ESRB to add a label for games that doesn't differentiate between microtransactions and expansions - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]As pressure from pundits and politicians mounts, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) said today that it will start adding the “In-Game Purchases” label to any game that lets you pay real money for digital goods. The label will apply to “bonus levels, skins, surprise items (such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes and upgrades (e.g., to disable ads),” the ESRB said this morning in a press release. You might be thinking: Won’t this label apply to just about every modern video game? The answer is: Yes, probably. On a call with reporters this morning, ESRB president Patricia Vance said that any video game with an in-game option to purchase extra content will get the “In-Game Purchases,” label, whether that content comprises premium currency or a $20 expansion pack.[/QUOTE] [url=https://kotaku.com/after-months-of-controversy-esrb-will-add-in-game-purc-1823356171]Source[/url]

I wonder how useful this will be without differentiating? The ESRB seems geared towards marking things that would make a game unsuitable for specific age groups, so putting, say, a single button to remove ads for a price on the same level as BFII's addictive lootboxes seems weird.

[QUOTE]Won’t this label apply to just about every modern video game? The answer is: Yes[/QUOTE] :s: But then... add an asterisk or separate it into two labels instead of one?

[QUOTE=chuck14;53164060]I wonder how useful this will be without differentiating? The ESRB seems geared towards marking things that would make a game unsuitable for specific age groups, so putting, say, a single button to remove ads for a price on the same level as BFII's addictive lootboxes seems weird.[/QUOTE] They're both microtransactions, until someone actually makes it illegal or puts gambling restrictions on it, there's not much of a difference, legally.

On one hand, I'm glad that the ESRB is starting to label games with microtransactions. On the other hand, grouping in microtransactions with meaty expansions is like comparing apples to oranges. It just seems kinda lazy that they won't differentiate the two. [editline]February 27 2018[/editline] Or rather, comparing expansions to microtransactions is like comparing a side-order of fries to getting shit in your burger.

When are expansions "in-game purchases"?

They're doing this to try and appease lawmakers, without actually addressing the issue. Since pretty much every game will have this, your average consumer won't notice/care.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53164139]When are expansions "in-game purchases"?[/QUOTE] Likely any time they can be purchased *in-game*. So without the use of an external service or website. Personally, I would love to see this label be a barrier to an E/E10+ rating. [sp]or even T but thats a bit unrealistic[/sp]

Thanks for almost doing your job, ESRB.

[QUOTE=chemo;53164125]On one hand, I'm glad that the ESRB is starting to label games with microtransactions. On the other hand, grouping in microtransactions with meaty expansions is like comparing apples to oranges. It just seems kinda lazy that they won't differentiate the two.[/QUOTE] The ESRB already stated that they don't give a shit about this, "it's like buying Pokemon cards", they only did this because they are being pressured and they still managed to half-ass it like that.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;53164139]When are expansions "in-game purchases"?[/QUOTE] You don't really go to the store to buy a physical expansion pack with a complementary set of binaries anymore. Its probably easier to group them in with ingame purchases seeing as they can be bought in the same place, through the in game store, the game launcher, or the publisher's store.

Does anyone even read ESRB labels besides overprotective moms though?

Why not "Randomized Purchases" or similar for lootboxes?

[QUOTE=chemo;53164125]On one hand, I'm glad that the ESRB is starting to label games with microtransactions. On the other hand, grouping in microtransactions with meaty expansions is like comparing apples to oranges. It just seems kinda lazy that they won't differentiate the two. [editline]February 27 2018[/editline] Or rather, comparing expansions to microtransactions is like comparing a side-order of fries to getting shit in your burger.[/QUOTE] [del]Well, maybe it is a strategic move to sort of send a political message to the industry. Because the publishers don't want to differentiate the concepts of paying for actual DLC and paying for loot boxes, why should the ESRB?[/del] The lines have definitely become fuzzy in the industry, no doubt. Ok I read the rest of the article. I kept my original post up there to show how news can be misleading. Just reading the title and the quote in the OP made me think the ESRB was standing up against loot boxes. But no, there reasons are different: [QUOTE]“I’m sure you’re all asking why aren’t we doing something more specific to loot boxes,” she said. “We’ve done a lot of research over the past several weeks and months, particularly among parents. What we’ve learned is that a large majority of parents don’t know what a loot box is. Even those who claim they do, don’t really understand what a loot box is. So it’s very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, to make sure that we’re capturing loot boxes, but also other in-game transactions.”[/QUOTE] So they boil it down to "Parent's don't even know the difference, it will be the wrong direction to take". [QUOTE]In October, the ESRB told Kotaku that it did not consider loot boxes to be gambling. When asked by a reporter whether that stance had changed, Vance said it had not. “We certainly considered whether or not loot boxes would constitute as gambling,” said Vance. “We don’t believe it does. We think it’s a fun way to acquire virtual items for use within the game.”[/QUOTE] This makes it sound like they aren't on the public's side at all. [QUOTE]This news comes two weeks after U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire sent an open letter to the ESRB asking the board [/QUOTE] Ugh, of course Senator Hassan would send a letter like that.....here in NH the politics are still fairly narrow-minded compared to the surrounding New England states.

I think this is a positive step, but I would have much preferred it to be a label for randomized, gambling-esque, monetary options. There's a clear differentiation in incentives and thought process between randomized "loot boxes" and set purchases like expansions and micro-transactions.

[QUOTE=Talvy;53164191]Why not "Randomized Purchases" or similar for lootboxes?[/QUOTE] No need to use big words, call it what it is. Gambling. Because as much as game publishers like to stick their fingersi n their ears and scream "THESE ITEMS HAVE NO REAL WORLD MONETARY VALUE", it's just as addicting as legal gambling and I'd love to see what they'd rather call it. This is especially heinous with systems like Valve's, where they outright allow people to put a monetary value on their gear and sell it on a marketplace for fun bucks to get real valued items like games.

This is a joke and we all know it. The ESRB represents the interests of the publishers, and as such was never going to seriously consider bringing any real chance of meaningful change. I'm not one to love regulation, but I think we can all agree that there's no real avenue for self-regulation in the modern games industry.

[QUOTE=chuck14;53164236]No need to use big words, call it what it is. Gambling. Because as much as game publishers like to stick their fingersi n their ears and scream "THESE ITEMS HAVE NO REAL WORLD MONETARY VALUE", it's just as addicting as legal gambling and I'd love to see what they'd rather call it. This is especially heinous with systems like Valve's, where they outright allow people to put a monetary value on their gear and sell it on a marketplace for fun bucks to get real valued items like games.[/QUOTE] Then there would be no differentiation between lootboxes and betting your life savings.

The label in question: 💩

[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;53164154]Likely any time they can be purchased *in-game*. So without the use of an external service or website. Personally, I would love to see this label be a barrier to an E/E10+ rating. [sp]or even T but thats a bit unrealistic[/sp][/QUOTE] So something like Elite: Dangerous would be immune, since you purchase cosmetics through an external website that you do not access within the game?

This will be useful as the age rating we have for games nowadays

Between this and the IGDA calling lootbox regulation censorship it's like they want the government to get involved.

This is actually a step backward IMO. Think about it: It does nothing to really inform parents / buyers about loot box / gambling mechanics. But, it does act as a "see, we are addressing loot boxes" point to argue against any real mechanism that might hinder the industries' infinite money ploy.

[QUOTE=Karmah;53164167]You don't really go to the store to buy a physical expansion pack with a complementary set of binaries anymore. Its probably easier to group them in with ingame purchases seeing as they can be bought in the same place, through the in game store, the game launcher, or the publisher's store.[/QUOTE] Why would publisher's online store be considered "in-game"? Am I missing something here? I don't see why people aren't supportive of this. This is obviously a step in the right direction. Parents (ideally anyway) will be checking the ratings of a game they're buying for their child and if warnings of violence or such aren't going to give them pause, the prospect of having to spend more money might, who knows. Obviously it's very far from the end goal but even baby steps are good. Does ESRB even have the power to do anything more decisive than this?

I don't think this is gonna do anything at all. People know fully well about games like SWBF2, and they still bought it. But I guess companies will be more transparent about it now.

Why are people happy about this? This is a cop-out move to try to garner positive PR and to avoid further government intervention by grandstanding on something that will have no effect at all, but looks like self-regulation! The ESRB has been criticized specifically about loot boxes and lootbox-like mechanics and how they don't do anything about it, like requiring said games to have a specific label that communicates those kind of mechanics, so that parents can factor that into allowing kids to play it or not (and as a side effect, warning core gamers to beware!) - it seems their response is to add a label that seems that's communicating something while communicating nothing at all, since a majority of videogames will fall under that label. I mean, what game doesn't have DLC anymore? Edit: [QUOTE]Parents need simple information[/QUOTE] "This game features real-money gambling mechanics" looks pretty simple to me. Draw up a slot machine with a credit card slot, there's your new ESRB label logo. I'm sure the parents can work out it's gonna be their credit card.

The CEO of the ESRB is also on the AIAS Board of Directors -- which consists of people from companies that pull millions/billions from loot-boxes (EA, Blizzard). I think that's a pretty clear conflict of interest and why you'll never see the ESRB consider loot-boxes gambling

[QUOTE=Foda;53165455]The CEO of the ESRB is also on the AIAS Board of Directors -- which consists of people from companies that pull millions/billions from loot-boxes (EA, Blizzard). I think that's a pretty clear conflict of interest and why you'll never see the ESRB consider loot-boxes gambling[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. The ESRB was founded to get companies off the hook for getting in trouble over violent content in their games. It's the same story here. They're going to do the bare minimum to dodge government regulation of their games' content.

[QUOTE=chuck14;53164236]No need to use big words, call it what it is. Gambling. Because as much as game publishers like to stick their fingersi n their ears and scream "THESE ITEMS HAVE NO REAL WORLD MONETARY VALUE", it's just as addicting as legal gambling and I'd love to see what they'd rather call it. This is especially heinous with systems like Valve's, where they outright allow people to put a monetary value on their gear and sell it on a marketplace for fun bucks to get real valued items like games.[/QUOTE] Saying that virtual items have no value is pretty much a lie, especially when they can be freely traded to other users.