Washington state to determine if loot boxes are gambling

[Cal Jeffrey]

The legality of the loot box is being questioned again, this time in Washington state.

As you might recall, back in October the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ruled that it would not label games containing loot box systems AO (Adults Only) because it did not believe they constituted gambling. The ESBR felt that since players do receive something in return for their money, it should be considered a purchase.

Other countries do not agree with the US board’s view. The Isle of Man has already defined them as gambling and the UK’s Parliament is considering similar measures. Belgium’s gaming commission also ruled loot boxes are hardly any different than slot machines. Australia feels the same way.

In the US, it has been pretty quiet since the ESRB made its decision but states are starting to push back. Hawaii began taking steps last month to attempt to get games containing “gambling mechanisms” (loot boxes) restricted to purchasers over the age of 21. This month, the state of Washington has joined the fray.

"If [parents] realised how predatory these game are then they wouldn't want them under their Christmas tree, they wouldn't want them going to their kids."

According to GamesIndustry.biz, Senator Kevin Ranker (D) is looking at possible legislative measures to redefine the highly popular game mechanic. In his view, loot boxes are a form of gambling disguised as a kids game.

“It is unacceptable to be targeting our children with predatory gambling masked in a game with dancing bunnies or something,” said Ranker.

His statement makes me think he is a little bit out of touch with reality but his sentiment is clear.

Senator Ranker has proposed a bill that will legally reclassify loot boxes and other MT mechanics as a form of gambling. The state legislators will be looking at four main factors in the bill.

• Whether games and apps containing loot box mechanics are considered gambling under Washington law
• Whether these mechanics belong in games and apps
• Whether minors should have such ready access to games and apps that do feature loot boxes
• The "lack of disclosure and transparency with respect to the odds of receiving each type of virtual item."

Lawmakers are asking the Washington State Gambling Commission to provide written recommendations on how to regulate games that use the mechanic and how to restrict sales to those under 21 years of age.

A deadline of December 1, 2018, has been set to decide on the bill.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/72943-washington-state-determine-if-loot-boxes-gambling.html

 

[alabama man]

Why do they stick with the gambling thing? There's lots of other things that are illegal and aren't gambling like murder and rape, abusing kids should be illegal no matter if it's gambling or not.

 

[alabama man]

"The ESBR felt that since players do receive something in return for their money, it should be considered a purchase."

Bet on black and red in roulette and it's not gambling according to ESBR.

 

[lostinlodos]

How is a lootbox any different than a guaranteed consolation prize arcade cabinet? You get something no matter what.

"The ESBR felt that since players do receive something in return for their money, it should be considered a purchase."

Bet on black and red in roulette and it's not gambling according to ESBR.

I agree. It is not gambling then, and should not be regulated as such. Too much nanny state...! Then again anything to end lootboxes is good. It’s not the unknown that bugs me, it’s the fact that they moved found weapons, food, health, etc, to lootboxes and removed the found aspect of it.

I should not need to pay $XX for a game and then $XXX to complete it. That’s not gambling nor not-gambling, that’s theft.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

"The ESBR felt that since players do receive something in return for their money, it should be considered a purchase."

Bet on black and red in roulette and it's not gambling according to ESBR.

Betting on black and red in roulette is intact not gambling according to anyone. One pays the other so your bets are never at risk. You don't gain anything and neither does the house.

 

[captaincranky]

Betting on black and red in roulette is intact not gambling according to anyone. One pays the other so your bets are never at risk. You don't gain anything and neither does the house.

You and Mr. Alabama are both wrong....., um......,but only ever so slightly. Apparently the American wheel contains 2 green "zero" squares, while the European wheel, only one:

But, that still makes playing black and red, gambling

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

You and Mr. Alabama are both wrong....., um......,but only ever so slightly. Apparently the American wheel contains 2 green "zero" squares, while the European wheel, only one:

But, that still makes playing black and red, gambling

No. It makes it stupid. It's not gambling unless there is a chance to win. I stand by my statement except for the house never wins part. Betting red and black is either a push or a slim chance for a loss. Not gambling, but to-may-toes to-mah-toes. We're talking about loot boxes here.

I see two ways to look at it.

It is a game. Loot boxes provide something to you that is NOT money. Sometimes the item is something want sometimes it is crap, but you do get something. From this perspective it is gambling just about as much as a kids sticking his quarters into a vending machine that sells a bunch of crap plastic junk. Hell, those claw games at the arcade are more gambling that loot boxes are from this point of view.

The other angle is that if the crap collected out of a loot box can then be sold in a marketplace or otherwise converted to money, especially if the items don't return your full investment once sold, then loot boxes are no different than a Reno slot machine.

If we're going to take the first view then we might as well ban carnivals and arcades and anywhere else kids can spend money to win (or not win) prizes.

If we're going to take the second perspective, then obviously game companies need to change the way they do them.

Personally, I don't care if they are considered gambling or not. I don't like them, and I don't buy them. Obviously, I'm in the minority otherwise they wouldn't be so prevalent. If they got banned I wouldn't miss them. If they were regulated by the government I wouldn't care one way or the other. If they restricted them to anyone over 21, fine. I'm over 21 and it wouldn't matter anyway because I still wouldn't buy them.

 

[cliffordcooley]

No. It makes it stupid. It's not gambling unless there is a chance to win

It's gambling when there is a chance to lose as well.

 

[Sean T]

I understand the both sides, but I think something should be done to ensure it stays fair. What if I made a “loot box” and the ultimate gift was a car but everyone who bought one and didn’t win the car got a pencil. That would be called a raffle and would be limited to non-profits. The loot boxes can be a slippery slope if not handled correctly. I’m ok with how Blozzard does their loot boxes. I’m not ok with how Bungie and BioWare did their.

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

It's gambling when there is a chance to lose as well.

That goes without saying.

 

[Roe222]

In Japan, a class action lawsuit seems to have occurred against Square Enix "Hoshi no Dragon Quest". It's a matter of lootbox.
http://nlab.itmedia.co.jp/nl/articles/1801/26/news113.html

http://www.sankei.com/affairs/news/180126/afr1801260060-n1.html