Loot Boxes deemed gambling and illegal in Belgium, Netherlands....go under intense scrutiny elsewhere!

[BlackSpawn]

Many of us have been aware for a long time of the fact that loot boxes, key crate RNG and similar microtransactions are essentially paid games of chance for items of money worth (or reasonable proxy) aka. gambling. These virtual slot machines are introduced into games as a money sink: One that makes the title esentially have no price ceiling nor cooldown between additional purchases or expenditures; One that preys especially on minors and on at risk and vulnerable individuals but ultimately on the population at large under the pretense of an "optional" addition to a title; One that is quite literally shoehorned into the otherwise functional title with a singular purpose. However, these systems are invariably designed in such a way as to goad the player into partaking in the system (either via drops, market, ingame store, key crate gambling, paid mods via community made cosmetics, etc.) and use the game itself as a neverending loop of marketing by exposing the customer to such items and monetization. The customer makes him/herself suggestible to such conditioning and manipulation by surrendering to the virtual world that is supposed to be an inocuous, fun and enjoyable experience rather than a carefully designed and thinly veiled virtual casino / online marketplace inside a game.

WELL....

FINALLY, the gaming population at large has made their voices heard about these anticonsumer, predatory practices! After the fallout from EA's poorly conceived implementation of paid to win loot boxes tied to game progression on Star Wars Battlefront 2, a number of countries and governmental bodies / gambling authorities all over the world have begun to pay notice to said practice...and some are acting!
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-wars-battlefront-2s-loot-box-controversy-expl/1100-6455155/

Hawaii introduced several loot box related bills:
https://www.vg247.com/2018/02/13/hawaii-loot-boxes-bills/

Netherlands was the first country to classify certain loot boxes as gambling, and illegal. They gave video game publishers a timeline to REMOVE illegal loot boxes by mid June 2018:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherlands-declares-some-loot-boxes-are-gambling

Belgium soon followed and declared that the penalty would be a fine AND potentially prison for those that violate the law:
https://screenrant.com/loot-boxes-illegal-belgium-netherlands/
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43906306

UK Gambling Authority and the US overall have lagged behind in their consideration of loot boxes as gambling. Only the Washington Gambling Commission gave Valve a notice about them, and Valve responded by disabling external websites that used Steam API to gamble with Steam Marketables but stopped at that.
https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/5/13176244/washington-gambling-commission-demands-end-to-valve-cs-go-skin
https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/18/13318326/valve-fires-back-at-washington-state-gambling-commission-over-cs-go-betting

A case raised in US courts where Valve was named in the suit related to "illegal gambling" in CSGO was thrown out of court / did not proceed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2017/04/04/illegal-gambling-case-concerning-csgo-is-kicked-out-of-court/#619833221495

Additional european countries are scrutinizing loot boxes and predatory monetization of the gambling type in games (Of note, the de facto European Union capital is located in Brussels, Belgium) and Netherland's Gaming Authority stated their interest in loot box legislation / regulation throughout the European Union member states.

Summary of attempts at loot box legislation in USA, including the latest bill introduced in Minnesota on 4/24/2018.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=04c83f73-6a42-43ec-baf3-dd30b7094ab0
Loot box bill introduced in Minnesota legislature: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4460&version=0&session=ls90&session_year=2018&session_number=0


Its a good day where, finally, legislations around the world are seeing loot boxes for what they really are. What took so long!? If one thing is clear from all of this, is that developers, publishers and storefronts cannot be trusted to have a fair, conscientous and morally minded limit with regards to predatory monetization in their games...even if they are PAID and not F2P.

Videos discussing the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNiVSj9uzTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JygNQ_n22U

Relevant Opinion Article (2/2018):
https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/20/loot-boxes-should-face-gambling-regulation/

Official Statement Belgian Gaming Commission:
https://www.koengeens.be/fr/news/2018/04/25/loot-boxen-in-drie-videogames-in-strijd-met-kansspelwetgeving
Google english translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://www.koengeens.be/news/2018/04/25/loot-boxen-in-drie-videogames-in-strijd-met-kansspelwetgeving&prev=search

Official Statement Dutch Gaming Authority:
https://www.kansspelautoriteit.nl/publish/library/6/press_release_loot_boxes_19_april_2018_-_en.pdf

[Tito Shivan]

Първоначално публикувано от TheStoryteller01:

So on what basis can the Netherland court call lootboxes gambling when there is no ownership?

The problem isn't about ownership, it's about the ability to cash out the items.

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

Correct, we don’t own steam games. They will vanish with steam if it goes down.

You've never 'owned' any piece of software. Not even those non-drm'd retail games discs.

Първоначално публикувано от ≈The•Siscus≈:

Digital games are one thing, digital goods are another thing. Lootboxes and items from them are something you actually own,

Actually no.
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/

You also understand and acknowledge that Subscriptions traded, sold or purchased in any Subscription Marketplace are license rights, that you have no ownership interest in such Subscriptions, and that Valve does not recognize any transfers of Subscriptions (including transfers by operation of law) that are made outside of Steam.

Just like software, you don't 'own' in game items.

[Meh...]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от TheStoryteller01:

So on what basis can the Netherland court call lootboxes gambling when there is no ownership?

The problem isn't about ownership, it's about the ability to cash out the items.

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

Correct, we don’t own steam games. They will vanish with steam if it goes down.

You've never 'owned' any piece of software. Not even those non-drm'd retail games discs.

Първоначално публикувано от ≈The•Siscus≈:

Digital games are one thing, digital goods are another thing. Lootboxes and items from them are something you actually own,

Actually no.
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/

You also understand and acknowledge that Subscriptions traded, sold or purchased in any Subscription Marketplace are license rights, that you have no ownership interest in such Subscriptions, and that Valve does not recognize any transfers of Subscriptions (including transfers by operation of law) that are made outside of Steam.

Just like software, you don't 'own' in game items.

the subscriber agreement is such a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ even horse laugh at it. NOBODY reads it and its the biggest scam ALL companies pull it. Its the "I win" button in case someone is right. The customer is not always right when you have a monopoly . With real competition Valve will change that ♥♥♥♥.

[The•Siscus]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от TheStoryteller01:

So on what basis can the Netherland court call lootboxes gambling when there is no ownership?

The problem isn't about ownership, it's about the ability to cash out the items.

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

Correct, we don’t own steam games. They will vanish with steam if it goes down.

You've never 'owned' any piece of software. Not even those non-drm'd retail games discs.

Първоначално публикувано от ≈The•Siscus≈:

Digital games are one thing, digital goods are another thing. Lootboxes and items from them are something you actually own,

Actually no.
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/

You also understand and acknowledge that Subscriptions traded, sold or purchased in any Subscription Marketplace are license rights, that you have no ownership interest in such Subscriptions, and that Valve does not recognize any transfers of Subscriptions (including transfers by operation of law) that are made outside of Steam.

Just like software, you don't 'own' in game items.

Well now, my friend, this is actually what I'm saying. Why did you ' ' the word owned? Because it's a borderline situation about the essence of the digital content.

You have a very restricted range of action with a "game licence" (you want to "delete" a game from Steam? Fine, but you don't actually delete the licence, you can't trash a licence, you can't "trade" a licence, you actually trade the right to activate this licence to another person, but after the activation everything is put to an end, considering the present laws).

On the other side, you can delete/use/keep/combine an object bought in a game store/dropped from lootboxes, BUT, as I said, the real owner (so I talk the language of the Steam Contract) has still an ascending on the user. If it's more comfortable to you, we can call this a "limited ownership" and on this interpretation the nation (or international in the case of European Union, where I live) lawyers put their work.

These are just my 2 cents, waiting the next months/years to see what will happens. I really like these types of discussion, civil and constructive.
Peace

[Crazy Tiger]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от TheStoryteller01:

So on what basis can the Netherland court call lootboxes gambling when there is no ownership?

The problem isn't about ownership, it's about the ability to cash out the items.

Plus the fact that chance determines which items you get. It's the combination of the two, it gives the items economic value. According to Dutch law, companies need a gambling license to offer such things.

[Tito Shivan]

Първоначално публикувано от patje.lol:

Plus the fact that chance determines which items you get. It's the combination of the two, it gives the items economic value. According to Dutch law, companies need a gambling license to offer such things.

The moment you can't sell or trade it, it loses the economic value. I.E. My Overwatch skins. They work as much as CSGO cases, but can't be traded or sold. Hence they hold no economic value.
Now CSGO skins don't have it either for Dutch users.

Първоначално публикувано от ≈The•Siscus≈:

Well now, my friend, this is actually what I'm saying. Why did you ' ' the word owned?

Because you don't 'own' software in the same sense you 'own' a music CD (ironically, owning a CD grants no ownership of the songs within), a book or a table. Software is licensed.

People toss around the term ownership way too loosely for the real implications the term has.

[TheStoryteller01]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от patje.lol:

Plus the fact that chance determines which items you get. It's the combination of the two, it gives the items economic value. According to Dutch law, companies need a gambling license to offer such things.

The moment you can't sell or trade it, it loses the economic value. I.E. My Overwatch skins. They work as much as CSGO cases, but can't be traded or sold. Hence they hold no economic value.
Now CSGO skins don't have it either for Dutch users.

Първоначално публикувано от ≈The•Siscus≈:

Well now, my friend, this is actually what I'm saying. Why did you ' ' the word owned?

Because you don't 'own' software in the same sense you 'own' a music CD (ironically, owning a CD grants no ownership of the songs within), a book or a table. Software is licensed.

People toss around the term ownership way too loosely for the real implications the term has.

Since Gutenberg printed his Bible in the 1450ies there has never be any doubt that
a) if you buy a book you physically own it and you are entitled to lend, sell or simply destroy it.
b) but that you still have no ownership whatsoever on the content.

Let's not make things more complicated than they have been for the last 560 years.

[RiO]

Първоначално публикувано от Alpha Centauri:

This dutch tactic

The Dutch authorities didn't order Valve to block marketplace transactions and trades.

Valve themselves took a look at the definition of the Dutch law they should be complying with, and found the easiest technical solution that allowed them to comply was not to remove the gambling mechanics, but make it impossible to trade or sell the items gained from it.

That takes away their economic value and makes lootboxes no longer fall under the strict definition of gambling as codified in Dutch law.

I.e. they found a loophole and went for it.

Първоначално публикувано от BSLeavingLasVegas:

I've said this before and I'll proabably keep saying this until I die: gamers seem to LOVE cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Not as much as companies love to find legal loopholes or employ least-effort solutions to preserve sleazy methods of income, I can assure you. That's the real problem here.

Първоначално публикувано от BSLeavingLasVegas:

What do you want Valve to do? Completely redesign the loot system of their games (TF2, DOTA2 and CS:GO all have lootboxes) and to do it solely for the Dutch market? What's the trade-off value for that? Is it worth the time and energy for Valve to even do that? Would it be better and easier for them to simply not have their F2P games available in the Netherlands?

I would want Valve to mark only the items that come out of the lootboxes as non-tradable and non-marketable. And leave the remainder of the marketplace and trades open.

It's not like it would take them that much time to set-up either. Because 90% of what they need is already there:

There is already a geo-fencing infrastructure available for the marketplace and trading system, which is currently being used to carpet-ban all CS:Go and DOTA2 market and trade transactions for Dutch accounts.

And there is already a method to mark certain items gained under particular conditions as non-tradable and non-marketable, albeit with a cooldown period until they do become tradable and/or marketable.

Just about the only thing necessary would be the ability to remove said cooldown and keep the items always marked non-tradable and non-marketable. In an emergency situation, you could even mark the lot of it with a cooldown expiring in two centuries, and then add a small hack to the UI to not display the timer if the cooldown is that far in the future.

That should literally take no more than a week to build; test and roll-out. And Valve has had two months to work on this.

[Crazy Tiger]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от patje.lol:

Plus the fact that chance determines which items you get. It's the combination of the two, it gives the items economic value. According to Dutch law, companies need a gambling license to offer such things.

The moment you can't sell or trade it, it loses the economic value. I.E. My Overwatch skins. They work as much as CSGO cases, but can't be traded or sold. Hence they hold no economic value.
Now CSGO skins don't have it either for Dutch users.

I know. I was just pointing out that it's the combination of the two (random element and able to trade) that deems them illegal. It's even emphasized on the website of the Kansspelautoriteit that it's both together which counts.

[Derpy Moo]

Първоначално публикувано от patje.lol:

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

The moment you can't sell or trade it, it loses the economic value. I.E. My Overwatch skins. They work as much as CSGO cases, but can't be traded or sold. Hence they hold no economic value.
Now CSGO skins don't have it either for Dutch users.

I know. I was just pointing out that it's the combination of the two (random element and able to trade) that deems them illegal. It's even emphasized on the website of the Kansspelautoriteit that it's both together which counts.

And because they are virtual items with no physical existence. Otherwise tradable card games would have been banned a long time ago.

[Tito Shivan]

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

And because they are virtual items with no physical existence. Otherwise tradable card games would have been banned a long time ago.

IIRC the Kansspelautoriteit was inquired about TCGs in this regard and the answer they gave is they don't see any issue in TCGs like MtG or Pokemon and don't consider them gambling because they've been around for 20 years without issue... Which is kind of a baffling response. (And tell me a 3ºed Black Lotus doesn't have economic value and I'll laugh 7 days to sunday)

[RiO]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

And because they are virtual items with no physical existence. Otherwise tradable card games would have been banned a long time ago.

IIRC the Kansspelautoriteit was inquired about TCGs in this regard and the answer they gave is they don't see any issue in TCGs like MtG or Pokemon and don't consider them gambling because they've been around for 20 years without issue... Which is kind of a baffling response. (And tell me a 3ºed Black Lotus doesn't have economic value and I'll laugh 7 days to sunday)

Their full answer is more nuanced, with additional considerations.

Opening a pack of trading cards is not accompanied by flashy slot-machine-like effects aimed at raising dopamine levels.

Putting cards to market and converting them into real world money is not as straightfoward. They require physically travelling to a trade meet-up or require long delays from postage. The markets are decentralized, whereas for games there are typically one or two large and well-known, easily accessed online markets. In the case of Valve's games, those markets are even directly exploited by Valve itself.

etc.

[Tito Shivan]

Първоначално публикувано от RiO:

Their full answer is more nuanced, with additional considerations.

Opening a pack of trading cards is not accompanied by flashy slot-machine-like effects aimed at raising dopamine levels.

I guess TF2 did it best at opening crates by that metric.
"Uncrating your loot 3...2...1..."

I've never been a fan of all the flasiness around opening them (basically because I know it's all theatrics and a waste of time)

Първоначално публикувано от RiO:

Putting cards to market and converting them into real world money is not as straightfoward. They require physically travelling to a trade meet-up or require long delays from postage.

That sounds like pre-internet trading card marketplaces. I know a few people still playing MtG and nowadays everything is way more streamlined and have online marketplaces (still they're physical objects that need to be delivered)

All the discussion is way more nuanced than people makes it to be.

[Derpy Moo]

Първоначално публикувано от Tito Shivan -75%:

Първоначално публикувано от Jo Schmo:

And because they are virtual items with no physical existence. Otherwise tradable card games would have been banned a long time ago.

IIRC the Kansspelautoriteit was inquired about TCGs in this regard and the answer they gave is they don't see any issue in TCGs like MtG or Pokemon and don't consider them gambling because they've been around for 20 years without issue... Which is kind of a baffling response. (And tell me a 3ºed Black Lotus doesn't have economic value and I'll laugh 7 days to sunday)

I know they do, last year I sold 6 alpha/beta power 9 I had laying around for several years. Still got a ton of old stuff from 93/94 I will sel at some point.

[Anderson]

Everyone knows that any ban can be circumvented by proxy, VPN 3'rd world backwater country where chaos reigns supreme The initiative on regulating loot boxes should come from developers and not countries. The impact of national laws can be only so limited. Other consumers all over the world are abused. Profits of devs are up into space. If devs such as Valve await reactionary laws, the risk is that the cure can be worse than the illness.

Recently, the focus on loot boxes finally runs Team Fortress 2 into the grave. Users Idling and bots are the new normal. No content updates for a few years except adding new loot boxes and some cosmetics. Free to Play users cannot chat or use microphone in a game about teamwork. Not nice.

The people who leave online games will not come back anytime soon if loot boxes is all that developers care about. Loot boxes need to be on some 3'rd party site with warnings like in a casino that you can lose everything and that you confirm on your own responsibility that you are 18 years old etc. Or just ban loot boxes. Don't get me wrong. Microtransactions where you know what you buy is fine. DLC is too. Even if both can be overpriced. Any decision to buy is at the discretion of the user.

Portal 2 works great without loot boxes, despite having some microtransactions. Of course microtransactions never kicked off there in the first place, but the store still works and it's still one of the highest rated games ever on Steam.

TLDR - make games not loot boxes.