A loot box is specifically an item that can be purchased in-game that offers a random reward, typically from a loot table and with set odds known only to the game maker. They come in many forms; one of the most obvious is found in Overwatch right now, typically awarded to the player after they level up in game. Overwatch's loot box animation is very pretty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdB17umeKB0

If this sounds kind of familiar, it's because a similar concept exists in many Arcades already, in the form of capsule machines. Japanese Gashapon are the oft-cited inspiration, but countless variations on this idea exist. Here in South Texas, they're a common sight in grocery stores and restaurants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon

On their own, random rewards in a video game sound tame, but where this gets questionably ethical are games which (a) accept real money for in-game purchases, and (b) offer loot-boxes as an in-game purchase. This enables game players to pay real money to receive a random reward, and it's not hard to draw comparisons to real life slot machines. Unlike real-life gambling though, loot boxes have been popping up in games that are often targeted towards minors, making the issue even more complicated. I won't weigh in on the issue here, I just wanted to try to clarify what they are.

I think Overwatch is a bad example because you can't turn the loot into real money. Valve's games are a better example because you can sell the loot directly through Steam -- in some cases for hundreds of dollars.

Overwatch is also a bad (good) example because the developers have a policy where only cosmetic items are available through the loot boxes, while all gameplay features are free for everyone.

Many other loot box games offer items that increase player power or change gameplay in loot boxes. For example, the prerelease version of Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2017) had a backlash because of items such as "Deal 30% more damage with ship blasters." Other games may have items such as "Deal 20% more damage, but reduce health by 30%" which open up additional strategic options.

Right, Overwatch is a relatively tame example where it starts to feel potentially manipulative. I forgot about the Battlefront scandal, that's a bit more obviously bad. Again here, the presence of random boosts isn't inherently a bad thing, but making them purchasable is already questionable ("pay to win") and putting them in real-money loot boxes is certainly sketchy ("pay to win but only sometimes")

Doesn't feel manipulative to me, just annoying. I wish there was a big 'open all boxes and skip animations' button that I could click every few months. Right now my boxes tend to accumulate because I just can't be bothered to watch the stupid animation, even when I'm waiting for competitive matchmaking, which can literally take minutes.

The article is talking about competitive multiplayer games, rather than mobile games. DOTA 2 and CS:GO are the examples used. Theres a few elements that, together, make it extremely problematic in my opinion. Using CS:GO as the example:

1. Items are dropped randomly, or you can buy randomised "crates". By design, plain looking drops are common, while visually impressive drops are rare.

2. When you buy crates and unlock them, there is a "wheel of fortune" style visual system that indicates what item you will receive. There are audio and visual cues indicating how rare or common the item is.

4. There is an in-game trading system that allows users to buy and sell items at an agreed price. Rare items are naturally more expensive on this market. The majority of CS:GO's revenue comes from cuts of these trades.

5. Kids play CS:GO. It is very common to run into young teenagers (13-15) in matchmaking servers.

6. Kids who are exposed to gambling are much more likely to become addicted than adults, are much less likely to have the means to repay debt, and therefore are not held responsible for gambling losses in the eyes of the law. Gambling under the age of 16 is illegal in most countries, and in many cases under 18.

It should be noted that most items in CS:GO cannot be obtained as a normal drop, only from a crate, so it's not so much that good-looking drops are rare, it's that good-looking items can usually only be obtained by paying money to open a box (AWP Dragon Lore being one of the few exceptions).

Loot boxes are in-game containers, that contain a randomly generated set of reward items, of varying value. They are also present in far more than just mobile games.

They use addictive techniques similar to gambling/casinos to encourage players to purchase more boxes, for a chance at a better reward, sometimes irresponsibly.

Using addictive techniques to encourage people to spend in an irresponsible manner can destroy lives, which is why gambling is highly regulated.

Loot boxes are using addictive techniques to encourage people to spend in an irresponsible manner, should be considered gambling, and should be regulated.

How are loot boxes significantly different to CCGs of the kind children have been playing and buying/having their parents buy boosters for, for years? Or sports cards? The concept is identical as far as I can tell.

This sudden push for regulation throws up every single one of the “think of the children” red flags for bad legislation in my mind.

Physical CCGs have always been on the nice side of a gray area, digital CCGs are worse, and most loot boxes are much worse. Some important differences (experience drawn from Magic: the Gathering CCG, Rocket League, Team Fortress 2, Hearthstone, Pokémon CCG, Hustle Castle, Merge Dragons, Call of Duty WW2, and a bunch more I don't remember off the top of my head; I play a lot of games):

Games with loot boxes will constantly push them: Throw a loot box in your face while you play or at the end of the match, urging you to pay to open them. What's inside? Maybe something cool? Don't you want to find out? They will also typically show that you have "(3) Unopened Boxes" in your account when you are in the menus. With a CCG, I can browse my collection, play games with friends, or even tournaments, without having to turn down constant sales pitches.

Games with loot boxes often remind you, while you play, that this and that player in your game or your friend X just opened a loot box now and got something cool.

Anything you want in a CCG can be traded or bought fairly from other players. Few loot box implementations allow this.

Any duplicates you get in a CCG can be re-sold, or given away. Few loot box implementations allow this.

Any cards you get from a CCG have a physical presence, so you can store them in a box in the basement and dig them out again years later to either play or sell. Most loot box games will be dead in 5 years.

Opening a loot box is instant gratification. One click and fireworks you have spent the money and it's opening. CCGs require either mail order or physically going to a store. The time delay between feeling the urge and getting the crackle kaboom whoosh (loot boxes opening is very showy) of opening the thing is days or hours versus split seconds.

I don't see how this is related to whether or not CCGs or loot boxes are gambling.

- "heavily advertised" is not necessarily a feature of gambling - Being able to easily resell reminds me of poker chips. - The longevity of the prize is not a requirement for gambling. - CCG could be instant gratification too. Time delay is not a feature of gambling.

Think of it as a "boiling the frog" situation. The fact that this is close to CCGs, and CCGs haven't been banned, doesn't necessarily mean that it's just fine - it's a slow, gradual increase in "water temperature for the frog" that's has over time become unacceptable. So it's going to be equated to gambling and regulated - obviously, there needs to be a line somewhere through that fuzzy, gradual, unclear border, but IMHO it remains to be seen whether that line will be above or below current CCGs.

I'm not sure I'm ready to sacrifice CCGs on the altar of "think of the children!" just because it might knock game companies down a peg.

Well, it's not like anyone asked horse racing or poker enthusiasts if they're ready to sacrifice anything before their games were regulated.

In which case, I am completely against this legislation. The supposed harm being addressed is nebulous, if it even exists.

There's not a bright line between CCGs, scratchcards and loot boxes.

CCGs have merely been overlooked by regulators because they've traditionally been a niche interest and none of the makers were dumb enough to decorate the card packs with one-armed bandits.

Not much different. Which is why I would not buy collectible cards to my kids and why I was avoiding them myself (as they cost too much overall when played).

The difference is that CCG were rather niche thing most people dont know about and these games targetted at children are ever obvious and common. Meaning, people cared less because significantly less people knew you can buy CCG. Also, sports cards and CCG had known probabilities and were overall less sleazy then some of these games. They did not baited you with psychological trics and people were less routinelly trying to earn money by buying them solely in the hope of finding jackpot expensive item to sell.

There is also element of fake think of children where gamers who hate everything new and not for them use this to demonise games they don't like.

For one, loot boxes are instant gratification. Cards and arcade machine rewards required going somewhere and physically buying something. A loot boxes is more like sitting in front of a slot machine and thinking, "oh just one more roll, I was so close this time!". Loot boxes also tend to really push you towards expensive options. 10 boxes for $9.99, 25 for $19.99, 125 for $99.99 (best value!!). Magic The Gathering cards are not cheap either but they also don't try to push you into buying a whole booster box as an impulse purchase.

This has nothing to do with whether it is gambling or not.

It's pretty obvious that both CCGs and loot boxes are forms of gambling. The question is what effects they're having and how they need to be regulated. Loot boxes have a lot more of the features that make gambling a problem, and children are less equipped to handle it. It's reasonable to regulate the benign thing differently from the harmful thing.

I think it is more clear that a CCG is a form of gambling. Loot boxes do not give you anything that you can redeem for cash.

IMO those are also gambling, and I think some cards were made more rare, so to fully complete a set you would need to buy a large number of cards.

> Loot boxes are using addictive techniques to encourage people to spend in an irresponsible manner, should be considered gambling, and should be regulated.

Gambling should be considered gambling. If paying for variable and unpredictable levels of entertainment is gambling, then you have broadened the definition so wide that it is now meaningless.

You have now created a definition where buying a ticket to a movie that you may or may not enjoy is a form of gambling.

> You have now created a definition where buying a ticket to a movie that you may or may not enjoy is a form of gambling.

The appropriate comparison would be buying a ticket to sit down and watch a movie, you don't get to choose the movie though, you have a chance to see the movie you want but there are maybe 9 other movies that you don't want to watch. Maybe the movie you want to watch is super popular and you've seen the other 9 movies several times already.

Probably the most basic comparison minus an analogy for all the addictive flashing lights and all that associated with gambling (incl. loot boxes)

Add on top that the good movies are rare and tons of garbage movies are in the list, the probabilities are hidden and there are no laws to make it fair so they can use who knows what algorithm to determine when you win.

No, that would not be the appropriate comparison at all.

That is the comparison that is more similar to loot boxes, but not to the definition you have decided upon.

Loot boxes give you variable entertainment, but for that to be gambling you have now defined entertainment value as the element of prize. Gambling requires chance, prize and consideration.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e7b39fc2-501e...

At the point where entertainment value is the prize, you have now created a definition of gambling that includes both your example of a random movie, and my example of any movie.

The thing I hate about all of these lootboxes as gambling arguments is that they have no appreciation for what gambling actually is. Instead gambling is now just whatever you feel like is gambling in your gut, not an actual real legal and enforceable definition.

You want to regulate lootboxes, fine, but trying to draw an equivalency to real gambling and lootboxes is just not possible without classifying almost every transaction as gambling.

But honestly, if you want to regulate loot boxes we should probably start by regulating video game addiction because it is a much larger problem that effects a much larger audience.

All of these deeply concerned people who want to regulate loot boxes somehow don't seem to overlap with the group of people who want to regulate video game addiction though. Because the deeper truth is that people want to wield the tools of government like a cudgel to force video game developers to make the kind of games they want.

This whole thing is just a fig leaf similar to how child porn is used to censor the internet and enforce copyright.

> Loot boxes give you variable entertainment, but for that to be gambling you have now defined entertainment as the element of prize

Variable entertainment? Then a lottery scratch card is "variable entertainment", whatever that is supposed to be.

As is I can't distinguish a scratchcard from a lootbox except one has some regulation. They have a feature prize that is the reason for purchase, they have small odds of achieving the feature/promoted prize (Game loot boxes frequently don't give the actual odds), they cost real currency, they can give something of value.

Do you then claim that a scratch card is not gambling?

Let me clear it up for you. The entertainment you derive from a scratch lottery ticket is not the "prize" element of gambling. The prize is the money you win from the scratch off.

Gambling devices pay out a prize that is worth a real redeemable cash value and can be sold on an open market.

What prize does a loot box give you that is not purely for entertainment value? They do not give you a prize that is redeemable for cash.

Hmmm.

> the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes

What is that websters?

That is not the legal definition of gambling, and all court decisions on the subject clearly indicate that gambling requires real cash value to the prizes and not just entertainment that has no actual value.

Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling, which is the recognized legal definition in virtually every jurisdiction.

https://www.truthfinder.com/glossary/gambling-definition/

"In order for the activity to be considered gambling, it must contain three separate elements. These are consideration, chance, and a prize. If one or more of these elements is not present, then gambling is not taking place."

"The final element of gambling is the prize. If the player has the chance to win something of value, then gambling is taking place. Again, the amount or value of the prize is inconsequential. As long as it has some value, it is considered gambling."

> Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling

Huh? I thought it was well established that there is value and that, in some cases, it could even be "legitimately" (even according to the rules of the game provider) traded for real-world money.

This may not apply to all constructs that could be considered "loot boxes", but I'm confident it's not the case that the vast majority lack the feature of of transferability of the "loot" that would give credence to the argument that any value is purely that of entermainment to the individual user.

> I thought it was well established that there is value and that, in some cases, it could even be "legitimately" (even according to the rules of the game provider) traded for real-world money.

I have never heard of any game provider doing that. I don't really believe you because they would have no legal protection if they did that.

All of their arguments are that the digital goods in the lootbox have no real cash value and are only meant for entertainment purposes.

Steam is the one who really rides the rails with these arguments when they let you turn digital goods into steam dollars. But you can't trade the steam dollars and you can't cash them out. They also actively pursue websites that do let you cash out the value of steam digital goods and try to shut them down and make it difficult for them to operate.

I can (and have) easily cashed out everything that is on the Steam marketplace for USD.

Ever heard of a third party? How about paypal? Is a gray market a concept foreign to you entirely?

I can exchange them to a bot, recieve Amazon gift card funds, and then turn that into USD.

I can trade them straight up for any cryptocurrency.

I can have a bank deposit made tomorrow.

I can exchange them for points on a website which get cashed out for USD/EUR/GBP.

The list goes on.

Just because you are ignorant and Steam isn't directly handing me a dollar for every Steam wallet dollar doesn't mean it is impossible.

Please educate yourself or stop feigning.

To be fair, it was a response to my accusation of legitimate exchange for real-world money, which, if any grey-market is involved, is technically not fully legitimate (according to, e.g. Steam).

There's also the argument that, because Steam makes an active effort to resist the grey-market exchnges, that gives them some kind of deniability or "legal protection". I believe that both you and I agree that it does not, at least not in any meanigful sense. I also doubt that was their motivation in the first place, rather than, for example, maximizing their own profit in selling the digital goods themselves.

> Steam isn't directly handing me a dollar for every Steam wallet dollar doesn't mean it is impossible.

I think this is actually the most important point. It's not that grey markets have to be involved to convert digital goods into real money. It's that Steam has legitimized everything but the very last step of converting their in-game currency into real currency (and take a cut along the way, from what I understand from other comments in the thread).

This is espeically true if they permit the exchange of real dollars into Steam dollars and merely prohibit the reverse exchange. There's no claiming "entertainment value only" and being taken seriously.

Mostly what mmt1 said, but also what you are describing is against the tos of steam.

They have done everything within their power to make this not legitimate.

If an operator buys a game that normally gives out tickets and uses it as an illegal gambling device is the game developer responsible for that, or is the operator?

Steam is not responsible for grey market transactions it is actively working to shut down. The grey market is the one operating the casino here.

> what you are describing is against the tos of steam. > They have done everything within their power to make this not legitimate.

There's no evidence they've done everything in their power to eliminate grey market transactions. It's in their power, for example, to remove transferability of items (or maybe just items from loot boxes, though I'm insufficiently familiar with them to know if that could be gamed).

However, it's almost entirely irrelevant, because that's only one piece of a much larger "puzzle".

> If an operator buys a game that normally gives out tickets and uses it as an illegal gambling device is the game developer responsible for that, or is the operator?

This questions seems immaterial, since Steam is both the game developer and the operator.

> The grey market is the one operating the casino here.

Steam is operating every single part of the casino, except the very last little bit of cashing out the chips. They even have a cashier from whom one can buy chips in the first place!

You actually have it backward. It's the grey market that is not responsible for Steam's operation of a casino. It would still exist if items were still transferable, still had real world value to someone, but were no longer available through a Steam-operated lottery system.

> There's no evidence they've done everything in their power to eliminate grey market transactions. It's in their power, for example, to remove transferability of items (or maybe just items from loot boxes, though I'm insufficiently familiar with them to know if that could be gamed).

Why do they have to remove legitimate features?

> his questions seems immaterial, since Steam is both the game developer and the operator.

Steam is not the operator of the sites converting steam items into money, so it is very relevant.

> Steam is operating every single part of the casino, except the very last little bit of cashing out the chips.

So if you can transfer items in a video game between users it is now a casino? That is ridiculous and covers every MMO and a lot of other online games.

Couple things:

1) This is very prevalent in high budget desktop/console games as well, not just mobile games.

2) These games typically do little to nothing to abide by laws that prohibit gambling by minors. There are definitely concerns of whether this is ethical or legal.

You seem to have accepted that loot boxes are a form of gambling even though that is not really the agreed upon legal definition of gambling.

The question was "why should I care whether it's gambling". Answers that point out the (legal/moral) consequences of it being gambling are entirely appropriate, even if they don't give any consideration to the possibility that it might not in fact be gambling.