UK Government - loot boxes

[ads2003uk]

So despite the UK government being provided with evidence and agreeing with this evidence, they have stated that there is a link between gambling and in game Loot boxes, BUT it will not be regulated.

BBC News - Government says video game loot boxes will not be regulated

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

Im in disbelief that they've basically said yeah it's gambling but sod it let them waste their cash.

These loot boxes are harmful to many kids, as a number of reports have proven.

 

[bamberfishcake]

I don't share your disbelief.

It's a loot box, like a lucky dip. You can either buy one for the chosen game or not.

If there is a problem with your kid spending money then restrict their payment options.

Whats next? Source of wealth for a COD expansion pack?

 

[ads2003uk]

I don't have kids but many of my friends have told me how there kids have ended using thier parents cards to obtain these boxes.

But then its also not just kids though that play the games.

Government forces mobile providers and Google to enable spending controls to prevent over spend on purchase in Mobile phone games.
This is exactly the same.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Just cause some spotty uni bod says there is a link between this and problem gambling doesn't mean another bandwagon should be jumped on.

How much micromanaging of your money do you want?

If your kid is spending too much then here is a radical idea - stop them.

If they bitch and moan about not having the latest skin or newest map perhaps you should teach them about materialistic things and their actual value in real life.

Considering most shopping is done online, I see these kind of purchases like going to a shop and buying a board game - if you've got the money buy it, if not don't. Doesnt need regulation, needs parents to stop pussyfooting about with their kids

 

[dunover]

Loot Box Megaways up next.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Seriously though, all form of shopping is addictive to a degree, were bred for it, please.

 

[pinnit2014]

Just cause some spotty uni bod says there is a link between this and problem gambling doesn't mean another bandwagon should be jumped on.

How much micromanaging of your money do you want?

If your kid is spending too much then here is a radical idea - stop them.

If they bitch and moan about not having the latest skin or newest map perhaps you should teach them about materialistic things and their actual value in real life.

Considering most shopping is done online, I see these kind of purchases like going to a shop and buying a board game - if you've got the money buy it, if not don't. Doesnt need regulation, needs parents to stop pussyfooting about with their kids

To be fair to the OP i think it's the inconsistency in message.

Quite happy to have a PR release over fining 888.com and problem gamblers, but when there's a practice that hints at linkages between kids and gambling, it's a shrug of the shoulders.

 

[bamberfishcake]

To be fair to the OP i think it's the inconsistency in message.

Quite happy to have a PR release over fining 888.com and problem gamblers, but when there's a practice that hints at linkages between kids and gambling, it's a shrug of the shoulders.

No offence meant to the OP, Its just with whats going on in the world at the minute its a nothing story from the BBC, and an issue created, not real.

I fail to see any link between problem gambling and in-game loot boxes. It's a product, games are addictive, so is buying chocolate for some.

 

[aceking123]

Loot Box Megaways up next.

It's already arrived bonanza)

 

[Webzcas]

This has been going on for several years now and has been covered here on Casinomeister before:

Loot Boxes Should be Banned say MPs
Loot Boxes in the Firing Line Once Again
Belgian Regulator Decides That Loot Boxes Are Gambling - Casinomeister

And also on Casino Gazette:

House of Lords call for Regulation of 'Loot Boxes' Immediately
Loot Boxes Come in for Further Criticism
More Calls for Loot Boxes to be Classed as Gambling
60% of British Public Think Loot Boxes Should be Regulated as Gambling

Personally I believe they should be regulated as a gambling product.

 

[interlog]

No offence meant to the OP, Its just with whats going on in the world at the minute its a nothing story from the BBC, and an issue created, not real.

I fail to see any link between problem gambling and in-game loot boxes. It's a product, games are addictive, so is buying chocolate for some.

What you or I think about it doesn't matter though. The fact is that the regulator that was more than happy to take away quickspins and autoplay from us, recognises that there is a link between these loot boxes and gambling but then doesn't want to regulate it. Inconsistency at best.

 

[pinnit2014]

That's the thing, they love harping on about gambling related harms yet, when it comes to talking about possible 'gateways' to it, they are ambivalent at best. Pretty much means to me, at least, their MO, is predicated on what hits the media/gets more traction.

So lets care about the current addicts but not about possible future ones, via the social media means? Odd at best.

 

[Webzcas]

What you or I think about it doesn't matter though. The fact is that the regulator that was more than happy to take away quickspins and autoplay from us, recognises that there is a link between these loot boxes and gambling but then doesn't want to regulate it. Inconsistency at best.

Oh I agree with you, nothing there to not argue with. Loot boxes are much worse than autoplay and quickspins - which IMO are features which increase enjoyment.

Loot Boxes lead to spending a bucket load of money and that is their sole intention.

 

[pinnit2014]

If we're targeting certain types of games - banning autoplay/bonus buys etc then why haven't they touched Slingo? I know myself i've got carried away more on that than any bonus buy game....i think you're more likely to do your salary in that type of game as well....but again, consistency: they don't know what they're meant to be regulating.

 

[shadow123]

Got to agree about Slingo, evil personified.I have played ever one going and despite years of experience sometimes still get my balance
wiped out in seconds chasing .Even at 10p starting stake you can rack up a £50 loss without filling the board.
Doubt whether the UKGC have ever even seen or played one

 

[mack341]

from the bbc article:

Video game publishers have been told they must bring in "sufficient measures" to govern player safety, such as protecting vulnerable adults and fully disclosing the odds of getting certain items from loot boxes.

That is actually more specific useful info than slot players get, rtp figures based on billions of spins.

 

[pinnit2014]

from the bbc article:

Video game publishers have been told they must bring in "sufficient measures" to govern player safety, such as protecting vulnerable adults and fully disclosing the odds of getting certain items from loot boxes.

That is actually more specific useful info than slot players get, rtp figures based on billions of spins.

1 in million odds for a 500x in Bonanza might even test the most ardent of fans

 

[jasonuk]

It's a loot box, like a lucky dip. You can either buy one for the chosen game or not.

If there is a problem with your kid spending money then restrict their payment options.

This is assuming the parent is made aware in the first place - a number of publishers have gone out of their way to evade having "microtransactions" or "lootboxes" on their age rating, only to bring them in a couple of weeks later - too late to update the boxes, not mentioned in the launch reviews, but the evil still lurks.

At the tamer end of the spectrum I would concur - you finish purchasing all the consumables for a "modest" price (perhaps £100 or £150) and that's the end. While you can feel that you've paid too much, you can't get into too much trouble because there is a finite limit.

The nasty end is quite different though - you've got more chance of seeing two monopoly money streamers hitting the same game round of jammin jars than you have of acquiring some of these headline unique drops (potentially millions to one).
The games are designed to frustrate you in a way that you "need" lootboxes to progress, will use the same tried-and-tested mechanics that real casino games use, but with the added benefit (to them) of making the average lootbox reward so low to be worthless - e.g. in the case of Overwatch, 30 credits is 1/100th of a single legendary skin in the latest event. Plenty of stories of people spending £2k, £5k, £10k or more on lootboxes, and in some cases (particularly FIFA) still not getting the item they wanted!

With a number of countries already regulating it as gambling, game developers are starting to shy away from the mechanic anyway given the regulatory burden (similar to them quickly abandoning "it's the future, not a cash grab" NFTs that were clearly a cash grab), but it's not going away any time soon and while education is a big part of it, responsible gambling tools and safeguards are a necessary part of it also.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Shall we remove Kinder Eggs from the market because of the element of surprise? Its a perfectly reasonable comparison made by the regulator for me.

How about packs of playing cards? Sticker Albums with gold editions or similar?

Buy this packet of walkers for a chance of a red letter day.

Collect 20 packs of Pringles for a chance to win FA Cup boxes.

And so on....

When do salesmanship and the marketing of a product reach a point where it can be related to gambling harm? The crossovers must be a bored campaigners wet dream. They'll be regulating your bowel movements next, and recording water and paper usage.

 

[bamberfishcake]

How about the regulation of lucky dips at the fun fair?

I hear some hardcore gamblers have been linked to a lucky dip experience from travelling fairs in the 80s

 

[Kroffe]

Imo lootboxes & microtransactions ruins games.
Many are technically free to play, but its literally years of grinding the game every day to get to the same place as someone dropping a couple €100 on lootboxes.

You dont have to buy lootboxes, unless of course you want to be able to compete vs people that do.

Lootboxes: 0/10

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

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

 

[jasonuk]

If we're targeting certain types of games - banning autoplay/bonus buys etc then why haven't they touched Slingo? I know myself i've got carried away more on that than any bonus buy game....i think you're more likely to do your salary in that type of game as well....but again, consistency: they don't know what they're meant to be regulating.

Slingo is a great example, because it shows the "intensity" issue in action. 10p a spin, get carried away in trying to get a full house and next thing you know it's 500x or 600x in...

The gaming sector are very eager to cause confusion by conflating lootboxes (medium-high cost, high volume, high frequency, high perceived prize value, lots of bells and whistles and personalised alerts) with things of very different intensity profiles like kinder eggs and trading cards (low-medium cost, low volume, low frequency, low perceived prize value, occasional adverts on TV / social media) because it allows them to avoid being regulated. It's clearly a fight they're happy to take on when they know the tap being turned off could cost them tens of billions per year...

 

[dunover]

Shall we remove Kinder Eggs from the market because of the element of surprise? Its a perfectly reasonable comparison made by the regulator for me.

How about packs of playing cards? Sticker Albums with gold editions or similar?

Buy this packet of walkers for a chance of a red letter day.

Collect 20 packs of Pringles for a chance to win FA Cup boxes.

And so on....

When do salesmanship and the marketing of a product reach a point where it can be related to gambling harm? The crossovers must be a bored campaigners wet dream. They'll be regulating your bowel movements next, and recording water and paper usage.

The difference is that when you get a ticket in a product like crisps it's an add-on to the existing value of the intrinsic product which doesnt vary - you still get your 25g of crisps to enjoy regardless, it's just an advertising feature. A Kinder Egg also gives a guaranteed amount of chocolate plus a convenient plastic container if you like inserting hidden drugs upon your person, and a guaranteed bit of plastic crap. A loot box is totally speculative in that you are buying something with no specific fixed value or guaranteed content which could be worth far less, or in rare cases, a far more than you pay. Therefore the whole basis for the sale is speculative thus it's effectively gambling.

In all the examples of physical products you give, you still get the minimum product with the caveat that the producer has spent a bit of cash on providing a possible prize for the consumer as an extra, as opposed to the possibility of substantial value being the whole basis for the product which encourages speculative purchase for one reason only.

Of course, you could argue the picture of a big porker sitting watching TV under a mountain of crisp packets, suffering from salt poisoning as they consume packet after packet of crisps while chasing the prize, or a child doing the same covered in layers of chocolate vomit by an overflowing plastics recycling bin full of eggs and toys but there's no evidence this occurs in the wild as people generally understand the odds against winning.

 

[The Dude]

Excuse my ignorance, but about 60% of us don't know what "Lootboxes" are. What are they?

 

[dionysus]

Excuse my ignorance, but about 60% of us don't know what "Lootboxes" are. What are they?

add-ons for online games mostly
For example, OUAT, I played online games (and yeah, they were fun, addictive and major time-sucks) , and you could purchase character benefits to increase your game/character performance.

 

[dionysus]

The ill-effect, is you could drop, say 20 bucks (not bad really, like any vice) to increase your game or character performance. to enjoy more. But, you could drop...literally, hundreds to thousands of dollars to keep 'par'

 

[dionysus]

I'll give you a personal example. I used to play MMA (Marvel Avengers Alliance (this was an early FB game).
I did enjoy it immensely (I still talk to and have made true genuine friends from the game, we talk 10 years later, we talk about our lives, families, and even though none of us play any more, we are pretty damned good friends).

The game however, encouraged you, to purchase add-ons to compete.
Wasnt bad then.
A tenner here and there. It was really, same as buying a new game or a tenner in a slot.
But, it became more.....and more.....and more.
And ive seen people drop a bill...or a few bills to play
I cant really truly imagine since them. But I can undsterstand how kids could spend a thou

 

[4048]

Though both my favorite games employ loot boxes extensively, I honestly would prefer if more countries followed the Netherland's lead and banned lootboxes entirely, simply because it would force game devs to be more creative (making good games rather than good loot).

I do think loot boxes should be treated the same way casino games are though, blanket ban at aiming them for kids. Adults can make up their own minds.

 

[The Dude]

I'll give you a personal example. I used to play MMA (Marvel Avengers Alliance (this was an early FB game).
I did enjoy it immensely (I still talk to and have made true genuine friends from the game, we talk 10 years later, we talk about our lives, families, and even though none of us play any more, we are pretty damned good friends).

The game however, encouraged you, to purchase add-ons to compete.
Wasnt bad then.
A tenner here and there. It was really, same as buying a new game or a tenner in a slot.
But, it became more.....and more.....and more.
And ive seen people drop a bill...or a few bills to play
I cant really truly imagine since them. But I can undsterstand how kids could spend a thou

Thank you. I fell much smarter today than I was yesterday.

 

[bamberfishcake]

@Casinomeister Loot boxes, as Dio explained, are add-ons for a game that cost x amount and you might get ten in-game items like weapons, armour, skins etc. Items are ranked so you might get 5 common items (weapons, armour, potions, skins etc), 3 uncommon, and a legendary, rare, epic or similar.

Been a while since I played these types of games, and probably because the idea of buying to compete doesn't float my boat. But, before, they would tell you the chances of what to expect.

I agree with most of what's being said, but I don't see it as something that needs regulation.

And after taking away auto-play, bringing in the intrusive sow to control how I spend my money, banning bonus-buys etc, I don't want or think I need any more legislation. It surprises me that many members think its a good idea.

Where does it end? If the study shows a link between children wanting loot boxes then perhaps a discussion needs to be had between parent and child. Not legislate the masses for the sake of a minority again. Do we need to stop a sportsmans bet, or stop saying to our kids 'wanna bet?'.

Teach, don't oppress.

Its bureaucratic poppycock. Unnecessary. And the report that shows a link is out of context with the bigger picture. If there is a link between problem gambling and loot boxes then thousands of other products and marketing come into question. Need to draw a line and I think the line was drawn exactly where it should have been.

It's about educating your kids, and maybe tightening up on access to your payment details. I see it as another mountain out of a molehill that will probably limit me from doing what I want in the future.

 

[The Dude]

It's about educating your kids, and maybe tightening up on access to your payment details. I see it as another mountain out of a molehill that will probably limit me from doing what I want in the future.

It's about teaching kids the value of money, and how not to waste it for crap. And teaching them "you can't always get what you want". And "Give me your phone, and go outside and play."

 

[johnnybagel]

I'm with Bamber on this one.

If kids spend too much money then take their access to the money away. Parent them and deal with the tantrum, don't ask everyone else to do it for you.

Also, loot boxes do give the purchaser something, and the thing they buy is specific to the game and can;t be 'cashed in' which is what the report said was a key element in their thinking. It's not technically gambling according the the gambling act. Even then, the Gov want to monitor it for a while and see how industry led measures effect things before they start red taping everything, so they arent just saying "Nah mate its fine".

Spending controls already exist on a lot of the games by the way, and the stats didnt look all that bad to be honest. I'm sure there will be people out there getting into trouble with loot boxes, but that number is tiny.

 

[ads2003uk]

I'm glad my post has got so much debate and it's interesting to see both sides.

Part of the original report did focus on criminal acts to obtain funds to play.
This was quite surprising and concerning - I've heard of kids going down CEX trading in stuff to get funds for game add-ons but committing criminal acts to obtain funds is a worry.

Whilst these games are aimed at kids, there is still a large number of adults play these and get sucked into the rabbit hole of purchases.

An ex's 16yr old son used to play that Coinmaster game - turned out he was spending 100's of pounds a month on coin and bonus items to better level up.

 

[TheAddict]

Seen some vids on tube with the youth of today opening those boxes. The sheer levels of excitement when getting a good card really shows just how bad Roshstien is at faking it

 

[ads2003uk]

Roshstine fakes it?
I always thought "Demo" next to the balance was a new currency ?

But your right, the jubilation all though looks fake, can be for some quite real especially when they've already invested heavily.

The young lad from the UK that won £1m from playing Fortnite spent just shy of £100k over the course of the tournament.
Now that's shocking.

They spend £80 on 12000 FIFA points to purchase FIFA packs.
There was an Instagram video that showed the guys affiliated to football teams are spending a few thousand to compete

 

[4048]

I'm glad my post has got so much debate and it's interesting to see both sides.

Part of the original report did focus on criminal acts to obtain funds to play.
This was quite surprising and concerning - I've heard of kids going down CEX trading in stuff to get funds for game add-ons but committing criminal acts to obtain funds is a worry.

Whilst these games are aimed at kids, there is still a large number of adults play these and get sucked into the rabbit hole of purchases.

An ex's 16yr old son used to play that Coinmaster game - turned out he was spending 100's of pounds a month on coin and bonus items to better level up.

These games aren't aimed at kids for the most part, although that is possibly the largest concern.

The games, very similarly to casino games, are aimed at "whales".

And while I don't really see to much harm in buying a couple of keys and crates on CSGO for a few dollars a pop (I've spent more than I'd like to admit on DotA 2 cosmetics for example), when Blizzard hides core gameplay elements behind a $25 paywall (rifts in Diablo Immortal) and leaves it as the only way to obtain player power, I fear the industry has taken steps towards a future that no one wants.

And since I mentioned keys and crates, at least Valve was nice enough to publicly ban skin gambling, and I'm pretty sure that there is a €400 weekly limit on in-game purchases on Steam, unless you contact them directly to have the limit lifted. Baby steps but at least in the right direction.

 

[jasonuk]

Been a while since I played these types of games, and probably because the idea of buying to compete doesn't float my boat. But, before, they would tell you the chances of what to expect.

This happened because of regulation - the Chinese Ministry of Culture in 2016 mandated the disclosure of drop probabilities, and thus the information could be inferred for other regions as well. The companies were asked voluntarily to provide the information prior to that and they refused.

These games aren't aimed at kids for the most part, although that is possibly the largest concern.
The games, very similarly to casino games, are aimed at "whales".

A lot of the terminology and design comes from the casino sector - so it's understandable the tension it creates having "regulated" casino-like mechanics in an unregulated environment, particularly when game developers are opaque regarding information and behaviour.

As you say there's been a lot of investment in cultivating "whales" - an oft-cited report by Swrve (

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

quoted) estimated that 1.5% of players spend, but the top decile of those make 50% of the revenue for the company... so 1/600th of the player base potentially generates 50% of the revenue. If they can get those whales (through game design, through personalised notifications, through gambling mechanics) it can make a considerable difference to the bottom line.

And since I mentioned keys and crates, at least Valve was nice enough to publicly ban skin gambling, and I'm pretty sure that there is a €400 weekly limit on in-game purchases on Steam, unless you contact them directly to have the limit lifted. Baby steps but at least in the right direction.

Valve had nearly three years to intervene (the enabling feature was added in August 2013), so feels like they waited until the pressure got too much. Once the CSGO Lotto scandal hit in July 2016 - and the FTC were starting to investigate the influencer-owners for not disclosing that information - the media coverage and subsequent outrage jumped significantly and Valve started to put some blocks in place. While it's not as big or visible as it was in 2016, it still happens - for example PUBG disabled steam trading in 2018 to prevent a repeat scenario occurring.

 

[jasonuk]

I know there's already been some confusion in the thread, so I want to add some clarification:

The young lad from the UK that won £1m from playing Fortnite spent just shy of £100k over the course of the tournament.
Now that's shocking.

I am not sure if this is correct. The original Fortnite: Save The World had loot boxes (llamas) - those were made transparent in January 2019 (so you gamble time instead of money) and the Battle Royale pivoted away entirely into battle passes and microtransactions.

There are players out there - particularly streamers - who have spent five and six figures on Fortnite BR, but this would have nothing to do with the gambling debate as all purchases are made through a storefront or unlocked using the battle pass.

They spend £80 on 12000 FIFA points to purchase FIFA packs.
There was an Instagram video that showed the guys affiliated to football teams are spending a few thousand to compete

FIFA, on the other hand, is front and centre of this debate - a potent combination of pay-to-win with gambling mechanics. The game developers are desperately trying to paint it as something else (you don't have to pay, you can buy coins instead of packs, you can turn the feature off) but ultimately the game is designed to do that to you.

It's very clear that "cannot be converted to real money" is the primary legal argument the game developers have left, because many states and countries' gambling legislation references money rather than monetary worth (which is curious why the DCMS mentioned it, because the UKGC uses the latter in the Gambling Act 2005).

In the case of games like FIFA it's clearly not true, not only is the black market thriving but even EA themselves got caught when an alleged employee was

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

- items that would be virtually impossible for the average player to grind by play alone (one comment suggests 10,000 games required for each card, in a game that has a one year lifecycle).

 

[pinnit2014]

Here's how i loot

Only joking - that's what casino's act like when Big Win = SOW

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The science on loot boxes is clear, it fires up all the same receptors that gambling does, the mechanics of how they work is very close to that of slot machines, and the potential for addictive repurchasing is very high.

Multiple studies around the world have determined that they are a form of gambling, the fact that they get away with the technicality of 'the items have no real world value' to drop through a loophole is neither here nor there.

Games with loot boxes in them don't have an age rating on them, so for example the FIFA games which have one of the most egregious implementations of loot boxes, are rated as being suitable for ages 3 and up.

Children are especially vulnerable to them, as are adults with compulsion and/or addiction issues, it's also been shown that people on the autistic spectrum are particularly at risk too.

Purely from a videogames perspective, they are an absolute cancer and have done nothing but spray hot liquid shit over everything that they've come into contact with, often games are designed as nothing more than a vehicle to implement loot boxes around (Diablo Immortal being the most obvious recent example), and indeed games are often deliberately 'broken' by the developer so they can sell you the 'fix' in the form of loot boxes.

From a moral standpoint they are reprehensible and beyond defence, and they've fucked up a load of perfectly good games too.

Decent watch about them here:

 

[ads2003uk]

Reading my opening post and everyone's responses just prove how crap I am at trying to get my point across (no wonder I piss off the Mrs)

Your point is fantastic - there was a story not so long ago that an autistic kid got hold of his folks credit cards and basically maxed them.
Luckily visas fraud department was understanding on this occasion.

So glad I've never had a console - long live my Speccy 48k

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It's about educating your kids, and maybe tightening up on access to your payment details. I see it as another mountain out of a molehill that will probably limit me from doing what I want in the future.

'I don't care how evil, corrosive and destructive this construct is, I will oppose it for as long as it might theoretically impact on some vague and undefined thing I might want to do in the future'.

 

[bamberfishcake]

'I don't care how evil, corrosive and destructive this construct is, I will oppose it for as long as it might theoretically impact on some vague and undefined thing I might want to do in the future'.

I don't think it's evil, corrosive, or destructive, and if I did I would have a different opinion. Please don't try and twist my words

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I don't think it's evil, corrosive, or destructive, and if I did I would have a different opinion. Please don't try and twist my words

Yeah it seems pretty cool overall, perfect fodder for three year olds, get them started on gambling early I guess.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Yeah it seems pretty cool overall, perfect fodder for three year olds, get them started on gambling early I guess.

View attachment 170234
View attachment 170235
View attachment 170236

Oh, so you want an actual conversation about it?

I don't think the problem should lie with kids as young as three, again, there should be a conversation with the parents.

I also don't see the problem as any worse than the latest toy being marketed to kids or Ronaldo in an advert for the latest boots at £120. These things are not necessities, and certainly do not come with happiness guaranteed. We are bombarded with adverts and conditioned to spend. What I, and you, spend your money on is down to us, not our kids, and again, perhaps a conversation needs to be had between parent and child.

I also don't see a loot box as being the evil it's being made out to be in the grand scheme of things. Have you ever bought one? What is more concerning to me is where this will lead to. Obviously more spending regulation, more control over the flow of money, and less personal freedom.

It's a marketing ploy, you don't have to play the game. As with many problems in life, rather than refuse to partake, many sheep will bleat about the rules.

What would happen if people stopped playing them because of the total you have to spend to compete? Nothing, except for fairer games. We reap what we sow, and I say no to regulating stuff like this because I think a better solution is at hand for me personally.

I have kids, and loot boxes are way down my list of concerns

 

[casguy2016]

You get the same "high" when in the process of opening loot boxes and getting the rare item. There really is no difference...if anything it's worst because in the end you never really own what you pull.

 

[bamberfishcake]

You get the same "high" when in the process of opening loot boxes and getting the rare item. There really is no difference...if anything it's worst because in the end you never really own what you pull.

You get the same high for many things. Especially with video games in general, you get a buzz from being top of a leaderboard or completing a level.

As usual, excessive and prolonged exposure leads to addiction. Maybe stop the child from playing the game for so long, perhaps the loot box would hold less value.

I'm all in favour of limiting a child's time on computers, just don't need a regulator or legislation to babysit the consequential end of bad parenting. Pretty much anything that gives a buzz can be linked to the buzz of gambling, which is the buzz of winning.

Where will it end? If this goes through it opens the flood gates for much more.

 

[satchnz]

Seriously though, all form of shopping is addictive to a degree, were bred for it, please.

Oh shit! Do you think Amazon might SOW me??

 

[bamberfishcake]

Oh shit! Do you think Amazon might SOW me??

Probably, if this lot and the government have anything to do with it

 

[casguy2016]

You get the same high for many things. Especially with video games in general, you get a buzz from being top of a leaderboard or completing a level.

As usual, excessive and prolonged exposure leads to addiction. Maybe stop the child from playing the game for so long, perhaps the loot box would hold less value.

I'm all in favour of limiting a child's time on computers, just don't need a regulator or legislation to babysit the consequential end of bad parenting. Pretty much anything that gives a buzz can be linked to the buzz of gambling, which is the buzz of winning.

Where will it end? If this goes through it opens the flood gates for much more.

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