Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
UK Gambling Commission pronounces loot boxes ‘not gambling’
-
ArchMikem✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I like how youre using EA and Activision, major publishers, as examples, but then you throw in ZOS, a Dev, most likely out of spite.CP2,100 Master Explorer - AvA Two Star Warlord - Console Peasant - Khajiiti Aficionado - The Clan
Quest Objective: OMG Go Talk To That Kitty!0 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »TLDR: if UK folks think loot boxes are gambling, you gotta pass a law that has a bigger definition of gambling.
As an American, I'm now curious as to where our laws fall on this.
U.S. states have wide latitude under general Federal laws to permit, prohibit, and regulate gambling. However, I imagine the statutes vary widely among the states, and many, if not most, are written in response to specific gambling practices.
Florida statutes, for example, are written around 'traditional' gambling and frequently mention card games and dice, while specifically permitting and narrowly defining permissible activities for horse racing, charities, bingo, and jai-alai.
It would be difficult to fit video game loot boxes (I am thinking of the egregious examples) into such a patchwork of reactionary legislation.
Further, I inferred from the UK Commissioner's comments that he may personally view that loot boxes should be controlled but did not have the regulatory framework to do so officially.
Your whole post assumes loot boxes are a form of gambling. The problem is you missed the key point.
Regulating forms of gambling has no impact on non gambling activities which is what the OP presented.
Does not matter at all how states regulate gambling until loot crates are first found to be a form of gambling.
The US defines gambling similarly as the UK and imo even less likely to include loot crates as a form of gambling.
Actually, I attempted to demonstrate exactly what you said. Under Florida gambling statutes, there is no way to fit video game loot boxes. The state House and Senate would have to take up the issue and pass an expansion of the statutes to include video game loot boxes.
I thought I was clear; I guess I was not.
Incidentally, such action is possible. Florida recently enacted laws prohibiting the operation of 'internet cafes'. These were businesses that rented internet access via desktop machines that also happened to run video poker and video slots. There was a complex process to convert video game winnings to cash (coupons and such) that insulated the cafe operator from the video poker/slot operator, (very ingenious legal ledgerdemain), but eventually the cafes were shuttered. But it took a fresh statutory look at the operation to do so.
So it could happen, I suppose.
The video poker issue was clearly gambling, they attempted to avoid the legal definition but it was still a monetized payout and was always intended as such.
Loot boxes suffer no such manipulation and have never enployed a monitized payout mechanism.
Point is under current law it will take a direct change in legislation or a new judicial ruling that significantly broadens the scope of old law. Something the bench in the US is traditionally loathe to do and rightfully so.Edited by Skwor on July 24, 2019 5:07PM0 -
JamilaRaj✭✭✭✭✭
✭Always look on the bright side; at least kids are safe from evils of gambling while gambling in FIFA, and can be thus given credit cards without worries. It is official now. I, for one, am relieved to hear that. Phew.
After all, the game is rated by reputable rating organizations that are by no means in conflict of interest as suitable for kids, presumably because it does not contain the F word, so the ruling is unsurprising.2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭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.
I'm not looking to pick a fight with the party of personal responsibility here, but rather to point out that your Prohibition example was extremely black and white. Loot boxes sit in a gray area because they are very new and while current legislation doesnt cover them, its entirely possible for concerned citizens to push for greater regulation, particularly in games that cater to children (which ESO is obviously not).
See, there are plenty of areas where society does regulate what children can and can't have access to, regardless of whather their parents take responsibility or not.
Gambling is one of those areas society regulates.
Loot boxes aren't gambling...under the current legal definition.
Regulation always falls behind current developments, and loot boxes are very much current developments.
Regulations and laws can be changed, at which point loot boxes may or may not be regulated any differently.
If enough people start looking at loot boxes and decide that they function similarly enough to gambling in terms of addictive mechanisms and the like that it warrants regulation, we'll probably see more pushes for either the legal definition of gambling to be expanded to cover loot boxes or to see loot boxes regulated in their own right.
This ruling laid the groundwork for how loot boxes opponents ought to fight them: either expand the legal definition of gambling or push for regulation on loot boxes specifically.
Loot boxes aren't going away, and they aren't restricted to adult games where you can say "personal responsibility," so it seems obvious to me that we're going to continue to see these concerns crop up again and again, including in legislation.1 -
Adernath✭✭✭✭✭ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.
[...]
Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.
This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.
1 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.5 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »TLDR: if UK folks think loot boxes are gambling, you gotta pass a law that has a bigger definition of gambling.
As an American, I'm now curious as to where our laws fall on this.
U.S. states have wide latitude under general Federal laws to permit, prohibit, and regulate gambling. However, I imagine the statutes vary widely among the states, and many, if not most, are written in response to specific gambling practices.
Florida statutes, for example, are written around 'traditional' gambling and frequently mention card games and dice, while specifically permitting and narrowly defining permissible activities for horse racing, charities, bingo, and jai-alai.
It would be difficult to fit video game loot boxes (I am thinking of the egregious examples) into such a patchwork of reactionary legislation.
Further, I inferred from the UK Commissioner's comments that he may personally view that loot boxes should be controlled but did not have the regulatory framework to do so officially.
Your whole post assumes loot boxes are a form of gambling. The problem is you missed the key point.
Regulating forms of gambling has no impact on non gambling activities which is what the OP presented.
Does not matter at all how states regulate gambling until loot crates are first found to be a form of gambling.
The US defines gambling similarly as the UK and imo even less likely to include loot crates as a form of gambling.
Actually, I attempted to demonstrate exactly what you said. Under Florida gambling statutes, there is no way to fit video game loot boxes. The state House and Senate would have to take up the issue and pass an expansion of the statutes to include video game loot boxes.
I thought I was clear; I guess I was not.
Incidentally, such action is possible. Florida recently enacted laws prohibiting the operation of 'internet cafes'. These were businesses that rented internet access via desktop machines that also happened to run video poker and video slots. There was a complex process to convert video game winnings to cash (coupons and such) that insulated the cafe operator from the video poker/slot operator, (very ingenious legal ledgerdemain), but eventually the cafes were shuttered. But it took a fresh statutory look at the operation to do so.
So it could happen, I suppose.
The video poker issue was clearly gambling, they attempted to avoid the legal definition but it was still a monetized payout and was always intended as such.
Loot boxes suffer no such manipulation and have never enployed a monitized payout mechanism.
Point is under current law it will take a direct change in legislation or a new judicial ruling that significantly broadens the scope of old law. Something the bench in the US is traditionally loathe to do and rightfully so.
It will take new legislation, at least in Florida.
Florida is a little more pro-active on this category than many other states, perhaps due to a long history of financial chicanery and dubious promotions. One of the reasons why Zenimax Media's sweepstakes games are void in Florida is that after years of shenanigans with 'promotions' like Publishers' Clearing House sweepstakes (among many others), the state finally had enough. All sweepstakes promoters must bank the entire prize pool value in a trust account in Florida.
One never knows, though. The state could wake up one morning and decide that buying random prize boxes is 'gambling', even though there is no monetized payout, simply because the mechanism offers a lure that entices repeated cash expenditure to try to obtain, without a matching guaranteed prize nor publishing of odds to win the prize. I can certainly see an argument to support such legislation.
2 -
Inaya✭✭✭✭✭
✭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.
Still adult responsibility. They should be parenting their children!1 -
rotaugen454✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The BestGandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The Best
Actually, I always had software on the computers so I could see everything they did online. So yes, I did monitor 24/7. The kids would need a CC to buy crowns, and if the kid is stealing the card to buy things, that is another issue altogether."Get off my lawn!"4 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭rotaugen454 wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The BestGandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The Best
Actually, I always had software on the computers so I could see everything they did online. So yes, I did monitor 24/7.
That is not what I asked.
I asked if you monitored it LIVE 24/7.
That is you, or a proxy, were watching - and could intervene, at a moment's notice 24/7.
All The Best
Those memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.0 -
RaveRaveRaveRave✭✭✭I feel loot crates are WORSE than gambling because... "...to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value."
With loot crates, you might as well light your money on fire. At least if I do actual "gambling", there's a SLIGHT chance I come out ahead rather than blowing money on reskinned/palette swapped images on my television screen.3 -
rotaugen454✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The BestGandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The Best
Actually, I always had software on the computers so I could see everything they did online. So yes, I did monitor 24/7.
That is not what I asked.
I asked if you monitored it LIVE 24/7.
That is you, or a proxy, were watching - and could intervene, at a moment's notice 24/7.
All The Best
That is obviously impossible, but there would be consequences because I knew what happened. And like I said, children would need to have a CC to buy crowns. Either the parent is giving them a card without understanding what they are using it for (that is on parents) or the kid is stealing the card, and the parents will have to deal with that."Get off my lawn!"4 -
randomkeyhits✭✭✭✭✭I just wish the commission had worded things better, something like "this form of gambling cannot be considered a licensable form of gambling in the UK" rather than say its not gambling when it patently is.
Then the conversation becomes a lot clearer in how to move it to licensed gambling if that is the desire.
Now you'll have the naysayers going on about how its "not gambling" as a blanket statement *sigh*
EU PS44 -
KerinKor✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Please educate yourself about these things before making yourself look silly.Legate_Lanius wrote: »[This decision, especially after the "surprise mechanics" argument is simply shocking. Either those companies slipped some fat cheques or they really have no clue on the subject (which isn't hard to understand to begin with).
The Commission's statement is a statement of legal FACT, as several including me have already pointed out, their report has been prepared over the last few months and reflect the LAW; suggesting 'fat cheques' is of course idiotic.
The fatuous 'surprise mechanics' comment by EA was made before the Commons Select Committee looking into the issue of loot boxes and the like, this has NOTHING TO DO with this report which was concluded weeks ago. If these scummy tactics are to be outlawed it is likely this Select Committee's report that could cause such a change, if that's what they recommend.,
Edited by KerinKor on July 24, 2019 6:42PM2 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.
[...]
Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.
This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.
It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.
Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.
Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.Edited by Skwor on July 24, 2019 6:57PM6 -
tonemd✭✭✭✭ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.
[...]
Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.
This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.
It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.
Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.
Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.
So if I enter a raffle to win a free burger from Wendy's by buying a raffle ticket, what part of the winnings have to be monetizeable for this to be gambling? Is it the burger itself, or the opportunity to get the burger?
If it's the former, then you can obviously sell a burger, but you could also perhaps sell an account with a bunch of rare items attached to it from opening loot boxes. If it's the latter, then if the party providing the winnings has rules on transferability, then I guess the ruling makes sense.
Are they assuming there is NO way to monetize items obtained from loot boxes, or just no DIRECT way?Edited by tonemd on July 24, 2019 8:51PM0 -
Matchimus✭✭✭✭✭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.
There is no shortage of evidence of children being neglected by their guardians. These types of arguments dont take these children into consideration and say they must fend for themselves in an adult world. I would hope as a society we are taking take steps to protect these children who fall through the cracks, not abandon them.
Edited by Matchimus on July 24, 2019 8:48PM1 -
Jhalin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭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.
The M rating only covers the 17+ age group, meaning it is still marketed to minors, and thus ESO would have to change the rating to Adults Only (which is a big PR ****show) or reduce/remove loot boxes once laws eventually catch up to the modern era.
On top of that, as far as PS4 accounts go, these CCs might not even need to be physically there in order to have funds used. A child with an allowance, or a teen that’s paid for chores with PS Store Cards, can have those funds added to their wallet at which point there is no way to see how it’s being used via a bank statement.
Unless the parent is using spyware to track everything their child does, they will have no idea the currency their kid is buying for their current favorite game is being used on what’s essentially digital gambling.
It’s very easy to assume everyone’s playing PC, but it’s is far harder to lay blame on the parents when you admit that a good portion of the playerbase are on console, which has so much less clarity on where funds are going once they’ve been converted into funds for their specific digitial stores.Edited by Jhalin on July 24, 2019 9:16PM0 -
Gandrhulf_Harbard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭rotaugen454 wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The BestGandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »rotaugen454 wrote: »Or...a parent can actually be involved and find out what it is. I dug into both of my kids hobbies to know what interested them and what they were doing, even if it was something I would otherwise have no interest in. If my kids needed a CC to purchase something, I knew exactly what it was.
Do you monitor your kids' internet and mobile activity, live, 24/7?
Because of you don't any bad thing that happens is ONLY YOUR fault.
That is what you just said.
Think about it.
All The Best
Actually, I always had software on the computers so I could see everything they did online. So yes, I did monitor 24/7.
That is not what I asked.
I asked if you monitored it LIVE 24/7.
That is you, or a proxy, were watching - and could intervene, at a moment's notice 24/7.
All The Best
That is obviously impossible, but there would be consequences because I knew what happened. And like I said, children would need to have a CC to buy crowns. Either the parent is giving them a card without understanding what they are using it for (that is on parents) or the kid is stealing the card, and the parents will have to deal with that.
Of course it is impossible.
So why were you in effect demanding it of other parents?
All The BestThose memories come back to haunt me, they haunt me like a curse.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse.1 -
Runefang✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Call me cynical but I doubt EA would ever let a government body in the UK pronounce Fifa packs as gambling. The amount of money they'd lose is huge. They made $800 million from Ultimate Team in 2016, it's even bigger now and likely over $1 billion. With that much to lose they'd put a lot of money and resources into protecting it, legally and illegally.1 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.
[...]
Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.
This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.
It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.
Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.
Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.
So if I enter a raffle to win a free burger from Wendy's by buying a raffle ticket, what part of the winnings have to be monetizeable for this to be gambling? Is it the burger itself, or the opportunity to get the burger?
If it's the former, then you can obviously sell a burger, but you could also perhaps sell an account with a bunch of rare items attached to it from opening loot boxes. If it's the latter, then if the party providing the winnings has rules on transferability, then I guess the ruling makes sense.
Are they assuming there is NO way to monetize items obtained from loot boxes, or just no DIRECT way?
It is not about IF it can be monetized, it is about the actual organization controlling the event monetizing the activity AND if the intent or expected outcome of the organizer was/ would be to monetize the activity.
This is why using off shore payouts for vouchers on typical games of chance still qualify as gambling regardless of the event organizer using any sort of voucher system that results in a payout, including payouts not made within the jurisdiction of the activity.Edited by Skwor on July 24, 2019 9:26PM0 -
DocFrost72✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭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.
There is no shortage of evidence of children being neglected by their guardians. These types of arguments dont take these children into consideration and say they must fend for themselves in an adult world. I would hope as a society we are taking take steps to protect these children who fall through the cracks, not abandon them.
Summarized: Think of the children.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.
The M rating only covers the 17+ age group, meaning it is still marketed to minors, and thus ESO would have to change the rating to Adults Only (which is a big PR ****show) or reduce/remove loot boxes once laws eventually catch up to the modern era.
On top of that, as far as PS4 accounts go, these CCs might not even need to be physically there in order to have funds used. A child with an allowance, or a teen that’s paid for chores with PS Store Cards, can have those funds added to their wallet at which point there is no way to see how it’s being used via a bank statement.
Unless the parent is using spyware to track everything their child does, they will have no idea the currency their kid is buying for their current favorite game is being used on what’s essentially digital gambling.
It’s very easy to assume everyone’s playing PC, but it’s is far harder to lay blame on the parents when you admit that a good portion of the playerbase are on console, which has so much less clarity on where funds are going once they’ve been converted into funds for their specific digitial stores.
I'd request both of you read my later post in this very same thread. It discusses things like credit card only crown crates (direct from the zos store, CC needed) and my position in why the "children play this game" argument is irrelevant to me. You'll also discover I'm not against restrictions and warnings, I'm against outright banning them.
Hope that helps clear some stuff up!2 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.
[...]
Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.
This is a very odd argument from that person you quoted, because on the one hand it apparently assumes that lootboxes do not involve rewards having any monetary value (otherwise it would be gambling), on the other hand it is admitted that there exist a secondary market. But these secondary markets clearly do not work without any monetary value, which means that the rewards in fact DO involve a monetary value.
It is a very lucid and well reasoned legal position. One that was predicted even on these forums months ago by several posters.
Think a bit on your position. Using your line of reasoning(which in truth is the odd reasoning) the courts could outlaw all sports based on the fact that multiple secondary markets use sports outcomes as a gambling mechanism including monetizing the results.
Legal, logical reasoning is a rigorous, deliberate process designed to be specific, otherwise everything would apply to everything in a legal matter.
So if I enter a raffle to win a free burger from Wendy's by buying a raffle ticket, what part of the winnings have to be monetizeable for this to be gambling? Is it the burger itself, or the opportunity to get the burger?
If it's the former, then you can obviously sell a burger, but you could also perhaps sell an account with a bunch of rare items attached to it from opening loot boxes. If it's the latter, then if the party providing the winnings has rules on transferability, then I guess the ruling makes sense.
Are they assuming there is NO way to monetize items obtained from loot boxes, or just no DIRECT way?
A raffle already is gambling, because there is prize, chance, and monetary consideration.
The difference between your analogy and video game loot boxes is this: loot boxes are purchased with in-game currency which can be spent on anything in the game's storefront. The fact that some of the products in the storefront incorporate chance does not ipso facto create gambling.
Further, if the video game company does not provide a means to convert in-game currency back to real world currency, then there is no monetary value or payout for buying a loot crate.
I would go one step further: since the game and all of the products in the game are never delivered into the consumer's possession, it could be argued that purchasing game currency is merely paying for the additional entertainment service of having game features enabled for the consumer's account.
As has been previously suggested, trying to define video game loot boxes as gambling under most jurisdictions' existing laws will not succeed. New legislation or an expansion of current legislation is required.
2 -
Androconium✭✭✭✭✭
✭DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.<snip>
85% of all hospital admissions can be linked to either alcohol or tobacco consumption.
I can't even imagine what responsible use of firearms would look like (I don't need any examples, either).
There is no such thing as responsible gambling. Gambling is games of chance and by definition, ignores rational thought.
The word 'marijuana' was introduced into the US as a derogatory term to link the use to illegal Mexican immigrants.
The correct word is Cannabis.
I've not even sure how baby/bathwater comment supports the rest of this piffle.DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.
You are wrong. Firstly, not all the nursery participants play fairly and some are just outright bullies to the others. That is why Nanny is there. The alternative is Lord of the Flies. The argument about "everyone's right", relies heavily on everyone being educated to the same level and having access to same information, to be able to make informed choices. People who self-harm are more than likely to have some sort of mental health problem. You trivialising that won't help.DocFrost72 wrote: »And to clear the air, I don't like or buy crown crates. <snip>
Really? Another example you, literally knowing nothing about what you are saying. Why don't you go out and spend $50 on 15 crates and see how happy the experience makes you feel. Then come back and tell that you still think its OK for young and vulnerable people to be lured into spending money on intangible products.
Despite what the UK ruling suggests, some people playing this game try many times to get that elusive "apex mount". That makes it gambling and addictive in practice, regardless of legislation.
Edited by Androconium on July 24, 2019 10:02PM3 -
DocFrost72✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Androconium wrote: »DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.<snip>
85% of all hospital admissions can be linked to either alcohol or tobacco consumption.
I can't even imagine what responsible use of firearms would look like (I don't need any examples, either).
There is no such thing as responsible gambling. Gambling is games of chance and by definition, ignores rational thought.
The word 'marijuana' was introduced into the US as a derogatory term to link the use to illegal Mexican immigrants.
The correct word is Cannabis.
I've not even sure how baby/bathwater comment supports the rest of this piffle.
I do believe we're ideologically opposed here. I don't believe we can reach any further understanding based on that. Have a great day
Edit: No need to edit your OP, I believe we're not going to fungamentally agree here. I still wish you a pleasant day!Edited by DocFrost72 on July 24, 2019 10:12PM2 -
Reistr_the_Unbroken✭✭✭✭✭
✭Androconium wrote: »DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.<snip>
85%
And that number is coming from where?4 -
Skwor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »Androconium wrote: »DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.<snip>
85%
And that number is coming from where?
Nice catch, given 85% of all statistics are 95 % made up 60% of the time
6 -
Jhalin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭DocFrost72 wrote: »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.
There is no shortage of evidence of children being neglected by their guardians. These types of arguments dont take these children into consideration and say they must fend for themselves in an adult world. I would hope as a society we are taking take steps to protect these children who fall through the cracks, not abandon them.
Summarized: Think of the children.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.
The M rating only covers the 17+ age group, meaning it is still marketed to minors, and thus ESO would have to change the rating to Adults Only (which is a big PR ****show) or reduce/remove loot boxes once laws eventually catch up to the modern era.
On top of that, as far as PS4 accounts go, these CCs might not even need to be physically there in order to have funds used. A child with an allowance, or a teen that’s paid for chores with PS Store Cards, can have those funds added to their wallet at which point there is no way to see how it’s being used via a bank statement.
Unless the parent is using spyware to track everything their child does, they will have no idea the currency their kid is buying for their current favorite game is being used on what’s essentially digital gambling.
It’s very easy to assume everyone’s playing PC, but it’s is far harder to lay blame on the parents when you admit that a good portion of the playerbase are on console, which has so much less clarity on where funds are going once they’ve been converted into funds for their specific digitial stores.
I'd request both of you read my later post in this very same thread. It discusses things like credit card only crown crates (direct from the zos store, CC needed) and my position in why the "children play this game" argument is irrelevant to me. You'll also discover I'm not against restrictions and warnings, I'm against outright banning them.
Hope that helps clear some stuff up!
I did read your quote in its entirety. You need to read mine. For console systems, there is no way to link a direct credit card purchase to Crowns. How many console players buy crowns through the website rather than their respective console stores? I’d imagine the percentage is low, so even if you remove crates from the ingame stores and only make them purchasable as one would buy the game itself, there is still a lack of clarity for consoles.
For PS4, you have to add funds to your wallet before any purchase is even made (yes even if you “buy direct” any particular item). Any bank statements for that transaction simply list it as going to PlayStation. Whatever you spent that on is not listed.
If your solution is to remove Crates entirely from the in game store, you would also have to remove them from the console digital stores as well. Otherwise there will still be no direct link to money being used toward Crates.
I’m not against that hassle being introduced as a deterrent, especially since it’s easier to rethink gambling when you’re presented clearly with the fact that you’re spending real money on a chance to roll for some cosmetics. Cash to digital currency has always been manipulative in design, and for all that I don’t much enjoy FFXIV, I appreciate that they present their cash shop as real-money transactions on the face of it.1 -
Androconium✭✭✭✭✭
✭Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »Androconium wrote: »DocFrost72 wrote: »<snip>
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.<snip>
85%
And that number is coming from where?
Nice catch, given 85% of all statistics are 95 % made up 60% of the time
If you have a different figure, I'd love to see it.And that number is coming from where?
Yes, how to lie with statistics and graphs. Meaning that any statistic is only reliable for the context in which it is produced.Nice catch, given 85% of all statistics are 95 % made up 60% of the time
The figure I quoted comes from a statistic floated around in 1996 in the heath care system where I worked.
It is the broad definition. the hospital where I worked had an increase in stabbing admissions on Friday and Saturday nights.
As a general example, if YOU were admitted with a stab wound and your attacker was drunk, then alcohol was the root cause of your injury.
This is another reason why Nanny needs to be standing outside the door with the rolling pin. People sometimes choose to get drunk, sometimes after losing some money by gambling. They then choose to stab people, as is their right, according to some comments here.
There is a section of human society that assumes that they can just take things away from other people, simply on the basis that the other people apparently were not informed enough to know how to stop it from happening.
That section of humanity is scum.
1
This discussion has been closed.