US senator introduces bill to ban lootboxes and P2W microtransactions - Polidicks

you'd be surprised how many...

Holy shit if this bill gets into effect, lootboxes may never be a thing ever again. The Netherlands and Belgium are small video game markets which is why publishers easily bypass their lootbox bans by not selling them in the country but the same can't be said about the U.S.

It wouldn't be long until publishers start making subscriptions to their libraries.

First off, there's really no need to be such a dick about this. Second, yeah, I agree that self regulation is terrible and if nobody kicks them in the nuts we'll continue to see these kind of predatory practices in games. I'm just apprehensive about a governing body attempting to regulate something they really have no knowledge of. On top of that, they usually use broad terms in their bills in order to push something of their own agenda. In the article itself it lists “games played by minors,” which they admit is a very broad term. The people presenting this bill are typically the same people who place blame on video games for any violent act carried out by a minor. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I still remember the whole Jack Thompson thing so whenever I see articles like this I get a little uneasy.

A surprising amount of people. There is a reason why Gambling is so regulated. I used to know a guy who'd spend like, 300 a month on LoL

Eh? I get lootboxes, but pay-to-win stuff? I mean, yeah, I hate that stuff as much as the next guy, but I feel like enforcing stuff on P2W is gonna be harder to do, since it doesn't seem like it has as clear cut a definition as the former.

Indeed. Something similar happened a few years ago where it was found exploitive to lock the main storyline or important game mechanics behind premium access or mictotransactions in a game labeled free to play, at least in North America. As a result, suddenly anything more than your starting inventory was considered not important and fair game to charge for to state one example.

If I'm reading this right, wouldn't this passing mean the ESRB would have to be significantly revamped and platform holders and retailers would completely have to change course on their current policies? Mature means 17+, after all, and this would require any game with lootboxes in it to be rated AO instead. The baggage on that rating along would at least mean a rebranding, but probably also a transition to a more sane system that doesn't have two ratings literally a year apart where one is practically never used. Of course what'll actually happen is big publishers will just lobby lawmakers in Washington to protect their interests and regulation specifically protecting lootboxes is passed instead. I'd almost bet on it.

The mobile scene is going to fucking crash if this passes as it promised. There'll a fuckton of incoming lobbyist or every business in that field will move to China.

Good. Just about every mobile game is made in china anyways. I'm tired of seeing the million different rip off games on the appstore.

“games played by minors,” a broad label that the senator says will include both games designed for kids under 18 and games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.” i have this sinking feeling that this wont affect any of the games we play and will probably just affect shitty smartphone games only. and the last couple of times any government entity for other countries looked into lootboxes/mtx, they just went "lol no problem here its not gambling " so im not really holding my breath over here

Good. Lootboxes and microtransactions in my mind play to the same gambling drive as slots and other classic gambling methods. Literally its a virtual wheel spin you pay real money for. If a minor cant gamble real money in a casino why the hell can they do the same thing in a video game.

Honestly, that's fine. The current generation of children are growing up on these games that try to get them addicted to gambling early on in life, and it needs to fucking stop.

I doubt that. That has already failed with subscription MMOs besides WoW. People aren't happy about paying for multiple services simultaniously.

Honestly the worst part is knowing that major game companies like Activision have outright demonstrated (and in regards to CoD, accidentally admitted at least once) that yes, they totally target children with this kind of shit, but actually getting a smoking gun of proof to try to definitively shut them down on this route of cheap profit is nigh impossible in the hands of old legislators that have no idea or get lobbyists sliding in with falsities and a fistful of "contribution funds".

Given it's a Republican that put this bill forth alone, I'm 110% sure he's intentionally trying to bait Lobbyists against it. The games industry has grown too big to not be paying Protection Lobbying money. There's an analysis elsewhere I saw this morning that this bill is extremely vague and not that well written all things considered. Basically following the Legalese to the letter, it would also essentially ban all forms of paid DLC in general, not just MTX. But at the end of the day I'm glad it's a Republican presenting this bill - I had a distinct fear in my gut that a Democrat introducing something like this would cause it to turn into a Partisan issue in all the wrong ways, on account of a (((Liberal))) pushing (((Regulation))) against the Free Market.

Yeah I doubt itt'l get past Turtle McBellend, though. This is a regulation against business, Trump won't sign it, therefore Turtle McBellend won't allow it to floor vote. Hope I'm wrong though. We need this legislation.

Even so, it means there's finally a political discussion going in the place that matters, the US. If this has bipartisan support, something will eventually happen.

Are there any hypothetical scenarios of this going wrong that anyone can think of? Yes I agree that a government that doesn't really understand what it is regulating is bad, but what realistic or even absurd consequences could we expect?

I guess I can think of one, where governments require devs to pay for an expensive permit in order to add microtransactions in online games. It's already hard for small for indie studios to pierce the multiplayer market, imagine if they needed to pay extra fees to add optional cosmetic skins. Going with a similar idea, countries could start adding bans on games that don't go through their regulation process, even if it's something as dumb as Mii costumes in Smash. Regulation also adds delays in the process, and you probably know how slow governments can be sometimes. I live in Quebec and we have weird laws where if you want to officially sell a game, there needs to be a French manual that comes with it. They're usually cheaply made and printed in black & white. If a French translation of the game exists in Europe, it needs to be included in the Quebec retail version. It has led to delays in the past, and some games can only be bought digitally because it bypasses that law. We also have lottery laws where if a company wants to host a contest with random winners, they need to contact Loto Quebec otherwise it's illegal. I'm not sure about all the details but almost every single giveaway I find says "Participant must be a Canadian resident (excl. Quebec)" in the fine-print. Honestly if it makes companies avoid the whole thing by using battlepass-type progress like Fortnite I wouldn't mind. It keeps players hooked because they want the coolest things toward the end, and it makes devs keep supporting their game long after it's out, both of which keeps the online modes more active.

I'm going to hope that it will depend on the age rating given to games, anything below an M rating can't have loot boxes and P2W mechanics. If it does then up in rating it goes. Like considering here in the UK penny drop machines have gambling warnings on them, the fact that videogames are largely untouched is pretty crazy.

Kids, mostly. A lot of mobile microtransactions are very deliberately geared towards exploiting the ignorance of children and their parents

Microtransactions are cheap because people will also go "it's only a dollar or it's only 50 cents" and then hours later they've spent $10-$20 combined.