Content
Fortnite eliminated the randomness in loot boxes in 2019 after both Belgium and the Netherlands classified the in-game products as illegal gambling. Immediately prior to the coder’s physical departure from geographical and jurisdictional Belgium on 2 July 2022, in-game purchasing was attempted again in both Games 50 and 78 whilst at Brussels International Airport. For reasons unknown, in-game purchase was possible in Game 50 temporarily without any attempted circumventions (e.g., no VPN was switched on). The pop-up window shown in Figure 1 did not appear, and the coder was able to access the Apple App Store payment pop-up screen. In-game purchasing was again rendered not possible in Game 50 when attempted 10 and 40 minutes after the initial successful attempt at Brussels International Airport. In-game purchasing remained not possible in Game 78 when no circumvention was attempted. Temporary failures of the technical measures, without the player intentionally trying to circumvent them, represent another potential reason why these two games have continued to nonetheless generate revenue from Belgium.
- Hypothesis 1 was rejected because 82 (which is more than two) of the 100 highest-grossing Belgian iPhone games contained paid loot boxes.
- It cited a series of issues with how loot boxes function, such as the use of virtual currency which can be purchased for real money, and the way that some loot boxes make players think they will gain an advantage despite their random contents.
- Even so, action is being taken in the United States with the ESRB, an American rating’s board, adding descriptors in their ratings to warn parents about loot boxes.
- This adds to the general excitement anyone feels when they’re surprised with something they really wanted, almost like a child who has opened their favorite toy on Christmas Day.
- These are categorised according to whether they are (a) substantive developments that have changed or highlighted the regulatory environment in a territory and therefore potentially deserve immediate attention or (b) draft laws and proposed bills that might, but have not yet, become law and therefore should be noted but do not yet require action.
The present results should be treated as a snapshot of the situation as it stands with the most popular games and not as a reflection of the whole situation on the Belgian Apple App Store. Notably, as the present study has proven, the Belgian ‘ban’ on loot boxes has not been actively enforced. Another country emulating the Belgian regulatory position as it currently stands is unlikely to achieve a significantly better result.
Apple age rating
In a long-awaited call for evidence, it instead told the video game industry to take action to protect young people. “There is academic research which proves that there is a connection, though not necessarily a causal link, between loot box spending and problem gambling,” the report says. The committee expressed a particular concern that children might develop gambling problems because of exposure to loot boxes. In response to this judgment, Dutch legislators have suggested ‘banning’ loot boxes in the Netherlands and copying the Belgian regulatory position but this has not yet materialised. But others pointed out that the Belgium Gaming Commission’s definition specifically requires there to be "a game element" in opening the crate, which differentiates loot boxes from trading cards. Loot boxes give random rewards and can be acquired either through gameplay or by spending real cash. Video game loot boxes are "in violation of gambling legislation", according to the Belgium Gaming Commission.
The link between gaming loot boxes and problem gambling has been "robustly verified", according to a new report. You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using https://playmystake.com/es/ the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice.
Legal Disclaimer
The payment of a stake (key) for the opportunity to win a prize (in-game items) determined (or presented as determined) at random bears a close resemblance, for instance, to the playing of a gaming machine. Where there are readily accessible opportunities to cash in or exchange those awarded in-game items for money or money’s worth those elements of the game are likely to be considered licensable gambling activities. In general, when a player receives a loot box, whether earned or purchased, they are going to receive some virtual items—they just don’t know which ones until they access or open the loot box. The odds of receiving a less sought after player is always greater than those for receiving a superstar. The rarity of the superstar cards is often what drove people to purchase pack after pack of baseball cards in hopes of getting lucky.
Breaking Ban: Belgium’s Ineffective Gambling Law Regulation of Video Game Loot Boxes
As indicated by the increasing number of countries around the world who are beginning to take steps to regulate video game companies, it seems inevitable that regulating loot boxes as a form of gambling will become an increasingly important issue in the United States. However, there have been a number of cases in the past couple of years that are quite relevant. In these cases, there were social casino games or larger strategy games that incorporated casino mini-games. Players typically got a limited number of free spins or other chances in the casino min-game, but could buy more with an ingame virtual currency that could be earned in-game or by paying money. Players could win more virtual currency or other virtual items that could be used in the game. Additional consumer protection in the form of gambling regulation, is required in circumstances where players are being incentivised to participate in gambling style activities through the provision of prizes of money or money’s worth. Where prizes are successfully restricted for use solely within the game, such in-game features would not be licensable gambling, notwithstanding the elements of expenditure and chance.
Loot Boxes Dangle the Carrot in Front of Gamers
The 100 highest-grossing games were chosen to form the sample for Hypotheses 1–3, following the methodology of previous studies (Zendle et al., 2020; Xiao, Henderson, Yang, & Newall, 2021; Xiao, Henderson, & Newall, 2021), because these are the most popular games that generate the most amount of revenue for video game companies. Globally, the 100 highest-grossing mobile games reportedly accounted for 53.5% of all player spending on those platforms in 2020 (Chapple, 2021). Generally, players are most likely to encounter and engage mystake casino with these games, and the Belgian Gaming Commission should be most heavily scrutinising these games when undertaking compliance actions. Relevant stakeholders, including players, parents and regulators, would be most interested in the compliance situation amongst these best commercially performing games. In April 2020, the ESRB announced a new “Interactive Element”—used to describe disclosures for video games that highlight a game’s interactive or online features that may be of interest but do not influence a game’s rating.
Surprisingly high prevalence rates of severe psychological distress among consumers who purchase loot boxes in video games
Of the 84 games that were potentially capable of selling loot boxes in exchange for real-world money (the 82 games containing paid loot boxes plus Games 50 and 78), only two games (2.4%) took technical measures to prevent loot box purchase with fiat currency. The latest research has presented conflicting evidence as to whether loot box purchasing is practically harmful to players’ wellbeing. Indeed, regulators in many countries tried to see whether existing gambling law can be applied to regulate loot boxes. However, after a slew of legal interpretations were published between 2017 and 2018 by the UK, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands, etc., not many substantial developments have occurred with loot box regulation. One aspect of virtual item “trading” that has garnered a lot of recent attention is skin trading. Skins are aesthetically pleasing customizations for virtual items, often weapons.
Incentives for monetisation
If the former happens, then the Belgian Gaming Commission can continue to enforce its interpretation. However, even if the latter happens, this will resolve the current confusion as to what the Belgian regulatory position on loot boxes truly is. If existing Belgian law cannot be interpreted as outlawing all paid loot boxes, then the Belgian Gaming Commission cannot be allowed to purport to take enforcement actions ultra vires or beyond its powers and without legal authority. An amendment of gambling law by the legislature to criminalise paid loot boxes should then follow if the ban is to truly be imposed. Indeed, even if the ban can no longer be maintained, this would provide legal certainty and likely lead to the more compliant companies re-entering the market and thereby providing players with more game options and likely better consumer protection as compared to what is currently being offered by non-compliant companies. However, the restrictive course of action taken by Belgian policy is potentially overregulation because not all consumers will be harmed by loot boxes, yet now all Belgian players, both children and adults alike, cannot buy loot boxes. Loot boxes and other newer monetisation methods, compared to the old model of selling the software, allow for many players (including some who might not be able to afford purchasing the software) to gain access to entertainment and play certain games for free (Xiao, 2021b).
Meanwhile, the games should be overseen and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). In 2018 a Senate inquiry report, “Gaming micro-transactions for chance-based items”, recommended a comprehensive review into loot boxes in video games. This was followed in 2020 by the “Protecting the Age of Innocence” report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which recommended that loot boxes and other simulated gambling elements in games should be subject to age restrictions and warnings.
Electronic Arts and games makers’ chief lobbyist, the Entertainment Software Association, have routinely challenged the comparison of loot boxes to gambling, particularly when players under 18 are invoked. Following the Battlefront 2 blow-up, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board introduced a new label for games calling out the presence of in-game purchases. Dr Close also raised questions about whether the government was right to say prizes did not have real-world monetary value outside the games, as some secondary markets online allow players to easily sell the items acquired in-game. The commencement of the present study’s data collection may have caused Game 36’s removal from the Belgian Apple App Store. For full disclosure and context, the stage 1 registered report for the present study setting out the methodology was published on 7 April 2022, and the author did publish various online content about this then upcoming study, including publishing one Twitter post on 30 June 2022 implying that data collection has begun (Xiao, 2022e). Game 36 appears to have been removed from the Belgian Apple App Store between 31 May 2022 and 1 June 2022 as the game appeared on the highest-grossing list on 31 May 2022 but did not do so on 1 June 2022. It is also curious that the game has been removed only from the Belgian store and remained available (and high-grossing) in all other countries checked, specifically, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US, according to data.ai, as shown in Figure S2.
If PEGI would label something as gambling while it is not considered as such from a legal point of view, it would mostly create confusion. Another issue that arises with loot boxes and other game mechanics is whether the presence of these mechanics in a game should impact that game’s age and content ratings. Content ratings typically indicate the appropriate age group for and type of content including in a video game. Some advocate that even if these mechanics are not gambling, they have an addictive effect and therefore this should be reflected in the games rating. Even in the United States, lawmakers have proposed legislation to severely limit the use of microtransactions. In 2019, Senator Josh Hawley introduced a bill to congress that would ban loot boxes, and other micro-transactions, in games played by minors, but the bill has not progressed any further.
An examination of psychological features of loot boxes in personal computer (PC) and console games released in 2016–2017 revealed that almost 50% of reviewed loot box systems were psychologically akin to conventional gambling activities1. Perhaps because of this, problem gamblers spend more on these mechanisms than non-problem gamblers2,3. Thus, policymakers are debating whether loot boxes require regulation as bona fide gambling. Loot boxes were popularised through their inclusion in several games throughout the mid-2010s.