Current Events > Why are people acting like Belgium saying Lootboxes are gambling means anything?

(+) Yeah! (+)

80/80

Shit like this will literally never happen in the United States, the government is kept good and lobbied by publishers to look the other way on tons of shit and allow them to dodge taxes. Lootboxes will never be considered gambling in a government that is always actively acting against normal people for the sake of the rich

You can cheer all you like but the victory is purely hollow and again means nothing, sad but true
---

You're too late, it's already started in the US too.
---

Literally Hawaii just starting coming out against EA.

NewerMernardi posted...

Literally Hawaii just starting coming out against EA.

Source?
---

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

it isnt gambling
---

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to
---

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to

It's a chain reaction effect dude. One state speaks up and then more do too.

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to

Oh look, ZP the guy who is always on how bad loot boxes and microtransactions are gives up when governments are finally looking into it. Guess all this time you just wanted to create outrage.

The fact a state in the US is even looking into Loot Boxes is a pretty good sign. It means that the government to some extent cares enough about the possibility of predatory practices in video games which could mean regulations in the future. This is exactly why I told you should be writting to your representative instead of bitching on CE.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to

You said it would never happen in the US. Quit moving the goal posts.

It makes a difference because most big release video games have an international target. So if they can't release the game with lootboxes in Europe, they have two options: don't release the game in Europe and lose a large portion of their sales or avoid putting lootboxes in the game in the first place.

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to

Oh look, ZP the guy who is always on how bad loot boxes and microtransactions are gives up when governments are finally looking into it. Guess all this time you just wanted to create outrage.

The fact a state in the US is even looking into Loot Boxes is a pretty good sign. It means that the government to some extent cares enough about the possibility of predatory practices in video games which could mean regulations in the future. This is exactly why I told you should be writting to your representative instead of bitching on CE.

Yeah I don't get it. Dude always complains about microtransactions and lootboxes. A state finally speaks out against it and he's got a problem with it lmao.

Aristoph posted...

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Well that's not completely true. Some versions of games released to countries in Europe have been censored or lost an entire game mode.

The difference here is that loot boxes are an online system so it wouldn't make much sense to invest into an online system if it was only going to exist in a target area. Not to mention they would have to change how rewards work in EU which would split the playerbase. It basically wouldn't be worth the effort for the little money they could make from it.
---

Cuz if this Belgium ruling goes through, they'll have to at the very least scrap out lootboxes from the European versions. So either A: People will import the Euro version now or B: Companies will end up making the US and Euro versions the same without loot boxes
---

NeonOctopus posted...

Cuz if this Belgium ruling goes through, they'll have to at the very least scrap out lootboxes from the European versions. So either A: People will import the Euro version now or B: Companies will end up making the US and Euro versions the same without loot boxes

Well Nintendo already region locks games. So they could also do that if they were really serious about it. I just don't think companies will, because investing into an online system has a bigger cost than just censoring a game to match the target's countries rating system.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Aristoph posted...

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Well that's not completely true. Some versions of games released to countries in Europe have been censored or lost an entire game mode.

The difference here is that loot boxes are an online system so it wouldn't make much sense to invest into an online system if it was only going to exist in a target area. Not to mention they would have to change how rewards work in EU which would split the playerbase. It basically wouldn't be worth the effort for the little money they could make from it.

The key difference (business-wise, at least) is that typically the censored versions or the ones missing a game mode piss off the smaller demographic. In this case, if Europe got a lootbox-free game and the U.S. got a pay-to-win game, the shitstorm happens in the U.S. among the vast majority of their customers.
---

NewerMernardi posted...

Yeah I don't get it. Dude always complains about microtransactions and lootboxes. A state finally speaks out against it and he's got a problem with it lmao.

I'm glad this is happeneing, however I'm extremely skeptical this will have any effect in countries like the U.S. where the government is kept good and lobbied by publishers.

I'm cautiously optimistic.
---

Aristoph posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Aristoph posted...

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Well that's not completely true. Some versions of games released to countries in Europe have been censored or lost an entire game mode.

The difference here is that loot boxes are an online system so it wouldn't make much sense to invest into an online system if it was only going to exist in a target area. Not to mention they would have to change how rewards work in EU which would split the playerbase. It basically wouldn't be worth the effort for the little money they could make from it.

The key difference (business-wise, at least) is that typically the censored versions or the ones missing a game mode piss off the smaller demographic. In this case, if Europe got a lootbox-free game and the U.S. got a pay-to-win game, the shitstorm happens in the U.S. among the vast majority of their customers.

Yes. It's just a little misleading to say that a company wouldn't release different versions of a game.
---

gp1829 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Check CE front page or search Hawaii.

Ok, that's ONE state and even then if isn't federal it's not worth paying attention to

You said it would never happen in the US. Quit moving the goal posts.

---

Aristoph posted...

It makes a difference because most big release video games have an international target. So if they can't release the game with lootboxes in Europe, they have two options: don't release the game in Europe and lose a large portion of their sales or avoid putting lootboxes in the game in the first place.

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Blizzard just worked their way around the ban in China.
---

Aristoph posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Aristoph posted...

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Well that's not completely true. Some versions of games released to countries in Europe have been censored or lost an entire game mode.

The difference here is that loot boxes are an online system so it wouldn't make much sense to invest into an online system if it was only going to exist in a target area. Not to mention they would have to change how rewards work in EU which would split the playerbase. It basically wouldn't be worth the effort for the little money they could make from it.

The key difference (business-wise, at least) is that typically the censored versions or the ones missing a game mode piss off the smaller demographic. In this case, if Europe got a lootbox-free game and the U.S. got a pay-to-win game, the shitstorm happens in the U.S. among the vast majority of their customers.

They could always just not release to Europe. It's a far smaller market than US+Japan
---

Darmik posted...

Blizzard just worked their way around the ban in China.

Don't Blizzard have a Chinese division?
---

Darmik posted...

Aristoph posted...

It makes a difference because most big release video games have an international target. So if they can't release the game with lootboxes in Europe, they have two options: don't release the game in Europe and lose a large portion of their sales or avoid putting lootboxes in the game in the first place.

They're not going to make two different versions of the games because the shit-storm that would cause would be massive.

Blizzard just worked their way around the ban in China.

Honestly, we'll likely see more game companies find ways around loot boxes and implementing the work around in all new games instead. Hopefully governments put regulations down instead of banning, because bans will only cause companies to look for work arounds.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Darmik posted...

Blizzard just worked their way around the ban in China.

Don't Blizzard have a Chinese division?

I dunno. I just know they got around the ban by making players use in-game currency (which you can purchase) for lootboxes.
---

what about the droid attack on the wookiees?
---

Sex-Machine posted...

They could always just not release to Europe. It's a far smaller market than US+Japan

Europe is a much larger market than Japan, especially for the types of games that big western developers like to make (GTA / Cocadooty / FIFA / etc)

A lot of those games sell like shit in Japan, and some of the best selling ones (FIFA) sell like shit in America.

Not being able to release in Europe would really really hurt.

And if it sets a precedent in the European Union, it can and will spill over to the rest of the world (See: Valve and digital refunds)
---

The biggest question for me is how this will impact games already released. There must be thousands of them out there at this point. Would they just shut down the servers for any offenders? Restrict people in Europe?

I think the best case scenario is developers will still use lootboxes using stuff earned in gameplay while letting players choose weapons, skins etc. with microtransactions.

Pandora's Box is open. They're never going back to a traditional model.
---

Literally goal post moving lol
---

Darmik posted...

The biggest question for me is how this will impact games already released. There must be thousands of them out there at this point. Would they just shut down the servers for any offenders?

Disney already preemptively shut down Marvel Heroes (ported to PS4 this year) because of gambling allegations. They also are most likely the people who forced EA to pull the plug on boxes in BF2. The last thing they need any of their brands associated with is real gambling.
---

Darmik posted...

Pandora's Box is open. They're never going back to a traditional model.

True. But we could always make sure the new model isn't exploitative to the consumers even if it's not the best solution for the consumers.

Darmik posted...

The biggest question for me is how this will impact games already released. There must be thousands of them out there at this point. Would they just shut down the servers for any offenders? Restrict people in Europe?

I think F2P games that run on loot boxes for money will likely change their systems. And likely there will be a time period for them transition so they don't get completely screwed.

In cases for old AAA titles, most corporations will probably just shut down the game instead of paying people to go back and change a system for a game not in active development.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Disney already preemptively shut down Marvel Heroes (ported to PS4 this year) because of gambling allegations. They also are most likely the people who forced EA to pull the plug on boxes in BF2. The last thing they need any of their brands associated with is real gambling.

I thought that game was in danger for a while? Was that really the reason?

Tmaster148 posted...

True. But we could always make sure the new model isn't exploitative to the consumers even if it's not the best solution for the consumers.

I'm not sure how you can do that. Any model can potentially be exploitive to consumers.

Tmaster148 posted...

I think F2P games that run on loot boxes for money will likely change their systems. And likely there will be a time period for them transition so they don't get completely screwed.

In cases for old AAA titles, most corporations will probably just shut down the game instead of paying people to go back and change a system for a game not in active development.

Something like that would be unprecedented. So many games would be completely shut down. Even if a game shifts to a new model the players who have been used to lootboxes for the past several years will probably be screwed over. A change like that isn't really minor.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Well Nintendo already region locks games.

Not with the Switch.
---

Darmik posted...

Something like that would be unprecedented. So many games would be completely shut down. Even if a game shifts to a new model the players who have been used to lootboxes for the past several years will probably be screwed over. A change like that isn't really minor.

I do imagine that many games will suffer a lot if a full ban is implemented. Which is why i'm for regulating than banning flat out.

Darmik posted...

I'm not sure how you can do that. Any model can potentially be exploitive to consumers.

I guess I should say less exploitative. At least better than what's currently happened with EA and Star Wars Battlefront 2. Obviously there needs to be some protections for the consumers.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Well Nintendo already region locks games.

Not with the Switch.

Oh really? I've been thinking about getting a switch since it appears nintendo is truly done with the 3ds given that ultra sun and ultra moon are the last main pokemon games to go on the system.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

NewerMernardi posted...

Yeah I don't get it. Dude always complains about microtransactions and lootboxes. A state finally speaks out against it and he's got a problem with it lmao.

I'm glad this is happeneing, however I'm extremely skeptical this will have any effect in countries like the U.S. where the government is kept good and lobbied by publishers.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Who LOBBIES for video games?

Like, are you serious?
---

Darmik posted...

I thought that game was in danger for a while? Was that really the reason?

They're just rumors, and while there were some issues with the game, the fact that they just ported the fucking thing to PS4 leads me to believe that it was intended to go on much longer than it did. The studio was probably fucked regardless but the gambling thing may have led to an early termination.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Who LOBBIES for video games?

The EFF does but they're a pro consumer rights group and not a publisher. They'd lobby in favor of banning loot boxes.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

I guess I should say less exploitative. At least better than what's currently happened with EA and Star Wars Battlefront 2. Obviously there needs to be some protections for the consumers.

I guess the problem is when does the line cross into being exploitive? It seems hard to define.

The catalyst for this controversy was that it takes 40 hours to unlock Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker in BF2. That's totally shit. But I believe this was purchasing the characters outside of a lootbox. So it wouldn't be impacted by this change anyway.

A lot of people take issue that purchasing lootboxes gives you a competitive advantage. Which yes is totally shit. But again that doesn't really make a difference when it comes to gambling. Do people want there to be a distinction? It just gets more and more convoluted.

It seems like a nice solution in theory. But if this actually gets anywhere it's going to lead to a lot of headaches I think. A lot of people are gonna get screwed over. Not just companies.

I live in Australia. I know what it's like to live in a country where good intentions have lead to some stupid bans.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Who LOBBIES for video games?

Like, are you serious?

Publishers lobbied to make tax dodging for them legal and got it, why do you think they won't lobby the government to look the other way on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKnv1YzI3k
---

I can't laugh enough at the poor saps who seriously thinks the fucking government will give enough fucks to seriously ban something for video games of all things.
---

Darmik posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

I guess I should say less exploitative. At least better than what's currently happened with EA and Star Wars Battlefront 2. Obviously there needs to be some protections for the consumers.

I guess the problem is when does the line cross into being exploitive? It seems hard to define.

The catalyst for this controversy was that it takes 40 hours to unlock Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker in BF2. That's totally shit. But I believe this was purchasing the characters outside of a lootbox. So it wouldn't be impacted by this change anyway.

A lot of people take issue that purchasing lootboxes gives you a competitive advantage. Which yes is totally shit. But again that doesn't really make a difference when it comes to gambling. Do people want there to be a distinction? It just gets more and more convoluted.

It seems like a nice solution in theory. But if this actually gets anywhere it's going to lead to a lot of headaches I think. A lot of people are gonna get screwed over. Not just companies.

I live in Australia. I know what it's like to live in a country where good intentions have lead to some stupid bans.

Yeah. This isn't going to be an easy solution, but at the very least the government is open into discussing it. Where it goes, I'll guess we'll see. But I don't think it'll just end after the first round if anything does happen.
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

I can't laugh enough at the poor saps who seriously thinks the fucking government will give enough fucks to seriously ban something for video games of all things.

Yes surely there has never been video game related legislation before
---

I don't think it will "banned" but I do believe it will get regulated enough to where companies have to rethink their marketing and business tactics.

Before this whole EA situation, Microtransactions and Loot boxes weren't regulated and game companies were allowed to do whatever. But now that the Government is looking into it, it's going to make it harder for Companies like EA to do this shit.

As for people thinking that it's just Belgium and Hawaii looking into it. Nope, there are more countries and states investigating the issue too. They just haven't reported anything yet.
---