Belgium Declares Loot Boxes Equal to Gambling, Vows to Ban Them

Following all the loot box shenanigans at various publishers like Electronic Arts or Blizzard, we’ve learned the Belgium Gaming Commission has declared loot boxes are the same as gambling.

The news comes from VTM News (via PC Gamer), who translated the statement from the government body.

“The mixing of money and addiction is gambling,” the translated (VTM News via PC Gamer) statement from Belgium’s Minister of Justice Koen Geens reads. He continued:

“Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child. We will certainly try to ban it.”

Judging by the seriousness of the response, it even sounds like Belgium wants to spearhead banning the practice worldwide, and not just in Belgium.

How do you feel about loot crates in games? Should they be allowed or banned entirely? What if we just make them illegal to play for people under the legal age of an adult? Sound off in the comments below!

Brandon Orselli

About

Big Papa Overlord at Niche Gamer. Italian. Dad. Outlaw fighting for a better game industry. I also write about music, food, & beer. Also an IT guy.

  • InkViper

    WTFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!

  • Ace
  • RichardGristle

    This whole shitstorm is starting to take a turn that I’m finding to be a bit retarded.

    “Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child. We will certainly try to ban it.”

    The fuck? This has some crazy “video games cause violence” vibes.

  • BioNonhazard

    I don’t mind the concept of lootboxes as long as it uses in-game money and not a single dime of real money. Like buying lingerie in a Senran Kagura game, as stupid as that is. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? It’s a good thing there’s no achievement for getting all of them so you don’t have to worry about it.

  • Mr0303

    Yes! Thank you, EA. Thanks to your stupidity we may get lootboxes out of the picture. That’s definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully other countries will follow suit.

  • magicalfollower

    Well fucking played, EA. You nailed it this time…

    https://media.giphy.com/media/11OOAQSnUaZT2M/giphy.gif

  • Dr. Roswell. W

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ed3728fb64662f46d384f67a108729be4c4f41d4066cc88fd87cc5fdc988c6b.png
    And that answer?
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ffa4ec01f6d1999b8723b239867801d38d31f706f55e4a2ea01e29d0fb28731.png
    FUCKIN SOON.

    EDIT: To answer Brandon. Lootboxes should have never been a thing. Especially the fact that you have to use actual currency. I don’t give a flying fuck about “F2P.” model, because that’s a load of fucking bullshit as well.

    Buy the game once and that’s it. None of that 99 cents to unlock characters, or $ 2.99 to unlock a certain character.

  • James Hewitson

    Good……GOOOOD!

  • Nin

    I personally think it’s fair to consider loot crates (and gacha and phone game type microtransactions for that matter) gambling and treat them accordingly. There’s no reason to treat them any worse than real life gambling methods though. That’s not the case yet, but I would be annoyed if a country banned gacha games but not real life casinos just because the former is more evil because it’s a video game.

  • TheOnceAndFutureKing

    Except in this case its the MTAs thats censoring/ruining the art form.

    Seriously what benefit is there to keeping them?

  • orbo

    How do I feel about loot crates?
    It is gambling, there’s really no two ways about it.
    One could argue that adults can spend their money how they want, but kids play video games, a shit load of kids do, and you can bet some of them are swiping their parents plastic and charging it out the ass, because that’s what this predatory practice of locking content in games behind loot boxes encourages.

    Also, online gambling is illegal in most states, good luck getting around that when this shit blows up in the US, it’s practically there already.

  • CRES

    My only concern with this is that if Loot boxes are considered gambling, then what about mobile games or card games?

    This might have unintended side effects on a great number of different games.

  • Travis Touchdown

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_akwfRuL4os&time_continue=23&app=desktop

    Based Hawaii going up against EA.

    We could see Trump himself blasting EA because of this.

  • Travis Touchdown

    We’ve been saying this about mobile games for years now. It just hasn’t become a huge issue until now.

    EA may have killed the entire mobile market with one fell swoop.

  • Travis Touchdown

    The free market has already decided that this specific release needs to go fuck itself.

    However the issue of the free to play model continues to be just that… an issue. Microtransactions are, in and of themselves, a cancer that need to be purged.

    If the government needs to get involved to ban these kind of titles, so be it.

  • InkViper

    “The free market has already decided that this specific release needs to go fuck itself.”

    Then there is no need for legislation.

    “However the issue of the free to play model continues to be just that… an issue. Microtransactions are, in and of themselves, a cancer that need to be purged.”

    If people want to spend there money on it, let them! If you don’t want to, guess what! you have the choice not to support such business practices.

    “If the government needs to get involved to ban these kind of titles, so be it.”

    Fuck that! Fuck the Government and Fuck you for supporting such bullshit!!!

  • Mr0303

    For one thing the Belgian gambling commission just declared loot boxes gambling and didn’t say they want to ban them outright. I don’t know where you got this information from.

    Gambling is illegal for minors and loot boxes are a predatory workaround from publishers to get that money. Declaring the practice as gambling is correctly identifying what they are and not some sort of government overreach.

    “That’s why I find everyone celebrating this as a victory, repugnant!” – your moral judgement is considered and promptly ignored.

  • Quinntan

    Even in the case of the cosmetic lootboxes, there is a gambling aspect. After all, you’re not guaranteed to get the item you want, and if you’re a kid who doesn’t really understand how much you’re spending or if you are a person who does have a personality type vulnerable to gambling, then you can fall prey to this sort of exploitative tactic and wind up spending far more money than you realise in the midst of it. People like that do need some sort of protection, and relying on the “free market” to provide that consumer protection will not work.

  • InkBrush

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87496ed028a9a2bea62b3e2208cd46c49b0bfaaf59e34b635d1cb8ef21076e73.gif

    All though I feel using this gif of Heavy seems a bit hypocritical on this subject.

  • Nuku Nuku Natsume Mishima

    Is a cancer, like microtransactions or the dlcs, yes please banned them.

  • InkViper

    I took this from the PC gamer article.

    “The Google translation is a little sloppy, as usual, but the message is clear enough. “The mixing of money and addiction is gambling,” the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium’s Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, “Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child.”

    Geens, according to the report, >>>wants to ban in-game purchases outright(correction: if you don’t know exactly what you’re purchasing),<<< and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it."

    He wants to Band out right! Now he does specify clarify it won't affectif your purchasing If you know what you're buying (XP booster), but a loop box with random equipment, skins and whatever else comes in it, are for the chop!

  • Eighto

    Who wished upon the monkey’s paw? I hope when the wave of legislation comes stateside, we don’t damage anything else as collateral. I would prefer if everyone somehow became rational thinking human beings and decided to vote with their wallets instead of needing government intervention, but whatever.

    This timeline is so fucked up.

  • Gigaknight

    As much as I hate the various blights afflicting gaming–microtransactions of all sorts, season passes/pre-release DLC, et cetera–this has me a bit worried.

    I imagine that this can set a precedent in their minds. Many folks–especially of the social justice stripe–are VERY well versed in the “think of the children!” routine, and you have to admit that that’s at least a significant part of the impetus for this. I’m certain that many fossils still think video games are “for children”; they can simply make that same mantra the tagline of their next crusade against some random video game element they develop a politically expedient distaste for, and then point to this action as “proof” later actions of this sort (even censorship) can garner popular support.

    I have no love for lootboxes or the games they’ve shown up in, lately; they’re trash compared to the games of old, for various reasons. But neither do I have trust in those who’ve no stake in gaming–but much in politics–to affect its direction fairly.

  • InkViper

    There are protections for children, they called responsible parents, and In the case for children, it’s that simple! better parenting by the parents, not the government.

    However the question of vulnerable adults, well that’s far more complicated!

    But in either case I do not approve of legislation.

  • Jonbo298

    Gambling apps for Android/iOS on suicide watch.

  • Jack

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16f3e0b7e50559f5fa1492017f776e21de9b2f40fe23d185e06ed64e10ccd10d.png The greatest EA fuckup of all time
    literally all of the industry is probably mad as fuck at them rn

  • Mr0303

    “if you don’t know exactly what you’re purchasing” – so gambling then. Nothing wrong here. I’m OK with regulations against gambling in games and this is what loot boxes are.

    “Now he does specify clarify it won’t affectif your purchasing If you
    know what you’re buying (XP booster), but a loop box with random
    equipment, skins and whatever else comes in it, are for the chop!” – and I’m OK with that. I’d rather have fixed paid DLC costumes than this exploitative practice.

  • InkViper

    “- so gambling then.”

    If so, in the UK were to make such a move, publishes would then be required to get a gambling license, and an appropriate age restriction would then apply to the product. That wouldn’t even require new legislation but a slight amendment to the current one already in place! At no point does he actually put forward this reasonable compromise.

    “I’d rather have fixed paid DLC costumes than this exploitative practice.”

    So would I, it’s personal preference. But I will wouldn’t get rid of micro-transactions if that’s what people dig, just wanted do it myself.

  • Malcolm_Ecks

    Blame Valve. They started it.

  • Mr0303

    And not every country is the UK. Different countries have different rules about gambling. He can approach it in a manner that is accepted in Belgium.

    “So would I, it’s personal preference. But I will want to get rid of
    micro-transactions if that’s what people dig, just wanted do it myself.” – I’m OK if the minority of whales who drop $400 on MTs are left to dry. It is because of people like that we’re seeing loot boxes in fully priced games, which is unacceptable. Having them declared as gambling will seriously discourage devs from implementing them in their games.

  • Riosine

    Rofl free market. Do you realize in this its case the free market = Console Casual who purchase cod every year? Fuck them, it’s their fault these shitty practiss got normalized in first place

  • Audie Bakerson

    Why contain it?

  • InkViper

    If people want to buy COD, let them, and if big publishers want to rip off those demographics, let them! If you’re smart enough to realize your being swindled, fight back! Because it’s not like it hasn’t already happen with battlefront 2, EA back down, because of the free market, which in itself proves legislation is not necessary.
    It also shows that the free market can in fact regulate itself very well, which is the big take away from all of this, and if you can’t see that, not my problem.

  • Malcolm_Ecks
  • Travis Touchdown

    That’s the thing, no. NO ONE wants to buy microtransactions, but developers keep shoving them in anyway, hoping they take off. Ignoring them is not making them go away. Having the government step in and regulate this system to prevent these faggot from trying to exploit us is not a bad thing considering the circumstances.

  • mewnani

    There’s just one problem; it’ll never go away on the consumer level. The way the setup is structured, all that’s necessary is for a small fraction of the player base to spend thousands on the loot boxes, and they already made a profit. That’s it. They might make less money overall in the long term but all companies like EA care about is short term profits, and as long as there’s whales out there who are more than happy to sink huge amounts of money into their skinner box games they’ll keep making enough of a profit to justify turning their games into glorified slot machines. There’s a reason this spread from MMOs to mobile games and now to pay-to-play games; it’s a wonderful way to make a lot of money from people playing your game.

    I’m not saying it’s a good thing the government is getting involved in regulation; this should have been handled by places like the ESRB and PEGI, but unfortunately they decided the bribe money from AAA companies was just too tasty for them to ignore and now gaming as we know it is now being picked over by people who’s only experience with video games is old arcade games like Pac-man or casual mobile games like Candy Crush Saga at best.

  • CRES

    Can you imagine the kind of fallout that would happen if popular card games like Magic the Gathering or Pokemon get declared “gambling” and thus is illegal for minors?

  • Riosine

    Simply put. free market is Slow. Regulation got it less than a week. And COD is still a thing among the casual market.

    For free market to be, effective solution, then casual people should be smarter enough to not be a detriment to everyone else.

  • InkViper

    “And not every country is the UK. Different countries have different rules about gambling. He can approach it in a manner that is accepted in Belgium.”

    Every country under their own sovereign rule already decides how they wish to tackle what is and what is appropriate for their population, not that I believe it needs to be tackled on the legislative level as it stands In this case, or any other case for the most part. The free market and the kick back at EA, and has already proven the market has considerable power and EA have complied.

    “- I’m OK if the minority of whales who drop $400 on MTs are left to dry. It is because of people like that we’re seeing loot boxes in fully priced games, which is unacceptable. Having them declared as gambling will seriously discourage devs from implementing them in their games.”

    Or as consumers as we have with EA and battlefront 2, we can continue to show we will not tolerate loot boxes, it worked. And as I’ve stated before legislation that dictates what can and cannot be in a game is a slippery slope! Each country already has certain rules about content, and again I will state the case of Germany and its horrific censorship of video games. Now imagine those types of restrictions applied unilaterally across the continent of Europe, Is that a can of worms you want to open, I certainly do not. It starts with loot boxes today, and it’s every think else next week.

  • mewnani

    Ideally most people can look at card games and see that isn’t really gambling. Sure what cards you get are random, but it’s completely possible to play the game using a deck you bought off someone else with cards that you want. They might as well ban those little machines in grocery stores that give you a random prize with that kind of logic, since what you’ll get is ultimately random. But then again we’re talking about politicians here…..

  • mewnani

    The only reason it worked with Battlefront 2 is because EA was working for Disney, and Disney caught wind of what they were doing with their IP. If Battlefront 2 wasn’t a Star Wars game and was something else, I’m not so sure they would have backed off. I know for a fact they’ll try again in the future just to see how much they can get away with.

  • InkViper

    The free market has proven it can move pretty damn fast regarding battlefront 2, so your argument is invalid there. And again if people want to buy COD it’s their choice. Not yours and certainly not the goddamn governments.

    And frankly I don’t want to hear about COD, it’s quite clear you have a personal issue with the game! But a lot of people don’t, so leave them alone and let them waste their money if they want. What they do is your business

  • Mr0303

    The free market isn’t all that good with dealing with those issues. Overwatch is a PEGI 12 game and yet it also has gambling in it. It sold millions because people were not informed on these issue.

    “And as I’ve stated before legislation that dictates what can and cannot
    be in a game is a slippery slope! Each country already has certain rules
    about content, and a gain I will state the case of Germany and its
    horrific censorship of video games.” – we’re talking about serious legal issues here. Should a game box contain a couple of grams of crack? Since the latter is illegal there are reasonable limits to what can be put in a game. The rating boards are the ones taking care of the game content and themes, but there are no protections for the customers when it comes to shitty business practices. Worse yet in a pay to win scenario some people are exploiting those and ruining the experience for everybody.

  • InkViper

    EA was already backtracking, on how they were handling the issue. Disney’s intervention may of had a hand in them disabling transactions at launch, but believe me Disney was prompted by the consumer backlash first and foremost.
    If it wasn’t for people objected about the loot boxes being paid to win, and progression not being tied to skill, and in such large numbers! Disney wouldn’t of done anything.

  • InkViper

    “The free market isn’t all that good with dealing with those issues. Overwatch is a PEGI 12 game and yet it also has gambling in it. It sold millions because people were not informed on these issue.”

    I think the biggest issue is overwatch being rated PEGI 12 to begin with, personally speaking I think it should of been PEGI 16.

    “And as I’ve stated before legislation that dictates what can and cannot
    be in a game is a slippery slope! Each country already has certain rules
    about content, and a gain I will state the case of Germany and its
    horrific censorship of video games.” – we’re talking about serious legal issues here. Should a game box contain a couple of grams of crack? Since the latter is illegal there are reasonable limits to what can be put in a game. The rating boards are the ones taking care of the game content and themes, but there are no protections for the customers when it comes to shitty business practices. Worse yet in a pay to win scenario some people are exploiting those and ruining the experience for everybody.”

    I disagree, PEGL should be responsible for all content, including “gambling, micro-transactions and mechanics that favor players with a higher financial stake”. If you have legislation that operates on a higher level, that supersedes the rating board even for one element, it opens the doors for other elements and content to be looked at and controlled through new legislation, it only has to happen the ones.

  • RichardGristle

    What negative could come from governments getting involved with video game policies? I don’t know man, you tell me.

    All people had to do is not buy this shit. Running to Big Daddy Dick Public Official to solve this problem makes gamers look retarded and is frankly cringey as fuck.

    But I guess that’s just the small-government guy in me. I try not to be one of those “as long as they ban something *I* don’t like then I’m okay with the interference” hypocrites.

  • Riosine

    Lolwut? you are debating a Rate of change over time.

    How can I put even more simple. If Fre Marked would have worked, fast enough, then the loot boxes issue would have been solved BEFORE the ultimate absent minded, out of touch with reality, casual individual -a Politician would have regulated about

  • InkViper

    I personally do not give a shit what people want to spend their money on, my issue is the pay to win model! It skews the entire play a base.
    If it was just skins no one would care, and the success of Overwatch with what little complaint goes with that game is proof of that, what EA did would’ve corrupted the entire experience for everyone else, that’s why there was such a giant consumer kickback, and it worked! That alone proves that legislation is not necessary.

    And as for the whales, Fuck-em! Let them spend their money on skins, as long as what they getting doesn’t inbalance the experience for everyone else, who are already smart enough not to indulge in such practices.

  • Riosine

    You know kids aren’t allowed to get into Casinos and gamble already, right?

    The first psychological article that I found in google for ludopathy (gambling) related it as a cause for Depression.
    So with substiution you get the statement “loot boxes cause mental health problems”.

  • RichardGristle

    Bullshit. Microtransactions are just fine. They’re what keep games like Path of Exile and Blade & Soul running, the former of which I’ve played for years without giving 1 cent to. It’s great.

  • RichardGristle

    Having a storefront is not an exploit. How the fuck can you get exploited from a voluntary retail transaction?

  • Mr0303

    “I think the biggest issue is overwatch being rated PEGI 12 to begin with, personally speaking I think it should of been PEGI 16.” – and I think it should be 18+ since it has gambling in it.

    “I disagree, PEGL should be responsible for all content, including
    “gambling, micro-transactions and mechanics that favor players with a
    higher financial stake”. If you have legislation that operates on a
    higher level, that supersedes the rating board even for one element, it
    opens the doors for other elements and content to be looked at and
    controlled through new legislation, it only has to happen the ones.” – I don’t mind who deals with it as long as there’s something in place. PEGI only looks at the in-game content a not the business practices the game employs. Given that this is currently a grey area between gaming and gambling the decision of how to handle it could come from a higher level.

    As for the whole “opens the door” argument you present – what exactly do you mean? What else can they possibly rule on? Do you have something concrete in mind or is it just some alarmist rhetoric? The case we’re currently dealing with has some legal implications since it allows minors the ability to gamble. If a game prints them a driving licence or opens a bank account in their name it would still be illegal and would have to be dealt with.

  • InkViper

    Before what EA did with their loot boxes, all you got was skins in other games! It didn’t imbalance the experience, that’s was the crux of the consumer kickback, a pay to win micro-transaction model on a premium retail title!
    Because that would ruin the experience for everyone else, if they didn’t choose to buy the pay to win loot boxes in order to have a competitive edge.
    They were unfairly pushing people to buy them, in order to be able to compete fairly. And as it was not a free to play game, people took massive issue with it, Do you understand.

  • RichardGristle

    Yep. The fucking cat’s out of the bag, now. “Wait, we can get our way by complaining to the nearest public official?!” I can see the SJWs now. If jackasses like Anita and Zoe can get invited to the UN, then how easy are domestic policies going to be for them to screw with (especially with their little in-groups at the likes of Twitter and Google)? Because “think of the women and children”.

  • Riosine

    So what are saying is that, if Loot boxes would’ve remained cosmetic-only, then Free market would’ve never self regulated them away from games? Welp.

  • RichardGristle

    Unless you’re an indian, then gambling is completely morally acceptable.

    Inb4 Chief Dookie Diaper becomes the new CEO of EA to get around the issue.

  • Travis Touchdown

    Because the devs are trying to force you to do so. In Battlefront’s case, they were trying to hide unlockable characters and upgrades behind lootboxes.

    Activision wants to implement a system where you have to buy lootboxes in order to compete in online play. And of course we have that LOTR game and its stupid endgame grind.

  • alex9234

    Would you support an antitrust lawsuit against EA and Activision over microtransactions?

  • InkViper

    1. I don’t see it as gambling in the strictest sense! As I see eye to eye with British laws pertaining to gambling, as there is no method for trading in your winnings for real world currency as of yet, also I have no particular issue with gambling, in fact we have slot machines in the UK where 14-year-olds are allowed to play legally and win money, of course they are skill based and not a game of chance.
    Where battlefront twos loot boxes are a game of chance but there’s no financial payout. If you know what I mean.

    2. If any think my main issue is that it’s designed to force you to get loot boxes to be able to progress on an even keel, as progression in the game is not skill based! Needless to say this is the issue that most of the people who complained also have with the game.
    And in fact I would even say in order for people to shut it down, gambling was used as a vector to attack battlefront 2, in a more sensationalized fashion which would catch the attention of the press/norms, and even attempt to argue a point against it from a legislative standpoint! And the latter which I am absolutely against.

    “As for the whole “opens the door” argument you present – what exactly do you mean? What else can they possibly rule on? Do you have something concrete in mind or is it just some alarmist rhetoric?”

    The very nature of the EU, is the issue, it started off with fantastic intentions, free trade and of course borderless travel, however in the continuing decades it’s extended its reach exponentially, a Parliament system (with a Council of non-elected officials), a court system (which supersedes the member states own sovereign court systems), and of course the failed attempt at an EU military! It continues to grow in both scale and bureaucracy, passing evermore laws rules and legislation overriding its own member states (unless your France, who just ignores it when it becomes inconvenient, and is never punished, garlic stinking Bastards lol) They keep pushing for the increase in legislation and control over Europe. Now the issue I have is hypothetical but not inplausible in regards to content in videogames, as Germany has the most strict rating board independent of PEGL, and a founding member of the EU, it’s not unfeasible that a pushy busybody, sees a Belgian proposed piece of legislation, governing content of video games being pushed through, might get the idea that they can do likewise, based off their own strict rating system! Now like I said hypothetical but not impossible, especially as the call for legislation seems to be a typical sensationalized government reaction, to a situation in an industry they typically know nothing about, and that was one of the points I was making in my initial post, what seems to be a good move now may have profound and devastating consequences down the road, and especially when it is unnecessary as the situation has virtually corrected itself based on market feedback.

  • CRES

    Yeah, that’s my worry. We need clear guidelines on what IS and ISN’T gambling to prevent legislation from banning relatively harmless media.

    Currently, the difference between is that gambling is a game of chance that you spend money could possibly get nothing. Under that definition Loot Crates, Booster Packs, and Capsule Dispensers, don’t qualified because you will ALWAYS get something, even if it isn’t what you wanted.

  • Eldhin Hellknight

    I think that those things would be ok if they were like the card packs in Peach Beach Splash. Once you finish the final round in the last v road challenge cup, you can get 10,000 Yen (10 card packs from the ingame store) and a 5 star pack, which will have a guaranted 5 star card (from a total of 10 cards per pack) at least. Personally, something like this is ok, since you have a good chance of getting good shit.

  • Madbrainbox

    “All people had to do is not buy this shit.”
    There are many who are addicted to gambling.And those people were slowly becoming the main audience for the greedy fucks @ EA,Activision,WB,etc.It’s not OK that government is intervening and this could be bad in the long run.But the greedy fucks that were pushing this shit into games are mainly responsible for this.

  • InkViper

    If loot boxes were just cosmetic, then it would have absolutely no impact on the game and progression! Then not anticonsumer, and the market wouldn’t need to regulate it, and under those circumstances doesn’t.
    And as it stands cosmetic micro-transactions are not anticonsumer! Therefore I do not care about cosmetic loot boxes, your issue on the other hand seems to be a personal dislike of such practices as a whole without distinguishing between the banality of cosmetic transactions and game skewing pay to win models. The letter I take massive issue with, and believe wholeheartedly and have been shown that the free market can and does regulate such imbalances, however I would never want to see that legislated against, as that brings many problems of its own.

  • Mr0303

    1. There are games with lootboxes where you can sell your character with all geared earned, so there is a way to get a return on your investments.

    2. It being pay-to-win is a separate issue from the gambling, but in the case of BF2 it is both. Loot boxes are gambling and have no place in a fully priced games. Since both ESRB and PEGI refused to acknowledge the problem I don’t see an issue with consumers taking it to the higher level.

    3. I myself am not a fan of the EU, which is why I supported Brexit, but you failed to mention a single concrete example of what putting a regulation on gambling in games (something that already exists in online games) could lead to.

    “the situation has virtually corrected itself based on market feedback.” – I fully disagree with that statement. Shadow of War had terrible grindy loot boxes and yet it was the best selling game for the month of October. Overwatch sold over 20 million units. Virtually every AAA game is trying to push MTs on the players. Since a large portion of those buying the games are kids and their parents can’t be bothered to properly check if game X has these practices in it (hell, most regular gamers that don’t read sites daily won’t have a clue) the problem is far from fixed. Plus we don’t know what the sales figures will be like for BF2, especially after the new movie drops. EA would’ve just reenabled the MTs and pretended like nothing happened.

  • Casey

    Designated gambling streets.

  • Baron Krause

    Id say its an intended side effect. This GACHA based FTP model is the sole reason why mobile is considered trash immediately. Modern phones are capable of much better rendering and resolution then a vita, but no one makes any kind of real game for them anymore when they can make a gambling simulator for 1/8th the cost.

    If FTP games got crushed by this (including card games where you buy virtual “packs”) that would be incredible.

  • Johnny “Beat” Medina

    Always hoped we could do this without legislation. Sadly, EA tipped the line by doing P2W in an extremely anticipated Triple A release. Unsure how Belgium would even begin to spearhead a global movement. Looks like Gacha companies need to start hiring some lobbyists.

  • Riosine

    Huh? Does it even matter how i feel like toward ‘boxes? They are gambling though, If AAA industry adds gambling to their games then they will requite to fulfill Regulation and, gasp, Tax rate adjustment. But that doesn’t matter to me really

    Now Loot boxes affects the rate you get stuff because the drop rate% are so low to incite people to purchase the things. Effectively killing the 100% complete category of any game including them
    .
    So well yeah you can say I hate anything that happens to be [slow] and you will be right. Im proud of Hating things and being evil, being good is just too gay for me

  • TheOnceAndFutureKing

    I never said that I wanted the government involved. My point was that MTAs should be labelled as exploitative, and unlike the violent game theory, there actually is observable evidence on the harmful effects of MTAs, particularly naive people or kids losing money, and artificially incomplete games being released.

    In terms of voting with our dollars, I 100% agree, but the problem with MTAs is that they appeal to the lowest common denominator.

  • CRES

    But wouldn’t it be far more likely that, instead of making room for the mobile market to reach the same standard of quality as the Vita/3DS, the entirety of the mobile gaming will just collapse?

    Afterall, 99% of the companies that make these shovel ware phone apps do so due the low risk, high return of the GACHA model. If the golden goose is killed, who has the capital and interest to invest in mobile gaming?

    Or if this kills the collectable card game scene, and games like Magic, Hearthstone, and Yu-gi-oh! are suddenly strapped with excess regulations that makes selling cards nearly impossible.

    Or some other form of gaming gets hit. I’m asking for a degree of restraint before we commit to something that could damage gaming for years to come.

  • edge

    Yeah it makes me nervous, at least there should be a brief positive period though.

  • sanic

    Hmm wonder how this could be circumvented… card packs instead of loot boxes?

  • InkViper

    “1. There are games with lootboxes where you can sell your character with all geared earned, so there is a way to get a return on your investments.”

    To achieve this, can this be done in game, or via a third party service? If it’s third party, then the third parties are comparable to any current legislation, as seen with the recent prosecution of a gambling site in the UK regarding the EA FIFA gambling scandal. http://archive.is/HFTjl or the skin betting sites surrounding CSGO.

    “2. It being pay-to-win is a separate issue from the gambling, but in the case of BF2 it is both. Loot boxes are gambling and have no place in a fully priced games. Since both ESRB and PEGI refused to acknowledge the problem I don’t see an issue with consumers taking it to the higher level.”

    I don’t particularly care about the perceived gambling aspect taken on its own, what I have an issue with, is first and foremost is the pay to win model, especially as it’s on a premium game, and progress is not tied to skilled play! And if ESRB and PEGI aren’t interested, well maybe that’s all for the better. And as for kicking it up to a higher level. If it’s handled independently by a sovereign nation because they determine it to be gambling, then so be it! However a blanket edict that supersedes sovereign legislation, even for countries that do not deem it to be gambling, that is unacceptable.

    “3. I myself am not a fan of the EU, which is why I supported Brexit, but you failed to mention a single concrete example of what putting a regulation on gambling in games (something that already exists in online games) could lead to”.

    I propose a possible example of this in my initial post.

    >”who’s to say that more legislation for other types of content, be it depictions of violence or material of a sexual nature won’t be the next target for legislation, and being banned out right on a continental scale, rather than a sovereign nation level!”<

    "the situation has virtually corrected itself based on market feedback." – I fully disagree with that statement. Shadow of War had terrible grindy loot boxes and yet it was the best selling game for the month of October. Overwatch sold over 20 million units. Virtually every AAA game is trying to push MTs on the players. Since a large portion of those buying the games are kids and their parents can't be bothered to properly check if game X has these practices in it (hell, most regular gamers that don't read sites daily won't have a clue) the problem is far from fixed. Plus we don't know what the sales figures will be like for BF2, especially after the new movie drops. EA would've just reenabled the MTs and pretended like nothing happened."

    I should've clarified regarding my statement about the problem is almost fixed, this was in regards to Battlefront 2 only!

    1. Our the loot boxes in Shadow of War tied to multiplayer?

    2. Overwatch as far as I know has cosmetic loot boxes which does not skew the games balance! Which is mine and many other people's issue with Battlefront 2, in fact I want to state on the record I have no issues with cosmetic micro-transactions, pay to win models on a premium game I do have an issue with, and in fact I would haphazard a guess, that's the defining point of the revolt against EA this time.

    3. I've already said this to someone else, and I will give some additional clarification. It's the job of the parents to parent the children! Not the government, now obviously there are certain exceptions where government intervention is required, such as gross neglect, abuse such as physical, sexual and mental, which are already comprehensively covered, at least I know of in the UK
    .
    4. You are right, we are not aware currently what the sell figures for Battlefront 2 our! And needless to say I am also waiting on bated breath to see what the numbers will be and if people take advantage of the micro-transactions, that's assuming that there turned on in the game in their originally intended form, or if there even turned back on in the game at all.

  • edge

    Well regardless of the free market, it probably should be classified as gambling. This would push the obvious age rating for games having it up to AO and the problem would work itself out. I too am nervous about this though. It marks a resurgence of people trying to regulate gaming, even if I agree with them this time.I do find it pretty bad that it had to get to a legal level, rather than people just not buying the games that have them. Apparently nobody has self-control on the issue I guess. Kids have no self-control though, so it’s kind of a predatory practice toward them.

  • AnarKreig

    A victory for consumers, finally, we needed one.

  • Madbrainbox

    I’m sorry to say but the people that were supposed to show some restraint are the ones responsible for bringing about this mess.They were warned that once the state gets involved,things will get messy and there will be heavy regulations put in place.But the idiots that are creating the mobile shovel ware and the greedy publishers wanted more.And more.And more.And now they will get more.I just hope that as many people responsible for this mess will go bankrupt.

  • Madbrainbox

    The way I see it you can keep the in-game store as long as you can also spend game currency on those items.But, if you have lootboxes,you can only buy them with in-game currency or win them in-game.I think that would be a reasonable solution.

  • Madbrainbox

    Having no regulations turned the mobile market into a steaming pile of shit.It also led to this situation.Loot boxes are very profitable.Card packs are very profitable.Microtransactions are very profitable.Rockstar’s Shit Cards are very profitable.This is what the free market decided.

  • FreshSnug

    If gaming needs more laws to save it then I’m not sure it’s worth saving. We’d be better off if we allowed it to crash rather than trying to keep the scum in line.

  • iswear12

    I fucking hate government intervention in video games, but I hate lootboxes and gambling-type microtransactions even more.
    Fuck these greedy asswipes, this regulation was needed.
    We just have to be careful moving forward with this so actual vidya doesn’t get fucked with in the long run. Hopefully this dissuades shovelware and freemium games from existing though, and make these companies a bit more leery about exploiting their audience.
    Now if only we could get an investigation into Star Citizen…

  • Baron Krause

    There would still be a market, if there was a market for the Vita then there is a market here. Everyone has one, and there are more people with phones more powerful then the Vita/3ds then there are people with those consoles. If they could get away with making those FTP type games for consoles then they would be doing that right now instead of normal games.

  • FreshSnug

    You can’t trust the government anymore than you can trust the corporations that control it. This could only end badly. More rules that will only every apply to whomever they see fit? Yeah brilliant fucking idea.

  • iswear12

    Nigga where in my post did I ever say I trusted the government?

  • FreshSnug

    When you said the regulation was needed. The only thing you can trust with 100% certainty is that someone somewhere is waiting to fuck you for profit, and all of those someones own the government.

  • FreshSnug

    Prepare to be annoyed.

  • FreshSnug

    I think the only things that should be allowed in gaming are walking from left to right, and a “YOU WIN” screen. All this clamouring for laws and regulations proves that gaming is not and will not ever be for anyone but toddlers. Gaming should be restricted to the play pen, unlike every other form of entertainment.

  • Squirrel on crack cocaine.

    Loot boxes are the wart on the ass of gaming. I will thank EA though for making BF2 so toxic that even Governments have had to get involved to stop them.

  • FreshSnug

    Too bad because that’s what you’re gonna get. Gaming is NOT an art form. It’s a children’s toy and every last one of us treats it as such. You’re all so desperate for someone to save you from your toys. Personal responsibility? Nah fuck that we’re toddlers!

  • FreshSnug

    They deserve everything they get. The gamblers and the people taking advantage of them.

  • entropy

    Legislation wouldn’t be dictating the content of the title, simply how it is monetised. It’s already illegal to make a game that amounts to a pyramid scheme, for example.

    The only true free market is a black market.

  • Doesn’t matter to EA as like all gaming companies they make most of their money from USA anyway.

  • Espeally European governments.

  • Kakaku

    Good news. Hopefully Belgium’s Ministry of Justice is successful in his work and that this sets a worldwide precedence.

    With Lootboxes its known most players never touch one. Its always the minority with lack of self control that spend hundreds or thousands that fund their games. Whether its adults or children I always found this practice deplorable. Even keeping morality aside the practice creates just grindy, unfun games. Nothing good about it.

  • Madbrainbox

    Yeah.Because keeping that abusive relationship going caused only good things.

  • The Free Market is why EA is at the top. The Free Market failed like communism.

  • FreshSnug

    I see what you did there, but I don’t withdraw the statement. Stupid is what stupid does. If you want to suffer the stupidity of others then so be it.

  • FreshSnug

    And you think the rules would be enforced impartially, and that this wouldn’t lead to more? No I suppose people like you aren’t really into the whole “thinking” thing. You’re worse than the minorities you whine about. You’d gladly chain us all up if it means someone fixes your precious toys for you.

  • SLoWMoTIoN

    > Multiple users shit on EA
    > Valve started the cancer

    Still, neat. If only this was implemented in bigger countries.

  • SLoWMoTIoN

    Shhhh Valve do nothing!

  • FreshSnug

    Victory is more restrictions. What’s just one more? I hope you get scammed out of every dollar for being such a wide-eyed fool.

  • FreshSnug

    God damn it what in God’s name makes you think more restrictions is a good idea? Has it never once occurred to you that people who are more clever than your stupid ass will one day use this shit against you? No? Fucking hell all gamers deserve everything they get. You deserve EA. Every last one of you.

  • InfectedAI

    Not really. Gacha has been around for ages.

  • iswear12

    >when you said regulation was needed
    Are you fucking kidding me?
    That is a generic fucking statement that is true and necessary of capitalism to have a healthy economy. Me supporting regulation when its necessary doesn’t mean I support corporations (who by their lack of regulation combined with the actions of corrupt government officials to begin with were able to take implicit control of the government).
    Seriously this point is beyond absurd to argue mate, especially when you make nothing more than a false equivalence, and it also doesn’t help that in your random, almost comedically hyperbolic hypothetical example a government would be controlled by an unregulated corporation to begin with, very likely it would be a monopoly or approaching one as well if it holds that much power.
    tl;dr wanting SOME regulation doesn’t mean I want a corrupt government doing it you loon

  • Madbrainbox

    I’m suffering the stupidity of others right now with the mobile market being turned into the biggest pile of shit known to man and the so called AAA market slowly being turned into a gambling experiment.

  • catazxy

    Oh boy, here we go…please don’t fuck everything up Belgium

  • Kakaku

    Before I posted I had a line that went “I’m sure any person can agree that….”. I got rid of that line because I realized there’s always an a different point of view even if I couldn’t consider it.

    So how could this end up not being enforced impartially. What else could this lead to? Why exactly do consider these negative outcomes plausible?

    As an aside what “minorities” was I whining about?

  • Quinntan

    Thing is though, the free market won’t provide that protection. You’re relying on corporations not to try to maximize revenue earnings, that’s the exact opposite of what these companies have to do. You need a mechanism to disincentive these companies, and as the proliferation of lootboxes has shown from the mobile gaming to full €60 AAA releases despite increasing customer sentiment against them, the risk of bad PR isn’t likely to do that. Strong legislation on this issue, with heavy punishments for breaking the law, is the only way to do so.

  • Quinntan

    At first glance I don’t think that’s really going to work either. After all, it’s the same sort of mechanism, just a different method. The way to circumvent it would be microtransactions where it’s clear that what the customer wants to get is what they will get.

  • Karen

    tbh, we don’t really live in a free market. Ask the banks how great it was to get a free bail out from the government in the 2008 housing market crash. They should have died along with their shitty business practices if it weren’t for that. The classical free market but still anti-monopoly regulated dream is dead. Blame every cuck US President after Theodore Roosevelt for that.

  • Mr0303

    So your entire objection is that this may be a legislative change? I’d say that if there is a ruling there might be limiting idiocy like MTs rather than other ridiculous minor things governments usually deal with.

  • Mr0303

    1. The point is that there are workarounds and methods where you can get money out of the random chance lootboxes.

    “I don’t particularly care about the perceived gambling aspect taken on
    its own, what I have an issue with, is first and foremost is the pay to
    win model, especially as it’s on a premium game, and progress is not
    tied to skilled play!” – it doesn’t matter if you are personally interested or not. This investigation is about the nature of loot boxes and they are clearly gambling.

    “And if ESRB and PEGI aren’t interested, well maybe that’s all for the better.” – oh, no, it’s not for the better. Both organisations waved away MTs, because it is not in their interest to piss off the major publishers who use them.

    “If it’s handled independently by a sovereign nation because they
    determine it to be gambling, then so be it! However a blanket edict that
    supersedes sovereign legislation, even for countries that do not deem
    it to be gambling, that is unacceptable.” – since for now only the former is happening I don’t see your issue with this. The blanket edict that supersedes a country’s own laws is not something that is about to happen.

    “”who’s to say that more legislation for other types of content, be it
    depictions of violence or material of a sexual nature won’t be the next
    target for legislation, and being banned out right on a continental
    scale, rather than a sovereign nation level!” – because this is the rating boards’ function and it’s been in place for decades. Special cases like Germany and Japan have their own unique rating boards that deal with the game’s content. Gambling in games is a completely separate thing because of the issues with legality of it.

    “I should’ve clarified regarding my statement about the problem is almost fixed, this was in regards to Battlefront 2 only!” – and I’m looking for the problem to be fixed across the board. It doesn’t matter if BF2 gets flak if the next AAA game implements these loot boxes again.

    As an aside you should’ve used different enumeration for the next couple of points.

    “1. Our the loot boxes in Shadow of War tied to multiplayer?” – no, they help your single player progression and remove the terrible grind that’s in place.

    “2. Overwatch as far as I know has cosmetic loot boxes which does not
    skew the games balance! Which is mine and many other people’s issue with
    Battlefront 2, in fact I want to state on the record I have no issues
    with cosmetic micro-transactions, pay to win models on a premium game I
    do have an issue with, and in fact I would haphazard a guess, that’s the
    defining point of the revolt against EA this time.” – and again I don’t care what you personally find an issue with. Some people may not have an issue with pay to win – it doesn’t make it right. Loot boxes are gambling period and Overwatch is a prime example of how successful games that have them can be.

    “3. I’ve already said this to someone else, and I will give some
    additional clarification. It’s the job of the parents to parent the
    children! Not the government, now obviously there are certain exceptions
    where government intervention is required, such as gross neglect, abuse
    such as physical, sexual and mental, which are already comprehensively
    covered, at least I know of in the UK” – and I’m not saying that it’s not the job of the parents to look after their kids, but as I mentioned above there is no way of knowing that a game that they are purchasing in store for their kid has gambling in it or not. Not every parent is a dedicated gamer that goes online to research every game that their kid is playing.

    4. DICE have currently disabled the purchases of loot boxes, but have also stated that they’ll reenable them at some point (likely when the backlash dies down). This is why I find your position that the problem has resolved itself pretty baseless.

  • SLoWMoTIoN

    #Tinfoilhat
    #GGinCurrentYear

    Lololololol

  • SLoWMoTIoN

    No gaming is dead! FOOLS! #GG

    lol

  • catazxy

    Its the ESRB and PEGI who screwed up here, they had a chance to step it and give us a bit of protection but they (probably took the money from publishers and) buried their heads in the sand leaving us no choice and fight the only way we know (boycotting things into oblivion).

    That unfortunately made too many waves and government heard us (and its happy to step in and probably fuck us all over).

  • Mr0303

    Declaring loot boxes gambling (which they are) is far from fucking us over. It will be a major blow to shitty publishers who implement this practice.

  • grgspunk

    Good. A ban I can get behind.

    I couldn’t give two fucks about what they call “the children”, but loot boxes are certainly anti-gamer/consumer.

  • grgspunk

    The entirety of mobile “gaming” would collapse indeed, but nothing of value would be lost.

  • VersVlees

    I think loot boxes are even more terrible then the DLC of the 99 cents or 2.99 to unlock a character. With that type micro transaction you at least get the thing you want. (the whole loot box crap has become part of the game play which is even worse)

    With the loot boxes you can buy keys/crystals/cocaine or whatever to get a CHANCE to open a chest containing that character you want. Now enjoy all the useless unwanted crap you got from all the previous loot boxes you opened.

  • CommanderZx2

    Indeed, anyone celebrating this are foolish if they don’t believe that the government agencies won’t slip in all sorts of other things into the bill to ban loot crates. Just look at that nonsense about a MPs wanting to put animals don’t feel pain or emotions into the Brexit bill so that they can bring back fox hunting.

    There will be a massive amount of unforeseen consequences regarding this and I hope you’ll are ready for this.

  • VersVlees

    If the ESRB and PEGI would do their jobs. They would have been forced to put Adult’s Only ratings on all these loot box games. (they would still get on the shit list of the various gambling commissions but they would not come down so hard like is happening now)

    And that would have made publishers very sad hence, the whole dancing around the gambling issue of both ESRB and PEGI. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them or pull away their masters from danger lest they get smacked with the newspaper. They are good doggies.

  • Has anyone considered delivering empty boxes – or least boxes containing random crap (pencil, tinfoil hat, etc.) – to E.A. HQ with the words “loot” written on them?

  • Madbrainbox

    That would be one good thing to come from EA.:)

  • TheOnceAndFutureKing
  • Nin

    Silliness of that aside, as long as foxes are not endangered, I see no issue with hunting them.

  • CommanderZx2
  • alterku

    This was brought up a few times in a MTG community. I read the difference with MTG is you’re guaranteed exactly what you buy, a set number of commons, uncommons and rares, with a chance for a mythic. Because you’re guaranteed at least what you pay for it seems that it can get around gambling rules? I’m a bit fuzzy on the details. Loot boxes don’t guarantee anything, so it might just force more clarity onto the practice instead.

  • alterku

    This is the point we can’t forget. I like a bit of RNG in my games, but not with my money. It becomes gambling when you aren’t guaranteed anything and real money is involved, in-game currency is fine as any RNG involving it will have to be developed into the game, instead of paid for from gullible people’s pockets.

  • Neppers

    Governments never pass laws surgically. Expect ramifications far beyond simply banning microtransactions.

    I’m not even mad. This is the fault of the ESRB and gaming “journalists” for not coming down on lootboxes hard enough when they were introduced. The industry had a chance to regulate itself and it didn’t.

    GG EA

  • [Your Unoriginal Name Here]™

    Another victory for us gamers. Hope EA, no not just them, but also Activision and the rest of the publishers learned something out of this and don’t ever pull crap like this. Thank you EA for being the catalyst that brought the government’s attention to step in and thus bringing the gaming industry a bit closer to being less shady and full of BS. ESRB and Pegi should’ve stepped in as well.

  • FreshSnug

    Way to miss the point.

  • FreshSnug

    you deserve everything you get for demanding more restrictions. How you can be so far off the mark is beyond me.

  • FreshSnug

    It’s never a good idea to get the government involved unless you want gaming to devolve. I suppose if you exclusively play Super Mario or something that’ll be fine to you, but not me.

  • FreshSnug

    To be honest I’m not 100% sure how exactly, I’m not a lawyer neither am I one of the scum who’d get away with it. But anyone who thinks they wouldn’t find a way is surely dreaming. Laws don’t apply to people with enough money, but they will apply to everyone else. You’d essentially be helping to create a monopoly on pay2win.

  • FreshSnug

    The fuck does GG have to do with this?

  • FreshSnug

    A government would be? The government IS, what are you on about? Hell the government IS a corporation for all intents and purposes. They’re certainly not working for our interests. If you want regulation by a government that isn’t corrupt you’re living in a dream world. A cursory glance at wikileaks proves that. Whose government are you talking about?

  • FreshSnug

    You’re suffering because there’s something you don’t like out there? Get over it. Both AAA and mobile have always been shit anyway. Gaming needs to crash and you idiots are just making it take longer.

  • Mr0303

    Sometimes when the law is broken it is a good idea to get the government involved. This is their functions after all – to enforce the laws. Given that MTs are gambling I want games that have them to be rated appropriately.

    The games that I play have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

  • FreshSnug

    At this point I can’t wait for the unforeseen consequences of arbitrarily adding restrictions because you’ve no self control. I can’t wait to tell you all I told you so.

  • FreshSnug

    That’s where you fuck up. Only a fool would trust the government to fix anything involved with gaming. Chances are they’d just find a way to fuck it up even further, but hey at least there won’t be lootboxes! I’m actually kind of looking forward to it now. I’ll be sure to tell you that I told you so.

  • Captain Vidya

    To me, lootboxes are different in that, unlike having your character smoke or drink or kill someone/thing, the player isn’t actively doing it. They aren’t smoking a cigarette or drinking a glass of wine or stabbing someone. When they do shit with lootboxes, however, they’re actively performing the act that’s seen as gambling. It’s no different than, say, pulling a lever on a slot machine that has shittons of flashing lights everywhere that you see in Vegas or Japan.

    It SHOULDN’T lead to “videogames cause violence” legislature, but it, unfortunately, probably will in this world.

  • FreshSnug

    I’m not the one asking big brother to come fix my games for me. If you could control your wallets this would never have been a problem to begin with, but no someone else always has to take responsibility for your own fuck ups.

  • Mr0303

    I don’t trust them. I expect them to function. There is a slight difference there. As I said before we’re dealing with a legal issue that the rating boards completely failed to address and the publishers abuse.

    “Chances are they’d just find a way to fuck it up even further” – feel free to mention how. Until you figure it out take your doomsday sign and wait in the corner for the “I told you so” moment.

  • TheOnceAndFutureKing
  • InkViper

    Bullshit! The free market is composed of two components, supply (in this case EA) demand (gamers) EA fucked-up big time! A pay to win model applied to a premium retail title. Gamers revolted, and caused EA to backpedal! And that’s before voices got so loud even Disney realizing that the bad publicity could affect their own business, and got themselves involved, according to the rumors.
    So yes bad PR did in fact work, without new legislation, or even using current legislation that deals with “gambling”. And that’s not an opinion, that’s how this has actually played out, which makes me ask the question, what the hell were you paying attention to?

  • InkViper

    Yes that’s right, the free market allowed those things to happen, and when the market for those models dry up and collapse, either because people have decided to move on (because they have the choice), or someone comes up with a better model. The free market always corrects itself given enough time, with out external intervention.

  • InkViper

    “Legislation wouldn’t be dictating the content of the title, simply how it is monetised. It’s already illegal to make a game that amounts to a pyramid scheme, for example.”

    What this Belgian half wit MP wants isn’t reasonable, he didn’t call for games to be issued a higher age rating if it’s found to have certain content to be gambling! He out right called for a ban in Belgian, and would want to take it to the EU for a continental rollout.

    “The only true free market is a black market.”

    I wouldn’t disagree with that, in fact I have family members who only survived living in a certain former Soviet bloc country because of the black market, so I wholeheartedly endorse the black-market!

  • InkViper

    And it’s will also be the reason why EA dies as well! So no, it hasn’t failed.

  • InkViper

    You raise a very important point in your edit, existing legislation should already be able to cover this! So why need more legislation when currently a lot of legislation is never properly implemented in the first place? This is some think that many people who are acting to this whole situation and calling for more legislation don’t realize, I’m glad you actually brought it up.

  • grgspunk

    The so-called “free market” never corrects itself in an expedient manner. Even if it does “eventually” correct itself and such things do go away, the damage has already been done and they’ll come up with even more underhanded tactics to get to our money.

    Even if we “vote with our wallets”, it means jack shit if they vote against us with their own. That is why a swift, overwhelming and authoritarian anti-“free market” action is necessary to deter this shit from happening.

    You can take your “free market” and shove it up your ass. It’s MY market, not a free market.

  • Not really. The whole point of the Free Market is that the customers decide which company lives or dies. The thing is majority of customers in gaming are retarded Casual scumbags. They will always support EA as they hate gaming. If it was up to the free market companies like Platinum games would not stand a chance. That why the free market is a failure like communism and can not work in reality.

  • Madbrainbox

    Good.Becaue they aren’t fixing anything related to gaming.They are removing gambling from the equation.

  • Madbrainbox

    Yes because the trash is preventing the good stuff to come to the surface.Gaming doesn’t need a crash.Gaming needed restraint.Now it will get regulations.

  • Madbrainbox

    Indeed.For example Rockstar announced they will have this shit in all their games. Free market corrected itself in this case.

  • Amethyst Eclipse

    You certainly won’t be shutting up about how freaking smart and moderate you are anytime soon https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/146db1307fb69d55d60a4897953cb24dc1d714ba9949de4b91ff7a53e8778d78.jpg

  • Amethyst Eclipse

    Hey what’s EA paying for guerilla marketing these days, I’m asking for a friend.

  • FreshSnug

    That’s already expecting too much and you and I both know it. The government already doesn’t function. Bill Clinton is an outright rapist aw but who gives a shit right? The law only applies when they want it to, and chances are if a bill were introduced we wouldn’t even get to see half of the little caveats until we’re already dealing with them. Involving the government is always a bad idea, but you libtards just can’t solve your own damned problems.

  • FreshSnug

    Correction. They’re not fixing anything.

  • FreshSnug

    Moderate? Your words not mine. Opposing government interference in anything is hardly what I’d call moderate but whatevs.

  • FreshSnug

    EA needs to die. They’re a cancer on gaming and a cancer in general. That said I hear it doesn’t pay much. Please stop asking big brother to help bury us all.

  • FreshSnug

    You’re thinking in the short term. The industry can and is still regulating itself. That doesn’t imply things will never get out of hand. They did, and EA is paying for it.

  • FreshSnug

    He’s talking about the government. They never do things out of the interest of the people. If they make a move it’s because they have something else in mind.

  • FreshSnug

    No gaming absolutely needs a crash. All you’d get from restraining the scum responsible for this mess is a reprieve. We need a new beginning.

  • Mr0303

    “That’s already expecting too much and you and I both know it.” – no, it’s not. The western governments in general do function properly. You are conflating corruption with lack of utility.

    “chances are” – you do love that phrase, don’t you? Just to let you know it is a weasel word and nothing more than your own conjecture.

    “Involving the government is always a bad idea” – no, it is not. When somebody breaks the law it is up to the government to enforce it. The government is the organisation that lets you have private property. The government is the institution that keeps the infrastructure of the country up to a standard. The government structure is necessary for a society to function.

    “but you libtards just can’t solve your own damned problems.” – for one thing I’m not a liberal and unless I’m missing something it is the consumer backlash that brought these practices to the attention of various gambling commissions, so I’d say that gamers are doing a pretty good job.

  • FreshSnug

    No one is ignoring them and that’s why they don’t go away. If you’re getting exploited then you just don’t have any self-control. That’s like blaming the candy companies for fat people. Who bought the candy?

  • Mr0303

    So do you have any evidence for that or are you just speculating?

  • FreshSnug

    Asking any government not to fuck things up is like asking humanity not to breathe.

  • FreshSnug

    Or you could just not buy loot boxes. What too complex for you? Alright let’s get the government involved then.

  • FreshSnug

    Speculating of course, but it’s not like we don’t have any recent wars that were fought over profit to mull over in the back of our minds right? Right? As another commenter has also pointed out, the government doesn’t simply surgically apply these laws. They’re right in stating that there will 100% be ramifications. Not expecting the worst is, quite frankly, proof of your youth.

  • Mr0303

    So you don’t have any evidence then. Good to know.

    Also the government can decide to drop nukes on all of us tomorrow. I guess you are expecting that as well since always the worst case scenario that’s most likely in your head, right?

  • InkViper

    Your operating under the assumption that a free market is strictly a meritocratic system (It should be) but that’s a bit too idealistic.You also you neglected to identify one major reason why EA is successful, and that’s not because of the free market as such, it’s because they have a monopoly on the FIFA and NFL licenses! If they didn’t you would start to see people go elsewhere, and subsequently EA’s power would diminish.

  • InkViper

    That’s the point I’m making, if people like Micro-transactions that they don’t think are grievously unfair, then they will continue to support them, and the free market operates as intended. the correction happens when a product or service becomes so skewed against customers they move away or are offered a better deal elsewhere, the free market is not a moral based system, it’s simply supply the demand.

    And if you personally don’t like a service or product that other people have no qualms using, I hate to say it, but that’s on you and not the market.

  • InkViper

    “The so-called “free market” never corrects itself in an expedient manner. Even if it does “eventually” correct itself and such things do go away, the damage has already been done and they’ll come up with even more underhanded tactics to get to our money.”

    Yes, that’s called capitalism, people trying to make money, and if you don’t like the way they make money don’t support them.

    “Even if we “vote with our wallets”, it means jack shit if they vote against us with their own. That is why a swift, overwhelming and authoritarian anti-“free market” action is necessary to deter this shit from happening.”

    That might as well be communism, and if you believe in that, you can go Fuck a cactus.

    “You can take your “free market” and shove it up your ass. It’s MY market, not a free market.”

    Wrong, you have personal choice where you wish to spend your money, you do not have ownership of the market!

  • Amethyst Eclipse

    EA is already the big brother of gaming with their constant absorbing and killing of devs and use of shills to force gamers to accept BS like loot boxes. What you fear won’t happen as EA and others will shit their pants over fear of government regulation and will drop loot boxes rather than going down a path that will ultimately fuck them over severely.

  • InkViper

    “1. The point is that there are workarounds and methods where you can get money out of the random chance lootboxes.”

    And what are these workarounds, are they deliberately implemented in the game, or are they exploits that should not be there. More importantly are the workarounds third-party, like hacks, external applications or some other type of service provided by a third-party, if there external to the game and was not originally intended, then the third parties are responsible and culpable to any violation of law, not the developers or the publishers. More importantly any think done by the user which wasn’t intended by the developer, is the one who is directly going out of their way to misuse the product. And that’s not exactly some think that would fall under little Timmy getting happy with daddy’s credit card causing all sorts of headaches, because he didn’t know what he was doing!

    “I don’t particularly care about the perceived gambling aspect taken on
    its own, what I have an issue with, is first and foremost is the pay to
    win model, especially as it’s on a premium game, and progress is not
    tied to skilled play!” – it doesn’t matter if you are personally interested or not. This investigation is about the nature of loot boxes and they are clearly gambling.

    “And if ESRB and PEGI aren’t interested, well maybe that’s all for the better.” – oh, no, it’s not for the better. Both organisations waved away MTs, because it is not in their interest to piss off the major publishers who use them.”

    No evidence to suggest that, in fact there is more evidence to suggest that publishes take the knee, and change content to get a lower age rating because they operate under the assumption teen games sell more! Which says to me that the rating boards are not bending over backwards to please the publishers.

    “If it’s handled independently by a sovereign nation because they
    determine it to be gambling, then so be it! However a blanket edict that
    supersedes sovereign legislation, even for countries that do not deem
    it to be gambling, that is unacceptable.” – since for now only the former is happening I don’t see your issue with this. The blanket edict that supersedes a country’s own laws is not something that is about to happen.”

    Technically speaking, there are three gambling commissions looking into this, and none of them have forward any proposals. This ultimately is down to that Belgian MP dimwit, when he flew off the God damn handle, and stated he wanted to ban this type of content in games in Belgian, and to roll it out through Europe, his proposal is what I take issue with, and what everyone is celebrating, rather than taking a more tempered look at potential reasonable solutions.

    “”who’s to say that more legislation for other types of content, be it
    depictions of violence or material of a sexual nature won’t be the next
    target for legislation, and being banned out right on a continental
    scale, rather than a sovereign nation level!” – because this is the rating boards’ function and it’s been in place for decades. Special cases like Germany and Japan have their own unique rating boards that deal with the game’s content. Gambling in games is a completely separate thing because of the issues with legality of it.”

    Not an argument, it was already stated by the UK gambling commission loot boxes should not be considered gambling! And other countries may come to that same conclusion , regardless of your opinion on it! And as there is no universal consensus on the issue, there is no fair universal solution that can be applied through legislation that doesn’t steamroll sovereign legislation, only on a state by state case should it be dealt with, if at all. And especially in the light of the market showing its objection to it, and forcing EA to back down. Some think achieved with out any type of government interference.

    And as for the rating boards, (I will use ESRB and PEGI as examples to them being the biggest and most used ) are self regulated and voluntary! In essence publishes and hardware manufacturers can effectively abandon them overnight, the only issue that would arise, is retailers have it with in their own company policies, is to only stock titles which carry ratings from these two boards. Which means there is no government oversight.
    What you and others would propose is government oversight on loot boxes which are a particular type of videogame content, content which is not been universally recognized as gambling, therefore it’s not beyond belief that if the EU or other governments were to write specific legislation banning loot boxes, additional oversights and legislation could be implemented on other elements and content found in games!

    “I should’ve clarified regarding my statement about the problem is almost fixed, this was in regards to Battlefront 2 only!” – and I’m looking for the problem to be fixed across the board. It doesn’t matter if BF2 gets flak if the next AAA game implements these loot boxes again.”

    Publishers can implement loot boxes all they want, but when they apply a pay to win model on a premium game, they will inevitably get the same backlash. This hasn’t happened with Overwatch because it’s implemented fairly, loot boxes are all cosmetic, and in game rewards can be won on a regular basis, to be traded for loot boxes with out the need for micro-transactions. EA did none of this, they went the complete opposite direction and turned some think which ultimately was optional, to some think that was virtually mandatory and completely unfair.

    As an aside you should’ve used different enumeration for the next couple of points.

    “1. Our the loot boxes in Shadow of War tied to multiplayer?” – no, they help your single player progression and remove the terrible grind that’s in place.”

    So if it doesn’t skew multiplayer, it’s just a shitty value proposition that’s offered to lower deliberately implemented tedious and inflated game time, and if that’s so I would just boycott.

    “2. Overwatch as far as I know has cosmetic loot boxes which does not
    skew the games balance! Which is mine and many other people’s issue with
    Battlefront 2, in fact I want to state on the record I have no issues
    with cosmetic micro-transactions, pay to win models on a premium game I
    do have an issue with, and in fact I would haphazard a guess, that’s the
    defining point of the revolt against EA this time.” – and again I don’t care what you personally find an issue with. Some people may not have an issue with pay to win – it doesn’t make it right. Loot boxes are gambling period and Overwatch is a prime example of how successful games that have them can be.”

    And I don’t care if you like gambling or not, in fact you don’t even sound like your arguing from a consumer basis, but a moral one, and I have no interest in what you think is moral! People overall find loot boxes in Overwatch to be a good value proposition, with how they are implemented, hence little to no backlash, not the same for Battlefront 2.

    “3. I’ve already said this to someone else, and I will give some
    additional clarification. It’s the job of the parents to parent the
    children! Not the government, now obviously there are certain exceptions
    where government intervention is required, such as gross neglect, abuse
    such as physical, sexual and mental, which are already comprehensively
    covered, at least I know of in the UK” – and I’m not saying that it’s not the job of the parents to look after their kids, but as I mentioned above there is no way of knowing that a game that they are purchasing in store for their kid has gambling in it or not. Not every parent is a dedicated gamer that goes online to research every game that their kid is playing.”

    Then the solution to that is a label, micro-transactions enabled in game, parental supervision advise.

    “4. DICE have currently disabled the purchases of loot boxes, but have also stated that they’ll reenable them at some point (likely when the backlash dies down). This is why I find your position that the problem has resolved itself pretty baseless.”

    It’s not guaranteed that micro-transactions will be re-enabled, and we don’t know if the system itself will be completely reworked, also we are talking about a game that is not guaranteed to supersede sales of its predecessor, and especially as its predecessor had such a short shelf life. By the time the controversy dies down for this title, re-enabling the micro-transactions may not even be viable if the title is already dead.

    And there’s good evidence that this may be the case, look what’s happened with Wolfenstein the new Colossus! It’s falling short of sales compared to The new order, and the limited controversy surrounding that title was minimal compared to this, and when you factor in what is happening with Battlefront 2 I would be genuinely surprised if it is successful.

    Also I don’t think DICE made the decision, I’m sure EA was calling the shots on that one, and if the rumors are to be believed Disney themselves also had a hand in shutting down the ability to make micro-transactions.

  • grgspunk

    Yes, let’s have the government intervene. You might not buy them, but everyone else is buying them. That still incentivizes companies to force them on products you have no intention of buying loot crates on, dumbass.

  • Mr0303

    “And what are these workarounds, are they deliberately implemented in the game, or are they exploits that should not be there.” – none of this is important. They could be third party workarounds, trading skins, selling accounts etc. The point is that the random drops you get from loot boxes do have a monetary value and you can get money back from it.

    “No evidence to suggest that, in fact there is more evidence to suggest
    that publishes take the knee, and change content to get a lower age
    rating because they operate under the assumption teen games sell more!” – depends which publishers. When was the last time a AAA game got in trouble with the rating? It is only smaller games that change their content preemptively so that they don’t have to resubmit their product for rating. Also the rating boards’ refusal to classify loot boxes as gambling is evidence, when in the past they raised the rating of games for having casinos in them.

    “Technically speaking, there are three gambling commissions looking into this, and none of them have forward any proposals.” – yet.

    “rather than taking a more tempered look at potential reasonable solutions.” – of which you have provided exactly 0, claiming that the problem would solve itself.

    “Not an argument” – what exactly is not an argument? I’ve clearly presented that your panic about potential content changes are already handled by the rating boards. It absolutely is an argument.

    “And other countries may come to that same conclusion , regardless of your opinion on it!” – and some countries like Belgium may come to the opposite conclusion regardless of your opinion on it.

    For the rest of the two paragraphs you conflate that a local ruling on loot boxes can magically become a universal one, which of course is absurd.

    “if the EU or other governments were to write specific legislation
    banning loot boxes, additional oversights and legislation could be
    implemented on other elements and content found in games!” – yes, they could. If some sort of other predatory practices arise there could be rulings against them as well. Gambling is a major issue and something that should be looked at.

    “Publishers can implement loot boxes all they want, but when they apply a
    pay to win model on a premium game, they will inevitably get the same
    backlash.” – there is no guarantee for that. A lot of AAA games this year have some form of loot boxes that borders on pay to win and yet is it only BF2 by sheer chance that got all the negative attention.

    “So if it doesn’t skew multiplayer, it’s just a shitty value proposition
    that’s offered to lower deliberately implemented tedious and inflated
    game time, and if that’s so I would just boycott.” – single or multiplayer loot boxes have no place in fully priced games.

    “And I don’t care if you like gambling or not, in fact you don’t even
    sound like your arguing from a consumer basis, but a moral one, and I
    have no interest in what you think is moral!” – can you point exactly where have I done that? So far I’ve only represented the consumer argument of having a bad practice that reflects on the overall game design.

    “People overall find loot boxes in Overwatch to be a good value
    proposition, with how they are implemented, hence little to no backlash,
    not the same for Battlefront 2.” – I don’t care which version of loot boxes people like more. They have no place in fully priced games.

    “Then the solution to that is a label, micro-transactions enabled in game, parental supervision advise.” – I agree and a regulation demanding such a label could be quite useful, don’t you think?

    “It’s not guaranteed that micro-transactions will be re-enabled” – actually it is. DICE confirmed that they are going to re-enable them at a later date.

    “And there’s good evidence that this may be the case, look what’s happened with Wolfenstein the new Colossus!” – you are comparing apples to oranges. This is not good evidence at all.

    “Also I don’t think DICE made the decision, I’m sure EA was calling the shots on that one” – I don’t care who is responsible in the end. What matters is what is in the final product and loot boxes have no place in it.

  • Madbrainbox

    People don’t like microtransactions.Publishers are simply exploiting the addictions of a very small percentage of their customers.The free market will never correct itself at this point.

  • Madbrainbox

    Well,we’ll see about that.If they take action that is.

  • iswear12

    ironic shitposting is still shitposting

  • iswear12

    Valve popularized it in the west afaik

  • nuworldblue

    The first thing the government should do is strike down the law forcing people to buy the games that participate in this type of practice.

  • InkViper

    Wrong, there are three groups of people.

    1. People with a irrational hate Boner such as yourself and a few others in this comment section.

    2. The whales who keep pumping money in to micro-transactions.

    3. And the majority of people in the middle, who are frankly apathetic to micro-transactions, why because they see it as optional, so they don’t care.
    They may use micro-transactions now and again, but there not particularly opposed against it neither, and this is due to the vast majority of micro-transactions not actually affecting the games that they play, and what they do in those games.

    And as for the market self-correcting itself, that happens when the whales dry up, or a better model comes along. And right now whilst the whales are still pumping money into it and are happy to do so, the market will continue and working as intended. Which means you will just have to suck it up that micro-transactions are here to stay, not that it should actually affect you as you seem to be so repulsed by them, I doubt you have/would ever use them, and would most likely avoid any games that rely on them heavily.

  • InkViper

    “And what are these workarounds, are they deliberately implemented in the game, or are they exploits that should not be there.” – none of this is important. They could be third party workarounds, trading skins, selling accounts etc. The point is that the random drops you get from loot boxes do have a monetary value and you can get money back from it.”

    Yes it is important, stop the dudgeon question, if you don’t want to answer move on.

    “No evidence to suggest that, in fact there is more evidence to suggest
    that publishes take the knee, and change content to get a lower age
    rating because they operate under the assumption teen games sell more!” – depends which publishers. When was the last time a AAA game got in trouble with the rating? It is only smaller games that change their content preemptively so that they don’t have to resubmit their product for rating. Also the rating boards’ refusal to classify loot boxes as gambling is evidence, when in the past they raised the rating of games for having casinos in them.”

    Ubisoft, South Park Stick of Truth 2014… Would not of even being allowed a release in Europe or Australia without cutting content and even then they only scraped in with an 18+ certification. Was uncensored in the US.

    “Technically speaking, there are three gambling commissions looking into this, and none of them have forward any proposals.” – yet.”

    Oh Fuck you grandma Nazi.

    “rather than taking a more tempered look at potential reasonable solutions.” – of which you have provided exactly 0, claiming that the problem would solve itself.”

    Didn’t need to, the market has spoken, and EA back down. You on the other hand are gun-ho about legislation that would effectively ban this type of game content, that’s not reasonable, it out right authoritarian! And frankly speaking no solution is still better than what you would back.

    “Not an argument” – what exactly is not an argument? I’ve clearly presented that your panic about potential content changes are already handled by the rating boards. It absolutely is an argument.”

    Panic, lol… Oh yeah because we haven’t already seen psychopathic advocates for authoritarian legislation on video games before, cough, cough, Jack Thompson, cough ,cough, Joseph Lieberman cough ,cough

    “And other countries may come to that same conclusion , regardless of your opinion on it!” – and some countries like Belgium may come to the opposite conclusion regardless of your opinion on it.”

    Did you even read the rest of the paragraph? I stated that the issue I have is a ruling that overrules sovereign nations own legislation on the matter, and that ruling which this idiot from Belgian would propose is a ban on loot boxes completely, which would mean what ever nation members decide it being gambling or not would be irrelevant.

    “For the rest of the two paragraphs you conflate that a local ruling on loot boxes can magically become a universal one, which of course is absurd.”

    You really didn’t read it, did you! Nor do I think you’ve actually read the original articles properly your self. He didn’t just say he wanted to ban it in Belgian alone, he was also going to take it to the EU as well! That’s not conflation, it’s an accurate description of what he stated himself.

    “if the EU or other governments were to write specific legislation
    banning loot boxes, additional oversights and legislation could be
    implemented on other elements and content found in games!” – yes, they could. If some sort of other predatory practices arise there could be rulings against them as well. Gambling is a major issue and something that should be looked at.”

    You seem to mistake gambling for a predatory practice! it’s not gambling in of itself , it’s how it’s implemented, learn the difference.

    “Publishers can implement loot boxes all they want, but when they apply a
    pay to win model on a premium game, they will inevitably get the same
    backlash.” – there is no guarantee for that. A lot of AAA games this year have some form of loot boxes that borders on pay to win and yet is it only BF2 by sheer chance that got all the negative attention.”

    Borderline doesn’t mean it actually is pay to win, and it wasn’t Battlefront 2’s bad luck it got picked on, it’s because it’s the most glaring and obvious abuse of the loot box system that’s brought it negative attention, it’s because it’s a premium title that carries the Star Wars license!

    “So if it doesn’t skew multiplayer, it’s just a shitty value proposition
    that’s offered to lower deliberately implemented tedious and inflated
    game time, and if that’s so I would just boycott.” – single or multiplayer loot boxes have no place in fully priced games.

    Wrong, Pay to win loot boxes have no place in fully priced premium titles! Any think else that’s cosmetic is pure fluff, and ultimately down to the end user as a consumer if they wish to buy it, how it was implemented in Battlefront 2 effectively forced people to buy them in order to stay competitive, there is no force compulsion to buy cosmetic loot boxes in other games other than prestige.

    “And I don’t care if you like gambling or not, in fact you don’t even
    sound like your arguing from a consumer basis, but a moral one, and I
    have no interest in what you think is moral!” – can you point exactly where have I done that? So far I’ve only represented the consumer argument of having a bad practice that reflects on the overall game design.”

    “we’re talking about serious legal issues here. Should a game box contain a couple of grams of crack?”

    “The case we’re currently dealing with has some legal implications since it allows minors the ability to gamble.”

    These are two statements you made in earlier posts! The first being comparing gambling to crack cocaine, really that’s scaremongering.
    And the second, you’re now talking about minors being allowed to gamble, which is effectively, the Think of the children argument! And yes, both of these are moral centric opinions!

    “People overall find loot boxes in Overwatch to be a good value
    proposition, with how they are implemented, hence little to no backlash,
    not the same for Battlefront 2.” – I don’t care which version of loot boxes people like more. They have no place in fully priced games.”

    So you would be happy to remove someone else’s right to spend their money on a particular piece of content, because you have a personal dislike of it, even if that content in their eyes is perfectly fair, really.

    “Then the solution to that is a label, micro-transactions enabled in game, parental supervision advise.” – I agree and a regulation demanding such a label could be quite useful, don’t you think?”

    LOL…. No you don’t need a regulation for such a label, it’s already been done once with the music industry with the Parental Advisory Label Program, it’s completely voluntary, and has no government oversight nor any legislation forcing its use, but most importantly it gets the goddamn job done.

    “It’s not guaranteed that micro-transactions will be re-enabled” – actually it is. DICE confirmed that they are going to re-enable them at a later date.”

    And as I have already stated if they do come back, they may not be how they were originally intended to be implemented.

    “And there’s good evidence that this may be the case, look what’s happened with Wolfenstein the new Colossus!” – you are comparing apples to oranges. This is not good evidence at all.”

    Actually it’s great evidence, when predicting a downward trend, now if there were only some sale figures to show that Battlefront 2 is selling worse than its predecessor, to prove my point! Oh his a link http://archive.is/A6Gb2 that proves my point perfectly.

    “Also I don’t think DICE made the decision, I’m sure EA was calling the shots on that one” – I don’t care who is responsible in the end. What matters is what is in the final product and loot boxes have no place in it.

    Actually it’s very important of who’s calling the shots, especially if the rumors about Disney are true because of the consumer outcry. They have the clout and authority through their contract with EA to demand and make many changes, to the point where EA can not only lose their exclusive license with Disney for Star Wars, but potentially also forced EA to change their business model for the game, such as removing loot boxes altogether. And if that’s the case well everyone wins, loot boxes go bye-bye, and all with out needless authoritarian legislation.

  • Mr0303

    “Yes it is important, stop the dudgeon question, if you don’t want to answer move on.” – no it is not. If you want a concrete example look at CS:Go an the trade of skins over there.

    “Ubisoft, South Park Stick of Truth 2014… Would not of even being
    allowed a release in Europe or Australia without cutting content and
    even then they only scraped in with an 18+ certification. Was uncensored
    in the US.” – not AAA, but OK. That was 3 years ago. In the meantime how many smaller publisher had to alter the most minor of things in their games?

    “Oh Fuck you grandma Nazi.” – so now were down to petty insults all because I stated a fact. Brilliant.

    “Didn’t need to, the market has spoken, and EA back down. You on the
    other hand are gun-ho about legislation that would effectively ban this
    type of game content, that’s not reasonable, it out right authoritarian!
    And frankly speaking no solution is still better than what you would
    back.” – the market hasn’t spoken in regards to loot boxes. Battlefront 2 is the exception rather than the rule as we can see from Overwatch. Also where exactly did I say that I want this practice banned? All I said is that I want loot boxes to be classified as gambling. You should really stop with the strawman arguments.

    “Panic, lol… Oh yeah because we haven’t already seen psychopathic
    advocates for authoritarian legislation on video games before, cough,
    cough, Jack Thompson, cough ,cough, Joseph Lieberman cough ,cough” – those two didn’t enforce any changes so I don’t know why you bring them up.

    “Did you even read the rest of the paragraph? I stated that the issue I
    have is a ruling that overrules sovereign nations own legislation on the
    matter, and that ruling which this idiot from Belgian would propose is a
    ban on loot boxes completely, which would mean what ever nation members
    decide it being gambling or not would be irrelevant.” – and what is your basis to belive that such ruling would happen? Gambling laws have always been local in the EU.

    “You really didn’t read it, did you! Nor do I think you’ve actually read
    the original articles properly your self. He didn’t just say he wanted
    to ban it in Belgian alone, he was also going to take it to the EU as
    well! That’s not conflation, it’s an accurate description of what he
    stated himself.” – he may want many things, but how successful he’ll be is a whole different matter. As I said above gambling laws have always been local and there is nothing to suggest that his proposal could overrule that. What are your evidence that this is even possible?

    “Borderline doesn’t mean it actually is pay to win, and it wasn’t
    Battlefront 2’s bad luck it got picked on, it’s because it’s the most
    glaring and obvious abuse of the loot box system that’s brought it
    negative attention, it’s because it’s a premium title that carries the
    Star Wars license!” – Shadow of War carries the LoTR name and its loot boxes are pretty terrible and yet there was not such a major backlash. It was EA’s greed and stupidity for locking Luke and Vader that caused it. Otherwise there would be no such major pushback.

    “Wrong, Pay to win loot boxes have no place in fully priced premium
    titles! Any think else that’s cosmetic is pure fluff, and ultimately
    down to the end user as a consumer if they wish to buy it, how it was
    implemented in Battlefront 2 effectively forced people to buy them in
    order to stay competitive, there is no force compulsion to buy cosmetic
    loot boxes in other games other than prestige.” – I accept neither. Lootboxes are there to prey on the gambling instinct and generate revenue. It is also false that there is no compulsion to buy the cosmetic ones – Overwatch has events that offer cosmetic items for a limited time, which means you either put a massive amount of playtime to get those, or buy loot boxes at that time.

    “These are two statements you made in earlier posts! The first being
    comparing gambling to crack cocaine, really that’s scaremongering.
    And
    the second, you’re now talking about minors being allowed to gamble,
    which is effectively, the Think of the children argument! And yes, both
    of these are moral centric opinions!” – no those two are LEGAL arguments. It is not legal to have crack in the game, because crack is not LEGAL. It is not LEGAL to have gambling in a game that could be sold to minors because it is not LEGAL for them to be gambling. “Children shouldn’t be allowed to drive” is not a “think of the children” argument it is a LEGAL one. Do you start to see the pattern here?

    “So you would be happy to remove someone else’s right to spend their
    money on a particular piece of content, because you have a personal
    dislike of it, even if that content in their eyes is perfectly fair,
    really.” – yes. People can be OK with pay to win, gambling and loot boxes, but I don’t want that in games. It is not my job to let whales who pay thousands of dollars in MTs to ruin the game’s design for the rest of us.

    “LOL…. No you don’t need a regulation for such a label, it’s already
    been done once with the music industry with the Parental Advisory Label
    Program, it’s completely voluntary, and has no government oversight nor
    any legislation forcing its use, but most importantly it gets the
    goddamn job done.” – I personally don’t care if it is a government or a the set up of a private commission that creates that label. The fact is that the current rating boards completely failed to address the situation.

    “And as I have already stated if they do come back, they may not be how they were originally intended to be implemented.” – that’s pure speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing that.

    “Actually it’s great evidence, when predicting a downward trend, now if
    there were only some sale figures to show that Battlefront 2 is selling
    worse than its predecessor, to prove my point! Oh his a link http://archive.is/A6Gb2 that proves my point perfectly.” – no it is not a good evidence. You were comparing a moderately successful single player FPS with political controversy to a MP focused SW game with a business one. Do I really have to point out that the difference is night and day? Also the game initially selling less doesn’t prove your point at all (not to mention that it doesn’t relate to your Wolfenstein comparison in any way). We have to wait until Black Friday, the release of the new movie and Christmas pass to see if there is a significant effect on sales. The first game had many issues and yet it sold 12 million.

    “Actually it’s very important of who’s calling the shots, especially if
    the rumors about Disney are true because of the consumer outcry. They
    have the clout and authority through their contract with EA to demand
    and make many changes, to the point where EA can not only lose their
    exclusive license with Disney for Star Wars, but potentially also forced
    EA to change their business model for the game, such as removing loot
    boxes altogether. And if that’s the case well everyone wins, loot boxes
    go bye-bye, and all with out needless authoritarian legislation.” – do I really need to point out the obvious and say that even if Disney forces EA to remove loot boxes and withdraws their licence this wouldn’t fix the issue for all the other games that have them? Also there is nothing authoritarian in ruling that loot boxes are gambling.

  • FreshSnug

    You’ll see that they’re doing what benefits themselves. Hardly what I’d call fixing, unless the idea of losing a few more rights is your idea of fixed.

  • FreshSnug

    And everyone else seems to be enjoying them. Guess you’re outta luck.

  • FreshSnug

    EA is nothing. If you give a single damn about the games EA puts out you have no right to complain about the purchases of others. That said you’re probably right.

  • FreshSnug

    Evidence of government corruption? Oh there’s a ton of that. Evidence that the government works for profit rather than for you? Yeah there’s a ton of that to. Did we all forget why everyone hates Bush? Did oil cease to exist or something? Did the government turn into a charity in the past day? Did I imagine the government peddling sex slaves? You’re beyond salvation m8. Of course they wouldn’t drop nukes on us. How are they supposed to tax the dead?

  • Mr0303

    And still no evidence that they have an ulterior motive if they’d declare loot boxes as gambling.

    So you are saying then that taxes are worse than nuclear holocaust. Funny that.

  • Madbrainbox

    Very few people have the right to add gambling elements to their products. Usually they are called casinos.I have no problem with changing the status of publishers who are putting this garbage in their games from entertainment to gambling.

  • Madbrainbox

    Tell me what part of Battlefront’s 2 microtransactions are optional.

  • InkViper

    Wasn’t talking about Battlefront 2’s Micro-transactions specifically.

  • Lea Pastillaroja

    it won’t happen
    they tried to censor gore & violence in the 90s and failed
    they tried to censor tushes & tiddies 3 years ago and failed again
    every time they go against consummers they fail
    and consummer do not deffend gambling, especially aimed at young children

  • Lea Pastillaroja
  • Gigaknight

    “they tried to censor tushes & tiddies 3 years ago and failed again”

    This is where you’re wrong. Ever since all the fuss made over “sexism/misogyny in gaming” and the like, two phenomena have come into being in game development, one being caused by the other: a chilling effect against any creative action involving the female body that’s seen as “sexist” or “misogynistic” (e.g., the idea that the concept of women with large breasts is merely a product of male fantasy, and therefore “unrealistic”) and efforts on the part of developers (not just in the West, after a certain point; some devs in the East only have tainted sources of information on which to base their decisions involving the Western market) toward self-censorship, efforts related strongly to the aforementioned chilling effect.

    It got to the point where any entity in the game production process who goes ahead and produces content seen as verboten by the social justice crowd without a care about what they might say is seen as notably bold.

    So, no. Censorship de jure did not happen. Censorship de facto is the name of the game, especially with some western developers embracing social justice tenets themselves. Perhaps if they try again, it’ll still be struck down once more, but that doesn’t mean that–assuming it is–it won’t have further chilling effects on the game industry. On the other hand, the fact that the social justice crowd managed to entrench itself and spread its influence as much as it has would give such legislation significant momentum, and thus make it harder to stop; at the very least, the usual suspects will resume their cacophonous screeching.

  • Lea Pastillaroja

    i get what you are saying but the fact is that only shit games endend up getting pozzed, devs who did not touch the kool-aid are stil making the same vidya they always did
    every single game that tryed to pander to SJWs has failed harder than an Acme catapult, with Horizon Zero Down being the closest thing to SJW that is not absolute shit (it still is a poorman’s Far Cry/Monster Hunter)
    Meanwhile in Nippon, 2B ass is printing so many shekkels Yoko Taro must be feeling like Scrudge Mcduck

    it’s only the west that got really poisoned by the kool-aid and the devs that drank it where alrready drowning in anticonsummer busines practices that made them being shit regardless of the poz

  • grgspunk

    Not since the government seems to have taken noticed. When they intervene, everyone else will be fucked except for the real gamers.

  • InkViper

    “Yes it is important, stop the dudgeon question, if you don’t want to answer move on.” – no it is not. If you want a concrete example look at CS:Go an the trade of skins over there.

    “Ubisoft, South Park Stick of Truth 2014… Would not of even being
    allowed a release in Europe or Australia without cutting content and
    even then they only scraped in with an 18+ certification. Was uncensored
    in the US.” – not AAA, but OK. That was 3 years ago. In the meantime how many smaller publisher had to alter the most minor of things in their games? Of”

    Your moving the goalposts more often than an SJW!

    “Oh Fuck you grandma Nazi.” – so now were down to petty insults all because I stated a fact. Brilliant.”

    You can’t take a joke, dam your petty.

    “Didn’t need to, the market has spoken, and EA back down. You on the
    other hand are gun-ho about legislation that would effectively ban this
    type of game content, that’s not reasonable, it out right authoritarian!
    And frankly speaking no solution is still better than what you would
    back.” – the market hasn’t spoken in regards to loot boxes. Battlefront 2 is the exception rather than the rule as we can see from Overwatch. Also where exactly did I say that I want this practice banned? All I said is that I want loot boxes to be classified as gambling. You should really stop with the strawman arguments.”

    “Panic, lol… Oh yeah because we haven’t already seen psychopathic
    advocates for authoritarian legislation on video games before, cough,
    cough, Jack Thompson, cough ,cough, Joseph Lieberman cough ,cough” – those two didn’t enforce any changes so I don’t know why you bring them up.”

    Two lunatics fly off the handle, and tried to get restrictions for video games through legislation! Them failing is irrelevant, the fact is people who don’t know any think about the industry aren’t stopping pulling this crap. And you don’t think that is a problem by dismissing past failed attempts.

    “Did you even read the rest of the paragraph? I stated that the issue I
    have is a ruling that overrules sovereign nations own legislation on the
    matter, and that ruling which this idiot from Belgian would propose is a
    ban on loot boxes completely, which would mean what ever nation members
    decide it being gambling or not would be irrelevant.” – and what is your basis to belive that such ruling would happen? Gambling laws have always been local in the EU.”

    Have you even read the mandate for the EU gambling commission? Here is a couple of snippets.

    * compliance of national regulatory frameworks with EU law*

    *An ever increasing number of EU countries have engaged in a review of their gambling legislation, in particular to take account of new forms of gambling that are primarily taking place online. >However, the prevailing regulatory, societal and technical challenges related to gambling in the EU cannot be adequately met by countries acting individually. With national measures alone, individual EU countries are unable to provide individuals with effective protection due to the nature of the online environment and the often cross-border dimension of online gambling.<*

    It's pretty clear the EU has the ability to supersede national sovereign legislation on gambling, as well as believing that their own legislation is required, due to them not having any faith in sovereign legislation, and that's not an opinion, they literally stated it themselves, which irrefutably proves my point!

    "You really didn't read it, did you! Nor do I think you've actually read
    the original articles properly your self. He didn't just say he wanted
    to ban it in Belgian alone, he was also going to take it to the EU as
    well! That's not conflation, it's an accurate description of what he
    stated himself." – he may want many things, but how successful he'll be is a whole different matter. As I said above gambling laws have always been local and there is nothing to suggest that his proposal could overrule that. What are your evidence that this is even possible?"

    Refer to my previous point!

    "Borderline doesn't mean it actually is pay to win, and it wasn't
    Battlefront 2's bad luck it got picked on, it's because it's the most
    glaring and obvious abuse of the loot box system that's brought it
    negative attention, it's because it's a premium title that carries the
    Star Wars license!" – Shadow of War carries the LoTR name and its loot boxes are pretty terrible and yet there was not such a major backlash. It was EA's greed and stupidity for locking Luke and Vader that caused it. Otherwise there would be no such major pushback."

    Things don't necessarily happen in a vacuum, Shadow of War very well may have contributed to the breaking point which crescendoed with Battlefront 2, but unlikeSofW what was implemented with Battlefront 2 directly affected multiplayer in a hyper-competitive community, it was never going to play out the same way.

    "Wrong, Pay to win loot boxes have no place in fully priced premium
    titles! Any think else that's cosmetic is pure fluff, and ultimately
    down to the end user as a consumer if they wish to buy it, how it was
    implemented in Battlefront 2 effectively forced people to buy them in
    order to stay competitive, there is no force compulsion to buy cosmetic
    loot boxes in other games other than prestige." – I accept neither. Lootboxes are there to prey on the gambling instinct and generate revenue. It is also false that there is no compulsion to buy the cosmetic ones – Overwatch has events that offer cosmetic items for a limited time, which means you either put a massive amount of playtime to get those, or buy loot boxes at that time."

    Yet the majority of gamers are quite happy with Overwatch and its micro-transaction model, yet you still want to remove them, because your argument is you don't like loot boxes. Which is not an argument, it's a personal preference, and I do not care about your personal preferences.

    "These are two statements you made in earlier posts! The first being
    comparing gambling to crack cocaine, really that's scaremongering.
    And
    the second, you're now talking about minors being allowed to gamble,
    which is effectively, the Think of the children argument! And yes, both
    of these are moral centric opinions!" – no those two are LEGAL arguments. It is not legal to have crack in the game, because crack is not LEGAL. It is not LEGAL to have gambling in a game that could be sold to minors because it is not LEGAL for them to be gambling. "Children shouldn't be allowed to drive" is not a "think of the children" argument it is a LEGAL one. Do you start to see the pattern here?"

    Your argument for its illegality is based on it being gambling, which as it stands is a personal opinion. As it hasn't been decided by any gambling commission to be so, as it stands, you know due to them still investigating it! Therefore it is not a legal argument but a moral one you're making.

    "So you would be happy to remove someone else's right to spend their
    money on a particular piece of content, because you have a personal
    dislike of it, even if that content in their eyes is perfectly fair,
    really." – yes. People can be OK with pay to win, gambling and loot boxes, but I don't want that in games. It is not my job to let whales who pay thousands of dollars in MTs to ruin the game's design for the rest of us."

    I don't care what you like, and what you want to see in games. The only thing that matters is if there is a market for it! If there is a audience for micro-transactions and pay to win, then it will continue! You wanting it to go away isn't going to make that so, in fact you're starting to sound like the minority of morons who want to censor games because of their own personal feelings being hurt. Sad.

    "LOL…. No you don't need a regulation for such a label, it's already
    been done once with the music industry with the Parental Advisory Label
    Program, it's completely voluntary, and has no government oversight nor
    any legislation forcing its use, but most importantly it gets the
    goddamn job done." – I personally don't care if it is a government or a the set up of a private commission that creates that label. The fact is that the current rating boards completely failed to address the situation."

    That's why my proposition for a voluntary and self regulating system would be best, as I've stated the Parental Advisory Label works. I would even be for an expansion on the Parental Advisory Label to supersede the current rating boards and encompass video games as well, if it wasn't for the fact it falls under a organization that deals exclusively with the music industry.

    "And as I have already stated if they do come back, they may not be how they were originally intended to be implemented." – that's pure speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing that."

    And is if what you have in suggested isn't speculation its self that it will be turned back on without changes, and considering we are now post Black Friday it's pretty obvious that EA screwed the pooch on this one, so now it's no longer the case of speculation. But more on the probability it's less likely to come back in its original form.

    "Actually it's great evidence, when predicting a downward trend, now if
    there were only some sale figures to show that Battlefront 2 is selling
    worse than its predecessor, to prove my point! Oh his a link http://archive.is/A6Gb2 that proves my point perfectly." – no it is not a good evidence. You were comparing a moderately successful single player FPS with political controversy to a MP focused SW game with a business one. Do I really have to point out that the difference is night and day? Also the game initially selling less doesn't prove your point at all (not to mention that it doesn't relate to your Wolfenstein comparison in any way). We have to wait until Black Friday, the release of the new movie and Christmas pass to see if there is a significant effect on sales. The first game had many issues and yet it sold 12 million."

    First, I will explain why it's a good comparison, big named sequel with controversy preceding launch! Fails to meet predecessors sales numbers! When mapping out these types of predictions you have to look at it holistically, which you're not, but if you want me to simplify more, it's broken down like this, piss off enough of your audience before launch and expect your sales to be scuttled, it's really simple.
    Second, we now have a good representation of what happened on Black Friday, and it wasn't good! In fact so much so you attempting to add the additional caveat, of well there is a movie coming out and we have to take that into account, frankly isn't going to cut it, the damage has been done! Don't believe me his some more evidence. http://archive.is/jHNer
    Thirdly, the first one didn't sell 12 million, it sold 14, please do your research it's not that difficult.

    "Actually it's very important of who's calling the shots, especially if
    the rumors about Disney are true because of the consumer outcry. They
    have the clout and authority through their contract with EA to demand
    and make many changes, to the point where EA can not only lose their
    exclusive license with Disney for Star Wars, but potentially also forced
    EA to change their business model for the game, such as removing loot
    boxes altogether. And if that's the case well everyone wins, loot boxes
    go bye-bye, and all with out needless authoritarian legislation." – do I really need to point out the obvious and say that even if Disney forces EA to remove loot boxes and withdraws their licence this wouldn't fix the issue for all the other games that have them? Also there is nothing authoritarian in ruling that loot boxes are gambling."

    Again I don't care about your personal opinion on loot boxes, that's your crusade, you can keep it to yourself! Or better go yet complain to some that likes loot boxes, because frankly I just don't care.

  • InkViper

    There’s a market for it, I don’t particular care about it myself, but you saying that no one wants it, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

  • Mr0303

    “Your moving the goalposts more often than an SJW!” – I didn’t move goal posts. I pointed out that this was not a AAA title, which it clearly wasn’t.

    “You can’t take a joke, dam your petty.” – that wasn’t a joke, it was an insult and you are doing it again.

    “Two lunatics fly off the handle, and tried to get restrictions for video
    games through legislation! Them failing is irrelevant, the fact is
    people who don’t know any think about the industry aren’t stopping
    pulling this crap. And you don’t think that is a problem by dismissing
    past failed attempts.” – I don’t think this is a problem, because I’m on their side. I don’t want loot boxes in fully priced games and I want them declared as gambling.

    “It’s pretty clear the EU has the ability to supersede national sovereign
    legislation on gambling, as well as believing that their own
    legislation is required, due to them not having any faith in sovereign
    legislation, and that’s not an opinion, they literally stated it
    themselves, which irrefutably proves my point!” – it doesn’t prove your point. Next time you are going to use official documents in your argument please provide a citation. You know what else the EU gambling commission says? Read the below:

    “Member States are in principle free
    to set the objectives of their policies on games of chance and to
    define in detail the level of protection sought. Nonetheless, national
    legislation must comply with EU law. The provision and use of the
    cross-border gambling offer falls within the scope of the fundamental
    freedoms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, as repeatedly
    confirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).

    Member States may restrict or limit the
    cross-border supply of all or certain types of online gambling services
    on the basis of public interest objectives that they seek to protect in
    relation to gambling. While Member States usually offer legitimate
    reasons for the restriction of cross-border gambling services, they must
    nonetheless demonstrate the suitability and necessity of the measure in
    question and the consistency of the regulatory system.”

    This means that as long as the gambling is internal the member states have control of the rules, which seems to be favouring my position.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-798_en.htm?locale=en

    “Things don’t necessarily happen in a vacuum, Shadow of War very well may
    have contributed to the breaking point which crescendoed with
    Battlefront 2, but unlikeSofW what was implemented with Battlefront 2
    directly affected multiplayer in a hyper-competitive community, it was
    never going to play out the same way.” – your contribution theory is absolutely baseless. This shows that one type of pay to win is acceptable as long as it is not too obvious like it was in BF2.

    “Your argument for its illegality is based on it being gambling, which as
    it stands is a personal opinion. As it hasn’t been decided by any
    gambling commission to be so, as it stands, you know due to them still
    investigating it! Therefore it is not a legal argument but a moral one
    you’re making.” – in my opinion it is gambling, which means that minors shouldn’t have access to it, which is a LEGAL argument. I’m not saying that gambling is immoral. I’m saying that loot boxes are gambling and by law they shouldn’t be accessed by minors. This is why I’m in favour of the commissions investigating them – something you have a major issue with for some reason.

    “I don’t care what you like, and what you want to see in games.” – you asked me a question and I answered. Then you declared that you don’t care about what I like and dislike. Well, the feeling is absolutely mutual, but don’t you think it is rather dim of you to invalidate your own question like that?

    “The only thing that matters is if there is a market for it! If there is a
    audience for micro-transactions and pay to win, then it will continue!
    You wanting it to go away isn’t going to make that so” – I actually agree. As long as people are paying for these cancerous practices they will exist and ruin games. The thing you fail to realise is that it is a minority of players who pay for those. It is the tyranny of the minority that is ruining the experience for the majority.

    “in fact you’re starting to sound like the minority of morons who want to censor games because of their own personal feelings being hurt. Sad.” – some more baseless accusations and personal attacks. Pathetic. If anyone here has their feelings hurt it is you. You abuse the exclamation mark in your arguments (if you can call them that) indicating your emotional state. You constantly repeat how you don’t care about what I think even though I’m responding to your questions. You resort to insults and personal attacks despite me being perfectly civil with you. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before judging how others sound.

    “That’s why my proposition for a voluntary and self regulating system
    would be best, as I’ve stated the Parental Advisory Label works. I
    would even be for an expansion on the Parental Advisory Label to
    supersede the current rating boards and encompass video games as well,
    if it wasn’t for the fact it falls under a organization that deals
    exclusively with the music industry.” – I’m fine with either as long as the gambling situation is handled.

    “And is if what you have in suggested isn’t speculation its self that it
    will be turned back on without changes, and considering we are now post
    Black Friday it’s pretty obvious that EA screwed the pooch on this one,
    so now it’s no longer the case of speculation. But more on the
    probability it’s less likely to come back in its original form.” – “probability” still means that you are speculating. There is no way of knowing in what form the MTs will return. I never said they won’t undergo changes, but DICE explicitly stated that they’ll bring them back.

    “First, I will explain why it’s a good comparison, big named sequel with
    controversy preceding launch! Fails to meet predecessors sales numbers!” – except that the games are fundamentally different, the controversy is different and we don’t know the sales’ numbers for Wolfenstein. From where I’m standing it is a pretty bad comparison.

    “Second, we now have a good representation of what happened on Black
    Friday, and it wasn’t good! In fact so much so you attempting to add the
    additional caveat, of well there is a movie coming out and we have to
    take that into account, frankly isn’t going to cut it, the damage has
    been done! Don’t believe me his some more evidence. http://archive.is/jHNer” – it is not my fault that you take 2 days to respond. How could I know what would happen of Black Friday before it happened? What you are doing here is called hindsight bias. Are you going to respond to me in a month saying that the movie didn’t boost the sales? It will be as fallacious then as it is now. What I’m saying is that we have to wait and see how much the backlash would effect the sales so that we can work with real numbers rather than speculating.

    “Thirdly, the first one didn’t sell 12 million, it sold 14, please do your research it’s not that difficult.” – you do realise that this reinforces my argument, right?

    “Again I don’t care about your personal opinion on loot boxes, that’s
    your crusade, you can keep it to yourself! Or better go yet complain to
    some that likes loot boxes, because frankly I just don’t care.” – this is not a valid response to me stating that EA removing MTs from SWBF2 doesn’t solve the problem. Also I won’t keep it to myself. I will point out the problems I see with the practice – this is what these comment sections are for. You say you don’t care and yet you spend so much time white knighting for this terrible practice. Sure. I believe you.

  • InkViper

    “Your moving the goalposts more often than an SJW!” – I didn’t move goal posts. I pointed out that this was not a AAA title, which it clearly wasn’t.”

    Yeah, because it’s totally a Indy darling that a handful of West Coast elites played, and not a high profile license game with a long and will documented history, that went on to sell 5 million copies, but hey let’s just quibble about labels that referred to games budgets.

    “You can’t take a joke, dam your petty.” – that wasn’t a joke, it was an insult and you are doing it again.”

    Offence is taken, not given.

    “Two lunatics fly off the handle, and tried to get restrictions for video
    games through legislation! Them failing is irrelevant, the fact is
    people who don’t know any think about the industry aren’t stopping
    pulling this crap. And you don’t think that is a problem by dismissing
    past failed attempts.” – I don’t think this is a problem, because I’m on their side. I don’t want loot boxes in fully priced games and I want them declared as gambling.”

    So, you’re on the side of the lunatics.

    “It’s pretty clear the EU has the ability to supersede national sovereign
    legislation on gambling, as well as believing that their own
    legislation is required, due to them not having any faith in sovereign
    legislation, and that’s not an opinion, they literally stated it
    themselves, which irrefutably proves my point!” – it doesn’t prove your point. Next time you are going to use official documents in your argument please provide a citation. You know what else the EU gambling commission says? Read the below:

    “Member States are in principle free
    to set the objectives of their policies on games of chance and to
    define in detail the level of protection sought. Nonetheless, national
    legislation must comply with EU law. The provision and use of the
    cross-border gambling offer falls within the scope of the fundamental
    freedoms of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, as repeatedly
    confirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).

    Member States may restrict or limit the
    cross-border supply of all or certain types of online gambling services
    on the basis of public interest objectives that they seek to protect in
    relation to gambling. While Member States usually offer legitimate
    reasons for the restriction of cross-border gambling services, they must
    nonetheless demonstrate the suitability and necessity of the measure in
    question and the consistency of the regulatory system.”

    This means that as long as the gambling is internal the member states have control of the rules, which seems to be favouring my position.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pres…”

    Did you even read what you posted? I’ll explain it to you, where it says *. Nonetheless, national legislation must comply with EU law. * What this means is EU legislation sets the baseline, if member states wish to pursue how they enforce their own laws they can, unless it contradicts EU legislation, so if the EU changes the law for age of participation in gambling to 25 years old, all member states will have to comply with this, if the EU passes legislation that states loot boxes are gambling, all members must enforce this, even if they have no legislation of their own covering loot boxes! This doesn’t reinforce your point, it actually reinforces mine, and what I’ve been saying all along.

    “Things don’t necessarily happen in a vacuum, Shadow of War very well may
    have contributed to the breaking point which crescendoed with
    Battlefront 2, but unlikeSofW what was implemented with Battlefront 2
    directly affected multiplayer in a hyper-competitive community, it was
    never going to play out the same way.” – your contribution theory is absolutely baseless. This shows that one type of pay to win is acceptable as long as it is not too obvious like it was in BF2.”

    When I said you have to look at these problems holistically I really mean it, and you’re not, your view is very myopic, and you’re missing a lot of connections which led to this backlash.
    So no, my theory isn’t baseless you’re just not seeing the big picture.

    “Your argument for its illegality is based on it being gambling, which as
    it stands is a personal opinion. As it hasn’t been decided by any
    gambling commission to be so, as it stands, you know due to them still
    investigating it! Therefore it is not a legal argument but a moral one
    you’re making.” – in my opinion it is gambling, which means that minors shouldn’t have access to it, which is a LEGAL argument. I’m not saying that gambling is immoral. I’m saying that loot boxes are gambling and by law they shouldn’t be accessed by minors. This is why I’m in favour of the commissions investigating them – something you have a major issue with for some reason.”

    Yes, it is your opinion and that’s all it is, there is no legal arguments, because there is no legal precedent set at the moment. And you claiming otherwise isn’t going to change that.

    “I don’t care what you like, and what you want to see in games.” – you asked me a question and I answered. Then you declared that you don’t care about what I like and dislike. Well, the feeling is absolutely mutual, but don’t you think it is rather dim of you to invalidate your own question like that?”

    Your answer was your opinion and I didn’t care for it, it does not undermine my own question, it’s just the dismissal of a week answer.

    “The only thing that matters is if there is a market for it! If there is a
    audience for micro-transactions and pay to win, then it will continue!
    You wanting it to go away isn’t going to make that so” – I actually agree. As long as people are paying for these cancerous practices they will exist and ruin games. The thing you fail to realise is that it is a minority of players who pay for those. It is the tyranny of the minority that is ruining the experience for the majority.”

    So you’d be quite happy to restrict what they can, and cannot purchase, that sounds more like the tyranny of the minority type thinking, I’m quite happy for them to waste their money on what they want. What I object to is the idea of any majority or minority attempting to restrict what other people wish to indulge in, especially if the status of their indulge is perfectly legal.

    “in fact you’re starting to sound like the minority of morons who want to censor games because of their own personal feelings being hurt. Sad.” – some more baseless accusations and personal attacks. Pathetic. If anyone here has their feelings hurt it is you. You abuse the exclamation mark in your arguments (if you can call them that) indicating your emotional state. You constantly repeat how you don’t care about what I think even though I’m responding to your questions. You resort to insults and personal attacks despite me being perfectly civil with you. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before judging how others sound.”

    Again offense is taken, never given, and as for me insulting you, there is a world of difference between me saying you sound like a particular type of person and me actually calling you that type of person, so you’re wrong on that.

    “That’s why my proposition for a voluntary and self regulating system
    would be best, as I’ve stated the Parental Advisory Label works. I
    would even be for an expansion on the Parental Advisory Label to
    supersede the current rating boards and encompass video games as well,
    if it wasn’t for the fact it falls under a organization that deals
    exclusively with the music industry.” – I’m fine with either as long as the gambling situation is handled.”

    Good, but going the legislative route is still bad.

    “And is if what you have in suggested isn’t speculation its self that it
    will be turned back on without changes, and considering we are now post
    Black Friday it’s pretty obvious that EA screwed the pooch on this one,
    so now it’s no longer the case of speculation. But more on the
    probability it’s less likely to come back in its original form.” – “probability” still means that you are speculating. There is no way of knowing in what form the MTs will return. I never said they won’t undergo changes, but DICE explicitly stated that they’ll bring them back.”

    Nothing wrong with speculation.

    “First, I will explain why it’s a good comparison, big named sequel with
    controversy preceding launch! Fails to meet predecessors sales numbers!” – except that the games are fundamentally different, the controversy is different and we don’t know the sales’ numbers for Wolfenstein. From where I’m standing it is a pretty bad comparison.!

    Reason why you see it as a bad comparison, as your measure is based on the characteristics of the product itself, and not the circumstance surrounding the product.

    Second, we now have a good representation of what happened on Black
    Friday, and it wasn’t good! In fact so much so you attempting to add the
    additional caveat, of well there is a movie coming out and we have to
    take that into account, frankly isn’t going to cut it, the damage has
    been done! Don’t believe me his some more evidence. http://archive.is/jHNer” – it is not my fault that you take 2 days to respond. How could I know what would happen of Black Friday before it happened? What you are doing here is called hindsight bias. Are you going to respond to me in a month saying that the movie didn’t boost the sales? It will be as fallacious then as it is now. What I’m saying is that we have to wait and see how much the backlash would effect the sales so that we can work with real numbers rather than speculating.”

    Hindsight bias, LOL. My earlier post on the 24th that contained the article that was posted on the 20th, quite clearly showing the 60% drop of Battlefront 2 compared to its predecessor was a pretty good indicator what was going to happen, and it doesn’t take a statistician to realize that things were not right, in fact it was pretty obvious that Black Friday sales were going to be dreadful.

    “Thirdly, the first one didn’t sell 12 million, it sold 14, please do your research it’s not that difficult.” – you do realise that this reinforces my
    argument, right?”

    No it doesn’t, it just shows that you cannot even bother to do a quick Google search.

    “Again I don’t care about your personal opinion on loot boxes, that’s
    your crusade, you can keep it to yourself! Or better go yet complain to
    some that likes loot boxes, because frankly I just don’t care.” – this is not a valid response to me stating that EA removing MTs from SWBF2 doesn’t solve the problem. Also I won’t keep it to myself. I will point out the problems I see with the practice – this is what these comment sections are for. You say you don’t care and yet you spend so much time white knighting for this terrible practice. Sure. I believe you.”

    The fact that I have to repeat myself constantly that I don’t care what your opinion is, is because you’re only argument is your opinion being “I don’t like loot boxes! Which I’m not interested in, so go take it and talk to someone else that will listen. And as for white knighting, only thing I would champion is vendors offering a service or product and customers right to use that service or product, with out busybodies pushing for more legislation in big messes which have already been shown that they can be resolved with out legislation.

  • Mr0303

    “Yeah, because it’s totally a Indy darling that a handful of West Coast
    elites played, and not a high profile license game with a long and will
    documented history, that went on to sell 5 million copies, but hey let’s
    just quibble about labels that referred to games budgets.” – you do know that there are games between AAA and indy, right? AAA has a very precise definition and it doesn’t fit into it.

    “Offence is taken, not given.” – I’m not offended by your pathetic attempts at an insult. Just pointing it out.

    “So, you’re on the side of the lunatics.” – I’m on the side of the people who want to declare loot boxes as gambling. I don’t see this as a lunatic position. This is your butthurt interpretation.

    “Did you even read what you posted? I’ll explain it to you, where it says
    *. Nonetheless, national legislation must comply with EU law. * What
    this means is EU legislation sets the baseline, if member states wish to
    pursue how they enforce their own laws they can, unless it contradicts
    EU legislation, so if the EU changes the law for age of participation in
    gambling to 25 years old, all member states will have to comply with
    this, if the EU passes legislation that states loot boxes are gambling,
    all members must enforce this, even if they have no legislation of
    their own covering loot boxes! This doesn’t reinforce your point, it
    actually reinforces mine, and what I’ve been saying all along.” – did you intentionally miss the part where this applies only to gambling that is cross-border? This means that countries still get to regulate their own gambling laws as long as said service doesn’t expand into other countries.

    “When I said you have to look at these problems holistically I really
    mean it, and you’re not, your view is very myopic, and you’re missing a
    lot of connections which led to this backlash.
    So no, my theory isn’t baseless you’re just not seeing the big picture.” – I’m not missing anything. Your comparison simply sucks. Just saying “big picture” doesn’t justify it. If your theory is not baseless, then could you please point to the evidence that shows that the Shadow of War MTs impacted the reaction to BF2’s? That would be really interesting to see.

    “Yes, it is your opinion and that’s all it is, there is no legal
    arguments, because there is no legal precedent set at the moment. And
    you claiming otherwise isn’t going to change that.” – claiming that something should or shouldn’t be legal may be my opinion, but it is also a legal argument. Gambling is not legal for minors. I think that loot boxes are gambling. Ergo my entire argument has a legal basis not a moral one like you tried to imply. You claiming otherwise isn’t going to change that. Given that the entire context here is about legislation I don’t know how your mind jumped to moral arguments, but still.

    “Your answer was your opinion and I didn’t care for it, it does not
    undermine my own question, it’s just the dismissal of a week answer.” – you asked for my opinion and then said that you don’t care. This invalidates your question since if you didn’t care you wouldn’t have asked in the first place. Also it is “weak” – learn to spell.

    “So you’d be quite happy to restrict what they can, and cannot purchase,
    that sounds more like the tyranny of the minority type thinking, I’m
    quite happy for them to waste their money on what they want. What I
    object to is the idea of any majority or minority attempting to
    restrict what other people wish to indulge in, especially if the status
    of their indulge is perfectly legal.” – I don’t care how it sounds like to you. I’ve made my position perfectly clear. I think loot boxes are gambling and shouldn’t be available for purchase to minors. This is why I’m in favour of declaring them that and restricting the availability of games that have them to adults only. If people still wish to buy those – they can be my guests, but a limit like this will seriously discourage designers from putting that crap in their games. This way a couple of whales won’t be able to make up for the loss of sales of the younger demographic.

    “Again offense is taken, never given, and as for me insulting you, there
    is a world of difference between me saying you sound like a particular
    type of person and me actually calling you that type of person, so
    you’re wrong on that.” – again, you are conflating me being offended with me pointing out your attempts at an insult. Are you seriously arguing that “you sound like” is not a direct comparison to the unflattering group of people that follows it? Do I really have to explain insults to you as well? So if I say “you sound like a crazy conspiracy nut, who blames the government for everything” in your head is not me calling you that, huh? Alrighty then.

    “Good, but going the legislative route is still bad.” – in your opinion and as we established I don’t particularly care for it.

    “Nothing wrong with speculation.” – sure, but it’s useless in an argument, since you can’t use your own speculation as evidence.

    “Hindsight bias, LOL. My earlier post on the 24th that contained the
    article that was posted on the 20th, quite clearly showing the 60% drop
    of Battlefront 2 compared to its predecessor was a pretty good indicator
    what was going to happen, and it doesn’t take a statistician to realize
    that things were not right, in fact it was pretty obvious that Black
    Friday sales were going to be dreadful.” – that again is hindsight bias. There was no way of knowing what Black Friday sales are going to be, since this is when the more casual crowd purchases their games as opposed to the day 1 buyers.

    “No it doesn’t, it just shows that you cannot even bother to do a quick Google search.” – so I have to explain to you how it reinforces my argument. OK. I said that despite its shortcomings the first Battlefront sold amazingly well, and cited the 12 million number. Then you said that it actually sold even more, which reinforces my argument. Glad I could help you with that.

    “The fact that I have to repeat myself constantly that I don’t care what
    your opinion is, is because you’re only argument is your opinion being
    “I don’t like loot boxes!” – now you are straw manning my position. My argument is that loot boxes are gambling and they should be labelled as such.

    “Which I’m not interested in, so go take it and talk to someone else that will listen. ” – given that you are misrepresenting my position, I suppose you are not listening to what I’m saying, which means that you are wasting my time.

    “And as for white knighting, only thing I would champion is vendors
    offering a service or product and customers right to use that service or
    product, with out busybodies pushing for more legislation in big messes
    which have already been shown that they can be resolved with out
    legislation.” – so by that logic every product should be available to purchase to every customer regardless of circumstances. OK. Your position is absolutist and lacking any nuance, but sure.

  • InkViper

    “Did you even read what you posted? I’ll explain it to you, where it says
    *. Nonetheless, national legislation must comply with EU law. * What
    this means is EU legislation sets the baseline, if member states wish to
    pursue how they enforce their own laws they can, unless it contradicts
    EU legislation, so if the EU changes the law for age of participation in
    gambling to 25 years old, all member states will have to comply with
    this, if the EU passes legislation that states loot boxes are gambling,
    all members must enforce this, even if they have no legislation of
    their own covering loot boxes! This doesn’t reinforce your point, it
    actually reinforces mine, and what I’ve been saying all along.” – did you intentionally miss the part where this applies only to gambling that is cross-border? This means that countries still get to regulate their own gambling laws as long as said service doesn’t expand into other countries.”

    You’re proposing a superfluous argument, no European member states as of yet has classified it as gambling, nor has the EU, however no matter how the member states classified loot boxes assuming that they even do, they would have to be ultimately compliant with any EU ruling if one takes place, this is a fact that you seem to conveniently ignore.

    “When I said you have to look at these problems holistically I really
    mean it, and you’re not, your view is very myopic, and you’re missing a
    lot of connections which led to this backlash.
    So no, my theory isn’t baseless you’re just not seeing the big picture.” – I’m not missing anything. Your comparison simply sucks. Just saying “big picture” doesn’t justify it. If your theory is not baseless, then could you please point to the evidence that shows that the Shadow of War MTs impacted the reaction to BF2’s? That would be really interesting to see.”

    Do you think GG happen spontaneously, a vast number of people including myself saw issues of the games press build over the last 10 years, it eventually came to a head, same with this. In fact your own irritation and objections to micro-transactions is testament to that, study your own attitude towards micro-transactions and I’m sure you’ll see the pattern, and if you can’t that’s your problem to solve.

    “Yes, it is your opinion and that’s all it is, there is no legal
    arguments, because there is no legal precedent set at the moment. And
    you claiming otherwise isn’t going to change that.” – claiming that something should or shouldn’t be legal may be my opinion, but it is also a legal argument. Gambling is not legal for minors. I think that loot boxes are gambling. Ergo my entire argument has a legal basis not a moral one like you tried to imply. You claiming otherwise isn’t going to change that. Given that the entire context here is about legislation I don’t know how your mind jumped to moral arguments, but still.”

    Take that ill-informed argument to a lawyer, and watch them laugh you out of their office, until loot boxes are classified as gambling, it is not a legal argument as you claim.

    “Your answer was your opinion and I didn’t care for it, it does not
    undermine my own question, it’s just the dismissal of a week answer.” – you asked for my opinion and then said that you don’t care. This invalidates your question since if you didn’t care you wouldn’t have asked in the first place. Also it is “weak” – learn to spell.”

    I can fix my spelling issues, but your inability to differentiate between a legal argument and a moral stance is going to take a lot more work, best you get cracking on that.

    “So you’d be quite happy to restrict what they can, and cannot purchase,
    that sounds more like the tyranny of the minority type thinking, I’m
    quite happy for them to waste their money on what they want. What I
    object to is the idea of any majority or minority attempting to
    restrict what other people wish to indulge in, especially if the status
    of their indulge is perfectly legal.” – I don’t care how it sounds like to you. I’ve made my position perfectly clear. I think loot boxes are gambling and shouldn’t be available for purchase to minors. This is why I’m in favour of declaring them that and restricting the availability of games that have them to adults only. If people still wish to buy those – they can be my guests, but a limit like this will seriously discourage designers from putting that crap in their games. This way a couple of whales won’t be able to make up for the loss of sales from the younger demographic”

    First, no “designer” makes that decision, it has always been the exclusive position of upper management and publishers to choose to incorporate micro-transactions. Second, if loot boxes were to be labeled gambling, and only appeared in M/18+ games what safeguards do you think are going to stop kids playing them, when we know for a fact a large percentage of kids are still playing COD and Grand Theft Auto, additional legislation isn’t going to solve that.

    “Again offense is taken, never given, and as for me insulting you, there
    is a world of difference between me saying you sound like a particular
    type of person and me actually calling you that type of person, so
    you’re wrong on that.” – again, you are conflating me being offended with me pointing out your attempts at an insult. Are you seriously arguing that “you sound like” is not a direct comparison to the unflattering group of people that follows it? Do I really have to explain insults to you as well? So if I say “you sound like a crazy conspiracy nut, who blames the government for everything” in your head is not me calling you that, huh? Alrighty then.

    Oh, conflation is definitely taking place, but I’m not the one doing it.

    “Good, but going the legislative route is still bad.” – in your opinion and as we established I don’t particularly care for it.”

    You may not care for my opinion, but it still right.

    “Nothing wrong with speculation.” – sure, but it’s useless in an argument, since you can’t use your own speculation as evidence.”

    Obviously speculation on its own cannot be used as evidence, but evidence can prove one’s own speculation correct, but that only becomes clear in time and with supporting facts, and the way the last seven days have played out, my speculation has been proven to be correct.

    “Hindsight bias, LOL. My earlier post on the 24th that contained the
    article that was posted on the 20th, quite clearly showing the 60% drop
    of Battlefront 2 compared to its predecessor was a pretty good indicator
    what was going to happen, and it doesn’t take a statistician to realize
    that things were not right, in fact it was pretty obvious that Black
    Friday sales were going to be dreadful.” – that again is hindsight bias. There was no way of knowing what Black Friday sales are going to be, since this is when the more casual crowd purchases their games as opposed to the day 1 buyers.

    Refer to my previous comment.

    “No it doesn’t, it just shows that you cannot even bother to do a quick Google search.” – so I have to explain to you how it reinforces my argument. OK. I said that despite its shortcomings the first Battlefront sold amazingly well, and cited the 12 million number. Then you said that it actually sold even more, which reinforces my argument. Glad I could help you with that.”

    I wouldn’t be so boastful, considering your argument has already been proven incorrect, plus you don’t get to absolve yourself from your numerical error.

    “The fact that I have to repeat myself constantly that I don’t care what
    your opinion is, is because you’re only argument is your opinion being
    “I don’t like loot boxes!” – now you are straw manning my position. My argument is that loot boxes are gambling and they should be labelled as such.”

    Don’t undersell your position, I believe you stated that you don’t believe loot boxes should be in fully priced games .” – single or multiplayer loot boxes have no place in fully priced games.” Not just having a label that states it contains gambling.

    “Which I’m not interested in, so go take it and talk to someone else that will listen. ” – given that you are misrepresenting my position, I suppose you are not listening to what I’m saying, which means that you are wasting my time.”

    Oh I understand your point perfectly, I just think it’s irrelevant.

    “And as for white knighting, only thing I would champion is vendors
    offering a service or product and customers right to use that service or
    product, with out busybodies pushing for more legislation in big messes
    which have already been shown that they can be resolved with out
    legislation.” – so by that logic every product should be available to purchase to every customer regardless of circumstances. OK. Your position is absolutist and lacking any nuance, but sure.”

    Yes I am an advocate for the free market as it stands, but at no point have I suggested the abolishment of all legislation, so no, don’t be so sure on what you think my position is.

  • Mr0303

    “You’re proposing a superfluous argument, no European member states as of
    yet has classified it as gambling, nor has the EU, however no matter
    how the member states classified loot boxes assuming that they even do,
    they would have to be ultimately compliant with any EU ruling if one
    takes place, this is a fact that you seem to conveniently ignore.” – if the gambling is cross-border. If not the countries can define their own rules for gambling like the UK did. You should stop ignoring that point.

    “Do you think GG happen spontaneously, a vast number of people including
    myself saw issues of the games press build over the last 10 years, it
    eventually came to a head, same with this. In fact your own irritation
    and objections to micro-transactions is testament to that, study your
    own attitude towards micro-transactions and I’m sure you’ll see the
    pattern, and if you can’t that’s your problem to solve.” – so no evidence then? I asked you for concrete proof about the MTs in Shadow of War impacting the reaction to SWBF2. GG was fact based and clearly showed all the connections between the different people and outlets. You are doing none of that here.

    “Take that ill-informed argument to a lawyer, and watch them laugh you
    out of their office, until loot boxes are classified as gambling, it is
    not a legal argument as you claim.” – so now you are doing an appeal to authority (an imaginary one at that). I should let you know that this is a logical fallacy. Saying “a lawyer will probably agree with me” is a non-sequitur for what I said. Arguing that something should or shouldn’t be legal is a legal argument no matter how much you try to deny it.

    “I can fix my spelling issues, but your inability to differentiate
    between a legal argument and a moral stance is going to take a lot more
    work, best you get cracking on that.” – it seems that you are having problems with both of those things.

    “First, no “designer” makes that decision, it has always been the
    exclusive position of upper management and publishers to choose to
    incorporate micro-transactions. Second, if loot boxes were to be labeled
    gambling, and only appeared in M/18+ games what safeguards do you think
    are going to stop kids playing them, when we know for a fact a large
    percentage of kids are still playing COD and Grand Theft Auto,
    additional legislation isn’t going to solve that.” – believe it or not the monetisation of the game is sometimes part of the design. The order may come from the publisher (when there is one – mobile games with MTs are usually developed by a couple of people), but the game designers are responsible for the implementation. This is why DICE is handling the situation. Second, if loot boxes are to be labelled gambling and that forces an 18+ rating it will at least discourage publishers from putting them in. Also a clear label may even give those kids a hint that they should stay away from games that have them.

    “Oh, conflation is definitely taking place, but I’m not the one doing it.” – actually you are the one doing it and I explained in great detail why, which of course you refused to address and resorted to a simple denial.

    “You may not care for my opinion, but it still right.” – only in your head.

    “Obviously speculation on its own cannot be used as evidence, but
    evidence can prove one’s own speculation correct, but that only becomes
    clear in time and with supporting facts, and the way the last seven days
    have played out, my speculation has been proven to be correct.” – thank you for defining to yourself how hindsight bias works. Once we have the facts you declare that your speculation was fact all along. If you read my posts carefully (something you said you don’t do), you would find that it was my position that we need to wait until all the major holidays have passed to see how effective is the backlash.

    “I wouldn’t be so boastful, considering your argument has already been
    proven incorrect, plus you don’t get to absolve yourself from your
    numerical error.” – as I said the bigger number only reinforces my argument. I’m happy to admit that I was even more correct than I initially thought.

    “Don’t undersell your position, I believe you stated that you don’t
    believe loot boxes should be in fully priced games .” – single or
    multiplayer loot boxes have no place in fully priced games.” Not just
    having a label that states it contains gambling.” – yes, I agree. That was absolutely my position. It is not however “I don’t like loot boxes”, like you suggested above. Either way you knowingly misrepresented my position in order to minimise it, which is very dishonest of you.

    “Oh I understand your point perfectly, I just think it’s irrelevant.” – which is why you felt the need to strawman my position, right?

    “Yes I am an advocate for the free market as it stands, but at no point
    have I suggested the abolishment of all legislation, so no, don’t be so
    sure on what you think my position is.” – so everything present so far is OK, but any future change of legislation is out of the question? Alrighty then.

  • Ghost

    “Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child.”

    I have no idea who would give debit cards to children to purchase with

  • Ghost

    Do you know what else is addictive and harmful to children? SMARTPHONES

  • FreshSnug

    Still young enough to think anything good will come out of government interference I see.

  • FreshSnug

    That has nothing to do with anything I just said.

  • FreshSnug

    Are you retarded? No don’t answer that. I know the answer, and the government does too.

  • grgspunk

    Abso-fuckin’-lutely. The only way you can put down a big corporation with lots of money to fuck with people is with an even bigger institution with even more money to deter their fuckery.

  • Mr0303

    If anything this conversation proved that you know very little.

  • FreshSnug

    You didn’t respond to a single thing I pointed out. No matter how corrupt the government gets you’re the dumbass who will trust them to the ends of the earth.

  • FreshSnug

    Yeah the government is not your friend m8. They’re not going to do anything unless there’s money to be made.

  • Mr0303

    No I won’t trust them. This is the stawman you constructed in your head.

    Also you are not the one to talk about not responding after you refused to point to a single evidence for your statements in regards to the situation at hand. The frankly lunatic position that we have to expect the worst all the time from the government is absolute nonsense. Government corruption is an issue, but they are there to serve a function and sometimes they do act in the interests of the people who voted them in.

  • grgspunk

    It might not be, especially not with some orange-haired manchild in the oval office, but I’ll make an exception in this case. I gotta work with what I got.

  • FreshSnug

    That’s what you don’t get. You don’t have anything at all.

  • FreshSnug

    The evidence always comes after the fact. What kind of government just lets everyone know what their intentions are? They are there to serve a function sure, and they haven’t served it for decades. Why would they start now?

  • Mr0303

    Evidence doesn’t work like that. You’d have to show something to validate your statements.

    Decades? Really now? Governments are there to enforce the law, borders and build the countries infrastructure. Unless you are talking about some failed dictatorships in Africa they are functioning as intended. Corruption is an issue, but it is not an argument to not use the government as a tool to accomplish goals.

  • FreshSnug

    Maybe in your little fantasy world it’s perfectly alright to ask a government to not fuck things up. I’m afraid I just can’t be as optimistic as you.

  • Mr0303

    Yes, it is perfectly alright because they do it every day. If they didn’t society would crumble.

    You are not just less optimistic, you are fatalistic assuming the worst case scenario all the time, which is unrealistic.

  • FreshSnug

    You wouldn’t call what society is doing now crumbling? Maybe if we didn’t live in a world in which the government peddles child sex slaves I could say I’m being unrealistic, but we don’t. This world is a little too fucked up.

  • Mr0303

    No, I wouldn’t. We’re at the highpoint of civilisation. Evil people have always existed in positions of power. This doesn’t meant that society as a whole is not functioning.

  • FreshSnug

    At what point would you say society is collapsing?

  • Mr0303

    When there’s anarchy. Same question for you. What makes you say that it is?

  • FreshSnug

    That’s far too simple and suggests that tyranny wouldn’t be included. I had a much longer message here but at the end of the day it’s because I feel like I get betrayed every time I turn around. Maybe I’d think it was realistic to trust the government if they hadn’t betrayed us at least a hundred times this year. How often do you have to hear that a government official did something wrong before you lose all faith in government officials? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? I just can’t trust them even a little anymore, and neither should you.

  • Mr0303

    Tyranny doesn’t meant that society has crumbled. There have been tyrannical governments before and eventually they are overturned.

    “because I feel like I get betrayed every time I turn around.” – well, facts don’t care about your feelings. And again – I don’t trust them, but I expect them to function from time to time.

  • FreshSnug

    Semantics. Feelings don’t have anything to do with how often a politician is caught fucking up. Here you are asking me to write an essay and you you have the nerve to talk about feelings? Christ almighty if anyone lives under a rock it’s you.

  • Mr0303

    I didn’t ask you to write an essay. I asked you what makes you believe that society is crumbling and you simply responded that you feel betrayed. I’m sorry, but this is not an objective reason for that position. Subjective feelings – sure, but this doesn’t constitute a valid argument.

    Also your personal attacks do not help your argument. Unlike you I never suggested that you live under a rock.

  • InkViper

    “You’re proposing a superfluous argument, no European member states as of
    yet has classified it as gambling, nor has the EU, however no matter
    how the member states classified loot boxes assuming that they even do,
    they would have to be ultimately compliant with any EU ruling if one
    takes place, this is a fact that you seem to conveniently ignore.” – if the gambling is cross-border. If not the countries can define their own rules for gambling like the UK did. You should stop ignoring that point.”

    If that were the case with micro-transactions and pay to win loot boxes, who the hell are you gambling with!? Yourself, or some computer server.
    The fact of the matter is the loot box mechanic is localize on the machine you’re playing with, not server-based in another country, with the laws may differ, all you would have done is purchase what ever the in game currency is, that in itself isn’t an act of gambling.

    “Do you think GG happen spontaneously, a vast number of people including
    myself saw issues of the games press build over the last 10 years, it
    eventually came to a head, same with this. In fact your own irritation
    and objections to micro-transactions is testament to that, study your
    own attitude towards micro-transactions and I’m sure you’ll see the
    pattern, and if you can’t that’s your problem to solve.” – so no evidence then? I asked you for concrete proof about the MTs in Shadow of War impacting the reaction to SWBF2. GG was fact based and clearly showed all the connections between the different people and outlets. You are doing none of that here.”

    I gave you a perfectly good example how a prolonged and continuous problem that repeats itself can contribute to a backlash, if you’re not interested in taking this into account, that’s your problem.

    “Take that ill-informed argument to a lawyer, and watch them laugh you
    out of their office, until loot boxes are classified as gambling, it is
    not a legal argument as you claim.” – so now you are doing an appeal to authority (an imaginary one at that). I should let you know that this is a logical fallacy. Saying “a lawyer will probably agree with me” is a non-sequitur for what I said. Arguing that something should or shouldn’t be legal is a legal argument no matter how much you try to deny it.”

    I don’t need to explain to you what the function of law is, but loot boxes are not covered by the law, therefore from a legal standpoint the law and current legislation dealing with games of chance, do not recognize them as gambling, legally speaking. And your belief that they should be covered by the law, is based purely on a personal perspective that it is gambling. As morality is a internal perspective, one could argue you are making a moral argument, but if we really break it down what you have advocated for is one that would affect an external group within society, the best characterization of this type of argument would be one that is ethical in nature, not a legal one.
    This is why I made the remark about no lawyer would ever agree with you, as you constantly insist upon your own argument being legal in nature.

    “I can fix my spelling issues, but your inability to differentiate
    between a legal argument and a moral stance is going to take a lot more
    work, best you get cracking on that.” – it seems that you are having problems with both of those things.”

    I think honestly you just projected. I’ve made no such case for a moral or ethical argument, and unlike you I’ve not been so petty to point out one of your own spelling mistakes.

    “First, no “designer” makes that decision, it has always been the
    exclusive position of upper management and publishers to choose to
    incorporate micro-transactions. Second, if loot boxes were to be labeled
    gambling, and only appeared in M/18+ games what safeguards do you think
    are going to stop kids playing them, when we know for a fact a large
    percentage of kids are still playing COD and Grand Theft Auto,
    additional legislation isn’t going to solve that.” – believe it or not the monetisation of the game is sometimes part of the design. The order may come from the publisher (when there is one – mobile games with MTs are usually developed by a couple of people), but the game designers are responsible for the implementation. This is why DICE is handling the situation. Second, if loot boxes are to be labelled gambling and that forces an 18+ rating it will at least discourage publishers from putting them in. Also a clear label may even give those kids a hint that they should stay away from games that have them.”

    Were not talking about mobile freemium games here, although I do get your point about that market, but where not that market, where the ones who buy full priced retail titles, and it’s the full priced retail title market that revolted. And trust me on this no label is going to stop some kid playing those games, that’s down to the parents making those decisions, the labels are for their benefit.

    Oh, conflation is definitely taking place, but I’m not the one doing it.” – actually you are the one doing it and I explained in great detail why, which of course you refused to address and resorted to a simple denial.”

    Seriously, I make a joke and you take it as a directed insult , and you have the balls to say I’m conflating!

    “You may not care for my opinion, but it still right.” – only in your head.”

    You wish.

    “Obviously speculation on its own cannot be used as evidence, but
    evidence can prove one’s own speculation correct, but that only becomes
    clear in time and with supporting facts, and the way the last seven days
    have played out, my speculation has been proven to be correct.” – thank you for defining to yourself how hindsight bias works. Once we have the facts you declare that your speculation was fact all along. If you read my posts carefully (something you said you don’t do), you would find that it was my position that we need to wait until all the major holidays have passed to see how effective is the backlash.”

    That would only be true if I hadn’t based my speculation on the first day sales, something you completely ignored.

    “I wouldn’t be so boastful, considering your argument has already been
    proven incorrect, plus you don’t get to absolve yourself from your
    numerical error.” – as I said the bigger number only reinforces my argument. I’m happy to admit that I was even more correct than I initially thought.”

    The sell numbers for the previous game doesn’t reinforce anyone’s argument, it only goes to highlight the underperformance of Battlefront 2 more so, and your point about wait-and-see also holds no water. You didn’t take into account the temperament of gamers on social media, and how they’ve been expressing themselves in regards to prelaunch controversies, (which was my point about Wolfenstein) and you out right dismissed the evidence of the poor first day sales. So no, you’re argument doesn’t have any validation.

    “Don’t undersell your position, I believe you stated that you don’t
    believe loot boxes should be in fully priced games .” – single or
    multiplayer loot boxes have no place in fully priced games.” Not just
    having a label that states it contains gambling.” – yes, I agree. That was absolutely my position. It is not however “I don’t like loot boxes”, like you suggested above. Either way you knowingly misrepresented my position in order to minimise it, which is very dishonest of you.”

    How can I misrepresent your point when you have been so vague, outside of saying loot boxes have no place in fully priced premium titles.

    “Oh I understand your point perfectly, I just think it’s irrelevant.” – which is why you felt the need to strawman my position, right?”

    Your opinion is, you’re not a fan of loot boxes, I’ve not missed characterized it, I just merely dismissed it, that’s not strawmaning, it’s dismissal, learn the difference.

    “Yes I am an advocate for the free market as it stands, but at no point
    have I suggested the abolishment of all legislation, so no, don’t be so
    sure on what you think my position is.” – so everything present so far is OK, but any future change of legislation is out of the question? Alrighty then.”

    Yep, pretty much.

  • Mr0303

    “If that were the case with micro-transactions and pay to win loot boxes,
    who the hell are you gambling with!? Yourself, or some computer server.
    The
    fact of the matter is the loot box mechanic is localize on the machine
    you’re playing with, not server-based in another country, with the laws
    may differ, all you would have done is purchase what ever the in game
    currency is, that in itself isn’t an act of gambling.” – you are gambling against the in game mechanics. Since this is local to your machine each country should be able to regulate that on their own.

    “I gave you a perfectly good example how a prolonged and continuous
    problem that repeats itself can contribute to a backlash, if you’re not
    interested in taking this into account, that’s your problem.” – no, your example wasn’t valid, because as I pointed out the two situations are not comparable and you refused to show how the MTs in Shadow of War impacted the reaction to SWBF2. It’s not my fault that you can’t defend your statements.

    “I don’t need to explain to you what the function of law is, but loot
    boxes are not covered by the law, therefore from a legal standpoint the
    law and current legislation dealing with games of chance, do not
    recognize them as gambling, legally speaking. And your belief that they
    should be covered by the law, is based purely on a personal perspective
    that it is gambling. As morality is a internal perspective, one could
    argue you are making a moral argument, but if we really break it down
    what you have advocated for is one that would affect an external group
    within society, the best characterization of this type of argument would
    be one that is ethical in nature, not a legal one. ” – so by your reasoning arguing about legal issues is not a legal argument until there’s a precedent to be followed. That’s absurd. What we’re currently looking at is the legal definition of gambling and whether or not loot boxes fit in it or whether it should be expanded to include them. By the same flawed logic lawmakers are not making legal arguments when devising a new law.

    “This is why I made the remark about no lawyer would ever agree with you,
    as you constantly insist upon your own argument being legal in nature.” – no, you made a logical fallacy to appeal to authority and you refuse to admit it. If I said that a lawyer would agree that my argument is a legal one it would be equally as fallacious.

    “I think honestly you just projected. I’ve made no such case for a moral
    or ethical argument, and unlike you I’ve not been so petty to point out
    one of your own spelling mistakes.” – oh, really? So when you said “That’s why I find everyone celebrating this as a victory, repugnant!” in your initial post wasn’t that moral posturing on your part? Also you were petty enough to argue exactly how many millions SWBF sold, so I’m fully justified to be petty right back at you.

    “Were not talking about mobile freemium games here, although I do get
    your point about that market, but where not that market, where the ones
    who buy full priced retail titles, and it’s the full priced retail title
    market that revolted. And trust me on this no label is going to stop
    some kid playing those games, that’s down to the parents making those
    decisions, the labels are for their benefit.” – I wouldn’t trust you on anything. Even in the full priced market there are F2P games and they were explicitly designed with MTs in mind. I don’t care if it’s the kids or the parents, as long as there’s a black spot on the game indicating this crap it’ll be for the better.

    “Seriously, I make a joke and you take it as a directed insult , and you have the balls to say I’m conflating!” – so I should’ve taken the “Fuck you” as a joke, huh? Sorry, but I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

    “That would only be true if I hadn’t based my speculation on the first day sales, something you completely ignored.” – I didn’t ignore it I specifically said that we should wait to see the entire scale of the backlash, which you dismissed.

    “The sell numbers for the previous game doesn’t reinforce anyone’s argument” – yes, it does. I specifically said that despite the backlash and the lack of features the first Battlefront sold amazingly well. Saying it sold more than I cited reinforced that argument.

    “How can I misrepresent your point when you have been so vague, outside
    of saying loot boxes have no place in fully priced premium titles.” – now you claim that I’ve been vague, huh? Any other excuse you are willing to throw in there to justify misrepresenting my position? I explicitly said that I think loot boxes are gambling and shouldn’t be offered to minors, but let’s ignore that shall we?

    “Your opinion is, you’re not a fan of loot boxes, I’ve not missed
    characterized it, I just merely dismissed it, that’s not strawmaning,
    it’s dismissal, learn the difference.” – yes, you were strawmanning by omitting any other arguments I’ve made for not having loot boxes in games accessible by minors. I suppose you dismissed that from my statements and lied that the entirety of my argument was my distaste for the practice, which is what I expect from you at this point.

    “Yep, pretty much.” – man, you must really hate changes in legislation. You must flip your shit every time there’s a change in leadership.

  • InkViper

    How’s it going Mr. hypocrite! See you removed your liked video list, that’s okay got the archive! http://archive.is/Z0rEB lol…

  • Mr0303

    No need for an archive, Mr Stalker. You can see all the videos I liked.

  • FreshSnug

    I feel betrayed because I bloody well am betrayed. And you do live under a rock. Politicians colluding with Russia, waging wars for money, creating ISIS–why the fuck you would you trust them to do anything? You call this functioning?

  • Mr0303

    Yes, I am aware of corruption and problems with it and no I do not live under a rock despite your constant assertions to the contrary. This still doesn’t mean that everything the government does is evil, that they are not functioning and that society is crumbling. The fact that the law enforcement, military and the city infrastructure are in place are a testament to that.

    Unless of course your argument is that everything that’s not perfect is not functioning as intended.

  • FreshSnug

    Enough of it is. And no, I don’t think the government is functioning as intended at all. It just shows how used to their shenanigans you’ve become. It doesn’t phase you a bit anymore.

  • Mr0303

    ” And no, I don’t think the government is functioning as intended at all.” – any evidence of that? Is it complete anarchy where you live? No right of life, liberty and property? Must be quite a hellhole of a country.

    “It doesn’t phase you a bit anymore.” – how about you don’t presume what does and doesn’t phase me? I’m getting a bit tired of you morally judging me for not adopting your anarchist position. I clearly stated that corruption is a problem, but this doesn’t mean that the whole system is broken, but somehow you chose to ignore that.

  • FreshSnug

    The number of people the government straight up fucks both literally and physically is inexcusable, and I’ll presume whatever I damn well please about you and your hopeless optimism about a government that has clearly shown time and time again that it cannot be trusted to anything right. I’m not an anarchist. I’m just opposed to the government as it is now. The system is broken–it’s only there to serve corporate interests which coincidentally means we need to be kept around so that they have someone to buy their nonsense.

  • Mr0303

    “The number of people the government straight up fucks both literally and physically is inexcusable” – “literally”, lol. I’m not sure you know what this word means. Could you point to the literal penetration apparatus of the government?

    “and I’ll presume whatever I damn well please about you” – so you openly admit of being intellectually dishonest. Good to know. Not that it wasn’t obvious from your constant avoidance of addressing the issues of functioning parts of the government, which by the way are not optimism, but realism.

    “I’m not an anarchist. I’m just opposed to the government as it is now.” – so you do admit that the government is necessary and can be useful. Finally.

  • FreshSnug

    Actually I do mean literally. Remember the child sex slaves I mentioned earlier? Of course a form of government is necessary, but the government as it is now is just a corporate tool.

  • Mr0303

    Unless every person in the government has literally fucked said child sex slaves you don’t mean literally. Or you do and still don’t know the meaning of the word.

  • FreshSnug

    It’s a generalization knob. Generalizations don’t necessarily apply to 100% of anything. Obviously.

  • Mr0303

    It’s not a generalisation, it’s idiocy. I wanted to demonstrate to you how fucking child sex slaves is not a function of the government, but rather corrupt individuals within it.

    Your argument holds the same validity as the feminists’ “all men are rapists”, despite the ones actually committing said crime are an absolute minority, but I guess they are generalising as well.

  • FreshSnug

    An absolute minority? I suppose it shouldn’t concern anyone when Bill Clinton was among them should it? Oh what about when it’s someone working with the president? Still not a big deal right? I suppose as long as it’s just a few of them regardless of their positions you can just hand wave it away because oh “not all politicians!” It’s not a reaaaal problem. Besides that’s just ONE of many problems. Don’t you even take a cursory glance at the news at all or are you just playing video games? Legislation for lootboxes would just be an excuse to introduce something else–you know something they actually give a fuck about (not you), and it will suit corporate interests not yours. What that might be I don’t know, yet–but ironically enough their excuse will be the same one they’ve always used. Think of the children. Well they’re thinking about them alright.

  • Mr0303

    “An absolute minority?” – yes, the ones that have dealings with child sex slaves are a minority unless you have evidence to the contrary. I know you are not a fan of evidence, but large claims require those.

    “It’s not a reaaaal problem.” – how about you stop being dishonest for a second, put a break on your moral outrage and re-read what I wrote, huh? I never suggested that those criminals shouldn’t be held accountable, but rather that their existence is not proof that the entire system is not working. That’s like saying that because some of the postal workers are criminals you shouldn’t expect your mail to be delivered.

    “Don’t you even take a cursory glance at the news at all or are you just playing video games?” – yes, I do follow the news and believe it or not this doesn’t mean that I have to agree with your positions on everything. Also was the video game part supposed to be a jab of some sort? Playing video games doesn’t reduce my competency in other areas.

    “Legislation for lootboxes would just be an excuse to introduce something else” – just like the government didn’t let the industry self regulate with the rating boards or how they introduced “something else” with all the other gambling restrictions. All for the purposes of eeeeeeviiiiil!

    “What that might be I don’t know, yet” – imagine my shock.

    “their excuse will be the same one they’ve always used. Think of the children.” – yeah! That line of reasoning is only fine when you use it!

  • FreshSnug

    As long as there’s brain activity in the boxer you won’t count him out huh? Well that’s up to you m8. I’m not so optimistic.

  • Mr0303

    No, as long as the boxer is swinging in the ring he’s doing his job regardless of the fact if he’s taking drugs outside the ring.

  • laserlanolsen

    But you can’t very well call him proper at the very least right? Can we at least agree he’s a scumbag that can’t be trusted to do the right thing?

  • Mr0303

    I can call him a proper boxer and he can be trusted to swing his fists in the ring. People are free to call him a scumbag.

  • laserlanolsen

    Oh come off it. A proper boxer who does every performance enhancing drug you can think of and blackmails his opponents? Plz

  • Mr0303

    You keep altering the metaphor to the point where it doesn’t relate to the situation at hand. Not only that, but I specifically said “outside the ring” a couple of posts above.

  • laserlanolsen

    Well it’s not exactly comparable to what the government does. At the end of the day we just disagree as to what degree of fucked up is proper in a functioning government. You’re perfectly alright with whatever, and I’m not.

  • Mr0303

    “You’re perfectly alright with whatever, and I’m not.” – I’m tired with your dishonesty and constantly misrepresenting my position. Saying that the government functions to some degree doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do, but I guess it is easier to argue with strawmen than addressing my arguments at face value.