Read more.Quote:
Expect a legal scuffle over the 'gambling' loot boxes found in FIFA 18 to ensue.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Expect a legal scuffle over the 'gambling' loot boxes found in FIFA 18 to ensue.
Read that as
Disappointed.Quote:
Belgian govt opens criminal investigation into EU
Why would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
*breaks out the popcorn*
I love how EA disagree that spending 'real currency' on a "pack" that, when opened, unlocks a 'random' virtual item(s) is not gambling. lol
All they have to do to keep ripping off the idiots that actually pay this money, is to allow players to straight-up purchase the virtual items they want. Taking away the choice or by adding a random variable makes it gambling.
Tell ya what, EA. Lets say I have 3 cars for sale. One is worth 10k, one is worth 5k and one is worth 1k. Pay me 10k and I will "randomly" pick one of the cars for you to have in exchange for your 10k. Sounds like a bit of a gamble, doesn't it?
I hope they fine them to the point of bankruptcy, I really do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by outwar6010
http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploa...good-gif-8.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by afiretruck
LoL that what you get EA
I must be missing something but isn't this going to end badly for EA no matter what? On the one side they prove it's not gambling because the items they're selling customers have no value, on the other they do have value and so it is gambling, the former is admittance they're ripping people off and the latter is admitting they promote underage gambling.
Well there is that aspect to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I think EA are assuming that because they don't provide those means, that third parties also don't provide that means (or in some cases individuals simply selling their accounts). Regardless of whether that breaches any form of TOS EA may try to point to (which have been pointed out as not enforceable in some countries iirc.), that doesn't make that aspect of the ability to "cash out" a moot point.Quote:
Wilson went on to claim that its 'loot boxes' were not equivalent to gambling as there is no way to cash out or sell loot items for real/virtual currency.
I think EA are seriously stupid to even contest this and should follow suit with the other publishers and simply remove this type of monetising consumers.
What i don't understand as to me personally gambling isn't something only done with real or virtual currency, it's done with anything of value. I'm not a judge or lawyer and i dare say if this gets to trail they'll make a judgment on the definition of gambling but it seems they'd have an uphill struggle to prove gambling is only done with real or virtual currencies.
I also agree with you that it would seem difficult to prove just because they don't provide the ability to cash out that the virtual item don't have value.
Would be nice if you could disable the packs on kids accounts, I dread to think how much money youth here has spent on Fifa, Fortnite and other online games...
"Wilson went on to claim that its 'loot boxes' were not equivalent to gambling as there is no way to cash out or sell loot items for real/virtual currency."
What a stupid argument...
*tip of iceberg
I'm pretty sure company like EA can afford lawyers and we don't know the law in Belgium. Since its only Belgium and not eu court/law, we could be looking at maximum penalty of bother all when you look at how much EA takes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
On the other hand they got all to lose, by not challenging and complying, so makes sense to me tbh.
But your analogy rather makes EA's point for them - that example IS gambling because the cars have real-world value.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeetyMcLeet
Make them virtual cars worth, say, £100k, £10k or £1k, but the cash handed over is real and you have a different scenatio. What makes a £100k virtual car "worth" more than a £1k virtual car .... if you cannot cash out on the virtual car?
Also, I'd guess there's going to be disputes over what jurisfiction Belgium has in the first place, if you bought a game online with a contract stipulating that the contract is governed by the laws of a US state, where EA sre based.
Of course not - You couldn't fine them enough to make them lose, and people will still buy their cack anyway. This is just a day out of the office for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
There's no way to cash out of, say, horse racing, but that's still gambling.Quote:
Wilson went on to claim that its 'loot boxes' were not equivalent to gambling as there is no way to cash out or sell loot items for real/virtual currency.
There's the chance that you can come away with less (or no) money than you put in - That chance and that loss makes it gambling, simple as.
This will go nowhere surely? Rich company employs lots of lawyers, government accused of wasting tax payers money, case collapses/gets withdrawn/discharged whatever. Nothing changes, and best case is EA get a fine, which they duly stall with appeals and eventually don't pay. Like Intel with its EU fines, which SFAIK are still not paid. Anyone know when that appeal is due to be heard?
I think times are changing. Its going in the right direction, will probably take a while but we will get there. Just hope EA get shafted.
Do you even know what horse racing is? you bet on a horse, it wins, you win more than you bet on it...what is your concept about it?Quote:
There's no way to cash out of, say, horse racing, but that's still gambling.
There's the chance that you can come away with less (or no) money than you put in - That chance and that loss makes it gambling, simple as.
Anyway, the whole idea in this company is maximize profits. You can call them greedy or anything you want, its a market... there is no good or bad, its relative to each point of view.
I think its already been heard and was set aside on the grounds that the lower court didn't examine/prove if the rebates had effected the competition economically, they've essentially been told to redo the entire trail because the ECJ's judgment was that the lower court failed to meet a particular burden of proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Nothing wrong with that but this is more about circumventing existing laws that prohibit underage gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejuvination
Can you clarify that first line, as it doesn't seem to make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I bet on a horse, it wins and I can take the cash. It loses, I lose. The gambling bit is about risking something of value on some uncertain future event or unknown outcome, and winning or losing accordingly. What is is that you risk, and pretty much what you risk it on, are immaterial providing you can gain or lose something of value.
One grey area is the definition of "value". It could be argued that if a loot box contains a really desirable item, then the "gambler" won because they highly value that, even if it is virtual. If they gey a ho-hum item, then they lost as they probably value that less than the cash they paid.
Presumably, anyone buying a loot box for a chance of winning a desirable virtual item would have paid that same sum, or more, to just buy it with 100% certainty of getting it, else ehy buy a loot box. So, virtual or not, they 'value' thst item, and by paying real money for a chance to get something of value, means they're gambling.
Just because 99.999% of people wouldn't value it doesn't make it worth less to the gambler, the buyer of the loot box.
I would put money on Belgium using that surmisation of gambling. But it may fall flat if existing legal precedence is set that gambling is where you can extract tangible real world value out of what you have received. Which means Belgium may have an uphill struggle creating a new precedent which i personally feel won't be hard but it may have far further reaching implications. It could affect the world of trading cards quite heavily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Oh, indeed. It's not just existing precedent, but existing legislation, and/or interpretation of definitions ... which is why I stressed earlier about whose jurisdiction this falls into. It's a murky area when provider is in one jurisdiction (say, USA), the buyer is in snother (be it EU or an EU member nation) and the entire transaction (offer, acceptance, payment and even delivery) takes place online with no real-world component.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
And that's before we even get to definitions of gambling.
Yeah, it wins, you get cash.... but what if it comes in second, or loses completely? You get how much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejuvination
Nothing?
There ya go, then. Gambling.
If it undermines the fundamentals of the industry to the point where it changes the culture and alienates customers from their own and other companies, then it's bad. This BS should have stopped the moment paid DLC began, but instead it set the precedent for things like microtransactions and all the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejuvination
I'm sure there are various trading practices around artificially inflating prices or something that apply here, kinda like a company selling you a 'car' but charging extra for the key, tyres, steering wheel, etc...
You can't take your losing tickets and cash them out, because you've lost. There is nothing to cash out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
If it were in-game only currency, that might be different, but charging real money to purchase the risk of getting virtual rewards or virtual nothing is the gambling element.
Not really. If people pay real money for something, or just the chance of getting either something, less than something, or nothing at all, then it has 'value'... pretty much the same value as the real world amount they spend for it. If there's a chance they won't get what they're giving up the cash for, then it's gambling. Nothing grey there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Well, thdre's a difference between "has value" and "you value it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I value my account on Hexus, but does it "have" value. I value sitting at the back door in a storm, smelling the air and watching the lightning flicker and flash. But
does that "have value". Well I can't sell it or swap it for something, or give it to someone else.
Does a non-existent, virtual-only item exist? If not, can it have value, even if you or someone else values it.
FWIW, i kind-of agree with you .... except sbout it not being a grey area.
As for not cadhing in a losing ticket, I still don't see your point. Even in gambling terms, any ticket itself only has value before the uncertain event it refers to resolves itself. Cashing in refers to collecting winnings ... if any.
After the crap people like Jim Sterling got from certain sections of the gaming community over his criticism of loot crates,etc and how it would cause governments to get involved eventually he must be having the last laugh.
Sorry to bump this, but it really is very simple. You spend money on a randomized item, that item may or may not be an item you want/need/already have. Therefore the result is unpredictable and you are gambling money in the hope that the item you receive from the crate is worth something to you. It is gambling plain and simple, any game that includes random loot crates should be instantly rated as 18+.
True. But as far as I am concerned, and I guess the law is as well, there are different "tiers" to gambling. By the above logic, sticker packs, TCG's, blind packs and so on which are already available to children are also gambling; and they are really. I would class them as sort of a second tier type of gamling, with the top tier being ones that you actually just get straight cash from. And even then, you could sell what the cards/stickers you got possibly for more than you bought them for. Then you have those arcades with those 2p/10p machines which are "proper" gambling as in you could actually get more cash out than you put in, but kids play them all the time (I did at least!).Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
Don't get me wrong, I don't like these practices but you really need to nail down the details to prevent it from having unintentional consequences.
Yes, but that doesn't come into it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
You value something, at the value you pay for it. However, it has value, because the company selling it has assigned it one, and that value is further given validation because several (or more) people have paid that value for the chance to have it. It is thus also gambling, because they paid for the chance to have, not merely to have.
The same applies to most other non-material things, such as services (advice, work, etc) - And there's a taxman, and a Trading Standards man, and a Customs & Excise man, and probably a number of other men (as well as almost the same number of women, because this is the modern world) all queued up and cued up, ready to destroy any argument you might have against this assertion!! :D
Obviously. It's most commonly in the realm of 'Intellectual Property', but crosses into various other realms, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
If it didn't exist, people wouldn't be falling in love with Cortana/Siri/Alexa/whoever and they certainly wouldn't need copyrights and trademarks!!
Exactly. You can't cash out if you lose... But it IS still gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
So my assertion is that, by this same reasoning, EA Wilson's remark that 'because you can't cash out that means it's not gambling' is thus flawed and incorrect and invalid.
But you can still exchange the ones you don't want for the ones that you do, right? These are Trading Card Games and Trading Stickers, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
Indeed, the whole premise of your Pokemon and your Garbage Pail Kids and your Pannini football stickers, is that you can swap them with other people in order to complete the set.... and you get a stick of cheap bubble-gum to keep you hyperactive and fuel your ADD, but only because candy cigarettes had a bum rep once upon a time.
By contrast - Can you trade/exchange Loot Crates, or unwanted items from them?
See, I don't care if it's gambling.
I just hate the idea that you HAVE to do things like this and DLC in order to get the full game, basically.
@Ttaskmaster .... this is a quick post as I gotta go out.
On your last line, re: DLC, utterly agree. Also, I have no sympathy for EA, and have been personally boycotting them for some years, despite being a fan of some of their games.
As for IP, well, we're back to definitions. For IP to exist, there has to be something tangible .... and original. Be it photo, novel, song, musical score, recording, etc and copyright, or a logo and design right, or even a patent it MUST be something tangible. Even in a patent on a process, one of the criteria is it must be capable of being put into a real-world object, like a manufactured item or a manufacturing process.
Anyway, all I really wanted was to understand that one line as I couldn't make out the point, but it doesn't matter. It was merely mild curiosity, and not worth a convoluted discussion. So I'll leave it at that.
If the context is common sense maybe. But as soon as the context is law, it's far more complex. Even just in UK law, there's a whole series of different laws covering different aspects of, and forms of, gambling and not all of one law applies to different forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
Exact wording, and interpretation of terms and even a single word are often what judgements hinge on.
And that's just here. Get involved in Belgian law, EU law, US state laws and perhaps US federal law and you have a minefield .... like determining who has jurisdiction.
That's one of the Brexit sticking points - in a trade deal, who is the ultimate arbiter? The ECJ, the UK Supreme court or an independent panel as defined by some proposed trade deal? Standard trade deals end up with the third option because neither of the first two is acceptable to both sides.
There is going to be an element of that in this EA business, because it's impirtant where the business is done.
OK, that's an interesting point that I have been looking at this the wrong way. Gambling isn't so much that you can win more, but rather you can end up with nothing. That would also explain the horse racing example you brought up; you put money in and can (and normally will!) end up with nothing. Whereas the above examples mean you will always end up with something. This would also (unfortunately) include loot boxes by that definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I think in some games you can, sort of. You can "recycle" them into a virtual currency and then use it to buy something you actually want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I agree, with a caveat that some DLC's are done properly and are actually expansions of old. The Witcher 3 comes to mind, as well as the Fallout series. But the latter sort of undoes that a bit with the usual triple-aaaay BS of season pass and now their "Creator's Content" thing for mods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
The amusing thought that just popped into my head while reading would be if kickstarters and crowd funding campaigns would be classed as gambling?
You can put money into a project that may not return anything :P
Asking as a semi serious joke!
Well, in a sense it is, but you can do some research (or due diligence) to assess the level of risk, and if you are a big investor with a large stake in the company you may get a say in the running of it so you can influence the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
But in the sense that the outcome or return may be unknown, yes it is a gamble, but not necessarily on a random set of circumstances.
Good example of terminology bejng slippery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
I would suggest that in the parlance of the man in the street, that is certainly a gamble, but it the eyes of the gambling laws, isn't gambling.
It's the aspect of chance and random reward that makes it gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
But with the above, the idea is that you do get what you want through trading, which is the actual game element. Buying the packs is just establishing your random starting position, which a lot of strategy computer games do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
The issue with loot crates is that you may never get what you want.
If you always end up with the same amount of currency that you could buy with the Loot Crate purchase price, then fine, but I bet you it doesn't work that way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
If it's a free expansion, devised and released a while after the game, then fine. But the vast majority are either bits purposely removed from the game and sold separately, or have been designed alongside the main game as things to be sold as DLC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
That's investment, not gambling. The latter has no loss-mitigation strategies, whereas the former usually has something that you or someone else implements. In the case of Kickstarter, there are some legal protections, while with crowd-funding the money is usually considered a 'donation'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze