Sadly not a surprise, the reasons given were widely noted in reports over the last months .. the scummy tactics of EA, Activision, ZoS etc. when it comes to loot boxes are simply not 'illegal' in the UK due to a lack of an 'official' way to convert the 'winnings' into real-world cash.

Sadly the UK legislation isn't interested in protecting vulnerable people from spending small fortunes on these scummy monetization schemes, it's very narrowly focused on last-century gambling.

EA, Activision, ZoS, etc. will only be stopped when the law in changed to recognize these scummy practices which are there to simply prey on the vulnerable .. and not so vulnerable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4

Laws have to change before commissions like that can say they are gambling. Same applies in the US.

As a brit I really should point out that the gambling commission cannot say anything is gambling if it is outside of the law in question. Our gambling laws have not been updated and this the gambling commission cannot say anything is "illegal" or is "Gambling" unless the law states it as such. UK law has always been about nuance but that cannot be had if it does not exist inside the law itself.

The reality is what the gambling commission has stated ultimately means nothing. EA will run with it and use it as a crutch of course but generally speaking, it really does mean nothing. The only way the gambling commission will say its gambling is if it is specifically stated in the law to which the law is roughly 10 years in the past right now it never lines up with modern society.

Parliament needs to change or add to the law itself through legislation first.

Though I will admit, due to the commission not really saying anything at all it would of been frankly better if they just kept their mouth shut though it is somewhat sad that our culture minister has absolutely no clue as to what our culture is these days which is likely why this statement was even allowed to be published at all.

The law is abstract, and the applicability on a certain case subject to the judgement of the administration and the courts. The point that only an "unofficial" way to convert prizes to money could very well have been seen the other way.

Imagine the following: A guy sells plastic tokens for 50 pounds a pop and takes them back for 45. Another guy exchanges these tokens for heroin. There's little if any other use for these tokens. They both claim they have nothing to do with each other, which may even be true. Still, I'm pretty sure we'd put all of them in jail for selling drugs.

In Japan, a pretty similar thing is used to circumvent gambling laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachinko#Crime

But I assume that's only accepted due to the unique Japanese handling of gambling and crime. That wouldn't fly in Europe, I assume.

Unless, of course, big business is involved.

rotaugen454 wrote: »

I guess we should ban alcohol, as people with a weakness in that area can’t handle it. Ban people from buying too much food too. At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. The United States tried banning alcohol, and it caused an explosion in organized crime.

Personal responsibility comes into play with adults.

When its children, we regulate things like gambling and alcohol.

Its just that this court established that the current laws don't cover gaming loot boxes because of how narrowly "gambling" is defined.

So if enough people are concerned that gaming loot boxes are close enough to gambling, they can work to expand the legal definition to include them, at which point gaming loot boxes can be subject to greater regulation.

And naturally, depending on how that new legal definition is worded, ESO might or might not have to change a thing.


Personally, I suspect that the marketing tactics some online games use on children expanded far in advance of legislation amd we'll be seeing a scramble to catch up as people grapple with the impact.

VaranisArano wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

I guess we should ban alcohol, as people with a weakness in that area can’t handle it. Ban people from buying too much food too. At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. The United States tried banning alcohol, and it caused an explosion in organized crime.

Personal responsibility comes into play with adults.

When its children, we regulate things like gambling and alcohol.

Its just that this court established that the current laws don't cover gaming loot boxes because of how narrowly "gambling" is defined.

So if enough people are concerned that gaming loot boxes are close enough to gambling, they can work to expand the legal definition to include them, at which point gaming loot boxes can be subject to greater regulation.

And naturally, depending on how that new legal definition is worded, ESO might or might not have to change a thing.


Personally, I suspect that the marketing tactics some online games use on children expanded far in advance of legislation amd we'll be seeing a scramble to catch up as people grapple with the impact.

Children should not have unmonitored access to internet and credit cards. That is on the parents.

rotaugen454 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

I guess we should ban alcohol, as people with a weakness in that area can’t handle it. Ban people from buying too much food too. At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. The United States tried banning alcohol, and it caused an explosion in organized crime.

Personal responsibility comes into play with adults.

When its children, we regulate things like gambling and alcohol.

Its just that this court established that the current laws don't cover gaming loot boxes because of how narrowly "gambling" is defined.

So if enough people are concerned that gaming loot boxes are close enough to gambling, they can work to expand the legal definition to include them, at which point gaming loot boxes can be subject to greater regulation.

And naturally, depending on how that new legal definition is worded, ESO might or might not have to change a thing.


Personally, I suspect that the marketing tactics some online games use on children expanded far in advance of legislation amd we'll be seeing a scramble to catch up as people grapple with the impact.

Children should not have unmonitored access to internet and credit cards. That is on the parents.

Plus ESO is M for mature (in the USA)
Why are kids even playing this game?

DocFrost72 wrote: »

Children (at least to my knowledge of the US) can't get credit cards.

They can under the age of 18, if it's a joint account. I had one through a department store called Macy's back when I was 15. Though my Mother was the primary owner since she is considered an adult.

Having that card, being instructed by Mother how to use it and when not to can be a excellent way to learn how to manage money and understanding how credit works.

Truth be told though, I wouldn't actually _have_ credit until around 2014 when I was able to get a real CC in my name through BestBuy. That being said, yes it is more difficult by today's standards to get a CC, especially if you have 0 credit or are just starting out on building credit.

"Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value."

So they're saying it's like gambling, but worse, given the things you "win" have no monetary value? Yet they still won't do anything to regulate the greedy industry that refuses to regulate itself? Wow...

Pathetic, but unsurprising. I wouldn't expect a quick reversal either, what with the direction of things at the moment.

The pixels in question have no monetary value. You don't even own them. A dollar is more valuable to the rest of the world than 1 million crowns. People need to consider that converting your money into worthless currency is the first step here, one we willingly take - for entertainment.

If crowns were physical, they'd end up in the bin with all those unused carnival tickets, arcade tokens, and cheap prizes from both of those places. I've heard the same kind of lines from carnies as Pacrooti. The tactics are the same the world over.

Best case scenario: We go back to buying stuff with crowns or earning in game
Worst case scenario: Only way to get things is to get them from crates
Most likely scenario: It remains the same

DocFrost72 wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

I guess we should ban alcohol, as people with a weakness in that area can’t handle it. Ban people from buying too much food too. At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. The United States tried banning alcohol, and it caused an explosion in organized crime.

Personal responsibility comes into play with adults.

When its children, we regulate things like gambling and alcohol.

Its just that this court established that the current laws don't cover gaming loot boxes because of how narrowly "gambling" is defined.

So if enough people are concerned that gaming loot boxes are close enough to gambling, they can work to expand the legal definition to include them, at which point gaming loot boxes can be subject to greater regulation.

And naturally, depending on how that new legal definition is worded, ESO might or might not have to change a thing.


Personally, I suspect that the marketing tactics some online games use on children expanded far in advance of legislation amd we'll be seeing a scramble to catch up as people grapple with the impact.

Children should not have unmonitored access to internet and credit cards. That is on the parents.

Hate to be that guy but ^

Eso is marketed towards and exclusively designed for adults. If your child is playing *you* have waived the right to be upset at what they encounter.

Iirc Fifa is rated E, so much stronger argument there;

Except,

Children (at least to my knowledge of the US) can't get credit cards.

So perhaps the answer is as simple as making any crates mandatory direct card purchase. No crowns, no "fifa bucks", but a direct purchase. If mom and/or dad can't be bothered to pay attention it's not on the company.

No - of course, children should not have access to CC.

The issue becomes, much like others have commented here, about the cultural context and "understanding" older adults/parents/whomever may - or may NOT - have about what their kid is buying. (Not a new problem, just saying, it factors into this statement of 'its on the parents.')

Kid comes to parent and says, "Dad I want to spend five bucks on these loot boxes in my game." Or kid has an allowance that week and wants to spend it on the loot boxes - says to dad, "Dad Here's my 10 buck allowance cuz this is only a CC expense in my game".

Maybe that Dad is an avid gamer, and maybe he ain't. Maybe that Dad understands what a "loot box" really is - and maybe he doesn't. As others comment watching lawmakers "not understand" how this is gambling or how "dangerous" this could be - so the same said for parents.

But if a parent isn't aware of what that lootbox "really is" or how the system works - then no, they wouldn't stop their kid at all from spending their entire allowance on xyz in a video game - anymore than they'd stop them from buying a toy or an itunes purchase with the same money.

And that's where the "creep" sets in. The Creep of acceptance this is how "games work" (something none of us grew up with). The creep of acceptance that, "playing games means I gotta rngbox for some of it." As well as the creep of acceptance of spending that money again and again until you get what you want - and that's the creep of gambling addiction. The creep of it being "normal" and "ok" coupled with the unavoidable human response to intermittent reinforcement. (Go read up if you don't know what that is!)

If a parent doesn't realize loot-boxes are basically slot-machines (the human brain doesn't care whether it has monetary equivalence lol) then the kid will be started down that road - to make the realization themselves, maybe, one day.

My point being - if NOTHING else needs to be happening - AWARENESS needs to be raised. For adults. My parents grew up watching me play Atari, PC, nintendo - they would have *no idea* gaming involves this crap now. Most of my friends (30s and 40s) if they dont play games themselves, have no CLUE about loot boxes and how prevalent they are in kids games. Mobile games - sure (if they play them - guess what - not everyone does!) - they may have the concept from that, but as mobile games and 60$ console games aren't viewed the same - that doesn't mean the person understands that yea, unfortunately, form some of these AAA titles - they are more lootboxy than a mobile game.

So yea - the legal hearings are great - but without adults educated on context and what this all "really is", it won't get anywhere.

And it won't matter if the general adult populace doesn't realize how prevalent loot boxes are becoming in these games, and how constant the prompts to get them can be.

I was flabbergasted and shocked myself recently when I was made aware of EA sports monetization in 60$ titles and just how THICK with microtransactions and lootboxes these games have become. Games that, because they are sports games - most parents don't think twice about their kids playing. Don't think twice about needing to "watch" what the video game is about - "its about soccer - no big deal!" And therefore would have no clue that they spend 60 bucks on a constant microtransaction commercial for their children to sit in front of all day. And that ANY dollar spent on a single lootbox paves the way for gambling problems.

That doesn't even consider all the console accounts hardwired to a CC number so the kid doesn't even have to ask permission first. If a kid has an allowance and wants to spend their 10 bucks a week on Fortnite Boxes, parents aren't going to notice a thing.

IMO - much like other public service announcements to raise public education and awareness about serious issues (and being one of the few mechanics that actually works to curb behaviors) - advocate groups and us GAMERS who hate this trend and fear what games will be turning into - need to be EDUCATING EDUCATING EDUCATING! We need to be raising the call, educating our parent-friends, pointing out the risks here.

Get out of our own echo chamber, realize that no, the "majority" of adults *still* don't play video games regularly - and realize that, like with most things, real change comes with raising awareness and educating.

The law rarely to never gets in front of that education. That's not how the real world works. The whole "technology advances faster than human understanding of it (the consequences of it), and laws about that tech follow 10 years behind that." Laws are ALWAYS behind societal developments and progression; that is the way of the world.

To get ahead of it - spread the word. Outside of game podcasts or streams and forums.

Cuz yea, in the last few years, this has gotten disgusting.

And as much as I can vote with my wallet and not purchase games from companies that are trending towards disgusting (EA, Bethseba, Activision...) if no one else understands why - my wallet doesn't count for crap. And the number of publishing houses going towards disgusting instead of staying in "quality games" and not "release alpha for 60 bucks and microtransaction/lootbox the rest of it" - is ticking up far too fast. And the five year old who thinks "good gaming" means "60 bucks for an alpha, we have to buy in to the store to see the game finished" is all too readily becoming the "norm" we're heading into.

And that's sad.

@mystkldrgnb14_ESO (tagging because quoting would be a significant wall and I only want to reply generally!)

I think we mostly agree. The TL:DR is I 100% agree on two major things; loot boxes should not be marketed to children or easily accessible to them, and most people have no clue what a "loot box" even is, particularly legislators (though that's changing as they keep hearing it from their constituency. They'll try to make it a campaign slogan if it gets enough traction, as politicians do xD)

I even think we agree that loot boxes are bad. I'd wager we differ to the degree; they are a tolerable nuisance to me.

I disagree that *I* (can't speak to anyone else) would ever accept that a game just "has" to have them. If a game required microtransactions to be competitive in pve or pvp, it's a big no to me from the onset (used to play clash of clans, stopped at level 8 main building when cooldowns were literal weeks but you can pay to fast track).

I also disagree that the government should outright ban lootboxes in games. Some people do enjoy them and use them responsibly. Like Marajuana, Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and even RL gambling, I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

Now,

I'm all for warnings. By all means, mandate warnings. "DANGER: Crown crates can be highly addictive to some individuals". Press E to accept and go from there. Heck, even a FAQ on ZOS's site that links a hotline for gambling.

Where I continually get frustrated, over and over and over again, is being told (in the general sense) I'm wrong for thinking some people enjoy crates and that they should have access to them. I'm told I'm wrong for valuing individuality and self governance over Nanny State telling us "oh no sweetums, that will hurt you. Let me take the big bad loot boxes away." I value anyone's right to self governance (even to the extremes of self harm) over trusting someone else to make decisions for myself or others.

And to clear the air, I don't like or buy crown crates. I think zos would get a lot more of my money if they offered direct sales. They'd lose out on those that buy the crates however, so money talks and I walk (away).

Edited for spelling, grammar, phone stuffs!