Tag: ESA

The Loot Box Problem Will Be Solved Using Laws, Self-Regulation and Developer Innovation

Loot boxes have been the “next big thing” in gaming for quite a while and the backlash seems to be hitting in waves now, with many developers renouncing their use, gamers clamoring for their removal and authorities investigating whether they amount to gambling and how they should be regulated.

A loot box can be implemented in many ways, ranging from a simple mechanism to deliver already known items/powers, characters (or anything else related to a video game) to a complex package that offers something guaranteed for the player who opens one while enticing them to buy more until they pick up one of the items that has a very small chance to appear. There are loot boxes that can be picked up for free, based on in-game actions, those that are linked to currency that can be gained inside a game and others that are only offered to those willing to spend real-world money.

With the FTC saying that it is aiming to investigate how they are implemented, following in the footsteps of countries like Belgium and the UK, the reactions from video game industry bodies have been somewhat predictable, designed to protect developers and to slow down any kind of direct regulation.

That’s understandable but the industry fails to see that their best bet is not to clamor for full freedom (there are some really exploitative practices, especially in the mobile space) or for self-regulation (after all the industry has so far shown little appetite for clear rules that bind all creators who use loot boxes). The best bet for industry representatives, like the ESA and IGDA, is to work directly with governments in order to create simple and clear laws while also finding ways to innovate so that loot boxes serve the needs of their titles rather than simply their bottom line.

I play a lot of Star Trek: Timelines, a title that was first offered only on mobiles and is also now available on the PC, which has loot boxes. They do not feel exploitative to someone like me, who has good control over his desire to acquire characters and boosts and sees the game experience as a long term one. The same is surely not applicable to a gamer who wants instant gratification and is ready to spend money in order to get his hands on that super-rare Picard version.

Developers, industry representatives and lawmakers should work to find the worst practices linked to loot boxes and ban them outright, forcing everyone to make sure that gamers, especially the more vulnerable ones, are not directly targeted and exploited.

Then the industry needs to work within itself to further make sure that loot boxes are somewhat standardized and that there’s little chance for someone to be fooled when moving from one title to another or from one store ecosystem to another.

Finally, developers themselves need to find interesting ways to use the concept and make sure that it enhances a game experience rather than detract from it. There are plenty of ways to do this, ranging from making sure that there are limits on the rarity of stuff associated with them to introducing new ways to earn the currency linked to the loot box system.

It’s normal for the video game industry to feel somewhat targeted when it comes to regulation, especially given the rapid pace of change and the fact that many regulators do not fully understand the medium. But a combination of laws, regulation and innovation is the best way to solve the loot box conundrum and to make sure that it does not become another long-term fruitless discussion like the one linked to video game violence.

Videogames Can Educate About Violence, Public Needs to Be Educated About Them

Violence is an inescapable element of human existence. Violent crimes, especially those involving firearms, are an inescapable fact of modern life. Videogames are becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment of those who life this modern life. And there are plenty of people who see a direct link between titles like Call of Duty or The Evil Within and people who pick up a gun and decide to kill.

We can and we should work to reduce their impact and the incidence of violent acts in our societies but we cannot do that by finding scapegoats or by working against entire industries because of links that have not been conclusively proven by science.

The so called Videogame Summit that president Donald J. Trump conducted last week was, as reported by the Washington Post, a solid if limited attempt to see how video games developers and the people who represent their interests can interact with the political establishment in order to maybe reduce the propensity towards violence that exists in society. The meeting might have kicked off with a montage of context free shocking moments from modern titles but it’s a good sign that there was no tone of incrimination that emerged from the main participants.

There are no solid studies that show causation between violence videogames and violence in the real world but there are some, disputed but used by certain groups, showing some correlation between the two. Banning sales of titles and limiting access has already been tried and seems like a non-starter on legal grounds but the ESA, the ESRB and governments can work in order to find a way to make it easier to educate individuals about what they play, how they approach their experiences and monitor how their understanding of the world and even behavior is affected.

Panic and recrimination are not the responses that can solve a crisis but they can help stakeholders find ways to reconcile positions and find new ways to work together. In the case of violent videogames and violent acts the best idea is to educate those who create them, those who market them and those who consume them.

On its own Call of Duty (to use a name that means something even to non-gamers) will not drive someone to acquire a weapon and do something criminal. But the game coupled with conspiracy theories, limited support networks, ideologies that degrade fellow humans, unrestricted access to firepower and other factors can lead to very different and violent outcomes.

The videogame industry cannot on its own work to make sure that every player is grounded and understands that virtual violence should not be translated to the real world. But it can share information and data with the government and other groups to try and make sure that information and education is available to players and that they can make a clear distinction between what they do in Call of Duty and how they go about their lives once their exit their favorite shooter or horror title.