UK government decides not to ban game loot boxes after consultation

Posted:
in General Discussion
The UK government has decided to forego regulating loot boxes in games under current gambling regulations, instead stating that it would discuss industry-led measures on the matter.

Fortnite
Fortnite


After a 22-month investigation of loot boxes in the country, UK Culture Minister Nadine Dorries said that the country would not be moving to ban the in-app or in-game monetization feature, The Guardian reported Monday.

Loot boxes are a common feature in many games and apps. They allow customers to exchange real money for in-game rewards and special items, but are often compared to gambling because consumers don't know what items they will get in a box.

Other countries, like Belgium, have banned loot boxes. Similar efforts have been proposed in the US, but have failed to gain any ground.

Back in 2020, Apple was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that it encouraged addictive behavior and gambling because it allowed loot boxes within games. The iPhone maker successfully fended off the lawsuit earlier in 2022.

Although there won't be a blanket ban on loot boxes in the UK, regulators in the country said they would pursue tougher "industry-led" rules.

"Our view is that it would be premature to take legislative action without first pursuing enhanced industry-led measures to deliver protections for children and young people and all players," the UK consultation reads.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 985member
    Bad decision.  Loot boxes and predatory, exploitative pay-to-progress mechanics via in-game currencies are extremely harmful to at-risk individuals (especially children) and should be banned on moral and ethical grounds if not basic common decency and respect for players.  That Apple is complicit and pushes these harmful products heavily--because they are so profitable on the back of addicted users--shows that they only take social justice and welfare issues seriously when it doesn't impact their bottom line; or potentially improves it.

    So-called "Consumable" IAPs (In-App Purchases) is the App Store model that enables loot boxes and the ability to spend infinite amounts of real money on a game.  The psychology is very deliberate and harmful: you can never truly win because there's always someone who's as addicted with more money and has spent more than you to level up, so it creates a loop-cycle of addicted individuals trying to out-compete and therefore out-spend one another.  Loot boxes take that exploitative model even further and well into gambling territory.  It's sick.

    If the courts don't stop it, then Apple should.  But of course, the apps make far too much for Apple due to their commission, so they won't.  I guess being a multi-trillion dollar company isn't enough for them.  They have to try to suck money out of addicted gamers and children using mummy's credit card, sometimes costing thousands before parents notice..
    edited July 2022 Alex_VFileMakerFellerdanoxmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 2 of 8
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,937member
    Whether they are gambling or not is a question for someone else. I just hate loot boxes because they are cheating. 
    You should progress through the game and get more advanced as you go by experience. If you clear a level and find a loot box with a new weapon, or spell, or shield, or even a pile of gold, fine. But to just be able to come in and buy top line kit as a newby is just wrong. It’s like the high school kid that gets his license and then daddy buys him a Ferrari. They don’t appreciate it because they didn’t put in the work to get it. There’s an old joke about some greenhorn being “all hat and no cattle”. That’s what these people are. They bought there way in, but they cheated to get there. 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 8
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,314member
    Where do developers of these games stand with this? Is it similar to other addictive products where the manufacturers blame users because they are "choosing" to use, or use too much?

    I agree that Apple should do the right thing and ban such features — when the money passes through their system. They are complicit as a result.
    FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 4 of 8
    This could be viewed as the UK government believing that they don't have the power (or, more likely, the capability) to enforce a ban. That's a shame. But not a surprise.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 8
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 849member
    s.metcalf said:
    Bad decision.  Loot boxes and predatory, exploitative pay-to-progress mechanics via in-game currencies are extremely harmful to at-risk individuals (especially children) and should be banned on moral and ethical grounds if not basic common decency and respect for players.  That Apple is complicit and pushes these harmful products heavily--because they are so profitable on the back of addicted users--shows that they only take social justice and welfare issues seriously when it doesn't impact their bottom line; or potentially improves it.

    So-called "Consumable" IAPs (In-App Purchases) is the App Store model that enables loot boxes and the ability to spend infinite amounts of real money on a game.  The psychology is very deliberate and harmful: you can never truly win because there's always someone who's as addicted with more money and has spent more than you to level up, so it creates a loop-cycle of addicted individuals trying to out-compete and therefore out-spend one another.  Loot boxes take that exploitative model even further and well into gambling territory.  It's sick.

    If the courts don't stop it, then Apple should.  But of course, the apps make far too much for Apple due to their commission, so they won't.  I guess being a multi-trillion dollar company isn't enough for them.  They have to try to suck money out of addicted gamers and children using mummy's credit card, sometimes costing thousands before parents notice..
    If the government need to save/protect their citizen base on moral and ethical grounds, then a whole lot more things needed to ban, gun, religion, gambling, alcohol, pornography, big corporation, etc.

    Parents should help and guide their children when using internet. Adult should knows how to wisely use their money. 
    watto_cobradope_ahmine
  • Reply 6 of 8
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,210member
    viclauyyc said:
    s.metcalf said:
    Bad decision.  Loot boxes and predatory, exploitative pay-to-progress mechanics via in-game currencies are extremely harmful to at-risk individuals (especially children) and should be banned on moral and ethical grounds if not basic common decency and respect for players.  That Apple is complicit and pushes these harmful products heavily--because they are so profitable on the back of addicted users--shows that they only take social justice and welfare issues seriously when it doesn't impact their bottom line; or potentially improves it.

    So-called "Consumable" IAPs (In-App Purchases) is the App Store model that enables loot boxes and the ability to spend infinite amounts of real money on a game.  The psychology is very deliberate and harmful: you can never truly win because there's always someone who's as addicted with more money and has spent more than you to level up, so it creates a loop-cycle of addicted individuals trying to out-compete and therefore out-spend one another.  Loot boxes take that exploitative model even further and well into gambling territory.  It's sick.

    If the courts don't stop it, then Apple should.  But of course, the apps make far too much for Apple due to their commission, so they won't.  I guess being a multi-trillion dollar company isn't enough for them.  They have to try to suck money out of addicted gamers and children using mummy's credit card, sometimes costing thousands before parents notice..
    If the government need to save/protect their citizen base on moral and ethical grounds, then a whole lot more things needed to ban, gun, religion, gambling, alcohol, pornography, big corporation, etc.

    Parents should help and guide their children when using internet. Adult should knows how to wisely use their money. 

    How about Terminating unwanted cells, the government is involved in everything don’t stop now……
  • Reply 7 of 8
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 985member
    viclauyyc said:

    If the government need to save/protect their citizen base on moral and ethical grounds, then a whole lot more things needed to ban, gun, religion, gambling, alcohol, pornography, big corporation, etc.

    Parents should help and guide their children when using internet. Adult should knows how to wisely use their money. 
    Ah yes, blame the victims.  There are plenty of precedents for government regulation, limitation and outright banning of things less harmful, but in a country that is happy to see an epidemic of school massacres and gun violence then it's not surprising that this mindset exists in the US.  I expected better from the UK, however.

    In time I think action will be taken.  As the article mentions, Belgium has already taken action, and as awareness grows then more will be done to limit these methods and practices.  The games are deliberately addictive and allow people to spend an infinite amount of money.  They use many of the same tactics as poker machines.  It's hilarious if you think that government is not supposed to take action that results in a fairer, more just, safer, and more prosperous society.  That is, I argue, entirely their raison d'être.  It's a bold position to suggest or argue otherwise, but each to their own I guess.

    And as someone who is not a said victim can I say this: gaming existed long before these ultra-predatory practices, and did just fine.  These methods only harm the gaming industry and give it a bad name.  They make it harder for decent developers to get the publicity and recognition they deserve.  And the only ones that benefit are the rich CEOs, executives and shareholders of the disgusting companies that do it, and the publishers like Apple who take their cut.  Again, it's bold position to take to defend them.  It's not a position I'd be proud of.
    edited July 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 8 of 8
    s.metcalf said:
    viclauyyc said:

    If the government need to save/protect their citizen base on moral and ethical grounds, then a whole lot more things needed to ban, gun, religion, gambling, alcohol, pornography, big corporation, etc.

    Parents should help and guide their children when using internet. Adult should knows how to wisely use their money. 
    Ah yes, blame the victims.  There are plenty of precedents for government regulation, limitation and outright banning of things less harmful, but in a country that is happy to see an epidemic of school massacres and gun violence then it's not surprising that this mindset exists in the US.  I expected better from the UK, however.

    In time I think action will be taken.  As the article mentions, Belgium has already taken action, and as awareness grows then more will be done to limit these methods and practices.  The games are deliberately addictive and allow people to spend an infinite amount of money.  They use many of the same tactics as poker machines.  It's hilarious if you think that government is not supposed to take action that results in a fairer, more just, safer, and more prosperous society.  That is, I argue, entirely their raison d'être.  It's a bold position to suggest or argue otherwise, but each to their own I guess.

    And as someone who is not a said victim can I say this: gaming existed long before these ultra-predatory practices, and did just fine.  These methods only harm the gaming industry and give it a bad name.  They make it harder for decent developers to get the publicity and recognition they deserve.  And the only ones that benefit are the rich CEOs, executives and shareholders of the disgusting companies that do it, and the publishers like Apple who take their cut.  Again, it's bold position to take to defend them.  It's not a position I'd be proud of.
    Well said!!! I have exact same views, but couldn't put it into words like you have done.
Sign In or Register to comment.