Belgium’s gambling regulators are investigating Battlefront 2 loot boxes - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]According to VTM News, the Belgian Gaming Commission - which regulates all gambling in the country - is currently investigating whether or not loot crates in the game should be categorized as gambling. The commission’s director, Peter Naessens, says that if your ability to succeed in the game is dependent on random outcomes - in this case, the contents of loot boxes - then the commission will have to consider it a game of chance. “If there is a game of chance,” says Naessens, “it is not possible without a permit from the Gaming Commission.”[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.pcgamesn.com/star-wars-battlefront-2/battlefront-2-loot-box-gambling-belgium-gaming-commission[/URL] [URL]https://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/onderzoek-naar-nieuw-star-wars-spel[/URL] translated: [URL]https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnieuws.vtm.be%2Fbinnenland%2Fonderzoek-naar-nieuw-star-wars-spel&edit-text=[/URL]

Fingers crossed, but the fact they're actually putting effort into investigating it in the first place is much needed.

I just hope they're not the only country to start looking into this.

This is potentially the beginning of an end for lootboxes.

Even now there is hope for man.

‘This Will Be The End Of Lootboxes,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year

The last time this came up, they ended up refusing to classify loot boxes as gambling because the definition of gambling includes a clause on the basis that you might get nothing back. I wouldn't doubt if they design of loot boxes took this legal loophole into account by giving you garbage instead of nothing as a losing condition, and I hope there's some way they can get around it.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52893952]The last time this came up, they ended up refusing to classify loot boxes as gambling because the definition of gambling includes a clause on the basis that you might get nothing back. I wouldn't doubt if they design of loot boxes took this legal loophole into account by giving you garbage instead of nothing as a losing condition, and I hope there's some way they can get around it.[/QUOTE] So slot machines wouldn't be considered gambling if they gave you a single penny payout each time?

[QUOTE=Reshy;52893973]So slot machines wouldn't be considered gambling if they gave you a single penny payout each time?[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer, but it might be different when the reward is literally money. Maybe if the slot machine gave out non-cash rewards and it gave you a small section of string to cover the loss condition it wouldn't count but I honestly couldn't tell you.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52893952]The last time this came up, they ended up refusing to classify loot boxes as gambling because the definition of gambling includes a clause on the basis that you might get nothing back. I wouldn't doubt if they design of loot boxes took this legal loophole into account by giving you garbage instead of nothing as a losing condition, and I hope there's some way they can get around it.[/QUOTE] Wasn't that PEGI, and they also said that they couldn't call lootboxes gambling because they have to follow the legal definition.

i cant wait for them to come to the same result as the ESRBs because no one will deliver us from this lootbox hellscape

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52894063]Wasn't that PEGI, and they also said that they couldn't call lootboxes gambling because they have to follow the legal definition.[/QUOTE] Yeah, basically what I said - they believe their hands are tied because by technical legal definition they're not gambling, a large part of it being a guaranteed reward (no matter how shit). [url=https://wccftech.com/pegi-loot-boxes-cant-define-gambling/]Both ESRB and PEGI have stated the same thing:[/url] [QUOTE]In a statement relayed to Kotaku, [b]ESRB said yesterday that it does not consider them as gambling as they are guaranteed to deliver some kind of in-game content[/b]. The ESRB considers them more akin to collectible card games. In short, our approach is similar to that of ESRB (I think all rating boards do, USK in Germany as well). The main reason for this is that [b]we cannot define what constitutes gambling. That is the responsibility of a national gambling commission. Our gambling content descriptor is given to games that simulate or teach gambling as it’s done in real life in casinos, racetracks, etc[/b]. If a gambling commission would state that loot boxes are a form of gambling, then we would have to adjust our criteria to that.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Elspin;52894082]Yeah, basically what I said - they believe their hands are tied because by technical legal definition they're not gambling, a large part of it being a guaranteed reward (no matter how shit). [url=https://wccftech.com/pegi-loot-boxes-cant-define-gambling/]Both ESRB and PEGI have stated the same thing:[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, but this isn't PEGI. This is the Belgian gambling commission. They have actual authority on whether this shit counts as gambling (as far as Belgium is concerned).

Honestly that is the rub that people seem to forget. You can be [I]absolutely assured[/I] that every company that has done loot boxes so far has researched the law extensively and have specifically designed it so that it does NOT fit the legal and common definition of gambling. What they are doing at this time, while morally reprehensible and in poor taste and shitty and scummy, is perfectly legal. ...for now. [I]go Belgium go![/I]

This investigation will highly depend on the laws about gambling in Belgium. A similar thing already happened in a German court about lootboxes but according to German gambling laws (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) there is no monetary gain in what was looked at in that case and thus there was no connection to gambling. That was just one ruling though and there will probably be follow ups on this here in Germany, one popular German YouTube lawyer already said that CS:GO boxes for example would question that ruling as they can give you a monetary gain. Maybe somebody from Belgium knows more about what constitutes as gambling in Belgium.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52894093]Yes, but this isn't PEGI. This is the Belgian gambling commission. They have actual authority on whether this shit counts as gambling (as far as Belgium is concerned).[/QUOTE] Oh I see what you're getting at. I didn't mean to imply that it was the [i]same group[/i] looking into it, just that the previous response to an outcry as gambling came up with that as an answer. So presumably if they're going to tackle the problem that's how they'll have to tackle it - changing the legal definition of gambling (which as you say, the BGC might be able to actually do something about)

[QUOTE=Elspin;52894018]I'm not a lawyer, but it might be different when the reward is literally money. Maybe if the slot machine gave out non-cash rewards and it gave you a small section of string to cover the loss condition it wouldn't count but I honestly couldn't tell you.[/QUOTE] Small Chinesium trinket worth pennies. There's a reason laws sometimes should be upheld to the intended purpose they were meant to fulfill and to the spirit of those who put it in place, and not the legalese definition.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52894093]Yes, but this isn't PEGI. This is the Belgian gambling commission. They have actual authority on whether this shit counts as gambling (as far as Belgium is concerned).[/QUOTE] And that might just set a precedent. ESRB and PEGI have jack shit to say to a government. And it is in the country with the EU capital, Brussels, meaning other EU countries are probably going to follow suit if they use common sense and say it is gambling. Potentially being banned in Europe would make EA shit themselves. Or perhaps I'm being too optimistic... Edit: [QUOTE=Mitsuma;52894104]according to German gambling laws (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) there is no monetary gain in what was looked at[/QUOTE] It is for the publishers. Honestly, laws should be changed or put in place to accommodate the rise in digital media, services and devices.

It's foolish not to question the laws themselves as well. Whether it [I]should[/I] be legal is just as important a question as if it [I]is[/I] legal.

[QUOTE=ferrus;52893871]The commission’s director, Peter Naessens, says that [B][U]if your ability to succeed in the game is dependent on random outcomes[/U][/B] - in this case, the contents of loot boxes - then the commission will have to consider it a game of chance.[/QUOTE] I think THAT right there is what will halt this Ultimately, (and please correct me if I am wrong) you [I]can[/I] win without the results of lootboxes, it's just hard as fucking diamond to do so. Either way, we are making some good headway now on the legislation on lootboxes. And I REALLY hope Belgium will say its gambling

UK gambling commission already did this, they pretty much reached to this conclusion: [I]Lootboxes could be considered gambling if their contents could be readily exchangeable to real money. But they reward either items, or some virtual ingame money [note from me: this includes steam wallet funds], and those can't be cashed out to real money (officially*) so its not gambling. *third party skin gambling sites are still gambling tho, so we will fuck them up and have a talk with the gamedevs too[/I] So as much as we despise them, they are likely to remain. And one interesting point I read somewhere: if we want to classify lootboxes as gambling, then wouldn't trading card games (eg. Yu-Gi-Oh) have to be classified as such?

[QUOTE=Kecske;52894211][I]Lootboxes could be considered gambling if their contents could be readily exchangeable to real money. But they reward either items, or some virtual ingame money [note from me: this includes steam wallet funds], and those can't be cashed out to real money (officially*) so its not gambling. [/I][/QUOTE] Then what about those chips exchanged in casinos? By that definition, any game which exchanges real money for an artificial currency would not be gambling. Meaning that suddenly any casino is exempt from gambling laws. It's a retarded conclusion. [QUOTE=Kecske;52894211]And one interesting point I read somewhere: if we want to classify lootboxes as gambling, then wouldn't trading card games (eg. Yu-Gi-Oh) have to be classified as such?[/QUOTE] Imo, the important distinction is that a card is a physical object, which can later be traded for other cards. I remember the Pokemon craze at my school, we bought silly amounts. But we could not use our parents credit cards, it was our allowances, the money was "real", not something "imaginary" on a plastic card. (Also the reason I still use cash. Easier to keep track.) The packs are random, but as mentioned, it is a physical object, not dependent on a server EA will shut down in a few years, and will never be good for anything but that game. Cards can become collectors items, I have a few cards worth ~50-100 bucks. Lootboxes can never be, because publishers want to keep making money which they can't if anything can be carried over to new games.

[QUOTE=torres;52894253]Then what about those chips exchanged in casinos? By that definition, any game which exchanges real money for an artificial currency would not be gambling. Meaning that suddenly any casino is exempt from gambling laws. It's a retarded conclusion.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood, the point is: dollars->casino chips->dollars = gambling dollars->lootbox->items/coins != gambling, because you can't exchange them back to actual dollars [QUOTE]Imo, the important distinction is that a card is a physical object, which can later be traded for other cards. I remember the Pokemon craze at my school, we bought silly amounts. But we could not use our parents credit cards, it was our allowances, the money was "real", not something "imaginary" on a plastic card. (Also the reason I still use cash. Easier to keep track.) The packs are random, but as mentioned, it is a physical object, not dependent on a server EA will shut down in a few years, and will never be good for anything but that game. Cards can become collectors items, I have a few cards worth ~50-100 bucks. Lootboxes can never be, because publishers want to keep making money which they can't if anything can be carried over to new games. [/QUOTE] what you said just makes the argument for classifying trading cards as a form of gambling even stronger

[QUOTE=Kecske;52894211] And one interesting point I read somewhere: if we want to classify lootboxes as gambling, then wouldn't trading card games (eg. Yu-Gi-Oh) have to be classified as such?[/QUOTE] This is pretty much what I've always argued on this front. Lootboxes are the same as trading card packs. The exact same. The only difference is that you can usually also get a certain amount of loot boxes for free. Some people argue that this is not the case because cardstock has "inherent value", but imo that's pretty bullshit and if anything it makes it more like gambling if you want to argue that route. Lootboxes are shitty, They're anti-consumer, they're destroying gaming... but by no definition are they gambling.

[QUOTE=phygon;52894364]This is pretty much what I've always argued on this front. Lootboxes are the same as trading card packs. The exact same. The only difference is that you can usually also get a certain amount of loot boxes for free. Some people argue that this is not the case because cardstock has "inherent value", but imo that's pretty bullshit and if anything it makes it more like gambling if you want to argue that route. Lootboxes are shitty, They're anti-consumer, they're destroying gaming... but by no definition are they gambling.[/QUOTE] I'm all for considering trading card packs as gambling if it effectively neuters the lootbox & alike trend forever.

[QUOTE=Kecske;52894303]You misunderstood, the point is: dollars->casino chips->dollars = gambling dollars->lootbox->items/coins != gambling, because you can't exchange them back to actual dollars[/QUOTE] That is barely an extra step. It's still random, and all the cash gets taken, it's more a scam than gambling. And it can never be reused, so when it is inextricably tied to a product, enhances gameplay, like SWBFII, it's good for what, 2 or 3 years, then gone forever. Cosmetics are fine, but when it is designed solely to make you throw money at the screen, it is straight up a cash-grabbing scheme. That's worse than gambling, although you can easily make the case that gambling too is a cash-grabbing scheme. [QUOTE=Kecske;52894303]what you said just makes the argument for classifying trading cards as a form of gambling even stronger[/QUOTE] It has an element of gambling to it, I'll admit, but it is way harder to use as much as on lootboxes, and isn't shoved in your face the same way, you don't even have to go outside. Parents often just link up their cards to their kids account, and off they go, with potentially thousands of dollars, not thinking about how it adds up. I'm pretty sure half the "whales" are kids in a situation like that. Point is that at least cards don't disappear/vaporize the moment the company wants to print new ones, and it begins all over again. Cards have a set number as well, there's no infinity sign. Pokemon had 150 (1st gen, can't recall seeing much of older gen cards), and with all the trading going on, I didn't have to buy half of those I have. There was an element of control inherent in the system like that. I knew kids who were given a few cards out of pity, and simply traded their way to a rather respectable collection. Can't do that with lootboxes. [QUOTE=phygon;52894364]because cardstock has "inherent value", but imo that's pretty bullshit[/QUOTE] Agreed. They have no inherent value, but they don't go "poof" either. It could easily be defined as gambling, I wouldn't oppose it, my point was simply that it isn't nearly as bad a scheme as lootboxes, where the sky's the limit.

[QUOTE=phygon;52894364] Lootboxes are shitty, They're anti-consumer, they're destroying gaming... but by no definition are they gambling.[/QUOTE] How about the dictionary definition of gambling? :v: [t]http://i63.tinypic.com/2a6qtqg.png[/t] [QUOTE]to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance[/QUOTE] Is a perfectly apt description of lootboxes wouldn't you say? Why shoehorn lootboxes under the same umbrella as playing cards? Is it any surprise to anyone that you can't readily apply these laws to digital lootboxes in a video game? IMO appropriate legislation needs to be written up to cover it instead because it [I]is[/I] a form of gambling.

[QUOTE=ferrus;52894423]How about the dictionary definition of gambling? :v: [t]http://i63.tinypic.com/2a6qtqg.png[/t] "to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance" is a perfectly apt description of lootboxes, wouldn't you say? [B]Why shoehorn lootboxes under the same umbrella as playing cards?[/B] Is it any surprise to anyone that you can't readily apply these laws to digital lootboxes in a video game? IMO appropriate legislation needs to be written up to cover it instead because it [I]is[/I] a form of gambling.[/QUOTE] Because they literally aren't different at all? How is it gambling if you know for a fact that you will get nothing of monetary value out of it?

[QUOTE]How is it gambling if you know for a fact that you will get nothing of monetary value out of it? [/QUOTE] You are trying to use the word in a narrow sense, such that you must stand to (potentially) gain a monetary sum. I am saying that broadly speaking it is reasonable to say it is gambling to stake money on something of varying [I]perceived[/I] value. [sp]What is money if not a perception of value anyway?[/sp] [QUOTE]Because they literally aren't different at all?[/QUOTE] Well, they are not - literally - the same. Legally the same? I don't know, but I think it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I suppose that needs to be evaluated by someone more qualified than us.

Hopefully this will spark investigations into overwatch and team fortress.