Cognition Dissemination: Whoops! Loot Box Mania Went Too Far — Part II
Loot boxes have been a hot topic in the video gaming world for the last year, though they’ve existed for far longer than that. They were mostly provided as free bonuses, but it was Blizzard’s Overwatch that first notably capitalized on the idea to charge for random loot, though they were reserved for cosmetics. But perhaps we should have been harder on their methods, since it might have prevented them from spiraling out of control.
While some games implemented them without subtly requiring the usage of them, like Middle-earth: Shadow of War, any pretense of generosity was dropped for other titles. The items inside the loot boxes in Call of Duty: WWII were pretty helpful, which could be earned by completing several in-game tasks or, more dangerously, paying money. They were also mostly limited to cosmetics, but some contained XP, and they give items in Zombies mode.
But the game that generated the most controversy was Star Wars Battlefront II, which happened for a couple of significant reasons. The first is how Star Wars is more family friendly than the aforementioned franchises, and young players could be the ones trying to earn loot boxes; and though they couldn’t be directly purchased with real money, there was an easy roundabout way to do so by purchasing credits and using them to purchase loot boxes. For the second issue, Battlefront II’s boxes contained items and perks far more useful than other games, which drove players to obtain their bonuses as an easy way to become stronger than the competition online. It was the scummiest implementation of them yet, which is why the backlash was far larger here compared to other titles.
In fact, it was so large that specific governments and regulatory bodies around the world started taking notice of how similar this practice is to gambling. This included the state of Hawaii, the UK Government, and Belguim’s Gaming Commission. The states of Washington and Indiana are also considering legislative steps to combat them. This hasn’t amounted to anything yet, but that’s due to how much time these processes take. Recently, however, another party threw their hat into the ring: A senator on Capitol Hill.
Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) sent a letter to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (aka ESRB) urging them to review features like loot boxes and microtransactions, and the effect they could have on children. She mentioned how they use psychological principles similar to gambling and how it’s an expensive habit, and deserve scrutiny for potential harm. Hassan also asked them to collect and publish data on how players use both gameplay features. No legislation has been considered on Capitol Hill to combat them, but Hassan also asked the FTC to look into them, and all four heads of the organization agreed this issue was worth observing.
This is a risky move, thanks to the ESRB’s previous response, and the response from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The ESRB said in October that it believed loot boxes weren’t gambling, because you at least get something from a loot box. That’s a simplistic point of view, because as Senator Hassan said, they use the same “psychological principles.” The ESA also previously said they would let “the gamer make the decision” to “enhance their in-game experience.” That’s a not-that-subtle way of saying they don’t intend to do a damn thing, which isn’t too surprising considering their role as lobbyists, but corporations can’t be trusted to police themselves.
The concern here is how the industry isn’t subject to the same regulations as gambling, and corporate greed could become too predatory for comfort with no one stopping them. There’s a significant audience that doesn’t want politicians stepping into this thanks to previous examples of potential overreach (and it gets funnier when you realize the person who wrote that bill was almost president). But they might be forced to do something if there are enough complaints without action from the industry.
Given the evidence above, the ESRB’s response to Hassan was bound to be insubstantial. But it’s strangely more nonsensical than expected, as it’s little more than a PR response. They thanked her for her confidence in the ESRB, and claimed they’ll continue to make enhancements to their system over time to ensure that parents are informed about video game content. There is nothing useful here, as they didn’t bother acknowledging her question of whether they can monitor the usage of loot boxes and publish the data over time. It’s clear they don’t care too much about this.
Since the ESRB and ESA can’t be trusted to look out for the consumer, hopefully the players themselves and industry watchdogs continue to watch for overly predatory practices. There’s not much hope the former will do the right thing with companies showing how much they’re making from them on microtransactions, but that doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel. The next big bundle of drama could come when Battlefront II’s microtransactions return next month, and we’ll see just how bad they are soon.
About The Author
Geoff
News Editor | Geoff is some nerd who writes for a blog and thinks he's knowledgeable. He write a lot about video games, but is capable of writing about other subjects, too. Twitter
