USA introducing Loot box bill into Law

2Next

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Mzee wrote: »
    1. I thought this proposal was for minors only, and this game already has limitations from minors so I don't think this would be impacted. Perhaps I am interpreting things wrong.
    2. The current climate in the US very heavily favors businesses with less regulation, and this is in the opposite direction to that so I don't see this getting very far.
    3. Keep in mind a large chunk of the income of this game goes to EA, and I have no idea what salaries are like for CG's team. Nor is it my business. Just keep in mind that it may seem like this game pulls in a lot of money, it doesn't necessarily mean the developers are pulling in the money.
    4. 3. I will not go into the ethics of microtransactions or the drop rates, randomness of loot etc.

    To your point about government reg's - loot boxes are essentially a form of lottery / gambling, and the government is very interested in regulating that.
    .

    That right there is the issue. Many times these laws try to define gambling to make things more clear but the issue lies that in many games the definition of gambling does not actually apply.

    Most of the laws that have come out about this topic are for people to feel like they are doing something about it and have very little effect on the current state. (Politicians being politicians)

    I have not read through any of the proposals at hand, but I would imagine that this game and many others will not be affected at all.

    I see it as the gambling laws in many countries simply have not caught up yet to the relatively new form of outright gambling in mobile/digital games. They are certainly looking at it, no matter how much people say there’s no gambling in SWGOH, well there is gambling inside of SWGOH. If EA is negatively affected (they WILL be) then SWGOH will be negatively affected too. I don’t want this game to be hurt, but they need to dial back the sheer avarice or someone will do it for them.

    According to some of the more recent versions of these laws, there is no gambling in SWGOH. There is no "loss" factor, which has been defined in some similar laws.

    Other guidelines that have come out (from companies like Apple, to name one) dont specifically call out in game currency. So they leave open a big loophole for games to still operate.

    Without looking at the actual wording, it's hard to tell, but currently there are very (very) few places that have made laws that even touch games like SWGOH.

    Just as an FYI - This is not just addressing gambling aspects and loot boxes. This is a direct shot at PTW. This is definitely targeted at the SWGOH type of gaming demographic.

    From the Senator's Website with the link pasted below:

    Senator Hawley said, “Social media and video games prey on user addiction, siphoning our kids’ attention from the real world and extracting profits from fostering compulsive habits. No matter this business model’s advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices.

    “When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn’t be allowed to monetize addiction. And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.”

    https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduce-legislation-banning-manipulative-video-game-features-aimed-children

    From Variety Magazine, a summary of what the bill will regulate:

    "The bill will ban loot boxes with randomized or partially randomized rewards. It will also prohibit certain exploitative pay-to-win mechanics. For example, developers won’t be able to manipulate the competitive balance of multiplayer titles to encourage players to buy microtransactions that give them an advantage. Manipulating a game’s progression system to entice players into spending money to progress won’t be allowed as well. The FTC will be responsible for enforcing the rules. If developers break them, state attorneys general could file suits to defend the residents of their states."

    https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/missouri-senator-loot-box-ban-bill-1203208889/

    That will be truly impressive if this makes it through, and keeps the sentiment summarized here.

    I look forward to reading more into this.

    I don't expect it to get anywhere lol.
  • Kyno
    21854 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Mzee wrote: »
    1. I thought this proposal was for minors only, and this game already has limitations from minors so I don't think this would be impacted. Perhaps I am interpreting things wrong.
    2. The current climate in the US very heavily favors businesses with less regulation, and this is in the opposite direction to that so I don't see this getting very far.
    3. Keep in mind a large chunk of the income of this game goes to EA, and I have no idea what salaries are like for CG's team. Nor is it my business. Just keep in mind that it may seem like this game pulls in a lot of money, it doesn't necessarily mean the developers are pulling in the money.
    4. 3. I will not go into the ethics of microtransactions or the drop rates, randomness of loot etc.

    To your point about government reg's - loot boxes are essentially a form of lottery / gambling, and the government is very interested in regulating that.
    .

    That right there is the issue. Many times these laws try to define gambling to make things more clear but the issue lies that in many games the definition of gambling does not actually apply.

    Most of the laws that have come out about this topic are for people to feel like they are doing something about it and have very little effect on the current state. (Politicians being politicians)

    I have not read through any of the proposals at hand, but I would imagine that this game and many others will not be affected at all.

    I see it as the gambling laws in many countries simply have not caught up yet to the relatively new form of outright gambling in mobile/digital games. They are certainly looking at it, no matter how much people say there’s no gambling in SWGOH, well there is gambling inside of SWGOH. If EA is negatively affected (they WILL be) then SWGOH will be negatively affected too. I don’t want this game to be hurt, but they need to dial back the sheer avarice or someone will do it for them.

    According to some of the more recent versions of these laws, there is no gambling in SWGOH. There is no "loss" factor, which has been defined in some similar laws.

    Other guidelines that have come out (from companies like Apple, to name one) dont specifically call out in game currency. So they leave open a big loophole for games to still operate.

    Without looking at the actual wording, it's hard to tell, but currently there are very (very) few places that have made laws that even touch games like SWGOH.

    Just as an FYI - This is not just addressing gambling aspects and loot boxes. This is a direct shot at PTW. This is definitely targeted at the SWGOH type of gaming demographic.

    From the Senator's Website with the link pasted below:

    Senator Hawley said, “Social media and video games prey on user addiction, siphoning our kids’ attention from the real world and extracting profits from fostering compulsive habits. No matter this business model’s advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices.

    “When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn’t be allowed to monetize addiction. And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.”

    https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduce-legislation-banning-manipulative-video-game-features-aimed-children

    From Variety Magazine, a summary of what the bill will regulate:

    "The bill will ban loot boxes with randomized or partially randomized rewards. It will also prohibit certain exploitative pay-to-win mechanics. For example, developers won’t be able to manipulate the competitive balance of multiplayer titles to encourage players to buy microtransactions that give them an advantage. Manipulating a game’s progression system to entice players into spending money to progress won’t be allowed as well. The FTC will be responsible for enforcing the rules. If developers break them, state attorneys general could file suits to defend the residents of their states."

    https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/missouri-senator-loot-box-ban-bill-1203208889/

    That will be truly impressive if this makes it through, and keeps the sentiment summarized here.

    I look forward to reading more into this.

    I don't expect it to get anywhere lol.

    Politicians are good at being politicians, it will go somewhere, but in the end will never be that idealistic.
  • Mzee
    1720 posts Member
    This is more likely to kill games for ftp.

    I'm ok with that. I'm happy to spend a bit, and we will be able to get a lot more for what we pay for.
  • Tman
    257 posts Member
    I hope this doesn't get passed. Loot boxes are a legitimate way for a game, and when done correctly can be beneficial to both the developer and consumers. Taking away a tool in a developer's arsenal because of a few entities not using it correctly. At this point players should police themselves, as evidenced by the Battlefront 2 debacle. Relying on a government to police us will just lead the video game industry to even more regulations, as many make sure they don't do anything illegal.
    I am more powerful than the Chancellor- Anikan Skywalker and Tman
  • Tman wrote: »
    I hope this doesn't get passed. Loot boxes are a legitimate way for a game, and when done correctly can be beneficial to both the developer and consumers. Taking away a tool in a developer's arsenal because of a few entities not using it correctly. At this point players should police themselves, as evidenced by the Battlefront 2 debacle. Relying on a government to police us will just lead the video game industry to even more regulations, as many make sure they don't do anything illegal.

    I'd be curious how you think they loot boxes can ever be beneficial to a consumer?

    I'm generally more of a Libertarian when it comes to business regulation, but when it becomes apparent that self policing will never occur, imho it's time for the government to step in.

    Quite frankly, I see this as a similar issue to eliminating smoking in public places. For years one of the main arguments that many businesses used to oppose that initiative (specifically bars and bowling alleys) was that they were going to lose customers because people who came to their establishments often smoked (never mind all the drinking and bowling non-smokers who had to live with the annoying health hazard if they wanted to be entertained at either place). The business owners opposed to smoking bans always correctly pointed out that there was nothing stopping someone from opening a non-smoking bar or bowling alley, so the choice was available. Of course, the problem with this line of thought was that literally NO ONE ever opened a non-smoking bar or bowling alley. The market never self corrected. I see this same situation with PTW games right now. The gaming industry has been barreling down this ptw/lootbox road, and they are never coming back. This market isn't going to self correct for the consumer anytime soon.

  • #freetoplayistheonlyway
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • Kyno
    21854 posts Moderator
    #freetoplayistheonlyway

    q77wg65mpgv8.jpg
  • Tman
    257 posts Member
    Tman wrote: »
    I hope this doesn't get passed. Loot boxes are a legitimate way for a game, and when done correctly can be beneficial to both the developer and consumers. Taking away a tool in a developer's arsenal because of a few entities not using it correctly. At this point players should police themselves, as evidenced by the Battlefront 2 debacle. Relying on a government to police us will just lead the video game industry to even more regulations, as many make sure they don't do anything illegal.

    I'd be curious how you think they loot boxes can ever be beneficial to a consumer?

    I'm generally more of a Libertarian when it comes to business regulation, but when it becomes apparent that self policing will never occur, imho it's time for the government to step in.

    Quite frankly, I see this as a similar issue to eliminating smoking in public places. For years one of the main arguments that many businesses used to oppose that initiative (specifically bars and bowling alleys) was that they were going to lose customers because people who came to their establishments often smoked (never mind all the drinking and bowling non-smokers who had to live with the annoying health hazard if they wanted to be entertained at either place). The business owners opposed to smoking bans always correctly pointed out that there was nothing stopping someone from opening a non-smoking bar or bowling alley, so the choice was available. Of course, the problem with this line of thought was that literally NO ONE ever opened a non-smoking bar or bowling alley. The market never self corrected. I see this same situation with PTW games right now. The gaming industry has been barreling down this ptw/lootbox road, and they are never coming back. This market isn't going to self correct for the consumer anytime soon.

    First, I'd like to say this is incredibly well written. But I have some bones to pick.

    For your question about how the consumer benefits from loot boxes, I refer you to Season 15 of Extra Credits. They do a much better job than I can.

    For your example of no-smoking legislation, while a good for when government might need to step in, it doesn't really correlate with the loot box problem. The first problem is how smoking has proven effect on people around a smoker, while loot boxes don't hurt people around the buyer of loot boxes, outside the few who do develop a addiction to loot boxes, a very small percentage. The second problem is how smoking legislation was designed to help police the consumer not the seller. This is not the case with policing problems like loot boxes. If something is amidst with a games loot box system many will stop buying them, making them worthless to a developer. The gaming community is good at spreading the word, so if a loot box is unethical in a certain game, it will make the rounds and will cost the developer alot of money.
    I am more powerful than the Chancellor- Anikan Skywalker and Tman
  • Gair wrote: »
    This is about gambling, which is defined as taking a risky action in the hopes of a result. When money can be spent on ANY medium where kids play, this would be considered illegal gambling.

    Therefore, this game would either be required to be 18 or 21+. Or remove monetary gains from any possible risk with rng.

    GAMBLING Like buying a 50 energy refresh to go 0/5 or 5/5 on shard farming?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Mzee wrote: »
    1. I thought this proposal was for minors only, and this game already has limitations from minors so I don't think this would be impacted. Perhaps I am interpreting things wrong.
    2. The current climate in the US very heavily favors businesses with less regulation, and this is in the opposite direction to that so I don't see this getting very far.
    3. Keep in mind a large chunk of the income of this game goes to EA, and I have no idea what salaries are like for CG's team. Nor is it my business. Just keep in mind that it may seem like this game pulls in a lot of money, it doesn't necessarily mean the developers are pulling in the money.
    4. 3. I will not go into the ethics of microtransactions or the drop rates, randomness of loot etc.

    To your point about government reg's - loot boxes are essentially a form of lottery / gambling, and the government is very interested in regulating that.
    .

    That right there is the issue. Many times these laws try to define gambling to make things more clear but the issue lies that in many games the definition of gambling does not actually apply.

    Most of the laws that have come out about this topic are for people to feel like they are doing something about it and have very little effect on the current state. (Politicians being politicians)

    I have not read through any of the proposals at hand, but I would imagine that this game and many others will not be affected at all.

    I see it as the gambling laws in many countries simply have not caught up yet to the relatively new form of outright gambling in mobile/digital games. They are certainly looking at it, no matter how much people say there’s no gambling in SWGOH, well there is gambling inside of SWGOH. If EA is negatively affected (they WILL be) then SWGOH will be negatively affected too. I don’t want this game to be hurt, but they need to dial back the sheer avarice or someone will do it for them.

    According to some of the more recent versions of these laws, there is no gambling in SWGOH. There is no "loss" factor, which has been defined in some similar laws.

    Other guidelines that have come out (from companies like Apple, to name one) dont specifically call out in game currency. So they leave open a big loophole for games to still operate.

    Without looking at the actual wording, it's hard to tell, but currently there are very (very) few places that have made laws that even touch games like SWGOH.

    Just as an FYI - This is not just addressing gambling aspects and loot boxes. This is a direct shot at PTW. This is definitely targeted at the SWGOH type of gaming demographic.

    From the Senator's Website with the link pasted below:

    Senator Hawley said, “Social media and video games prey on user addiction, siphoning our kids’ attention from the real world and extracting profits from fostering compulsive habits. No matter this business model’s advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices.

    “When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn’t be allowed to monetize addiction. And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.”

    https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduce-legislation-banning-manipulative-video-game-features-aimed-children

    From Variety Magazine, a summary of what the bill will regulate:

    "The bill will ban loot boxes with randomized or partially randomized rewards. It will also prohibit certain exploitative pay-to-win mechanics. For example, developers won’t be able to manipulate the competitive balance of multiplayer titles to encourage players to buy microtransactions that give them an advantage. Manipulating a game’s progression system to entice players into spending money to progress won’t be allowed as well. The FTC will be responsible for enforcing the rules. If developers break them, state attorneys general could file suits to defend the residents of their states."

    https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/missouri-senator-loot-box-ban-bill-1203208889/

    That will be truly impressive if this makes it through, and keeps the sentiment summarized here.

    I look forward to reading more into this.

    I don't expect it to get anywhere lol.

    Politicians are good at being politicians, it will go somewhere, but in the end will never be that idealistic.

    So if the game developers line their pockets with money, nothing will change.
  • Outside of the "exploitation" of children, which is more of a parenting issue than anything else, I don't see much of a problem. After all, what rational parent hand their kid a phone or tablet with a link to a bank account or other way to pay for in app purchases? My point is that in app purchases are a voluntary transaction. Hasn't this game, with many others made it so that there is one set item(s) per purchase with real money and the only random items being for crystals? Do in game currencies count towards this "gambling" mechanism?
  • Pyrefly
    1254 posts Moderator
    I'd like to point out that, at this time, this putative bill hasn't even actually been introduced. Not even as a summary. What we're looking at is someone announcing that he plans to introduce the bill. This is one step up from a campaign promise until it goes at least a few steps further.
    swgoh.gg profile: Pyrefly -- Check out my Galactic Power Tables and my TB Phase Info Tables !!
  • I'm glad to hear our representative government has solved all of the other major problems facing us and can finally turn their attention here.

    Best comment on this thread.
  • In all honesty, this would be a good and bad decision depending.

    Game companies will be made or broken by this, escpecially those that rely on these types of things. Then again, i dont beleive in rumors, but you have to consider the possibility of it happening. But as goverments usually do, they could put something worse in its place anyway. Even though i dont like these things, i say keep it how it is, despite some frustrations.
    Get good and get a Revan. Ryanwhales
  • Ryanwhales wrote: »
    In all honesty, this would be a good and bad decision depending.

    Game companies will be made or broken by this, escpecially those that rely on these types of things. Then again, i dont beleive in rumors, but you have to consider the possibility of it happening. But as goverments usually do, they could put something worse in its place anyway. Even though i dont like these things, i say keep it how it is, despite some frustrations.

    I feel like the decision will be made by which provides the greater income for the politician.
  • Ryanwhales wrote: »
    In all honesty, this would be a good and bad decision depending.

    Game companies will be made or broken by this, escpecially those that rely on these types of things. Then again, i dont beleive in rumors, but you have to consider the possibility of it happening. But as goverments usually do, they could put something worse in its place anyway. Even though i dont like these things, i say keep it how it is, despite some frustrations.

    I feel like the decision will be made by which provides the greater income for the politician.

    Queue the lobbying!!!

    Politicians need a cut if gaming companies wanna keep this racket going.
  • TVF
    17035 posts Member
    Ryanwhales wrote: »
    In all honesty, this would be a good and bad decision depending.

    Game companies will be made or broken by this, escpecially those that rely on these types of things. Then again, i dont beleive in rumors, but you have to consider the possibility of it happening. But as goverments usually do, they could put something worse in its place anyway. Even though i dont like these things, i say keep it how it is, despite some frustrations.

    I feel like the decision will be made by which provides the greater income for the politician.

    Queue the lobbying!!!

    *Cue :p

    Although I suppose queue could be right depending on how you used it.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Ryanwhales wrote: »
    In all honesty, this would be a good and bad decision depending.

    Game companies will be made or broken by this, escpecially those that rely on these types of things. Then again, i dont beleive in rumors, but you have to consider the possibility of it happening. But as goverments usually do, they could put something worse in its place anyway. Even though i dont like these things, i say keep it how it is, despite some frustrations.

    I feel like the decision will be made by which provides the greater income for the politician.

    Queue the lobbying!!!

    Politicians need a cut if gaming companies wanna keep this racket going.

    Enter the bureaucrats, the true rulers of the Republic. And on the payroll of the (insert whatever you desire here), I might add.
Sign In or Register to comment.