UK Government - loot boxes

[bamberfishcake]

I think they need to have guaranteed digital items instead of items that could give you that rare item. The chance at a rare item is the biggest problem IMO when it comes to these games.

I agree they are a bad product, designed to keep you spending, but just don't play them or buy them.

As far as I know, they all come with a description of what you can expect.

To me, it's a bit like a child opening a present on Christmas day and moaning because they didn't get what they expected. There is an issue with the individual, not the present. You don't go out and buy another one until you get a happy child either, or bitch and moan that you've wasted your money after.

 

[johnnybagel]

I don't think that citing an extreme case (such as where a kid with autism has got hold of their parents credit cards and maxed them out on loot boxes) is particularly representative either.

Just because something bad happened somewhere once, that isn't proof of that 'something' being through and through evil. You could do that with anything. There was a story about a guy in South Africa who died after necking a bottle of Jägermeister. That's not Jager's fault though, despite the fact they advertise the stuff. There are extremes of everything but we can't regulate based on them.

I have bought loot boxes and probably will again, I know loads of people that do it. They aren't sucked in by the evil hypnosis of advertising, they want the gun/armour/player/whatever and are willing to pay extra to get it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Just because something bad happened somewhere once, that isn't proof of that 'something' being through and through evil. You could do that with anything. There was a story about a guy in South Africa who died after necking a bottle of Jägermeister. That's not Jager's fault though, despite the fact they advertise the stuff. There are extremes of everything but we can't regulate based on them.

Yeah but they don't sell Jägermeister to three year olds.

 

[goatwack]

Alongside microtransactions in video games, loot boxes are the next worst thing to have hit that industry.

But it didn't have to be like that, and as per usual, these 'additions' have been introduced to monetize the bejesus out of an-already £50+ game, as it didn't take companies long to figure out that making £150 out of one game is a more 'streamlined' business model.

So whilst there are, still, responsible 'gamers' out there, who may not be willing or able to invest days into unlocking everything a game has to offer, the option of shortcutting your way to higher items etc will always have a place and functionality.

Yet it's not about them - loot boxes specifically are the mainstay of many franchises, even usurping the actual game. Take EA, the BTG of video gaming, and their lootbox proceeds making up around a third of their entire company's revenue, and so it becomes more about collecting digitized Panini stickers than actually playing pixelated football.

And these lootbox urges are geared towards the 'get-everything-now-without-having-to-unlock it' demographic that like their instant fix, to have the best players etc......albeit with no guarantee of ever getting them in the lootboxes.

Problem then is that those wishing to get these quick-fix perks are usually not in a position to really keep buying them, because completionism is rather difficult. It's not like those buggers are 20p a pack now, is it? So it defers to the Bank of Mum & Dad, as is often the case, with disastrous results.

I rather thought common sense had struck a small victory when Star Wars Battlefront 2 attempted to hide all the game's good items behind a lootbox paywall, before the EA where so roundly lambasted that they scrapped it altogether. But alas, it mattered little, seemingly, as the industry's adapted to rename them 'surprise mechanics' and suchlike, all the while employing the same practices.

Gaming didn't 'need' lootboxes, and was better off without them. It's a purely cynical ploy to maximize profits from games that used to be self-contained, and to encourage advantage play

 

[dunover]

Alongside microtransactions in video games, loot boxes are the next worst thing to have hit that industry.

But it didn't have to be like that, and as per usual, these 'additions' have been introduced to monetize the bejesus out of an-already £50+ game, as it didn't take companies long to figure out that making £150 out of one game is a more 'streamlined' business model.

So whilst there are, still, responsible 'gamers' out there, who may not be willing or able to invest days into unlocking everything a game has to offer, the option of shortcutting your way to higher items etc will always have a place and functionality.

Yet it's not about them - loot boxes specifically are the mainstay of many franchises, even usurping the actual game. Take EA, the BTG of video gaming, and their lootbox proceeds making up around a third of their entire company's revenue, and so it becomes more about collecting digitized Panini stickers than actually playing pixelated football.

And these lootbox urges are geared towards the 'get-everything-now-without-having-to-unlock it' demographic that like their instant fix, to have the best players etc......albeit with no guarantee of ever getting them in the lootboxes.

Problem then is that those wishing to get these quick-fix perks are usually not in a position to really keep buying them, because completionism is rather difficult. It's not like those buggers are 20p a pack now, is it? So it defers to the Bank of Mum & Dad, as is often the case, with disastrous results.

I rather thought common sense had struck a small victory when Star Wars Battlefront 2 attempted to hide all the game's good items behind a lootbox paywall, before the EA where so roundly lambasted that they scrapped it altogether. But alas, it mattered little, seemingly, as the industry's adapted to rename them 'surprise mechanics' and suchlike, all the while employing the same practices.

Gaming didn't 'need' lootboxes, and was better off without them. It's a purely cynical ploy to maximize profits from games that used to be self-contained, and to encourage advantage play

Loot Boxes I suppose are rather like a bonus buy on slots. My best analogy. When the frustrations of the game take precedence and you require a shortcut to satiate your impatience or alleviate your perceived lack of achievement. When you are in thrall to the high-scorers or achievers, the so-called 'pro players' and want to emulate them. Kind of like buying bonuses because you want to win thousands like the streamers do (really, they do!)

 

[winner2021]

No idea about loot boxes but they do need to put some sort of restrictions on Slingo imo. I lost £700 in less than five minutes on that bastard a few months ago. How can they restrict lines in normal slots to only £1 or £2 a spin but let you buy a bonus (that never happens) for £100+ a go? I wasn't even buying for the fh, but got carried away and couldn't believe no numbers were coming out. I've now put my own restrictions on the game but then that means I rarely get any high bonus. It's so easy to get out of control on Slingo thinking the next spin will get you the bonus. They did let me keep hundreds when it malfunctioned one time so that was good, I wish I'd rinsed them for more now but I owned up when I realised it was paying out when it shouldn't have been!

Generally I'm totally against restrictions and nannying but Slingo is another thing altogether...hundreds disappear in seconds.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Generally I'm totally against restrictions and nannying but Slingo is another thing altogether...hundreds disappear in seconds.

So you're against restrictions apart from when the thing involved is personally causing you pain and then it should be restricted. Gotcha.

I've never personally been harmed by loot boxes, but I can entirely understand that for some people they are a destructive and addictive force, and I agree that they should be restricted on that basis. The wellbeing of others is more important to me than my own 'freedom' to do whatever the hell I want at all times and in all circumstances.

 

[satchnz]

So you're against restrictions apart from when the thing involved is personally causing you pain and then it should be restricted. Gotcha.

That’s human nature 101 (sadly).

 

[goatwack]

Difference being, one's a dedicated gambling option intended for adult use, whilst loot boxes are a monetized gambling option aimed at under-18s, whilst masquerading as 'gameplay extras' that enhance the player's chances of succeeding in competitive multiplayer situations.

Loot boxes are supposed to look innocuous and only as a rewarding perk, glibly discarding the fact that you're taking a paid risk at attaining anything of note. Now if random loot boxes were 'dropped' onto the battlefield as it were, or served as a reward of sorts for completing a difficult stage, then that might add to the overall enjoyment of the game.

......but they don't. And they're targeted at kids who don't have any real concept of money, and more than likely still eat their own snot. Start by age-restricting loot boxes, and whilst that might not be the be-all-and-end-all to what is still a money-grab mechanic, at least we wouldn't be talking about how the gaming industry's subverted what might have been a good idea.

I won't be holding my breath however, and will bask in witnessing the sheer idiocy of how various industries bungle their approach to safequarding themselves, with comical results, all the while as loot boxes go unchecked for several years more

 

[mack341]

So you're against restrictions apart from when the thing involved is personally causing you pain and then it should be restricted. Gotcha.

I've never personally been harmed by loot boxes, but I can entirely understand that for some people they are a destructive and addictive force, and I agree that they should be restricted on that basis. The wellbeing of others is more important to me than my own 'freedom' to do whatever the hell I want at all times and in all circumstances.

Winner said he had no idea about loot boxes, slingo sounds like an innocent game grannies can while away the hours on, a variation on bingo, but obviously not if hundreds can be lost in seconds.

Just out of interest are you in favour of the sugar tax? You see I don't view restricting loot boxes as nannying, [the phrase winner used] I would see it as a protective response to cynical software firms.

But being forced now to pay more if I want a bottle of cordial squash made with sugar rather than sweeteners, that I would call nannying, also seeing as there is no tax on an actual 1kg bag of sugar [as far as I know]

 

[winner2021]

So you're against restrictions apart from when the thing involved is personally causing you pain and then it should be restricted. Gotcha.

I've never personally been harmed by loot boxes, but I can entirely understand that for some people they are a destructive and addictive force, and I agree that they should be restricted on that basis. The wellbeing of others is more important to me than my own 'freedom' to do whatever the hell I want at all times and in all circumstances.

Er no, I play slots and lose hundreds/thousands on them as well they've caused me lots of pain and no I don't want them restricted. Normal slots don't have the capacity to buy a bonus round and lose hundreds in seconds when you never intended to do that because the stake is constant with slots. With Slingo the game decides the stake for the bonus and if you want a chance for the bonus you buy it-and if you only need one number for the bonus it's often very very tempting. Then the number doesn't even come out so you do one more and then it still doesn't come out. If you are staking high like £5 a go the bonus feature can cost £100+ a time...I'm simply saying if they have restricted normal slots to £2 a spin and talk about how much people lose and how dangerous slots are, why haven't they even looked into Slingo which is far worse.

I saw people mention it on here so I agreed with their points about how risky the game is. It was either that or make another thread to talk about it. Again I have no idea what loot boxes are and have no experience of them so I really can't comment on how risky they are. It doesn't mean I don't care about the wellbeing of others FFS way to jump on someone over just giving their own experiences of a certain game they are familiar with...

 

[winner2021]

Winner said he had no idea about loot boxes, slingo sounds like an innocent game grannies can while away the hours on, a variation on bingo, but obviously not if hundreds can be lost in seconds.

Just out of interest are you in favour of the sugar tax? You see I don't view restricting loot boxes as nannying, [the phrase winner used] I would see it as a protective response to cynical software firms.

But being forced now to pay more if I want a bottle of cordial squash made with sugar rather than sweeteners, that I would call nannying, also seeing as there is no tax on an actual 1kg bag of sugar [as far as I know]

No I don't have any idea about loot boxes, I don't game at all, never heard of em before. If they are anything like Slingo though then I can understand the problem, and if it's targeted to kids...well I'm getting some idea why it's a problem but it's not my place to say if it should be restricted or not like that other poster seems to think, doesn't mean I don't care...I just don't know enough about the game or whatever it is to comment specifically on it.

Haha Slingo is anything but innocent, if you thought you could lose a lot on slots in a short space of time, they have nothing on Slingo...

 

[ads2003uk]

Slingo is too addictive.for.thr one more press like you say. all British Casino bought in a control feature where you can put a game on a game ban list.. (think it's only 30days at a time though) so I've stuck all the Slingo games in to save me from temptation.

Back into loot boxes, our local radio have had the discussion tonight about the expense of games for kids what with increase on everything.
One caller pointed out that his grand kids have requested points for games instead of pocket money and then pointed purchase to collect/complete has always happened with popular items over the years.

He went on to say that his two kids now in 40's wanted to comply their Mexico 86 Panini sticker collection, same for Italia 90 and the folder with the stickers + fact sheets. It was 30p per sticker for Mexico and 50p for Italia 90 (fact sheet was £1) and of course the makers kept quite a few from public distribution.
I think the same happened with Garbage Pail kids, where you had to purchase to complete collection.

Also you see the model kits advertised on TV ie. build an Ironman (only one that turned my head - Marvel fan) it was something stupid like 150 issues first 2 were 99p and then went upto 4.50 an issue. I then remember people complain about how an alleged "distribution problem" prevented issues hitting the shelf - only way to get the issue was to pay the issue price + a high delivery, only way to obtain the issue(s) was by calling a premium number!

We have a human desire to achieve/complete and various companies find a way to manipulate that for their own profits.

 

[winner2021]

Slingo is too addictive.for.thr one more press like you say. all British Casino bought in a control feature where you can put a game on a game ban list.. (think it's only 30days at a time though) so I've stuck all the Slingo games in to save me from temptation.

That is a good idea-I've been asking the sites I'm on to bring in a feature where you could block or ban certain games but they don't have one. That'd really help me out. I like to gamble and I can control some forms (like bingo) way easier than others. I would defo stick Slingo on that ban list too lol.

 

[bamberfishcake]

He went on to say that his two kids now in 40's wanted to comply their Mexico 86 Panini sticker collection, same for Italia 90 and the folder with the stickers + fact sheets. It was 30p per sticker for Mexico and 50p for Italia 90 (fact sheet was £1) and of course the makers kept quite a few from public distribution.
I think the same happened with Garbage Pail kids, where you had to purchase to complete collection.

Also you see the model kits advertised on TV ie. build an Ironman (only one that turned my head - Marvel fan) it was something stupid like 150 issues first 2 were 99p and then went upto 4.50 an issue. I then remember people complain about how an alleged "distribution problem" prevented issues hitting the shelf - only way to get the issue was to pay the issue price + a high delivery, only way to obtain the issue(s) was by calling a premium number!

A fine example of a collectable similar to loot boxes.

The issue here is letting under 18s, and let's face it, mostly children, have control of your money. Loot boxes are not gambling, nor a product that requires regulation.

This is as simple as a child stamping their feet for a lootbox, a weak-willed parent giving in and getting into financial difficulties, and then blaming their crap parenting and budgeting on the product and product maker.

My little girl likes doggy teddy bears, has so many we cannot fit any more onto her bed, nor the top of her cupboards and bookcase. Should there be a limit on the number of soft toy puppies being advertised in shop windows and online?

My boy loves lego, Ninjago mainly, bucket loads of adverts and new versions of the bloody things mean he is always short of a character or two, literally every xmas, a new £200 castle from the series, new armours, new baddies, weapons, the list goes on. Shall Lego product ranges be limited for parents who simply must buy their kids everything?

Loot boxes are not gambling, just a good example of capitalism at its finest. Parents that are affected by these loot boxes have one thing in common - they are weak-willed against the unreasonable demands of their kids. I am yet to hear of a horror story involving loot boxes that warrants a ten-page discussion, let alone regulation.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Perhaps we need a new range of charitable organisations and a multi-million-pound advertising campaign to combat this threat to society....



We could replace the kids buying drugs with ones in front of the x-box twitching at the thought of another lootbox, with some parents singing 'Just Say No!'

 

[Kroffe]

A fine example of a collectable similar to loot boxes.

The issue here is letting under 18s, and let's face it, mostly children, have control of your money. Loot boxes are not gambling, nor a product that requires regulation.

This is as simple as a child stamping their feet for a lootbox, a weak-willed parent giving in and getting into financial difficulties, and then blaming their crap parenting and budgeting on the product and product maker.

My little girl likes doggy teddy bears, has so many we cannot fit any more onto her bed, nor the top of her cupboards and bookcase. Should there be a limit on the number of soft toy puppies being advertised in shop windows and online?

My boy loves lego, Ninjago mainly, bucket loads of adverts and new versions of the bloody things mean he is always short of a character or two, literally every xmas, a new £200 castle from the series, new armours, new baddies, weapons, the list goes on. Shall Lego product ranges be limited for parents who simply must buy their kids everything?

Loot boxes are not gambling, just a good example of capitalism at its finest. Parents that are affected by these loot boxes have one thing in common - they are weak-willed against the unreasonable demands of their kids. I am yet to hear of a horror story involving loot boxes that warrants a ten-page discussion, let alone regulation.

I think a more fair example would be comparing them to collectible cards like MTG, Pokemon, hockey/football cards etc.
If your daughter wants the rainbow colored beardog (its the best one so she obviously wants it) you dont have a 0.5% chance to get it when you go to the store to buy it, but if you want to get that same rainbow colored beardog from a lootbox you need to be prepared for a shitload of deadspins misses before you finally find the box that has 3 scatters a rainbow colored beardog in it.

Not exactly the same as gambling but imo the way lootboxes are used in many games is at the very least very similar to gambling.
But on the flipside, i dont see much difference between kids spending their allowance on Fifa card packs instead of pokemon card packs, and i agree that if parents dont want their kids to buy Fifa/pokemon cards they can/should be able to keep tabs on what their kids are spending their money on.

I dont think theres a need to outright ban lootboxes for people under 18, but i do think that some regulations surrounding implementation, price, & marketing for lootboxes would be a good thing.
Would probably make for better & more fun games if game companies cant rely on lootboxes/microtransactions to be their cash cow.
I think it would be a win for everyone except game companies.

 

[mack341]

A fine example of a collectable similar to loot boxes.

The issue here is letting under 18s, and let's face it, mostly children, have control of your money. Loot boxes are not gambling, nor a product that requires regulation.

This is as simple as a child stamping their feet for a lootbox, a weak-willed parent giving in and getting into financial difficulties, and then blaming their crap parenting and budgeting on the product and product maker.

My little girl likes doggy teddy bears, has so many we cannot fit any more onto her bed, nor the top of her cupboards and bookcase. Should there be a limit on the number of soft toy puppies being advertised in shop windows and online?

My boy loves lego, Ninjago mainly, bucket loads of adverts and new versions of the bloody things mean he is always short of a character or two, literally every xmas, a new £200 castle from the series, new armours, new baddies, weapons, the list goes on. Shall Lego product ranges be limited for parents who simply must buy their kids everything?

Loot boxes are not gambling, just a good example of capitalism at its finest. Parents that are affected by these loot boxes have one thing in common - they are weak-willed against the unreasonable demands of their kids. I am yet to hear of a horror story involving loot boxes that warrants a ten-page discussion, let alone regulation.

That is a fair point about parents being a bit tougher and controlling matters, I still think though a measure or two would help e.g. the govt could limit the lootbox prices.

Panini stickers [which I did myself for 1 or 2 seasons] was a niche and a bit of a con on kids - it would have still been fun or even more fun if panini had been forced to make more of the rarer stickers so we could complete the damn album without going into penury, but lootboxes is a much wider and bigger net when you look at the revenue generated.

The cost of living crisis shouldn't be made harder, families warring over whether little jonny can have some fifa packs, and children will whinge and not understand the rising costs for energy etc..

Also it's taking gaming down a specific route, ruining it as an enjoyable pastime once you've bought the game for your child, now that's just the start in terms of expenditure [and the latest games themselves are not cheap either, enough to feed a small family for a week]

 

[bamberfishcake]

I think a more fair example would be comparing them to collectible cards like MTG, Pokemon, hockey/football cards etc.
If your daughter wants the rainbow colored beardog (its the best one so she obviously wants it) you dont have a 0.5% chance to get it when you go to the store to buy it, but if you want to get that same rainbow colored beardog from a lootbox you need to be prepared for a shitload of deadspins misses before you finally find the box that has 3 scatters a rainbow colored beardog in it.

Not exactly the same as gambling but imo the way lootboxes are used in many games is at the very least very similar to gambling.
But on the flipside, i dont see much difference between kids spending their allowance on Fifa card packs instead of pokemon card packs, and i agree that if parents dont want their kids to buy Fifa/pokemon cards they can/should be able to keep tabs on what their kids are spending their money on.

I dont think theres a need to outright ban lootboxes for people under 18, but i do think that some regulations surrounding implementation, price, & marketing for lootboxes would be a good thing.
Would probably make for better & more fun games if game companies cant rely on lootboxes/microtransactions to be their cash cow.
I think it would be a win for everyone except game companies.

Valid points I agree with and respect, but where does this sit on the list of the world's ills?

I personally think it's a waste of money and time when I'm currently watching UK news about only 5% of burglaries solved last year but people are being arrested for Facebook comments.

The big issue here is about under 18s being allowed to spend money, just don't buy it, game developers will soon change their tune. Its a materialistic life choice, not a threat or even a big problem, not even newsworthy, but worth a good chat about

I think it's a trivial issue that needs no money or time wasted on it in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

A lot of parents have absolutely no idea that shit like loot boxes even exist, they buy a football game for little Timmy that says suitable for ages 3 and up, are they expected to be aware that Timmy can spend hundreds or even thousands of pounds buying loot boxes (that absolutely have already been classified as gambling in Belgium and the Netherlands) because they linked a credit card to the XBox account so he could get a Gold subscription that let him play games with his mates?

Loot boxes are nothing like the old Panini sticker albums (which I am plenty old enough to remember and did indeed partake in back in the 1980s) - there's a decent write-up on it here from back in 2018 when this notion first started gaining some traction,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Jim Stephanie Sterling's latest video on the topic is very good -

 

[bamberfishcake]

are they expected to be aware that Timmy can spend hundreds or even thousands of pounds buying loot boxes (that absolutely have already been classified as gambling in Belgium and the Netherlands) because they linked a credit card to the XBox account so he could get a Gold subscription that let him play games with his mates?

You don't have to leave your card details readily available for Timmy to spend as he/her/it wishes.

And yes, you should be fully aware of what you sign up for and where you leave your card details. You can do vouchers or use one of the hundreds of secure payment methods that shield your bank details to buy vouchers and subscriptions.

 

[johnnybagel]

Chopley, this is absolutely the parent's issue to sort out. You can adjust the settings on the console so that you need a password to spend money. Do that, then don't give the kid the password. There, fixed it.

The fact that people don't know these options exist is not anyone's responsibility but their own. The information is available if they can be bothered to look for it, rather than blaming the rest of the world for their lazy parenting.

 

[ads2003uk]

BBC News - PlayStation sued for £5bn in the UK over ‘rip-off’ games

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It relates also to in game purchases such as the loot boxes.
Be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[goatwack]

I mean sure, Sony fleece 3rd-party developers for a share of the spoils, which in turn means developers keep digital prices overinflated to make it worth their while.

Microsoft don't strike me as quite so stringent, I believe they foster Indie creativity and make it quite an attractive platform for software developers, if going by past recollections of their dealings. So one can see how Sony appear to be taking the cake.

However, despite the glaring differences between them, I'm unsure as to how that translates to loot box purchases and/ or microtransactions across all formats. And with digital games priced sky- high, it's never been that attractive a proposition to begin with.

Sony may get singled out for their greed, but rest assured loot boxes and the exploitation of gamers will continue apace, and ain't going anywhere anytime soon. And let's not talk about Nintendo's 'complex' relationship with outsourced developers. It's spicy alright!

 

[bamberfishcake]

I am completely baffled that there is a case against them, let alone a 'strong' case.

Having a Playstation is a luxury in my eyes, not a necessity, so I fail to see how any person or family can cry for compensation when they chose to buy one.

Must admit though, I am more and more baffled each day