Research Results: Predatory Monetisation in Games

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

You're both wrong. They're not gambling, they're Surprise Mechanics. Checkmate!

Lol I remember that. Was it EA that claimed that? Trying to get around regulations some places in Europe were enacting?

UK. EA's head of legal used the term when questioned by the House of Commons.

So wait the UK said this was surprise mechanics, not gambling?

I miss the days when this sort of nonsense was unheard of. Not even imagined yet.

"

Turtledove wrote:

It actually depends on the legal definition of gambling.

For example a typical definition
Gambling: play games of chance for money

The loot boxes are not money therefore it is not legally considered gambling. Now, I quickly add that many would consider it gambling or at least about as close as one could get without crossing the legal line.

Include items of monetary value; e.g. watches, jewelry, electronics, etc.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

So wait the UK said this was surprise mechanics, not gambling?

I miss the days when this sort of nonsense was unheard of. Not even imagined yet.

A better way to explain this.

You are buying an item inside a sealed pot. You do not know what is inside the pot, the seller does not know what is inside the pot. What is inside the pot is unknown. You are buying an item of uncertain value. You do not lose the item like you do through gambling. Either the high risk high reward investments or totally rip-off depending on your perspective. Statistically you know the chance to get something valuable isn't high. You totally get to keep what is inside the pot.

Gacha, loot boxes or ‘surprise mechanics’ are addictive and harmful to children nevertheless. Gambling laws should extend to these ‘surprise mechanics’ to protect consumers if that is their defense.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

You're both wrong. They're not gambling, they're Surprise Mechanics. Checkmate!

Lol I remember that. Was it EA that claimed that? Trying to get around regulations some places in Europe were enacting?

Easily solved by amending law to reclassify video games with loot boxes as gambling products or cover products that has no intention of treating it as gambling products as one. They are only getting singled out by doing that.

I agree. Laws need to be amended. Not sure how much blowback that will cause though as it can be big business.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

I agree. Laws need to be amended. Not sure how much blowback that will cause though as it can be big business.

I'm sure someone will get right on it.

I mean I get the snark Shags, nice one-liner to get a brief snort outta some folks. PoE is merely a niche gaming forum, really small potatoes in the grand scheme, for any topic really.

That said, companies will always toe the ethics line, many times going over, unless laws compel them. Hell GGG wouldnt even disclose the drop rates in their appropriately titled "mystery box" until they were forced to by consumer protection laws.

It's sad we need organizations and laws like this, but the almighty dollars runs humanity.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

I'm sure someone will get right on it.

There was a senator or someone from Hawaii last year that wanted to address the issue through law, but nothing came of it. It leaves it up to personal accountability for gamers, and we all know gamers aren't exactly the most most responsible bunch with their money, else this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of leaving it solely to personal accountability, but it's also obvious that the legal definition of gambling is woefully outdated and will be used by gaming companies to remain predatory vs naive and vulnerable kids and naive (or sometimes dumb) adults who should know better but don't.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

So wait the UK said this was surprise mechanics, not gambling?

I miss the days when this sort of nonsense was unheard of. Not even imagined yet.

Err...no. The UK didn't, EA did. She was answering to the House of Commons.

I think the best approach in the case of something like a game is this:

Parents.

But.... we're in a generation where parents are more often children than parents and siblings do more to raise their sisters and brothers, while parents play games, so....... we're in trouble.

Regulation never brings about the results you expect. Parents not giving kids a wallet only has the right effect, no matter what they want. It takes access to spend, and a parent needs to give no more access than a kid needs.

As far as parents and Gambling: Their choice.