Ban kids from loot box gambling in games(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Ban kids from loot box gambling in games
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49661870
309 comments
Years ago, when I was about 12 years old, I was addicted to RuneScape. Every evening after school, you'd find me cutting down trees, cooking, or venturing into the PvP zone for some awesome gear. One day, someone retired from the game by killing their character, which resulted in all of their items being dropped. I lucked out and snagged more gold than I could have ever imaged. I remember running around the house in joy.
In RuneScape at the time, there was another PvP zone where you could fight another player and bet gold on whether you would win. Now having "expendable gold" and false confidence, I dropped some big money on this PvP zone, and over the course of a day, I lost it all. I was devastated. I've never lost a ton of money in real life, but this left a really sick feeling in my stomach even in the digital world.
Reflecting on this experience, I feel it has actually benefited me. I've experienced the pain and risk that gambling can bring, and have never felt a need to do this with my actual money. To me, games can be a sandbox to learn life lessons without major consequences.
In RuneScape at the time, there was another PvP zone where you could fight another player and bet gold on whether you would win. Now having "expendable gold" and false confidence, I dropped some big money on this PvP zone, and over the course of a day, I lost it all. I was devastated. I've never lost a ton of money in real life, but this left a really sick feeling in my stomach even in the digital world.
Reflecting on this experience, I feel it has actually benefited me. I've experienced the pain and risk that gambling can bring, and have never felt a need to do this with my actual money. To me, games can be a sandbox to learn life lessons without major consequences.
If we ban loot boxes in video games, why dont we ban Magic/Pokemon card boosters that you can buy from physical shops?
As it's written in the article, problems arise for a minority of children. From the article, we know little about the background of these children and about their parents. It is possible that those children would have developed an addiction to something else if it wasn't video games loot boxes. Yes, some of them spend thousands, but what if they are millionaires's kids? They play by different rules.
In my opinion, gambling in videos game means your kids will experience the risk of gambling sooner, and if you watch your kid and educate them about it, they can experience it in a safer environment than when they are adults.
To me, banning virtual loot boxes is extreme and doesynt solve the actual problem (education programs are misaligned, lack of mental healthcare programs, etc). Addiction might reveal a problem, but it's not necessary the root cause.
As it's written in the article, problems arise for a minority of children. From the article, we know little about the background of these children and about their parents. It is possible that those children would have developed an addiction to something else if it wasn't video games loot boxes. Yes, some of them spend thousands, but what if they are millionaires's kids? They play by different rules.
In my opinion, gambling in videos game means your kids will experience the risk of gambling sooner, and if you watch your kid and educate them about it, they can experience it in a safer environment than when they are adults.
To me, banning virtual loot boxes is extreme and doesynt solve the actual problem (education programs are misaligned, lack of mental healthcare programs, etc). Addiction might reveal a problem, but it's not necessary the root cause.
This is a good idea, but they really need to stop all the gambling advertising disguised as kids games on daytime TV. I've observed (UK) that daytime TV commercials mainly consist of Personal Injury Compensation, mail-order-fashion and "games that you can play on your phone, tablet or computer". Always brightly coloured, very animated, and always played by attractive people. Often there's a "social" theme were the participants all get together with their phones and tablets and game, er, gamble a day away together at bingo. Very sad, very cynical and very pervasive. But hey, it brings in lots of tax revenue, so it won't stop anytime soon.
Remember when loot boxes promising valuable rookie cards of baseball players captured America's youth and squandered the nation's fortune back in the 20th century?
Or the countless families devastated by beanie baby addiction?
Me neither. Collectibles aren't the problem.
And it isn't gambling if you can't cash out. Why do you think there's so many casino games in the app stores even though digital gambling is illegal? Cuz they aren't gambling - they're hobbies. Thirty years ago you bought a $20 handheld slot device from the department store. Now you download an app.
Or the countless families devastated by beanie baby addiction?
Me neither. Collectibles aren't the problem.
And it isn't gambling if you can't cash out. Why do you think there's so many casino games in the app stores even though digital gambling is illegal? Cuz they aren't gambling - they're hobbies. Thirty years ago you bought a $20 handheld slot device from the department store. Now you download an app.
Where does the money come from, that the kids spend? Shouldn't it be the parents concern to limit the spending?
While I despise many of the techniques used in modern games to make kids spend money, I also prefer them learning about these things in games, rather than in the real world (with much more money at stake).
One thing that cost us a lot of money for example are the "Panini collectible cards", that predate the computer era. I don't know if they are a thing in the US. Basically for soccer world cups and other events, you are supposed to collect all the pictures of all the players. You buy packs of 5 with random stickers, and you swap with your friends to fill the sticker book. It costs ridiculous amounts of money (easy to spend 100€ or more, on a book with some pictures). I grudgingly admitted to it, as it is almost a rite of passage in European childhoods and a learning experience to some degree.
While I despise many of the techniques used in modern games to make kids spend money, I also prefer them learning about these things in games, rather than in the real world (with much more money at stake).
One thing that cost us a lot of money for example are the "Panini collectible cards", that predate the computer era. I don't know if they are a thing in the US. Basically for soccer world cups and other events, you are supposed to collect all the pictures of all the players. You buy packs of 5 with random stickers, and you swap with your friends to fill the sticker book. It costs ridiculous amounts of money (easy to spend 100€ or more, on a book with some pictures). I grudgingly admitted to it, as it is almost a rite of passage in European childhoods and a learning experience to some degree.
And this is the unsung hero of Apple's new Apple Arcade subscription -- 100 games, no loot boxes, pay to win crap. You can safely pay $4.99 and the entire family can have access to the games without having to worry about this crap or advertising.
It's a win for everyone.
Publishers are reportedly getting paid up front so they don't have to worry about not making their money back on their investments.
Consumers avoid the above mention pitfalls of modern mobile gaming.
Apple is "commoditizing its complements" and making iOS/MacOS/iPadOS/tvOS a more attractive platform for casual gaming.
EDIT: Corrected the price is $4.99 not $5.99.
It's a win for everyone.
Publishers are reportedly getting paid up front so they don't have to worry about not making their money back on their investments.
Consumers avoid the above mention pitfalls of modern mobile gaming.
Apple is "commoditizing its complements" and making iOS/MacOS/iPadOS/tvOS a more attractive platform for casual gaming.
EDIT: Corrected the price is $4.99 not $5.99.
I wonder when someone in power finally recognizes that Magic the Gathering and other CCGs, especially their digital versions, are essentially gambling machines.
Agree that games that advertise loot-boxes should be restricted, given their relatively addictive nature to impressionable children.
Children of younger ages shouldn't be exposed to this dopamine inducing idea similar to that of slot machines.
Children of younger ages shouldn't be exposed to this dopamine inducing idea similar to that of slot machines.
How does a free market self-regulate this problem? What is the competitive advantage of not providing chance items?
That should also include watching adverts as a competitive advantage within games marketed for kids - it leads to constant intake of essentially user hostile videos being shown to young kids and it's predatory imho.
I came into this thread with a strong opinion: Ban loot boxes. I think they weaken the value of all gaming, and I think they take advantage of people. Plenty of things have been banned for attempting to take advantage of people.
Going through this thread, I am softer on the view, but I think there is two big differences between what most people here are saying. First, with cards, you have a physical exchange of money---kids see that money going away and they can't just hit "OK" in a game again to spend money. Second, with online games like demonbae mentioned, you are spending your own money, not your parents money. YOU reap the consequences, not your parents bank account.
I'm less convinced these need to be banned, but I still don't see any upside for people who are not benefiting by getting as much money as possible to be spent in their game.
Going through this thread, I am softer on the view, but I think there is two big differences between what most people here are saying. First, with cards, you have a physical exchange of money---kids see that money going away and they can't just hit "OK" in a game again to spend money. Second, with online games like demonbae mentioned, you are spending your own money, not your parents money. YOU reap the consequences, not your parents bank account.
I'm less convinced these need to be banned, but I still don't see any upside for people who are not benefiting by getting as much money as possible to be spent in their game.
I completely agree -- it's exploitative and relies on parental intervention for those kids who don't know any better. As others have mentioned, these could be an educational opportunity, but I don't think the experiences described here are representative.
My exposure to these things isn't through any free apps, but Minecraft. The biggest server by player number has 9 different types of boxes for sale from $3 for 10 [1]. Some of them guarantee a number of boxes at a high 'level' of reward - this seems like reinforcing gambling as something that is certain to be beneficial?
[1] https://store.hypixel.net/
My exposure to these things isn't through any free apps, but Minecraft. The biggest server by player number has 9 different types of boxes for sale from $3 for 10 [1]. Some of them guarantee a number of boxes at a high 'level' of reward - this seems like reinforcing gambling as something that is certain to be beneficial?
[1] https://store.hypixel.net/
It might actually be better to let them learn the hard way before they have real money to lose. Has anyone studied the relation between this and gambling as an adult?
Great, finally some movement on regulating the children's video gaming industry, it's a total disgrace and reflects very poorly on the tech industry that it's most vulnerable users are frequently the least considered. The UK is working on some of the worlds most progressive child protection legislation and I hope they create an example that will be adopted worldwide.
Too old to have gambled in games as a kid, but I was at the right age for the POG phenomenon. I remember a rough afternoon at the schoolyard where I went past my limit and lost some of my most cherished pogs.
[deleted]
Why this coming into the spotlight now as opposed to collectible sports cards, trading carding games, coin operated gacha/cache capsule machines, etc?
Good point.
99% of the games for smartphones are free but involved a lot of gambling.
You might win a price every few minutes. It makes people pretty addictive to the games
You might win a price every few minutes. It makes people pretty addictive to the games
I wonder if the reluctance of the gaming industry to tackle gambling is willful or due to ignorance of the issue. Either they understand the issue but it's their profits at stake, so they'll ignore the potential problems. Or have these stealth gambling mechanisms entered the games gradually and without the industry realising that what it's doing is actually gambling and there repercussions to that.
This has me thinking all games with loot box mechanic should be labeled 18+
The actual report is here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z...
I found this remarkable: "‘Lack of honesty and transparency’ reported among representatives of some games and social media companies in giving evidence."
Some quotes from the report:
> 62.We were contacted by a member of the public whose adult son built up considerable debts, reported to be in excess of £50,000, through spending on microtransactions in British company Jagex’s online game RuneScape. For example, bank statements showed that in one day the individual spent £247.95 by making five separate payments to the company. The resulting debt caused significant financial harm for both the player and his parents, whose evidence attributed the situation to the fact that Jagex has no limits on the amount of time or money players can spend on the game.118 This demonstrated to us that even companies with good policies to support some aspects of player wellbeing can fall short in other areas.
You don't take £50,000 from a player in microtransactions without realising something is fucked up.
> 65.With so many games featuring microtransactions, we asked other leading games companies what they do to prevent people from spending more than they are able to in a game. Epic Games, the makers of Fortnite: Battle Royale, said that although it has no specific cap on how much people can spend, purchases are limited to what is in the virtual shop and so the maximum anyone could spend would be about $200 a day.124 The company’s director of marketing suggested that it is an individuals’ responsibility to manage spending and that the company provides tools, including parental controls, “to allow players to make those decisions for themselves.”125 However, as we have already examined, parental controls are of limited effectiveness when it comes to adult players.
> 66.The games companies we spoke to were generally reluctant to accept that they might have a role or responsibility to intervene proactively if a player’s spending fell outside of normal patterns. Moreover, they said that it would be too difficult to determine what level of spending might be harmful. Alex Dale, senior vice president for King, the makers of Candy Crush Saga, told us that while it used to alert users when they reached a certain spending threshold, it had stopped doing so because of player feedback. He told us:
>> we would send an e-mail out when a player’s spend was $250 in a week for the first time. It was an e-mail that said, “We notice you are enjoying the game a lot at the moment. Are you sure you are happy with this?” […] We got back, “I wouldn’t spend the money if I didn’t have it” and things like, “I’m fine, please leave me alone”. We felt it was too intrusive so we stopped doing that.126
> 67.Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones told us that the games industry might learn from approaches in the gambling industry, which has much clearer, industry-wide protocols enabling people to self-exclude from spending.127 She told us that “gaming is several years behind gambling in relation to protecting the vulnerable”, a situation that the then Minister described, if true, as “lamentable”, adding that “the industry has a job to do.”128 When we asked Neil McArthur, Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, whether games companies should be obligated to monitor how much people spend, identify people with a problem and proactively support them, he responded that, “this is an area where progress needs to be made.”129 His colleague Brad Enright went on to tell us that self-exclusion measures to protect players “could be adopted by the video games industry voluntarily to address some of the concerns about excessive time [and] excessive expenditure.”130 Yet the Royal College of Psychiatrists goes further in suggesting that:
> > There should be no in game spending by children. Children are less prepared to deal with the potentially addictive nature of some modern computer games and are less able to make informed decisions about spending.131
Apple, Google, and game makers need to understand what's happening here. This is a push towards regulation. They need to implement pretty effective self regulation or UK government will impose strong regulation upon the industry.
I found this remarkable: "‘Lack of honesty and transparency’ reported among representatives of some games and social media companies in giving evidence."
Some quotes from the report:
> 62.We were contacted by a member of the public whose adult son built up considerable debts, reported to be in excess of £50,000, through spending on microtransactions in British company Jagex’s online game RuneScape. For example, bank statements showed that in one day the individual spent £247.95 by making five separate payments to the company. The resulting debt caused significant financial harm for both the player and his parents, whose evidence attributed the situation to the fact that Jagex has no limits on the amount of time or money players can spend on the game.118 This demonstrated to us that even companies with good policies to support some aspects of player wellbeing can fall short in other areas.
You don't take £50,000 from a player in microtransactions without realising something is fucked up.
> 65.With so many games featuring microtransactions, we asked other leading games companies what they do to prevent people from spending more than they are able to in a game. Epic Games, the makers of Fortnite: Battle Royale, said that although it has no specific cap on how much people can spend, purchases are limited to what is in the virtual shop and so the maximum anyone could spend would be about $200 a day.124 The company’s director of marketing suggested that it is an individuals’ responsibility to manage spending and that the company provides tools, including parental controls, “to allow players to make those decisions for themselves.”125 However, as we have already examined, parental controls are of limited effectiveness when it comes to adult players.
> 66.The games companies we spoke to were generally reluctant to accept that they might have a role or responsibility to intervene proactively if a player’s spending fell outside of normal patterns. Moreover, they said that it would be too difficult to determine what level of spending might be harmful. Alex Dale, senior vice president for King, the makers of Candy Crush Saga, told us that while it used to alert users when they reached a certain spending threshold, it had stopped doing so because of player feedback. He told us:
>> we would send an e-mail out when a player’s spend was $250 in a week for the first time. It was an e-mail that said, “We notice you are enjoying the game a lot at the moment. Are you sure you are happy with this?” […] We got back, “I wouldn’t spend the money if I didn’t have it” and things like, “I’m fine, please leave me alone”. We felt it was too intrusive so we stopped doing that.126
> 67.Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones told us that the games industry might learn from approaches in the gambling industry, which has much clearer, industry-wide protocols enabling people to self-exclude from spending.127 She told us that “gaming is several years behind gambling in relation to protecting the vulnerable”, a situation that the then Minister described, if true, as “lamentable”, adding that “the industry has a job to do.”128 When we asked Neil McArthur, Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, whether games companies should be obligated to monitor how much people spend, identify people with a problem and proactively support them, he responded that, “this is an area where progress needs to be made.”129 His colleague Brad Enright went on to tell us that self-exclusion measures to protect players “could be adopted by the video games industry voluntarily to address some of the concerns about excessive time [and] excessive expenditure.”130 Yet the Royal College of Psychiatrists goes further in suggesting that:
> > There should be no in game spending by children. Children are less prepared to deal with the potentially addictive nature of some modern computer games and are less able to make informed decisions about spending.131
Apple, Google, and game makers need to understand what's happening here. This is a push towards regulation. They need to implement pretty effective self regulation or UK government will impose strong regulation upon the industry.
Sounds like a solution a desk jockey lawmaker, or at least to their knee-jerking constituent pitch-fork mob demanding justus wouls come up with!
But in reality a ban prevents regulation and will usher in an era of illegal underground loot-box mods with hyper effective sublimal hypno-tech.
Well I mean the prohibtion of kitten-huffing should be example enough of the consequences of an unregulated drugs bazaar.
Better to have government issued loot boxes provided to children at school, like the UK lottery or the sugar-tax
/Sarcasm
But seriously the way things play out on the street is rarely how they look on paper as idealistic laws.
The solution ?
A little of both ;-)
But in reality a ban prevents regulation and will usher in an era of illegal underground loot-box mods with hyper effective sublimal hypno-tech.
Well I mean the prohibtion of kitten-huffing should be example enough of the consequences of an unregulated drugs bazaar.
Better to have government issued loot boxes provided to children at school, like the UK lottery or the sugar-tax
/Sarcasm
But seriously the way things play out on the street is rarely how they look on paper as idealistic laws.
The solution ?
A little of both ;-)
He came into some cash recently courtesy of the tooth fairy and asked if we could buy a skin for his favorite character. I said ok. However after id purchased some in game coins we realised that we couldn't actually buy the skin he wanted, instead we had to buy 10 boxes with random contents that could potentially contain a skin similar to the one he wanted.
Watching his excitement opening up the boxes and his eventual disappointment at not receiving the one he wanted - plus subsequent enthusiasm to buy more coins courtesy of some lesser items granted, I realised Id made a horrible mistake. Id basically introduced a virtual pub gambling machine to a young kid. This sort of stuff is horrible.