[Article] Loot boxes and Gambling in SA
A bit late to the game with this one, but if you want to know if loot boxes are considered as gambling in terms of SA law, here you go: http://www.nickhallsa.co.za/2017/12/07/lets-talk-about-loot-boxes-and-gambling/
TL:DR No they aren't
TL:DR No they aren't
Comments
I know that wouldn't work in law, as the law currently stands. Because it is possible to say that the purpose of the game is to play it and not distribute loot boxes.
But it feels like loot boxes being a lottery is in the spirit of that law, and the law simply didn't anticipate loot boxes.
Also, I feel like a lot is hinging on video games not being real spaces, and so currency within them also isn't real. But the people playing don't always behave that way. And companies are definitely exploiting the fact that to many players stuff in the game has real value.
I don't buy the Wizard's of the Coast argument that because the cards are only valuable on an unsupported market that they aren't giving away things of value on a gambling/lottery style system. Firstly, Wizards does support the market when they sell the cards to the market (those stores are selling brand new cards, not just second hand ones). Secondly the cards are widely distributed on places like eBay and Amazon, their value is widely understood and appreciated.
I say this as a person who once spent R15,000 on Magic Cards over a couple months (and I definitely regret doing so, this was long before I had had any financial success in game development).
I think as our civilization progresses it's likely people will spend more time in virtual spaces, and legislating those spaces as just fun and unreal is irresponsible when people are spending real money for the stuff in them (often to life crippling effect).
I'd love to see an article on the CryptoKitties game - seeing as this really does cross over between entertainment and money.
https://medium.com/@aidobreen/how-does-cryptokitties-co-work-e5071c0abf73
But as you say, as we move to a more digital world I can see us moving away from a strict 'fiat currency as a sole determinant of value' system to something a bit more fluid.
@dammit I'll check it out (I'm not familiar with the game at all)
I'd honestly be pretty happy if the industry got heavily regulated from outside in this regard. At least initially it'd only negatively affect companies that have shown themselves willing to do their players harm.
That said, the industry has been saved from governmental intervention in the past through self-regulation. I don't want this trend to revers., I guess it comes down to whether the big companies are so greedy that they push things too far.
And given that most of the big companies are now publicly traded, and their shareholders don't give a shit about players, I kind of expect this industry to push things too far (arguably they already have, the wrath of governments is already having an effect).
I mean, these companies have been harming their players for a long time already. It's not like they didn't know what they were doing. Governments are starting to step in because there hasn't been self-regulation thus far.
Also BTW you are terrible at spelling my handle correctly :P
I get the impression our industry is determined to push this issue until breaking point.
The App Store has set up some guidelines where developers have to state what the odds on Loot Boxes are, I cannot imagine this curtailing the destructive gambling effects in the slightest. (Unless I'm misunderstanding something about gambling behaviour?).
Part 1:
AND
Part 2:
So it looks like some Belgium and the Netherlands are banning some aspects of loot boxes, and these rulings may get broader in time. And some other parts of Europe may follow. And this of course comes as a condemnation of our industry's unwillingness to self-regulate.
Here's the thing that really irks me:
Our industry's response to the pressure to remove loot boxes has included some arguments that jobs would be lost if loot box style monetization was more regulated.
This to me seems like bullshit. And I'm embarrassed that developers who should understand complex systems seem to buy into it (obviously not all developers, but I've seen developers parroting this talking point).
Here's my reasoning, and please call me out if I've misunderstood the economics:
Loot boxes (and similar monetization techniques) exist in games that are designed to be played for 100s or 1000s of hours. Often endless multiplayer or social games. In the marketplaces where these games exist there are a handful of games that are played by the vast majority of the player base. (For instance the MOBA genre in which 4 to 6 games dominate while all their competitors fail).
These games, like DOTA2 or Fortnite, then are run as games as a service for years, which employ developers and marketeers to continue updating and promoting these games. But they don't employ nearly as many people in this phase of development and the profits go to the company owners and investors.
In analogous spaces like free-to-play on mobile we see the marketplaces being even more top-heavy than ever before. With fewer games making more money and continuing development and promotion indefinitely. And while this isn't mostly due to loot boxes, my point is that these endless games that dominate their marketplaces and can be continually monetized and promoted and hold onto players for years are super good for investors, and pretty good for marketing jobs, but actually pretty lousy for developer jobs.
I think there's reason to dislike loot boxes on an ethical front, in that loot box monetized games will be disproportionately paid for by minors and people with poor self control, and these games could do actual financial damage to their players. But I also think from a career perspective loot boxes help enable an ecosystem which is very top heavy, where a fewer companies win, but when they win they win big.
Without loot boxes (and similar systems) I don't think we'd see a big drop in money going into games (maybe some, if we assume players stop playing Fortnite and watch some movies instead), but the money that is going into games would be going into more games with fewer blockbuster hits sucking up all the money and player time in the ecosystem.
This top-heavy ecosystem (which seems likely to only become more top-heavy on PC and consoles if something doesn't change) obviously favours the publicly traded companies (like EA and Activision), or companies with massive profit-driven investors (like Epic), and that's why these companies have been lobbying against regulation on loot boxes, and spreading (what I see as) actual lies about loot boxes supporting jobs in the industry.
I honestly believe the opposite is true, that in many cases loot boxes bring more wealth to the billionaire class at the cost of jobs.
I honestly wish that IESA and trade bodies like the ESA were prioritizing supporting developer jobs. But obviously billionaires pay them to lobby on their behalf. Of course IESA has much smaller donors, but I imagine it's a political game, and IESA needs favour from the people sponsored by billionaires.
*I know not everyone who owns or invests in a company like Epic is a billionaire, but my point is that there is a class of people quite dissimilar to ourselves in their economic position telling us what is best for us (and it frustrates me that some of us believe it).
While most games like this are horridly anti-consumer I actually think there is a place for them. Fortnite, for instance, has only cosmetic items. I've had a ton of fun in Fortnite and spent exactly zero money. But when the new season starts I'll likely buy a Battle Pass for R100.
I should mention though that I've only played the free BR mode, which has no lootcrates. I haven't played STW (although I will once it goes F2P later this year).
CSGO is another example. I have about 1500 hours in it, and have spent about R200 total (that's one hell of a good cost/fun ratio), half of which I've probably got back by selling the skins that drop. As with Fortnite, CSGO is only cosmetics. There are cases with random drops in them, but after losing money on opening about 2 of them I only buy/trade single skins now. On the other hand a friend opened a case the other day and got R1500 gloves, so maybe cases work for the 1%.
So I guess from a player perspective I actually like cosmetics in game. And since I'm talking only about individual skin stores, maybe I'm in the wrong thread.
My concerns about loot crates are honestly partly selfish. I don't want the games industry to become driven by these block buster hits, I want players to play a variety of games and occasionally one of them mine. I also care about the ethics and the harm gambling-esque systems can cause to vulnerable players.
My one thing from a player's perspective about loot-crates... and compulsion systems in general... is that I want to see a lot of variety in games, I want to play with a lot of different toys... and endless games, when they do hook me, I kind of feel I waste a lot of time (like I have a few 100 hours in Dota, and I think 30 hours would have been more than enough). I want variety in my life, and while as a game developer I recognize the need to keep people motivated to play my games, as a player I don't want to get so hooked to a game that I end up doing repetitive things and that I see fewer games and have fewer unique experiences as a result.
Although... actually... I keep forgetting. I did once spend R15,000 on Magic the Gathering cards at a time I couldn't afford it (back in 2009, while I was trying to save up to spend more time pursuing game development), and I didn't get much joy for that money. Not exactly loot boxes, but that does form part of my dislike for them (I'm unlikely to ever again let myself be tricked in that way, but as a result I empathize strongly for those who are being tricked by these systems).
I think it's obvious that loot boxes are psychologically identical to gambling, but regulators need evidence if they are going to regulate. So this may be a step in that direction.
Of course the big publishers are going to try present counter research. And given their net worth and the lobbying efforts I already assume are underway, I can't see a country like America doing regulation any time soon. Though Australia is less swayed by money, and more concerned about its public health.
Aside from the ethical concern, again I want to point out, for most indie games loot boxes are a bad thing. They support the ability to produce endless games that capture players for long periods of time. If we're selling premium games we want players to finish experiences and consider playing something else, rather than endlessly playing a small number of games. Loot Boxes also support a shift into free to play games for PC and console titles, and that produces a difficult ecosystem for premium titles to compete in (as has already happened on mobile).
In general, Free To Play dominated ecosystems are even more top heavy than the current status quo on PC and Steam, meaning fewer games taking even more of the money, and vast sums being spent on marketing instead of development.
I think regulators are going to have a hard time classifying loot boxes as gambling until they actually amend legislation to that effect, but all this movement suggests we will probably see the banning of, or the heavy regulation of, loot boxes in games in the EU within the next 5 years.