I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
You can't sell most of loot boxes drops from games.
That's the whole issue with loot boxes: They don't give you value. You are making a random purchase of contents that has no value because there is no market - Asides the % of rarity that could define chance, but not value.
That's the thing, people are starting to realize that: if you purchase a Magic: The Gathering Booster pack that comes random cards on it (but with fixed numbers of certain tiers of rarity) you can sell those cards (singles) to stores or another players, thus getting value out of it; Can you do the same with Hearthstone cards? You can dismantle them for dust, and that's it.
Besides, anyone in Magic community knows that if you are not a dealer boosters are only for drafts. So even in the oldest of it's form, loot boxes are not used to open and get what's inside. You want cards? Buy singles! Boosters are for drafts! Can you do the same in every other iteration of loot boxes? No. That's the point.
When you purchase a lootbox you ALWAYS get something in return from your investment.
There's no element of chance in that regard, you can never lose.
Whether someone got what they wanted, or what they got wasn't worth the price is completely irrelevant.
If that argument was relevant, every casino could guarantee a minimum 1 cent credit on every roll, and would thus not constitute as gambling and would be exempt from gambling regulations by this definition.
Common sense would dictate that receiving 1 cent less profit on every roll would hurt casinos less than being exempt from gambling laws and gaining a larger costumer base would help them. In other words, the fact that casinos don't already do this is a practical demonstration that this is bullshit.
It is relevant when people conflate lootboxes with casino gambling. They're not the same.
Except that I just argued the very reason why you are claiming that casino gambling and lootboxes are not comparable. If that criteria is bunk, then you will need a new criteria as to why these two forms of gambling are not effectively comparable.
You can never recoup your losses when "winning" with your lootbox.
You can't feed your "gambling" with the contents of your lootbox.
Lootboxes are comparable to collectible sticker cards, kinder eggs and fair ground coconut shy stalls.
You can in any lootbox system with player trading and/or marketplaces as an option. Ie: DotA2 and CS:GO, which have also run afoul of Belgian gambling laws. Try again.
The argument there is the original vendor is not running those markets therefore it's not gambling.
What others chose to do with "digital" goods is beyond anyone's control.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Pretty sure Belgium will lose if this goes to court, no offense, but I'm confident that EA have better lawyers than Belgium(not the country as a whole, but those that work for the government) and they have already gone through all possible scenarios and are certain that they can win.
Belgium is not the US - no jury to sway just judges who will apply the law. So - as @kitarad said it will come down to how the law is crafted.
Pretty sure that as things are now Belgium stands no chance. Making loot boxes count as gambling might've passed as a law in Belgium, but as EA have already responded with their twisted logic they don't count them as gambling and I'm pretty sure that no one will be able to win a case against EA saying that certain loot from lootboxes is worth more than other because the loot is not meant to be sold for real money.
Also I'm not aware of the laws in the US, but pretty sure in this type of cases there is no jury, only both sides and the judge.
P.S. Btw all the people that think it's the "right" thing to do to stop selling loot boxes there... From ethical stand point, YES it is, however if companies don't respond to this there are high chances that a lot of countries will follow and while only Belgium having this law might have almost no lasting effect on the overall income of the companies in the long run if more companies follow their steps... You can guess the end result... millions and possibly billions of potential income will disappear, so they really don't have a choice.
I'm a Blizzard fan, but in my eyes they tried to play the "ethical" company and let other major companies do the fight for them, so that they don't ruin their image, because it was obvious that major companies won't take this laying down.
WTF are you saying? Belgian law applies in Belgium. A case in Belgium is going to be decided in a Belgian court.
Perhaps. EA may be planning on appealing the case to the European Court of Justice, on whether or not loot boxes really are gambling.
It appears they might have jurisdiction over this case in some manner. The last sentence is of particular note in EA's situation, 'the freedom to provide services...'
"There is no sector-specific EU legislation in the field of gambling services. EU countries are autonomous in the way they organise their gambling services, as long as they comply with the fundamental freedoms established under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU. The freedom to provide services or to open a business in another EU country is particularly relevant here."
The definition of gambling comes from Belgian law, and I don't think EA can contest that based on any EU laws.
EA could try to argue that some EU law makes Belgian online gambling legislation illegal, but considering that large gambling companies haven't managed to overturn Belgium's legislation so far I don't think EA has very good chance either.
Yeah i think that if there is demand for such digital goods, there should be someone who provides them. Regulating the market is not a good idea usually. If the product is bad, there will be no demand for it, so if people want to buy the lootboxes, let them buy.
And if we will feel that these are pay to win lootboxes, we will stop playing the games, and they will have to adjust not to lose the income. Free market works great
I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
You can't sell most of loot boxes drops from games.
That's the whole issue with loot boxes: They don't give you value. You are making a random purchase of contents that has no value because there is no market - Asides the % of rarity that could define chance, but not value.
That's the thing, people are starting to realize that: if you purchase a Magic: The Gathering Booster pack that comes random cards on it (but with fixed numbers of certain tiers of rarity) you can sell those cards (singles) to stores or another players, thus getting value out of it; Can you do the same with Hearthstone cards? You can dismantle them for dust, and that's it.
Besides, anyone in Magic community knows that if you are not a dealer boosters are only for drafts. So even in the oldest of it's form, loot boxes are not used to open and get what's inside. You want cards? Buy singles! Boosters are for drafts! Can you do the same in every other iteration of loot boxes? No. That's the point.
When you purchase a lootbox you ALWAYS get something in return from your investment.
There's no element of chance in that regard, you can never lose.
Whether someone got what they wanted, or what they got wasn't worth the price is completely irrelevant.
If that argument was relevant, every casino could guarantee a minimum 1 cent credit on every roll, and would thus not constitute as gambling and would be exempt from gambling regulations by this definition.
Common sense would dictate that receiving 1 cent less profit on every roll would hurt casinos less than being exempt from gambling laws and gaining a larger costumer base would help them. In other words, the fact that casinos don't already do this is a practical demonstration that this is bullshit.
It is relevant when people conflate lootboxes with casino gambling. They're not the same.
Except that I just argued the very reason why you are claiming that casino gambling and lootboxes are not comparable. If that criteria is bunk, then you will need a new criteria as to why these two forms of gambling are not effectively comparable.
You can never recoup your losses when "winning" with your lootbox.
You can't feed your "gambling" with the contents of your lootbox.
Lootboxes are comparable to collectible sticker cards, kinder eggs and fair ground coconut shy stalls.
You can in any lootbox system with player trading and/or marketplaces as an option. Ie: DotA2 and CS:GO, which have also run afoul of Belgian gambling laws. Try again.
The argument there is the original vendor is not running those markets therefore it's not gambling.
What others chose to do with "digital" goods is beyond anyone's control.
Again, why we have lawyers and courts to decide.
That may not stand up to court scrutiny. The same argument could've been made in regards to Facebook during the last US election, but Congress saw it differently. They saw the providers as having responsibility for how their services or products were used by clients or consumers, specifically when those actions stood to detrimentally affect other consumers or clients.
It would be interesting to test how much responsibility the courts find developers retain in terms of creating the conditions for a "black market" to arise and flourish.
I am not sure that there is any intent by EA to force legal proceedings. It is just more likely that they are procrastinating, and if an actual court case appears, they will stop sales until it is settled.
I am not sure that there is any intent by EA to force legal proceedings. It is just more likely that they are procrastinating, and if an actual court case appears, they will stop sales until it is settled.
I was wondering that as well. Unless the lawmakes have threatened some kind of action, EA isn't really hurting themselves by delaying. I doubt Belgium goes overboard with any repercussions should EA acquiesce when called out specifically by the governing body.
The honorable thing to do is to stop selling the things in Belgium and then challenge the law in court.
Respect a countries laws
Screw you EA
I agree, if I was in charge of EA, I'd suspend Service to any game that had Loot Boxes to anyone in Belgium until the issue was resolved, IE: Indefinitely until Belgium let us sell Loot Boxes.
I would also withhold any future sales to that country until the issue was resolved.
After all, there are about the same number of people in the entire country of Belgium as there are in the City of New York.
I could afford to not do business there.
Yeah, Belgium isn't that big, but EA is looking further, like what if all of EU would ban lootboxes? That will be a huge market gone. So they start the fight now.
But I think EA is making a big mistake. Even if they win the fight about lootboxes. Belgium could just ban their entire game to be sold in the country instead.
Yes, but if Belgium bans the game out of some butt-hurt crybaby antic, there is less chance that the rest of EU will follow suit, as it would just make Belgium look like whiners.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think the large questions here are how long the case takes and whether EA is allowed to continue selling lootboxes while it's being argued. If they can bog it down to court system for something like 5 years, then it doesn't really matter even if they eventually lose and are forbidden from selling lootboxes in Fifa 2018 from 2023 onwards.
canada got kinda the same stuft going on with UPS, a delivery packet company with earning of like 60 billions each year, they charge 2X the tps/tvq of like 20% over any stuft buy... 2 times online.
they are illegal because they are suposed to charge the tps/tvq taxes of like 20% only one time, canada got a law againts something like that with delivery online. but they charge it again a second time when the delivery hit the canadian border agency, even the canadian border agency say what they are doing are totaly illegal....
they have pay fine 3 times so far, many millions of dollars each time....
but they dont stop doing it... why ? they are probably earning more that the fine the canada give them after each time a very long time...
these big company dont realy care about law...
if EA earn more with their lootboxes for all the time it take in court, even if they pay millions in the end, they will do it.
Yeah i think that if there is demand for such digital goods, there should be someone who provides them. Regulating the market is not a good idea usually. If the product is bad, there will be no demand for it, so if people want to buy the lootboxes, let them buy.
And if we will feel that these are pay to win lootboxes, we will stop playing the games, and they will have to adjust not to lose the income. Free market works great
Belgium isn't really banning any contents of the lootboxes, they're just banning the marketing method (sell it in a box with unknown contents).
I don't think marketing methods should be allowed simply because there are people who buy if you use that kind of marketing.
If you fight belgium and lose, the monetary damages will be a drop in the bucket for EA unlike if you fight europe and lose. It makes for a very good test case, and it also makes some pushback in the overton window on this whole thing. It is a win/win for EA to pursue it.
The honorable thing to do is to stop selling the things in Belgium and then challenge the law in court.
Respect a countries laws
Screw you EA
I agree, if I was in charge of EA, I'd suspend Service to any game that had Loot Boxes to anyone in Belgium until the issue was resolved, IE: Indefinitely until Belgium let us sell Loot Boxes.
I would also withhold any future sales to that country until the issue was resolved.
After all, there are about the same number of people in the entire country of Belgium as there are in the City of New York.
I could afford to not do business there.
Well... that would be a win for Belgium
Less wealth being taken out of the country.
Sort of, a lot of other companies might pull out as well, like Activision-Blizzard, NCSoft, Etc, that also use "Lootbox" like items, which will just limit their product availability.
Not to mention this could hurt their own video game development companies as these publishers might also refuse to work with developers in Belgium, which severely limits their world market.
Not that I think Belgium is big on the video game industry in either or any direction. They are for the most part a drop in the pond.
Much in the same way Autodesk does not directly sell any of their products in the EU anymore due to legality issues.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair midways or back alleys.
Online gaming monetization has been sinking lower and lower using sleazy tricks, including but not exclusive to loot boxes, to the point that their business have all the morality of 3-card monte or other similar cons.
And the old standby "but they've got to make a profit" BS doesn't justify any of it. There are honest and above board ways of making a profit as well as dishonest deceptive ways of doing it.
I despise loot boxes not because they are or aren't gambling but simply because they are a sleazy and disrespectful way to mess with your customers.
Well said!
Loot boxes is where the Game industry went too far and got into immoral territory!
Loot boxes are specifically designed and targeted towards the weak minded gamers in our midst who suffer serious addiction problems and so prepared to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on loot boxes! Exactly how Casino's and black market gambling halls/websites work!
These game companies are in my eyes no longer game companies, but ruthless corporations that only care about maximizing profit! No matter if they financial destroy many people with addiction problems. They no longer care about making just great and enjoyable games, but instead games designed completely around the cash shop and lootboxes, specifically targeted at gamers with an addiction.
Sadly.... it seems most gamers are too weak to vote with their wallets and make a statement once and for all.... NO MORE of this greed and lootbox crap!
So at least here in Europe we have the EU take the necessary steps for us. Though, in all honesty I really wish all of us gamers would just make a stand and stop buying these games!
That would be the most powerful statement you could make to really stop this! Since Europe is not a big enough market to put a complete stop to loot boxes.
I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
Is that your personal opinion or you got that definition from somewhere?
Because by that definition loot drops from mobs and bosses would also be gambling.
You don't pay a boss $4.99 for a chance at his loot drops.
If you pay a sub then raids would be your only interest then you are gambling?
You're paying for the game content, not the roll.
Lootboxes don't require the playing of any game content. It's a direct purchase of a dice roll.
So any game of chance with the involvement of money isn't gambling. Argument here is you have to make a direct bet.
Regarding content, if the reward is only through a game of chance, and the rest of the content is just filler to get there, makes stuff a bit complicated aye? Like if I make a pool, you'd have to swim through to place your bet at the end on lootbox with a chance of 0 rewards, is that gambling or not? I know, I am a pain in the ass.
Crazy stuff aside, let's take League of Legends cash-shop for example. Now I haven't played a while, but I doubt if it has changed. Lootboxes are cheaper than buying a skin directly, and you have a chance to even get more expensive skins or other stuff. So lootboxes has more value than direct purchases, you'd just be getting random stuff, not exactly what you want. Is that gambling when you lose nothing, you gain more value, and it is properly advertised that rewards are random?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
"Is EA Ready to Go to Court in Belgium Over Lootboxes?" No. They just want their piece of pie. If they actually care about lootboxes they would go on valve.
EA: making good money on lootboxes. Belgium: Psst, we can see you having fun, we want it too. EA: you can $#$%^&! and %^$#@!
Next day Belguim starts official investiontion. >.>
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
Thank you for saying that mate. I believe most people are like you but make excuses like "but the children" or "gambling is evil and addictive". They just want their games without cash-shops.
I used to think like that too. But then I thought about it a bit more and changed my opinion. Here's what I think:
1) I want governments out of video games. 2) I kinda like gaming companies making more monies. 3) You might think this would go against my 2nd point, but it doesn't. I kinda fear what will happen in a world without lootboxes. Because one thing is for sure, we ain't going backwards. They will be replaced by something else, and that will for sure ain't gonna be compassion.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
Is that your personal opinion or you got that definition from somewhere?
Because by that definition loot drops from mobs and bosses would also be gambling.
You don't pay a boss $4.99 for a chance at his loot drops.
If you pay a sub then raids would be your only interest then you are gambling?
You're paying for the game content, not the roll.
Lootboxes don't require the playing of any game content. It's a direct purchase of a dice roll.
So any game of chance with the involvement of money isn't gambling. Argument here is you have to make a direct bet.
Regarding content, if the reward is only through a game of chance, and the rest of the content is just filler to get there, makes stuff a bit complicated aye? Like if I make a pool, you'd have to swim through to place your bet at the end on lootbox with a chance of 0 rewards, is that gambling or not? I know, I am a pain in the ass.
Crazy stuff aside, let's take League of Legends cash-shop for example. Now I haven't played a while, but I doubt if it has changed. Lootboxes are cheaper than buying a skin directly, and you have a chance to even get more expensive skins or other stuff. So lootboxes has more value than direct purchases, you'd just be getting random stuff, not exactly what you want. Is that gambling when you lose nothing, you gain more value, and it is properly advertised that rewards are random?
The fact that they have a value is of primary concern. If a market develops, and some items are worth less selling to other players than the box costs due to how common they are, all of a sudden the lootboxes becomes a direct cash wager for uncertain monetary return that's not guaranteed to be positive at all. In that sense, companies would do well to attempt to halt any "black markets" associated with their lootboxes items. Congress isn't taking the stance anymore that these producers have no responsibility for how their products are used.
Your example of crossing a pool to make a wager seems flawed. If you paid for a ticket, and they placed the bowl across the pool so you have to swim through it to place your ticket in the bowl, that would fail to prevent it from being a direct purchase for a chance to win.
If they charged you to get into the pool area, then across from the entrance was a bowl with tickets you could put in for free if you paid to access the pool area, it's no longer than same as purchasing a chance to win. You paid for access to the pool and it's surrounding areas, not for the chance to win the item. Swimming across a pool isn't a monetary outlay, so requiring it isn't the same as requiring a purchase.
I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
Is that your personal opinion or you got that definition from somewhere?
Because by that definition loot drops from mobs and bosses would also be gambling.
You don't pay a boss $4.99 for a chance at his loot drops.
If you pay a sub then raids would be your only interest then you are gambling?
You're paying for the game content, not the roll.
Lootboxes don't require the playing of any game content. It's a direct purchase of a dice roll.
So any game of chance with the involvement of money isn't gambling. Argument here is you have to make a direct bet.
Regarding content, if the reward is only through a game of chance, and the rest of the content is just filler to get there, makes stuff a bit complicated aye? Like if I make a pool, you'd have to swim through to place your bet at the end on lootbox with a chance of 0 rewards, is that gambling or not? I know, I am a pain in the ass.
Crazy stuff aside, let's take League of Legends cash-shop for example. Now I haven't played a while, but I doubt if it has changed. Lootboxes are cheaper than buying a skin directly, and you have a chance to even get more expensive skins or other stuff. So lootboxes has more value than direct purchases, you'd just be getting random stuff, not exactly what you want. Is that gambling when you lose nothing, you gain more value, and it is properly advertised that rewards are random?
The fact that they have a value is of primary concern. If a market develops, and some items are worth less selling to other players than the box costs due to how common they are, all of a sudden the lootboxes becomes a direct cash wager for uncertain monetary return that's not guaranteed to be positive at all. In that sense, companies would do well to attempt to halt any "black markets" associated with their lootboxes items. Congress isn't taking the stance anymore that these producers have no responsibility for how their products are used.
Your example of crossing a pool to make a wager seems flawed. If you paid for a ticket, and they placed the bowl across the pool so you have to swim through it to place your ticket in the bowl, that would fail to prevent it from being a direct purchase for a chance to win.
If they charged you to get into the pool area, then across from the entrance was a bowl with tickets you could put in for free if you paid to access the pool area, it's no longer than same as purchasing a chance to win. You paid for access to the pool and it's surrounding areas, not for the chance to win the item. Swimming across a pool isn't a monetary outlay, so requiring it isn't the same as requiring a purchase.
Uh the part was regarding League of Legends cash-shop? If so, you can buy all items directly from the cash-shop so there's no need for a black market.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I disagree it is gambling as welll regardless of Cash Payouts, anything that involves chance is "Gambling" maybe not in a Casino type which has Real World Payouts but any type of asset including digital assets such as clothing or cosmetics is gambling, llet alone if you can even resell those for in game currency.
Is that your personal opinion or you got that definition from somewhere?
Because by that definition loot drops from mobs and bosses would also be gambling.
You don't pay a boss $4.99 for a chance at his loot drops.
If you pay a sub then raids would be your only interest then you are gambling?
You're paying for the game content, not the roll.
Lootboxes don't require the playing of any game content. It's a direct purchase of a dice roll.
So any game of chance with the involvement of money isn't gambling. Argument here is you have to make a direct bet.
Regarding content, if the reward is only through a game of chance, and the rest of the content is just filler to get there, makes stuff a bit complicated aye? Like if I make a pool, you'd have to swim through to place your bet at the end on lootbox with a chance of 0 rewards, is that gambling or not? I know, I am a pain in the ass.
Crazy stuff aside, let's take League of Legends cash-shop for example. Now I haven't played a while, but I doubt if it has changed. Lootboxes are cheaper than buying a skin directly, and you have a chance to even get more expensive skins or other stuff. So lootboxes has more value than direct purchases, you'd just be getting random stuff, not exactly what you want. Is that gambling when you lose nothing, you gain more value, and it is properly advertised that rewards are random?
The fact that they have a value is of primary concern. If a market develops, and some items are worth less selling to other players than the box costs due to how common they are, all of a sudden the lootboxes becomes a direct cash wager for uncertain monetary return that's not guaranteed to be positive at all. In that sense, companies would do well to attempt to halt any "black markets" associated with their lootboxes items. Congress isn't taking the stance anymore that these producers have no responsibility for how their products are used.
Your example of crossing a pool to make a wager seems flawed. If you paid for a ticket, and they placed the bowl across the pool so you have to swim through it to place your ticket in the bowl, that would fail to prevent it from being a direct purchase for a chance to win.
If they charged you to get into the pool area, then across from the entrance was a bowl with tickets you could put in for free if you paid to access the pool area, it's no longer than same as purchasing a chance to win. You paid for access to the pool and it's surrounding areas, not for the chance to win the item. Swimming across a pool isn't a monetary outlay, so requiring it isn't the same as requiring a purchase.
Uh the part was regarding League of Legends cash-shop? If so, you can buy all items directly from the cash-shop so there's no need for a black market.
Then that would destroy or regulate any "black market" that may arise. That's an example of a producer's actions precluding the rise and flourish of a black market. I don't know much about LoL's system other than your description. In that instance, it's quite clear the value of the items in those things aren't being manipulated via scarcity in lootboxes.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
Thank you for saying that mate. I believe most people are like you but make excuses like "but the children" or "gambling is evil and addictive". They just want their games without cash-shops.
I used to think like that too. But then I thought about it a bit more and changed my opinion. Here's what I think:
1) I want governments out of video games. 2) I kinda like gaming companies making more monies. 3) You might think this would go against my 2nd point, but it doesn't. I kinda fear what will happen in a world without lootboxes. Because one thing is for sure, we ain't going backwards. They will be replaced by something else, and that will for sure ain't gonna be compassion.
One issue: there isn't a lot of track record to the claim that things have to get worse is regulations are created. For all the alarmist fretting about government regulations, they are mostly adequate (if not effective) attempts to address an issue or deficiency in a market. You just don't hear about it anymore when the regulations work like they're intended to. You only hear the fuss when regulations are overly taxing or ineffective.
Of course EA will fight with nail and teeth to avoid the banning of lootboxes, EA put all their eggs in that basket, after all most of their revenue comes from FIFA and Madden Ultimate Team...
Belgium is just one country but they are not fools, they know very well if Belgium keeps going like this other countries in the EU might follow suit and if the whole EU bans lootboxes, US might follow too and if the big markets do that EA's profits would plunch (So better extinguish that spark before it becomes a fire, am i right?).
I try to stay objective in situation like this but after all the studios and ip destroyed and all the harm that EA has done to the gaming industry, i know i won't shed any tear if they closed.
I wonder, if greedy practices and companies like this are the price that any creative industry has to pay when they become mainstream?, Oh well at least we still have
the indies (until they become big and they go full EA and the cycle continues).
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
What others chose to do with "digital" goods is beyond anyone's control.
Again, why we have lawyers and courts to decide.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
EA could try to argue that some EU law makes Belgian online gambling legislation illegal, but considering that large gambling companies haven't managed to overturn Belgium's legislation so far I don't think EA has very good chance either.
And if we will feel that these are pay to win lootboxes, we will stop playing the games, and they will have to adjust not to lose the income. Free market works great
It would be interesting to test how much responsibility the courts find developers retain in terms of creating the conditions for a "black market" to arise and flourish.
online.
they are illegal because they are suposed to charge the tps/tvq taxes of like 20% only one time, canada got a law againts something like that with delivery online. but they charge it again a second time when the delivery hit the canadian border agency, even the canadian border agency say what they are doing are totaly illegal....
they have pay fine 3 times so far, many millions of dollars each time....
but they dont stop doing it... why ? they are probably earning more that the fine the canada give them after each time a very long time...
these big company dont realy care about law...
if EA earn more with their lootboxes for all the time it take in court, even if they pay millions in the end, they will do it.
I don't think marketing methods should be allowed simply because there are people who buy if you use that kind of marketing.
Not to mention this could hurt their own video game development companies as these publishers might also refuse to work with developers in Belgium, which severely limits their world market.
Not that I think Belgium is big on the video game industry in either or any direction. They are for the most part a drop in the pond.
Much in the same way Autodesk does not directly sell any of their products in the EU anymore due to legality issues.
Loot boxes is where the Game industry went too far and got into immoral territory!
Loot boxes are specifically designed and targeted towards the weak minded gamers in our midst who suffer serious addiction problems and so prepared to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on loot boxes!
Exactly how Casino's and black market gambling halls/websites work!
These game companies are in my eyes no longer game companies, but ruthless corporations that only care about maximizing profit! No matter if they financial destroy many people with addiction problems.
They no longer care about making just great and enjoyable games, but instead games designed completely around the cash shop and lootboxes, specifically targeted at gamers with an addiction.
Sadly.... it seems most gamers are too weak to vote with their wallets and make a statement once and for all.... NO MORE of this greed and lootbox crap!
So at least here in Europe we have the EU take the necessary steps for us. Though, in all honesty I really wish all of us gamers would just make a stand and stop buying these games!
That would be the most powerful statement you could make to really stop this! Since Europe is not a big enough market to put a complete stop to loot boxes.
Regarding content, if the reward is only through a game of chance, and the rest of the content is just filler to get there, makes stuff a bit complicated aye? Like if I make a pool, you'd have to swim through to place your bet at the end on lootbox with a chance of 0 rewards, is that gambling or not? I know, I am a pain in the ass.
Crazy stuff aside, let's take League of Legends cash-shop for example. Now I haven't played a while, but I doubt if it has changed. Lootboxes are cheaper than buying a skin directly, and you have a chance to even get more expensive skins or other stuff. So lootboxes has more value than direct purchases, you'd just be getting random stuff, not exactly what you want. Is that gambling when you lose nothing, you gain more value, and it is properly advertised that rewards are random?
No. They just want their piece of pie. If they actually care about lootboxes they would go on valve.
EA: making good money on lootboxes.
Belgium: Psst, we can see you having fun, we want it too.
EA: you can $#$%^&! and %^$#@!
Next day Belguim starts official investiontion.
>.>
I used to think like that too. But then I thought about it a bit more and changed my opinion. Here's what I think:
1) I want governments out of video games.
2) I kinda like gaming companies making more monies.
3) You might think this would go against my 2nd point, but it doesn't. I kinda fear what will happen in a world without lootboxes. Because one thing is for sure, we ain't going backwards. They will be replaced by something else, and that will for sure ain't gonna be compassion.
Your example of crossing a pool to make a wager seems flawed. If you paid for a ticket, and they placed the bowl across the pool so you have to swim through it to place your ticket in the bowl, that would fail to prevent it from being a direct purchase for a chance to win.
If they charged you to get into the pool area, then across from the entrance was a bowl with tickets you could put in for free if you paid to access the pool area, it's no longer than same as purchasing a chance to win. You paid for access to the pool and it's surrounding areas, not for the chance to win the item. Swimming across a pool isn't a monetary outlay, so requiring it isn't the same as requiring a purchase.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon