EA's loot crate infringing upon gambling? Could future changes to gaming impact GSIV?

[Yulis]

Not sure how many of you follow gaming outside of GSIV, but I'm sure some of you are aware of the whole issue with possible gambling (it's at least being investigated by Belgium) with loot crates in the BattleFront II game released by EA.

Quick recap for those not in the know:

EA gets the rights to handle IP of Star Wars to create the Battlefront (2015 game) and Battlefront II (BFII) that has released today. With BFII officially releasing today, it sells for $60, as pretty much any other triple AAA game releases for. However, the game makes use of loot crates that give out random items that impact gameplay and also sell in game currency purchased with real money so people can outright buy locked characters, such as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker.

EA has the scales tipped to be in favor of people with money to spend and not wanting to sink thousands of in game play hours (yes, thousands) to earn enough credits to buy everything for free. They're hoping people will tire of grinding to get that locked character they really want and simply just spend real money on an in game currency. The loot crates, they can provide from real basic shit no one cares about to rare Star Cards and other things that impact special abilities/skills tied to the character(s) you play in the game, thus giving you a bigger advantage over others that haven't paid for loot crates.

A large boycott/out lash from the public over it all and some places even calling it a type of gambling with the loot crates. EA and a few other games/companies are under scrutiny in Belgium about how this is gambling and things are blowing up. EA has (as of this morning) pulled the ability to spend real cash in BFII for crystals and said they'll re-adjust how the microtransactions are currently handled and will allow the purchasing of crystals at a later time.

With all that said....

If things have gained enough traction and rules/regulations/guidelines start to get filled in for things such as these RNG loot crates being considered gambling, I wonder if they would carry over to a game such as this.... Essentially, folks are doing loot crates here in GSIV - the only real difference is this is a text based game and not a graphical one, but the ideas are the same. You spend real money to buy an in game currency (SimuCoins) and then you use those to purchase loot crates, (or as they're called in game) DSD or digging in DR or searching in DM or DR Sewers....these things are the same as buying a randomized loot crate in BFII. You don't know what you're going to get - it could be something awesome, but most likely it's just crap that's not worth anything.

So, what kind of impact do you think it would have upon Simutronics and GSIV if loot crates are classified as gambling? Would Simu find new and creative ways to get folks to throw more money at them for a paltry return in their investment?

[Gelston]

There is no monetary gain either way from crates so... No. People keep focusing on the "paying in real money". You do that on pretty much every product, it doesn't matter that there is RNG or not. What you get back is what the Government cares about. You aren't getting cash money back, it doesn't care. So it may be gambling in the sense of a risk, but that is where it ends. There won't be Government regulations, especially when the market just regulated the fuck out of EA with this recent case. So would it effect GS? No.

[Taernath]

By any realistic interpretation, loot boxes are gambling. As much as I would like to see Simucoins and DR-style digging removed from GS, I doubt there will be any real consequences or changes to US law from recent events. Only pressure from the consumer side has a chance of changing things, but as long as we have people who spend thousands at every single DR its a lost cause.

[Archigeek]

There is no monetary gain either way from crates so... No. People keep focusing on the "paying in real money". You do that on pretty much every product, it doesn't matter that there is RNG or not. What you get back is what the Government cares about. You aren't getting cash money back, it doesn't care. So it may be gambling in the sense of a risk, but that is where it ends. There won't be Government regulations, especially when the market just regulated the fuck out of EA with this recent case. So would it effect GS? No.

This must be why you don't pay taxes when you win a new car on a game show, or a slot machine in Vegas, etc etc, or just use the barter system. The government doesn't care unless it's cash.

[Gelston]

This must be why you don't pay taxes when you win a new car on a game show, or a slot machine in Vegas, etc etc, or just use the barter system. The government doesn't care unless it's cash.

A new car is a physical item made of valuable materials that can be counted as income and can also be resold, legally, for cash. Some pixels on a screen are not. They are not comparable items.

A game that allows in its TOS to cash out chips or whatever would be a different story. That WOULD be something the Government would look at (and they do).

[Winter]

Depends on the country, South Korea initially banned Diablo 3 for that reason.

[Gelston]

Depends on the country, South Korea initially banned Diablo 3 for that reason.

Sure, every country will decide whatever the hell they want to decide. A lot of the P2W/loot crate stuff is way more common in Asia.

What I'm saying is from a US perspective, the USG isn't going to take any regulatory action when the potential prizes are not cash or easily turned into cash. I'm not saying it isn't gambling, sure it is. It just isn't really anything that the Government cares about or can make money off of.

[Tgo01]

Depends on the country, South Korea initially banned Diablo 3 for that reason.

For what? There weren't any loot boxes in Diablo 3.

[Gelston]

For what? There weren't any loot boxes in Diablo 3.

There used to be a cash shop in Diablo 3 where you could sell your finds for cash.

[Archigeek]

I don't think the government cares if it's physical or not. I'm pretty sure EA pays taxes on their profit from the sale of games whether or not the buyer receives anything physical. Why would it be any different if I score a great RNG win and sell it for cash to another player? If a game company is selling the opportunity to win, and the player is essentially pulling a slot machine lever in the hopes of winning something that has monetary value, what's the difference if it's physical or not physical?

Personal opinion: I think the RNG games within the games are a much worse form of gambling than online poker ever was, and the US government killed that off, even though it was generating taxes. Don't be too shocked when, after a series of teenage suicides blamed on RNG failure, some legislation is introduced to curtail gambling games within games. I think RNG games are fine if they are confined to the currency of the game, but once the spin can be paid for with cash and the prize has a pretty easily definable cash value, that's gambling. With big games doing it and greatly increasing their profits as a result, it will draw the attention of regulators.

[Taernath]

For what? There weren't any loot boxes in Diablo 3.

It was part of a larger ban on digital item trades. You could buy/sell the items you found on D3's now-closed auction house or for cash.

[Tgo01]

There used to be a cash shop in Diablo 3 where you could sell your finds for cash.

But how is that considered gambling? Loot boxes I can MAYBE see an argument for since it's completely random what you buy, but with Diablo 3's cash auction house you know exactly what you're getting.


It was part of a larger ban on digital item trades.

Oh. South Korea sounds boring. So was Farmville outlawed there too?

[Gelston]

I don't think the government cares if it's physical or not. I'm pretty sure EA pays taxes on their profit from the sale of games whether or not the buyer receives anything physical. Why would it be any different if I score a great RNG win and sell it for cash to another player? If a game company is selling the opportunity to win, and the player is essentially pulling a slot machine lever in the hopes of winning something that has monetary value, what's the difference if it's physical or not physical?

Personal opinion: I think the RNG games within the games are a much worse form of gambling than online poker ever was, and the US government killed that off, even though it was generating taxes. Don't be too shocked when, after a series of teenage suicides blamed on RNG failure, some legislation is introduced to curtail gambling games within games. I think RNG games are fine if they are confined to the currency of the game, but once the spin can be paid for with cash and the prize has a pretty easily definable cash value, that's gambling. With big games doing it and greatly increasing their profits as a result, it will draw the attention of regulators.

Online gambling's legality depends on your state. It is very legal in some places. One of the issues with it, initially, was that the states weren't getting their taxes from it. It is starting to return.

[Taernath]

Oh. South Korea sounds boring. So was Farmville outlawed there too?

Yep! I bet GS would be banned over there too if they knew what it was.

[Gelston]

Yep! I bet GS would be banned over there too if they knew what it was.

Nah, they'd try to call GS an analog game.

[Archigeek]

Online gambling's legality depends on your state. It is very legal in some places. One of the issues with it, initially, was that the states weren't getting their taxes from it. It is starting to return.

All the pro's I knew were paying taxes. Me, the amateur, I don't recall if I paid taxes on my winnings. I was starting to get good when I decided that I didn't want to turn it into a job. I think it was all about money though... the money of big time casino owning donors.

[Gelston]

All the pro's I knew were paying taxes. Me, the amateur, I don't recall if I paid taxes on my winnings. I was starting to get good when I decided that I didn't want to turn it into a job. I think it was all about money though... the money of big time casino owning donors.

The big casino part is right about some things. There was a federal regulation that prevented betting on horse races online, specifically. The transmitting of the data across state lines via an online source was the illegality if I can recall correctly.

[Aluvius]

Yeah, you have to pay withholding on payouts from winnings in casino's. They get your information from you and file a W-2G for you. Its a complex ratio though and you can offset it with losses, etc.

[drauz]

All the pro's I knew were paying taxes. Me, the amateur, I don't recall if I paid taxes on my winnings. I was starting to get good when I decided that I didn't want to turn it into a job. I think it was all about money though... the money of big time casino owning donors.

They won't focus on small winnings and most people that don't have a gambling problem don't report losses or winnings but if you hit the jackpot on the slots or hit it big at craps or another table game the pit boss will make sure you do.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/newsmakers/oprah_car_tax/

[n0551n3n0m1n3]

As someone who has player other mmo's....this is common practice. RNG lockboxes/crates with items obtainable through grinding or buy a key with irl $$ and get them without grinding. If the RNG wasnt there...it couldnt be considered gambling, but then they would have to price the items accordingly, to still turn a profit on the game.

[AnOrdim]

As pointed out, the boxes themselves are perfectly fine, the problem is if the game pays out cash etc. That being said, I wonder if you could make an argument that allowing a grey area cash market and not actively stopping it is equal to allowing cash sales. To my knowledge, all other games make a token effort of preventing and/or banning discouraging cash sales. Gemstone does not, even though they've proven they can track other information very easily. So it certainly wouldn't be hard for them to do so. They've instead chosen to embrace the gamble aspect at each major event, with the full knowledge of the secondary cash market in place.

Steam will also notify states etc if you reach a certain amount of sales in their marketplace. Second life has it as well. Those two obviously directly support such transactions with their own software, instead of just covering their eyes and ignoring the cash marketplace going on all around them.

[Gelston]

As pointed out, the boxes themselves are perfectly fine, the problem is if the game pays out cash etc. That being said, I wonder if you could make an argument that allowing a grey area cash market and not actively stopping it is equal to allowing cash sales. To my knowledge, all other games make a token effort of preventing and/or banning discouraging cash sales. Gemstone does not, even though they've proven they can track other information very easily. So it certainly wouldn't be hard for them to do so. They've instead chosen to embrace the gamble aspect at each major event, with the full knowledge of the secondary cash market in place.

Steam will also notify states etc if you reach a certain amount of sales in their marketplace. Second life has it as well. Those two obviously directly support such transactions with their own software, instead of just covering their eyes and ignoring the cash marketplace going on all around them.

GS is too small to really be noticed I think. there might be tons of other tiny communities like that scattered around with the same sorta thing. Just not known about.

[AnOrdim]

GS is too small to really be noticed I think. there might be tons of other tiny communities like that scattered around with the same sorta thing. Just not known about.

Probably the exact reason, just like how casino's in NJ wont give you a tax form unless you win a jackpot over $2k. It's just not worth chasing something until it hits a certain amount.

[Methais]

Oh. South Korea sounds boring.

I disagree.

https://i.imgur.com/4kVitDS.gif

I disagree even more at 60 fps.

https://i.imgur.com/4kVitDS.mp4

[Gelston]

No tits. Pass.

[Methais]

As much as I hate cash based loot crates, they're not really any different than these:

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/single-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machine.jpg

[Gelston]

As much as I hate cash based loot crates, they're not really any different than these:

https://www.candymachines.com/images/bulk_vending_machines/toy_capsule_vending_machines/single-stand-superpro-toy-vendor-machine.jpg

I once spent $5 in quarters to get a watch from one of those.

[Methais]

I once spent $5 in quarters to get a watch from one of those.

I did the same to get a thing of chattering teeth, but I still lost. Then my grandma tried the next day when she was at the store and got it on like her 3rd try.

WTS chattering teeth MB 2000 Simucoins

[drauz]

No tits. Pass.

She doesn't even have an ass.

[Gelston]

She doesn't even have an ass.

I'm almost positive she is a 12 year old and Methais is a sick, sick man.

[Latrinsorm]

As someone who went to Catholic school I am clearly the expert here on scientific biology (esp. female) and I can declare with 100% certainty that the woman pictured has both breasts and buttocks.

[Whirlin]

Two things have not been mentioned in this thread.

1) Gemstone is owned by Simutronics Corporation, wholly owned by Stillfront group out of Sweden. I'm uncertain whether or not there are the same regulations in Sweden that the Battlefront lootcrates could be causing precedent for.
2) Companies such as Blizzard, with a global presence, have released details in accordance with... I believe Chinese law, which requires them to publish their odds of obtaining particular items from loot crates. This is widely in regards to cosmetic items, but I believe they did something similar to Hearthstone's packs. If there is any debate about a lootcrate-style system being able to grow power, I think Hearthstone would be a good parallel to draw.

[Gelston]

Two things have not been mentioned in this thread.

1) Gemstone is owned by Simutronics Corporation, wholly owned by Stillfront group out of Sweden. I'm uncertain whether or not there are the same regulations in Sweden that the Battlefront lootcrates could be causing precedent for.
2) Companies such as Blizzard, with a global presence, have released details in accordance with... I believe Chinese law, which requires them to publish their odds of obtaining particular items from loot crates. This is widely in regards to cosmetic items, but I believe they did something similar to Hearthstone's packs. If there is any debate about a lootcrate-style system being able to grow power, I think Hearthstone would be a good parallel to draw.

Stillfront bought the rest of Simu now? Simutronic's head office is in the US. It is registered as a US Company. It may have a large portion of it owned by a company outside of the US, but that doesn't change that it is registered as a US Company.

[BigWorm]

Where are the fucking real lawyers when we need them? This place used to be crawling with them.

[drauz]

As someone who went to Catholic school I am clearly the expert here on scientific biology (esp. female) and I can declare with 100% certainty that the woman pictured has both breasts and buttocks.

https://i.imgur.com/2vDU5CR.gif

[AnOrdim]

Stillfront bought the rest of Simu now? Simutronic's head office is in the US. It is registered as a US Company. It may have a large portion of it owned by a company outside of the US, but that doesn't change that it is registered as a US Company.

It's not so much where a company operates from or is registered but where they do business. Do or allow business operations in China? Need to follow Chinese law (at least in that market). A good example of this is steam/Dota2 , they have a whole second ecosystem that is strictly Chinese and east asian only. The two servers are seperated as best as they can be. This keeps Valve from being fucked over by not being in compliance with Chinese market laws etc.

[Whirlin]

It's not so much where a company operates from or is registered but where they do business. Do or allow business operations in China? Need to follow Chinese law (at least in that market). A good example of this is steam/Dota2 , they have a whole second ecosystem that is strictly Chinese and east asian only. The two servers are seperated as best as they can be. This keeps Valve from being fucked over by not being in compliance with Chinese market laws etc.
China is also a unique circumstance. There's also further incentives to create IP holding companies in China to additionally protect assets from future theft/etc. It's also neigh impossible to begin litigation with a Chinese company as an outside company.

When we're specifically focused on online gambling, playing the international card has historically been sufficient, depending on where the company is. If a prosecutor comes forth, it's prosecuted where the owning company is incorporated. While yes, Simutronics is still it's wholy owned entity, given that Stillfront is the majority shareholder, it would be a reasonable course of action should EA-style attacks be waged against Simutronics for them to rebrand into Stillfront and absolve the parent corporation from any guilt.

[Methais]

I'm almost positive she is a 12 year old and Methais is a sick, sick man.

https://i.imgur.com/4kVitDS.gif

[Archigeek]

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/08/video-games-loot-boxes-gambling-gaming-star-wars-battlefront-2/

[Gelston]

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/08/video-games-loot-boxes-gambling-gaming-star-wars-battlefront-2/

Yeah I saw it. One State Rep from Hawaii is concerned.

[Maerit]

The only tie this kind of product has with legitimate gambling is the risk compulsive and erratic spending. It's no different than buying a pack of magic the gathering cards. You might get a rare card, you might not. Spend enough money and statistically you'll get a good prize, gain an advantage over someone else, and increase your level of entertainment.

Unlike magic, however, you can't resell what you gain.

I work in the casino gaming industry, and the types of regulations gambling has to adhere to is far more tied to monetary gains than just about anything else. Without the potential to win a currency or item that can be considered an asset, they would have a hard time making this fall under the gambling regulations.

It does deserve some form of regulation, however. There needs to be a method of addressing video gaming addiction (which is really just obsessive behaviour), but the percentage of actual addicts is still fairly low.

[Methais]

The only tie this kind of product has with legitimate gambling is the risk compulsive and erratic spending. It's no different than buying a pack of magic the gathering cards. You might get a rare card, you might not. Spend enough money and statistically you'll get a good prize, gain an advantage over someone else, and increase your level of entertainment.

Unlike magic, however, you can't resell what you gain.

I work in the casino gaming industry, and the types of regulations gambling has to adhere to is far more tied to monetary gains than just about anything else. Without the potential to win a currency or item that can be considered an asset, they would have a hard time making this fall under the gambling regulations.

It does deserve some form of regulation, however. There needs to be a method of addressing video gaming addiction (which is really just obsessive behaviour), but the percentage of actual addicts is still fairly low.

Yeah but the difference here is fuck EA with a cactus jackhammer dildo.

You too Simu with digs and also with your fake WPS stuff just because. Cunts.

[Gelston]

Loot Boxes Are Not Gambling, New Zealand Says

Loot boxes do not constitute gambling, according to New Zealand's gambling regulation group. The Gambling Compliance department of its Department of Internal Affairs told Gamasutra this week that "the Department is of the view that loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling."

In a statement, the DIA's Trish Millward said she is aware of the international discussion around loot boxes in video games in the wake of the controversy surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront II. The reasons loot boxes do not meet the legal definition of gambling, she said, is because "gamers do not purchase loot boxes seeking to win money or something that can be converted into money."

Spending real money to buy a loot box that only gives you a chance to get something may "appear to be gambling," Millward admitted, but they do not meet the legal definition. As such, the DIA "has no ability to regulate the activity under the Gambling Act 2003.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/loot-boxes-are-not-gambling-new-zealand-says/1100-6455608/


Like I said, not gambling! New Zealand agrees with me!

[Methais]

Like I said, not gambling! New Zealand agrees with me!

They should still consider it gambling even if only on EA games because EA.