In case anyone is interested in the actual report:
I took a cursory glance and found some interesting passages:
A measure to reduce "problematic gambling" can be stake limits. In "offline" gambling, this can be difficult to use effectively, since play is often anonymous. But in online gambling, at least one provider can tell how much you're betting. Cryptic actually has such a "stake limit" in some way - there is a limit to how much Zen you're allowed to buy. You can override it by contacting customer support.
Stake limits are one of the things they recommend in the report:
185. We recommend that the Government should work with the Gambling Commission to establish a category system for online gambling products.
186. The Government and the Gambling Commission should use the online product categories to set stake limits for online gambling products.
A few other interesting passages:
189. To ensure that the implementation of online stake limits does not lead to increased unregulated offshore gambling, the Government and Gambling Commission must work with payment providers and banks to establish a scheme to block payments to such operators
339. We recommend that the banks should work together with UK Finance to create an industry-wide protocol on blocking gambling payments, with at least a 48 hour cooling off period.
Note that these passages do not yet refer to "lootboxes", but other forms of gambling.
This might be the more relevant passage
422. In video games, a loot box is a virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a further randomised virtual item, such as a customisation option for a player’s character or additional weapons and armour. Typically, players pay for the loot box itself or receive the box during the game and later buy a ‘key’ to redeem it. Dr David Zendle, lecturer in Computer Science at the University of York, referred to the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s definition of loot boxes as “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way”.
446. We recommend that Ministers should make regulations under section 6(6) of the Gambling Act 2005 specifying that loot boxes and any other similar games are games of chance, without waiting for the Government’s wider review of the Gambling Act.
The loot box definition I bolded seems to be applicable for STO. You hand over money to acquire Zen, and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way. Sure, you can also buy something with Zen that is not uncertain (like a ship), but if you acquire a master key with it, it's uncertain and what you actually get is determined randomly.
Regarding to what could be specifically relevant for a game like STO in terms of restrictions or requirements for a license:
454. The Gambling Commission and local trading standards officers should undertake regular age test purchases and visits in all land-based gambling venues such as betting shops, amusement arcades and National Lottery retailers, and develop an appropriate age testing scheme for online gambling operators.
473. The minimum age at which an individual can take part in any online gambling should be raised to 18.
As I understand it, offering gambling in the Uk alos requires a license, but figuring out what that means for a company and all that I leave to the interested reader. Or really, too Cryptic, because that will be their mission, if they choose to accept it.
It seems to me that, if UK were to follow these suggestions, and Cryptic had to acquire a license for STO, they would need to introduce an age-check, and to create a spending limit as a minimum.
Or make UK users unable to get master keys and R&D boxes.
Of course, that are a few ifs before that happens. I think the idea that something could change within 2 weeks quite... unlikely.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
One suggestion in regards to online gambling are stake limits. Cryptic actually has something like that - if you buy too much Zen, you will be denied buying more. You have to contact customer support or wait a few days to buy more at that point.
Stake Limits
185. We recommend that the Government should work with the Gambling Commission to establish a category system for online gambling products.
186. The Government and the Gambling Commission should use the online product categories to set stake limits for online gambling products.
A few other interesting passages:
189. To ensure that the implementation of online stake limits does not lead to increased unregulated offshore gambling, the Government and Gambling Commission must work with payment providers and banks to establish a scheme to block payments to such operators
339. We recommend that the banks should work together with UK Finance to create an industry-wide protocol on blocking gambling payments, with at least a 48 hour cooling off period.
Note that these passages do not yet refer to "lootboxes", but other forms of gambling.
This might be the more relevant passage
Loot Box definitions
422. In video games, a loot box is a virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a further randomised virtual item, such as a customisation option for a player’s character or additional weapons and armour. Typically, players pay for the loot box itself or receive the box during the game and later buy a ‘key’ to redeem it. Dr David Zendle, lecturer in Computer Science at the University of York, referred to the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s definition of loot boxes as “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way”.
446. We recommend that Ministers should make regulations under section 6(6) of the Gambling Act 2005 specifying that loot boxes and any other similar games are games of chance, without waiting for the Government’s wider review of the Gambling Act.
The loot box definition I bolded seems to be applicable for STO. You hand over money to acquire Zen, and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way. Sure, you can also buy something with Zen that is not uncertain (like a ship), but if you acquire a master key with it, it's uncertain and what you actually get is determined randomly.
Regarding to what could be specifically relevant for a game like STO in terms of restrictions or requirements for a license:
Age Restrictions
454. The Gambling Commission and local trading standards officers should undertake regular age test purchases and visits in all land-based gambling venues such as betting shops, amusement arcades and National Lottery retailers, and develop an appropriate age testing scheme for online gambling operators.
473. The minimum age at which an individual can take part in any online gambling should be raised to 18.
As I understand it, offering gambling in the Uk alos requires a license, but figuring out what that means for a company and all that I leave to the interested reader. Or really, too Cryptic, because that will be their mission, if they choose to accept it.
It seems to me that, if UK were to follow these suggestions, and the new laws would be enforceable even for over-seas providers, and Cryptic would have to acquire a license for STO to offer STO in UK in the future, they would probably need to introduce an age-check, and to create a spending limit as a minimum.
I would not be surprised if the legal proceedings required for acquiring a license (including lawyers, fees and any vetting processes) would be actually a bigger stumbling block than creating some sort of age-check and spending limit. But I coul be wrong. Maybe most (UK) STO players are below 18 and the big whales routinely spend more than whatever the "gambling allownace" will be.
On second thought. It could be it would not be Cryptic's responsibility to care for such a license, but Perfect World as publisher. Which also could make things easier, because they are likely to have a bigger legal team.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
If STO ever does drop loot boxes the exchange will collapse since practically all of the best stuff in there comes from those boxes either directly as things the opener did not want or from people floating in lobi from those boxes buying lobi items to sell for EC. Sure, there is some market flow for drops and crafted gear for a few thousand EC but sales would bottom out if that was all that was there.
Also, STO is careful to put enough recoupable value in the boxes that by some of the definitions it is not gambling, it is random selection that starts at direct-buy value and may give a surprise bonus value item worth much more than the direct-buy value.
There was a case like that back in the mid 2000s about internet games (in the US) where the judge said that gambling requires a win/lose mechanic and that if there is no loss condition then it is not gambling, and the conversion from one form of value into an equivalent or greater value does not constitute win/loss.
The loot box definition I bolded seems to be applicable for STO. You hand over money to acquire Zen, and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way. Sure, you can also buy something with Zen that is not uncertain (like a ship), but if you acquire a master key with it, it's uncertain and what you actually get is determined randomly.
Not ENTIRELY accurate. There is one thing you are absolutely GUARANTEED to get no matter what. Lobi Crystals. The only variable on those is how many you get. But you ALWAYS get a quantity of Lobi.
For games like STO... this isn't a black/white issue. Its shades of gray. And frankly I get tired of the kneejerk all in arguments of "my way or the highway" on a subject that has a lot of neuance to it. Its not one or the other 100%.
For games like STO... this isn't a black/white issue. Its shades of gray.
It seems pretty black and white to me, “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way” doesn't really leave room for nuance as it doesn't say ALL the items need to be random (that would leave a HUGE loophole that game companies WOULD exploit). You could get nine pre-determined items plus something random and it would still count, because a single item being random fits the House of Lords' definition of a loot box. So when it comes to STO the Lobi doesn't matter at all, only the random item does.
> @gaevsman said:
> I still think that this should be put in the FCT... as for now it's trully irrelevant, until the law get passed or something. Anyway, as i don't live in the UK or US, nor any of their colonies... it doesnt matter to me at all... still think its a first world problem..
/seconded
It seems like people are chomping at the bit to post any news article every time a country talks about this, but like you said until something is actually passed AND this game is directly effected there is nothing new to say about any of this, IMO.
True, but as the House of Lords has recognized it as gambling in a statement they said that regulations could be implemented extremely quickly as most wouldn't even require legislation since normal gambling regulations would just apply to it.
For games like STO... this isn't a black/white issue. Its shades of gray.
It seems pretty black and white to me, “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way” doesn't really leave room for nuance as it doesn't say ALL the items need to be random (that would leave a HUGE loophole that game companies WOULD exploit). You could get nine pre-determined items plus something random and it would still count, because a single item being random fits the House of Lords' definition of a loot box. So when it comes to STO the Lobi doesn't matter at all, only the random item does.
That definition is terrible. It could reasonably be argued to apply to any random drop from an enemy in any subscription or buy to play game, including nearly all non-MMOs. Further it could also be used to nix a hypothetical box design that always gave you a T6 box ship, but it would be random as to which one, and the box or key cost $100.
It would only serve to utterly destroy any randomization of loot elements because games are a business. It also doesn't quite work for STO given that zen isn't money, and one does not have to buy zen with money to get a key or open a box.
And having 9 items predetermined and 1 random still fitting the definition would be a nonsensical problem. There is a huge difference between getting say 8 mk 15 items, a large weapon battery, and a random ship or a predefined ship, 8 mk15 items, and a random battery.
Exactly. Its too vague a definition. Too easy to exploit in such a way as to go overkill. Where does it stop?
You need to be more defined. Precise with your wording. Otherwise anyone with a grevience against something that has some element of random in it can say it violates some gambling law.
For example, lets say that some guy lost a Pokemon turney. He could turn around and, out of spite, claim that the people behind the Pokemon TCG are encouraging Gambling because their booster packs are randomized. Which in turn raises questions about Magic: The Gathering, and pretty much the entire TCG world. Hell... even basic Baseball trading cards!
You leave something too vague, it leaves the door open to exploitation.
You need to be specific. Target the specific thing you're concerned about, such as HOW they're implimented. Prime example is Battlefront 2's boxes which started this whole debate in the first place. You want to prevent that kind of predatory thing? Then you specifically target that particular element. Not broadstroke everything remotely looking like it, because everyone has done it differently. Otherwise its bound to be taken to an extreme, and we might as well cringe every time we get a rupee instead of a heart in Legend of Zelda, because we just gambled.
Otherwise its bound to be taken to an extreme, and we might as well cringe every time we get a rupee instead of a heart in Legend of Zelda, because we just gambled.
It doesn't seem quite THAT vague imo, the way I interpret it is any microtransaction that issues a random item.
And right there is the problem. If it can be interpreted in more than one way, it will be interpreted in more than one way. That's how lawyers and lawmakers build careers.
What I'm going to say won't be popular but you guys asked for opinions, so I hope you're prepared for ones you don't like. There's a few key issues I see with this whole argument.
1: Alternatives and required investment: First up I will say, I am not a fan of lockboxes and R&D promo, however at the same time I also recognize the game being free to play has to make money somehow. They can offer me all the lockboxes and promo items they want, but I alone am responsible for whether I open my wallet and buy into it or not. If I do choose to invest money and buy into the boxes, I do so of my own free will. No one held a phaser to my head and forced me to do it, I chose to do it. Buying into the boxes and promo is optional in this game and not required. Folks need to realize that they're not going to give away box and promo ships for about $5 like some folks want (none in here). If folks can give them an alternative that does just as well or better, they will likely jump to it. There is less than 10 ships left in this game I don't own, purely because I have no interest in them. Everything I have now someone starting tomorrow could eventually get given a bit of time and grinding, with the exception of the of the lifetime ships.
2: Government: Trust me when I say you don't want governments sinking their hooks any further into the gaming world than they already are. You do not want some of the politicians who know nothing about video games trying to regulate them. In fact here in the states had they had their way and the agreement that formed the ESRB not taken place, it would have been the death of video games in the SNES era of gaming after the rated mature Mortal Kombat games released. Knowing the odds of getting certain items is not going to help and won't stop folks from buying boxes. Folks know the odds of the Powerball and MegaMillions here in the states, yet still play that all the time. They can try to restrict sales of the boxes in game to only those who are 18 or older, but that would simply be a feel good law with no way of enforcement. How would they know if the person buying the boxes is old enough, or if it's a case of a kid using mommy and daddy's credit card? It's illegal in the states to sell a rated M game to anyone under 17, yet kids still end up in games they shouldn't be playing, because again the parents bought it for them.
In fact years ago I went into the local Gamestop to buy Rock Band 4 when it came out. Ahead of me in line was an older woman with 2 kids that at most were 11 years old both with a copy of the latest CoD game that was rated M. When they got to the counter the clerk had to ask her if she knew about it being rated M. The lady didn't understand at first. The manager who was a friend tried to explain it but she still didn't get it, and he looked at me with that look of "please help". I explained it to the lady what the ratings meant and explained why the game was rated M. If looks could kill those kids would have murdered me in that moment. She legitimately seemed grateful for the explanation. The clerk asked her if she wanted to buy it still. Those kids gave her the "if you make us put it back we're going to throw a tantrum" look. She bought the games because "they really wanted it." So the law did nothing. So if she complained after the fact over what the kids saw, she was 100% to blame for buying the game. Same thing with lockboxes. If little Johnny is buying lockboxes with mommy and daddy's credit card, they had to give it to him to do so, and if he stole it, well you've got more serious issues going on that lockboxes. Consumers have the power of the purse, and if enough folks stopped buying lockboxes, they would disappear over night.
3: Courts and fallout: By US law as it sits currently, the boxes legally are not gambling. By US law in order for it to count as gambling there has to be an asset at risk for a tangible asset payout. This is why Pinball was originally considered gambling when it came out. During Prohibition, speakeasies would use the game to get around laws and depending on your score with a little wink and a nudge, the person would get booze, smokes, or even cash as a prize. Thus potential asset at risk for potential asset payout. With STO there is no payout as the ships are worth zero in terms of real world cash. It's illegal to sell them for real cash outside the game. Since there is no potential for a payout, that's one of the reasons it's not gambling under US law. Zen has no monetary value. The other big distinction I see courts making is when the cash transaction actually takes place and what it gets you. If you pay $20 for zen, you get $20 for zen, sometimes more depending on if a charge bonus is going on. You get a pre-determined amount of zen. What you do with that zen once you have it is up to you. If you choose to invest in keys and go for boxes, that's on you. At that point you're using a virtual currency to purchase a virtual box. The actual real world cash is not the thing that's opening the boxes, but a virtual currency. It may seem like a cop out, but that's a huge distinction that will get argued in court. The absolute best I see it being labeled is "simulated gambling" as I don't see enough there to call it true gambling since there is no payoff.
Also the downside to this is that it can also be construed to effect trading card games as well. By the logic of calling it gambling then we would also have to call Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugioh and similar gambling as well. When I pay my $3 for a pack of MTG cards, I am paying for 15 cards to be in the pack. I might get a bonus 16th foil card, or a card worth a good bit on the singles market, or I could get poo not even worth the $3. Either way I get 15 cards, even if it's not 15 cards I like. Either way I had the option to buy packs or singles. Regardless I alone am responsible for that choice, not the game companies. By the logic on display here, those games would also have to be struck for gambling since there is a random element to them. This would also mean by their logic, the critical chance system in game could be considered gambling. It would ultimately effect far more than folks realize.
Overall I don't see it as gambling as there is no legal means of a payoff of equal or greater value. Also I also see it as folks being incumbent on themselves to take a little personal responsibility as well. It's not the job of a game company to be policing this sort of stuff.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
What I'm going to say won't be popular but you guys asked for opinions, so I hope you're prepared for ones you don't like. There's a few key issues I see with this whole argument.
Well, in fact, I did, no one else.
I'm the one to blame here.
Thank you all for the insights, most interesting!!!
Klingons don't get drunk.
They just get less sober.
*points at Darkblade's post*
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
STO is pretty much a PvE game. Little to no direct PvP where stat boosting stuff really has an impact competitively. The items are also tradable, and thus available to the entire playerbase via alternate means.
TF2 gives multiple ways of acquiring what is in thier box, which has no statistical advantage over even a stock weapon. ONLY difference a boxed weapon has is the potential to be a different quality, which is cosmetic.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 frakked up, putting items that you HAD to have to stay competative in a competitive PvP multiplayer environment in a box that cost money, then tried to say you COULD grind them out... but set it up in such a way as to basically blackmail you into opening your wallet because by the time you DO grind it out, its obsolete and you have to do it again for the current must have. Also as far as I know... trading is not a thing in BF2, thus you had to open boxes yourself to get the gubbins, and more often than not, just get copies of what you already had.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
In fact years ago I went into the local Gamestop to buy Rock Band 4 when it came out. Ahead of me in line was an older woman with 2 kids that at most were 11 years old both with a copy of the latest CoD game that was rated M. When they got to the counter the clerk had to ask her if she knew about it being rated M. The lady didn't understand at first. The manager who was a friend tried to explain it but she still didn't get it, and he looked at me with that look of "please help". I explained it to the lady what the ratings meant and explained why the game was rated M. If looks could kill those kids would have murdered me in that moment. She legitimately seemed grateful for the explanation. The clerk asked her if she wanted to buy it still. Those kids gave her the "if you make us put it back we're going to throw a tantrum" look. She bought the games because "they really wanted it." So the law did nothing. So if she complained after the fact over what the kids saw, she was 100% to blame for buying the game. Same thing with lockboxes. If little Johnny is buying lockboxes with mommy and daddy's credit card, they had to give it to him to do so, and if he stole it, well you've got more serious issues going on that lockboxes. Consumers have the power of the purse, and if enough folks stopped buying lockboxes, they would disappear over night.
I think the bigger problem here is that the woman didn't understand it without some serious help.
But thanks to the help, she now made an informed decision, and that decision can inform her further behaviour, both with that game and future games she is asked to buy with the kids. For example, she now could decide that she should supervise the kids more when they are playing (or tell the kids parents that they should do that).
Will any of that happen? Maybe, maybe not. But the chance of it happening would be even worse if she had no clue what she was getting there.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
*points at Darkblade's post*
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
STO is pretty much a PvE game. Little to no direct PvP where stat boosting stuff really has an impact competitively. The items are also tradable, and thus available to the entire playerbase via alternate means.
TF2 gives multiple ways of acquiring what is in thier box, which has no statistical advantage over even a stock weapon. ONLY difference a boxed weapon has is the potential to be a different quality, which is cosmetic.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 frakked up, putting items that you HAD to have to stay competative in a competitive PvP multiplayer environment in a box that cost money, then tried to say you COULD grind them out... but set it up in such a way as to basically blackmail you into opening your wallet because by the time you DO grind it out, its obsolete and you have to do it again for the current must have. Also as far as I know... trading is not a thing in BF2, thus you had to open boxes yourself to get the gubbins, and more often than not, just get copies of what you already had.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
I think if I follow the text from the house of lords, I don't think they care wether loot box items are cosmetic or contain power. Their conclusion is that these items have value to the players, and that value is increasing the risk of addictive gambling behavior.A s a player, I vastly prefer purely cosmetic stuff over pay-for-power, but as a regulator worried about the negative consequences of gambling adictions, that aspect is irrelevant.
Hence their view seems to be it must all become regulated under the gambling laws.
Also making very specific legal requirements just invites exploiting the rules. "Oh, so the content must be totally random - easy, we add a guaranteed fruit cake to it." "Oh, so online card games over money is forbidden, let's change the cards into containers with a transparent side only seen by the player and new symbols, it's not cards anymore" I think that isn't that likely to happen.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The point still remains that interpretation can make it spiral out of control and hit things it was not intended to hit. THAT is the problem with not being specific about wording. Becuase if its too vague or too much of a broad stroke... where does it end?
Some regulation is fine, but it has to be done RIGHT. Not just brush everything under the same vague umbrella, because some dunce with a chip on their shoulder might decide to use that to fuel their crusade against something else. And that's probably one of the worst case scenarios.
Give them some leeway, but specifically say what they cannot do. It took Disney threatening to yank the Star Wars license from EA to get them to stop their BS with BF2. And look how quickly EA changed things for the better after that.
That's why I'm more for targeting the specific practice that EA did. THAT was predatory and geared completely towards making EA money at the expense of the playerbase in a competitive multiplayer game. STO doesn't do that, and STO is almost entirely a PvE game. The stuff in STO's boxes are NOT REQUIRED to play the game and enjoy said game. On the other hand, BF2 rigged it so that just to stay competitive with other players you HAD to open your wallet, otherwise you're just going to suffer from using subpar gear.
What EA did... is what I want targeted. Specifically setting it up where you MUST pay money to compete. You MUST give tribute to the overlords otherwise your personal gameplay experience will be hampered.
There is also a compliance issue this that many people do not seem to realize.
Cryptic is a business, and businesses have to look at how things effect the bottom line. If the law does go though does the company take a smaller hit if it drops the lockboxes (phoenix boxes are included in this btw since the wording is so wide, so there goes the phoenix upgrades which players would not be happy about, and the exchange would pretty much collapse if there was not lockbox items going into it anymore) or would locking out British IP addresses be less of a problem?
They would loose a lot of players that way but it would not effect the rest of the player base outside of GB. I am not saying they should do that btw, but not selling or operating in countries that have laws that are bad for a corporation's business is pretty much a standard solution in a lot of markets and that is what could happen as either a temporary or permanent thing.
Of course, STO could be prepared for it and drop the lockboxes and phoenix stuff to move to a Mudds Market format (which would of course make many things unobtainable for the majority of F2P players) without having to worry about partitioning off countries who make the current business model illegal.
It rarely turns out well for the customers when a government takes the knee-jerk sawed-off shotgun approach instead of actually taking aim at the core of the problem itself.
Of course, STO could be prepared for it and drop the lockboxes and phoenix stuff to move to a Mudds Market format (which would of course make many things unobtainable for the majority of F2P players) without having to worry about partitioning off countries who make the current business model illegal.
It rarely turns out well for the customers when a government takes the knee-jerk sawed-off shotgun approach instead of actually taking aim at the core of the problem itself.
It is not just about some countries being partitioned off, but each country having their own anti-gambling laws that might conflict with the laws of other countries. Single players games are possible to fall in line with the laws of certain countries like certain games being edited to remove objectionable content like what Australia has done with numerous games. MMOs are far more difficult to fit the laws for different countries due to each server being international. STO might end up with a US server, a Canadian server, a Mexico server, a UK server, a France server, etc. to deal with each country having its own set of laws.
*points at Darkblade's post*
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
STO is pretty much a PvE game. Little to no direct PvP where stat boosting stuff really has an impact competitively. The items are also tradable, and thus available to the entire playerbase via alternate means.
TF2 gives multiple ways of acquiring what is in thier box, which has no statistical advantage over even a stock weapon. ONLY difference a boxed weapon has is the potential to be a different quality, which is cosmetic.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 frakked up, putting items that you HAD to have to stay competative in a competitive PvP multiplayer environment in a box that cost money, then tried to say you COULD grind them out... but set it up in such a way as to basically blackmail you into opening your wallet because by the time you DO grind it out, its obsolete and you have to do it again for the current must have. Also as far as I know... trading is not a thing in BF2, thus you had to open boxes yourself to get the gubbins, and more often than not, just get copies of what you already had.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
I think if I follow the text from the house of lords, I don't think they care wether loot box items are cosmetic or contain power. Their conclusion is that these items have value to the players, and that value is increasing the risk of addictive gambling behavior.A s a player, I vastly prefer purely cosmetic stuff over pay-for-power, but as a regulator worried about the negative consequences of gambling adictions, that aspect is irrelevant.
Hence their view seems to be it must all become regulated under the gambling laws.
Also making very specific legal requirements just invites exploiting the rules. "Oh, so the content must be totally random - easy, we add a guaranteed fruit cake to it." "Oh, so online card games over money is forbidden, let's change the cards into containers with a transparent side only seen by the player and new symbols, it's not cards anymore" I think that isn't that likely to happen.
This reminds me of an issue on youtube. Where in many cases rules are vague and they're not clear on what can get a video demonitized, but the reason they are unclear is because if they were precise then people would just exploit that to get around the rules.
*points at Darkblade's post*
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
STO is pretty much a PvE game. Little to no direct PvP where stat boosting stuff really has an impact competitively. The items are also tradable, and thus available to the entire playerbase via alternate means.
TF2 gives multiple ways of acquiring what is in thier box, which has no statistical advantage over even a stock weapon. ONLY difference a boxed weapon has is the potential to be a different quality, which is cosmetic.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 frakked up, putting items that you HAD to have to stay competative in a competitive PvP multiplayer environment in a box that cost money, then tried to say you COULD grind them out... but set it up in such a way as to basically blackmail you into opening your wallet because by the time you DO grind it out, its obsolete and you have to do it again for the current must have. Also as far as I know... trading is not a thing in BF2, thus you had to open boxes yourself to get the gubbins, and more often than not, just get copies of what you already had.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
I think if I follow the text from the house of lords, I don't think they care wether loot box items are cosmetic or contain power. Their conclusion is that these items have value to the players, and that value is increasing the risk of addictive gambling behavior.A s a player, I vastly prefer purely cosmetic stuff over pay-for-power, but as a regulator worried about the negative consequences of gambling adictions, that aspect is irrelevant.
Hence their view seems to be it must all become regulated under the gambling laws.
Also making very specific legal requirements just invites exploiting the rules. "Oh, so the content must be totally random - easy, we add a guaranteed fruit cake to it." "Oh, so online card games over money is forbidden, let's change the cards into containers with a transparent side only seen by the player and new symbols, it's not cards anymore" I think that isn't that likely to happen.
This reminds me of an issue on youtube. Where in many cases rules are vague and they're not clear on what can get a video demonitized, but the reason they are unclear is because if they were precise then people would just exploit that to get around the rules.
Ambiguity in company rules allows for corrupt company employees to get away with what they want. If the rules are precise, then everyone knows what they can get away with and what they can't instead of the rules applying to one person, but not another. Why should one video get demonitized and another gets away with it for doing the same thing just due to the political beliefs of the video? Either both should get demonitized or both get away with it. It is about upholding the concept of justice being blind where everyone has to follow the same rules.
*points at Darkblade's post*
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
STO is pretty much a PvE game. Little to no direct PvP where stat boosting stuff really has an impact competitively. The items are also tradable, and thus available to the entire playerbase via alternate means.
TF2 gives multiple ways of acquiring what is in thier box, which has no statistical advantage over even a stock weapon. ONLY difference a boxed weapon has is the potential to be a different quality, which is cosmetic.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 frakked up, putting items that you HAD to have to stay competative in a competitive PvP multiplayer environment in a box that cost money, then tried to say you COULD grind them out... but set it up in such a way as to basically blackmail you into opening your wallet because by the time you DO grind it out, its obsolete and you have to do it again for the current must have. Also as far as I know... trading is not a thing in BF2, thus you had to open boxes yourself to get the gubbins, and more often than not, just get copies of what you already had.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
I think if I follow the text from the house of lords, I don't think they care wether loot box items are cosmetic or contain power. Their conclusion is that these items have value to the players, and that value is increasing the risk of addictive gambling behavior.A s a player, I vastly prefer purely cosmetic stuff over pay-for-power, but as a regulator worried about the negative consequences of gambling adictions, that aspect is irrelevant.
Hence their view seems to be it must all become regulated under the gambling laws.
Also making very specific legal requirements just invites exploiting the rules. "Oh, so the content must be totally random - easy, we add a guaranteed fruit cake to it." "Oh, so online card games over money is forbidden, let's change the cards into containers with a transparent side only seen by the player and new symbols, it's not cards anymore" I think that isn't that likely to happen.
This reminds me of an issue on youtube. Where in many cases rules are vague and they're not clear on what can get a video demonitized, but the reason they are unclear is because if they were precise then people would just exploit that to get around the rules.
If the tech companies rules were laws, they would all be thrown out in the courts for being too arbitrary and vague (at least in the US). You cannot have laws where no one can reasonably understand what is or is not illegal.
Yes, with precision there is a line, and the point of that line is to allow you to walk right up to it, letting you know where that line is so you do not cross it. If the line is so fuzzy no one knows what it is, then the only way to be sure is to utterly purge anything from games that might even remotely be considered against these laws. Randomized items is nearly every loot system in nearly every game, and nearly all of them are effectively items for cash then because you tend to have to buy the game.
It would dramatically affect gaming to do something targeted so broadly, and not in a good way. You'd cripple the industry if they tried to comply. I think it is more likely that if the law was that bad, as already mentioned, they would quarantine the UK or whatever country had such laws, because redesigning their games to fit such vague laws and definitions is not remotely feasible.
It's illegal in the states to sell a rated M game to anyone under 17
Not to derail this but as far as I'm aware, and from what I saw with a 2 second Google search, it is perfectly legal to sell M-rated games to minors (I certainly never had trouble buying them in the late 90s/early 2000s), though some retailers such as GameStop have their own internal policies that prohibit it.
It's illegal in the states to sell a rated M game to anyone under 17
Not to derail this but as far as I'm aware, and from what I saw with a 2 second Google search, it is perfectly legal to sell M-rated games to minors (I certainly never had trouble buying them in the late 90s/early 2000s), though some retailers such as GameStop have their own internal policies that prohibit it.
He's thinking of Adults Only rating, i.e. AO. its extremely rare for a game to get an AO rating, and usually when it happens, most companies refuse to sell it.
It seems pretty black and white to me, “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way” doesn't really leave room for nuance as it doesn't say ALL the items need to be random (that would leave a HUGE loophole that game companies WOULD exploit). You could get nine pre-determined items plus something random and it would still count, because a single item being random fits the House of Lords' definition of a loot box. So when it comes to STO the Lobi doesn't matter at all, only the random item does.
The definitions in the UK laws will differ from those in other countries.
Not only that, the definition is not so black-and-white as Evilmark seems to think. There is simply nowhere at all in the game where you can hand over money and get something random, the only things you can buy for cash are zen (unless you count contributing to charity and getting a code for a non-random special package, and that is not random either) and lifetime memberships. Technically zen is not a currency, it is a purchased coupon or ticket, and those are generally not as regulated as something like casino chips or whatever that are direct markers for currency held in deposit and can be freely exchanged back and forth with that cash.
And they already have a per-day limit on the amount of zen you can buy, I suppose they could lower the limit or impose a mandatory waiting period before you can use the new zen to reduce addictive impulse buying, though the reaction to the Steam wallet waiting period shows it would not be popular, though they could make a small amount per day immediately available with the balance in waiting which would keep the quick convenience purchase ability but still damp the big addictive stuff.
Also, in STO it is not like some games where you absolutely have to buy lockboxes or even fixed cash equipment (like DCUO endgame, though I hear they have toned that down in recent years) just to keep from being nothing but a squishy punching bag for PvP whales.
Comments
I took a cursory glance and found some interesting passages:
A measure to reduce "problematic gambling" can be stake limits. In "offline" gambling, this can be difficult to use effectively, since play is often anonymous. But in online gambling, at least one provider can tell how much you're betting. Cryptic actually has such a "stake limit" in some way - there is a limit to how much Zen you're allowed to buy. You can override it by contacting customer support.
Stake limits are one of the things they recommend in the report:
A few other interesting passages: Note that these passages do not yet refer to "lootboxes", but other forms of gambling.
This might be the more relevant passage
The loot box definition I bolded seems to be applicable for STO. You hand over money to acquire Zen, and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way. Sure, you can also buy something with Zen that is not uncertain (like a ship), but if you acquire a master key with it, it's uncertain and what you actually get is determined randomly.
Regarding to what could be specifically relevant for a game like STO in terms of restrictions or requirements for a license:
As I understand it, offering gambling in the Uk alos requires a license, but figuring out what that means for a company and all that I leave to the interested reader. Or really, too Cryptic, because that will be their mission, if they choose to accept it.
The relevant existing UK gambling legislation can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents
It seems to me that, if UK were to follow these suggestions, and Cryptic had to acquire a license for STO, they would need to introduce an age-check, and to create a spending limit as a minimum.
Or make UK users unable to get master keys and R&D boxes.
Of course, that are a few ifs before that happens. I think the idea that something could change within 2 weeks quite... unlikely.
One suggestion in regards to online gambling are stake limits. Cryptic actually has something like that - if you buy too much Zen, you will be denied buying more. You have to contact customer support or wait a few days to buy more at that point.
Stake Limits
A few other interesting passages: Note that these passages do not yet refer to "lootboxes", but other forms of gambling.
This might be the more relevant passage
Loot Box definitions
The loot box definition I bolded seems to be applicable for STO. You hand over money to acquire Zen, and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way. Sure, you can also buy something with Zen that is not uncertain (like a ship), but if you acquire a master key with it, it's uncertain and what you actually get is determined randomly.
Regarding to what could be specifically relevant for a game like STO in terms of restrictions or requirements for a license:
Age Restrictions
As I understand it, offering gambling in the Uk alos requires a license, but figuring out what that means for a company and all that I leave to the interested reader. Or really, too Cryptic, because that will be their mission, if they choose to accept it.
The relevant existing UK gambling legislation can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents
It seems to me that, if UK were to follow these suggestions, and the new laws would be enforceable even for over-seas providers, and Cryptic would have to acquire a license for STO to offer STO in UK in the future, they would probably need to introduce an age-check, and to create a spending limit as a minimum.
I would not be surprised if the legal proceedings required for acquiring a license (including lawyers, fees and any vetting processes) would be actually a bigger stumbling block than creating some sort of age-check and spending limit. But I coul be wrong. Maybe most (UK) STO players are below 18 and the big whales routinely spend more than whatever the "gambling allownace" will be.
On second thought. It could be it would not be Cryptic's responsibility to care for such a license, but Perfect World as publisher. Which also could make things easier, because they are likely to have a bigger legal team.
Also, STO is careful to put enough recoupable value in the boxes that by some of the definitions it is not gambling, it is random selection that starts at direct-buy value and may give a surprise bonus value item worth much more than the direct-buy value.
There was a case like that back in the mid 2000s about internet games (in the US) where the judge said that gambling requires a win/lose mechanic and that if there is no loss condition then it is not gambling, and the conversion from one form of value into an equivalent or greater value does not constitute win/loss.
Not ENTIRELY accurate. There is one thing you are absolutely GUARANTEED to get no matter what. Lobi Crystals. The only variable on those is how many you get. But you ALWAYS get a quantity of Lobi.
For games like STO... this isn't a black/white issue. Its shades of gray. And frankly I get tired of the kneejerk all in arguments of "my way or the highway" on a subject that has a lot of neuance to it. Its not one or the other 100%.
It seems pretty black and white to me, “things in video games where you are handing over money and you are getting something uncertain that is determined randomly in some way” doesn't really leave room for nuance as it doesn't say ALL the items need to be random (that would leave a HUGE loophole that game companies WOULD exploit). You could get nine pre-determined items plus something random and it would still count, because a single item being random fits the House of Lords' definition of a loot box. So when it comes to STO the Lobi doesn't matter at all, only the random item does.
True, but as the House of Lords has recognized it as gambling in a statement they said that regulations could be implemented extremely quickly as most wouldn't even require legislation since normal gambling regulations would just apply to it.
That definition is terrible. It could reasonably be argued to apply to any random drop from an enemy in any subscription or buy to play game, including nearly all non-MMOs. Further it could also be used to nix a hypothetical box design that always gave you a T6 box ship, but it would be random as to which one, and the box or key cost $100.
It would only serve to utterly destroy any randomization of loot elements because games are a business. It also doesn't quite work for STO given that zen isn't money, and one does not have to buy zen with money to get a key or open a box.
And having 9 items predetermined and 1 random still fitting the definition would be a nonsensical problem. There is a huge difference between getting say 8 mk 15 items, a large weapon battery, and a random ship or a predefined ship, 8 mk15 items, and a random battery.
You need to be more defined. Precise with your wording. Otherwise anyone with a grevience against something that has some element of random in it can say it violates some gambling law.
For example, lets say that some guy lost a Pokemon turney. He could turn around and, out of spite, claim that the people behind the Pokemon TCG are encouraging Gambling because their booster packs are randomized. Which in turn raises questions about Magic: The Gathering, and pretty much the entire TCG world. Hell... even basic Baseball trading cards!
You leave something too vague, it leaves the door open to exploitation.
You need to be specific. Target the specific thing you're concerned about, such as HOW they're implimented. Prime example is Battlefront 2's boxes which started this whole debate in the first place. You want to prevent that kind of predatory thing? Then you specifically target that particular element. Not broadstroke everything remotely looking like it, because everyone has done it differently. Otherwise its bound to be taken to an extreme, and we might as well cringe every time we get a rupee instead of a heart in Legend of Zelda, because we just gambled.
It doesn't seem quite THAT vague imo, the way I interpret it is any microtransaction that issues a random item.
1: Alternatives and required investment: First up I will say, I am not a fan of lockboxes and R&D promo, however at the same time I also recognize the game being free to play has to make money somehow. They can offer me all the lockboxes and promo items they want, but I alone am responsible for whether I open my wallet and buy into it or not. If I do choose to invest money and buy into the boxes, I do so of my own free will. No one held a phaser to my head and forced me to do it, I chose to do it. Buying into the boxes and promo is optional in this game and not required. Folks need to realize that they're not going to give away box and promo ships for about $5 like some folks want (none in here). If folks can give them an alternative that does just as well or better, they will likely jump to it. There is less than 10 ships left in this game I don't own, purely because I have no interest in them. Everything I have now someone starting tomorrow could eventually get given a bit of time and grinding, with the exception of the of the lifetime ships.
2: Government: Trust me when I say you don't want governments sinking their hooks any further into the gaming world than they already are. You do not want some of the politicians who know nothing about video games trying to regulate them. In fact here in the states had they had their way and the agreement that formed the ESRB not taken place, it would have been the death of video games in the SNES era of gaming after the rated mature Mortal Kombat games released. Knowing the odds of getting certain items is not going to help and won't stop folks from buying boxes. Folks know the odds of the Powerball and MegaMillions here in the states, yet still play that all the time. They can try to restrict sales of the boxes in game to only those who are 18 or older, but that would simply be a feel good law with no way of enforcement. How would they know if the person buying the boxes is old enough, or if it's a case of a kid using mommy and daddy's credit card? It's illegal in the states to sell a rated M game to anyone under 17, yet kids still end up in games they shouldn't be playing, because again the parents bought it for them.
In fact years ago I went into the local Gamestop to buy Rock Band 4 when it came out. Ahead of me in line was an older woman with 2 kids that at most were 11 years old both with a copy of the latest CoD game that was rated M. When they got to the counter the clerk had to ask her if she knew about it being rated M. The lady didn't understand at first. The manager who was a friend tried to explain it but she still didn't get it, and he looked at me with that look of "please help". I explained it to the lady what the ratings meant and explained why the game was rated M. If looks could kill those kids would have murdered me in that moment. She legitimately seemed grateful for the explanation. The clerk asked her if she wanted to buy it still. Those kids gave her the "if you make us put it back we're going to throw a tantrum" look. She bought the games because "they really wanted it." So the law did nothing. So if she complained after the fact over what the kids saw, she was 100% to blame for buying the game. Same thing with lockboxes. If little Johnny is buying lockboxes with mommy and daddy's credit card, they had to give it to him to do so, and if he stole it, well you've got more serious issues going on that lockboxes. Consumers have the power of the purse, and if enough folks stopped buying lockboxes, they would disappear over night.
3: Courts and fallout: By US law as it sits currently, the boxes legally are not gambling. By US law in order for it to count as gambling there has to be an asset at risk for a tangible asset payout. This is why Pinball was originally considered gambling when it came out. During Prohibition, speakeasies would use the game to get around laws and depending on your score with a little wink and a nudge, the person would get booze, smokes, or even cash as a prize. Thus potential asset at risk for potential asset payout. With STO there is no payout as the ships are worth zero in terms of real world cash. It's illegal to sell them for real cash outside the game. Since there is no potential for a payout, that's one of the reasons it's not gambling under US law. Zen has no monetary value. The other big distinction I see courts making is when the cash transaction actually takes place and what it gets you. If you pay $20 for zen, you get $20 for zen, sometimes more depending on if a charge bonus is going on. You get a pre-determined amount of zen. What you do with that zen once you have it is up to you. If you choose to invest in keys and go for boxes, that's on you. At that point you're using a virtual currency to purchase a virtual box. The actual real world cash is not the thing that's opening the boxes, but a virtual currency. It may seem like a cop out, but that's a huge distinction that will get argued in court. The absolute best I see it being labeled is "simulated gambling" as I don't see enough there to call it true gambling since there is no payoff.
Also the downside to this is that it can also be construed to effect trading card games as well. By the logic of calling it gambling then we would also have to call Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugioh and similar gambling as well. When I pay my $3 for a pack of MTG cards, I am paying for 15 cards to be in the pack. I might get a bonus 16th foil card, or a card worth a good bit on the singles market, or I could get poo not even worth the $3. Either way I get 15 cards, even if it's not 15 cards I like. Either way I had the option to buy packs or singles. Regardless I alone am responsible for that choice, not the game companies. By the logic on display here, those games would also have to be struck for gambling since there is a random element to them. This would also mean by their logic, the critical chance system in game could be considered gambling. It would ultimately effect far more than folks realize.
Overall I don't see it as gambling as there is no legal means of a payoff of equal or greater value. Also I also see it as folks being incumbent on themselves to take a little personal responsibility as well. It's not the job of a game company to be policing this sort of stuff.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I'm the one to blame here.
Thank you all for the insights, most interesting!!!
They just get less sober.
That's what I was trying to say.
For my part I'm neutral. Not really been able to open many boxes in my time in STO. Spent most of my ground out Zen on C-Store stuff, occasionally buying a key here and there off the Exchange.
But as Darkblade pointed out, the "open to interpretation" is the issue. Because if you say it applies because of X, then I guess you have to expand that to include anything that has X. Where does it stop?
That is why I said that you need to be specific and precise in the wording. Go after the specific implimentation, not broadstroke everything. STO's lockboxes are implimented differently than Team Fortress 2's, which were implimented differently from the initial release of Battlefront 2's...
There are MANY factors that must be considered.
Key takeaways are the style of game, and how they are implimented. If we limit the argument to just competitive games... TF2 actually does it right.
But thanks to the help, she now made an informed decision, and that decision can inform her further behaviour, both with that game and future games she is asked to buy with the kids. For example, she now could decide that she should supervise the kids more when they are playing (or tell the kids parents that they should do that).
Will any of that happen? Maybe, maybe not. But the chance of it happening would be even worse if she had no clue what she was getting there.
I think if I follow the text from the house of lords, I don't think they care wether loot box items are cosmetic or contain power. Their conclusion is that these items have value to the players, and that value is increasing the risk of addictive gambling behavior.A s a player, I vastly prefer purely cosmetic stuff over pay-for-power, but as a regulator worried about the negative consequences of gambling adictions, that aspect is irrelevant.
Hence their view seems to be it must all become regulated under the gambling laws.
Also making very specific legal requirements just invites exploiting the rules. "Oh, so the content must be totally random - easy, we add a guaranteed fruit cake to it." "Oh, so online card games over money is forbidden, let's change the cards into containers with a transparent side only seen by the player and new symbols, it's not cards anymore" I think that isn't that likely to happen.
Some regulation is fine, but it has to be done RIGHT. Not just brush everything under the same vague umbrella, because some dunce with a chip on their shoulder might decide to use that to fuel their crusade against something else. And that's probably one of the worst case scenarios.
Give them some leeway, but specifically say what they cannot do. It took Disney threatening to yank the Star Wars license from EA to get them to stop their BS with BF2. And look how quickly EA changed things for the better after that.
That's why I'm more for targeting the specific practice that EA did. THAT was predatory and geared completely towards making EA money at the expense of the playerbase in a competitive multiplayer game. STO doesn't do that, and STO is almost entirely a PvE game. The stuff in STO's boxes are NOT REQUIRED to play the game and enjoy said game. On the other hand, BF2 rigged it so that just to stay competitive with other players you HAD to open your wallet, otherwise you're just going to suffer from using subpar gear.
What EA did... is what I want targeted. Specifically setting it up where you MUST pay money to compete. You MUST give tribute to the overlords otherwise your personal gameplay experience will be hampered.
Cryptic is a business, and businesses have to look at how things effect the bottom line. If the law does go though does the company take a smaller hit if it drops the lockboxes (phoenix boxes are included in this btw since the wording is so wide, so there goes the phoenix upgrades which players would not be happy about, and the exchange would pretty much collapse if there was not lockbox items going into it anymore) or would locking out British IP addresses be less of a problem?
They would loose a lot of players that way but it would not effect the rest of the player base outside of GB. I am not saying they should do that btw, but not selling or operating in countries that have laws that are bad for a corporation's business is pretty much a standard solution in a lot of markets and that is what could happen as either a temporary or permanent thing.
Of course, STO could be prepared for it and drop the lockboxes and phoenix stuff to move to a Mudds Market format (which would of course make many things unobtainable for the majority of F2P players) without having to worry about partitioning off countries who make the current business model illegal.
It rarely turns out well for the customers when a government takes the knee-jerk sawed-off shotgun approach instead of actually taking aim at the core of the problem itself.
It is not just about some countries being partitioned off, but each country having their own anti-gambling laws that might conflict with the laws of other countries. Single players games are possible to fall in line with the laws of certain countries like certain games being edited to remove objectionable content like what Australia has done with numerous games. MMOs are far more difficult to fit the laws for different countries due to each server being international. STO might end up with a US server, a Canadian server, a Mexico server, a UK server, a France server, etc. to deal with each country having its own set of laws.
This reminds me of an issue on youtube. Where in many cases rules are vague and they're not clear on what can get a video demonitized, but the reason they are unclear is because if they were precise then people would just exploit that to get around the rules.
Ambiguity in company rules allows for corrupt company employees to get away with what they want. If the rules are precise, then everyone knows what they can get away with and what they can't instead of the rules applying to one person, but not another. Why should one video get demonitized and another gets away with it for doing the same thing just due to the political beliefs of the video? Either both should get demonitized or both get away with it. It is about upholding the concept of justice being blind where everyone has to follow the same rules.
If the tech companies rules were laws, they would all be thrown out in the courts for being too arbitrary and vague (at least in the US). You cannot have laws where no one can reasonably understand what is or is not illegal.
Yes, with precision there is a line, and the point of that line is to allow you to walk right up to it, letting you know where that line is so you do not cross it. If the line is so fuzzy no one knows what it is, then the only way to be sure is to utterly purge anything from games that might even remotely be considered against these laws. Randomized items is nearly every loot system in nearly every game, and nearly all of them are effectively items for cash then because you tend to have to buy the game.
It would dramatically affect gaming to do something targeted so broadly, and not in a good way. You'd cripple the industry if they tried to comply. I think it is more likely that if the law was that bad, as already mentioned, they would quarantine the UK or whatever country had such laws, because redesigning their games to fit such vague laws and definitions is not remotely feasible.
Not to derail this but as far as I'm aware, and from what I saw with a 2 second Google search, it is perfectly legal to sell M-rated games to minors (I certainly never had trouble buying them in the late 90s/early 2000s), though some retailers such as GameStop have their own internal policies that prohibit it.
He's thinking of Adults Only rating, i.e. AO. its extremely rare for a game to get an AO rating, and usually when it happens, most companies refuse to sell it.
Not only that, the definition is not so black-and-white as Evilmark seems to think. There is simply nowhere at all in the game where you can hand over money and get something random, the only things you can buy for cash are zen (unless you count contributing to charity and getting a code for a non-random special package, and that is not random either) and lifetime memberships. Technically zen is not a currency, it is a purchased coupon or ticket, and those are generally not as regulated as something like casino chips or whatever that are direct markers for currency held in deposit and can be freely exchanged back and forth with that cash.
And they already have a per-day limit on the amount of zen you can buy, I suppose they could lower the limit or impose a mandatory waiting period before you can use the new zen to reduce addictive impulse buying, though the reaction to the Steam wallet waiting period shows it would not be popular, though they could make a small amount per day immediately available with the balance in waiting which would keep the quick convenience purchase ability but still damp the big addictive stuff.
Also, in STO it is not like some games where you absolutely have to buy lockboxes or even fixed cash equipment (like DCUO endgame, though I hear they have toned that down in recent years) just to keep from being nothing but a squishy punching bag for PvP whales.
Thank you.
They just get less sober.