Video game loot boxes are now considered criminal gambling in Belgium

[Emgiell]

lootboxes are fine in games like rocket league where everything is entirely cosmetic and offers no advantage over other players. otherwise it sucks bad

Getting random items that I would have to pay for is not fine. Its the same reason why I didn't jump into trading card games.

[Ad Bot]

[Satan From Wreck-It-Ralph]

i've yet to see people treat valve poorly for starting the loot box trend

[Boomsticks Alt]

i've yet to see people treat valve poorly for starting the loot box trend

this is actually really true

[hillkill]

games where there are no advantages from loot boxes are okay. as long as the items have no monetary value (rocket league, ww2, etc.)

[King Tøny]

stuff I was going to put lootboxes on my blockland server

[Shift Kitty]

i've yet to see people treat valve poorly for starting the loot box trend

Probably because not only are the boxes and keys tradable, but they're marketable, as well as the items within them.
Every single other game you just open them (or pay to do so), get a bunch of stuff you don't care about, and then you're stuck with it.

[Master Matthew²]

Hey...
When this type of law comes to the US, they better describe it as any and all microtransaction or it's going to be a worthless law.

[hillkill]

Probably because not only are the boxes and keys tradable, but they're marketable, as well as the items within them.

and this is a good thing why?

that is the type of stuff that makes countries like belgium think that loot boxes are gambling

[Shift Kitty]

and this is a good thing why?

that is the type of stuff that makes countries like belgium think that loot boxes are gambling

You're not wrong on that, and I personally don't like any kind of loot box system.
Just responding to Satan's post and explaining why people haven't given valve stuff.

[Headcrab Zombie]

I'm not familiar with FIFA, but in Counter Strike and Overwatch, this claim that "players buy an advantage with real money" is completely false, as lootbox rewards are 100% cosmetic.

Now, counter strike's skin system allows skins to be resold, so I still understand the gambling claim, as some people may drop money on boxes, hoping for a greater return. But overwatch skins are not transferable in any way. Overwatch also gives plenty of opportunity to earn lootboxes without purchase

The reality of the situation is that game development costs continue to increase, and when you add inflation on top of that, continuing to charge $60 for a game really isn't enough. So unless you want to pay $80+ for a game, developers need to find a way to pull in additional money.

[ThatDarkNinja778]

I'm not familiar with FIFA, but in Counter Strike and Overwatch, this claim that "players buy an advantage with real money" is completely false, as lootbox rewards are 100% cosmetic.

Now, counter strike's skin system allows skins to be resold, so I still understand the gambling claim, as some people may drop money on boxes, hoping for a greater return. But overwatch skins are not transferable in any way. Overwatch also gives plenty of opportunity to earn lootboxes without purchase

The reality of the situation is that game development costs continue to increase, and when you add inflation on top of that, continuing to charge $60 for a game really isn't enough. So unless you want to pay $80+ for a game, developers need to find a way to pull in additional money.

I think it more sparked with Battlefront 2's handling of it where you got special upgrades and unlocked characters that did change the gameplay. I think now its just cosmetics due to all the backlash they got.

Nobody minds comestic stuff, especially in games like Overwatch where it's easy to get loot boxes on a normal basis.

[Conan]

the problem with this is if they somehow enforce it strongly, you’re making people who want to play that game now go through illegal channels to obtain the game. on top of that, i dont see game devs changing their monetization strategy unless a lot of other countries jump onboard the “lootboxes are gambling” train

it also leaves some things ambiguous like pay-to-play-this-dungeon where the boss makes a random drop, or paying for ingame currency which can then be used to purchase content that has a random factor in it, like an item with random stats. what about games like candy crush where you arent purchasing lootboxes, but the game itself is fundamentally based on chance?

and in the end the devs will just find another monetization strategy if everything about lootboxes gets restricted. $60 per game no dlc or other monetization strategy isnt sustainable for AAA games. smaller games can probably get away with it, but without a secondary monetization strategy (dlc, lootboxes) theres no way to achieve graphical or gameplay fidelity like the stuff you see in horizon zero dawn or mgsv

[Planr]

are you implying that you like lootboxes lol

i just think its stupid to equate them with gambling
by this logic people who buy trading card game expansions or unlock cosmetic crates on tf2 are gambling

and let's say i did like lootboxes. what's wrong with that?

[Fire Vine]

loving finnaly

[Emgiell]

i just think its stupid to equate them with gambling
by this logic people who buy trading card game expansions or unlock cosmetic crates on tf2 are gambling

and let's say i did like lootboxes. what's wrong with that?

You basically tell developers that people are willing to pay for this kind of stuff.
Despite all of the boycotting and hate going around, people who buy into loot boxes outweigh people who don't purchase them.
So guess what happens then?