key that yielded absolutely nothing in return for the time investment I put in to get it. The "popular" definition is "I didn't get what I wanted, so I didn't get anything", which is closer to an oxymoron than a fact.

> >

> > I'm not talking about you or I redefining what gambling is to suit our own needs, I agree that's a silly thing to do, I'm talking about policy makers possibly having to change their country's _legal_ definition of gambling to cover loot boxes. Changing the legal definition will not result in it being a subjective thing. I personally tend to avoid them because they feel like a mugs game to me but I think they probably should be treated like scratch cards or lottery tickets and I know that where I'm from you can't buy those of you're under 18.

> >

>

> Do you believe that card booster packs, such as for games like Magic the Gathering, or collectible sports cards, or Kinder Eggs, should be similarly restricted to 18+?

 

That's a good point, I'm not sure. Like I said loot boxes in games always feel like a mugs game to me because either the odds aren't known or are so fantastically poor that it's completely unlikely that you'll get what you want.

 

I know when I played magic the gathering you were guaranteed a set number of uncommon and rare cards and there weren't different tiers of rarity within those. Same with (I believe) football cards and kinder eggs. Although it's been a long time since I opened any of them so the rules may have changed there. There's also the fact that you can trade your extras to complete your collections.

 

So to answer your question, I guess not, I suppose my issue is less with the fact that it's down to chance (good ol' RNGesus) and more to do with the value of things and how fair it seems. Some loot boxes (and their games) seem to be designed to wring as much cash out of the players as possible, others don't.

 

The issue for policy makers is more about the habits this may be engendering in children.

 

It's fun to open a loot box and hope for a cool toy but the game shouldn't revolve around loot boxes.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

+ Is the BLC/Key combo among the more innocuous loot boxes across all games?

 

Yes.

 

+ Do Statuettes make the BLC/Key combo, "Not a loot box?"

 

No, while there is now a bottom line for what it will cost (in boxes opened) to get items on the Statuette exchange list, it is still possible to get items randomly, sooner, or to get extra Statuettes, randomly. This means the enticement of the random drop is still there.

 

+ Does the fact that one can get a key via a drop, zone completion, story completion or by exchanging gold for gems make the BLC/Key combo, "Not a loot box?"

 

No, because one can still spend cash to get keys to then take a chance on getting a desired item. What is going to be of concern to lawmakers is not whether people with self-control can avoid spending cash, it is going to be whether there needs to be a law protecting the weak from exploitation by a business practice.

 

+ From a psychological perspective, can the same physiological triggers which accompany playing a slot machine occur during the use of a loot box?

 

Yes.

 

+ Can people become addicted to the feeling associated with opening loot boxes?

 

Yes.

 

+ Are children more vulnerable than adults to such addiction?

 

Questionable. While children may lack an understanding of themselves and how such practices work, there is no guarantee that adults will have more self-control.

 

+ Should the regulation of loot box access be something parents should be responsible for, rather than lawmakers?

 

This is a tough question. Theoretically, parents ought to be able to handle this issue. In practice, however, parents are not always around, and children become adept at an early age in keeping things from their parents.

 

+ Are law-makers more likely to regulate loot-boxes for children than they are to regulate loot-boxes in general?

 

Yes. "Protect the children" is always going to push buttons among any electorate, so whether a given lawmaker values protecting children or not, acting to do so is good for one's chance at reelection.

 

+ Is the business practice of selling random reward packages (or keys to open them) designed to entice people to spend more money to get a given item than they would spend were the item on sale at a set value?

 

Yes, unequivocally, the only reason these packages exist is to generate more revenue than the items rewarded would generate without the random element.

 

+ Are random acquisition boxes/keys in general (and BLC/Keys) in particular, predatory practices?

 

Yes. They are designed to make consumers spend more for an item than the consumer is likely to think the item is worth on its own. While some consumers may use them sparingly, others are going to fall victim to the gambler's fallacy, the sunk-cost fallacy, or both.

 

+ Would consumers be better off if games were not allowed to sell boxes or keys?

 

Debatable. The weak may be better off if regulations keep them from gambling in games. As to consumers in general... some are going to believe that gaming developers need loot box revenue to make ends meet and produce quality games. Others will believe that non-random item sales and game sales provide sufficient revenue to keep developers solvent and profitable, while the revenue from random chance sales inflates profit. Either way, I believe that if random item sales are banned, developers, whether trying to stay afloat or keep profits up, will find some other way to get just as much money out of consumers.