I can support making loot crates a “drinking age” 21 and up thing… is there much resistance to that rule in the gaming industry?
I would say immense resistance. Cutting out kids with disposable income would be a significant revenue dent, I would guess.
Not sure if there is much data out there on micro-transaction demographics though.
I think there would be huge resistance, wouldn’t that be the equivalent of slapping an Adults only rating on the box? It seems to be a kiss of death for Hollywood. I guess Walmart wouldn’t stock the product anymore and for franchises with Star wars it might hurt, but in the days of downloading might not have as much of a bite anymore.
Only for loot crate real money purchases. Kids could still play, just not spend cash on loot crates.
Even if they went for it, I would think it would be as successful as keeping Mature games away from kids as well as R+ rated movies. It would still be dependent on parents to care, employees to care and… they don’t. It also makes no sense to make it 21 when you can gamble at 18.
Sounds like age of legal gambling varies, but a lot of casinos sync it with drinking age for a variety of reasons
The primary of which is because they serve drinks, for free or charge on the reservations, right on the gambling floor. You can certainly gamble at 18 though.
I thought Extra Credits did a fine job explaining why this is a bad thing, but clearly the Belgians don’t agree.
Well not all loot boxes though. Battlefront II, with the changes is okay. I thought Extra Credits did an okay job, but… they didn’t really point out, if I remember right, how the industry brought this on themselves. They had a way to manage this, and as usual, pushed the limit. Aka, they had a chance to self-regulate and largely chose not to.
This though:\
games that draw in players with an “emotional profit forecast” of randomized goods, where players “buy an advantage with real money without knowing what benefit it would be.”
Seems too vague for a law. How do you define an emotional profit forecast? The second piece, well if there is no advantage, say just cosmetic then it should be okay right, under their interpretation.
Yep. They drove down this path and thousands of people warned them what would happen.
As far as the wording, that sounds like a European law if ever there was one.
A vague statement with questionable breadth that will be used however those in power feel like using it this week.
To be clear, that’s not the law, and it’s a Google Translate version of the text in question, which is more about factors which played into the Commission’s analysis of the legal situation. What the text means, if you look at the original, is that there’s an emotional aspect tied to the uncertainty of outcome, in particular that players may think they will get a benefit, when they might not
The law itself is, with certain enumerated exceptions which clearly do not apply (official translation follows):
Thank you for the clarification.
EA told investors they’re not slowing on loot box gambling.
Loot boxes are easily startled…but they’ll soon be back, and in greater numbers.
Greed is good, greed works.
Every now and then, I’m reminded how great it is to not work for an evil organization.
I wouldn’t know what that’s like…
There’s not enough bilateral exchange between the Chinese and Western gaming markets yet. Activision has yet to develop a Chinese Call of Duty where the People’s Liberation Army fends off Japan or Chiang Kai-shek. Wuxia is also not popular enough in the West yet.
Basically, Chinese legislation is not going to affect Western developers much, and vice versa, until there are more companies doing business in both spheres.
Hollywood movies are popular in China, however, so the situation might be different for movie makers.
https://www.2k.com/myteaminfo/nl/
2K removing parts of their microtransactions for NBA 2K to comply with laws.
Job-killing regulations!