Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline The Death of Freemium? Microtransactions Under Global Scrutiny

thesecret1

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
6,702
On one hand, I think that if an adult man wants to gamble, he should be allowed to, as it is his decision. On the other, the prospect of EA going bankrupt and microtransactions dying sounds like heaven.
 

Lambach

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
13,206
Location
Belgrade, Removekebabland
On one hand, I think that if an adult man wants to gamble, he should be allowed to, as it is his decision. On the other, the prospect of EA going bankrupt and microtransactions dying sounds like heaven.

Whether governments ban lootboxes or not, EA will not go bankrupt. They'll simply come up with another way to squeeze you out of money while providing the bog-standard Minimum Viable Product shit to the customers. You really want the abusive AAA companies to suffer because of their shitty actions? Stop buying their shitty products. Their revenues will drop and their investors will beat them into shape once they realize that what the said companies are doing isn't working. There, boom, problem solved and no need to even further expand the power of nanny governments who hold far, far too much power already.

Oh wait, silly me, I forgot. GAYMUHZ are negative IQ shit-smeared chimpanzees with less than zero impulse control, so they'll throw their cash at whatever shiny thing they see is currently trending on Instacunt or Twater. They'll bitch and moan about it for a while, then promptly throw more cash at the next thing that flashes enough lights in their drooling, inbred faces. Best make sure Mommy Government steps in and takes care of it, god forbid you ever take responsibility for anything in your life!
 
Last edited:

Lambach

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
13,206
Location
Belgrade, Removekebabland
I haven't bought an EA game in my life, and yet they still live.

Obviously I didn't mean "you" personally. Hell, given the unrealistic earning expectations investors typically have, if even 20% of people who typically buy every FIFA iteration decide that enough is enough and firmly resolve not to buy another one and to not spend money on microtransactions/lootboxes, EA will be eyeballs-deep in shit.

But I guess exerting a little self-control is just too damn hard, better get power-tripping bureaucratic busybodies involved pronto.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
https://archive.is/LNP4e
EA facing Canadian class action lawsuit over loot boxes
Two plaintiffs seeking damages as suit calls out "unlicensed, illegal gaming system" in over 60 titles
James Batchelor
UK Editor
Wednesday 21st October 2020

Electronic Arts is facing more legal action over its use of loot boxes and other randomised monetisation mechanics.

The latest is a class action lawsuit filed in Canada on September 30 by joint plaintiffs Mark Sutherland and Shawn Moore.

According to the filing, shared by gaming and esports law blog The Patch Notes, Sutherland is a British Columbia resident who purchased loot boxes in the Madden NFL series of games while Moore hails from Ontario and spent money on the same monetisation model in EA's NHL games.

The pair assert that the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits unlawful gaming, betting, lotteries and games of chance.

Since EA does not hold a gambling license in the region, it is accused of operating "an unlicensed, illegal gaming system through their loot boxes."

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Moore, Sutherland and any other Canadian customers who purchased, directly or indirectly, loot boxes in almost every EA game that contains loot boxes.

There is a list of over 60 titles that stretches beyond the usual suspects of FIFA, Madden and other sports franchises to include Battlefield, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, Dragon Age and Plants vs Zombies games as well.

The suit even targets mobile games such as Command & Conquer: Rivals, Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes and WarFriends, with a note that there may be other titles containing loot boxes the plaintiffs have yet to become aware of.

"The senior officers and directors of [Electronic Arts] were at all times fully aware of the unlawful nature of their enterprise and took active steps to carry it out," the filing reads.
"In the alternative, the senior officers and directors... were reckless or willfully blind to the unlawful nature of their enterprise and took active steps to implement it."

The lawsuit is seeking, among other things, damages for Moore and Sutherland under the Competition Act and a declaration that EA has contravened the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Earlier this year, Electronic Arts was targeted by a similar class action lawsuit in California, which claims the Ultimate Team mode in its sports games -- and the associated loot boxes -- violate the state's gambling law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53253195
Loot boxes: Lords call for 'immediate' gambling regulation

The Lords say they should be classified as "games of chance" - which would bring them under the Gambling Act 2005.

"If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling," their report says.

And they warn that such a change should not wait.

"The government must act immediately to bring loot boxes within the remit of gambling legislation and regulation," said a statement accompanying the report.

Loot boxes have long been controversial in video games. They offer players a chance at a randomised reward when opened. To further complicate matters, boxes can often be bought for real money, and the rewards can sometimes be traded.

Lord Grade, chairman of the committee, told BBC Breakfast that lots of other countries have already started to regulate loot boxes because "they can see the dangers" which is teaching "kids to gamble".

He said the Gambling Act was "way behind what was actually happening in the market" but he added that the "overwhelming majority" of the report's recommendations "could be enacted today" as they don't require legislation.

_111781255_52282988.jpg

The Lords report says there should be new regulations explicitly stating that loot boxes are games of chance

The Lords report is wide-ranging, covering the entire gambling industry, but focuses in part on new forms of gambling, and those targeted towards children.

"There is academic research which proves that there is a connection, though not necessarily a causal link, between loot box spending and problem gambling," it says.

One expert, Dr David Zendle, explained to the committee that either loot box spending causes problem gambling, due to their similarity - or that people who have gambling problems spend heavily on loot boxes. But he warned that either way, the connection was "extraordinarily robust".

The Lords report concludes that ministers should make new regulations which explicitly state that loot boxes are games of chance. It also says the same definition should apply to any other in-game item paid for with real money, such as FIFA player packs.

The government told the committee that its planned future review of the Gambling Act would focus on loot boxes. But the Lords report warns: "This issue requires more urgent attention."

The Lords join a range of parents and childrens' groups, as well as a previous report from the digital committee on addictive technologies, in calling on ministers to regulate loot boxes as a form of gambling.

Some action has already been taken: in Belgium, loot boxes were banned in 2018 due to similar fears. Earlier this year, game-rating agency Pegi said clearer warning labels would be added.

And in the video game industry, some companies have taken the initiative and elected to change the way their systems work.

As part of its wider review of the sector, the Lords report also notes that young people are "most at risk" of becoming problem gamblers.

It says 55,000 problem gamblers are aged between 11-16. As a result, it says, all new online gambling games should be reviewed to see if they appeal to children - and their potential to cause harm should be assessed.

The report also highlights the problems with eSports betting as another potential gateway for young people.

Researchers told the committee: "eSports represents the largest growth opportunity for sports gambling and presents a particular worry, as its players and spectators are young."

UK games industry body Ukie said it was working hard to address the concerns raised in the report.

"The majority of people in the UK play video games in one form or another, so we take these concerns seriously. We've worked hard to increase the use of family controls on consoles which can turn off or limit spending and we will be working closely with the DCMS during its review of the Gambling Act later this year," chief executive Jo Twist said.

https://archive.is/WoNr1
UK Government launches call for evidence on loot boxes
Inquiry seeks to examine concerns over whether randomised monetisation mechanics can lead to problem gambling
James Batchelor
UK Editor
Wednesday 23rd September 2020

The UK government is launching its previously announced call for evidence on video game loot boxes today.

Submissions will open at 12pm BST, and ask for people to share their thoughts as to whether or not the controversial monetisation mechanic constitutes gambling.

The call for evidence was first announced back in June, and has partly been driven by concerns over the public's engagement with games and loot boxes during the lockdown.

The call is for both positive and negative experiences of loot boxes and other randomised monetisation in video games, both from players and -- if applicable -- their parents and guardians.

Video games companies, academia and other organisations interested in the issue are also invited to share "rigorous, high-quality data and research" on the subject.

The deadline for submissions is November 22, 2020. More information and the submission form can be found on the government's website.

The government says the findings will give it a clearer understanding of the impact loot boxes have, the effectiveness of measures such as parental controls, and the size of the loot box and in-game purchase market in the UK.

If there is enough evidence to warrant it, loot boxes will be considered as part of an upcoming review of the Gambling Act, and the government could support any new approach that helps to better protect players -- especially young people -- from any negative effects.

"Our valued video game industry is making good progress developing safer environments for our children to play in, such as parental controls that can be set to schedule and limit playtime," said Caroline Dinenage, Minister for Digital and Culture.

"But we've listened to parents' concerns about loot boxes and it's right that we fully examine and understand any evidence of the harm or links to problem gambling they can cause, so we can decide if action is needed."

A Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee has already conducted an extensive enquiry into immersive and addictive technologies, including loot boxes.
Last September, this investigation concluded with recommendations that paid loot boxes should come under the regulations imposed by gambling law and called for a ban on the sale of games with loot boxes to children.

These recommendations were supported by the NHS' mental health director and UK Children's Commissioner, who also called for a ban on the sale of all non-cosmetic items.

You can find out more about the call for evidence here.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/nieuws/nieuwsberichten/2020/oktober/imposition-an-order/
Imposition of an order subject to a penalty on Electronic Arts for FIFA video game
29 October 2020

In 2019, the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit, Ksa) imposed an administrative order subject to a penalty of up to 5 million euros on Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl each for violating the Gambling Act through its ‘Packs’ in the FIFA video game. The District Court of The Hague recently ruled in favour of the Ksa in this matter. The judgment was published today.

The Ksa imposed the orders subject to a penalty because the popular FIFA football game contained illegal loot boxes. These loot boxes are like treasure chests. The FIFA loot boxes, for example, would contain football players that could improve the performance of the team that the player was using to play the game. The players contained by the loot box are determined by chance, and the contents cannot be influenced. The fact that football players sometimes have a high value and that they can occasionally be traded constitutes a violation of the Gambling Act. Under Dutch law, a game of chance that allows a prize or premium to be won can only be provided if a relevant licence has been granted.

A study carried out by the Ksa in 2018 found that there may be a correlation between playing games that incorporate loot boxes and development of an addiction to gambling. Chairmen René Jansen: ‘The Ksa believes it is crucial to shield vulnerable groups, such as minors, from exposure to gambling. For that reason, the Ksa supports a strict separation between gaming and gambling. Gamers are often young and therefore particularly susceptible to developing an addiction. As such, gambling elements have no place in games.’

Following the publication of the study, the Ksa called on companies in the gaming industry to adapt their games so they were no longer infringing the Gambling Act. A number of companies heeded the Ksa’s call. However, Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl did not.

Further information is provided in the five questions and answers below.
Why did the Ksa impose an order subject to a penalty?
Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl are violating the Gambling Act through its Packs in the FIFA video game. The law stipulates that games of chance may not be offered without a licence. This is not without cause; games of chance are high-risk products that can only be offered under strict conditions. Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl are not licensed to offer games of chance. The orders subject to a penalty were imposed in order to compel the companies to put an end to the violation. The Ksa considers the violation of the law to be particularly serious given that a large number of children and young adults have access to Packs in the FIFA game and are particularly vulnerable to developing gambling addictions.

What is the background to this case?
In 2018, the Ksa conducted an investigation into loot boxes, after concerns were raised by gamers, parents and care institutions, among others. This issue is by no means unique to the Netherlands; regulatory bodies around the world are addressing the blurring boundaries between gambling and gaming. The fact that each country has its own gambling laws, all of which are structured slightly differently, complicates the matter. The Ksa’s investigation revealed that several loot boxes were not in compliance with Dutch law. Non-compliance was found in cases where the content of the loot boxes could not be influenced, the content had a high value and the content could be traded. The investigation also found a potential correlation between loot boxes and the likelihood of players developing a gambling addiction. As a result of the investigation, the Ksa called on game developers and game companies to comply with the standard set by the law, which is that games of chance offered without a licence are prohibited. A number of providers subsequently adapted their games accordingly. Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl did not, despite having already been notified by the Ksa in April 2018 that its Packs in FIFA 2018 were in violation of the Gambling Act. In early 2019, the Ksa informed Electronic Arts Inc. that the same violation occurs in the FIFA 2019 game. According to the law, the Packs constitute a game of chance.

Why did it take so long?
Legal proceedings entail a very lengthy process and must be conducted with a lot of care and diligence. The same applies to any investigations that may be required. The stakes are high. Since the investigation in 2018, the Ksa and Electronic Arts Inc. have communicated on this matter on several occasions and various procedures have been followed. In some cases, the Ksa is prohibited either by the court or by law to publicise a measure during legal proceedings. This was the case in this matter as well.

What is the Ksa’s overall impression of loot boxes?
The Ksa’s study into loot boxes in 2018 showed that a number of loot boxes were not in compliance with Dutch law. In addition, the Ksa concluded that there was evidence to suggest a possible association between loot boxes and the development of addiction in players. This was not only the case for illegal loot boxes. The Ksa is alarmed that more and more games are appearing with elements of gambling, not least because gamers tend to be young and particularly susceptible to developing a gambling addiction. Loot boxes (called ‘packs’ in FIFA) are the exponent of this trend. The Ksa believes it is crucial to shield vulnerable groups, such as minors, from exposure to gambling. Adults likewise stand to benefit in this regard, as they should be aware of what kind of game they are playing. This is, in part, why the Ksa feels that a strict distinction must be made between games and games of chance. Games of chance are high-risk products, and offering them without a licence is prohibited.

If a FIFA player feels they have been wronged, where can they report it?
Players who wish to file a complaint about the operation or modification of the game can contact the game's providers. The game's providers are the parties that decided to include a gambling game within the game, thereby breaking the law. The Ksa has pointed this out to Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl repeatedly. Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts Swiss Sàrl are therefore itself responsible for changing the game such that it is no longer in contravention of the law. How exactly it accomplishes this is at their discretion.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
8,405
Location
Kelethin
Looks like it :/ But I suppose it depends about that 5m euros. Maybe that's it. Or maybe it is 5m each month. Or 5m for each day the game was on sale. Or for each sale! But it is probably just 5m... :/
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Looks like it :/ But I suppose it depends about that 5m euros. Maybe that's it. Or maybe it is 5m each month. Or 5m for each day the game was on sale. Or for each sale! But it is probably just 5m... :/
It's 5m € per game (I think 2x5m € for two titles for EA so far). The initial penalties are capped at 5m € to basically tell them "knock it off", but if EA persists with these practices, they can add uncapped penalties.
 
Last edited:

UserNamer

Cipher
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
692
"You quickly become addicted to this game... whenever I buy a pack, I tell myself that this is the last time, but I always do it again," Mamadou said.

"You get so frustrated when you don't get good enough players that you buy again and again.

"I didn't even know him! Put so much money in just to get Manolas... People I know have put in €2,000 or €3,000 -- it's crazy...

"The amount I have spent has made me fall behind on my rent payments."

"Mommy government pls protect me because I'm an irresponsible piece of literal dog shit with less than 0 impulse control when pixels depicting my favorite guy who kicks balls good show up :cry: "

Can we please bring back indentured servitude already?
Why are you siding with the megacorps? I am sorry but if you dishonestly take money from retards you need to pay, not the retard. It's not a difficult concept
 
Unwanted
Dumbfuck
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
999
Location
Free Market Paradise
Why are you siding with the megacorps? I am sorry but if you dishonestly take money from retards you need to pay, not the retard. It's not a difficult concept

How are they "dishonestly" taking money from retards?
It's gambling with real money and should be regulated as such, games must be retard safe since they are made for children.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
https://archive.is/XTjpo
EA faces yet another class-action lawsuit connected to loot boxes
Update: EA calls claims "baseless," says they "misrepresent our games"
Rebekah Valentine
Senior Staff Writer
Wednesday 11th November 2020

EA is facing another class-action lawsuit in the United States connected to its Ultimate Team loot boxes, this time focused on its alleged use of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment.

In a suit filed in the US District Court of Northern California, plaintiffs Jason Zajonc, Danyael Williams, and Pranko Lozano accuse EA of using its patented Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment technology in three of its EA Sports franchises -- Madden NFL, FIFA, and NHL -- across all games ranging back to the 2017 versions.

The plaintiffs say that EA uses this technology -- whose stated intention is to allow AI to adjust difficulty on the fly to keep players from becoming either too bored or frustrated with the challenge level of a game, keeping them playing longer -- to push players into purchasing more loot boxes in the form of Player Packs, saying that it effectively makes even high stat players not play as well as they should.

Additionally, the suit notes that EA uses this technology without disclosing it to players, noting that EA has denied its use in the past in multiple games mentioned in the suit.

"EA's undisclosed use of Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms deprives gamers who purchase Player Packs of the benefit of their bargains because EA's Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms, rather than only the stated ranking of the gamers' Ultimate Team players and the gamers' relative skill, dictates, or at least highly influences the outcome of the match," the lawsuit reads.

"This is a self-perpetuating cycle that benefits EA to the detriment of EA Sports gamers, since Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms make gamers believe their teams are less skilled than they actually are, leading them to purchase additional Player Packs in hopes of receiving better players and being more competitive."

The plaintiffs say that EA's actions violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and qualify as unjust enrichment.

The group is seeking the court to compel EA to stop misrepresenting Player Packs and Cards, including a corrective advertising campaign, and restitution of funds acquired by any practices the court deems unlawful.

Notably, in 2017 EA was also granted a separate patent on a matchmaking algorithm that has a similarly stated aim of keeping players engaged for longer, which was met with criticism that it could be used to push players toward microtransactions. It is unclear whether or not this technology is being used in any EA Sports games at this time.

EA is currently facing two other lawsuits connected to Ultimate Team, one in the United States alleging the mode breaks California state gambling laws, and one in Canada accusing EA of running "an unlicensed, illegal gaming system through their loot boxes."

Update: When asked for comment on the allegations, EA provided the following statement:

"We believe the claims are baseless and misrepresent our games, and we will defend."
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom