Video Games And Gambling?

[Commodore]

Recently, with the microtransaction controversy surrounding both Shadow of War and Battlefront 2, a discussion within the general gaming community has started about whether or not these microtransactions and "loot crates" count as gambling.

Personally, I do see it as gambling as you must pay real world money for a roll of the dice to get random loot. Now I know some of you are going to bring up the "but it's voluntary" point, but that is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not such systems should be considered gambling. I can walk into a casino and choose not to play their games and only eat at their buffet or whatever, but just because me playing their games is voluntary doesn't mean they aren't still considered a gambling establishment.

Now, why does it matter if this is gambling or not? Well, because there are laws that govern gambling and as of right now game developers and publishers are not bound by those laws, despite having gambling-like systems in their products. Since these microtransaction systems are all done through online services, technically these systems are illegal in the US since online gambling is expressly outlawed by both state and federal law. That means game developers are essentially being allowed to break the law simply because the popular view right now is that video games aren't gambling. Gambling is also illegal for anyone under the age of 18 in the US, online or not. And since video game developers cannot guarantee their player base are all 18 or older, they are essentially promoting underage gambling.

What I would like to see is a legal challenge that advances the argument I'm making right now to start the process of getting the whole microtransaction/loot crate trend in gaming straight-up outlawed (at least in the US). It is a predatory business practice that has to either be stopped outright or at least regulated by current gambling laws.

What do you all think? Should video games that use microtransactions and randomized loot crates be considered gambling and thus be governed by gambling laws?

 

[Zkribbler]

What's in the loot crates? Is it real world money (or loot that's convertible to real world money)? If so, you're risking money for a chance at greater money Tht's gambling,

 

[Arwon]

What you're describing sounds very much like gambling.

The US should legalise gambling and then regulate this as it (assuming these games are based in the US otherwise Japan or whoever should)

 

[metatron]

gambling-like systems

Ok, the problem with the argument is that technically there is no gambling because there is no gain.
You are not getting anything. The goods in loot crates are still owned by the provider of the game and often (most of the time) can't be traded in any meaningful and/or practical way.
It's all just "an experience", as the company would claim.
Like a low cost slot machine that gives you a spin, a few button punches, decision makiing and a varried outcome of colorful lights for a nickel.
No gain. No gambling.

Contrast this with old-fashioned real world trading cards, be that MtG or some sort of sports cards scheme.
There you are paying for a chance, which may very well be gambling.
And there is real gain in the form of randomly aquired property that may be as good as money by virtue of being tradeable.

 

[Commodore]

What's in the loot crates? Is it real world money (or loot that's convertible to real world money)? If so, you're risking money for a chance at greater money Tht's gambling,

It doesn't have to just involve money for it to be gamlbing, the "payout" can include goods too. And I'm sure you would agree that loot crates count as goods (albeit digital ones).

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The above sure sounds like what's going on with those randomized loot crates to me. I'd say for such systems to not be considered gambling, one of two things has to be removed from the equation: either remove the real world money aspect or remove the random aspect.

The US should legalise gambling and then regulate this as it (assuming these games are based in the US otherwise Japan or whoever should)

Gambling is mostly legal in the US, it's just online gambling that's illegal, and with good reason. And since video games use the internet for these types of transactions, they would certainly fall under the definition of online gambling and should be considered illegal in the US.

 

[Arwon]

I thought the whole reason Vegas and reservation casinos existed is pretty much nowhere else had legalised gambling games and sports betting?

 

[Commodore]

I thought the whole reason Vegas and reservation casinos existed is nowhere else had legalised gambling games and sports betting?

That's the way it used to be. In the past few decades though, casino gambling has pretty much spread all over the US. Incidentally, the Las Vegas economy has been hit hard by the proliferation of gambling since people no longer need to travel there to get their "fix".

Here's a chart that shows what types of gambling are and aren't legal in each state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#Legal_issues

 

[metatron]

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value

See my previous post.
Value is somewhat shaky business (by the looks of that link and as one would expect) if there is no exchange and effectivelz no price.
Outcomes may differ in desirability, but arguably - so the company would claim - there is no actual gained good, no price, no exchange, no value. Thus no gambling.
You are just out of some money for colorful lights.

 

[Arwon]

I was under the understanding these microtransacting chance games deal in loot and other currencies that are ultimately exchangeable for real world money. Is that not the case? If they can't connect to real world currency in not sure they would count under gambling legislation.

 

[Commodore]

I was under the understanding these microtransacting chance games deal in loot and other currencies that are ultimately exchangeable for real world money. Is that not the case?

Nah, you pay money (usually a small amount) to get a loot crate, hoping for something that you really want, whether it be cosmetic things for your character or even upgrades that give you an advantage over other players. Those loot crates are randomized however so you aren't guaranteed to get the loot you want. You might even get something you already have which means you essentially just paid for nothing.

I think the biggest case for this system being considered a type of gambling would be leaked internal documents from game developers and publishers using gambling terminology and slang (i.e. referring to those who purchase these loot crates as "whales") to describe this system. That would indicate that the developers and publishers themselves even consider this to be gambling.

 

[metatron]

I was under the understanding these microtransacting chance games deal in loot and other currencies that are ultimately exchangeable for real world money. Is that not the case? If they can't connect to real world currency in not sure they would count under gambling legislation.

Typically not.

You might even get something you already have which means you essentially just paid for nothing.

You always pay for nothing, as far as the law is concerned. Hence: no gambling.

 

[Commodore]

You always pay for nothing, as far as the law is concerned.

Which is why people want the law to change. Laws as they are, are woefully behind the times on issues like this.

 

[Ryika]

I think on the technical level, it's not "gambling" in the legal sense, precisely because you can't get anything out of the system. But aside from that technicality, it does have all the attributes of actual gambling, and while I'm generally not for banning things, I think it's worth having a closer look at this and seeing whether the legal situation should be amended, because it's clear that the situation where "the hunt for objects in a video game" practically replace the need for actual "payout" is a rather new thing.

And it does certainly make people throw away their money, as it mimics gambling, and abuses the same flaws of human nature that gambling does. That companies use this to get more money out of people is pathetic, particularly in games that are played by children (which is the case with many F2P mobile games which is where Lootboxes originated from).

On a more practical level, Lootboxes are also a way to keep players from the thing they actually want and give them tons of crap that they do not want, all while suggesting to the player that the thing that they want might actually be just behind the corner, and the way Lootboxes are implemented should really make any gamer boycott those games. Particular in Battlefront 2, where players can just spend a ton of money on day 1 and then have a competitive advantage over other players, an advantage that those other players can't close, because they can't even get the loot they need, because they get random crap from the few Lootboxes they get while playing, crap of which most does not increase their strength. But more generally, they also encourage developers to make ingame process as slow as they can get away with, to encourage players to buy as many Lootboxes as they can.

So TL : DR - not technically gambling, but most certainly a greedy new invention that will make gaming a worse experience.

 

[tuckerkao]

Isn't Gambling only legalized in the Las Vegas metro areas and the surrounding cities?

 

[GenMarshall]

Nah, you pay money (usually a small amount) to get a loot crate, hoping for something that you really want, whether it be cosmetic things for your character or even upgrades that give you an advantage over other players. Those loot crates are randomized however so you aren't guaranteed to get the loot you want. You might even get something you already have which means you essentially just paid for nothing.

In cases like in Overwatch, any dupes you get. You get in game credits as compensation with the amount given depending on the tier the item is (Common, Rare, Epic, or Legendary). Fortunately, what you get are cosmetic items for heroes (skins, poses, and voices) or avatars. Thank God no upgrades *cough*TeamFortress2Dropsmeauselessweapon*cough*.

I'm only aware of the problematic gambling with video games is with CS:GO. Given that Valve has taken a stance to put their foot down to combat it. I'm sure Blizzard and other developers that have a loot box system in their games would follow suit.

Isn't Gambling only legalized in the Las Vegas metro areas and the surrounding cities?

No, Gambiling laws varies from state to state. Plus there's an added layer when dealing with recognized federal tribes that have a casino on their reservations yet the state doesn't have legalized gambling.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Isn't Gambling only legalized in the Las Vegas metro areas and the surrounding cities?

Casino style gambling is legal state-wide in Nevada.

Prostitution is what is often confused as being allowed state-wide when it isn't (and it's not legal in Vegas). Illegal prostitution gets 66 times more business than the legal prostitution in Nevada.

 

[civvver]

It's a very good point cus in games like dota2 you can buy loot boxes which have a very slim chance of containing a super rare cosmetic, then you can turn around and sell that cosmetic for credit on your valve account. It looks like real money but it's technically not because you can cash out your valve account and put it in like your bank account or something. You can only use it to buy more digital stuff. So it's a very slippery slope.

I'm not really sure to be honest, probably more legislation needs to be address here.

 

[Disgustipated]

Incidentally, the Las Vegas economy has been hit hard by the proliferation of gambling since people no longer need to travel there to get their "fix".

Our economy is doing great. Are we expanding as fast as the 90's? No. But I don't want to. We are limited by the size of our valley (relatively small), massively limited water supply (California gets almost all of the Colorado river), and massive traffic problems with no room to widen certain freeways because of houses bordering the freeway.

There's a huge difference in entertainment value between Las Vegas and some Indian casino is South Dakota. I should also mention our payouts are better than every single place in the country because of less regulation. Not that I recommend gambling, as it's statistically a losing venture. I still can't figure out how the Vegas shooter made money at video poker. It shouldn't happen in theory.

 

[Kyriakos]

I used to play Yahoo! poker... Back in my first year at uni, roughly a century ago!