The Legality of Loot Boxes - Designing Ethical Lootboxes: II - Extra Credits

Legislating regulation around in-game purchases seems like a good idea, but let's proceed cautiously: the phrasing of such potential rulings could create situations that unfairly affect gamers themselves, not just publishers.
Want to learn more about what Representative Chris Lee has in mind for legislating lootboxes and microtransactions? Check out these videos and share your thoughts in the comments. • Game on. Together we c...
• Next steps: What you c...
• Here's the difference ...
Subscribe for more episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC
___________
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! • Co-Pilot Mode - Better...
Thanks for participating in this week's discussion! We want you to be aware of our community posting guidelines so that we can have high-quality conversations: goo.gl/HkzwQh
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: www.youtube.com...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
___________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: [e-mail]
___________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: “Investigation - Core 2001” by Magical Trick Society
[sorry, we couldn't find this one on the interwebs :( ]

[@extrahistory]

Hey folks, due to numerous production issues we've been experiencing for the last few weeks (as you can tell by the number of social media posts we've had to make about personal emergencies and delays), we ended up deciding to not make a final KZbin video for our lootbox series, which was not an easy decision. Instead, we discussed the content of that episode on our Twitch channel tonight and answered viewer questions about good and bad practices alike. You can watch the VOD here (the first 20 minutes or so are about lootboxes, before we move on to other topics like Magic Leap and Kongregate's new game dev platform). www.twitch.tv/videos/236357495 Normally we don't like to do stuff like this, but life happens sometimes--we agonized about this for a few days before deciding how to approach this, and the alternative would have been to skip discussion of the episode altogether. We may end up making the episode someday but for now it will reside in the black box where we keep the forbidden fruit (e.g. the Voice Acting episode).

[@Educatedunhousedperson]

I like the loot bug serious! This is a really intelligent discussion about a current topic. They're already making laws about it now so it's important that we be educated about this.

[@wbgeek]

I think you should upload the recorded twitch stream here or at least make a short video directing people to twitch. This comment is easy to miss which means that many people won't hear the end of your discussion on loot boxes.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

It's really sad how EC are one of the few smart people who actually look ahead instead of just screaming ''BAN LOOTBOXES BECAUSE WE DONT LIKE THEM'' like morons.

[@doxxi5319]

is there a way that you guys could add something to the title of that vod since its called talking games with james and does not really allude to the fact that it is where the rest of this discussion lies

[@doxxi5319]

so i read this and was really annoyed since this who loot box thing for me is pretty straight foward i spent over 300 dollars in less then 40 min buying loot box's for path of exile and never got anything near what i wanted.. think about that really think about the fact that i just spent 300 dollars and might have to spend 3,000 because of the way loot boxes work that is predatory no matter how you look at it, now i know what you are going to say " there optional you don't have to buy them", ok yes they are but i love cosmetic items and i also love randomly getting the things i want since it feels amazing to open a box with random chances on it and get what you were going for. that really should not be considered ok by anyone loot boxes in my mind are far more destructive and worth considering then game addiction. now all that being said i make enough money and am careful enough were i can afford to drop 300+ dollars on something and not really care. not every one who gets sucked into the same trap as me is that lucky and sometimes dont make it out unscathed and we should be just as concerned about that as someone ruining their life playing these things, yes they all have potential to do great good but done wrong they can do real harm and i would sooner see loot boxes removed outright then have a person not get to play a game because people decided it was gambling, if companies want more money find a way to let me had you money directly that is not potentialy predatory let me donate that 300 dollars to you via pay pal then i can buy the cool shit you put in loot boxes outright from your store for 20-30 dollars would feel way less predatory.

[@undvined]

Can we talk about Counter-Strike for a moment? It's said that lootboxes aren't considered gambling because the rewards don't have real world value... but CS:GO skins *do* have real world value. And quite a lot of it.

[@isaacargesmith8217]

Also that Card game thing he mentions doesn't make sense either. You literally can sell cards for money and the ENTIRE point is to buy card packs so you cn gamble for the chance of getting a valuble card that you could use or sell.. Like that is LITERALLY the entire reason card packs are a thing, to offer random cards for a chance of getting valuble ones that you could keep or sell. I dont know about magic but I can say for sure that some yugioh cards can go for over a hundred bucks if you get REALLY lucky. I mean entire decks can cost over a hundred bucks easy if you're trying to be meta relavent.

[@undvined]

Sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of skins with high value and even more skins with relatively low value (£5 is still a lot for a skin, and it certainly would be for a lootbox too). Furthermore, you have to pay £1.50 ($2) to open the lootbox in the first place, which - keep in mind - is *very likely* to pay out with a skin that has very low value, e.g. between 3p and £1.

[@avatarreusi.2509]

Rick Harris Wait what? Of course it is. If the collector is willing to pay that much then its worth that much in this situation for that guy. Just because sm else isnt willing to pay for that much doesnt mean it isnt worth that much for the collector. If there is some dude in the Sahara thirsty for a drink i can charge him for his entire belongings. Ist that that much worth for that specific Person.Things having different prices for different People in different situations is completly normal. ,,Real-world value'' is always determined by what some People are willing to pay. Bananas can be really cheap in a Country where they harvest it while it can be expensive because they have to inport it from said country. You said it yourself. If there is some guys that is willing to pay a 100 Dollars for a csgo Skin then ist that much worth.

[@avatarreusi.2509]

. But that isnt even a trade. You just put an Scenario as an example that wouldnt happen. Its about something that could actually happen. Its not about what sm says but it needs to actually happen. Its about if there is sm that is WILLLING to pay that much. I can just repeat my example from before and hope that you can understand it.If there is a know car seller in the Sahara that is about to die of thirst you can Charge him a ferrari for a bottle of watrt. And becauseo of the Situation the car seller will agree. So in that Moment. Just for one time a ferrari is worth a bottle of water. Sure if the car seller is back home he will sell his ferrari for the normal Price but it doesnt Change the fact that he sold a ferrari for a bottle of water. Items never had and never will have a set value.

[@badunius_code]

_> if a collector offers you a thousand dollars for a mcdonald toy, that doesn't mean mcdonald toys are worth a thousand dollars_ Cool, then no piece of art have any value.

[@AegixDrakan]

While those ARE all pretty nasty side-effects...here's the rub. Chris Lee has explicitly said he doesn't WANT to have to legislate any of this. He's said he wants to apply pressure on game makers and the ESRB to self-regulate. Therefore, at this point I lay the entirety of the blame at the feet of the big offenders (EA et al), and the ESA and ESRB. If you watch their spokesman at a hearing in Hawaii about this topic, he evades reasonably straightforward questions with "Uh, I don't know" or "I can't answer that" or "Just look at the rating board site!" (Which, if you read the bit about gambling mechanics, DOES say that games which use real money in gambling-based mechanics should be categorized as AO-Adults Only). This, combined with the ESRB's "Hey guys, we're totally going to fix this by putting 'in-app purchases' on the back of physical game boxes for games with any kind of micro-transaction in them!" non-fix... It really feels like they have no interest in self-regulating. Which makes sense when EA, who makes tons of money off Ultimate Team packs, is a major donor to the ESA. While loot boxes may not fall under the technical definition of gambling, they do exploit the same psychological ticks as gambling, and WILL keep generating hate. If they want to stop legislation from happening, they need to actually self-regulate and do SOMETHING on their end, not just say "we can't answer that" or "We don't know".

[@usteeler81]

Aegix Drakan this is what I pray for. There's really no need for regulations as the industry can be pressured in other ways, the most powerful being the consumer not buying this crap. Unfortunately many are unable to do this....

[@missingnoo88]

Aegix Drakan That´s exactly my train of thought. I hate to say this but I feel like EC doesn´t really get, that the industry fucked up all by itself. All due to it´s greed. At this point I´d rather have the goverment step in and start regulating than trusting the industry to self regulate.

[@KenjiShiratsuki]

I agree that they don't want to self-regulate and it's because EA is printing money and paying off the supposed regulatory board to not regulate. It's bribery, regulatory capture, and just plain wrong. I think every industry could benefit from having regulatory commissions unable to accept any donations at all, including government officials running for office or in office. But if they ban the ESA and organizations like it from taking money from the industry, de-incentivizing them from making favorable regulations, they shoot themselves in the foot because that's EXACTLY WHY Trump got the presidency, and why half the jokers who are in office have their positions, because they get backed by large lobbying groups, and those groups hold huge influence within the government. The problem doesn't lie with the game companies, but with the absolute lack of any separation between a regulatory commission and the industry they regulate. They should be on opposite sides of the scales, but instead weigh in on the same side to get what they both can profit from. TLDR: If you want proper regulation, take away incentives to not regulate.

[@Freekymoho]

the industry flowchart only goes to 'do something' if the previous check box was a yes for 'does it increase the bottom line?'

[@t3hmaniac]

Similar thing happened to the Film Industry around this time Last Century. A couple of big scandals blew up and a lot of pressure came down. Before lawmakers could set anything up they formed the Hays Code to police themselves before the government did it for them.

[@SiIverGriever]

The reason we want to see all these bills against loot boxes pass is not because they'll regulate loot boxes or make them better. It's because we're hoping gaming developers and publishers will realize how anti-consumer loot boxes are and remove them all together.

[@chichi90504]

Do you want to pay 600$ for a game that is currently 60$ they're right that there is a reason for loot boxes and not all of them are bad

[@nakenmil]

@@chichi90504 Are you an idiot?

[@Christopher_TG]

If that happens, then get ready for $80-90 games. With how expensive games have gotten to produce and the inflation degrading the value of that $60 price tag, if games don't find ways to get supplemental revenue after initial purchase, they'll just make that initial purchase price even higher.

[@buillecridhesingilte4288]

So how would you get skins and such in a game like Overwatch?

[@scoutgaming737]

Prepare for 200$ games

[@paulscott88]

The games Industry has been utterly dismissive of any complaint about monetization... Until it reaches a national/multinational/governmental stage, so it's no surprise that gamers are going to those stages.

[@Arclite02]

I don't think anyone's under the impression that Government will get it right if they decide to regulate this stuff, but the Gaming industry at large has been gleefully, intentionally, maliciously getting it VERY WRONG for years now and it's become crystal clear that they're not going to stop unless forced to do so. Sadly, since the industry refuses to stop abusing its customers, it's looking like Government intervention is the only viable option.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

Honestly, I think we would all be better off if we just don't try to implement stupid laws to ban lootboxes. This channel has demonstrated in many ways how implementing real world laws for something virtual can go horribly, horribly wrong. I'd much rather just have lootboxes as they are. They're garbage, but we don't have much of a choice.

[@PyroGobbo]

A better way to do it is to cap the amount of money they can get from a single player.

[@bobbarker4863]

On the contrary, even if it is not the best on these lawmakers are giving us a choice and a way to force the games industry to take action. if we don't nothing will ever change.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

bob there isn't an easy way to just force an industry to do whatever the fuck you desire. You might end up causing more harm to consumers by desiring this big change of yours.

[@walterr3602]

We do this with every industry. We have workplace safety standards and labor laws. We have food safety standards and car emissions testings. These are all forcing industries to change in ways that they would not without legislation. We can totally make effective laws for this sort of practice.

[@sambongi6155]

If legislation is passed, the easiest way to circumvent all the legal issues is for AAA games to just not have lootboxes. AAA games have proven that they can't be trusted not to use exploitative practices. These companies have been unregulated for far too long.

[@Ironysandwich]

We already regulate banks and credit card companies.

[@evanweiss71]

Hang all of em out to dry

[@propoppop9866]

Sam Bongi but you said it your self the company’s are slippery snakes and like life the will find away and when that way is found company’s will rush to it like ants to honey and if you make the law as tight as possible then well welcome to the dlcpoclyse because now dlc can’t give players random rewards so say goodbye to every wow expansion and fallout dlc

[@brdfnick3886]

or they can flee to asia, which has different regulation compared to western countries.

[@coryzilligen790]

@@propoppop9866 "because now dlc can’t give players random rewards" I haven't seen anything proposed which would prevent games from giving random rewards from things like, say, defeating an enemy within a DLC zone. What _would_ be prevented is giving rewards from one-time-per-payment actions or activities, which explicitly excludes DLC (as DLC gives you _continual_ access to the expanded content, and therefore as many attempts as you care to make on those random rewards). Likewise, instead of selling lootboxes or similar random draws for cosmetic items, the games can just sell them in an in-game store; nobody is out to ban the purchasing of digital items, just the selling of _randomized acquisition_ of items.

[@lewismacleod7099]

There's a TON of logic fallacies in this argument. We don't need to criminalise players, just ban loot boxes. Games worked before loot boxes, no-one will miss them when they're gone.

[@aayushkhatiwada8341]

The idea isn't to make gamers under 21 unable to play games like Overwatch, PUBG, etc. Yeah, that will be the short term effect. But the real idea is that when enough states pass the law, game developers will be discouraged to have loot boxes in their game, because it would cut down their profits as a lot of gamers (including me) are under 21. This will in turn lead to a future where games aren't as plagued with loot boxes as now. Also, even though it's "technically not gambilng", since you aren't allowed to cash out your winnings, the idea behind is is very similar to real life gambling, with every addicting mechanisms you can imagine. And worst of all? They are exposed to the minds of innocent children and teenage gamers. No matter what you say, this is simply unacceptable.

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

"Violent video games do not make you violent..... But buying lootboxes will give you a gambling addiction!" R/gamingcirclejerk.

[@TeleportRush]

We're not saying the Celadon Game Corner in red and blue will give you a gambling addiction bro. The difference is that violent video games aren't actual violence, but purchased lootboxes are actual gambling.

[@doxxi5319]

As someone who has serious problems when it comes to opening loot boxes and spending far more money on them then I like to have to admit it feels weird to see people defend a practice that tries its hardest to force you to spend money. I have had to stop playing quite a few games because I have a sick addiction to cosmetics they are one of my favorite things to get in a game and all loot boxes do is prey on that desire and over time I have spent thousands of dollars on games to get things that look pretty and givin a lootbox system you feel like going forever to get the things you want cause it could be on that very next spin , that being said I am much more likely to spend money on things I can get outright rather then play the worlds worst gotcha game ever created.

[@isaac1670]

Hey, EC. I appreciate your take on things but here's my issue; I simply do not trust the industry to restrain itself to the level you're suggesting. It's a great idea sure but time and time again we see publishers push the invasive, exploitative and frankly predatory practices that that gamers hate with a passion. Further we saw the ESRB's "solution" earlier this week that does absolutely nothing about the problems discussed. Frankly I'm out of patience for these practices. I'm out of sympathy for these practices. If these regulations go through they would change a lot and I honestly believe that this is the only way for something to change. I don't know if you'll read this but thanks for taking the time to clearly state your position on the issue.

[@Wolfwood2057]

I think the point that's kindof being ignored is if you don't trust the industry not to restrain themselves, why do you trust the government to restrain themselves and not make the laws overly restrictive and downright insane? Both the Industry and the Government are capable of good and bad, and neither should be given a free pass to do what they want. The issue (and I feel very legitimate) that is being brought forth is that many people are standing up against what they see as abusive systems, but are giving the government a free pass to make what could end up being unfair laws, not just to the industry but to consumers as well.

[@Sad_Cabbage]

I completely agree with you here. I have spent more then 1000 euros on lootboxes that i wish i didn't spend. If you buy something for 2 dollars it should have the value of 2 dollars regardless if its a virtual item or not. This has consequences of course, id rather endure those then spend money that i wish i had never spent.

[@amefeu4259]

The difference between Industry and Government for me is at least with the government I've got a chance (however minor) to have control over what they can and cannot do. I do not have this same control over the Industry and the Industry's only goal is to make all the money.

[@sonicspeedx13]

Wolfwood2057 except the goverment is already built on restraint and regulation. And frankly maybe the gane industry needs to be reign in and forced to reflect on what it does. Movies and comic books had to. I honestly trust people who understand law more then i do companies that want to nickle and dime us and care little about the experience they are crafting

[@Wolfwood2057]

But then the more important difference between the industry and government is that the government has a bigger effect on your entire way of living than the industry does, and whether or not a bad thing changes back could be years to never. Which is why I would argue even if you have some control over them, you should be even more careful what you ask of them. Because any changes that the government makes will have far greater effects on you. As the video said: In some cases, people could go to jail depending on what laws are implemented. That is not the case when dealing with the industry.

[@davidbest3814]

"But if we call lootboxes gambling and make it illegal, we might have to make all of these other loopholes illegal too!" G O O D

[@RN1441]

If game companies don't want these questions answered in a bad way against them, then it's best to stop doing the things that are getting people mad before we find out. We're here because games companies pushed the envelope too far, and many gamers are too fed up to care how much damage gets done in fixing it - better to burn it down and start over.

[@sodakick6884]

I think we should marinade lootboxes over night. Afterwards we can grill them over an indirect heat source until medium rare and then cover them in foil to lock in the heat while we prepare mashed potatoes. Afterwards you use a sharp knife(and protective gloves) and slice the lootboxes at an angle so the connective fibers are loosened up and you make a delicious sauce out of the lootbox drippings and lovingly spoon it over the sliced lootbox. Serve warm for 3-4 people.

[@MagmarFire]

What if someone likes the lootboxes well done?

[@lgiumc]

MagmarFire ask them politely yet firmly to leave

[@isocryd]

I'd much rather lootboxes made rare, but I'm not gonna tell you how to cook 'em.

[@ziyan_li]

MagmarFire If you want your lootboxes well done, just order the DLC instead. Those are meant to be dry and stiff.

[@GuiltyOne438]

Was this part of an actual recipe? And if so, what was the original protein?

[@Kohdok]

There is a distinct difference between paid loot boxes and paywalling a boss that drops good loot: 1) The boss is new and engaging content. The players aren't pulling the lever of a one-armed bandit every time they engage the boss, they're dealing with an encounter that requires strategies, preparation, and interaction. The developers also have to create the content that players have to engage with. And the reward that comes out is based on skill, with maybe a bit of luck, and the prizes and drops are rewards for one's efforts rather than a slot machine gimmick. It's basically what sets Monster Hunter apart from Battlefront II, especially since you are getting the loot drops directly, not earning currency to buy a loot drop through the slot machine. 2) You pay only once. I have rarely, if ever, seen any sort of system like the one you discussed that charges money every time you engage the boss (Pokemon GO would be a stretch, since you get a free raid pass every day anyway, two if you still have your pass from yesterday), and the games that do this ethically tend to give you more content than just the boss, such as a new area to explore full of new enemies, quests, and encounters. You aren't rolling for something good, you're exploring new content.

[@Ayystras]

Kohdok But gameplay elements entirely do not matter in the case of the law. They are 100% irrelevant. Not only bosses, but every mob, every chest, every blade of grass has a random chance to drop something based off of rarity tables. If you buy a DLC for a game that doesn't feature "loot boxes" in the traditional sense, but you kill a slime at the very beginning and it has a chance to drop either gold, a weapon, or a health potion, that is considered the exact same as directly purchasing a lootbox as you are purchasing something that directly or indirectly gives you a randomized reward. If gameplay had any relevance to the law, you could swap out any loot box system with an equal one that rather than opening a box, it spawns a healthless baddy for you to shoot which drops your item. It's easily exploitable if you don't make a good enough distinction.

[@CarloArmato]

I will argue that you are missing the point that despite having the same outcome, you still have to pay for it. Yes, the boss is more engaging and fun when it comes to earn something (you literally have to fight it), but the outcome (randomized loot) is the same, despite your feeling of pride and accomplishment or the joy to be engaged on something new. You are simply playing two different kind of "Skinner boxes", because the outcome and the reason that keep you hooked are the same (e.g.: enjoy game content). Also, keep in mind that if you do not get the item you are looking for, you have to grind again to have another roll on the Random Number Generator, either beating the same dungeon again or whatever other game mode if you are not playing a WoW-like game. The only real difference is the price and how often you have to pay to earn the new content (like the 2nd point you stated), but the process (grind, keep you hooked for the final reward, give you game content, repeat) is the same... And you probably won't have any DLC's lootbox hidden behind a paywall.

[@avex13]

I would argue that the primary goal of the boss is not (or should not be) the loot. The boss itself is the content, and you get it independently of any random chance, with loot being a byproduct. With lootboxes the loot is always the goal. You are 100% paying for the chance of getting items. Nothing more.

[@Louigi36]

I do not understand the "boss behind paywall" concern. Virtually every single country on earth seems to have managed to craft a gambling law that restricts gambling without making the sale of dice or the sale of Poker cards illegal. It doesn't seem like a particularly difficult distinction to implement. Casinos also aren't able to avoid gambling laws by saying "you don't pay for the reward, you pay to play a game of Poker, which gives you money as a "free bonus"". So where's the grey area supposed to be? There's worlds of difference between paying for something that you can now permanently use, which contains randomness (a deck of playing cards, a set of dice, and an MMO), and paying each time to get into a game with a random reward (betting on a game of Poker, buying a single-use key for a special boss with awesome loot). If anyone can tell me where that's supposed to be a difficult distinction to make, please tell me, because I just can't see the issue..

[@docgiggs]

As I said in my stand alone reply, lootboxes are something to you directly for a chance at other items. That chance is 100% guaranteed to occur. You own the lootbox and open it. Buyign a level, or a boss, is buying ACCESS to content that may have chances at randomized rewards. Significant difference. Buying access to a level doesn't mean you will engage the level, nor you will be successful at engaging a level and even get a chance at randomized rewards if there is any.

[@twilightgryphon]

Here is my biggest problem with the "micro-transactions are necessary to sustain the $60 price tag" arguments, and it's two-fold: 1 - A lot of these over-inflated costs for making games, at least in the AAA gaming sphere, these publishers bring upon themselves for insisting on hyper-realistic graphics, celebrity actors doing voice work, etc., things that in a lot of cases needlessly drive up the cost of producing a game because the focus test groups of these companies say that's what they want, which is problematic because A - focus test groups don't represent the gaming community as a whole by a longshot and B - a lot of people, not just gamers but people in general, wouldn't know what they really wanted if it walked right up to them and slapped them in the face most of the time. What is more important is that a game have a look, style, and feel that sells and makes it unique. Most recently part of what made Overwatch a huge craze was the fact that it's a bright, colorful, cartoony game instead of being another super serious military shooter. 2 - We can't know for certain whether or not if the publishers and developers actually - need - these to cover the costs of making games as much as they claim to, because they are tight-lipped about such things. People often criticize them about this and the companies will say "Hey, you don't know how much money and work goes into making a game!" To which I reply: You're right, we don't know because you won't tell us. Anytime somebody asks they won't open up with the facts and figures to back up their claims. And to further damn the argument, when Battlefront II fell on its ass because of the loot box controversy, they reassured the investors that it wouldn't effect their bottom line. In essence, they told them "Don't worry, the game is still going to make us tons of money even without micro-transactions and loot boxes raking in even more obscene amounts of money." So to me the argument becomes more they want to make more money with these sorts of practices, not that they actually - need - them to cover the costs and keep the price at $60. And as for unwrapping the "How many people would be comfortable paying $80 for a video game?" portion from your last video? That's not the entire question to be asking. The proper question to ask would be, "Would you be comfortable paying $80 for a game if it had no microtransactions, no season pass, no loot boxes, no extra monetary features but was, in fact, a full, complete gaming experience where everything is incorporated into the game either at launch or with content patches down the line?" Ask THAT question and I think you'd find more people willing to shell out the extra money if they knew there wouldn't be content locked behind a pay wall at launch or in the future of the game's life span.

[@badunius_code]

_> you don't know how much money and work goes into making a game!_ Fallout 3 was developed over about 200 weeks 200 weeks × 50 people × 60 hours = 600'000 workhours About 5M units were sold 600K workhours ÷ 5'000K units = 0.12 workhours/unit At $60 price one workhour will cost $500 - much more any developer have been ever paid =/ _> Ask THAT question_ Yes, I was realy happy about buying Civ6 Digital Delux. Having new civilizations to play from time to time was really fun. I'm not that happy with Rise and Fall DLC though.

[@twilightgryphon]

@Roman Markoff yes I am actually aware perhaps more than you might think since I happen to know one or two people who work in the industry. The problem is the additional DLC's, micro-transactions, season passes, and certainly not loot boxes don't go toward paying those people. They go to lining the pockets of the executives and the shareholders. The people who need that money the least. The sad fact is the business of gaming as it stands is not sustainable, it is possibly the next entertainment bubble waiting to burst because more and more people are getting tired of their greed. The people you were talking about? The people actually doing the work to make these games? I agree they deserve more than they get and as I said, if an $80 price tag meant it was a full game experience and it paid the people making better than so be it.

[@Saxonsredux]

What's the difference between paying 20$ for a season pass on a 60$ game, or paying $80 up front? That leads to an entirely different argument. Game companies are charging consumers for game content that they cannot access until it is released.

[@fieldy409]

The thing is nobody asked us, they just assumed we didn't want to pay more upfront for games.

[@Larknok1]

@@badunius_code Engine costs, taxes, marketing, etc. etc. It's not just labor.

[@Vitreia]

I don't find the "omg, you're taking art from kids!" argument particularly compelling. Cigarettes shouldn't be legal because they slap the mona lisa on the package. No one forced these developers to wrap their art in an illegal, unethical package.

[@propoppop9866]

Matt Borgard but a cigarette is not art it’s a consumeable product and we have to remember that these games are more then just cashinos if little Timmy wanted to play overwatch and learn about it why should one mechanic stop him

[@dnw009]

@@propoppop9866 I mean the whole lootbox system is pointless because the ingame store is the exact same thing, but you can choose what you spent your ingame or real life cash upon instead of getting a random drop. Little Timmy can play overwatch but he shouldn't have to go through tons of lootboxes to get the one skin he wants.

[@ismirdochegal4804]

I wouldn't let little Timmy play a shooter, but he may play games. He should not be able to spend money while playing the game. An adult only should be able to spend money on ingame purchases (if he really really really wants that) and should surmount some obstacles that make him thing "do I really still want this?".

[@BlueStar72]

I'd rather see the industry go up in flames than continue seeing it become increasingly addicted to the anti-consumer practices of subtracting from the experience their products provide in order to monetize them further, in exchange for empty 'promises' that they will supposedly benefit us in the long run. (Most of the time, all I've seen out of these 'promises' is that features that used to ship with the base game end up getting added later...) If the ultimatum of unreasonably harsh regulation is what it takes to stop this nonsense, then so be it. Self-regulate or let it pass. It's far too depressing to see the quality of many games slip the way they have been lately.

[@Ayystras]

What about the innocent publishers and developers who don't make games with lootboxes such as indies? Do they deserve to go up in flames with the rest of the industry?

[@avex13]

They would probably not be affected if the big publishers fall. They might even get a bigger share of the market.

[@alexanerose4820]

Yes let's nuke the whole place when we could've surgically saved it with a strike team. I'm sure THAT will work out for us

[@avex13]

The problem is that the biggest players in the place are those opposing any kind of action, because they are exactly the ones we need to surgically remove from the industry.

[@avex13]

Price hasn't increased (that's arguable), but market size has increased a lot, and shipping costs had been reduced a lot with the arrival of digital distribution.

[@MathAndComputers]

Wait. How is paying for a random reward or chance thereof not gambling? How it should be regulated is another matter, but it's basically the definition of gambling. In Canada, even raffles are regulated as gambling, because they are. Many people probably don't bother registering them, but many do, especially raffles organized by schools or other government-associated organizations.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

In traditional gambling, if you put money in and get lose, you get nothing. In the case of lootboxes, when you open it you are guaranteed to at the very least get items of value, albeit they might not be what you wanted. But they do have some value. Lootboxes, technically, aren't gambling.

[@suncu91]

Neil G. Dickson with gambling you get money. Thing with real life value. But i still feel that lootboxes are gambling

[@charlierose7153]

luka stojanovic its not about the monetary reward, its about the mechanics and psychology If you played a slot machine that gave you a penny every time you put in a pound and pulled, would that still be gambling? Yes, obviously Lootboxes are an intermediate product that use the same psychological tricks as gambling does. They shouldnt be accessible to minors, and they shouldnt be in our games. Replace them with standard microtransactions and companies will still make their money.

[@kevl0rneswath]

The reward has to have value for it to be considered gambling in the US and in-game items don't have any value.

[@Ayystras]

Because any game that you purchase will most likely have some type of randomized reward. In Legend of Zelda A Link to the Past, if you slice at a bush, it could drop a rupee, it could drop a heart, it could drop nothing. Every game that features any type of randomized reward of any kind under your description is gambling, and able to be restricted to people 21 or older.

[@leandrotoniut1619]

...Somebody suing for shutting down the server of a game they paid money for doesn't sound like a bad thing. Games should have end-of-life plans that allow players to keep playing their property.

[@todesziege]

Back in the day we could run our own servers, or otherwise keep playing an unsupported game. Again, the industry dug this grave for themselves.

[@LunarNachtmond]

The industry had it coming and there is noone else to blame.

[@propoppop9866]

If a teenager played on a railway track every day would you not divert the train down the other track when the trains heading towards them

[@CepheusTalks]

@@propoppop9866 in this case the train companies literally tied the teenage to the tracks

[@tintinaus]

I think the problem with this video is the framing. It places the anti-loot-box legislation as being the problem. You bring up all sorts of potential(and to mind sometimes nonsensical) problems and arguments. When you make possible legislation the boogieman, you let the Gaming Industry off the hook. How about framing the episode like this: 1: Loot boxes are turning into a major problem 2: Government Legislators are looking at legislating controls 3: If laws are going to put in place the Gaming Community led by Developers and Publishers need to work to get the law right. 4: Here are issues/solutions that need to be addressed. 5: Publishers f'd up, they need to step up and use their influence to fix things, because if they aren't part of the solution... The reality is, (your jab at populist electioneering aside), the main group with the people, money and resources to create meaningful change is the Industry itself, both through companies and through industry funded bodies like the ESRB.

[@Mac15001900]

At the very beginning, they clearly stated that the point of this video is to discuss potential problems with this kind of legislation. It's not meant to be a comprehensive video about everything related to lootboxes.

[@NathanGatten]

Rick Harris People have been refusing to buy them, hence why Battlefront 2 was a huge disappointment in sales. The problem is that the publishers are still in denial about this and push what is essentially gambling on the customer. Not to mention that if a company has to resort to gambling, then obviously they are terribly managed and failing to cut expenses. Even from a capitalist perspective Loot Boxes are ridiculous.

[@chaosdirge4906]

I swear... when I look at posts like this I feel like everyone's braincells are dying. They aren't trying to get lootboxes off the hook, they don't like them they even admit it. the problems that they come up with in the video for legislation are very spot on and not some invisible boogieman arguments. Law is complicated and it is exploited by politicians that don't know a thing about what they are doing... just look at Net Neutrality and how it's been handled as evidence on that. Asking random chance to be treated as gambling in its entirety is asking for trouble and you can guarantee some people that have never played a game in their life would treat it that way. The game developers won't likely have any real say in how these laws will be handled since the ESA and the ESRB are pretty much shoving one foot in the grave because they keep trying to tell everyone that the system is fine and they want to keep it that way. It doesn't take a rocket science to see how what you are asking about doing is conflicting.

[@tintinaus]

Chaosdirge Try actually reading and responding to what I said next time. M'kay?

[@chaosdirge4906]

I did respond to it. You said they brought up nonsensical arguments and that they said they were making the legitimation the boogiemen. I responded as to why that isn't the case. I mean I don't see what exactly you think I'm not responding to exactly it's pretty clear cut. They aren't letting the gaming industry off the hook and your recommendations are just in general nitpicking.

[@chcoman123]

I think there's one universal answer to all of the problems within the video: stop putting Lootboxes in video games. Simple, wouldn't you agree?

[@citizenofzorcon7729]

Ok, I guess you can say goodbuy to MMO"S then, because they do they EXACT SAME THING as lootboxes only you have to kill a raid boss first! (This also apples to RPG'S in general by the way!)

[@chcoman123]

I mean, I've been doing that for a while now. The last game I bought that I knew had lootboxes in it beforehand was Overwatch. The only other game I've bought that had lootboxes since was Rise of the Tomb Raider, but I didn't know it had them when I purchased it. Otherwise I've been avoiding games with lootboxes like the plague.

[@Gryffisnmore]

Manny Akintunde gamers are. It’s the people that play mobile games or whales, both of those are considered part of the game community and therefore even though it’s a small minority of the whole they are the ones perpetuating the continuation of these systems. And even if that wasn’t the case you still seem to agree that it’s a bad system so then why aren’t you arguing against the obvious redirect that EC seem to be putting on about the whole controversy?

[@mophead99]

The problem I have with that analogy is that you're buying content to get those items. You're not just buying an item, you're getting a slice of a game you're invested in with new areas, lore, and of course items. Yes people might buy the expansion purely to get new shiney items. But they play the game that bought as apposed to clicking "buy now" and getting a completely rtandom item.

[@Gryffisnmore]

Manny Akintunde as Chris Lee said “so is going into a casino” just because it’s voluntary doesn’t mean it’s right. Some people can be taken advantage of voluntarily. Kids,gambling addiction, people who don’t understand the system. So voluntary is a bad argument.

[@uncoeur]

6:01 Equating a loot-box with the purchase of an expansion is a HUGE stretch. Buying the expansion you are permitted to raid said boss and whatever other minions however many times you want, but a loot-box is 1 time use only... you have to pay for every time you 'raid' it. A raid boss is guaranteed to drop a rare or greater item for the time and effort spent to kill it. A loot box depends on you getting more common and uncommon items and offers the low possibility of a getting a rare with incrementally less chance of a super rare, epic or legendary, etc. That comparison doesn't even deserve to be made in my view of the matter. Loot-boxes could be ok if the items in the loot-box items were also available 'a-la-carte' for a reasonable price and **none** of the items on offer could even remotely offer an edge to one player over another (which is what happened with Battlefront II).

[@PatrickZysk]

The "you can't ban me" argument is idiotic, because you can get kicked out of casinos.

[@uncleubi9008]

Patrick Zysk yea but if your a high better they won't kick you and if you get booted they have to cash you out

[@Czah5]

I thought about this too, but the biggest difference is that the casinos are still legally obligated to cash you out. Otherwise it is theft. In games, if you get banned, you are SOL.

[@rayperez6322]

True

[@SealSlap5069]

I am sorry to say this, but some servers (mostly Minecraft ones, I still like the game tho) have these things: Pay X amount of money to get Unbanned. Or even: Pay X money to be Unbanned for X days/hours/weeks/months. Even this: Pay X amount of money to become a Administrator.

[@MisterGunpowder257]

While this is all very rational, I will be blunt: I want this system of monetization in video games to go away. And if that requires blunt force trauma to the medium at large, so be it.

[@mercentperrault]

I totally agree.

[@luislora8953]

But video games are expensive and microtransactions helps make the game money tho

[@brandonlyon730]

@@luislora8953I like to see the data on that, these companies refused to show the full details there budgets and how much many they need to make a profit. If they have no proof to show that they need the lootboxes to make a profit, then they’re just talking out of there asses to make a quick buck.

[@luislora8953]

@@brandonlyon730 well it's obvious that games are expensive to make you have to hire a lot of people and all those people have to use these expensive programs and etc. Etc. Etc. But if you want to look up the data on this feel free to Google I'm interested in what you'll find and what you'll think after looking at the budget allotted to these popular games

[@luislora8953]

@@brandonlyon730 also cosmetics can be a very important part of a games community for example TF2 and games like CS:GO have a whole community built around the buying and selling of cosmetics

[@kefka303]

All of your arguments about the dangers of putting consumers in jail are arguments against those gambling laws, not against applying them in this circumstance. The fact of the matter is that loot boxes are gambling. The lack of an ability to cash out does not make them any less psychologically manipulative, it merely makes them psychologically manipulative along a different axis. Regardless of whether the law views in game purchasable items as having "real world value", they do. If they weren't worth something to those who purchased them, then no one would buy them. Regulating loot boxes as gambling would be quite harsh in some states due to those states gambling laws, true, but the ultimate effect of such regulation would not be to put anyone in jail; it would be to stop the practice of purchasable loot boxes in games. Games publishers sell loot boxes because they make money. If all of a sudden, any game with purchasable loot boxes in it becomes illegal to sell to children under the age of 21 in certain states, loot boxes become a much less profitable choice for them to make. Add to that the possibility that it would make them felons in certain states, and the decision from the publisher's perspective becomes obvious: don't make games with loot boxes in them. That's why government regulation of businesses is a thing in the first place, to convert the externalities of doing business into tangible, monetary risk. With that risk properly applied, games publishers will correctly identify purchasable loot boxes as an unacceptable business practice. Extra Credits, you guys and gals are a wonderful boon to this industry, and to the communities of people who fund the industry. You are on the wrong side of this issue. I understand the instinctive desire to protect the industry from political attack, after all I remember Jack Thompson. But the fact of the matter is that this practice is hurting consumers. It preys not just on children, but anyone who suffers from gambling addiction. The industry needs to stop selling lootboxes, but they won't, because it's simply too profitable. We need external intervention, and it needs to be harsh enough to make selling lootboxes fundamentally unprofitable. I hope you'll consider my points, and I thank you for your civil contributions to this issue. tl;dr: loot boxes are gambling, they need to be regulated like gambling, so that games publishers stop making them.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

I can shut everything you just said down with one sentence. Lootboxes are, technically, not gambling. Now I am very much against lootboxes and companies that place them in their games, they're immoral, greedy and just very shitty in general, but they certainly aren't gambling. Whenever you buy a lootbox you are guaranteed to at the very least get something of value, albeit it might not be what you initially desired. But with traditional gambling if you put in money and lose, you get nothing. That is the main divider between gambling and lootboxes. Secondly, do you believe such laws would stop game makers from adding lootboxes to their games? They certainly won't. Gambling laws in some states doesn't make companies unable to make games, it just makes them unable to distribute them through those states, meaning certain people will be unable to play the games they otherwise love because of it (Like Overwatch or Heartstone). You're harming consumers, not companies. And even if we make laws saying kids can't buy games that are AO, how do you suggest we stop them from getting those same games on Steam? It is really easy for kids to just lie about their age online, heck I even lied about my age when I made my KZbin account just so I can watch 18+ videos. And even if for some reason, if both these laws actually do a dent in the big companies and discourages them from making lootboxes, there's an easy way to implement loot boxes while not making them ''actually'' lootboxes. The video already made an example of how they can just do a little ring around the rosy and bypass any laws we throw at them. I agree with the last part that lootboxes are really shady and despicable, but you need to take your anger goggles off for a second and see the big picture. If we implement these gambling laws onto lootboxes, a lot more complicated issues and questions will arise, all have been mentioned in the video EC made. These laws are a lot more likely to backfire on the consumer, and not the big companies. Do you really want that?

[@MrMarinus18]

That inability to cash in on lootboxes is not irrelevant but crucial because it prevents gambling addiciton. What makes gambling addictive is that it's theoretically possible to get money with it and compensate for all your previous expenses. Those odds are so low that they are practically meaningless but it's still theoretically possible so people hold on to that. That's what causes them to keep putting money into it.

[@othmansalih5656]

four videos on the topic and still you haven't asked the most important question about micro transactions and loot boxes: does they affect the game's quality?

[@SlayerEndX13]

I disagree with comparing loot boxes to booster packs. The difference between trading cards and loot boxes is that you can't TRADE your loot box. You can't exchange your loot for someone else's loot, and that's a subtle but important difference. With card games, if you get cards you don't want, you at least can bet that other players will want those cards. But loot boxes offer everything from Skins, to weapons, to entire characters, to special abilities, and so on. Inherently, loot boxes offer content that you're not only given incentive NOT to trade, but that would have no value if you tried to trade them anyway. The second difference is that, with a trading card game, you can experience the full game as it is intended and offered without needing to purchase new booster packs -- hell, if you *wanted* you could just grab individual cards. But loot boxes (a) necessitate you buy the whole thing and get random stuff you probably neither want nor need and (b) *already* contain the content that the loot boxes offer. When you look at the inside of these games, all the content they offer with loot boxes exist as in-game content that's locked behind a financial barrier. You bought a full game, but there are restrictions *on* the product you purchased that prevent you from experiencing the game in full. Loot boxes are just you randomly purchasing keys to unlock parts of the game that *should have* been realistically available to you, the buyer, from the very beginning. It's not gambling -- it's a hostage situation where you're tricked into endlessly paying money into a product that was deliberately crippled before it ever reached you. The fact that it uses the same addictive properties found in slot machines is second to the fact that at least with slot machines, you get *something* out of it. At least with booster packs, you can trade your cards. At least with gambling, you have a chance of winning back what you put in. This is demonstrably none of those things. Loot boxes are a series of paywalls, and it is crucial that they be dealt with *immediately* -- not today, not tomorrow, not after breakfast. NOW.

[@Malisteen]

Ars Poetica - trading, and the secondary market in general, if anything makes booster packs MORE like regular gamvling than loot boxes, since the random prize can be exchanged for real world value via sale or trade.

[@SlayerEndX13]

Well damn. That technically makes this situation worse.

[@thebravegallade731]

also, in some games like counter strike, you CAN trade them.

[@charlierose7153]

Ars Poetica yeah you can trade, check cs go and fifa ulltimate team.

[@diersteinjulien6773]

to be honest, my main concern is really simple: in many lootboxes systems, you can (and most likely will) get things that don't have no interest for you. Because you can't cash it back, or trade it, or do anything with it, you basically paid for nothing. And that is gambling. Or fraud, depending on how you interpret it.

[@VulpesHilarianus]

Alright, so... Putting lootboxes under the gambling section does. Not. Affect. The game. It affects secondary or even tertiary monetization that could be removed without hurting the actual experience. A roulette style system that rewards you with random prizes can be implemented WITHOUT THE MONEY. The entire point of trying to categorize lootboxes as gambling is to remove the monetization aspect because it is predatory. You can still keep the random chance prizes in while removing money in any form. This includes fake currency you can buy with real currency. Secondly, the real world value thing. This already happens. Runescape has a long and rich underground history of people selling accounts, selling memberships, and selling seasonal equipment for real world money. On eBay, on Craigslist, through forums, wherever. We saw this already with Counter Strike: Global Offensive. Textures in a game were sold for real money. Thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. And Steam itself encourages this with trading cards. They're digital goods worth nothing, but can be converted into money or Steam's own internal trading card currency.

[@redrumssam5888]

VulpesHilarianus Selling accounts is almost always against terms of services. Having real world value would mean they can be traded in at a pawn shop or for a carton of cigarettes. But more importantly ... Its against terms of service.

[@redrumssam5888]

VulpesHilarianus You also ignored the main point of that argument being that now they will be able to fully and 100% own the digital goods that they have purchased. Now they are immune to the rules because of the money they spent on it.

[@Quast]

Which virtual trading cardgames do you mean? I'm still seeing a difference in traditional trading card game mechanics, which most of the time require some sense of balance by either excluding or allowing gamers to play with each other seen by a power balance so the game is still engaging. Or on top integrated upgrade systems, that prefers players that are spending more money in favor of time. Trading card games allowing you to spend as much money as you want on cards, but everybody is limited by the number of cards in a way they can hold,play and draw (time). In lootbox-oriented games you have the power balance intentionally misrepresented in favor of giving paying players and upfront advantage. In all their wanted need to make as much money as possible, the gaming industry does not see what it is doing to it's games for at least 95% of it's players. They are setting up a skill you usually acquire over time against a system that crunches time for YOU and gives it to you in a shooter game where the frustration is the biggest if you loose. They want it in a genre where it just doesn't fit.

[@Quast]

As I was trying to phrase it, I think there is certainly a difference in trading card games and 3d MMO-like video games. With normal card games you investing in the means to play the game, it doesn't make you better player. In 3d MMO-like video games you are trying to get an advantage in a shorter amount of time invested and just saying any sort of ingame investment is not allowed, wouldn't help the industry as a whole. Trading card games and predatory 3d MMO-like video games do pull DIFFERENT strings.

[@mafuletrekkie]

Against terms of service.... sure, ok. But at the same time it does undercut, if not destroy, the argument that digital goods are worth nothing. I would imagine that there is also a legal case that can be made here that someone has the right to sell something that they purchased to a third party, terms of service be damned, but that is way above my pay grade.

[@caleer8567]

Chris Lee goal from the start is to force the ESA to self regulate, he does know very well that forcing the government to do it is very heave handed. But If if ESA refuses to stand up for us then they really do leave us with no recourse but to drop legislation on them.

[@Nieblham]

Intent! Intent! Intent! The intent of buying a wow expansion is to EXPERIENCE the new content not just the rewards. The intent of buying a card pack is the opening, not the cards, otherwise one would just buy the card off the secondary market. The intent of buying a lootbox could be either the opening or to receive a certain product cause there is no other way to receive the product. Imagine if a game developer could put expansions in a lootbox, let's say FO4 DLC, you got Nuka world, the WWs, Far harbor, and Automatron. If one wanted to get the good DLCs they'd have to buy multiple to get the DLC they want. Lootboxes are NOT A PRODUCT they are a system to randomize a purchase of a product into a different, often cheaper product. We would accept buying a car if the dealer could randomize which car we received (especially without a change in price). Why would we accept that digital products could be randomized?

[@propoppop9866]

What if my intent is to get better items

[@ivangushkov3651]

The intent of buying overwatch is to play the game. The intent of buying lootboxes is to get a randomized reward. What in the fuck is wrong with that? I don´t like loot boxes all that much, so in general I don´t buy them. I have bought them once or twice before with the realization that it is money flushed down the toilet. I did it for the enjoyment of opening loot boxes. Just like gambling, there is no good argument for why it is bad when participation is voluntary :P

[@egeiger08]

EC, You bring up a couple of thought provoking questions from a legal perspective, but I think that they all miss the point. It is not important what form the randomization takes. The issue we are concerned about is: if game companies are allowed to manipulate their customer base with the same tactics used by gambling companies, shouldn't they be subject to the same manipulation? After all, we don't really care about what they gambling looks like; i.e. what game is played, how you pay in, how what they odds or expected values are, what the visual or auditory design of the game is, etc. What care about is the manipulation of players into addictive behavioral patterns, thus poker and slots are often regulated the same way by states, despite key differences in the design of those games vis-a-vis their reward structures, play mechanics, and expected returns.

[@jeffzheng1189]

The whole enticing part of marketing is unique in my opinion. I feel it should be regulated but it's coming from the health field; look at Purdue Pharma. In the 1950s they enticed college students with Valium and made doctors prescribe it even if they show no symptoms for anxiety. Then in 1990s they came out with Oxycontin, one of the root cause for the current Opioid crisis in the U.S. due to their marketing practice to entice consumers. Enticing is fine, but to a limit in marketing.

[@MichaelHowell]

> if game companies are allowed to manipulate their customer base with the same tactics used by gambling companies, shouldn't they be subject to the same manipulation? The problem is that Facebook, Coca-Cola, Macy's, Apple, McDonald's, Ty, and many other companies also employ psychological tricks. How much they resemble casinos varies, but they're *all trying to get you to form a compulsion*. That particular societal sickness is pretty much everywhere.

[@Syogren]

In that case the problems extend waaaay past just lootboxes. The need to psychologically manipulate others in order to make money, with no real other way to do it. In video games I don't think that's necessarily the case, but that's complicated. But for other things? Advertising. Retention time. Views and clicks. Daily bonuses. Pricing things as x.99 rather than rounding up to the nearest dollar/euro/whatever because it looks like it costs less than it actually does. And of course we have many many examples in the additional monitization strategies in video games, many of which could and sometimes are great but are more often used to psychologically manipulate players into giving you more money. The fundamental problem is the economic incentive and/or need to exploit human vulnerabilities to make money, possibly damaging your customers in the process. There aren't many other alternatives. Subscriptions, for example, won't work for everything because most people are poor and wages have stagnated, greatly reducing your potential consumer base, especially if they already have like 300 other subscriptions they have to pay for. Which leaves the only way to create a platform where everyone can use it is to well, uh, all the stuff I just said. This is something we need to fix, because something is off, and it's causing a lot of problems in our society. Whether that involves finding a way to fix it while mostly keeping things intact, making major changes to our economic system, or throwing capitalism out the window entirely in favor of something else. I think finding a way to reduce the wage gap could help a bit though, because if the customers have more money to spend none of these things would be as much of an issue as they are right now. Might not be enough though, who knows?

[@MichaelHowell]

Syogren "In that case, the problems extend WAY past loot boxes." Exactly! You get it!

[@ungrim97]

Its not so much about the psychological manipulation though. So much as it is about a random chance to get the item you are paying for. Gambling premises the idea that instead of just paying X for Y ($1000 for an iPhone) you instead can spend Z for a potential to get Y, usually on the basis that Z is lower than Y. Standard advertising/marketing isn't like this. Yes they use psychology to attempt to manipulate people into buying their product, but at the end of the day the purchaser knows exactly what they will get, they hand over $1000 and get an iPhone. In gambling the user is risking not getting what they wanted. If apple said you can pay $100 and there is a 2% chance you would get an iPhone, I am pretty sure that this would be seen as gambling. A loot box is a risk, there is encouragement to spend money for the chance to get what you want. This taps into some pretty harmful addictive behaviors which are distinct from marketing as their is no guarantee that you can exchange your purchase for its original purchase value (unlike with consumer goods which do have regulated returns policies in most countries) How we create legislation that allows game publishers and creators to continue to run a viable business whilst also protecting individuals from harmful in game mechanics is however not as simple as just covering it with existing gambling laws.

[@supersohig3671]

In team fortress 2, it is possible to sell items gained from lootboxes to others, but that doesn’t stop valve from vac banning people with several hundred dollar backpacks.

[@ComradeCorwin]

I believe I disagree with you folks on this issue, but your arguments thus far have been coherent, inoffensive and thought-provoking. I appreciate the time and effort you all have put into doing your research and pointing out the valuable nuances involved in the complicated mess that is the contemporary gaming industry. Please keep up the good work and I will certainly come back to see what you have to say each time.

[@mehmeh2255]

Thank you for not getting fired up like so much of the internet does. I don't even have anything to debate right now, I'm just glad to see someone being reasonable in the KZbin comments section.

[@BlazeMakesGames]

I'll admit I might get more fired up about this than I should, but yeah I'll agree with you that at least these arguements are for the most part reasonable counterpoints

[@JohnDoe-rl9pp]

They've already called lootboxes a financial ploy, and now they're talking about them as "art" that could be restricted. I kinda feel like my intelligence is being insulted, myself.

[@CordedGold]

John Doe They were referring to the games themselves as art.

[@michaelkennedy5119]

Corwin Rainier THANK YOU!! I think it's awesome how respectful you are, even though you have a different opinion. You sir, are a fantastic human!

[@MrTHEcoolECOdude]

No we need an option to buy cosmetics directly. Not locking them behind lootboxes.

[@juancarlosrodriguez8573]

I hear you, but lootboxes dimimish how much I enjoy a game. EARNING lootboxes or loot is great, PAYING for those is just gambling. It's not ok. If regulations have to come into play to detter creators, so be it I love this channel, but I disagree with this video

[@Lycaon1765]

Then just don't buy the loot boxes.

[@Larknok1]

I think you don't want other people paying money to equal your hard work, but there's a good case to be made that you're missing how those people paying made the game far more affordable for you.

[@coryzilligen790]

@@joneubanks9686 That may be the case, but sometimes that is still better than letting an anti-consumer action go unregulated. There are already tons of horribly scum-tastic lootbox games out there, and there are more and worse of them all the time. Something will need to be done as a deterrent to unethical game developers and publishers at some point.

[@scoutgaming737]

We have 3 choices 1. 200$ games 2. Ethical lootboxes and DLC's 3 Unethical lootboxes and DLC's

[@gwynnthegreen5389]

I see absolutely no problem with banning games with lootboxes for anyone under the age of 21. This is a blatantly unfair and unethical system that has caused real world harm, makes the games they are in quantifiable worse, and that the industry has shown no problem with pushing upon the most vulnerable members of our community. This is a bed of nails THEY laid down for themselves. THEY pursued this course of action, and THEY should have to deal with the consequences!

[@theokchannel2081]

They should definitely post the odds

[@erinwren465]

in china, lootboxes and other gachapon like systems already have to post the odds. whether or not those odds are actually truthful is a whole other can of worms tho

[@jedikv]

Also blizzard tried to use a loophole to get around it massivelyop.com/2017/06/07/blizzard-is-using-a-loophole-to-keep-selling-overwatch-lockboxes-in-china/

[@PyroGobbo]

That and have a way to actually get what you want. Kinda like dusting cards in hearthstone.

[@masterjp227]

Erin Wren but they did not word the law correctly so it's only the tier of rewars. Who is to say that Blizzard, for example, does not have different rates for different items in each tier, giving more often owned or skins of characters that the player does not play that often?

[@Justiguy]

Posting the odds only does so much. Loot boxes of all kinds are still inherently predatory and manipulative. Knowing the odds, if anything, can actually ENCOURAGE addictive behavior depending on the situation. It might hurt the casual crowd in the long run, but as we see with mobile titles (which continue to be disappointingly absent from these conversations), knowing the odds doesn't really effect how much people spend and whale on them. More needs to be done.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

I think that the repercussions of restricting the age of who can buy games with loot boxes would be a great thing, because they would essentially render microtransactions an untenable monetization system. Yes, the industry would take a hit, and there would be negative repercussions. However, I think it would be worth it to force video games to go back to a time when they weren't created just to be soul crushing addictive gambling machines designed to part you from every last penny. Corporations need to learn that they must be happy with just a lot of money, and not ALL of the money!

[@lukastojanovic3023]

Alright then. So let me ask you this. How do you stop kids from buying lootbox-filled games on Steam? It would be really easy for them to just lie about their age online.

[@ArgoIo]

They could just restrict and turn off the microtransaction mechanics for anyone below the age of 21. Perhaps it would incentivize other business models for games targeted at teenage audiences.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

luka stojanovic - It's not a matter of stopping them from obtaining the games. The idea is to make it difficult for publishers to market and sell games with loot boxes to desirable demographics and in large retailers. It would only take a few states passing laws to make implementing predatory monetization systems a major headache for publishers.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

That's great and all. But you didn't answer my question. How DO you stop kids from just lying about their age on Steam? Sure it makes it harder for kids to get games from stores, but digital goods are still wide open.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

Lorenz Zahn - Not a bad idea, though I think companies would rather just give up loot boxes and microtransactions entirely. The biggest chunk of the market for most games is under 21!

[@gavmcdonald7684]

The problem here is the psychological mechanisms for lootboxes are almost exactly the same as gambling. Meaning people who have impulse control, e.g. children and teens, are particularly susceptible and vulnerable to them. With that in mind companies have begun to exploit this to improve profits to such an extent that it changes gameplay dramatically, i.e. Battlefront 2. Lootboxes can be fine in games but blocking off content and requiring people to pay for it through a probability based system, where you're not even guaranteed to get the content, is terrible. Self regulatory bodies are supposed to stop this sort of behaviour, but as they haven't governments are starting to question whether they should step in. When you have a system that's addictive by design and is often aimed at Teens, it's no wonder that a conversation is forming.

[@thebravegallade731]

and trading card games arn't?

[@gavmcdonald7684]

True, card games are exactly the same, and it'll be interesting to see how games like Magic: The Gathering are affected if legislation is passed, I hope regulators make sure that doesn't need to happen. Sadly I don't have answers, but I do think this conversation needs to be had.

[@gavmcdonald7684]

Not neurology but I studied pyschology, specifically the affects of internet use with abnormal behaviours; though I hate to use an appeal to authority. I agree with you that a degree of self control is needed in life, however I'm specifically refering to individuals with poor impulse control; children and teens tend to fall into this category more commonaly, as self control seems to be a learned trait (though there is a debate in that area I believe). The converstaion/discussion I believe you're asking is two fold; should we protect the vulnerable members of our societies; and if yes to what extent. my own view is yes, but only to the minimum required. Similarly alcoholism and obesity are growing problems in a number of western societies and similar discussions are happening in some countries about this. in my own country food advertising aimed at children is now strictly regulated. Again the issue I have is when lootboxes are abused i.e. games/systems are created with the sole aim of the purchasing lootboxes, rather than earning them. In my opinion this damages the game on a whole and others seem to agree (the outcry against battlefront 2). I personally believe that the industry needs to self regulate better otherwise risk hardhanded, and probably poorly worded, government legislation coming down. Lootboxes are not inately bad, but they can be used badly, and it's up to the industry to ensure that doesn't happen otherwise risk the public (government) getting involved.

[@gavmcdonald7684]

I agree with you in the regard of not buying games if you do not like it, the greatest power a consumer has is with their wallet; and it has been shown with the lower sales of Battlefront 2. However, when businesses sell exclusive rights to well loved IP's some fans will naturally be disheartened when said IP is turned into a game where microtransactions are the focus rather than the game itself, it's hard to use market forces when there's a monopoly. The argument with lootboxes differs between person to person. Some people are totally against lootboxes; others against monetised lootboxes. I fall in the later category. The abusive nature of lootboxes comes in the sense that you can't buy what you want; you buy to get a chance of getting what you want. This obviously fuels the "one more try" aspect and is exactly the same as gambling in the mechanism it uses. Your point about informing people is great, but sadly the ESRB and PEGI don't warn consumers about these things.. this is where the some of the outcry is based, with the regulatory boards (at least the political argument I believe). The other aspect is aimed at the publishers and developers using lootboxes in the first place.

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

"Violent video games do not make you violent, but buying a lootcrate will give you a gumbling addiction"

[@StefanLopuszanski]

I think you're creating a narrative of a very false equivalence here and using the logical fallacy of a "slippery slope." "But if we did decide loot boxes fit the legal definition of gambling, that changes a lot of things. Suddenly, non-transactable digital goods will almost certainly have to be considered as having real-world value in the eyes of the law." You're jumping from loot boxes (primarily pay-to-win versions) being classified as gambling to all digital content being classified as having "real-world value." Not sure how you're making that jump. Then you go to banning players and closing down servers? What does that have to do with loot boxes being classified as gambling? I do agree that *if* all digital content became classified as having "real-world value" in a sense it might be problematic. But I'm not sure how you got there. The argument that "are gated content bosses just a type of loot box" is interesting. I wouldn't classify it as such because you can redo a boss and the only cost is time, not money. There's a one time charge to "re-roll" (defeat the boss) instead of loot boxes which you buy and then find out what you get. Yes, we should be extremely careful with the legislature. But that's the idea -- all your suggestions about having odds listed, notifications on spending, content not be exclusive to gambling -- are great. Having an open discussion about it is good, but I wouldn't fall under the premise that this is some slippery slope into pure chaos.

[@justinpurdy3117]

As they stated to classify something as gambling you have to act under the basis that the item in question has monetary value otherwise gambling rules wouldn't apply so their jump to that is completely understandable. While I'll admit they're jumping on a slippery slope a bit it's understandable that they are as the government doesn't exactly have a fantastic track record as far as video game regulation is concerned so assuming that they'll take this regulation as far as they can is a justifiable fear.

[@LtKharn]

"You're jumping from loot boxes (primarily pay-to-win versions) being classified as gambling" because it's only gambling if you get something of value, thus the object you win in a loot box must be considered to have value.

[@StefanLopuszanski]

That isn't how gambling is classified. Gambling is the chance of spending value to get something that might be nothing, less than, equal to, or greater than what you spent. Buying a game or an expansion isn't gambling because you know what you'll get and there's no cost to "reroll" bosses by defeating them over again. Loot boxes are gambling because you could get something of less value than you put in. It is even worse when it is pay-to-win boxes and/or exclusive content. Both should be completely removed in my eyes.

[@Wolfwood2057]

Michael, it's 0 or 1,000,000 in Money. While 0 has no value, Money inherently has value. You're just arguing semantics.

[@SkyboxMonster]

you are simply not aware how stupid law makers and judges are. the law will always be exploited. period.

[@Mathmachine]

You know, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place if the ESRB had actually done their job. But they didn't, so now the government is involved.

[@logicalfundy]

Not quite sure I follow this argument that gambling is when you can cash out something. The problem with gambling has always been that it is addicting and people have driven themselves to the poorhouse by spending too much on it. You don't need the ability to cash out in order to have something that is addictive. You don't need the ability to cash out in order to have something that could potentially wipe somebody out financially. I think that maybe the best option is to have a spending cap - don't allow games to allow people to spend any amount they please. I know that many gaming businesses are absolutely gonna hate that because they rely too much on "whales" to drive their games. But whales are in my opinion a legitimate problem - they're a very tiny minority of the player base, but because they spend so much on the game, they are catered to more than other players so the game ends up essentially being a niche product, and the amount they spend on the game also affects the game's economy quite drastically. Whales are part of the reason why there is so much grind in many games. I think reducing the impact of the top spenders would be a net positive for the lower spenders and free-to-play players in most games.

[@logicalfundy]

Eh, maybe you should actually read my post before replying.

[@CrossRoadsOfTime]

I do agree with you and think that the offical final fantasy mobile game is a good example of this. it bills itself as a fun themed base, and empire building type game. but it as you progress in levels it gets increasingly difficult to do anything with out having a ton of boosters going. and the only way to get most of the boosters is to buy their special deals. (you can't even buy their premium coins and use that you have to buy the package deals for the good ones) and I've noticed each time you buy a package deal the cost of the cheapest package deal raises sharply. I stoped playing that game when the wait timers to do anything where at more then a day and I couldn't produce enough resources at the base to do anything more with out doing major amounts of raids and then finding some whale type player smite me the moment my reserves get high enough that I'm getting close to doing something. other then trying to raid treasure caches and low level players.

[@Dachief54]

And the ESRB is responsible for informing parents about whats in the game they are giving their children access to. If they have psychologically manipulative elements attempting to get a player to spend real money for an in game loot box, then there should be a notice on the game that says it does so, and an appropriate age rating for games with these practices. An M rating and a warning on the box is all that would be needed to end this uproar. A simple solution, far removed from legislative action.. I think most gamers supporting outside interference in this matter are hoping the threat will make them buckle and have to admit that their business model is based off manipulating psychological tendencies towards gambling, and gaming companies don't want to do that because they KNOW if they put that on their box and INFORM parents they will lose sales as a result of informing them.

[@LordMooDF]

Rick Harris actually the definition of addiction is the fact or condition of being addicted to a substance, thing or activity. If you're going to call out someone on not knowing the definition of a word maybe know it yourself first.

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

"Violent video games do not make you violent... But buying lootboxes will give you a gambling addiction.

[@Cambiony]

The difference between paywalling a raid and lootboxes is that there is a upper limit. Lootboxes are not desined so that you buy X amount of them and then you are done, but with one time pay boss you can make a value assesment easily and then spend or not spend the amount X and after that get everything that boss has to offer. If lootboxes worked so that no matter what I got, after I spent like 50 dollars on lootboxes I unlock everything, that would be fine also. The lack of upper limit and difficulty of value assesment together make this problematic for me.

[@Sparkz1607]

All of these problems will have a minuscule effect because placing a legal age restriction on games with loot boxes will cause a HUGE drop in profits for the devs who use them. Games that involve gambling with real money must be rated AO and thus cannot be sold in stores. That will murder this monetization method once and for all. Devs will, consequently, remove the boxes from their games and seek alternative monetization methods which won't get their game an AO rating.

[@BidoofSquad]

Except if everything is AO, then AO will lose its meaning and stores WILL carry it.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

Great idea let's just make it really for teenagers to play games like Overwatch or Heartstone just because they have some loot box elements. And might I add, how will this stop teenagers from just getting the game on Steam? It's really easy to lie about your age online and just say you are like 21 years of age just so you can play these games without any hassles?

[@nodosa994]

Wait, are you telling me people still buy games from stores?

[@OriginalPiMan]

the_legendary_1 That's only true if the rating is not enforced. If all games are AO, then either those games will be sold to minors (which this Hawaiian legislation seeks to forbid) or sales will drop significantly.

[@danielgrigg3426]

Wouldnn't really do much, i mean look at how many young kids play GTA or COD. it would only prevent people underage from buying a physical copy on one of the few places which still enforce age restrictions which are few and far between at this point, so just saying they are AO. The amount i can realistically see it chainng profit marginns is by lowering it by less than a percent. Also it only stops minors buying physical versions of something like overwatch in those few places for as long as they keep loot boxes in their title

[@thedude3004]

How about stop puting gambling mechanics in games so that they don't have these kind of problems?

[@sdfPZXC]

No Money => No staff salary => No new game

[@Drzsuaveboy93]

Little Suruk they make plenty of money without loot boxes let's not act like companies who abuse lootboxes are starving indie devs

[@8bitmagic]

Gambling mechanics are fine, if they're not tied to real world currency.

[@Pearlshipping677]

Watch the first video. It explains it pretty clearly.

[@AsTaFTheRealOne]

Have you even watched the video? There are problems with such laws beyond lootboxes.

[@FBH991]

I feel like you're kind of missing the point with this video. The point of treating loot boxes like Gambling machines is that by doing so, you make game makers not include them anymore.

[@kavka3842]

As much as I appreciate the metered approach taken here I must contest on of the points, mainly the one about restricting lootbox mechanic-heavy games to 21 and up. Why? because you are comparing it to restricting art. The issue with that is, lootbox mechanics are hardly...art. How many of the games we hold up to be pinnacles of the medium from recent time have heavy, exploitative lootbox mechanics? The thing about music is it doesn't hold half its runtime hostage behind a randomised paywall! You pay what you pay for the disc and get the full package. I have not seen a single game with hard-driven lootbox mechanics that strive to further the medium of games. They are almost always cynically driven cash-grabs.

[@GodwynDi]

Overwatch would be the one example. EC itself has done an episode on the art/design of Overwatch. Whether one considers its use of lootboxes exploitative or not seems to be a much contested issue. I find their use perfectly acceptable, others don't.

[@Diamond1MX]

Shatadhi Dutta also, we already age restrict games for a huge number of reasons, this isn't even a relevant argument. I really think EC was straining to find some defense of this.

[@GodwynDi]

@Diamond1MX The difference being we age restrict selling things, parents/guardians are free to do so. Gambling laws actually make use of things illegal. This would make purchasing a game for your child, or even allowing your child to play a game you bought for yourself illegal.

[@luckygozer]

Where do you draw the line on what is art? Would the Mona Lisa not be art if you got it by gambling? What do you hold up as the pinnacle of the medium? Are Overwatch, CS;GO or F2P games such as Smite or League just cash grabs? You also have to remember that while you might hate ingame purchases their introduction hasn't been just downsides. Would Overwatch still be getting new characters as free content 2 years later if it had no lootboxes? Ofcourse not. It's easier to argue for dlc buying a new map or character is like buying a new song. But the lootboxes have allowed that song or movie to be free. Instead the musician makes his money selling merchandise. Would you be against being able to enter an amusement park for free because the gift shop is a casino? Which in this case i suppose would be F2P games with lootboxes.

[@r4z0rv1n3]

And would Overwatch drastically change if all the skins, emotes, and sprays were only direct purchases and not hidden behind lootboxes? Would the actual artistry of the game change?

[@leguumy2861]

I like the fact that Extra Credits depicted it as if the devs would be immediately arrested instead of the publishers being sued and MAYBE fined...

[@rayyanarviandri140]

Leguumy because you arested the maker not the publisher?

[@extrams0]

since when? A creator can't be held accountable when a publisher sells his creation to the wrong people. ... you're gonna sew a brewer when a bartender sells beer to a minor?

[@flaviusclaudius7510]

Good legislation requires lots of time and thought and study, which is why the US government usually allows self-regulation in this matter. However, things have gotten so bad that regulation is necessary and the industry has refused to self-regulate, and so governments are looking at urgently legislating, without necessarily strongly understanding it. The industry brought this on itself, and it could still stem the tide with self-regulation, but microtransactions of all kinds are worth literally billions of dollars so they're doing everything they can to keep it wild west, necessitating government intervention.

[@SkyboxMonster]

This can apply to ALL industries. very well written.

[@ChopTheViking]

One of the really important things that gets glossed over a lot, when game companies harness the psychological tactics of gambling to intentionally push players to purchase loot boxes... the “cash out” argument becomes significantly weaker.

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

"Violent video games do not make you violent.... But buying lootboxes will give you a gambling addiction!"

[@Intrafacial86]

Jesus Christ, Denton . . . How flippin’ hard is it to implement some of the most basic suggestions that have been given over the past decade? 1. Make every possible drop available for direct purchase at a price directly proportional to the cost of a loot box and the item’s %chance to appear in said lootbox. 2. Make lootboxes drop several items and allow the value of any individual item to vary but keep the total value of all the items dropped consistent. (e.g. you might get 3 uncommons and 2 rares or 4 commons and a legendary) 3. Going off of idea #2, make keys that can shift the total value of the received drops based on the cost of the key. (e.g. a $5 key could get you like 3 uncommons and 2 rares, but a $10 key could get you like 3 rares and 2 epics)

[@darter9000]

Yeeeeeah, gambling laws rarely, if ever, went after the gambler. It has gone repeatedly after the ‘supply’ side of gambling many, many times.

[@hagamapama]

No matter what you do with lootboxes they're going to be ethically and legally problematic. These things are designed to attract purchases b ased on the chance of winning. That's gambling psychology and nothing you can do with that mechanic will prevent it from becoming addictive. And "making it less addictive" isn't going to solve the real problem either, which is the way in which this mechanic exploits vulnerable people. It's about as effective as peddlers if a dangerous designer drug "making it less poisonous." You're not going to solve the problem that way, only disguise it and confuse the issue, which is what the industry honestly seems to be hoping for. I think this is one of those rare situations where the only viable solution is to cut off the source of the infection and do away with protogambling lootboxes altogether.

[@tdcsguy]

4:30 I'm with Ross Scott on this one: shutting down servers and effectively killing a game should not be possible without an exit strategy. If you kill your game, you take away something your customers payed for. Publishers should be compelled to release the game from needing an online connection to be played at that point, even if that means you can only play the single player part of the game. That or refund the current market value of the game.

[@AfterAnAutopsy]

Remember when a game had character skins and extra missions that certainly fit in the main game was part of a game and not contained in a loot box or hidden behind DLC pay walls.

[@luckygozer]

I do remember and while i miss those times there was also alot less of that type of content. The skins might be free but there would be 3 instead of 25. It also ment that a multiplayer game after it's initial purchase didn't make any money. While the game servers do cost money to maintain. This pushes companies towards faster release cycles and potentially worse quality as a result. While i am not fond of lootboxes how long do you think a game like Overwatch would be supported after launch if it didn't have any ingame purchases at all? Would it still be getting new characters 2 years later as it does now?

[@AfterAnAutopsy]

Damoinw I'd rather the 99.9% of games that aren't Overwatch to not have them. And how long do I think Overwatch would be relevant if it wasn't pushing greedy business practices, probably in the same position as long as the game was fun and enjoyable. No one is playing Overwatch screaming at their screen wanting to pay more money for skins.

[@luckygozer]

Ofcourse not. No one will ever argue that a game should cost more. But lootboxes do make alot of money so people are certainly buying them. Without any after launch purchases Overwatch would not be getting new maps and characters for free 2 years later. A company has no reason to support a game that doesn't make them money. Those maps and characters could be sold as DLC but i don't think that is a better option. The best option for me would be for those skins to be sold directly but that would almost certainly make them less money. Again my general position is anti lootbox. I have found them annoying greedy cashgrabs ever since i first saw them introduced in Smite. However i feel it is important to atleast be able to see both sides. There are certainly benefits to DLC and even more to selling skins.

[@badunius_code]

_> It also ment that a multiplayer game after it's initial purchase didn't make any money._ And this is bad, because? _> While the game servers do cost money to maintain._ Yeah, I remember how costly CS1.6 and SC:BW servers were. Not.

[@badunius_code]

Like what? Jagged Alliance? Fallout? Black & White? Baldur's Gate? Original ones. I remember disappointment from completing Fallout 3 in one night like it was yesterday.

[@Feanarth]

Here's a thing: How about gamedevs start VALUING the customer's time again? This whole thing went south when progression in games was tied to RNG, slowly invading our time spent with more and more tedious mechanics. I remember a time where you got a fixed reward for playing or achieving a certain thing and it felt exactly that - REWARDING. With WOW and the Diablo 2 real money auction house this shifted in a seriously wrong direction. Now all you can do in games like Hearthstone is follow the daily chore to earn miniscule amounts of progress that can in no way shape or form be called "worth your time" or "rewarding" anymore. Instead of plannable daily progress, people experience carrot-on-a stick mechanics. We live in times where companies are trying to pry out as much money as possible while polluting the actual game with mechanics that do not revolve around FUN (!) anymore but rather around mechanics that try to be as annoying as possible to get money out of people and stretch the experience as long and diluted as possible. Now that this behavior has become a standard in the industry and billions of $$$ are made that way - do you in all honesty believe that any company out there will "self-regulate" to do less of it? Just look at recent AAA releases and you might notice a certain trend that certainly doesn't look like self-regulation to me.

[@johnzoidberg2376]

Make it so that information about the odds is available. "Look, Timmy, if you had a pizza and one slice had pepperoni and you picked a piece blind, the odds of you picking the pepperoni is 1/8. Now with this video game, imagine you had 10,000 pizzas and one slice on one pizza was pepperoni, that's the odds of you getting that Overwatch skin ok?"

[@johnzoidberg2376]

It would be incredibly educational...

[@xdevantx5870]

Except people are TERRIBLE, with capital T, at making good decisions based on statistical information.

[@Teneban]

And in that analogy, 7 times out of 8, Timmy still gets pizza, which is far ahead of what your typical lootbox provides you with.

[@johnzoidberg2376]

Actually, Timmy gets pizza 8 times out of 8. Now it's not the pizza he was looking for and he's had it before and doesn't really want it but he still does get pizza

[@vaiyt]

And said information better be presented in a way that actually helps people make decisions. There's many way to write a statistic that can make it appear more probable to the untrained eye.

[@Kuroukaze]

Uh, raffles are gambling systems. It's a lotto. All lottos are gambling.

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

The legal definition is different from the colloquial one. Yes, you bought a raffle ticket, but if you lose the raffle, you can't sell the losing ticket to anyone for any value. That is one of the essential elements needed for something to be considered gambling from a legal standpoint.

[@dogguy8603]

Raffles do not offer a cash prize and therefore are not gambling

[@dnw009]

@@dogguy8603 Your spending money to hopefully win the prize along with a ton of other people how are you not gambling the money you spent in the hope of getting something of value out of it?

[@TeleportRush]

@@Phobos_Anomaly How would you sell a losing run of slots?

[@herbfowler8046]

Wow, normally I'm pretty close to your view on subjects. However, for this I think you're way off. Even as a game developer I am firmly convinced that loot boxes and gacha systems are gambling. They have monetary value as soon as I assign a price to it, and that monetary value is confirmed as soon as the first player makes a purchase. In your expansion example: there is a huge difference between paying for an expansion, with unlimited attempts at the boss loot box and paying for each attempt. Can't hide behind the art on this one either. Going back to your video where you quote whomever about take away everything you can and you'll have enough for your game, or something to that effect, that's the art. That's what we should be careful about limiting access to. Loot box mechanics are absolutely nothing but a money making scheme that play off the very same endorphin spikes casinos do.

[@TwitchFailsandWins]

It's not like they want to ban ALL video games for persons under 18/21, just the ones with loot boxes. This is a great way to encourage developers to avoid exploitative means of monetization. Besides most games with loot boxes are already 13/17+ titles.

[@thebravegallade731]

the problem is that it can spirial down to ANY RPG with a DLC dungeon.

[@Ayystras]

Even replacing loot boxes with a small dummy NPC with 0 health that just drops your item on death is a way around this. It's not "technically" a lootbox.

[@luckygozer]

I am not entirely against this 21 year rule but as the video and TBG mentioned the specifics matter alot. It needs to be able to ban lootboxes and all indirect ways to getting them while also avoiding banning proper content. In China lootboxes are banned. But Hearthstone hasn't changed in the slightest instead they just sell currency with a free card pack on top. If this is all that changes then the ban seems pointless to me. But if we push too far with this law then things like dlc dungeons come into question. If you add a single room with 1 enemy that dies in 1 hit and drops a random item or skin that is clearly still a lootbox. But what if that single enemy was your favorite boss fight from your favorite game that also happened to drop a random item or skin. Is that a lootbox? Where do you draw the line?

[@AngryCosmonaut]

The line gets drawn somewhere! Its not going to be the end of the world and all games will be dead forever. There is a clear distinction between an enemy dropping a sword in game and a player paying for chances at a slot machine. To act like those two things are in the same ballpark or even the same sport is intellectually dishonest. The fact that for decades no one gave any care what so ever to enemy drops shows that people didn't find it unethical. Loot boxes started getting crazy when Overwatch created a massive surge in their popularity. In less than 2 years it has gotten so out of control that laws are being drafted to start attempting to reign in unregulated gambling in the video games industry. Saying that we do nothing because regulating loot boxes will lead to all games we like being labeled as ILLEGAL is ridiculous. I like the Extra Credit crew, but its clear that these episodes are just them trying to score brownie points for the corporate culture that they are apart of in their regular jobs.

[@luckygozer]

AngryCosmonaut The argument isn't that we shouldn't do anything. But that we need to be able to draw an effective line. ''Somewhere'' isn't good enough. Draw it too close and it is useless. Draw it too far and we are banning all games with a random drop chance which isn't any better. Should all card games be banned for lootboxes? All rpg dlc content? We can surely agree that if we put a law in place that is too easy to avoid and changes nothing we haven't accomplished anything. And hopefully we can also agree that Artorias of the Abyss also shouldn''t be banned because some of the enemies in that new content have items with a random drop chance.

[@Raigan_Avalon]

I can't speak for others, but I have never wanted to have governments to step in and take action. But I do want the devs/publishers to take some bloody responsibility and treat their player-base with some respect. I find the Overwatch model it as good as loot boxes are going to get. If the boxes have anything other than pure cosmetics, it can go to hell.

[@TheLightningbro]

Would agree but i got to say how much I hate the time lock on them. Can only imagine how many people it ends up manipulating.

[@Raigan_Avalon]

I don't like the time lock, but I understand why it exists. Without it, it would heavily affect their revenue. While I don't care about that personally, I understand why they do.

[@Jnaathra]

This seems like 10 minutes of talking for what is an easy fix. Remove the loot boxes. Stop making it a lotto system. If you want to sell items in a shop, sell items in a shop. Don't sell a "chance" of an item, just sell the item. This article seems much more publisher friendly, than player friendly to me. If your garbage game can't make it without lotto boxes, then your garbage games deserves its timely death.

[@ernestepistola]

Can we just go back to the time where games were made/sold to be played and not used as platforms for selling lootboxes?

[@JoelJames2]

I mean, if you're ok with regressing to late ps2/xbox to early ps3/xbox era, then sure. Just convince the companies that that is what the public wants.

[@ernestepistola]

JoelJames2 The Nintendo Switch seems to be doing exactly that.

[@nushia7192]

It's an online game, they need money to run their servers, without it, the game is dead.

[@senjusan6359]

Think about the cost of managing servers for online game and also the cost of making new expansions or even patches for online games. What you propose can be true for single player only games, but sorry bro, the future of gaming is placed in the online market, and that means devs have to provide us with their service 24/7 and that cost money. There needs to be some way of monetization, otherwise games like Guild Wars 2, WoW or CoD would be dead after 5 months of realizing them, and that is not a fun thing for devs nor for us.

[@dnw009]

This is why the store exists to sell cosmetic items that do not affect the gameplay so you don't disadvantage players who won't buy that one gun or armor piece. Lootboxes aren't the only thing that can keep the servers running and saying so would be disingenuous and a weak argument. Initial sales with 60 (roughly speaking) bucks a pop per customer and an ingame store with lots of cosmetics. Those 2 should be plentiful of a cash income to either start creating a new game or to create dlc/sequels.(And naturally keep servers running for the existing game.) This is also all not counting the fact that if your game has a good fanbase you might not even need to keep servers running because players would be willing to do that. Example being warcraft 3 MakeMeHost. Which was a free site that allowed you to host games and also showed hosted games with said site.

[@timothymclean]

One way or another, precedent is going to be forged here. Let's make darn sure it's a _good_ precedent.

[@tigerairlines4086]

I don’t care how it happens, EA, DICE, Rockstar, they all need to get hit with some form of punishment, be it law or sales. If you want an ethical loot box, make it use In game currency, with gear relative to your level, and mainly cosmetic with no pay to win value. For honor does this quite well, and I’d like to see others follow its model

[@rldubya82]

So what I'm hearing is "Shhhh .... don't complain, about being taken advantage of, or bad things will happen to you." I love the History stuff that EC does but these last couple videos about loot boxes have seemed particularly slimy.

[@rldubya82]

Save4321 follow that through. It's not like a wave of gamers were writing their Congressmen and demanding they look into the issue. Any talk of legislation came as a result of news stories about earnings reports and stock drops due to backlash against loot boxes. So again shhhh don't complain too loudly or the rents will hear and then they'll take our toys away. I mean I suppose the next best thing would be thoughts and prayers.

[@rldubya82]

Rick Harris exactly my point sir. We aren't to blame for whatever idiotic legislation comes of all this.

[@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821]

but some won't they will keep going and going until the entire game is just a base price of 60 dollars and everything in they're is mircotransactions this is actively destroying the quality of our games and we need to stop but theres too many kids with credit so that won't happen

[@propoppop9866]

Dangerously Dubious Double Davidson what do you mean shadow of war and bf2 where grate games I loved them

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

"games do not make you violent.... But lootboxes will give you a gambling addiction

[@Agent_Chieftain]

1. No, players would not just suddenly be thrown in jail the second lootboxes came under gambling regulation in some states. Because at the time, they weren't breaking the law. Don't try to make it sound like suddenly everyone would become a criminal over night. 2. Chris is targeting GAMES. Not consoles. Don't make it sound like he's trying to get gaming consoles as a whole classified as gambling machines, because thats not the goal. It's to make sure that any game containing chance based mechanics for real money gets an Adult Only rating (like it SHOULD under the ESRBs own current guidlines) 3. CS:GO and other skin gambling websites. Skins and other virtual goods already have real money value. They always have, since the earliest days of MMOs like Runescape. 4. So they get classified as gambling and the terms of service agreement... Just goes away?... ... What?... Honestly, I'm stopping the video here. You're so intent on protecting your precious corporate culture, it's sick. You don't have the right to pull the "Games are Art" card.

[@propoppop9866]

Psichosis 1.What he was saying was if I wanted to play overwatch then this law came in if I brought it illegally I could be sent to jail for playing it 2.he did not say about consoles being gambling machines 3. In mmos buying accounts / items is against the Eula in cs go well yah I will call that gambleing 4. No but if the terms of service say that this is not your property then it’s not gambleing as it’s just random unlocks

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

He isn't arguing for a position, he is examining the issue of gambling as it relates to lootboxes. Examining an issue and discussing possible ramifications of this or that decision is not supporting any particular course of action. If you seriously just stopped the video because you thought he was arguing in defense of lootboxes, then you completely missed the point.

[@dogguy8603]

Whats wrong with corporate culture? The fact is people chose to spend their money the way they did, it is nobodys fault but their own, the last thing we need is more government regulations

[@MrMarinus18]

They don't seem to. They are more listing all the complications that could arise from a legislation that many people are asking for. They aren't saying it's wrong but more that you need to be careful with regulations as powerful and as broad as these.

[@tuckerton296]

Have you ever thought that just removing lootcrates would be the most ethical decision? They're designed to take advantage of the mentally feeble, and the fact that they hide their odds isn't helping.

[@Justiguy]

Not only are they designed to take advantage, but people tend to forget that the games they're in are designed with their existence in mind as well. They're designed not just to take advantage, but to train and to create people who can BE taken advantage OF. It's nasty all around.

[@JamEngulfer]

No, loot boxes designed to take advantage of the mentally feeble take advantage of the mentally feeble. The idea of 'buy a thing and get a random item' is not inherently bad. What's bad is when that concept is taken and made bad. The same idea applies to so many things in the world.

[@Justiguy]

That's all well and good, but these things do not exist in a vacuum. I don't think there exists an instance of loot boxes where the concept isn't being executed in a game or product that is designed with their existence in mind. This in turn encourages the purchase of these things, which goes in line with that behavior and so on. And that's only based on your assumption that loot boxes only take advantage of some people rather than they are just inherently predatory, the latter being my belief.

[@tomtinker8220]

+tuckerton296 - even if it was ethical to remove them, micro-transactions have been the biggest source of profits for game makers. that being said, i'll only tolerate lootboxes if all the rewards are only cosmetic (not pay-to-win), reoccurring, and duplicates are made into in-game currency to buy those items without using real cash.

[@kwagmeijer26]

People generally don't have a problem with mini buys, it's the randomization element that matters. Hell, id say direct pay to win is more ethical than randomized cosmetics.

[@animorph17]

I can totally imagine lootboxes working, and in several games they do work. The thing is they aren't called lootboxes, and they weren't stupid enough to make you pay cash for the chance to open one. Random content inside a box of loot is the primary motivation in pirate games and Dungeons and Dragons games, any sort of quest or dungeon crawler. You just have to PLAY THE GAME to find and open those boxes. This is why Gwent works in Witcher three, despite having all the hallmarks of a terrible pay to win game. It's only pay to win within the context of the Witcher universe.

[@Aipe97]

Now that you mention it, how did they get around that for the standalone version of Gwent?

[@animorph17]

@aip97 .... no idea. I've never played the standalone version and have never met anyone else who has. Lots of other people praise the in-game version of Gwent for being masterfully designed within the setting of the game though.

[@Dramatic_Gaming]

The real world version of Gwent is just like Hearthstone or any other TCG. The games are explicitly pay-to-win upfront. You can earn packs just like with Hearthstone, but like every other TCG in existence, a person who spends $20 on a deck is probably gonna lose to someone who spent $200 on a deck. Honestly, it is a little baffling that people overlook TCGs in the talk of lootboxes since their entire model has been lootboxes for decades. I guess it's because there's no upfront cost to entry?

[@hi-i-am-atan]

+Dramatic_Gaming Probably because MtG isn't a video game, so it falls outside of the realm of gamers getting angry at having to pay for stuff, like what happened with expansion packs and cash shops before.

[@jakegreen6341]

I think Overwatch's lootboxes are pretty cool. Purely cosmetic items can be great! They have literally zero effect on gameplay. Lootboxes that actually contain weapons are not so great.

[@Ava_Hofmann]

actually, digital goods are property and should be treated as such. your arguments sound like a good reason to actually address these exploitative grey areas in games, including magic the gathering.

[@TheOneLichemperor]

Who's property though? Take a look at the Steam terms, for instance. Games purchased on Steam are not the property of the player, and, I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that loot-boxes and the like would fall under the same terms.

[@TheOneLichemperor]

It's is intended to exonerate the service provider from potential legal attacks from its users, rather than to be used as threat to said user.

[@propoppop9866]

TheOneLichemperor the it’s not gambleing is putting in money to get a random right to use a skin with no value for lootboxes to be considered gambling the items you get from them need to be property

[@andresarancio6696]

The comparison of lootboxes with bosses in raids, or any randomly dropped piece of loot seems interesting to me, because it speaks to the core of this issue. What is the difference between an enemy with a randomly dropped piece of equipment and a lootbox? Simple. For the game or the update, I am paying for content, not an in-universe item. With the MMO system I am paying for a dungeon, a raid, a boss, and the chance of getting the piece of equipment. For a lootbox I am paying just for the piece of equipment. This essentially means with the former I paid for a game, while the later I paid for a piece of data with no real world value. Again, my opinion in this issue is barely relevant, as I despise lootboxes on concept. It is asking an eater of fast food his opinion on fancy restaurants or someone who lives in a house his stance on apartment-only legislation

[@Vinxian1]

But I do think it raises a fair point about legal loopholes. Is it still "paying for the content" when you can buy a ticket to fight a boss that is a 1 shot kill and drops a lootbox. Legally speaking it's very hard to distinguish between the two. And at the other end of the spectrum, if random lootboxes are cosiderd gambling it's only a matter of time before someone will try to sue a game developer for having random loot at the end of a challenging dungeon.

[@andresarancio6696]

Indeed, the point I would draw the line is, first, the fact you are buying a ticket on the first place. Even for expansion packs of MMOs, you aren't paying a buck for a chance to fight a boss, but keeping the whole content permanently (so long you pay their monthly fee of course). And suing a developer for having random loot at the end of the dungeon is easily explained, you can fight the boss as many times you want without paying, essentially meaning you already "bought" the content, retroactively.

[@JadeLockpicker]

Also, it's a chance you can roll, and roll and roll again, for the same upfront flat fee. You can do that raid until you are bored with it.

[@stormwings3236]

You haven't seen "timed booster packs" that increase rare drop chance or double drop right? And shits limited time dungeon boss that give loads of loot.

[@amirabudubai2279]

What about a boss that only takes about 5-10 minutes to beat, with no real chance of failure, and requires that you buy tickets to entire? Tickets too direct? Give the "option" to repair weapon with real world money and putting some really nice gear behind a damage sponge of a boss. The problem isn't the loot boxes themselves, it is that some developers have resorted to manipulating the player rather then entertaining them.

[@Seadalgo]

I agree with the Hawaii implementation as written. Sorry EC

[@extrahistory]

That doesn't bother us personally, we hope that people will inform themselves about these issues and consider the nuances that exist as they take certain stances/belief positions! It's still great that people are talking about this issue in the first place, because it's been a long-overdue conversation for the games industry.

[@M4gl4d]

The consequences... executives start receiving normal, sensible salaries?

[@terenx5]

Trove does a good job with the “sold in a store for a fixed price after a bit”, once the top item in chaos chests rolls out with the week you can craft them with “Chaos cores” which are gained as an uncommon drop from chaos chests, deconstructing rare loot in chaos chests, or by getting them from another box that is a rare drop from chaos chests, plus with the karma bar mechanic and how you can get them from defeating dungeons, it makes it so you are almost garunteed something good

[@FNGLHR]

All I ask is that I'm allowed to buy the gear I want directly instead of hoping it appears in some random box I run across. Give me another means to get gear sets in injustice 2 besides luck. That's all I can ask. Everything else? I don't play those crap games anyway. I avoid anything or any mode that requires lootboxes out the ass like that.

[@MorbidEel]

That is reasonable. Yet people only blame the companies and not the people who are basically funding this practice. Maybe blame is the wrong word choice but there needs to be some distribution of responsibility.

[@raymondthrone7197]

It's a little sad that we're at the point where we're begging for vanilla DLC practices again. Oh how time changes.

[@kevl0rneswath]

You just described regular old micro-transactions.

[@DrinkyMcBeer]

Okay, you can earn it in game now. Only takes 100 hours of grinding per piece of the set.

[@GoldenSun3DS]

The minority that is willing to huge amounts to play the game covers the majority that doesn't want to pay massive amounts on the game. These pay2win games are being covered by the minority that spend tons of money, and IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER IF THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS BOYCOTT THE GAME.

[@DanThePropMan]

3:35 On banning players: Businesses already have the right to ban individuals from their establishment, even if that person has already spent money there. Why would game companies not have the same right?

[@Malisteen]

Because when a person is thrown out of a real world establishment, they still get to take any goods they bough there with them when they leave.

[@Ayystras]

But if you bought a shirt at said concert, they don't have the legal right to take it away from you because it has monetary value.

[@spamus5243]

The problem revolves around property. If the digital content in games that comes from loot boxes and whatnot is considered as having real world monetary value, then the player has a legal claim that the digital content is their property and it can't be taken away from them. That claim is stupid, but it might cause companies to hesitate from banning certain players if they fear legal recourse.

[@luckygozer]

Moti Osmo I am still torn on this. When you buy a ticket you have bought acces to the event. When you buy a game similarly you have bought access to the game servers. But you don't own anything. You don't own the music at a concert. But when you buy a tshirt at that concert that has now become your property. If game items are seen as having real world value then a skin is like buying shirt. You can be thrown out of a convention but they can't keep your property. Now i don't believe there will be any trouble banning players from a game just because they own skins. But still crazier things have happened.

[@Randomguy-b5r]

41 people seem to have missed the flaw in your logic, when you are kicked out of an establishment you are not losing property you paid for.

[@lomiification]

it seems reasonable that in game items have real world value. Given good items, you could sell your account at a higher price.

[@user-vm9xz4kv9z]

Selling your account is not excepted by most companies though.....

[@MrDiaxus]

@@user-vm9xz4kv9z Good point.

[@dukeragereaver2208]

I mean just look at runescape thousands of ppl make irl money selling gold/items/accounts

[@rendered5247]

Also hackers could yeet a company

[@gaussianvector2093]

It's just like an NFT, (with trust involved, you don't just want an AI's "effort") but it's all just numbers. It's so silly, the idea of selling numbers being illegal. That's exactly what art is, and currency, and any non-physical value you can add to the world. Any information can be conveyed in some base integer and approximated in and base as precisely of a float as desired.

[@xdevantx5870]

Sounds like game companies should stop shitting where they eat. The problem is that the game industry has been unable to regulate itself so consumers are crying out for protection from predatory actors. If games have gambling in them, they should be treated like gambling. How about we just keep gambling out of games?

[@lukastojanovic3023]

However, lootboxes aren't gambling, for a number of reasons really. They're very shitty, selfish and immoral to have, but they technically aren't gambling. The main reason why is that when you open a lootbox, you are guaranteed to at least get something with value, whereas with real life gambling if you put in money and lose, you get nothing. I mean it's like buying a bag of skittles. Maybe you want a bunch of blue skittles, but you have no way to know what colors are in a bag of skittles. So you buy it and rely on lady luck to give you blue skittles. So are skittles gambling?

[@xdevantx5870]

It's nothing like buying a bag of Skittles, when you buy a bag of Skittles 100% of the bag should be Skittles not a 1 in 250 chance of getting Skittles and a 249/250 chance of getting M&Ms. Usually, these booby prizes have no real value. Just because it doesn't meet the current legal definition of gambling, does not mean it doesn't meet the word definition of gambling. The argument seems to get hung up on this legal classification. A classification that varies from State to State and can be changed anywhere at a moments notice. A classification that is currently under review in a number of places explicitly due to these predatory practices. Saying it's not gambling because it's not currently regulated like gambling does not mean it's not gambling. It is literally playing a game of chance for money. You know, the dictionary definition of gambling.

[@Seesevn]

There are a lot of valid points in here, but I think one thing should be pretty clear. Whatever the solution is, if it ends up barring kids from playing games with lootboxes in them, that is not the kids' problem, that is the company who made it's problem, and I'm more than confident that if such a law were enacted Blizzard would within a week have an update out that removed them and put in an alternative. I wouldn't even be surprised if they're already looking into alternatives; the workaround for buying currency for lootboxes instead of just buying lootboxes so they wouldn't have to publish drop rates was not done by a short-sighted company. Additionally, I'm not really seeing how not being able to cash out is an argument in favor of it here; it's hitting all the same pleasures that makes traditional gambling addictive and can cause people to sink tremendous, even crippling amounts of money into these games. How is it that not seeing any real world return suddenly makes that okay? It's all the bad parts of gambling without the part of gambling that makes it worth it outside feeding the rush; if anything that should put it under more scrutiny.

[@AndikaPratama0]

Lootbox is Gambling. Digital goods have value. Plain and simple. Why are you trying to muddle this up?

[@L4PointLinguist]

I don't think the argument that toxic players would somehow become immune to banning under a lootbox= gambling approach really holds water. I have never been to Las Vegas, granted, but I'm willing to bet that no matter how many chips I purchase in a strip casino, if I start behaving in a disruptive manner that offends other customers and they complain that I am disrupting their experience, the casinos can legally remove me at lightning speed.

[@MsSnoozable]

There are 2 things to this: 1. If you kicked out of a casino for being unruly (at least as I understand it) the casino is still legally obligated to cash your chips back because otherwise that would be stealing with a layer of indirection. If game companies kick out someone, does that mean they have to legally give back all the money the person spent on the game? If it is classified by law as gambling then yes, if not then no. 2. Casinos just like other companies will inevitably follow the money and mitigate PR damages. If the amount of chips you put into the casino out weighs the amount of everyone you're rude to then it isn't impossible to imagine letting that person go. From my experience companies are much less willing to push customers away the more money the bring to the table. Hope that explains things a bit.

[@propoppop9866]

MrSnoozable game company’s would probably just forget about it then loses money

[@boygenius538_8]

MrSnoozable then just refund the banned player

[@KaletheQuick]

I don't get the magic the gathering relationship. You can't cash the cards back out with Hasbro, but you aren't stuck with the trash you get. You can sell them. Trading is the first word of the genre, and its part of the game. It uses a stupid random economy to feed a smart just buy what you want economy. which if a deck build can be objectively better, is pay to win. And if certain games become 21 only I think most would just remove the loot boxes, and idk, make a better game. A solution could be requiring some adult authentication area where randomized crap is sold. so kids can play the rest of them. anyway, the most important thing is that premium games just don't have loot boxes or really any microtransactions. Macrotransactions 4 lyfe!

[@kweekythedragon]

Quite. The hyperbolic statement that you won't be able to buy these games if the lootbox element is removed is contrived to say the least. Blizzard et. al would replace the lootboxes with a currency purchase instead so you can buy and use in-game currency to get the things you want. Lootboxes are a cancer in the industry which encourage practices which are tantamount to abuse and exploitation of vulnerable individuals, and EC needs to get some perspective on this. I'm avid gamer, but seeing the rise of exploitative behaviour that targets those with poor impulse control is deeply concerning. EC often argues gaming is a force of good; an enriching experience for which we can share with our children. However their recent trend of defending industry malpractice is disturbing and I hope they will loosen their positive focus on these revenue streams and see the damage that these monetisation strategies can bring upon those we should be seeking to protect.

[@thomasnk9489]

So we shouldnt ban Lootboxes because its complicated?

[@tarnished439]

You are the reason why the fight against lootboxes are harder. Nobody says "Yay, hurray there's lootboxes!". At best they are tolerated, most likely hated. Who is happy to be a recurrent atm machine?

[@smitelf]

In my view, loot boxes are a form of gambling. We have laws that regulate other forms of gambling. Those laws should also apply to loot boxes. Lawmakers are not trying to "protect our kids from the horrible addiction of video games" but rather protect them from the horrible addiction of gambling. This debate is about closing a legal loophole that permits a form of gambling to be marketed to minors. You're right that it's not fair that someone who gambles could be charged with a felony. However, that is not fair for other types of gambling either, not just loot boxes, so let's change those laws. Likewise, if laws around consumers' rights to digital goods are unclear, let's improve them rather than use them as an excuse to allow an unregulated gambling market. You ask, "Is it gambling if I make you pay a dollar every time you try to do a raid but not gambling if I charge you $35 to be able to do the raid as often as you want?" Exactly. The former is gambling because what I get in exchange for that $1 may vary. The latter is a clear exchange of money for defined goods. We are not asking gaming companies to forfeit additional content as a revenue stream. However, game companies need to stop hiding behind the "games are art" argument and instead decide whether they are producing art or pachinko machines.

[@richardsvinto5678]

You got one thing wrong. We would not be locking everyone under 21 out of Overwatch; we would be stopping Overwatch from having loot boxes because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to sell to anyone under 21.

[@Zakon673]

So how do you propose they monetize the game to ensure continuous, free, high quality updates? Look at the amount of work that went into making the newest hero. The funding for creating her, voicing her, balancing her and polishing her had to come from somewhere. Would you rather have to pay for that hero? Or pay for the skins directly? Or would you rather let people with more disposable income than you pay for them via lootboxes full of optional cosmetic items?

[@Ayystras]

I'm twenty years old, have a job, own a house, pay taxes, am engaged, and yet I wouldn't be allowed to play a video game with no nudity, blood, or gore, and very low violence.

[@extrahistory]

There's a great conversation going on right now in politics about if and how lootboxes should be regulated, and it's important to be aware of harmful side effects that *could* come from new legislation. Want to learn more about what Representative Chris Lee has in mind for legislating lootboxes and microtransactions? Check out these videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/joW4g3aemL6Ab6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4jblHqPq9uagNE&t kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKm4g5ujptybpsU

[@thezerfer9860]

Extra Credits i see that vincent adultman easter egg.... well played extra credits well played

[@DOOMSLAYA99]

Heh, overwatch just did something big and added BRIGITTE also Overwatch in an example doesn't really advertise there loot boxes they are something *YOU* can buy at random. But yes I get it loot boxes in games like black ops and other stuff can DEFENENTLY get you to buy theme cuz its a pay to win thing, not overwatch (man I am REALLY defensive about overwatch)

[@DOOMSLAYA99]

Lol so tru

[@stevenchoza6391]

Extra Credits Why not just punish the publishers and investors in place of the developers and consumers?

[@doxxi5319]

AJunkrat main the biggest issue with overwatch and a lot of loot boxes like theirs is most people would rather just buy the items outright, and while there are ways to get the boxs without paying you will most likely never get the item you want making you feel resentful and like you have waisted your time. Now while this system may seem fine to a lot of people I do not feel you can call it fun or rewarding to spend hours farming for lvls to get boxes and only ever get sprays and voice lines you do not want.

[@ChronoPinoyX]

OK I've watched this plenty times for the last year, and the one thing that always stuck to me as a question that needed answering is 5:57 and I believe I have an answer to that question. For the instance of the question, the main part of this question is the following: Am I paying real life currency repeatedly to access this boss for a chance of an RNG loot? If the answer is yes, this equates to the same principle as a lootbox. A lootbox is designed so that in order for you to even get a chance of getting something from it, you have to actually pay for it first. This is what a lootbox design is. It's basically "Pay X Amount and you can open a lootbox to get so and so". This is technically in a sense, a form of gambling because you are not simply paying once for a chance to get something, you are repeatedly doing it until your real life money depletes. Lootboxes are designed to be used constantly with real life money, this means continuous payment for a chance. Now if the answer is no and that you only pay once and you have unlimited access to that boss to get the loot. Then this is not a lootbox at all. This actually becomes part of playing the game. What you receive when you pay a one off payment for unlimited access to this boss that has RNG is not a form of a lootbox, it's a genuine in-game content. It's not designed like a lootbox where you are constantly being asked to fork over real life money for a chance to get something. No, it asks you for a single down payment to play that content and you can play that content as often times as possible unless something such as server shutdown occurs. What you paid for is content and service, you didn't pay for a chance to get something, you paid so you can play something repeatedly without further payments as you now have constant access to that content without further payments.

[@Wyrdwulf19]

If the industry wants as many people to experience their art, they shouldn't strap gambling onto them.

[@MindOfGenius]

"But games are art!" Not with random things you pay extra cash for.

[@APaleDot]

It's not about high art vs. low art. Art is art. You shouldn't ban it without very, _very_ good reasons.

[@longislandlegoboy]

how does the mona lisa say something really important about society

[@propoppop9866]

MindOfGenius art is not a status but a term

[@matthewmitchell33]

Sorry I'm late but MOST GAMES HAVE YOU EARN LOOT BOXES WITH IN-GAME PROGRESSION

[@Armaggedon185]

My understanding is that Lee's goal is to force the industry to self-regulate, and that the threat of legal classification is merely his method of doing so.

[@firefoxwaffles5357]

What this video is saying is we need to be really careful about the kinds of laws we implement. Laws can be abused and precedents can make it easier and easier to make laws regulate more and more things. If the federal or state government can regulate loot boxes, what else about video games do they now have their foot in the door? I feel like a loooooot of people in power would love to get their hands on controlling video games as much as they could, given rhetoric we've seen ever since video games became popular. But so far we've seen game developers that aren't regulating themselves in regards to microtransactions, which means inevitably the government WILL step in. So let's make sure it's a good precedent that we set if it comes to that. In the meantime, keep voting with your wallets. We HAVE to keep boycotting, keep sticking to our guns as we make our purchasing decisions. Really truly every individual who chooses not to purchase a game with inethical monetization counts. Let's prove that we don't need the government to step in and try regulating our entertainment. Since when has that ever worked out, anyways?

[@Tacticus101]

At 3:09 where you point out that lootboxes are "less like placing your chips on red and more like buying a raffle ticket", you are completely correct, however raffles are legally a form of gambling in almost every western country including the USA, with their own set of regulations. The law does not require being able to "cash out" or anything like that be be gambling, and it doesnt mean digital things suddenly have real world value.

[@pbde1e]

So when talking about the implementation of Laws, there's something I would like to mention that might be a reasonable solution. I'm a Dutch Law student and one of the first judgments we learn is the Runescape arrest. In which some kids bullied another kid into dropping some of his gear in that game. This went up to our supreme court, because the question became if these Digital objects, could be seen as an object to the Law and thus this crime could be seen as stealing an object, and one of the arguments against this was that the Jagexs the makers of Runescape always had control over all these items so they couldn't be an object over which players could hold influence. The Supreme court decided that Digital Objects, could be seen as an Object but they are in control of the company of the game so while they couldn't be stolen by the Company that made the game, they could be stolen by other players. And this is a good way to solve at least some of the issues that are raised in the video. Since this will make it that even if the objects in game get a monetary value, it is all still in control of the company managing the game. So any shutdowns, banning, roll backs would be legally allowed since they hold control over all those objects. It might not be an optimal solution, but it is one that I remembered when I looked at the video.

[@himenoinu]

I have a suggestion: How about removing the lootboxes and sell the actual items like the old games used to do, or like how great games today are doing. And also, how about no lootboxes in a single player game. Also also, how about defending less the lootboxes and see what they led to in terms of game quality. You would call SW:BF2 or D2 a good game? Would you call the last spin-off of LotR a fair game, with its market in your face and the deliberately dropped grind at the end of it, just to pump in an extra incentive to spend more? Would you call any of the double digits iterations of a franchise a good game? Why? because the name is still good? But sure... it's easier to design and sell lootboxes than actual game content which, by Bungie's statements, is too difficult to make. Maybe get your priorities straight a bit?! :D If a game's good, people will support it, lootboxes or not. If it's designed with pilage in mind, like pretty much all the AAA games of 2017 were, then... lootboxes are just there to compensate a bit for a rather certain flop, by squeezing the fans of a franchise dry. I'd buy a more expensive edition for a game I liked. I wouldn't play a rubbish one (especially when compared with its predecesors) no matter how ethical its lootboxes are (and when we're talking EA, there's nothing ethical about those buggers). Tl;dr. Defend the lootboxes when the quality of a game's experience is already constantly at its peak. D2, SW:BF2, ME:A and so on are just not that. And they're the reason why we are where we are right now. Developers being pushed to design Skinner box games with slimy MTXs (well, not Bungie - they're doing it on their own volition) while blatantly neglecting both the player's experience and the game's quality. It's a bit hypocritical to have a long (and rather pleasant) series about game quality and ethics of game design only to fall flat on the face when the rather easy money seems to be vanishing after too hard an abuse. To use your own words, lootboxes were an exploit of the industry and it's been overused. Time would be to finally fix it (and hopefully ban the users that stood to profit the most from it, like one would do in a game, ey?!).

[@obliviador]

himenoinu awesome

[@DustinRodriguez1_0]

The strange thing is you begin this video talking about what things look like if you're "not a fan of loot box monetization"... that pre-supposes that there exists someone who is a fan. There is no such person. There are a grand total of 0 human beings who prefer that a game they paid for refuses to even sell them additional content but instead offers only a random chance of getting it. The problem with arguing that the stuff that comes in loot boxes has no real-world value is that turns loot boxes from being gambling directly into being fraud. Taking a persons money, and providing them with no real-world value in return is fraud. That's just as illegal, at least from the game publishers side of things. Also, digital goods will eventually be deemed to be property with real value, but this is not the scenario under which that will occur. The situation playing out in the games market is essentially identical to what played out in literally dozens of other markets over the 20th century. The sellers try to claim that they are not selling a product, that they are only licensing the purchaser to use the product. They do this to forbid secondhand markets, and to retain control over an item after they have sold it. When this is challenged in courts, the result has been the same in 100% of cases - the industry gets punched in the face and told to respect the property rights of purchasers and stop blocking secondhand sales or exerting control over the thing after it has been sold. Car makers wanted it to be illegal to sell aftermarket car parts. The music industry wanted it to be illegal to sell CDs used. The movie industry wanted selling DVDs used to be illegal. It goes on and on. The fact you pay $60 to purchase a copy of a game at retail (usually a little less actually), and $60 to "license" a digital copy which gives you absolutely no property rights? The courts will look at that situation and slap the teeth directly out of the mouth of the games industry. And it will be to their great benefit. It's really aggressively stupid for them to not treat games like property and enable secondhand markets (of which they get not a single cent of any transaction) and similar things. Those other industries that fought tooth and nail and said it would mean their destruction if such things were permitted? They experienced stratospheric growth primarily due to the existence of secondhand markets. While shortsighted imbeciles see a used game sale as a "lost sale" because they don't get any money, in reality this transforms buying a new game from a rare luxury into a regular habit. It drives the number of sales of ALL games, used AND new, because people are used to having new games to play on a regular basis. That can never happen for a luxury good, which is what $60 games currently are. Markets for those goods are more contentious and less profitable than markets selling goods that people buy habitually.

[@wyattpeak8127]

I like lootboxes - there you go. I liked them even more back when we used to call them booster packs. Now I get a sour taste in my mouth every time I hear the word because of this raging, uncritical hatred which can't distinguish between a system and an abuse thereof.

[@TheHotHelios]

I`m pro loot boxes. Overwatch, for example, is only able to create free content because of the monetization of loot boxes.

[@j2dragon109]

R3Testa Who? Extra Credits?

[@coredumperror]

TheHotHelios - Overwatch could easily be making enough money to fund free DLC by using a direct purchase model for skins and such, instead of loot boxes. It's disingenuous to say that *only* lootboxes could be used to do that funding.

[@sabbathjackal]

Dustin Rodriguez thr reason loot boxes work is not because of what your getting its just the fact that your getting to open the box. Theres a game theory video on why

[@almisami]

Can we just go back to buying full games? No expansions or DLC?

[@gamelord12]

If you're afraid that loot boxes will prevent people from buying "art" or otherwise great games, then those great games should do so without preying on people with gambling addiction. It's not the customer's fault that the artist uses a malevolent business model. Stop defending this. It's anti-consumer and unsustainable.