Canadian Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes Say EA 'Operated an Unlicensed, Illegal Gaming System' | MMORPG.com

System

Canadian Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes Say EA 'Operated an Unlicensed, Illegal Gaming System' | MMORPG.com

EA is back in the news for the reasons you might expect. Loot boxes. Yup.

Read the full story here

Ir1shguy

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.

What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

Aeander

Ir1shguy said:

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.

What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

What the fuck? That is legit one of the most majestically bad takes I've seen all year.

And this is the year in which the president unironically asked if we could inject bleach to kill the coronavirus.

laserit

Its not me

Mendel

Ir1shguy said:

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.

What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

Am I missing something here?  A Canadian lawsuit representing people living in Canada is somehow relying on other countries laws against gambling?  A multinational company doing business in a country (Canada) is required to do business according to the laws in that country (Canada).  Seems pretty legit as a basis for a complaint.  I think we need to see what the Canadian courts have to see about it.

MrTuggles

Loot boxes and gacha games really just need to go away. They are a terrible mechanic that preys on specific types of individuals.

Quizzical

"EA is back in the news for the reasons you might expect. Loot boxes."

You say that as though loot boxes are the only reason why gamers hate EA, rather than just one out of a very long list.

laserit

Knowing our courts it will probably take a decade to get a ruling

SaltyDog79

laserit said:

Knowing our courts it will probably take a decade to get a ruling

Sad, but true. **sad trombone**

alkarionlog

MrTuggles said:

Loot boxes and gacha games really just need to go away. They are a terrible mechanic that preys on specific types of individuals.

they would go faster, if people stop selling they panties to pay for such gachas, asking for goverment make a law normally backfire big time and its then abused in some other way, but if people learn and used they heads maybe things was no so bad

BruceYee

Why are they specifically targeting EA? There are hundreds of other PC & mobile games with the exact same type of monetization systems. Did EA not pay off the right people or something?

Ungood

BruceYee said:

Why are they specifically targeting EA? There are hundreds of other PC & mobile games with the exact same type of monetization systems. Did EA not pay off the right people or something?

For the same reason that lawsuits target McDonalds and not Winerschnitzel (outside ease of spelling and saying the name of course), is because high profile cases attract public eye and support, and gain attention for the cause.

BizkitNL

MrTuggles said:

Loot boxes and gacha games really just need to go away. They are a terrible mechanic that preys on specific types of individuals.

Oi oi oi. You keep my Gachas out of this.

Aethaeryn

Ir1shguy said:

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.

What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

Do you buy 1000 copies of the game hoping for a better game?  Nope.

Asm0deus

Good I hope this lawsuit wins and we see more laws like in ..Sweden I think it was?

Couple of other countries have made loot boxes illegal so I hope we see that spread to other countries now...it's got to start somewhere.

BruceYee

Ungood said:

BruceYee said:

Why are they specifically targeting EA? There are hundreds of other PC & mobile games with the exact same type of monetization systems. Did EA not pay off the right people or something?

For the same reason that lawsuits target McDonalds and not Winerschnitzel (outside ease of spelling and saying the name of course), is because high profile cases attract public eye and support, and gain attention for the cause.

Show me a real example of that happening.

Unless Canada turned into a communist country recently you can't target a single entity over the same thing hundreds of others do. It has to be specific otherwise it's just a show lawsuit that a 1st year law student for EA can win.

CA - You have gambling in your games.

EA 1st year law student - Here are examples of hundreds of other games with the exact same monetization systems that make 10x the amount we do.

The end.

kitarad

Ir1shguy said:

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.

What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

Did you bother to read what you wrote? Buying games is not gambling. 

'Gambling (also known as betting) is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods'

Loot boxes are a mechanic where a player pays either with in-game currency or real money for a randomized in-game item. That is not similar and isn't under stretch of imagination the same thing as buying a game.


Rules and laws are breached all the time. It does not mean that if no law suits are brought against all the other breaches that the one you pursue will fail. As long as there is evidence to support the suit it can succeed. You don't have to show that you are bringing a case against every breach and it is also no defense that other people breaking the rules or law are not being sued and neither does it legalize those actions.

You only need to set a precedent by winning a case to make the other forms of monetization to run foul of that case. Which is probably what this suit is trying to do.

Vrika

BruceYee said:

Ungood said:

BruceYee said:

Why are they specifically targeting EA? There are hundreds of other PC & mobile games with the exact same type of monetization systems. Did EA not pay off the right people or something?

For the same reason that lawsuits target McDonalds and not Winerschnitzel (outside ease of spelling and saying the name of course), is because high profile cases attract public eye and support, and gain attention for the cause.

Show me a real example of that happening.

Unless Canada turned into a communist country recently you can't target a single entity over the same thing hundreds of others do. It has to be specific otherwise it's just a show lawsuit that a 1st year law student for EA can win.

CA - You have gambling in your games.

EA 1st year law student - Here are examples of hundreds of other games with the exact same monetization systems that make 10x the amount we do.

The end.

False. The court can find that something is against law no matter how many people do it.

A lot of laws about consumer protection, advertising, and business practices actually evolve that way. Business constantly evolves and does new and different things, and occasionally some of those are taken into court so far that it becomes a precedent for whether something is allowed or forbidden. Often rest of the business world then follows that precedent out of their own initiative if it's something that's not too expensive to change.

Ungood

BruceYee said:

Ungood said:

BruceYee said:

Why are they specifically targeting EA? There are hundreds of other PC & mobile games with the exact same type of monetization systems. Did EA not pay off the right people or something?

For the same reason that lawsuits target McDonalds and not Winerschnitzel (outside ease of spelling and saying the name of course), is because high profile cases attract public eye and support, and gain attention for the cause.

Show me a real example of that happening.

Unless Canada turned into a communist country recently you can't target a single entity over the same thing hundreds of others do. It has to be specific otherwise it's just a show lawsuit that a 1st year law student for EA can win.

CA - You have gambling in your games.

EA 1st year law student - Here are examples of hundreds of other games with the exact same monetization systems that make 10x the amount we do.

The end.

This is not true at all, this why landmark cases against one entity set the stage for changes among all similar entities, and we have what is called a Cascade effect.

One tumbles and the others follow.

Often in those cases, it is always best to go after high profile clients, that can do their best to defend, because during that legal process they close all the loopholes going forward.

As far as legality goes, If the fact that others did it, was enough to claim something was legal, nothing would be illegal. Case in point, you don't need to catch all the speeders.. 

koha23

Ir1shguy said:

So these gamers were not happy with wasting money and want it back and are using other countries laws to word it into being gambling. I mean they do the same when they pay for the game, they gamble that money on the hopes they will actually like the game.



What about all the other games that do loot boxes but call them something different?

The rest of the world would appreciate it if you'd stop dickriding your corporate overlords with takes a troglodyte would laugh at

Scorchien

                                            Waste of Time

Phoenix_Hawk

People, especially after Genshin, keep getting worked up about how terrible gachas can be, and wonder if the popularity of Genshin will mean such things will start moving into PC/console games. I keep looking at those statements, and saying, "what about loot boxes in cash shops, and other such things that PC online games have been using years before mobile gacha games were ever a thing?"

Aside from that, I can't for the life of me understand why so many fawn over the profit model in Warframe. It works around the effort to make things as uncomfortable as possible, to get people to spend money, directly, or indirectly. This is done through horrible drop rates, a pathetic trade chat channel, rather than a proper marketplace UI, removing the cash shop currency as a possible log-in reward, making their cash shop currency overpriced, resources that expire, changing the void system so you apparently can't stockpile keys in advance anymore, with available void areas themselves being time limited, and so on. Warframe is one of my go to examples of a bad profit model, yet so many Western players hold it up as some sort of ideal, rather than something like Path of Exile.

Quizzical

It says right here that lawsuits are also surprise mechanics, just like loot boxes.

Amathe

Suppose the best possible items in a loot box were a sword, a robe, or a panda pet.

If the company just gave everyone a sword, a robe, and a panda pet, would that moot the loot box claim? 

Or would the fact that some paid while others did not pay change things?

Then again, they would have received what they paid for, so where would be the harm?

Or is the harm the loss of the rarity of the items?

Wow. This would make a great exam question.

Ungood

Amathe said:

Suppose the best possible items in a loot box were a sword, a robe, or a panda pet.

If the company just gave everyone a sword, a robe, and a panda pet, would that moot the loot box claim? 

Or would the fact that some paid while others did not pay change things?

Then again, they would have received what they paid for, so where would be the harm?

Or is the harm the loss of the rarity of the items?

Wow. This would make a great exam question.

I believe the main point of contention is the idea of playing games of chance for real money in a game that is not licenced by the gambling commission to ensure that that game is fair to the contestants. 

I personally feel that when it comes to MMO's, they should just sell wears straight up in the store, so there is no sense of deception, leave the rng games to the mob drops where it belongs.

This is why I love the selling of DNC by the company, and letting players farm for their loot.

Wizardry

Blizzard is doing the same thing with card packs.

Also I could be wrong but I thought when incorporating gambling you had to disclose the odds as well.
So I just did a quick check and I see the monopolies must be expecting new legislature because the yare going to require all their developers to disclose gambling odds.So my assumption is that this is an early sign they see huge lawsuits happening and are trying to BEND the rules while still operating as a gambling entity that also relates to minors.
I also mentioned a couple weeks ago that a MTL lawyer team are or were in the mist of suing Epic games for incorporating "addictive" measures towards minors.

Now as scummy as dev studios are they have long thwarted legal action by claiming they never "target" minors but they know full well that is not true.They target EVERYONE and so happens minors are included as being "everyone".So again the law needs more changes all over the place because a slick lawyer will simply say the law says they have to "specifically" target minors and not as an inclusive.

it doesn't matter how you slice it or the "wording/terms"used by their slick lawyers,they KNOW full well they are undermining the law and are very scummy for doing so.