This sudden push for regulation throws up every single one of the “think of the children” red flags for bad legislation in my mind.
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.
- "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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
> the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.