State of Hawaii introduces anti-gambling restrictions on video games

Holycannoli

I never thought about all the free-to-play games with a loot box system that won't be affected by this legislation. It reinforces my idea that this is a reaction to EA and Activision's loot boxes, who make a ton of money with them and only recently faced backlash.

Still hoping that this is just the beginning and that loot boxes and gambling systems in general will be addressed in the future. Been gaming since the 80s and do not like the direction the hobby has gone in recent years.

Skwor

Holycannoli wrote: »

I never thought about all the free-to-play games with a loot box system that won't be affected by this legislation. It reinforces my idea that this is a reaction to EA and Activision's loot boxes, who make a ton of money with them and only recently faced backlash.

Still hoping that this is just the beginning and that loot boxes and gambling systems in general will be addressed in the future. Been gaming since the 80s and do not like the direction the hobby has gone in recent years.

If your issue is with micro transactions and the p2w schemes I would agree. As far as ESO crates I see no problem at all.

Elsonso

starkerealm wrote: »

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

I saw a few comments about how the age should be raised to 21 and I thought of a few points nobody brought up.

What about those who already bought a physical copy of the game before the change? Are they breaking the law then? Are their physical copies going to be taken away when they rightfully bought it with their own money? What about people who are 20 and want to buy the game? Would it still be illegal then?

No.

But, what's goofy about this is, the way it's written, it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do.

So, here:

§481B- Video games; restrictions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game that contains a system of further purchasing:

(1) A randomized reward or rewards; or

(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.

(b) For the purpose of this section:

"Retailer" means any person who offers video games for sale, including resale by the purchaser, through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, or the Internet.

"Video game" means an object or device that stores recorded data or instructions, receives data or instructions generated by a person who uses it, and, by processing the data or instructions, creates an interactive game capable of being played, viewed, or experienced on or through a computer, gaming system, console, or other technology."

Okay, "unlawful to sell," means this is just a point of sale issue. Copies in the wild, given out, rented, or otherwise distributed aren't covered. There's no round up of contraband here. Just, you need to be 21 to buy the game.

So, read section A on its own, with headers 1 and 2 as alternate tests. "IF either (a1) OR (b1) == 1, THEN."

Section B just defines "retailer," and "video game." Purchasing is never defined. That may be defined elsewhere in the Hawaii code, but here, it's just, "you purchase something." It never specifies a micro-transaction system. Meaning a game with randomized drop boxes purchased with in-game currency, like ESO's Regional Boxes may actually violate this statute.

What's baffling to me, and this may be defined elsewhere, is that F2P titles, where no cash is paid up front, aren't affected. So a mobile game with predatory P2W loot boxes can' continue business as usual, because there's never a sale.

So Fortnite or Apex Legends are in the clear because you never buy the game. You download the game for free, then buy the currency later. This applies doubly for any mobile f2p games. On consoles, because there's an extra layer of abstraction, between the microtransaction currency purchased and the game, any argument on those sales would run into serious First Amendment challenges, because it would be an all or nothing thing. At that point, it'll just be the Leland Yee case all over again.

Open question if this even applies to expansion packs. Since those don't include the base game, they might not meet the definition of a video game for the statute.

I'd be honestly shocked if this can pass the least restrictive test to get past the first amendment.

Yes, my feeling is that this law is entirely for political posturing. The essay at the front, plus there are so many holes in it that you can march an army of elephants though it.

Girl_Number8

SaltySudd wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Read the legislation. As written it will not impact ESO crates at all.

I don't believe OP's post was addressing Crown Crates specifically or that Hawaii is banning loot boxes, but rather the general direction some countries/states are beginning to take loot boxes in video games by considering them forms of gambling. The legislation emphasized numerous times how it can be addicting and one of the biggest issues surrounding loot boxes is that it can affect children. The age restriction is a measure to protect children from that.

This is what I got from it.

Though I do think it is a great step forward but it is a shady subject, as there will always be loopholes.

Valrien

Crown Crates aren't gambling because they're not loot boxes. They're "Boxes of assorted consumables with a small chance of getting cosmetics." In short, you get what you paid for. It's similar to booster packs in cards. You pay for assorted cards, you get assorted cards with a chance to get rare ones

starkerealm

Skwor wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

I saw a few comments about how the age should be raised to 21 and I thought of a few points nobody brought up.

What about those who already bought a physical copy of the game before the change? Are they breaking the law then? Are their physical copies going to be taken away when they rightfully bought it with their own money? What about people who are 20 and want to buy the game? Would it still be illegal then?

No.

But, what's goofy about this is, the way it's written, it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do.

So, here:

§481B- Video games; restrictions. (a) It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game that contains a system of further purchasing:

(1) A randomized reward or rewards; or

(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.

(b) For the purpose of this section:

"Retailer" means any person who offers video games for sale, including resale by the purchaser, through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, or the Internet.

"Video game" means an object or device that stores recorded data or instructions, receives data or instructions generated by a person who uses it, and, by processing the data or instructions, creates an interactive game capable of being played, viewed, or experienced on or through a computer, gaming system, console, or other technology."

Okay, "unlawful to sell," means this is just a point of sale issue. Copies in the wild, given out, rented, or otherwise distributed aren't covered. There's no round up of contraband here. Just, you need to be 21 to buy the game.

So, read section A on its own, with headers 1 and 2 as alternate tests. "IF either (a1) OR (b1) == 1, THEN."

Section B just defines "retailer," and "video game." Purchasing is never defined. That may be defined elsewhere in the Hawaii code, but here, it's just, "you purchase something." It never specifies a micro-transaction system. Meaning a game with randomized drop boxes purchased with in-game currency, like ESO's Regional Boxes may actually violate this statute.

What's baffling to me, and this may be defined elsewhere, is that F2P titles, where no cash is paid up front, aren't affected. So a mobile game with predatory P2W loot boxes can' continue business as usual, because there's never a sale.

So Fortnite or Apex Legends are in the clear because you never buy the game. You download the game for free, then buy the currency later. This applies doubly for any mobile f2p games. On consoles, because there's an extra layer of abstraction, between the microtransaction currency purchased and the game, any argument on those sales would run into serious First Amendment challenges, because it would be an all or nothing thing. At that point, it'll just be the Leland Yee case all over again.

Open question if this even applies to expansion packs. Since those don't include the base game, they might not meet the definition of a video game for the statute.

I'd be honestly shocked if this can pass the least restrictive test to get past the first amendment.

And this is likely an analysis from a trained legal professional, whereas I must admit I am an amateur.

I would guess this is intentionally written poorly such that it basically aligns with the current game rating system age restrictions. This way the legislation would have no impact but the pols can take credit for doing something.

Trained; yes. Professional; no. I have to deal with copyright law as part of my day job, but I'm not a lawyer, and it's been almost a decade since I was in a pre-law class.

starkerealm

lordrichter wrote: »

Yes, my feeling is that this law is entirely for political posturing. The essay at the front, plus there are so many holes in it that you can march an army of elephants though it.

I don't think it's political posturing. If that was the case, it'd be a lot more vindictive. This looks to be well intentioned, but completely out of touch. I mean, it will play well when the time comes to say, "look, we're doing something," but this is more about, "hey, here's a problem, let's fix it." Without, fully understanding the problem. Probably the response of someone writing their state senators. (Which, by the way, does work... at least when your representative isn't a partisan batwit.)