The EU votes to address loot boxes, gold farming, and gaming addiction

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Ever notice how the EU in general, is ramping up all these restrictions and laws at at time when their economy is in a slump or worsening? Got money?

 

[Burty117]

Ah, you want a law to prevent you from being annoyed. Got it.

I don't want a law to stop me from being annoyed, it's just the nice side effect of proper regulation.

Under the well-known moral doctrine of "two wrongs make a right"?

So you think it's wrong to be regulating gambling as a whole? You sure it would be wise to leave gambling websites completely unregulated?

You're not. Just don't play such games. Trust me-- it IS possible. And guess what the best part is? If you and all your friends exercise that degree of self-control, these games will self-regulate themselves out of existence. No new laws required. The fact that they're not doing so, however, is nothing but the purest form of democracy in action: people voting with their wallets.

Have you never seen any documentary's or interviews or news articles on this kind of stuff? That's just not true, a lot of these free-to-play games are purely there for the "whales". The people who drop £15k on loot boxes. I'd have to dig it up but a developer for EA admitted the loot box system was added purely to catch the users who are willing to put silly money into it. Had some crazy stats like 97% of players will earn them the same as the top 0.5% or something to that effect.

Me and my small band of friends who already don't buy loot boxes makes zero difference. How do I know? I haven't bought a loot box ever, I don't know many people who have, It's been many years now and games are only getting worse with them, not better.

Edit: Hence my issue with not being able to buy items individually, I wouldn't care about loot boxes if I had another means of obtaining something in a game, like just buying it outright, being forced to use loot boxes is gambling.

 

[waclark]

I hope they make loot boxes and gacha games illegal , plz plz plz

I'd say that depends on the LB. Overwatch, for example, has LB and they don't matter at all to the game, other than cosmetics. I'm perfectly fine with that. You can earn just about every option by playing and getting LB.

Pay2Win games with LB that make it hard to get high-end gear are ridiculous and I do not play them. But, if that's what you want to spend your money on, who am I to deny you that?

The bottom line is that there are certain personalities that are obsessed with every optional item in a game and will spend hundreds to thousands trying to get them all. Even if you cut out LB, those people would be obsessed over something else.

 

[Shear]

Because you're not mature enough to make that decision on your own? I have a better idea. How about "No company should be allowed to convince you to play videogames, period."? Think of the increase in global GDP if you gamers instead spent that time productively. By your own admission, you're not able to make rational decisions in this area, so the government should decide for you. Nanny state utopia!


Do you see bogeymen everywhere? I'm just someone alternating between bemusement and disgust at the self-entitlement mentality of videogamers demanding government action to ensure they don't "get pwned" in Counterstrike by someone who bought a loot box. Why worry about world peace when there are serious issues like this facing us!


Different issue entirely. I have no problem whatsoever with that fine. But note: such situations as that are already well covered by current legislation.

That just makes no sense. You must be EA. I mean as a consumer wouldn't you like to know what you're buying without any tricks? Isn't that the fairest way to conduct this transaction? The only side that gets anything out of this is the business. So again. Hello EA.

Why not? Why shouldn't the government make sure that huge businesses don't get to abuse addiction? Are there no lines for you? You'd cross any to make a dollar? If there are more important things to worry about, then why are you here?

 

[shark975]

Hey europe is falling apart, there's no gas for heating, endless ukraine war for dollars, davos is a corrupt joke, but those eu legislators and left wing tech editors are on the vast looming threat of *checks notes*

voluntary video game microtransactions.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Now replace "people" with "children" and "loot boxes" with "gambling". You should notice the obvious problem with your comment now.

How and/or why do children have credit cards?

 

[Puiu]

How annd/or why do children have credit cards?

You've clearly never interacted with children for more than a few minutes.

It's just sad that you are defending predatory and objectively bad practices for consumers. legislation for this should have been made a decade ago. thankfully it will happen now.

If you want children to have the "freedom" to gamble then I suggest you take yours to Las Vegas. (if you'll ever have kids, to me it sounds like you hate kids)

FYI you don't need a parent's CC for payments. there are many alternatives. (for example, you can buy steam gift cards in a store with cash) kids are smarter than you think.

 

[Puiu]

And it's PARENTS responsibility to monitor their children and decide what they want for them - NOT government. This is taking away freedom, that's what governments worldwide love to do! WAKE UP (and learn to spell)!

And companies don't have responsibility to society? Only parents? That's just excuses to allow clearly predatory practices that target children. If companies can't regulate themselves then the government must do it. It's why we've elected them.

The whole idea of "freedom at all cost" is stupid. I associate anti-vaxxers with this kind of thinking.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Yeah, that whole "freedom" thing needs to stop. People wishing to buy loot boxes in game should NOT be allowed to perform such heinous atrocities.

Building a business model on exploiting gambling and psychology? It ruins families, wrecks lives. You don't seem to give a toss about the societal consequences which just says to me you aren't mentally capable of the responsibility of making the rules for a decent society.

 

[Puiu]

Hey europe is falling apart, there's no gas for heating, endless ukraine war for dollars, davos is a corrupt joke, but those eu legislators and left wing tech editors are on the vast looming threat of *checks notes*

voluntary video game microtransactions.

Europe is doing fine. Gas tanks are full across Europe, they're just overpriced. And people support Ukraine for the right reasons.

Just because there is a crisis doesn't mean that all other things need to stop. For all we know this was already delayed a year or two.

 

[Endymio]

Building a business model on exploiting gambling and psychology? It ruins families, wrecks lives. You don't seem to give a toss about the societal consequences

Nonsense. 30 US states allow sports gambling, 46 states have a lottery system, with a maximum prize that regularly tops one billion dollars. I don't see you railing about the "societal consequences" of this gambling.

Nor are there persons who have had their "lives wrecked" through loot boxes. Videogaming is a known addiction. Spending all your time and money compulsively playing is what wrecks lives, NOT because there's a random element of chance in the reward system.

Have enough character to be honest. You want loot boxes banned so your games are more fun. Stated baldly like that it sounds so banal that your mind searches for facile rationalizations about "helping society". Avoid that trap.

That just makes no sense. You must be EA. I mean as a consumer wouldn't you like to know what you're buying without any tricks?

By your logic, a consumers should, before buying any videogame, receive detailed disclosure of its plot lines, characters, mechanics and how to best exploit them, a list of every potential pitfall and danger to be experienced, as well as every possible reward to be earned. Otherwise, you're being "tricked"! You don't know exactly what you're getting!

And once again, no I'm not EA. I do believe in eschewing rampant degrees of hypocrisy and self-entitlement. Why not try it yourself for once?

 

[Puiu]

Nonsense. 30 US states allow sports gambling, 46 states have a lottery system, with a maximum prize that regularly tops one billion dollars. I don't see you railing about the "societal consequences" of this gambling.

Nor are there persons who have had their "lives wrecked" through loot boxes. Videogaming is a known addiction. Spending all your time and money compulsively playing is what wrecks lives, NOT because there's a random element of chance in the reward system.

Have enough character to be honest. You want loot boxes banned so your games are more fun. Stated baldly like that it sounds so banal that your mind searches for facile rationalizations about "helping society". Avoid that trap.


By your logic, a consumers should, before buying any videogame, receive detailed disclosure of its plot lines, characters, mechanics and how to best exploit them, a list of every potential pitfall and danger to be experienced, as well as every possible reward to be earned. Otherwise, you're being "tricked"! You don't know exactly what you're getting!

And once again, no I'm not EA. I do believe in eschewing rampant degrees of hypocrisy and self-entitlement. Why not try it yourself for once?

You are making wild comparisons with different situations. None of them make sense. For example, in case you didn't know, the US blocks online poker in most states.

It's simple dude:
1. does it have gambling? Yes
2. Is it targeted at children? Yes
3. Are gaming companies self-regulating? No, they are doing the exact opposite.

Then the only answer is to pass laws that prohibit this kind of behaviour. You clearly don't want better games for yourself, nor do you want safer games for children. You don't care about anything else besides "mah freedom".

In the end you've made zero god arguments as to why this part of the gaming industry should not be regulated. it's actually something that majority are asking for and thank god they are doing it.

 

[toooooot]

Yeah, that whole "freedom" thing needs to stop. People wishing to buy loot boxes in game should NOT be allowed to perform such heinous atrocities.

If it is the same thing as drugs to drug addicts then yes.

 

[Shear]

By your logic, a consumers should, before buying any videogame, receive detailed disclosure of its plot lines, characters, mechanics and how to best exploit them, a list of every potential pitfall and danger to be experienced, as well as every possible reward to be earned. Otherwise, you're being "tricked"! You don't know exactly what you're getting!

And once again, no I'm not EA. I do believe in eschewing rampant degrees of hypocrisy and self-entitlement. Why not try it yourself for once?

It's really not. You're making a mad comparison in this situation. By my logic, if you go to buy a game you should know what game you're buying not everything about it. Same as you should know what skin you're getting or what say, player, you will get in FIFA. All I am asking is for basic transparency in the transaction.

Go home EA you're drunk.

 

[Endymio]

It's simple dude:
1. does it have gambling? Yes
2. Is it targeted at children? Yes

Did you even read the article? Most of these proposals are directed to all players, not simply children. And even in the case of children, far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically. Further, there's no evidence that children are cashing in loot box rewards for real-world currency. If they're using these items strictly in game-- it's gaming, not gambling.

So spare us the "save the chilluns!" rationalization. You don't like losing your game to someone who bought a loot box. I get it. But that's not the government's job to guard you from that.

If it is the same thing as drugs to drug addicts then yes.

Congratulations; you've demonstrated that all videogames should be banned, as they are a recognized addiction, no different than a drug to a drug addict.

if you go to buy a game you should know what game you're buying ... you should know what skin you're getting or what say, player, you will get in FIFA

So you should know in advance exactly what reward you'll receive for any and all in-game encounters or experiences? No surprise allowed whatsoever -- or the government will step in and throw the evil game makers in prison? Do you even hear what you're saying?

 

[Shear]

So you should know in advance exactly what reward you'll receive for any and all in-game encounters or experiences? No surprise allowed whatsoever -- or the government will step in and throw the evil game makers in prison? Do you even hear what you're saying?

No, you should know what you're getting exactly when you are purchasing things. Period. This isn't a "reward" as you call it. You spending money isn't a game mechanic. It's you buying a thing and you should know what you are buying.

I don't really understand what your problem with this is. I just don't get it. How is this good for a consumer?

 

[Puiu]

Did you even read the article? Most of these proposals are directed to all players, not simply children. And even in the case of children, far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically. Further, there's no evidence that children are cashing in loot box rewards for real-world currency. If they're using these items strictly in game-- it's gaming, not gambling.

So spare us the "save the chilluns!" rationalization. You don't like losing your game to someone who bought a loot box. I get it. But that's not the government's job to guard you from that.

Congratulations; you've demonstrated that all videogames should be banned, as they are a recognized addiction, no different than a drug to a drug addict.

So you should know in advance exactly what reward you'll receive for any and all in-game encounters or experiences? No surprise allowed whatsoever -- or the government will step in and throw the evil game makers in prison? Do you even hear what you're saying?

"far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically" - pfff hahahaha. this is hilarious.

Dude, if you can't make arguments then it's best not to make them. people will just laugh at such things.

In the end your response is: f the children, I want bad games, which are targeted at children, to be made.

Legislation is a must now. If gaming companies have decided that zero responsibility is their mantra then it is time for governments to do what they are supposed to do and why they are voted for.

PS: your entire comment makes will assumptions about "evidence". just a simple google search destroys... no royally destroys your comment.

this is just 3 links from the first page of google search ("children buying loot boxes" - I didn't specifically searched for "research", but there it is, in your face):

Loot boxes cause financial and emotional harm to children, new report reveals

“The game just got better and better as I spent more money and I got addicted to it. I knew I’d spent the money, but I didn’t know how much.

www.lboro.ac.uk

Study Reveals That Children Are Going into Debt Over Loot Boxes

A survey of young gamers in the UK shows that loot boxes are being purchased at young ages and that addiction may be setting in early.

gamerant.com

Loot boxes linked to problem gambling in new research

New research says there is a clear link between video game boxes and "problem gambling behaviours".

www.bbc.com

"Do you even hear what you're saying?" - yes. It's just that using common sense doesn't seem to work with people who are against legislation of any kind, including good one. As soon as they see "legislation" they read it as "infringing on mah freedom". it's just too funny.

 

[Endymio]

"far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically" - pfff hahahaha. this is hilarious.

Here's just a few out of many thousands of references. How much research can you show that loot boxes harm children? I'll welcome to be being proven wrong, but it will take facts on your part to do so, not snarky comments.

From Northwestern University:

"Researchers found that video games that [were] violent and exclusively entertaining had a negative effect on child brain development...."

From the Mayo Clinic:

"While playing a video game, the person's brain processes the scenario as if it were real. If the game depicts a dangerous or violent situation, the gamer's body reacts accordingly. Excessive video game use can lead to the brain being revved up in a constant state of hyperarousal. [This] can include difficulties with paying attention, managing emotions, controlling impulses, following directions and tolerating frustration. Some adults or children struggle with expressing compassion and creativity, and have a decreased interest in learning. This can lead to a lack of empathy for others, which can lead to violence...."

From the University of Michigan:

"In a review, Anderson et al. (2010) analyzed 136 studies representing 130,296 participants from several countries....Overall, they found consistent associations between playing violent video games and many measures of aggression, including self, teacher and parent reports of aggressive behavior...."

From the Center for Educational Neuroscience:

"Violent video games make children more violent... In a recent meta-analysis of 98 studies, involving 36,965 participants, violent video games were convincingly shown to influence social behaviour[iv]. The fact that studies have taken a variety of forms strengthens the certainty of the relationship... Some work looks at the causal effect of game play by asking some individuals to play violent games in the lab, while others play non-violent games, then measuring the behaviour of each group in social tasks afterwards. These studies have shown that playing violent games results in immediate changes to behaviour...."

 

[Endymio]

this is just 3 links from the first page of google search

Ooops! Did you even read those links? Of them, one is from an anti-gambling group and isn't research, but a self-conducted poll. The second link is to a study that actually supports what I've said earlier: that loot boxes are not gambling, but they are "psychologically akin" to gambling, and can be a gateway to problem gambling. The third is more relevant: it finds that loot boxes can cause children to "fail to understand the value of money" and "lead to poor spending decision". That study included only 42 children, from families in which the children were allowed to buy loot boxes on their parent's bank accounts.

Now compare that to the hundreds of studies on violent videogames in general, comprising hundreds of thousands of children, and concluding not just that it causes them not just to make "poor spending decisions", but display marked increases anti-social and even violent behaviors.

You want to save the children? Don't allow them to play first-person shooters. Opening a loot box in Candy Crush isn't going to hurt them.

 

[Burty117]

Oh dear, @Endymio doesn't know the difference between violence and gambling

 

[Endymio]

Oh dear, @Endymio doesn't know the difference between violence and gambling

More precisely, questioning the legitimacy of their videogame addiction causes the fruit-loops to come pouring out of the woodwork. (My apologies for the mixed metaphor.)

To clarify: despite the very clear risks involved, I support the legality of violent competitive videogames. As the risks of loot boxes in games are less clear, I even more vehemently support their legality.

 

[Puiu]

Ooops! Did you even read those links? Of them, one is from an anti-gambling group and isn't research, but a self-conducted poll. The second link is to a study that actually supports what I've said earlier: that loot boxes are not gambling, but they are "psychologically akin" to gambling, and can be a gateway to problem gambling. The third is more relevant: it finds that loot boxes can cause children to "fail to understand the value of money" and "lead to poor spending decision". That study included only 42 children, from families in which the children were allowed to buy loot boxes on their parent's bank accounts.

Now compare that to the hundreds of studies on violent videogames in general, comprising hundreds of thousands of children, and concluding not just that it causes them not just to make "poor spending decisions", but display marked increases anti-social and even violent behaviors.

You want to save the children? Don't allow them to play first-person shooters. Opening a loot box in Candy Crush isn't going to hurt them.

You are so funny dude. First you say that there are no studies done, they you complain that the studies are not "real". Even though I just randomly pulled 3 studies done in 3 different years that were on the front page of a simple google search. You do realize that it's just the tip of the iceberg right? (rhetorical question, you obviously do, but you don't care)

Keep moving to goalpost dude. You used fake "info" that you invented on the spot to try and discredit me and others here as if you were paid by these big gaming companies... but you are doing it for free.

But seriously now... why the hell do you want loot boxes to keep being a thing? It's one of the most asinine, one of the most hated "game feature" that exist. Why do you want games to continue pushing gambling and generally anti-consumer practices?

FYI you seem to be confused since you keep mentioning "all people". no dude, there is no text for the legislation yet. it could simply go towards the proposal that was made in the UK where loot box sales were recommended to be prohibited for children. (so much for your "read the article" snarky comment)

When existing laws don't work then new ones need to be made. Belgium and the Netherlands were the first and the rest of the world will follow. Spain will prolly be adopting new legislation soon and the rest of the EU will follow (after maybe a year or two of deliberation).

 

[Endymio]

You are so funny dude. First you say that there are no studies done...

There's no need to lie to try to win points. My actual statement was, " far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically" (post #40). Hundreds of such studies exist, comprising hundreds of thousands of participants. There is a far smaller amount of evidence against loot boxes, and the harm shown in those studies far smaller as well.

I have no dog in this fight, as I don't play either form of video game. But I *strongly* suspect you play violent videogames and despise loot boxes. Meaning you're allowing your emotional desires to rationalize your position.

why the hell do you want lootboxes to keep being a thing? It's one of the most asinine, one of the most hated "game feature" that exist.

Oh, I agree with that 110%. But freedom is a much more important principle than ensuring a level playing field in videogames. Legislating how YOU feel other adults should live their own lives is the very root of fascism. Surely a Romanian of all people should understand that.

 

[Puiu]

There's no need to lie to try to win points. My actual statement was, " far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children than loot boxes specifically" (post #40). Hundreds of such studies exist, comprising hundreds of thousands of participants. There is a far smaller amount of evidence against loot boxes, and the harm shown in those studies far smaller as well.

I have no dog in this fight, as I don't play either form of video game. But I *strongly* suspect you play violent videogames and despise loot boxes. Meaning you're allowing your emotional desires to rationalize your position.

Oh, I agree with that 110%. But freedom is a much more important principle than ensuring a level playing field in videogames. Legislating how YOU feel other adults should live their own lives is the very root of fascism. Surely a Romanian of all people should understand that.

you are confusing proper law making with something childish like "inhibiting freedom". that's a problem that I see with most people who don't know what freedom is and just yell "communism".

you never lived during comunism and you don't know what loss of freedom is. you seem to think that politicians doing their god damn job that they are paid for by us is a bad thing.

"far more evidence exists that excessive videogaming in general is harmful to children" - this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion and it's just you pointing fingers saying "let's ignore X because of Y". and even here you are heavily cherry picking. there are even more studies that say gaming is good for kids and these kind of studies are very prevalent nowadays.
this is one released recently: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...ociated-better-cognitive-performance-children

What freedom are you loosing from banning loot boxes and other predatory "features"? Your freedom to be freely scammed by big gaming companies without any consequences for them? Is social responsibility just a meme for you and them?

 

[Endymio]

you never lived during comunism and you don't know what loss of freedom is

Really? I was born and grew up in the Soviet Union, and had the first of my children before the USSR dissolved (though luckily by then I had emigrated). I was a good Konsomol member in my youth: I know what communism is. And I can tell you that the propaganda being used to rationalize the regulation of loot boxes is identical to the justifications I heard then for regulating "dangerous" Western goods like blue jeans and Hollywood films. Allow children to be exposed to the decadent bourgeois fads and fashions of the West? Are you insane?

So yes, I am most certainly familiar with communism and the justifications used to remove people's freedom. You'll need to do better than that.