Chris Lee aims to prohibit the sale of games with 'gambling mechanisms' to anyone under the age of 21.
If the industry can't regulate itself and goes overboard than that is when the government will step in. EA went so far over the line that thanks to them the government had to be involved. In this case you can only blame EA because their greed knows no bounds and this is the result. It's the same thing if you are a kid and play with other kids. If you play nice no one will say anything, but if you become an a*hole and bully others, eventually parents will get involved and set rules for you. You can't blame the parents, you should have behaved. In this case, I welcome the government to remove loot boxes from my games.
Like seriously, game companies should have self control. Now look at it, major game publishers like EA have gone too far.
Yeah ok. Totally legit function of government. Regulating what is and is not in a video game. No slippery slope there either. Sure.
it may not be what is and isn't in games, but requirements for a game to be x dollars at retail. Say they step in and make it that all games with lootboxes must be A)18+ and b) free to play. That is regulation that will make the developers and publishers think twice about including lootboxes in their game. do they take the gamble and release their game for free with the only monotization coming from MT or sell it for 60$ and not include MT, which one will make them more money in the end?
Well if they want the game to have less then an M rating they need to keep gambling out of it!!
Agreed, I welcome the regulation. Gaming was taking a fast spiral downward with pay 2 win in a full price game. This is what happens when you push a consumer base to the point of breaking. I'm not worried about government overstepping its bounds. Nothing else is going to be regulated, the focus is only on lootboxes.
Not worried about the government overstepping its bounds? Just look what Trump has done! Oil drilling in the arctic, gutting national parks in Utah, and all of the Republican people trying to regulate abortion, loosening environmental protections, etc. Yeah the government never oversteps boundaries.... Next thing violent games will face legislation like Australia and have to be toned down. The government doesn't belong in any entertainment industry.
This is where greed got us... the attention we didn't want from the very same people who hate gaming.... Thanks EA.
I hate loot boxes as much as the next guy, but this is the wrong way to go about it. The last thing we need is the government getting involved in video games. They tried that in the 90's, and it wasn't good for anyone. Furthermore, we proved with the EA debacle that we don't even need the government, we can combat the problem with our voices.
Pretty sure motive for getting involved plays a part in any worry you should have. Let's see, in the 90s, they wanted to keep video games warm and cuddly and censor the crap out of them. Today, they want to stop companies from taking advantage of weak willed, and weak minded individuals and exploit them for every penny they can get. See? Thinking isn't hard. Just sit back, close your eyes, and try it. You may pull out a worthwhile idea out of that void between your ears.
Actually, the government getting involved was what led to the ESRB, game ratings, and an industry wide standard that put the responsibility of what games were appropriate for different ages firmly with the industry, and the people who sold products for the industry. It wasn't perfect, but that's what government intervention brought. There's nothing to say that the same thing won't happen here. It's only been two weeks, and the outcome is unknown. If the industry were smart, they'd get ahead of this, and prevent measures from happening. However, given the nature of loot boxes, and the concerns that comes with kids gambling, that will probably continue. As far as what happens after that, lets wait until that happens to say it isn't appropriate for government to step in. The community itself has been complaining about crappy MT practices, and the industry hasn't listened. So in this case, I don't mind some authoritative entity standing up for us. Granted, they aren't actually addressing what we complain about, but the end result should result in what we're hoping for....at least in some small way. In no way will this cause MT to go away, nor will P2W go away. But at least it can curb one aspect of it, and if we're lucky(which is not likely to happen), publishers may actually start to see that people are tired of these kinds of practices and back off some, or just stick to the more acceptable forms of monetization that don't really ruffle as many feathers.
Yeah this will be effective as ESRB ratings. Parents will still buy their kids the games.
EA won't take a chance with a game rated 21+. Adult only games can't even be carried in stores. An adult only game better have a huge hype train behind it because otherwise it will be in the realm of obscurity.
Exactly. Sometimes a necessary evil is what it takes. Games being slapped with a 21+ rating will not be carried by many retailers. Thus forcing the hands of the publishers like EA to drop the gambling lootbox "feature" in their games. I'm all for this.
ESRB ratings aren't actually covered by any kind of legal aspect which requires they be followed as they're meant to be. Gambling laws on the other hand are generally pretty heavily regulated and enforced, and no company is going to push the envelope without first consulting a lawyer, or run the risk of getting bad press by implementing something that could maybe fall under gambling laws. If parents buy their kid a game that has gambling laws attached to it, then they can be held legally culpable with a misdemeanor crime. The company providing the content(the publisher) can be held criminally liable for allowing a kid to play the game....assuming it uses servers. The store clerk, or retail outlet that sells the game to a kid, or to a parent with a reasonable belief that they're going to give it to their kid can be held legally responsible for pretty hefty fines. If it ends up being classified as gambling, it will have those laws attached to it, and that's going to have to be effective. What's going to happen though is that publishers won't go that route, because they won't want whatever government classification comes, which would amount to what is higher than an AO rating. To disprove your argument more, consider that most publishers won't produce an AO game, because it won't be sold in stores. One good thing that could come from this though is that it means you could see competitive real gambling games on the consoles. If one is into that at least.
Let's check out our options here. 1. Hope that people grow the brains to avoid paying into this trash. (Looks at history of humanity) LOL, okay, I don't know why I even bothered with this one. 2. Let the ESRB regulate this, which is populated and surely funded by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating. See conclusion of 1. 3. Let the government step in and lay out laws that will prohibit the sales of products which promote gambling tendencies to *gasp* those of age to gamble. Truly, the government is up to no good here. Closing point? If these s**tbox companies hadn't been cosmically greedy in the first place, none of this would have been needed. I'm not one for govt. intervention in any common situation, but in this case? Ya, I'll make the exception. I'm with the govt. on this one.
The problem is, even if the industry decides to self regulate by having a gambling classification, if it ends up being classified as gambling, the government has to be involved. The ESRB wouldn't be the best way to go for the industry to avoid self-regulation, but rather a kind of promise that they won't create content that is predatory and can be considered gambling. However, if lawmakers are looking at it, then any promise doesn't mean much to them, because the chance that it can just come back, and cause problems before they can react is pretty high...particularly if they look at the history of these publishers. There would be no good faith there to believe that it isn't necessary to regulate, and the industry did this to themselves. So, it'll likely get the classification(assuming it goes that far), and then it'll be regulated relatively quickly and cause a huge wave of disruption to many MT models for many games which rely on them, even those F2P games which most people accept this kind of stuff in....all because EA got greedy.
Won't change a thing if all it focuses on is the age you can buy. Just shows how disconnected publishers/investors are and how dumb people outside of gaming are.
You realise stores won't even carry adult only games right? If mommy can only buy the game from some website, it's a pretty low chance that she is going to get little Timmy the game he wants. Especially when a warning pops up asking her to verify her age and lists out the reasons.
stores don't sell Adult Only games because of X rated stuff. Stores will have no issues carrying AO games that contain a loot box.
You think stores will start looking at the reason a game has an AO rating? No, they will just not carry them period.
It's at least a start, and it will impact the bottom line of these companies. Movies are a good example, where distributors will make edits to get a film out of an R rating. If EA and others want the widest possible market for their games, they'll rein in the gambling garbage.
Not all AO games are X rated content. They could be exceptionally violent(odd I know). They could have excessive gratuitous nudity. It could be exceptionally raunchy. It's kind of like movies. Sometimes, a bit of bad content won't make it rated R, but a lot of it does. Most stores don't sell ao rated games because the belief is that AO is always pornographic. The stores don't want to be associated with that, which is why most publishers don't make AO rated games. Gambling can be considered much the same, and given the rather strict laws that come with gambling, a lot of stores aren't likely to get involved with making sure that their employees are trained well enough to sell the game legally. More importantly, like AO rated games, publishers aren't going to reduce sales of their game by attaching a higher rating to it. Take Star Wars for instance. It's PG, or rated Teen for the game. It couldn't get that with gambling attached. Disney I'm sure is pretty adamant about it being teen rated.
Yeah because age ratings stop the sale of games to people who are below that age. /s Lol.
Actually, that's an act of prevention. Prevention, depending on the circumstance, may or may not work. But you're also looking at a small piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. This will affect publishers in many ways who want to include this gambling lootbox crap in their games. Here's a couple of examples: Where can these games be sold? Do you think Disney wants a 21+ rating on their video game?
Taken from Wikipedia: "AO is the highest and most restrictive of the ESRB's content ratings, and dramatically impacts the commercial availability of games which carry it; all three major video game console manufacturers (Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony Interactive Entertainment) refuse to allow AO-rated games to be published for their platforms, most retailers refuse to stock AO-rated games, and the popular video game live streaming service Twitch explicitly bans all games carrying the rating." You were saying?
The thing is most developers aim for a rates R rating instead of an AO rating so they can sell their games in regular stores. Ratings don't stop those games from being sold to minors but it can limit the stores where they are sold.
Gambling laws and the sale or service of gambling to minors are laws which are akin to smoking, alcohol, or firearms. Selling to a minor is a crime with pretty hefty penalties. The publisher providing content that promotes gambling product or services to minors means pretty hefty fines. The person buying it for a minor can be held legally culpable and face fines or jail time. It's a crime with fines always attached, and potential jail time. Some kids will get their hands on it sure, but I'd say it'd be a lot more effective than the generally accepted and followed by the industry and retailers with no legal requirement to do so ESRB rating.
I don't know if Jim Sterling reads this but if you do pat yourself on the back an extra time for me. You nailed it, one company stepped over the line and got government involved. Unsurprisingly it was EA... I'm not sure what my opinion is I want them out of games of that I am 100% certain. But that said I would prefer if these companies just voluntarily stopped. They should be able to see that people are unhappy and just realize it was a bad idea on their own. But of course there is little chance of that happening their greed has proven itself limitless and they I'm sure would rather spend billions fighting against this than just stop. I guess if government gets involved they have no one to blame but themselves.
It's either government legislation or let EA, WB, Activision etc keep doing what they're doing with ever increasing prevalence, giving future games less and less value along the way. I certainly know which "slippery slope" I'd rather welcome.
I'm not happy that the Government had to intervene but the gaming industry is clearly incapable of self regulating its own greed.
Wait, there is gambling as in you can win money?
Here's an article that explains gambling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Gambling is a game of chance you don't need to win money to play gambling game with loot boxes you play a game of chance , you pay money for a chance to win that "sword" you want
Sorry get lesislation out of games all this is going to cause is games being banned in certain regions. Whats the differnce between loot boxes and buying a randomised pack of Pokemon cards? Thats right nothing
Actually they're miles apart.
If loot boxes are classified as gambling, you won't have to worry about legislation being in games. No major publisher is going to put anything that is legislated like that into their games. It'll work itself out.
Abomination. They act like they don’t have better shit to do. And you retards opened the door to this shit.
If by "you" you mean EA and WB and Ubisoft and Activision then I agree. But since I know that's of course not who your blaming just consider me to be rolling my eyes.
Oh I see all of the brain dead comments... “ EA was so bad the government got involved”. Yeah it has nothing to do with every media outlet bombarding the gambling commissions with retarded questions and online petition mobs demanding results. The ignorance surrounding these topics is outrageous. We are now truly surrounded by dumb people. Roll your eyes all you want but at least I’m consistent. I don’t cheer one person for doing something while condemning another for doing the same thing. When the government brings more legislation on some stupid shit and uses this as precedent then I don’t want to hear you retards crying. Everyone has to suffer because you can’t see 2 inches in front of your own face. Life is chess, not checkers boys. Grow up.
You are consistently blind of that I will agree completely. Your point of view is basically blaming the victim instead of the source. The problem was these companies unbridled greed. They saw a chance to make more profits and instead of evaluating it's impact on gaming they just dove in head first for the money. If EA, WB, Ubisoft and Activision hadn't put MT's in their games then you and I, the media and the politicians wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
“Blaming the victim” clown. Poor you, seeing lootboxes in a game you never bought. Your hardships must be tragic.
Opnionated... loot boxes don't just effect people who buy them. These companies put in artificial grind to make you need them (example: 2k17)... that effects you even if you don't by them. Look at Battlefront 2 pay 2 win scheme that made players who bought the MT's more than 50% more powerful than players that didn't. And this is just two examples of many. The MT scheme effects everyone even if you don't spend a penny. Your just blindly defending these out of some political view you hold with out even considering what effect they have on the hobby I assume we all partake of. My view is simply that as a fan of games this makes gaming less enjoyable.
My view is that of principle. I don’t lie out of my ass to get rid of something I don’t like. I’m not a scumbag. If the market wants to waste money on this shit to the point it ruins games then I won’t game anymore. It’s as simple as that. I don’t have the delusional fantasy that government is the answer either. I would take shitty consumers over government regulation any day. These clowns have been trying to get their claws in gaming for decades and not only do you welcome them back, you demand they come in guns blazing. I don’t know if you people are gullible or just moronic but I find it unacceptable. The stupidity surrounding this shit blows my mind. Reap what you sow, that’s all I’m gonna say. Good luck with your crusade for government regulation to protect you from yourself.
Well I guess your fine with gaming being ruined in order to maintain some sort of principal, I am not. And I neither agree with your view nor am I asking for protection from myself. I am asking for protection of gaming from the greed of EA and all the other companies. And again I would prefer if EA ect. would do whats right and just stop on their own.
- Gambling was ruined a long time ago lol. The only way to gamble in my state is to get on a boat and go out to international waters. That's my point though, you are actually pleading for the people that ruined gambling to grant themselves authority over something you supposedly hold dear, the gaming industry. You are indeed asking for protection in something you find morally offensive. You don't have to agree with me, you responded to me though so you're getting an answer. I don't think law makers saying "close enough" are amusing, i think it's lawless garbage. Ok lets be honest about what you're really saying here.. Tell me how i'm wrong. "They make enough money, they don't need any more. Make their business practices illegal or heavily regulated. I would prefer it if EA met my demands through their own honorable actions but i will support ham fisted tactics because it's the right thing to do for a fairer industry." - Who are you or any law maker to determine what is enough money? Under what authority? Is greed illegal? Greed and corporation are synonymous. Not a single publicly traded corporation is any different. If you don't support "predatory" corporations you might as well give up all of your vices lol. Is there a crime against making too much money? Are they doing anything illegal to make that money? No, you don't support it but many do. Enough for it to be worth EA taking it to the supreme court. A game that's already rated mature and selling loot boxes has nothing to do with the kids. If it does then you have to admit how utterly worthless the ESRB is. "I am just a gaming industry fan who wants to see predatory practices end. No, it's not illegal but it is morally bankrupt and the law needs to be changed so that it is a violation." - I'm also a fan and predatory practices don't affect me at all. I can defend their garbage better than they can and i loathe MTs. I will not support the law being weaponized based on the whims of a few angry people. That's just my principle and i dont care where you are on the political spectrum, a pipe dream socialist or a corporatist crony, it's unacceptable. "But advertising like joe camel was aimed at kids and we needed regulation to change that" - yes and look where the regulation has gone since then. Some states are paying 14 dollars for a pack of cigarettes. It's not illegal it's just heavily taxed. The government needs their cut, you see? What if they didn't make loot boxes illegal? What if they just said that there's a 20% tax on games with loot boxes? Unprecedented? Absolutely not, it's the ONLY thing they care about. They "protect you" by making shit unaffordable and siphon the rest who are willing to pay. That doesn't affect publishers, that cost is pushed to the consumer. States with high income tax are going to be even worse now that the new federal tax bill doesn't let you deduct your state tax on your federal return. You are no longer going to be subsidized by the rest of the country. You guys are going to get hit with this bullshit ten fold to support your rapidly declining state revenues. EA will look like an angel compared to these people. Which makes them worse than a corporation imo, corporations don't pretend to be public servants. They just sell shit and we buy it or we don't. It's simple, predictable, it's not evil.
I remember in the 5th grade going out to play at recess and right at the corner outside the fence to the soccer field was a tall billboard featuring Joe Camel. I remember when the billboard was a advertising a local car dealership. The cigarette company chose to put up a billboard featuring a cartoon character right outside a K-8 school. My point? When companies smell a chance for increased profits and given wiggle room in the law WILL act. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, WB--all of these companies are perfectly willing to cut content, sell season passes for content not even developed yet, and make tie in product deals with Pepsi-co to maximize profits--lootboxes are their dream device. The behavior they inform is gambling. Why put a skin up for $10 when you can have little Susie spending her allowance for a PSN card to pump more than $20 into lootboxes...and have her still not get what she wants. Not to mention the rather predatory nature of this towards adults enticing them to spend literal thousands. You can't just "not buy them" as the game is designed to encourage people to part with their money by slowing progression, pay walling items and time, and now even keeping powerful items away from the player unless they choose to drop money. It took legislation to remove Joe camel from outside the school, it's going to take legislation to keep lootboxes outside of games. Lootboxes need to be labeled gambling and the legal definition of gambling redefined for the future. Games with gambling need to be labeled AO and companies like EA and Activision-Blizzard need to be made to acquire very expensive gambling licenses to even sell the games, and be forced to pay the ridiculous taxes being a gambling company is required to pay. The U.S government already regulates gambling, this within their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has already declared video games protected under first amendment so I wouldn't worry too much about censorship legislation. Gambling is the enemy here--not tits or violence. And honestly, if these companies can't create a game that sells well without the need to include predatory mechanics and gambling devices, you probably don't want to play their games in the first place.
It’s not gambling or cigarettes. I was against jack Thompson when he went after mature games “for the kids”. I’m against you as well.
@Opinionated I'm afraid you missed the point of the story involving cigarettes. It was an example of the lengths companies will go in order to gain profit I.E sell to children an addictive and health compromising product. It's a morality question. Yes, while not legally considered gambling currently, by all other definitions it is gambling in by which it is a variable reward system outlined by B.F Skinner which has been proven to alter behavior. Slot machines use the same type of variable reward system. Hence why I said the definition needs to be redefined in the USA to remove the "money for money only" antiquated idea of gambling. Rewards are intrinsic in nature and money is not the only reward possible when one gambles.
Okay jack... You obviously know what’s best for the kids. Anything addictive and random is gambling. The studies have said so, change the law to confirm your biases.
What I feel is that the government right now is addressing a topic that the gaming community has been fussing about for well over a decade now. However, I feel they aren't addressing it in the same manner we are. The community complained about MT in games, and how they were affecting everyone, regardless of if they partook in them. We complained about the ever increasing prevalance of them in games, and the perceptive decline in content in game because stuff was being stripped out. The whole gambling thing was attached to loot boxes by gamers, but I never felt that was a major consideration for why people were upset about them, but some did use it as a reason why they shouldn't be included. The government is looking at if what is happening with loot boxes is something that should be regulated because the games themselves are accessible to minors. Something that is reasonable to look at, even if it's not gambling, because there are corollaries that can maybe make it gambling. Now, it's sad that the government is getting involved, but them getting involved is at least forcing publishers to acknowledge that there are people that have a problem with MT. Publishers have ignored the gaming communities disdain for well over a decade. They have defended these practices, marginalized a significant portion of their customers concerns, and kept getting worse year over year. While the government is taking a different approach, at least on this one thing, the community is seeing some headway on a topic that we have had no impact on in over a decade. Maybe not in the way we hoped, as I'm sure we'd prefer that our voices be heard and companies take more time to listen to customers, but if we can't get that, then so be it, let the government make our case for us.
The gaming community has been supporting this shit for a decade lol. If it didn't sell it wouldn't exist. I couldn't believe they were selling quick fatality tokens in mortal kombat. how lazy are people? in the end it's none of my business, i just don't partake. The gambling angle is a farce. I think it undermines legitimate points brought up regarding abuse. Most of these games are rated mature. If some 15 year old kid with no bills wants to waste his money on lootboxes then it's none of the governments business. At least it's not drugs lol. That's what i was doing at 15... Its not sad it's predictable. There was a petition for government involvment lmao. They are usually ones not to turn down an offer. There customer concerns are outshined by the massive money bags they are hauling to the bank. They don't have to listen to anyone.. Besides government, no matter how shady they are. yeah good luck....
Thing is, less than 10% of players on any given game actually purchases additional content. The only exception is DLC content for more popular MP games. Even the big DLC releases for SP games rarely break 20%. So, no, the community as a whole isn't partaking in these things, rather a very small portion of it. It's not to say that 90% of the community is complaining about them, because they obviously aren't. It's also not to say that 90% of the community even has a problem with them. But at the same time, there has been a rather vocal and increasing complaint within the gaming community which is being ignored and marginalized. While a single game may very much outsell the number of people that complain, the fact remains that those that complain, likely do buy more games than the average gamer...particularly those that spend extra money on games. That being said, at some point in time, MT has affected games we have wanted to buy, or have brought. So, as consumers, we are free to complain. What we don't like is that companies ignore those complaints, and have an ever increasing contempt for those that buy their games to try and exploit them with this notion that people will buy them anyways, so who gives a shit what the complainers say? I don't think the gambling angle is a farce. There have been strong enough arguments to make it worth looking at. However, I do feel that the gamers themselves are latching onto this aspect too heavily right now, as that hasn't been our argument over all these years. However, at the same time, it's what's getting something done, so I can understand why its going to be pursued. Most of these games are not rated Mature. COD(half the time), SW:BF, NFS, Overwatch are all rated Teen. Most games which rely on MT are rated Teen or less, because a large user base is what makes more money when it comes to MT. Your right that these publishers don't have to listen to us. They probably won't here either. But if they push things too far, things will spiral out of control, and eventually government will get involved, and they will have to listen to someone. The end result will be the same for those that complain, even if the means are not the same.
“Thing is, less than 10% of players on any given game actually purchases additional content. The only exception is DLC content for more popular MP games. Even the big DLC releases for SP games rarely break 20%. So, no, the community as a whole isn't partaking in these things, rather a very small portion of it.” I could believe that. People move on from games quickly now. That 10% in the average MT sales is the equivalent of 500k individual units sold, at least. This is billion dollar shit here. “It's not to say that 90% of the community is complaining about them, because they obviously aren't. It's also not to say that 90% of the community even has a problem with them.” I doubt the vocal crowd even adds up to 1% of the community. People talk but when a game is hit you can tell. Games like no mans sky comes to mind. The outrage with shadows of war was met with a million sales in its first week. It’s largely blowhard but there have been a few “successful” boycotts depending on how you want to look at it. “So, as consumers, we are free to complain. What we don't like is that companies ignore those complaints, and have an ever increasing contempt for those that buy their games to try and exploit them with this notion that people will buy them anyways, so who gives a shit what the complainers say?” You are free to complain sure. If they ignore you and you know that they are exploiting you then why do you buy their shit? Lol.. Nobody gives a crap about you, me or anyone. They fight each other for our dollar, that’s it. If they haven’t earned it then stop giving it to them, plenty of alternatives lol. “Well others still buy it” yeah so what? Demand they can’t buy it? “I don't think the gambling angle is a farce. There have been strong enough arguments to make it worth looking at. However, I do feel that the gamers themselves are latching onto this aspect too heavily right now, as that hasn't been our argument over all these years. However, at the same time, it's what's getting something done, so I can understand why its going to be pursued.” I disagree. I haven’t seen any strong arguments. I see overblown issues and an endgame just like you do. I understand why it’s being pursued. “Most of these games are not rated Mature. COD(half the time), SW:BF, NFS, Overwatch are all rated Teen. Most games which rely on MT are rated Teen or less, because a large user base is what makes more money when it comes to MT. “ I was thinking of the few I have been playing. Cod ww2 (which is unusually not being attacked) and shadows of war (that was torn a new asshole with fake news). “Your right that these publishers don't have to listen to us. They probably won't here either. But if they push things too far, things will spiral out of control, and eventually government will get involved, and they will have to listen to someone. The end result will be the same for those that complain, even if the means are not the same.” Was is “spiraling out of control” though and who determines that? Going by the apocalyptic view of few, it’s already out of control lol. Apparently the industry has become a casino that needs federal intervention.
Someone has gotta keep these idiot publishers in check
Something's gotta give with how hard some BIG companies are pushing for this shit! Heck Activision was awarded a patent they filed for back in 2015 for a matchmaking engine designed to drive microtransactions. Basically it would create situations that would make the weapon a player purchased seem like it was needed. Another part of it would be to match up a lower level player with a more skilled player with microtransactions and give the impression to the less skilled player they would need to make a similar purchase. I'm not a fan of government getting involved but if something isn't done there's no telling where this could go!
I would rather there be government involvement than risk another Video Game crash in the long run
Rofl Congress can’t even do their job creating legislation for our country yet alone loot boxes.
Lootboxes are set up to work like gambling... you could tell the way the COD handed out the goodies on the crates it was fixed... and that was even clear when no money was handed over... there was a clear pattern how and when best goods would stand a chance of turning up in the crates... lootcrates etc are a scam, clear and simple to get more money from the gamer...
Legislators shouldn't even be involved the ESRB should have done it's job by letting EA, Activision, WB, Ubisoft run a muck and not keeping on eye out for the consumer it was inevitable that this would happen. Thank you EA your greed open up pandoras box.
ESRB was establish to observe and rate games to inform consumers of content--the ESRB has no authority over the companies.
EA making millions off loot boxes means they arent going to change anything unless they are forced too. Ever wonder why there is a regulation for something? Well here ya go because douchebag company couldnt keep its greed in check.
For those who hate that the government has stepped in: blame EA, blame the companies. Loot Boxes arw cocaine ans every company had a fingernail full just for a buzz, meanwhile EA has had half a bag and is currently crying, and dancing on top of a table covered in poo. Now the police are here because one company couldn't just play nice.
first time i was happy to see the government step in.
The only thing im worried about with law getting involved is if they tackle this then what's from stopping them producing more legislation in the future regulating how games are made. For example what if some lawmakers don't like you performing illegal acts in game or don't like a hot issue being portrayed in a game. I could definitely see some lawmakers trying to get involved and infringing on freedom of speech and art where it comes to games.
Movies are much more popular and I don't see government intervening when John wick goes on a killing spree, or Jackie Chan takes the law into his own hands in the Foreigner.