Proposed Senate legislation could ban pay-to-win microtransactions and loot boxes aimed...

Polycount

Posts: 3,017   +590
Staff
In context: The great debate surrounding loot boxes and whether or not they should be considered gambling continues to rage on in the gaming community. While some countries have banned or restricted the sale of this form of microtransactions, others -- such as the US -- have lagged behind, failing to take a firm stance on either side of the discussion.

While that is still the case across much of the US political sphere, Missouri-based Republican Senator Josh Hawley has drafted a bill -- known as the "Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act -- that could ban various microtransactions if they "exploit children." The microtransactions that are under fire with Hawley's legislation include pay-to-win purchases, and, of course, loot boxes.

Though loot boxes are more clear cut, Hawley's proposed legislation breaks down pay-to-win microtransactions into two distinct forms. First, you have free-to-play games that start by giving players a smooth but "false" sense of progression upon initial download. Often within hours, the difficulty is "artificially" ramped up to push players into making compulsive purchases. In this case, players are usually only competing against themselves.

Then there are multiplayer titles (full-priced or free) where gamers are offered "paid upgrades" that provide them with noticeable competitive advantages over other players who can't or won't make the purchases themselves. The Star Wars: Battlefront 2 microtransaction debacle is an excellent example of this.

The second type of pay-to-win purchases is already widely criticized in the gaming community, but the first type will likely see significant pushback from mobile game addicts and publishers in particular, as they are almost an accepted norm in the free-to-play mobile gaming world.

Hawley's bill announcement specifically calls out Candy Crush as a "notorious example" of this form of pay-to-win microtransactions. Though the game is popular among adults, Hawley would likely argue that its colorful, cartoon visuals are designed to target kids.

Hawley's announcement notes that Candy Crush earns Activision Blizzard roughly $2 billion every year. With that much money on the line, assuming Hawley's bill is successful, it's probably safe to assume that the publisher won't take these potential restrictions lying down.

Even EA pushed back against Belgium's anti-loot box legislation until it had no choice but to give in - likely for fear that Belgium's laws would set a dangerous precedent throughout the world; one that could significantly harm EA's bottom line given how much money it makes from loot boxes in its games.

Only time will tell whether or not Hawley's push to protect children will pay off, but we'll keep you updated on the situation as it develops.

Permalink to story.

 
I would enjoy games more without these mechanisms. Still, as with everything else, I'm not comfortable having one central government make an unalterable decision for everyone else.

Mandatory full disclosure and un-enforceable contracts with minors (per legal standard) are completely in bounds though. The former would let players and parents make the decisions that are right for them, and the latter would strongly incent game makers to keep parents fully in the loop for fear of knowing they'd be unable to collect/keep any money received without an adult's consent.
 
Surely if they DON'T consider loot boxes gambling, they also have to consider slot machines NOT gambling?
 
I understand companies have made these practices common since they earn money. The problem is not the micro transactions, but the amount of them. It is like walking 16 miles down the streets and getting taxed in every corner.

EA has elbow raped everybody with this $$$ystem.
 
It's simply a good idea. Kids don't need any more encouragement to become dependent on money to make their computers fun, in fact they need to learn that there are more fun things to do out there besides playing on computers. You know, nice wholesome things like striping cars, robbing liquor stores, and shooting up their highschools ...... Hmmmm, maybe bringing back Pong isn't such a bad idea after all ........
 
Surely if they DON'T consider loot boxes gambling, they also have to consider slot machines NOT gambling?

There's a critical difference between loot boxes and gambling. With loot boxes you always get something in exchange for your money. With Gambling you do not.
 
Loot boxes and microtransactions ruin the game experience of achievement. If it's free, then let it be completely free. Otherwise put it up for sale. I don't see a problem for a game to have a time limit for you to try out and then pay if you want to continue. Or have episodes where the first one is free, but you have to pay for any afterwards.
 
Surely if they DON'T consider loot boxes gambling, they also have to consider slot machines NOT gambling?

There's a critical difference between loot boxes and gambling. With loot boxes you always get something in exchange for your money. With Gambling you do not.
When I open casino, you will also always get something, but it will also always be less then you leave there $_$

Casino of the future!
 
Loot boxes is gambling and should be regulated so its not targeted/available for kids.

Micro transactions is another thing.
For an online game to be continuously updated and developed after its release, the developers needs to get money somehow. So I'm not against selling skins and other cosmetics. Or maps, game modes, campaigns etc.
As long as its not Pay-to-win or gambling.
 
All forms of loot boxes that cost real money need to be removed. For anyone saying loot boxes aren''t gambling is completely wrong. Gambling is spending money on something and not knowing if you're going to win what you're after and you cannot see what's in the lootbox, therefore it's gambling. It's that simple to understand. If the lootboxes stated EXACTLY what you would be GUARANTEED to receive EVERY time you open one, then that's NOT gambling.

This new lootbox/skin unlocking system in Apex Legends needs to be sued over. Literally giving you no in game currency after level 100 and then locking in game currency purchasable skins literally behind a skin that costs real life money. Pure garbage. There's literally no reason to play that game after hitting level 100 aside from purely improving your skill or having fun with what you currently own. Everything beyond that is meaningless and you can't earn anything besides stats like kills etc. What's even worse is this is a first person game so these skins you're being forced to pay real money for aren't even seen by the player who's playing besides on the title screen etc. At least in fortnite you get to look at what you bought the entire time you play.

Apex Legends is a joke.
 
Surely if they DON'T consider loot boxes gambling, they also have to consider slot machines NOT gambling?

There's a critical difference between loot boxes and gambling. With loot boxes you always get something in exchange for your money. With Gambling you do not.

Yeah you always get something, but most of the time that something is garbage that isn't worth anywhere close to what you paid for it.
 
Bring in a law where 50% of the microtransaction payment is given as a tax to the country where the purchaser lives. Sure it'll push the costs of payments up but at least each country has something to show for it.
And also ban all microtransactions for kids. Let them worry about money when they are old enough to legally earn it.
 
I miss the days when you buy a game and that's all the cost you incur. After buying the game that should be the end of the purchase. The rest should be enjoyment in playing it, not spending more and more on it. Unfortunately gamers mindlessly pay to these mtx nonsense.
 
Back