US Senator Proposes bill that would outlaw lootboxes

Bcat

👻Spoopy all season long👻
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Posts
11,888
Bells
63
Black Famous Mushroom
Black Famous Mushroom
Black Famous Mushroom
Black Famous Mushroom
Black Famous Mushroom
Candy Corn Halloweaster Egg
Candy Corn Halloweaster Egg
Candy Corn Halloweaster Egg
Candy Corn Halloweaster Egg
Candy Corn Halloweaster Egg
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...bill-banning-loot-boxes-pay-to-win-mechanics/

The bill summary also takes aim at so-called "pay-to-win" mechanics that "manipulate a game's progression system... to induce players to spend money..." or which alter the "competitive balance between players of multiplayer games." The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general would be able to enforce the law.

"When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn?t be allowed to monetize addiction," Hawley said in a statement. "And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences."

This probably won't pass, but it's nice to see someone taking a stand against these exploitative business practices.
 
If this passes they will probably just raise the prices for Electronic Arts games. lol I mean it would be nice if this did pass, but you know they have corporate people working on ways to nickle and dime gamers.
 
If this passes they will probably just raise the prices for Electronic Arts games. lol I mean it would be nice if this did pass, but you know they have corporate people working on ways to nickle and dime gamers.

EA would never take it lying down though. They'll fight it kicking and screaming
 
Even though some people say that loot boxes are a manipulative business practice, they are only manipulative because people are willing to buy into it. If hardly anyone bought loot boxes and made a stance that enough is enough, this would not be an issue and game companies would start focusing on making games more complete instead of purposely displacing parts of a game to make more money later. Quite honestly, I would rather pay more for a game that is complete with more content than buy a game cheaper with P2W mechanics thrown in it.
 
Even though some people say that loot boxes are a manipulative business practice, they are only manipulative because people are willing to buy into it. If hardly anyone bought loot boxes and made a stance that enough is enough, this would not be an issue and game companies would start focusing on making games more complete instead of purposely displacing parts of a game to make more money later. Quite honestly, I would rather pay more for a game that is complete with more content than buy a game cheaper with P2W mechanics thrown in it.

Yeah, I honestly wish that no one would support this practice but people have every right to spend their money however they please. But as long as people support it, the companies have no reason to change. I'd also rather pay more for a game than have shady loot box practices built in. So I'd for sure be for this bill. But I don't know how seriously it will be taken?
 
Would something like this apply to games like Fortnite? Fornite isn't necessarily pay to win, but it is pay to progress in some ways (e.g. unlocking skins, the battle pass etc.). It's an interesting thing to introduce I guess. I'm definitely not a fan of P2W games,

Fortnite's target audience is teens and upwards, however it isn't recommended to kids aged below 12 officially as I can see. But the player base definitely is towards the younger ones, so it kinda applies to this bill that's targeted for kids.
 
Would something like this apply to games like Fortnite? Fornite isn't necessarily pay to win, but it is pay to progress in some ways (e.g. unlocking skins, the battle pass etc.). It's an interesting thing to introduce I guess. I'm definitely not a fan of P2W games,

Fortnite's target audience is teens and upwards, however it isn't recommended to kids aged below 12 officially as I can see. But the player base definitely is towards the younger ones, so it kinda applies to this bill that's targeted for kids.
I've been wondering if it would apply to cosmetic things as well. I've been hoping a lawyer on youtube would take a look at it.
 
If this passes they will probably just raise the prices for Electronic Arts games. lol I mean it would be nice if this did pass, but you know they have corporate people working on ways to nickle and dime gamers.

I'm fine with EA raising their prices. I haven't bought an EA game in at least a decade...Strangely enough not because of their business practices, I just don't like their games.

Even though some people say that loot boxes are a manipulative business practice, they are only manipulative because people are willing to buy into it.

Gonna stop you right there.

Lootboxes aren't manipulative because people buy them, I don't understand what that logic even is.

Lootboxes are manipulative because they put stuff in them that they know players will want and inflate the lootboxes with tons of trash they know nobody cares about like sprays so that you're increasingly unlikely to get the thing you actually want. The low price of a single loot box pushes people to say "just one more", the free loot boxes are designed to get you hooked, the "free" ones are hidden behind excessive grinds so you'll get sick of waiting for the next one (only to get some sprays and duplicate items anyway). Those games with holiday event items are even worse as they flat out encourage the mentality of "I want that thing but the event is limited, I better spend money to get the thing".

Microtransactions are largely the same but not AS bad as at least you can just buy 'the thing' with those. Still, they don't put items on sale and expect you not to buy them, and with players valuing character customisation alongside the base cosmetics often being pretty bland, it does nothing but tempt players into buying...Turning players into payers, if you will.

Lets not forget people with certain personality types or age ranges. Many people have addictive personalities, lootboxes specifically preying on that potential gambling problem that's easy to exploit once you get them to open a few boxes. Heck, I don't even have a gambling problem, but I do have an addictive personality, which is why I won't even touch the free loot boxes. Kids or those with mental health issues that prevent them from fully understanding what they're paying into, the concept of how much they're spending or have trouble actually assessing how much a virtual item in a game is really worth. Kids who grabbed their parents credit cards since once they have that, it's really not difficult for them to use those details online (maliciously or not).

Then we have systems that the likes of Activision have been proven to use that pair players together in an attempt to push them into microtransactions. Show them all the cool stuff other people have bought, maybe throw some average players into matches against ridiculously good players who've spent tons on microtransactions so the average guy may think "maybe if I spent money, I wouldn't suck". Definitely the fault of the players here.

Plus the pure simple fact: these games cost at least $60 (not including often necessary $60 season passes and a wide array of multiple excessively priced 'editions'). They don't need yet another avenue to milk money out of people.


But yea, the consumers are the problem, those careless idiots. We must protect those poor innocent corporations at all costs. How would sweet innocent Andrew Wilson ever get by without these exploitative tactics? The man only makes a measly $35 million a year....
 
note that this is specifically for games targeted towards children, which yes 100% should be banned

Yeah, I think it's a good idea in general considering recent years and maybe even decade take on the mania with lootboxes so yeah man bring it on.
 
I know people think that the government should stay out of video games, but microtransactions/loot boxes/gacha games are a serious problem. And, big surprise! -the corporations aren't going to do the moral thing and stop doing these practices no matter how clearly disgusting they are. The government simply must step in at some point.

Microtransactions and lootboxes could destroy gaming. They must be stopped.
 
Last edited:
I know people think that the government should stay out of video games, but microtransactions/loot boxes/gacha games are a serious problem. And, big surprise! -the corporations aren't going to do the moral thing and stop doing these practices no matter how clearly disgusting they are. The government simply must step in at some point.

Microtransactions and lootboxes could destroy gaming. They must be stopped.

I think Gacha and just freemium app games are as worse, so yeah. They should be harder to companies and their devs too if anything, like our reward brain is basically addicted if you don't have a strong will to control it.
 
Oh rip EA.
good Job (name of US Senator)! Loot Boxes does ruin the fun of games. Like pocket camp. I really wanted to Rosie pop star stage but i got the 2 4 star stages instead. i kinda wasted a lot of leaf tickets for it

I wonder big games such as Overwatch and also games such as apps on the Iphone will be removed.


I feel like it probably won't pass, and even if it does it'll take some time before they properly implement it.

The focus of this is keeping kids safe, so if it passes they would have to take them out of anything marketed towards kids. Then you can expect the arguments from devs that because a game is meant for an older audience that means it's ok.
 
Oh cry me a river, EA. You're one of the worst ones out there as far as doing these sketchy practices go.

Oh rip EA.

EA won't die from lack of loot boxes. This is a company that makes multiple billions of dollars per year. Sure, it will make them lose some money. But that's only in the short term. They'll do something in the longer term to compensate. Release more games, release more DLC, something...
 
So the actual text of the bill was released today giving a more clear picture and answering some of the questions in this thread. You can read it here.

I gave it a good read over cause I love this stuff, and in short it means:

  • Exempts purely cosmetic items and traditional DLC add-on content
  • Targets both pay-to-win micro-transactions (including boosters) and randomised loot boxes
  • Applies to any 'minor-oriented video games'

Notably, this means a game like Overwatch with purely cosmetic loot boxes is in the clear under this legislation. But it's also farther reaching than just loot boxes -- any kind of pay-to-win features get pulled into this. So to just call it a loot box law is not really accurate.

And in regard to the targeting towards children in particular... the way the bill is written is extremely broad. Specifically, they are using 18 years old as the cut-off, not 13. In effect, this would apply to a LOT of games IMO, it wouldn't be at all limited to a small section of children focused game.

Just read the section below on definition of what a minor-oriented video game is:

(5) MINOR-ORIENTED GAME.—The term ‘‘minor-oriented video game’’ means an interactive digital entertainment product for which the target audience is individuals under the age of 18, as may be demonstrated by—
(A) the subject matter of the product;
(B) the visual content of the product;
(C) the music or audio content of the product;
(D) the use of animated characters or activities that appeal to individuals under the age of 18;
(E) the age of the characters or models in the product;
(F) the presence in the product of—
(i) celebrities who are under the age of 18; or
(ii) celebrities who appeal to individuals under the age of 18;
(G) the language used in the product;
(H) the content of materials used to advertise the product and the platforms on which
such materials appear;
(I) the content of any advertising materials that appear in the product;
(J) other reliable empirical evidence relating to—
(i) the composition of the audience of the product; or
(ii) the audience of the product, as intended by the publisher or distributor of the product; or
(K) other evidence demonstrating that the product is targeted at individuals under the age of 18.

And just in case that wasn't enough, we have another section that goes as far as asserting that...

It is unlawful for a game publisher to publish an interactive digital entertainment product that is not a minor-oriented game (or an update to such a product) if—
(A) such product or update contains pay-to-win microtransactions or loot boxes; and
(B) the publisher has constructive knowledge that any of its users are under the age of 18

Bolding is my emphasis. Isn't that like... basically any video game? Wow.
 
tbh, excluding cosmetic only items seems like a laughably dumb oversight. given how games with cosmetic items have been shown to be arguably even more manipulative to children in general than most pay2win games
 
Back
Top