{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/27/2018 10:10:28 PM
28
Not gambling...
[i]Central to the debate is whether loot boxes should be considered gambling and in that regard, the ESRB has maintained that's not the case, saying last year, "[b]While there's an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is [u]always guaranteed to receive in-game content[/u] (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don't want[/b])."[/i]
Highlighted key points that I've stated before.
Today the ESRB [url=https://esrbstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esrbcontent/about/news/downloads/igp-press-release-final-22718.pdf]has done another good thing[/url].
[i]The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) today announced that it will begin assigning a new “In-Game Purchases” label to physical (e.g., boxed) games[/i]
This means they are putting the responsibility on knowing about the In-Game Purchasing on the parents where it should be.
[i]Some may wonder why the ESRB isn't addressing loot boxes specifically, but ESRB President Patricia Vance told Ars Technica that it's because "[b]a large majority of parents don't know what a loot box is[/b]" and that parents' biggest concern is their children spending money in games, not necessarily how they're doing it.[/i]
Educate parents first.
This announcement doesn't change their view that it's not gambling either.
Within the [url=https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESRB-response-to-Senator-Hassan_Vance-2-27-18.pdf]return letter to Senator Hassan[/url]:
[i]As you referenced in your letter, there is some debate within the video game community about whether loot boxes constitute gambling. The ESRB has previously stated publicly that we do not consider loot boxes to be gambling for various reasons, nor am I aware of any legal authority in the United States that has classified loot boxes as gambling. In fact, the UK Gambling Commission recently determined that loot boxes do not constitute gambling.[/i]
In the end if Parents are educated about this and pass that knowledge on to their kids AS WELL as being able to properly monitor them the part of the Gaming Industry that's pushing these types of transactions will have less people to take advantage of.
About time the ESRB got something right IMO. This is not a loss for gamers. It's the proper step to deal with the issue of "Kids and loot boxes" long term while still allowing "responsible adults" to pay for things if they want to.
-
8 RepliesThe ESRB itself is a response from the industry to political pressure to regulate video games with regards to violent and sexually explicit content. Its function, for the industry, is to propose just enough guidelines to appease trigger-happy politicians and activists. It was established by the ESA, the main video game industry lobby, and is funded by the industry. If enough guidelines are set and the industry largely adheres to them, then everything is honky-dory and lawmakers don't get involved. That's the principle of auto-regulation. Knowing this, you can consider that whole thing since Star Wars Battlefront II as the wonderful and messy process by which auto-regulation happens. It's a negotiation. Here's how it went up until now: 1) Players get fed up with the industry's growing and enthusiastic use of predatory practices and raise a fuss. Politicians get involved. Oops, we have a situation. 2) The ESRB first claims that lootboxes are not gambling and that they will not change their rating system to account for them. That's the initial stance. 3) Politicians and players then say: "You are failing to regulate yourselves. We're going to do it for you with laws." 4) The ESRB then makes an extremely minor concession by proposing a generic "In-game purchases" label, that they know full well about 99% of games should display, thus making it pointless, because there is no classification of in-game purchases. It's as if the ingredients on a carton of orange juice read: "Oranges, other stuff, etc". That's an early offer. It is minor. They probably know they will have to offer more. But when you negotiate, you don't drop your pants all the way down in one go. 5) How will the anti-lootbox side respond? That's where we are now. To summarize: The ESRB defends the industry first, by doing the bare minimum to keep lawmakers away. Any benefit to the consumers that come out of this arrangement is coincidental. The ESRB, ESA, game industry and lawmakers of a few countries are engaged in initial posturing and negotiation. ... Knowing all this, I can't think of a single rational reason why players would side with the ESRB at this early stage. It's just against our best interests.
