Belgium rules that loot boxes are gambling - wants them banned in Europe

Update: The Entertainment Software Association says loot boxes are not gambling, per a statement the ESA provided to Polygon this afternoon. The ESA noted the dual functions of loot boxes in the games cited above: that some are earned for free and some are purchased; and that lo

The full statement from the ESA is below.

Loot boxes are a voluntary feature in certain video games that provide players with another way to obtain virtual items that can be used to enhance their in-game experiences. They are not gambling. Depending on the game design, some loot boxes are earned and others can be purchased. In some games, they have elements that help a player progress through the video game. In others, they are optional features and are not required to progress or succeed in the game. In both cases, the gamer makes the decision.


In this Storystream
Star Wars Battlefront 2’s loot crate controversy: everything you need to know
VIEW ALL 12 STORIES
More From Polygon
 
Coppied above from polygon but has dragged all ads and links, anyway back to its not gambling stage, it will take years for the loot Box era to end if ever imo
 
Mark1989 said:
The Entertainment Software Association says loot boxes are not gambling
Click to expand...

That statement is such a load of BS.

It doesn't even touch on the aspect of RNG boxes available for cash or a middleman currency which is bought with cash. The point being the boxes are baited with desirables and no guarantee. Thus buying a dice roll.

All it says, multiple times, is that it's all voluntary as if that's proof that it's not gambling...

Anyway it's not up to them whether it's listed as gambling or not, every country has their own legal controls on gambling and what they say does have weight.
 
Hotwired said:
That statement is such a load of BS.

It doesn't even touch on the aspect of RNG boxes available for cash or a middleman currency which is bought with cash. The point being the boxes are baited with desirables and no guarantee. Thus buying a dice roll.

All it says, multiple times, is that it's all voluntary as if that's proof that it's not gambling...

Anyway it's not up to them whether it's listed as gambling or not, every country has their own legal controls on gambling and what they say does have weight.
Click to expand...
I know but let's face it, gambling changes are not a quick process, this will be long drawn out battle.
 
If nothing else though, all this noise about loot boxes, predatory tactics and pay to win will hopefully make game developers more reluctant to include them. The road we were on was leading to a bad place - very similar to where mobile gaming has ended up - I remember being able to buy games for my Galaxy S2 for around £5 that were the full games, some of the earlier Asphalt and Gameloft's version of Call of Duty games (was it Modern Combat or something like that), now the new versions of those games are all this freemium nonsense with hours of grinding or get the wallet out to progress. Hopefully all this furore will at least will steer us away from that course...
 
Mark1989 said:
Update: The Entertainment Software Association says loot boxes are not gambling, per a statement the ESA provided to Polygon this afternoon. The ESA noted the dual functions of loot boxes in the games cited above: that some are earned for free and some are purchased; and that lo
Click to expand...

What else are the ESA going to say? "Yes, it's ripping off gamers and introducing children to gambling, but our members are making a lot of money off it, so we think it's okay. Chopping the game up and selling it bit by bit as DLC isn't filling our pockets like we want it to, so we've decided to nickel and dime our customers with micro-transactions. We're sure players won't mind that we've screwed the gameplay in order to screw the customers."
 
I don't get the logic in that ESA statement. How does the gamer making the decision affect if something is gambling or not?
 
Steampunk said:
What else are the ESA going to say? "Yes, it's ripping off gamers and introducing children to gambling, but our members are making a lot of money off it, so we think it's okay. Chopping the game up and selling it bit by bit as DLC isn't filling our pockets like we want it to, so we've decided to nickel and dime our customers with micro-transactions. We're sure players won't mind that we've screwed the gameplay in order to screw the customers."
Click to expand...
I didn't say what they should say did I? I posted it so people could see
 
Good decision, let's hope it's not ruined by Brexit.

I have no problem whatsoever buying a DLC that adds to the game experience, whether a new route in Train Sim or a map for Fallout 4. At least I know no matter how many times I start over the game from scratch, the DLC will be there to play without further expense. If I use a loot box to gain advantage in a play through that (presumably) is a one off and not going to be there on a subsequent replay - unless you pay again of course.

And with a DLC on Steam at any rate you get 1hr 59m to decide if it's junk and get your money back!
 
Loot boxes should be removed from all premium games, Battlefront 2 and PUBG are the two main culprits, you should be able to earn cosmetics the good old fashioned way instead of being given 2-3 loot boxes a week that gives you maybe a blue t shirt and some goth boots if you're lucky. PUBG devs are the greediest devs out there and they sparked all of this lootbox nonsense we're seeing from EA and other soulless corps.
 
Omaeka said:
Loot boxes should be removed from all premium games, Battlefront 2 and PUBG are the two main culprits, you should be able to earn cosmetics the good old fashioned way instead of being given 2-3 loot boxes a week that gives you maybe a blue t shirt and some goth boots if you're lucky. PUBG devs are the greediest devs out there and they sparked all of this lootbox nonsense we're seeing from EA and other soulless corps.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you're saying but PUBG devs did not spark this from EA lol, they've been milking the FIFA fan base for years already.
 
Drizmod said:
I don't get the logic in that ESA statement. How does the gamer making the decision affect if something is gambling or not?
Click to expand...

Voluntary gambling for under 18s is okay apparently.

Omaeka said:
Loot boxes should be removed from all premium games, Battlefront 2 and PUBG are the two main culprits, you should be able to earn cosmetics the good old fashioned way instead of being given 2-3 loot boxes a week that gives you maybe a blue t shirt and some goth boots if you're lucky. PUBG devs are the greediest devs out there and they sparked all of this lootbox nonsense we're seeing from EA and other soulless corps.
Click to expand...

Paying for content isn't wrong. This isn't an attack on DLC or pay to win.

It's the fact you might have to get 10 loot boxes to get that one item you actually want and a 100 other things you didn't want. That is easily accessible gambling in a market where the under 18s makes up a large proportion.

The reason you can't buy stuff with certainty (which would be okay) is because people have figured out that there are people with gambling tendencies which gets you higher income. Also selling something for £100 is harder than a 1 in 10 chance at £10.
 
Imo this whole topic of loot boxes can be summed up very easily in one short video.


Those pushing this kind of crap know this very well ;)
 
Even if loot boxes are declared to be gambling then its it really going to make a difference? SW Battlefield 2 is pegi 16 already. They'll just make it an 18 rated game instead. Pubg is the same - whack it up to an 18 and job done. They know that players under that age will still buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom