Loot box controversy prompts ESRB to create 'In-Game Purchases' label

[Cal Jeffrey]

In response to increasing pressure from state legislators over the issue of loot boxes in video games, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has announced it will start adding an "In-Game Purchases" label to games.

"ESRB’s goal is to ensure that parents have the most up-to-date and comprehensive tools at their disposal to help them decide which games are appropriate for their children," said ESRB president Patricia Vance. "With the new In-Game Purchases interactive element coming to physical games, parents will know when a game contains offers for players to purchase additional content."

While the sentiment is noble, the application of the new rule is meaningless and unhelpful. According to the new guideline, the ESRB will label any game that allows purchases to occur from within the game menu, regardless of what is being purchased.

"The new In-Game Purchases label will be applied to games with in-game offers to purchase digital goods or premiums with real-world currency, including but not limited to bonus levels, skins, surprise items (such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes and upgrades (e.g., to disable ads)."

It would appear that under these terms, 90 percent or more of the games already out there would have this new label. How will this help parents identify titles that contain loot boxes?

"I'm sure you're all asking why we aren't doing something more specific to loot boxes," Vance said in a roundtable call with GamesIndustry.biz and other journalists this morning. "A large majority of parents don't know what a loot box is, and even those who claim they do don't really understand what a loot box is. So it's very important for us to not harp on loot boxes per se, but to make sure we're capturing loot boxes but also other in-game transactions."

According to Vance’s reasoning, parents are either unable or unwilling to understand the difference between games that offer randomized loot and those that sell expansion packs or cosmetic items within the game menu.

"Parents need simple information," said Vance. "We can't overwhelm them with a lot of detail. We need to be clear, concise, and make it easy for them."

However, throwing a blanket over the entirety of in-game purchasing is not being clear or concise, and it certainly is not going to make it easier for anybody who actually does want to know if a game contains a loot box system. All it does is create confusion for concerned parents as to what games have them. The new labeling is ultimately going to fail those it purports to help.

Meanwhile, the ESRB will be applauded by those who are truly ignorant of the issue. In its press release, the rating board was quick to include an uninformed statement from Founder and CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute, Stephen Balkam.

"We are delighted to support ESRB’s continuing dedication to safeguarding children from inappropriate experiences both online and offline by providing parents with essential information about video games," Balkam said. "ESRB’s decision to add the InGame Purchases label to game boxes further empowers parents with the tools they need to make informed decisions for their families."

It would seem that Balkam does not have a firm grasp of what legislators in multiple states are preparing to begin regulating. These leaders consider loot boxes to be a form of gambling and want to forbid the sale of games of this type to minors. Such laws would essentially label certain games AO (Adults Only) by proxy, something the games industry does not want.

Furthermore, throwing a generalized label on practically all titles will only further muddy the waters for lawmakers when trying to decide which games need to be regulated. So the ESRB's actions are not just bad for parents worried about loot boxes in their kids' games, the broad labeling is harmful for the industry as a whole.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/73469-loot-box-controversy-prompts-esrb-create-game-purchases.html

 

[davislane1]

Disagree that the definition is too broad for a couple reasons.

First, people who need these labels aren't going to have a solid grasp of loot boxes.

Second, publishers like EA and Activision will simply technical out of the definition by creating a system that functions like a loot box without actually meeting the technical specifications of the rule.

What they are doing here is no different than what's required of mobile app developers: if your software contains in-app purchases, this must be disclosed on the sales page.

As for whether games need to be further regulated...

No. They don't. And this includes loot boxes.

 

[bolski]

Not that it curbs the loot box issue, but Next Games created an Info button in their Walking Dead: No Man's Land game. Now, you can click on the (I) button to see what the chances are for getting certain pieces of equipment, tokens, etc. Rather than seeing a loot box that says "Best chance for getting Daryl tokens", now you can click on the (I) button and see what the real odds are of getting those tokens. Turns out, it's around 18%. Pretty much shows how fixed these things are, but at least it gives you an idea of whether or not you want to waste your money/radios on certain purchases in the game.

 

[Evernessince]

Well, at least people can't claimed they weren't warned now. I hope they list they type of in game purchases as well.

 

[Uncle Al]

What a waste .... guess it will take a major boycott for them to figure it out, eh?

 

[psycros]

Mobile apps have been held to this standard for ages. Long overdue, and hopefully they'll add a more specific "gambling" tag as well for loot boxes and the like.

 

[noel24]

Basically, if children are not allowed to make financial decisions of their own, so those games should be made Mature content. Period.

 

[BSim500]

The label isn't "unhelpful", it's just that this cr*p is now so utterly pervasive and "full spectrum" that more than one label is needed for maximum accuracy, ie, you have a broad "In-game purchase" general warning for parents who wish to keep a tight cap on any future in-game purchases (so kid doesn't rack up $300 in "but it's only cosmetics" MT's). That's no different to the relatively tame "Offers in-app purchases" warnings on Google Play store that the total cost to own the full game's portrayed content may be more than what the initial purchase price reflects. Then you could have separate more informative labels like "sh*tty gambling", "pay2win garbage" or even "pay2save total lameware" for more specific issues, to educate parents on what titles to steer well clear of... ;-)

"The broad labeling is harmful for the industry as a whole."

No Cal, the ongoing harm to the AAA gaming industry is absolutely 1000% self-inflicted in their never-ending race to the bottom...

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

A) Loot boxes aren't gambling. Gambling rewards money - loot boxes don't. Loot boxes are just paying for something with an unknown outcome. Sort of like going to a sporting event - you buy the ticket, but maybe your team wins and you're happy with your purchase, or maybe they lose and you think you wasted your money. You really don't know what you're going to get when you buy it.

B) This is classic 'govt-style' regulation. The rules are so easy to get around there's no really point. Win-Win-win for them. They get to say they're protecting us and the industry isn't negatively affected (thanks to lobbying).

I'm not saying this is bad - I don't think we need rules against loot boxes at all... But we should take note that when some organization says they've passed some rule or law that will keep us safe it most likely is far to lenient to have any affect at all. This will happen with gun control in the next few months.

 

[complexxL9]

A) Loot boxes aren't gambling. Gambling rewards money - loot boxes don't. Loot boxes are just paying for something with an unknown outcome. Sort of like going to a sporting event - you buy the ticket, but maybe your team wins and you're happy with your purchase, or maybe they lose and you think you wasted your money. You really don't know what you're going to get when you buy it.

Unless you can sell your lootbox content for real money. There are websites dedicated just for that.

Additionally they should introduce "Includes pay to win purchases" label, it would be applicable to games including ingame purchases that provide any advantage over other players, be it "buy more powerful weapon", or "buy a chance to get sharper knife", or "more xp potion", "rest faster meal" or "finish your building instantly", you get the point.

 

[Forebode]

Disagree that the definition is too broad for a couple reasons.

First, people who need these labels aren't going to have a solid grasp of loot boxes.

Second, publishers like EA and Activision will simply technical out of the definition by creating a system that functions like a loot box without actually meeting the technical specifications of the rule.

What they are doing here is no different than what's required of mobile app developers: if your software contains in-app purchases, this must be disclosed on the sales page.

As for whether games need to be further regulated...

No. They don't. And this includes loot boxes.

I agree with most of what you typed... It's evident, that a lot of people don't read reviews. They go into buying a game with no substantiated information other than for may hearsay (you should get x, because I think you'd like it). aesthetic stuff shouldn't be on the box, but games built around the system of dropping more money to progress or be punished with extensive grinds.. that should be on the box.

Will it change much? nope.

People like to complain. So many are born into gaming with the stupid practices that go on.. that it's normal to them. Those of us that have been playing pre-network gaming, pre-broadband.. pre-game patching.. feel as though game devs are getting greedy and shady.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Seems they attached it to any expendable or cosmetic item you need to use a real-world currency to obtain, without targeting DLC/expansions. Seems like the definition is just broad enough, because you -know- EA and Activision would just stop calling them "loot boxes" if the ESRB specifically targeted "loot boxes"

And, yes, parents are that ignorant about the games their kids play, and need a broad catch-all definition. They buy 8 year olds GTA, and call their Xboxes "Nine-tendos"

 

[Bakgrind]

Adding a warning label to the game simply wont matter. What it shows is that the Entertainment Software Ratings Board did the very minimal that they had to to just to show that they are some what competent of going about their job of self regulating the interactive software industry by including another label on the box.

But what it shows is that they are looking out for the interest of the developers of those games with MTX mechanism and not the consumer. For that warning label to matter and to get people to understand what it means is for the games that have those MTX type of mechanisms in their game need to have the ESRB ratings changed from T Teen and M Mature to AO. Because titles that are rated AO ADULTS ONLY Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.

 

[Boilerhog146]

I for one, would love to see game Dev's get taxed heavily,on any thing that adds extra cost to a game ,Loot boxes ,DLC .etc.