Belgium’s already declared loot boxes to be a form of gambling, and indicated that it wants to take its ruling to Europe in order to prohibit the sale of random in-app purchases. Now the UK Gambling Commission has weighed in on the sticky subject matter, stating that while it doesn’t believe the controversial microtransactions to be a form of gambling by legal definition, more may need to be done with regards to regulation.
Essentially, the statement published on the Commission’s website notes that it’s been reviewing loot boxes since as far back as 2006, and in their current guise they don’t meet the classification of “gambling” outlined by parliament. This is because, essentially, they don’t pay out a direct currency – it’s essentially all hand-wringing over very specific wording and phrases.
Of course, just because loot boxes don’t fall under the explicit description of what gambling in Britain entails, doesn’t mean that the Gambling Commission is washing its hands of the scandal entirely. “We have a long track record in keeping children safe and we are keen to share our experiences and expertise with others that have a similar responsibility,” the statement notes. “Whether gambling or not, we all have a responsibility to keep children and young people safe.”
In other words, this isn’t the last we’ve heard of this – not by a long shot.
[source gamblingcommission.gov.uk]
Comments 20
Its a sensible decision. Anyway whatever the result across Europe if they decide to do anything we will be indepedant of what the EU do.
I beg to differ, if you pay real money with no guarantee to get what you want then that's gambling full stop.
There's another wrinkle to all this which is when items are then sold for money on third-party websites.
They've already shut down things like that: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Two-men-convicted-after-offering-illegal-gambling-parasitic-upon-popular-FIFA-computer-game.aspx
@YummyHappyPills Weird, isn't it? Gambling with an in-game currency is considered gambling, but it's fine when you're paying real-life money... These big publishers have a lot of lobbyist that will do anything to keep it out of the definition of "gambling". Like the "you always get something" excuse. As if a gambling wouldn't be considered gambling if you handed out a free piece of candy to every participant...
I used to earn a few quid a day with my Gameboy and Pokemon Blue at school. Can't remember how exactly but there was a slot game of some sort and I used to get everyone gambling with me.
I turned out just fine.
I mean, we are really just quibbling at this point about wording and definitions. A loot box might not be a gambling item but the way they are presented and incentivised are clearly done to encourage people to get them and they are made to give a rush, just like gambling. Microtransactions are here to stay but I think the fight might be won against loot boxes.
@kyleforrester87 Which one's you?
Boom-tish drumroll.
It's not like the UK government to be lagging behind more modern sensible European governments!
@Rudy_Manchego The little one with the tail
If you can't get the item in question directly, by directly paying it with real money or buy it with in-game money, it is a form of gambling, because you spend (real) money for a "chance" of getting item, not the item itself.
The pushsquare community are all gambling real money right now on if Tasuki will use the collecting cards analogy in the comments.
Gambling commission and Britain yeah look at soccer gambling is a standard there.
@themcnoisy Nope, I am done. I know they are one and the same, but if you and the rest of the community want to turn a blind eye to the truth and want to jump on the " what's cool to hate this month" bandwagon that's your progatve. I would just think people would be smarter around here then to just jump on a band wagon like that. But what can you do?
If they can't do much because loot boxes are not legally defined as gambling, then perhaps the legal definition of gambling needs to be corrected. Unfortunately I don't expect the government to sort this out anytime soon.
@Tasuki @fath made a good post on this, which I've copied below. I agree with him and you - both sticker packs and loot boxes are gambling. But ultimately they are not really one and the same. It would be, for example, a lot easier to game late into the early hours while you keep pressing a button to buy a loot box than it would be to keep walking to the shop during the day time to buy a sticker pack, you know? Accessibility and other details like this matter when you're comparing the two, it's not as straight forward as you're suggesting. My opinion on this topic has changed a lot in recent weeks, I'm still not sure where I really stand either, but you'd do well to be a bit less stubborn on the subject, I think..
Yes, loot boxes are gambling. Yes, trading cards and sticker packs are gambling. No, gambling is not always a bad thing. Yes, gambling can be circumstancially dangerous. Yes, loot boxes probably qualify as such.
Gambling is basically the sugar of (generalized) gaming. It’s a fundamental component of games that can add good flavor naturally and in moderation, but is dangerously and temptingly easy to artificially concentrate to harmful and addictive levels. Saying “trading cards are fine for kids, so loot boxes must be ok too” is like saying boxed apple juice is fine for kids, so installing free and unrestricted soda fountains in schools must be ok too.
A lot of people would say our society still has problems with sugar, but there are at least two approaches that obviously don’t work, and the same lessons could be applied to gambling: banning it outright, and pretending it doesn’t exist or isn’t dangerous. With sugar, we’ve at least been able to get to a point in society where these two extremes are obvious fallacies. We’re a long way from that point yet on gambling when it comes to loot boxes, but in the meantime, at least we should be able to see that just as dumping in spoonfuls of pure sugar can cheapen and ruin a fine dish, so too can injecting artificial gambling ruin an otherwise good game.
@kyleforrester87 Yes. This. Thank you for repeating that here. And thank you to @fath for the original post.
@Tasuki I don't think anyone is jumping on the bandwagon on this site as some people's opinion on lootboxes differ a little bit from each other, and we all have our own experiences with them because we all play these games. That seems a little unfair to just lump everyone together because the majority has come to a similar consensus.
One could say you're being a bit of a contrarian. Do I think that? No, not entirely, and even if I thought you were I wouldn't say that that makes your point invalid. It's just another perspective to consider (and that's never a bad thing), and as @fath has said in an earlier post the parallel between trading cards and lootboxes are important!
...
Or maybe you're just operating on Alex Jones levels of woke, and I'm a big fat idiot? What do I know?
@Constable_What tbf I called him a contrarian the other day.
@Tasuki
I think the "Wilson Loot Boxes" or EA model as termed by the video on this site are bad for game design when the whole reason any EA game seems to exist is to fit around this process, whether we agree or disagree they are gambling.
On another level, if you are done with it (the argument) making comments on an Internet message board you are a prominent and respected member of, that imply your personal position is unquestionably correct and that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is part of a lower intelligence mob is just going to be a lightning rod for more passionate arguments. It's why nobody can discuss things like "Brexit" or "Trump" anymore because it descends into people passionately defending their preexisting viewpoint while simplifying all people who hold a different one into some cartoon "neanderthal" or "snowflake".
What can you do?
A) Keep your own counsel and just say nothing.
B) Accept the objective truth is somewhere between two subjective opinions and debate people on individual merit, and be prepared to reevaluate your own position in the face of a good cohesive argument.
C) make negative generalisations and sweeping statements about people who have a different viewpoint, dig in and double down on everything.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...