Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Superman0X

In an official statement from the Belgian Gaming Commision, they declare that lootboxes are gambling:

https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf

With the definitions that they give, they make it clear that all lootboxes are now illegal in Belgium. They recommend criminal prosecution on this basis. (Note: They will not proceed with this until the Minister of Justice meets with industry stakeholders).

I would expect to see lootboxes pulled ASAP, but also to see legal challenges to several of the definitions that they have given. I am also not certain how this affects the EU in general vs just Belgium.

Quizzical

What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

Albatroes

I'd just like to give a shoutout to EA for publicly being greedy arsehats and helping to put lootboxes into a political spotlight across the globe.

Superman0X

Quizzical said:

What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

At this time it would not be an unreasonable response from all online gaming companies to simply IP block Belgium until they meet with the commissioner. The ruling is very clear, and most companies are risk averse.

Albatroes

Quizzical said:

What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

Chances are games that want to continue to have their lootboxes will have to just officer a Belgium exclusive client/server/etc in order to continue to do business. I think Activision-Blizzard did some work around or something with overwatch in China by offering the boxes for free but selling the keys instead (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

Superman0X

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

sui2k

don't underestimate it. it isn't just Belgium Netherlands, England even Germany are going to rule on this. this will be a huge impact in the EU for "lootboxes" declared as gambling.

Superman0X

sui2k said:

don't underestimate it. it isn't just Belgium Netherlands, England even Germany are going to rule on this. this will be a huge impact in the EU for "lootboxes" declared as gambling.

Declaring them gambling is not a big deal. What is a big deal is WHY they are determined to be gambling, as that effects a lot more.

Utinni

I'm not a fan of loot boxes but this is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps I've just never felt compelled to buy loot boxes, especially on the main grounds of this document of "someone else has cool shit so I feel pressured to buy loot boxes". 

Slapshot1188

Progress

Asm0deus

Slapshot1188 said:

Progress

Agreed.

Now other countries need to get off their asses and follow suit.  I am a grown man and don't care if other grown ups want to gamble HOWEVER please do so in the appropriate venue.

Hawaii up next?

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Naw it's not dumb.  What you're talking about isn't lootboxes but RNG in chests etc.  In your example there's no IRL monies involved whatsoever.

  Lootboxes are loot boxes because somewhere along the line REAL MONEY is used to get them, open them or buy in game currency to use them etc or some variation of this.

Superman0X

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

The key is:

 a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay,

If it can not be obtained directly or indirectly via money, then it fails the bet criteria as defined. They also explicatively stated that they were not considering game purchase price, or monthly subscription at this time. However, let me modify your statement, and speculate:

Lets say a B2P game, with two versions, one that does not include any lootboxes, and one that cost extra, and does.

This might fall under the current ruling, but is not specifically called out as such.

The other example is:

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are tradeable.

This would NOT fall under the current ruling, as tradeability is not relevant to the gambling criteria.

DMKano said:

Quizzical said:

What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

What would happen is the lootbox laws would be reversed after enough gamers got pissed off and petitioned to have it removed

The statements made by the gaming commission are an interpretation of the existing law, not a new law. This would require that the existing law be revoked or amended.

Wizardry

Of course it is gambling and should fall under the law EVERYWHERE and soon it will..It is just that the law in general is very lazy..slow,it takes a large public eye and controversy to get government officials to take action.
It only proves that businesses have ZERO ethics,they couldn't care less about anyone but themselves,remember that the next time you hear about some developer claims they listen to the gamer's.
Yeah they listen and hear what they want to hear,if it gives them good PR they are all over it.
Really sad that is is the law that has to FORCE businesses to act properly,people won't act accordingly on their own.

Horusra

Asm0deus said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Progress

Agreed.

Now other countries need to get off their asses and follow suit.  I am a grown man and don't care if other grown ups want to gamble HOWEVER please do so in the appropriate venue.

Hawaii up next?

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Naw it's not dumb.  What you're talking about isn't lootboxes DMKano but rng in chests etc.

  Lootboxes are loot boxes because somewhere along the line REAL MONEY is used to get them open them or buy in game currency to use them etc.

I do not believe that Hawaii can do much on its own except ban people from accessing the sites.  Much like with Fantasy sports.  

Asm0deus

DMKano said:

Asm0deus said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Progress

Agreed.

Now other countries need to get off their asses and follow suit.  I am a grown man and don't care if other grown ups want to gamble HOWEVER please do so in the appropriate venue.

Hawaii up next?

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Naw it's not dumb.  What you're talking about isn't lootboxes DMKano but rng in chests etc.

  Lootboxes are loot boxes because somewhere along the line REAL MONEY is used to get them open them or buy in game currency to use them etc.

No lootboxes can be lootboxes without any real money involved.

box with rng loot = lootbox

Where does it say that it has to be obtained by any currency be it in-game or real money?


Are they creating a new definition for a lootbox?

No.

We have had endgame chests or dungeon chest with elements of RNG in them forever that is not a lootbox.

A lootbox are the new "chests" that can drop anywhere but REQUIRE real life, somewhere down the line, money to use.

If you buy a b2p game and loot drops in a dungeon chest but you can only do so many dungeons per day or only open so many per day they are not lootboxes...it's a game mechanic.

If lootboxes are added in solely for the purpose to "make real life monies" by getting the whales, kiddies etc etc to fork out cash they are loot boxes. It's the same mechanic used in gambling in casinos and other internet gambling sites.

Superman0X

DMKano said:

Asm0deus said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Progress

Agreed.

Now other countries need to get off their asses and follow suit.  I am a grown man and don't care if other grown ups want to gamble HOWEVER please do so in the appropriate venue.

Hawaii up next?

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Naw it's not dumb.  What you're talking about isn't lootboxes DMKano but rng in chests etc.

  Lootboxes are loot boxes because somewhere along the line REAL MONEY is used to get them open them or buy in game currency to use them etc.

No lootboxes can be lootboxes without any real money involved.

box with rng loot = lootbox

Where does it say that it has to be obtained by any currency be it in-game or real money?


Are they creating a new definition for a lootbox?

Start with section 5:

a game of chance is any game whereby a bet of any kind that is placed leads to the loss of this bet by at least one of the players, or a win of any kind for at least one of the players or organisers of the game, and whereby chance may even be a secondary element in the course of the game, indication of the winner or determination of the size of the winnings.

The element in question is the 'bet'

Then under 5.1.2

In this investigation, we assume that neither the purchase of the game nor the subscriptions that are connected to games for playing online can be considered as a wager.4

So when the player purchases in-game currency to buy a loot box, this constitutes a wager in the sense of the Belgian Gaming and Betting Act because an asset value is brought into the game that serves as a participation fee/compensation fee for the loot box. This is not the case if the loot box is purchased with game-play currency.51 A fortiori, a direct purchase of a loot box in the game without the necessity of in-game currency being used, such as in Overwatch and CS GO, is thus considered to be a wager in the sense of the Gaming and Betting Act. 

So, it is clear that the direct purchase via currency, or the indirect purchase via virtual currency purchased with real currency qualifies. They clearly state that they do not consider the purchase of the game or subscriptions at this time.

 Game-play currency consists of virtual currencies (points, coins, crystal, etc.) that a player gets when playing the game but that he cannot necessarily purchase. It is a type of virtual reward system for the player. Usually he will be able to bet these currencies in the game at some point.49 In Overwatch, for example, the player can purchase items with such coins (“credits”) in the “Hero Gallery”. Social psychology shows us that these rewards are very sophisticated. Sometimes the rewards are trivial for an outsider and sometimes they do not affect the game (e.g., the colour of a T-shirt), but they Attention: this document has been translated from Dutch to English. The official version is in Dutch. 10 can be quite important to the course of the game. In any case, we do not consider the gameplay currency as a wager in the sense of the Gaming and Betting Act if this cannot be purchased

They also state that they do not consider virtual currency earned in game to qualify for this.

Dvora

DMKano said:

Quizzical said:

What happens if game companies respond to this by banning people from accessing the game from Belgium?  Or by saying that you can't buy loot boxes from Belgium, but will have to compete against people from other countries who are powered up by loot boxes?

What would happen is the lootbox laws would be reversed after enough gamers got pissed off and petitioned to have it removed

I really hope a majority of people are not stupid enough to do that.

Dvora

Wizardry said:

Of course it is gambling and should fall under the law EVERYWHERE and soon it will..It is just that the law in general is very lazy..slow,it takes a large public eye and controversy to get government officials to take action.
It only proves that businesses have ZERO ethics,they couldn't care less about anyone but themselves,remember that the next time you hear about some developer claims they listen to the gamer's.
Yeah they listen and hear what they want to hear,if it gives them good PR they are all over it.
Really sad that is is the law that has to FORCE businesses to act properly,people won't act accordingly on their own.

it takes high visibility and controvery OR the scent of money to be made.  I could very easily see this going from illegal to being illegal without an expensive license and/or percentage fees.

IMO that's not right, either it's abusive and wrong or it is not.  Part of what separates abusive loot boxes from standard gambling, other than lame and shitty P2W is that most games don't even publish odds of each prize.  

Slapshot1188

DMKano said:

Oh btw just 2 days ago EA has decided to keep putting lootboxes in its games

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/09/ea-loot-boxes-are-gambling-heres-more-loot-boxes/

Guess they are going to have to revisit that decision soon

Asm0deus

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.

It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.

Cryomatrix

Has anyone looked at how much more profitable a loot box is compared to just allowing people to buy said items with in-game currency. 

I am sure it is way more profitable, but does anyone have any figures?

My personal view is that loot boxes are lame, but there are tons of lame things in life that are not illegal, i guess it depends on where you are on the spectrum. 

Cryomatrix

Superman0X

Asm0deus said:

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.

It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.

Not as easily said, as done. I will give you an example from a system that I have already used for monetization.

You dont sell lootboxes, you give them in game, using virtual currency earned in game. This would not be gambling, even with the current interpretation.

The way to monetize this is to make the boxes with good stuff cost a fortune, and sell items that increase how much currency you earn in game. Increasing in game returns for a price is not gambling, and this does not make the in game boxes gambling.

You are just moving the target to something that does not qualify under the rules. I can think of a few other ways as well, and this is just the first day... I am sure that with a little though, a solid work around will be found.

Raventhall

It's a bit of s stretch but I am comfortable with not enticing kids into gambling or gambling like mechanics with real money.  Even if the items are virtual.  

The end result maybe that the games that have this are forced to be mature rated.  I wonder how layered RMT will be handed with lootboxes?   

Asm0deus

Torval said:

I'm not that clever and I have thought of lots of fun ways to play around with this.

Instead of loot crates, you can pay extra real money for a content run where the rewards are better. Buy a consumable dungeon run. It's a one-off instance with great rewards and it's not too challenging (you can't die). It's not a loot crate.

You sell cash shop items such as an XP boost for $2. It also comes with random extra goodies. You're buying an XP boost, not a loot crate.

Those are just crude brainstorming ideas. Smart people will come up with much more clever things than I. My inner conspiracy theorist says the lawyers concocted this as a way to bleed everyone in court.

Indeed but what will happen is this will essentially be a f2p cashshop outright selling loot and runs and as such these game will likely self regulate themselves as the games fail or not.

The thing is criminals and lawyers will always and I mean always attempt to find ways around laws to turn a profits...hell car companies often don't recall cars with known defects because the bean counters calculate it would be more costly to repair at no charge all the cars they would need to recall than just pay up in a lawsuit to the odd few that do bring them to court and win....

...this doens't mean we just throw our hands in the air and say fudge let's pillage our way through life and roll over cause it's easier...

I am sure they will try and finagle their way around this but that the nature of things and when they do the law makers will just have to look at things then and decide if they want to counter or not.

It's like the gambling industry...I am sure they wish they could just go back to the good ole days where it was regulated or just barely..

Asm0deus

Superman0X said:

Asm0deus said:

Torval said:

DMKano said:

Superman0X said:

DMKano said:

No not all.

It has to have real world value.

Otherwise games that have untradable lootboxes for in game currency only would also fall under this

They make it very clear in their review that real world value is no longer a requirement. And yes, if those lootboxes can be purchased with real money (or via a virtual currency that can be obtained for real money) then they fall under this ruling.  Read the section for Overwatch for some examples of their thinking. Items obtained from the Overwatch lootboxes are only cosmetic, and can not be traded.

Then this is beyond moronic.

Lets say a B2P game without a cash shop has a lootbox mechanic that can only br obtained via gameplay, lets say its a reward for dungeon completion and the lootbox as well as all items are player bound.

Lets say the game is also single player.

If that falls under a gambling law - it is the dumbest shit ever.


There must be guidelines established for tradability with other players for some real world value.

Who is going to decide where the RNG for money ends?

Is it a loot crate if it can damage your "character" back and opening it is gamified through a combat simulation? If so then that will screw up a lot of RPGs. If not then all studios need to do is gamify their loot crates. Make them look like a monster and provide a combat simulation.

However this plays out, it will be interesting to see how studios and publishers solve this puzzle. I think Belgium will find they're in the same situation publishers are with gold farmers. They're going for a moving target.

It not hard at all to define guys....a lootbox is a lootbox when using or opening it requires real life money at some point.

It doesn't matter if companies try to find loopholes like saying but you open them "trion points"......

... if you need to buy those trion points with real money then they are lootboxes and it doesn't matter if you buy those trion points of the AH with in game gold, if the person selling on the AH had to use real life money to sell the trion points in game then they are still lootboxes.

Remove the real life money part of the equation or mechanic then they become CHESTS with RNG elements and are no longer lootboxes.

Not as easily said, as done. I will give you an example from a system that I have already used for monetization.

You dont sell lootboxes, you give them in game, using virtual currency earned in game. This would not be gambling, even with the current interpretation.

The way to monetize this is to make the boxes with good stuff cost a fortune, and sell items that increase how much currency you earn in game. Increasing in game returns for a price is not gambling, and this does not make the in game boxes gambling.

You are just moving the target to something that does not qualify under the rules. I can think of a few other ways as well, and this is just the first day... I am sure that with a little though, a solid work around will be found.

Yes I know you from aeriagames and as such am aware of their scummy practices, hell they even knowingly sold broken items in the cash shop...ahem last chaos summon cards or w/e they were called.   (In this case though the game would just be a blatant p2w game and hopefully fail on it's own)

If I recall the words of the GM in the game he said something along the lines of,  "if people are stupid enough to keep buying these broken items we will keep selling them..."




Things have just gotten ridiculous and something needs to be done and we need to start somewhere so my point still stands... if they change the goal post so be it, at some point so will the law makers if it's too obvious.

papabear151

Rhoklaw said:

Sorry EA, time to go back to making real games with actual content instead of F2P / B2P crap supported by ridiculous P2W cash shop shenanigans.

And there it is folks.

The reality of the situation is that 99% of these people out here bitching about loot boxes and gambling have never once spent a second of their life complaining about any other form of gambling. You people really just want to force a company to make games that YOU want them to make.

Just look at battlefront 2. Instead of just not buying a product they aren't interested in buying, like they do with every other thing they don't want, they are freaking out about it. This has never been about gambling, it's about an addiction.

You people needed your star wars fix and rather than just accepting that they made a game with features that you didn't like you went out on some bullshit crusade about something you don't even remotely care about (gambling) so that you could use it as an excuse to try to get the government to strong arm companies into making the games that you want.