Well as this is often a hot subject with 'gamers' I think this is
interesting news. It seems Spain is introducing new legislation that
effectively says, you can still have lootboxes in games but if you do
then you need to have an age verification system in place. How this will
impact games I'm not sure but my guess is just that if you're in Spain
then lootboxes won't be available to anyone as companies won't want the
hassle of age verification that will fulfil the requirement.

https://igamingbusiness.com/spain-ban-loot-boxes-minors/

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:20:46 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Well as this is often a hot subject with 'gamers' I think this is
>interesting news. It seems Spain is introducing new legislation that
>effectively says, you can still have lootboxes in games but if you do
>then you need to have an age verification system in place. How this will
>impact games I'm not sure but my guess is just that if you're in Spain
>then lootboxes won't be available to anyone as companies won't want the
>hassle of age verification that will fulfil the requirement.
>
>https://igamingbusiness.com/spain-ban-loot-boxes-minors/

Its largely falls into the 'something must be done, this is something'
cover used by politicians the world over. It is largely theater. It
isn't completely toothless, but even "documentary age verification" is
fairly easily bypassed, especially when it fails to enforce any
penalties for lying about your age (all penalties are afforded to the
game publisher).

The only other thing of note is that publishers must list the
probability of obtaining various objects. But the rest is fairly
useless; popups saying "use loot boxes in moderation" and advertising
limits won't have much effect and the definitions are so loose as to
be easily argued in court. Even the "must show price in Euros" is
toothless, since it doesn't actually enforce that in-game credits
can't be used, just that the price /also/ has to be shown in
real-money amounts. ("Buy this giraffe hat for 300 credits (4,67€)";
meanwhile, "Credits sold in packs of 500 (7,78€ value)").

But I suppose it is a step in the right direction; an indicator that
- after decades of saying, "Oh don't worry, we can self-regulate when
it comes to lootboxes" the words of the games industry are no longer
being taken entirely at face value. It may put the brakes on some of
the more extreme instances of these predatory mechanics... at least
for a while, until they figure out a way to loophole the laws.

On 07/07/2022 16:55, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:20:46 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> Well as this is often a hot subject with 'gamers' I think this is
>> interesting news. It seems Spain is introducing new legislation that
>> effectively says, you can still have lootboxes in games but if you do
>> then you need to have an age verification system in place. How this will
>> impact games I'm not sure but my guess is just that if you're in Spain
>> then lootboxes won't be available to anyone as companies won't want the
>> hassle of age verification that will fulfil the requirement.
>>
>> https://igamingbusiness.com/spain-ban-loot-boxes-minors/
>
> Its largely falls into the 'something must be done, this is something'
> cover used by politicians the world over. It is largely theater. It
> isn't completely toothless, but even "documentary age verification" is
> fairly easily bypassed, especially when it fails to enforce any
> penalties for lying about your age (all penalties are afforded to the
> game publisher).
>
> The only other thing of note is that publishers must list the
> probability of obtaining various objects. But the rest is fairly
> useless; popups saying "use loot boxes in moderation" and advertising
> limits won't have much effect and the definitions are so loose as to
> be easily argued in court. Even the "must show price in Euros" is
> toothless, since it doesn't actually enforce that in-game credits
> can't be used, just that the price /also/ has to be shown in
> real-money amounts. ("Buy this giraffe hat for 300 credits (4,67€)";
> meanwhile, "Credits sold in packs of 500 (7,78€ value)").
>
> But I suppose it is a step in the right direction; an indicator that
> - after decades of saying, "Oh don't worry, we can self-regulate when
> it comes to lootboxes" the words of the games industry are no longer
> being taken entirely at face value. It may put the brakes on some of
> the more extreme instances of these predatory mechanics... at least
> for a while, until they figure out a way to loophole the laws.
>

I think it more than just theatre especially if whoever is behind this
starts pushing it in the EU as the way forward.

To add, a couple of things that annoy me about lootboxes is how some
gamers themselves treat them. So there seems to be the false belief that
if you don't like lootboxes you want them banned and also that the issue
has nothing to do with the games companies it's about bad parenting. We
accept age restrictions on other activities but somehow for lootboxes
it's different and more importantly if someone's parents aren't the most
responsible does that make their children fair game.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 11:38:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>To add, a couple of things that annoy me about lootboxes is how some
>gamers themselves treat them. So there seems to be the false belief that
>if you don't like lootboxes you want them banned and also that the issue
>has nothing to do with the games companies it's about bad parenting. We
>accept age restrictions on other activities but somehow for lootboxes
>it's different and more importantly if someone's parents aren't the most
>responsible does that make their children fair game.

/My/ main objection is how the inclusion of lootboxes has affected the
amount of in-game content and gameplay. I have serious concerns about
the predatory nature of the things too, but because I don't engage
with them*, this aspect doesn't resonate with me as strongly. But
things that /used/ to be included in games have now been stripped away
to be sold through microtransactions or DLC, and the games have become
increasingly grindy to justify these sales. The end effect is that
games have become less enjoyable and I feel I'm getting less value for
my money when I buy a game.

Which is not to disregard or downplay the very disturbing way that
publishers manipulate their customer base to become hooked on the
dopamine rush created by buying/opening lootboxes (and not just
children; adults are victimized almost as easily). It's all a very
calculated attempt to make games as addicitive as possible - often
utilizing psychologists to maximize the effects - disguised as
harmless entertainment. I've no objection to incrased government
scrutiny of this practice. I'm just not entirely sure that Spain's
attempt is anything more than shallow cover that isn't intended to do
much more than make the politicians look good.

-------
* largely because I suspect that were I to start getting into
lootboxes, my personality type would be exactly the sort that would
overdose on the damn things**, so in self defense I avoid the things
entirely.

** I mean, who would suspect that the person with seventeen gajillion
video games might not have the best self control? ;-)***

*** footnotes to footnotes to footnotes! You can't stop me,
muahahahaha!

On 7/9/2022 8:13 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 11:38:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> To add, a couple of things that annoy me about lootboxes is how some
>> gamers themselves treat them. So there seems to be the false belief that
>> if you don't like lootboxes you want them banned and also that the issue
>> has nothing to do with the games companies it's about bad parenting. We
>> accept age restrictions on other activities but somehow for lootboxes
>> it's different and more importantly if someone's parents aren't the most
>> responsible does that make their children fair game.
>
> /My/ main objection is how the inclusion of lootboxes has affected the
> amount of in-game content and gameplay. I have serious concerns about
> the predatory nature of the things too, but because I don't engage
> with them*, this aspect doesn't resonate with me as strongly. But
> things that /used/ to be included in games have now been stripped away
> to be sold through microtransactions or DLC, and the games have become
> increasingly grindy to justify these sales. The end effect is that
> games have become less enjoyable and I feel I'm getting less value for
> my money when I buy a game.
>
> Which is not to disregard or downplay the very disturbing way that
> publishers manipulate their customer base to become hooked on the
> dopamine rush created by buying/opening lootboxes (and not just
> children; adults are victimized almost as easily). It's all a very
> calculated attempt to make games as addicitive as possible - often
> utilizing psychologists to maximize the effects - disguised as
> harmless entertainment. I've no objection to incrased government
> scrutiny of this practice. I'm just not entirely sure that Spain's
> attempt is anything more than shallow cover that isn't intended to do
> much more than make the politicians look good.
>
The problem with "weak" government responses to problems is usually
because no one can agree on what the response should be. Unfortunately
a large part of the reason for the disagreement is frequently because
the people who are gaining money, and therefore power, use it to oppose
being reined in.

>
> -------
> * largely because I suspect that were I to start getting into
> lootboxes, my personality type would be exactly the sort that would
> overdose on the damn things**, so in self defense I avoid the things
> entirely.
>
> ** I mean, who would suspect that the person with seventeen gajillion
> video games might not have the best self control? ;-)***
>
> *** footnotes to footnotes to footnotes! You can't stop me,
> muahahahaha!
>
I see that you've found that footnotes are how you gain access to Usenet
loot boxes.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.