Poll of the Day > UK Gambling Commission says lootboxes are not gambling. I told you guys.

(+) Yeah! (+)

A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired via a game of chance can be considered money or moneys worth. In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Loot-boxes-within-video-games.aspx

There's more information in the link.

I told you lootboxes are not gambling.

Shitty microtransaction and anti-consumer lootbox implementation really needs to stop. Games such as Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2.

Like I said in my other topic, Overwatch handles lootboxes extremely well and fair. You can earn lootboxes without paying a cent. It's optional and the game never encourages the player to buy them. This method allows Blizzard to continually update Overwatch with free maps, modes, heroes, and patches for everyone.
---

Well, Belgium hates it and wants the EU to join in. Britain is leaving it.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

You told us so hard

What are you gonna do now that you were right about a thing?
---

Mead posted...

You told us so hard

What are you gonna do now that you were right about a thing?

Tell my mom I won an internet discussion.
---

If Belgium comes back and says loot boxes are gambling do we get to say you were wrong or is the UK the only country that matters?

Duck-I-Says posted...

If Belgium comes back and says loot boxes are gambling do we get to say you were wrong or is the UK the only country that matters?

Every country matters.

I'm not here to win or lose some internet discussion. Most people said I was dead wrong in my lootbox topic. I simply stated my opinion regarding loot boxes.
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

Duck-I-Says posted...

If Belgium comes back and says loot boxes are gambling do we get to say you were wrong or is the UK the only country that matters?

Every country matters.

I'm not here to win or lose some internet discussion. Most people said I was dead wrong in my lootbox topic. I simply stated my opinion regarding loot boxes.

Its such a massive gray area. I doubt legislation will even be necessary at this point... Loot boxes like BF2s are the biggest gaming pariah since the always on Xbox One announcement. Its the of
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

This method allows Blizzard to continually update Overwatch with free maps, modes, heroes, and patches for everyone.

Surprised EA haven't used this excuse.
---

meh there's a lot of other countries to go
---

Well U.K. Is also a country filled with out of touch hikes, their opinion hardly matters and won't effect anything
---

Advertising gambling was re-legalised here a few years back (probably to counterbalance anti-smoking regulation) so the UK isn't the best place to talk about gambling ethics.
---

Funny how all of a sudden most of you guys claim the UK's Committee is irrelevant and out of touch just because it their statement doesn't fit your narrative. Had it been the other way around I'd see a bunch of "lmao you were wrong, get rekt."
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired via a game of chance can be considered money or moneys worth. In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.

Reminds me of how the game hall and the prize hall are technically different companies in Pachinko parlors. Since you can't cash out the chips in the game hall, it's not gambling. There's another company down the street that trades chips for prizes and money, but you can't call merely cashing in chips "gambling" either. And, of course, there are no laws against two companies buying and selling to each other.

Am I misunderstanding, or isn't this pretty much the exact same ruling? They're saying that because players can only sell the e.g. Platinum to third parties, instead of the company running the game, it's not gambling.
---

You told us full pockets be full?

pipebomb_phil posted...

Funny how all of a sudden most of you guys claim the UK's Committee is irrelevant and out of touch just because it their statement doesn't fit your narrative. Had it been the other way around I'd see a bunch of "lmao you were wrong, get rekt."

Some people might. Some people such as myself know that government authority does not come to decisions based on reality or logic, but rather based on who's paying their bills. I wouldn't at all be surprised to hear that representatives from game companies lobby to politicians to side with them, and that Belgium is simply fishing for bribes. There's a lot more money to be had from large corporations such as EA, rather than some non profit moms against gambling group.
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

I'm not here to win or lose some internet discussion.

pipebomb_phil posted...

I told you guys.

pipebomb_phil posted...

I told you lootboxes are not gambling.

Sure sounds like you're trying to win something.

Idk why they take fake gambling out of Pokemon but let companies charge real money for it
---

Lootboxes aren't gambling. Lootboxes are worse than gambling because you can't actually win money out of it.
---

So gambling games that don't involve real money should not be classified as gambling genre, say in App stores. ie the stigma that prevents a game to be sold and marketed to minors.
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

Funny how all of a sudden most of you guys claim the UK's Committee is irrelevant and out of touch just because it their statement doesn't fit your narrative.

I think it's more a matter of thinking they're wrong than anything else, and the government is certainly not above logical scrutiny. People have reasons for lumping loot boxes in with gambling. The UK's focus here is on whether or not there's a monetary prize involved, which most people in favour of loot box regulations don't see as being particularly relevant. Instead, those people focus on the psychological principles that are exploited by gambling, which are also exploited by loot boxes. Gambling regulations exist to protect people from that exploitation (which can easily result in addiction), and therefore should also be applied to any other examples of that exploitation.

Basically, it doesn't matter if it's gambling or not. What matters is that it should be regulated for the same reason gambling is regulated.

pipebomb_phil posted...

This method allows Blizzard to continually update Overwatch with free maps, modes, heroes, and patches for everyone.

As I mentioned in your other topic (and you failed to address), Nintendo's pretty comfortably managing to provide a steady stream of updated content to Splatoon and ARMS without charging more than the shelf price of $60. Perhaps Blizzard should be asking Nintendo for advice on running online games if they're concerned about their ability to do the same.
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

Well U.K. Is also a country filled with out of touch hikes, their opinion hardly matters and won't effect anything

hey you take that back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71cY9Ysy5U
---

To be fair, they didn't actually say that. They just said that it's not currently within their powers to regulate them if they don't cross the line mentioned in the article. Ultimately, it's the job of Parliament to decide whether the laws need updating. Perhaps the current legal definition isn't up to scratch.