The ESRB steps up its euphemism game with a new way to call out loot boxes

Front page
1
The ESRB steps up its euphemism game with a new way to call out loot boxes “Includes Random Items” – that’s the new descriptor the ESRB is adding to its “In-Game Purchases” warning text on videogames. It’s meant to call out when a game features randomized loot boxes, card packs, or prize wheels. The group has been on the forefront of doing everything it can to prop up loot boxes as a legally and morally fun way to enhance games. It’s not gambling, the ESRB has pointedly reminded everyone. It’s opt-in random rewards. “According to research, parents are far more concerned about their child’s ability to spend real money in games than the fact that those in-game purchases may be randomized.” The ESRB introduced the “In-Game Purchases” text in 2018, so why did it take the ESRB so long to add a descriptor for loot boxes? Surely, the fact that some high-profile games have started stepping away from loot boxes had nothing to do with it.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2020/04/13/the-esrb-steps-up-its-euphemism-game-with-a-new-way-to-call-out-loot-boxes/
2

Missed the chance to create a “pride and accomplishment” label.

3

Is a dangeous game. If the ESBR don’t work on protecting childrens, and inform parents. Politicians could step-up and do themselves, and the nobody want the governement messing with stuff.

4

I forgot where I read it, but there was some ruling (somewhere) that said that lootboxes in games should detail the exact chance of obtaining each and every item, I thought that was at least some improvement - that obviously isn’t followed anywhere that I can recall.

This ESRB “Sticker” is just … nonsense.

5

Well, even that is a lot more descriptive than the labels they choose… So, yeah, no, they can go to same hell as other opt-in rewards industry. Say, health insurance companies.

In Belgium, and in another country I can’t recall. They can do whatever they want elsewhere.

6

I’m perfectly fine with random lootboxes, so long as you can’t spend real money on them. Barring that, the RNG nature feeds the whole dangerously addictive skinner box mechanism.

7

China.

8

Yeah, it was China. I don’t think Belgium actually specified you have to declare the odds, although it did cite the opacity of the RNG as a factor in its decision that (many) lootboxes were gambling…

9

Google and Apple app stores also require disclosure of odds before purchase.

10

Can we have loot boxes on Qt3, too, please? Maybe we can “win” special emoticons or something?