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

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;52894478]Hopefully this will spark investigations into overwatch and team fortress.[/QUOTE] I don't see how, they're clearly only investigating p2w shit, not cosmetics.

I was explaining the whole microtransaction/lootbox debacle to my mum a few days ago, now I'm proud to be able to tell her that Belgium may set the example for the world to follow. Assuming that they don't fuck it up, but gambling is seriously regulated here.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52894502]I don't see how, they're clearly only investigating p2w shit, not cosmetics.[/QUOTE] It's in the OP's article that they are, so it's kind of a moot point? [QUOTE=the article]Overwatch is also part of the investigation[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Van-man;52894378]I'm all for considering trading card packs as gambling if it effectively neuters the lootbox & alike trend forever.[/QUOTE] At least you're consistent. But keep in mind, it wouldn't do that. To see why not, simply look at China and their gaming market. In China, versions of many games (including Call of Duty) have been released where you [I]rent[/I] upgrades. Many mobile games require you to pay money to make the game fun, for a brief period. These are other anti-consumer tactics that are employed where tolerated, and there are honestly an infinite number of ways for game companies to totally fuck over players... and as long as the players tolerate it, companies will continue to do it. The real key here is to stop playing games that have anti-consumer tactics like this, and to encourage others to do the same. Make those shitty info-graphics that those idiots on facebook (I.E. the average player of a given game) absolutely love sharing. That's the real way to address this. Legislation will not solve this problem. It may solve this particular facet of the problem, but it won't address the issue itself. [QUOTE=ferrus;52894443] 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.[/QUOTE] Uh, you don't need a law degree to have opinions about this sort of thing. You put money in, you get a worthless collectible out. The only difference between lootboxes and card games is that cards can actually be sold for money, making them even more similar to casino chips if you want to think about it that way. You know without a doubt and for a fact that when you throw money at a lootbox, that money is gonezo. You aren't ever going to get something back out of it.

[URL="http://www.clockworkstorybook.net/games/dutch-authorities-investigating-loot-boxes/"]Dutch authorities are now apparently looking into loot boxes too.[/URL] Here's hoping for this to have a domino effect on other European authorities.

[quote]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.[/quote] This is my favourite part of the news here, since it means they're specifically targeting pay2win lootboxes. I don't have a problem with cosmetic ones at all (unless there's some attached skin trading system, which [I]effectively[/I] makes it real-money gambling). I personally am also fine with this affecting collectible card game boosters (but I don't play those games physically in the first place precisely due to the pay2win gambling aspect). It would definitely affect the companies' bottom lines significantly, but I suspect they'd still be easily profitable if they have a good business model that doesn't rely on making the good cards rare and hiding them in piles of bad ones. I know Magic has at least some sets that aren't randomised for example, and doesn't seem to have insane power creep, so I don't think they be hit [I]too[/I] hard by this.

[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52896794][URL="http://www.clockworkstorybook.net/games/dutch-authorities-investigating-loot-boxes/"]Dutch authorities are now apparently looking into loot boxes too.[/URL] Here's hoping for this to have a domino effect on other European authorities.[/QUOTE] Everybody's been saying for years that publishers will push the bill too far, and [I]somebody[/I] would take notice. EA, being EA, was dumb enough to push such an extreme lootbox/microtransaction system in a franchise with an enormous fanbase, and no amount of "fixing" or bandaids or promises were worth anything, nothing held water at all. Not to mention that any casual gamer or soccer mom never even heard about the so-called fixes over the original issues. I cannot say how glad I am that this is biting EA in particular in the ass. Let's hope Disney ditches them as Star Wars partners as well. [QUOTE=Tamschi;52896988]I personally am also fine with this affecting collectible card game boosters (but I don't play those games physically in the first place precisely due to the pay2win gambling aspect). It would definitely affect the companies' bottom lines significantly, but I suspect they'd still be easily profitable if they have a good business model that doesn't rely on making the good cards rare and hiding them in piles of bad ones. I know Magic has at least some sets that aren't randomised for example, and doesn't seem to have insane power creep, so I don't think they be hit [I]too[/I] hard by this.[/QUOTE] Less randomized cards in card games would be nice as well, like five known cards, ten random in a standard pack and other non-randomized packs, but I think there should be [I]some[/I] randomness since otherwise everybody would buy white eyes dragon, as an example, it would saturate the games. A middle ground could probably work for card games. Allowing new players to easily acquire the best cards wouldn't really be fair on the older players, imo.

[QUOTE=torres;52897124]Let's hope Disney ditches them as Star Wars partners as well.[/QUOTE] Considering Disney are now going to be finding themselves unwittingly drawn into the backlash and [URL="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gambling&src=typd"]accused of helping promote gambling to children[/URL] thanks to EA's business practices, I'd say it's very possible, if not outright inevitable.

[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52897147]Considering Disney are now going to be finding themselves unwittingly drawn into the backlash and [URL="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gambling&src=typd"]accused of helping promote gambling to children[/URL] thanks to EA's business practices, I'd say it's very possible, if not outright inevitable.[/QUOTE] They better not license it to a single publisher again, but on a case-by-case basis to those who can present the most interesting idea(s). And by interesting it better not mean "most profitable", but rather "most enjoyable to play"

[QUOTE=ferrus;52894423]How about the dictionary definition of gambling? :v: [t]http://i63.tinypic.com/2a6qtqg.png[/t] 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] Legal and illegal gambling are not defined by the dictionary definition. Otherwise insurance would be illegal, going to school would be illegal, investing would be illegal, etc.. The way I see it, we have gambling laws for two reasons: The negative externalities of gambling, and moral busybodying. The latter happens less often now, but in the US that's where most states originally got their laws from (we love jesus,) and it's kind of dumb. The former means the negative effects on a community some forms of gambling such as that which happens in casinos, of bankruptcies, effects on welfare, effects on families, etc.. And those are great reasons to regulate gambling much like how we tax cigarettes, and current laws are written to forbid a certain chunk of it. But not all because they don't have the same problems others do.

[media]https://twitter.com/Jeromedurain/status/931184414909923329[/media] Translation [del]totally not stolen from Reddit[/del] [QUOTE]Mr. President, Since our exchanges during the parliamentary mission with Mr Rudy SALLES, I can only welcome the positive trend followed by the world of video games in general and the world of esport in particular. Economically dynamic, this cultural industry in my opinion makes a positive contribution to the country: far from assimilating it to an ultraviolent culture that was made a few years ago, video games allow several million players to flourish, exchange and develop a practice sometimes close to high level sport. The French publishers and champions of the most active sports games contribute to French cultural influence in the world. I believe that the balanced and benevolent position of ARJEL, which was favourable to a distinction between the sport of gambling, has contributed to this general dynamism that we can observe today. However, this context should not prevent us from following the rapid developments in this sector. Today, loot boxes seem to me to require special attention from the public authorities. Many players and specialized observers (see the article on the topic in the Canard PC newspaper) are wondering about the harmful effects of the widespread use of microtransactions in the video game world. If I do not think it is necessary at this stage to introduce specific legislation, I am interested in the desirability of ensuring consumer protection in this area. The use of loot boxes that add cosmetics to the games seems to be well accepted by the gaming community. The development of so-called pay to win practices is more open to debate, as shown by the recent controversy over Star Wars Battlefront 2. Beyond the acceptance of the system, some observers point here to a rapprochement of the video game world with the practices specific to gambling. Transparency is not widespread with regard to statistics on loot boxes, even if good practices sometimes exist. China would have ruled in favour of transparency of the probabilities of gain. Some of our European neighbours (UK, Belgium and the United Kingdom in particular) are addressing this issue by referring the matter to their regulatory authorities. It can therefore be seen that the question does not extend to France. Does ARJEL benefit from the necessary infrastructures for a general census of the probabilities of gain behind the mechanics of micro transactions? Sensitive to the fact that the dialogue now established between public authorities and industry in the sector is continuing, I am asking Mr Mahjoubi, Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, in similar terms, through a written question, and I am informing the SELL, SNJV and the France Esport association of these initiatives. A swift and sincere self-regulation of the sector would be reassuring news at a time when some players are predicting that betting on sporting events will soon open up. Convinced that collective reflection will enable us to find a satisfactory response to this new problem, I would like to ask you, Mr. President, to believe in the assurance of my sincere consideration. Jérôme Durain[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=torres;52897124][...] Less randomized cards in card games would be nice as well, like five known cards, ten random in a standard pack and other non-randomized packs, but I think there should be [I]some[/I] randomness since otherwise everybody would buy white eyes dragon, as an example, it would saturate the games. A middle ground could probably work for card games. Allowing new players to easily acquire the best cards wouldn't really be fair on the older players, imo.[/QUOTE] Part of me wants the games that have that problem to be hit really heavily by this, but I'm saying that out of spite because I have a problem with their business model (and resulting uneven playing field) in the first place. I have very little experience with collectible card games, but from what I can tell it's definitely possible to make something that has enough viable approaches to be mostly balanced even with very diverse decks.