Legislation Introduced in the USA to Ban Loot Boxes & Pay to Win Microtransactions

UrQuan

Goregrinder wrote: »

The problem with this is that the US has already defined what it considers "gambling". And since a user can't make a profit from the seller, and there is no intrinsic value from the items that come from the cases or crates, they aren't counted as currency, so this doesn't count as gambling.

Which is presumably why this bill was introduced: because the senator introducing it believes that loot boxes aren't considered gambling under current US law, so he wants to regulate them with a new law.

It's worth noting that some other countries have already ruled that if anything from a loot box can be exchanged for real world currency (whether through an official method, or through a third party service), then it counts as gambling. I assume that's why ZOS hasn't enabled gifting of items that you buy with gems - because you get gems from crown crates, and if you can gift items bought with gems then it's possible to get real world money for those items through a third party.

Personally I hate crown crates, and I'd never buy them, but they way they've been implemented in ESO isn't that bad compared to a lot of loot boxes in other games out there (although the initial version of them that first showed up on the PTS was terrible, and if they hadn't made the changes that they did between PTS and live, I wouldn't still be playing ESO). It would actually only take a couple of changes to them to make me totally OK with crown crates.

Zacuel

We need the whales to support this game so that the rest of us can enjoy it sub free.

I am sorely against this.

Goregrinder

UrQuan wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

The problem with this is that the US has already defined what it considers "gambling". And since a user can't make a profit from the seller, and there is no intrinsic value from the items that come from the cases or crates, they aren't counted as currency, so this doesn't count as gambling.

Which is presumably why this bill was introduced: because the senator introducing it believes that loot boxes aren't considered gambling under current US law, so he wants to regulate them with a new law.

It's worth noting that some other countries have already ruled that if anything from a loot box can be exchanged for real world currency (whether through an official method, or through a third party service), then it counts as gambling. I assume that's why ZOS hasn't enabled gifting of items that you buy with gems - because you get gems from crown crates, and if you can gift items bought with gems then it's possible to get real world money for those items through a third party.

Personally I hate crown crates, and I'd never buy them, but they way they've been implemented in ESO isn't that bad compared to a lot of loot boxes in other games out there (although the initial version of them that first showed up on the PTS was terrible, and if they hadn't made the changes that they did between PTS and live, I wouldn't still be playing ESO). It would actually only take a couple of changes to them to make me totally OK with crown crates.

Considering we fund 70% of the UN's defense budget, I don't think we care what other countries are doing. I doubt this proposed bill will go anywhere here.

Thevampirenight

Well I think they do it for the money it gives but unlike cryptic its not as bad. Whats bad with the crownboxes in eso is the mounts that can't be bought by crown gems. But still I think they should be half the price the crowncrates personally. 200 crowns at the max.

UrQuan

Goregrinder wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

The problem with this is that the US has already defined what it considers "gambling". And since a user can't make a profit from the seller, and there is no intrinsic value from the items that come from the cases or crates, they aren't counted as currency, so this doesn't count as gambling.

Which is presumably why this bill was introduced: because the senator introducing it believes that loot boxes aren't considered gambling under current US law, so he wants to regulate them with a new law.

It's worth noting that some other countries have already ruled that if anything from a loot box can be exchanged for real world currency (whether through an official method, or through a third party service), then it counts as gambling. I assume that's why ZOS hasn't enabled gifting of items that you buy with gems - because you get gems from crown crates, and if you can gift items bought with gems then it's possible to get real world money for those items through a third party.

Personally I hate crown crates, and I'd never buy them, but they way they've been implemented in ESO isn't that bad compared to a lot of loot boxes in other games out there (although the initial version of them that first showed up on the PTS was terrible, and if they hadn't made the changes that they did between PTS and live, I wouldn't still be playing ESO). It would actually only take a couple of changes to them to make me totally OK with crown crates.

Considering we fund 70% of the UN's defense budget, I don't think we care what other countries are doing. I doubt this proposed bill will go anywhere here.

WTF does the UN's defense budget have to do with anything? Are you saying it's funded by loot boxes? WTF are you even talking about?

Zacuel

*... Equips tinfoil hat as conspiracies start to fly*

Banana

Nothing will change

barney2525

Runefang wrote: »

Bouldercleave wrote: »

The exact court transcript:

Judge:

The player was only 11

Game developer:

Your Honor, we put a mature warning label and 18+ disclosure on the box. We also outline that the game is for mature audiences 18+ in our Terms of Service, and require online age verification all per the legal guidelines. The player electronically signed stating that he agreed with the Terms of Service and that he was over 18 years old. Here is the proof.

Judge:

Case dismissed

To be fair, until they get to the point with games where you have to prove you're over a certain age with ID the whole idea of game ratings is pointless nowdays. Back when all games were sold in stores you could reasonably expect the stores to enforce the age limits (even though they didn't), now it's impossible with online purchases. At some point people will be expected to provided images of an ID document along with a selfie, whenever the onus is put on the seller and not the buyer to prove the buyer's age.

Thats what credit card verification has always been for. Credit card verification has long been a standard for 'proving' the individual is an ' adult'. No picture ID required.

And remember, this is Politics. It's possible it may be proposed as ' protecting your children ' when it goes through the legislative process. How many senators are going to want to be against that? And have that position used against them in their next re-election?

sionIV

Zacuel wrote: »

We need the whales to support this game so that the rest of us can enjoy it sub free.

I am sorely against this.

1. We do not need whales to support this game.
2. Those whales can buy items directly from the store instead of crown crates.
3. You're willing to accept an immoral, exploitative and greedy practice like crown crates, just so you can play for free?

Facefister

Zacuel wrote: »

We need the whales to support this game so that the rest of us can enjoy it sub free.

I am sorely against this.

P2P ESO was much better than this mess. I really wish back the P2P model.

Iluvrien

Zacuel wrote: »

We need the whales to support this game so that the rest of us can enjoy it sub free.

I am sorely against this.

I’ve subbed since day 1, but I am completely against crates.

“We” don’t need whales. The “rest of us” don’t enjoy it sub free.

Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the problem.

ChunkyCat

ESO+ would go up in price and current folks without ESO+ will have to sub to play anyway.

Nothing is free.

ChunkyCat

Aside from the CandyCrush example, the only one offered in the original link, what other games use this model?

Genuinely curious.

Genomic

ChunkyCat wrote: »

ESO+ would go up in price and current folks without ESO+ will have to sub to play anyway.

Nothing is free.

There seems to be this bizarre viewpoint that ESO couldn't survive without this manipulative, casino-like monetization. They could make plenty from ESO+, selling the lootbox items goods directly through the store, etc. Plenty of games have and do manage this. Disgraceful that people have been conned into believing this is the way it has to be.

Narvuntien

I would not play if I had to sub to play, I don't have the monthly income for that. I do have the money to spend $30 on each new expansion though. I like the Chapter model.

We had loot boxes before the chapters we don't know if the expansion model can fun the game alone.

Loot boxes are gambling and they are fuelled by greed rather than nessairity.

Of course, ESO is 18+ so they aren't selling to minors anyway.

TheShadowScout

Tandor wrote: »

It depends very much on the way in which any legislation defines the lootboxes it regulates or bans. ESO differs from many games in that there is ingame value in every box, even if some players regard the standard content as trash. That distinguishes it from the standard form of gambling where you either win or lose...

...AND that the stuff ZOS sells for cash is only "cosmetic" or "shortcut", and not much else in effect.

Still, I reckon the worst that might happen is that maaaaybe they would change the crown crates to a non luck based system, selling the stuff in there directly for crowns. Which I'd prefer anyhow, honestly... (mostly because my luck tends to range somewhere between "bad" and "abyssal" most days)

But it is nice to see the legal system start thinking about this over there as well, espcially for the -real- offenders (the ones who drop you those "loot boxes" in game, then -sell- you a key to gamble on -maybe- finding something better then all the normal drops in there... or the ones where you -have- to charge up your character power with "premium" items bought in the cash store to have a chance of being competetive... we all know those games, i presume?)

Ackwalan

Genomic wrote: »

ChunkyCat wrote: »

ESO+ would go up in price and current folks without ESO+ will have to sub to play anyway.

Nothing is free.

There seems to be this bizarre viewpoint that ESO couldn't survive without this manipulative, casino-like monetization. They could make plenty from ESO+, selling the lootbox items goods directly through the store, etc. Plenty of games have and do manage this. Disgraceful that people have been conned into believing this is the way it has to be.

The loot boxes do bring in revenue. How much revenue, I do not know. But ZOS accountants are use to that revenue and will not just accept a cut in revenue. So if money is cut in one area, ZOS will try to increase revenue in other ways. They may increase the subscription model or increase the cost of crowns, but they will not just let that revenue fade away.

darthgummibear_ESO

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

It depends very much on the way in which any legislation defines the lootboxes it regulates or bans. ESO differs from many games in that there is ingame value in every box, even if some players regard the standard content as trash. That distinguishes it from the standard form of gambling where you either win or lose...

...AND that the stuff ZOS sells for cash is only "cosmetic" or "shortcut", and not much else in effect.

Still, I reckon the worst that might happen is that maaaaybe they would change the crown crates to a non luck based system, selling the stuff in there directly for crowns. Which I'd prefer anyhow, honestly... (mostly because my luck tends to range somewhere between "bad" and "abyssal" most days)

But it is nice to see the legal system start thinking about this over there as well, espcially for the -real- offenders (the ones who drop you those "loot boxes" in game, then -sell- you a key to gamble on -maybe- finding something better then all the normal drops in there... or the ones where you -have- to charge up your character power with "premium" items bought in the cash store to have a chance of being competetive... we all know those games, i presume?)

I didn't even play neverwinter for a full day after it released because of that crap.

Thevampirenight

What I think they are wanting to target in that bill is the dirrect on purpose attempts to get kids to buy these things. Maybe not ban them all the way but at the same time ban forced casino mechanical crap they use to hook people into it. Some of the lockbox tactics Cryptic and perfect world uses should be regulated for example and a requirement put into place that those drops have to be at least 35 to 45 percent for all lockboxes. Going middle ground make sure companies are prohibited from exploiting this to make billions while at the same time. Make players get what they want out of them and also ban lootboxes in all single player games. Allowing them only in Online mutiplayer games and have strict limits on it. I think cbs could be against this legistlation because they might benefit from Stos lockbox system. As they might make money off of that. Not sure if they do or not but I imagine so. Here is the thing about our politicans. Without trying to go political Just going to give examples of reasons why this might not come to pass and why and how it works. They care about power and money for their campaigns. Lobyists and corperations have a lot of power over policy. Given the times I imagine not doing this would be the worst thing they have done and that is not just america its all over the world. . This might not make it through. For those very reasons. They don't care about the player base they might pretend to care about children, There are good honest people that do care but there is many that care more about their power or their donations and I do think hes trying to do the right thing the person who made this legislation but given the climate . I think it would be up to the states really on this one. I doubt the federal government will do anything much on this as those who benefit and are in league with the corporations and lobbyists will stonewall it and make it so it doesn't reach committee. Given these are the same politicans that gave up net neutrality in favor of these very corporations. Yeah don't expect them to at all do something that benefits the gamers. Expect them to do the exact opposite and side with Ea, Cryptic/Perfect World and Other companies that do lootboxes and exploit people. Who knows I could be wrong and they really will do something. But we will have to wait and see.

ArchMikem

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Simple, if this Ban gets throught, ZOS has to return to a Subscription Model. Be carefull what you wish for

Crates arent the only reason people buy crowns.

Thevampirenight

Elder Scrolls Online isn't pay to win as say Ea. Most of their stuff is cosmetic or a new class or other things that can be unlocked for your account typical stuff you might see in games that add new features through new content. I don't think they would be much impacted by this. While they do overcharge on some stuff houses for example. Name change especially. They started the lootbox or crowncrates thing way after they introduced the crownstore not sure if it was before housing or after housing. These only give cosmetic items and random junk you can break down for gems to get the desired item. Which is quite nice compared to cryptic and ea I'm sure. Who do not do this. Crown gifting is a way to buy crates without having to use crowns with gold too in game. So that is something also in zenimaxs favor. I don't think they will go after Zenimax. But I think those who have really abused it might suffer from this if by chance it does pass.

Iluvrien

Narvuntien wrote: »

I would not play if I had to sub to play, I don't have the monthly income for that. I do have the money to spend $30 on each new expansion though. I like the Chapter model.

We had loot boxes before the chapters we don't know if the expansion model can fun the game alone.

Loot boxes are gambling and they are fuelled by greed rather than nessairity.

Of course, ESO is 18+ so they aren't selling to minors anyway.

The first Crown Crates were introduced in December 2016.

Before that the following expansions were released:

• Imperial City
• Orsinium
• Thieves Guild
• Dark Brotherhood

Orsinium was Chapter sized even if it didn't have the official title. We did not have loot boxes before Chapter sized releases, even if we did have loot boxes before anything named a Chapter.

I'm pretty sure that ZOS could do it again if they had any desire to do so. That they haven't? Well, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one.

russelmmendoza

Lets go back to subscription base.
So we can demand to fix this game.
We are paying customers fix your game.

Peekachu99

The only items in the current crown crates that would be subject to this kind of legislation would be potions, XP scrolls and mount upgrades. They can just take those out and it will be business as usual.

I think some of you need to play Neverwinter for all of 5 minutes to grasp what Pay to Win actually looks like—you buy gear and companions and other things the directly raise your power.

idk

Casdha wrote: »

idk wrote: »

FYI. Most legislation never makes it to the floor for a vote for even one of the chambers, let alone passed by both and signed into law.

Even on the small chance it gets passed, and it might, crates are not going away. It will merely set parameters that have to be followed. It is absurd to think that somehow a law will cease all use of crates in games.

Well this could be a rare case "could be" because this actually has supporters from both sides if the isle.

As far as absurd goes, why did Square Enix pull games from the Belgium market when they passed a similar law?

On the bright side, this should only affect crown crates and possibly force them to include new races and classes as part of the base game updates when new ones come out.

I never said it would not get passed. I merely gave an idea of the realistic chance.

Belgium is not exactly the USA which should be rather obvious by the government styles. Additionally, you need to drive a direct comparison between the loot boxes for those three games and what ESO offers since I expect (just a guess) that ESO is sold in Belgium.

Further, I do find it odd how you falsely combine new classes with the loot boxes when there is nothing relating the two areas other than they are in the same game. I think you are grasping at straws since even Belgium would not make such a ludicrous restriction. That last comment just make no sense.

WolfingHour

Goregrinder wrote: »

The problem with this is that the US has already defined what it considers "gambling". And since a user can't make a profit from the seller, and there is no intrinsic value from the items that come from the cases or crates, they aren't counted as currency, so this doesn't count as gambling.

Otherwise people who buy MTG packs, loot a rare card, can go up to Wizards of the Coast and demand the "black market" trade value in return for "winning". But Black market or 2nd hand values aren't counted as an actual value, and don't give an item intrinsic value.

Playing a slot machine at a casino is gambling because you use currency with intrinsic value to gamble for more currency with intrinsic value. You can put $1 in a machine, and get absolutely nothing back. Or you can put a $1 in, and get 100x times that value back from the house in the form of intrinsic currency. The fact that the house can make money off you, or that you can make money off the house, with real currency makes it gambling.

When you buy a case or crate, you aren't betting your money against something, you are paying for a service with no intrinsic value, but with the value of the cost of said service. The service is access to their server, and adding XX items to your online account or characters. There is no intrinsic value to them. How much you could make selling your account on ebay is a 2nd hand value, and does not count. The rare items you could get from the crates or cases have no real value outside of the game, they are items that can only be used within that said game.

The fact that there is a chance you could get an item, or a chance that you might not get an item doesn't inadvertently make it gambling. You're paying XX dollars for XX crates that give you something in return. You're never going to open a crate or case and get absolutely nothing. You're going to get SOMETHING. Whether or not that item is valuable to YOU or not is not what determines the line between gambling or not.

I find that definitely of gambling and intrinsic value really narrow. People spend money on crowns and subsequently on crates because they value *something* in them.

Have you read posts about people spend money over and over again to get radiant apex mounts, for example? How often do you read the OPs making the case that "hey, this mount might not mean anything to you but I really like it".

Like I said, narrow, so if we get to revisit that definition as well then great. Time has move on from the days of the good ol' one armed bandit.

Siohwenoeht

WolfingHour wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

The problem with this is that the US has already defined what it considers "gambling". And since a user can't make a profit from the seller, and there is no intrinsic value from the items that come from the cases or crates, they aren't counted as currency, so this doesn't count as gambling.

Otherwise people who buy MTG packs, loot a rare card, can go up to Wizards of the Coast and demand the "black market" trade value in return for "winning". But Black market or 2nd hand values aren't counted as an actual value, and don't give an item intrinsic value.

Playing a slot machine at a casino is gambling because you use currency with intrinsic value to gamble for more currency with intrinsic value. You can put $1 in a machine, and get absolutely nothing back. Or you can put a $1 in, and get 100x times that value back from the house in the form of intrinsic currency. The fact that the house can make money off you, or that you can make money off the house, with real currency makes it gambling.

When you buy a case or crate, you aren't betting your money against something, you are paying for a service with no intrinsic value, but with the value of the cost of said service. The service is access to their server, and adding XX items to your online account or characters. There is no intrinsic value to them. How much you could make selling your account on ebay is a 2nd hand value, and does not count. The rare items you could get from the crates or cases have no real value outside of the game, they are items that can only be used within that said game.

The fact that there is a chance you could get an item, or a chance that you might not get an item doesn't inadvertently make it gambling. You're paying XX dollars for XX crates that give you something in return. You're never going to open a crate or case and get absolutely nothing. You're going to get SOMETHING. Whether or not that item is valuable to YOU or not is not what determines the line between gambling or not.

Like I said, narrow, so if we get to revisit that definition as well then great. Time has move on from the days of the good ol' one armed bandit.

Except no one is forcing anyone to purchase crates at gunpoint. I'd rather not have any MORE government regulation of individual choice. People need to learn to control their own impulses if buying crates has become an addiction. There are many programs available to help them regain control. Folks need to take personal responsibility, not pass the buck.

Glurin

barney2525 wrote: »

And remember, this is Politics. It's possible it may be proposed as ' protecting your children ' when it goes through the legislative process. How many senators are going to want to be against that? And have that position used against them in their next re-election?

Oh I can guarantee you that it will be presented that way. The old "Think of the children!" line has been time tested and proven to be quite effective at getting all kinds of things passed, whether it's a good thing or full blown fascism. It's even more effective than screaming that your opponents just want people to die or that they're racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

And for the folks in here saying "Don't worry, it only applies to games for children.", yeah, that's another well worn political maneuver. In this case, it's a very safe bet that "games for children" is going to be defined as anything that isn't a straight up *** magazine with video game wrapping paper.

Commancho

DirkRavenclaw wrote: »

Simple, if this Ban gets throught, ZOS has to return to a Subscription Model. Be carefull what you wish for

There is subscription model already. Playing this game without ESO+ is like eating a soup with a fork.

Heelie

ESO got rid of forced subscribtion I think over a year before they released the crown crates. The crown crates came with One Tamriel and they where my opinion a little forced. ZOS added a lot of crap to them to them that noone wants, there are ways of making gambling crates that are actually desireable to the general public, just look at League of Legends as an example, they have mystery crates, you will get a skin worth more than the crate itself but you have no power to decide which one. Now do this with mounts, costumes, style pages. They can still keep the Apex system.