Tag: loot boxes

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.

The Loot Box Issue Needs More Information, Not Regulation

I hate the concept of loot boxes, even if they have so far failed to make their way to the kinds of video games that I enjoy (grand strategy, role-playing and sports simulations) but I still believe that they are a valid concept to use for the industry. This is why the ESRB and other regulatory bodies should move as quickly as possible to make sure that gamers are better informed about them, so that the video games universe is not targeted for further regulation by various governments.

Maggie Hassan, a Democratic Senator, is the most recent elected official to question the way loot boxes are presented to players, in a letter to the ESRB that Forbes quotes in full, and it comes after a number of other governments have expressed their interest in introducing regulation, including banning sale of video games powered by loot boxes to those under 21.

The argument, a solid if not perfect one, is that the mechanic is almost impossible to distinguish from gambling and should be treated as such. There are bans on the mechanic in China, which companies like Blizzard have worked around (the regulatory landscape might change and developers might be required to once again tweak the way “loot boxes” are delivered to players).

The easy response from the video game industry is to simply push back against the idea that politicians or bureaucracies have the power to regulate mechanics in their titles (some gamers might also join in, saying that how they use their money inside various titles is their own choice and should not be restricted).

But the more coherent long term position would be to accept that players (and parents, when it comes to users who are under the age of 18) should have information about loot boxes (and other microtransactions associated with video games) to inform their choice. Self-regulation, driven by the ESRB and other associated bodies, is the best way to make sure that the government stays away and that there’s a solid collaboration between developers, publishers and players for the good of the video game ecosystem.