While the red hot controversy around digital loot boxes has died down somewhat, it still can be a hot button to press for some. The biggest criticism towards it tend to be that it’s basically a glorified form of gambling. Now the head of one of Britain’s highest mental health institutions is echoing that sentiment.

In a statement directly from the official website, Chief Executive of the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Claire Murdoch called for a ban on all digital loot boxes, saying that they are basically gateways for children to gambling addiction or worse.

“Frankly no company should be setting kids up for addiction by teaching them to gamble on the content of these loot boxes. No firm should sell to children loot box games with this element of chance, so yes those sales should end.”

It’s not the first time that government officials have called for some kind of ban or legislation restricting loot boxes. While most mainstream games have moved away from the loot box system with something more akin to a battle pass system ala Fortnite. But loot boxes are still big business for mobile titles. As of now, only a few countries have created any kind of legislation addressing loot boxes.

Loot boxes have been a prevalent issue in the video games industry for several years now, but it was only after last year’s massive Star Wars: Battlefront 2 controversy that they were brought fully to the forefront. Since then, loot boxes have been called predatory and intrusive by many, while several nations have even flat-out declared them to be a form of gambling, and as such, illegal.

While some have remained adamant that loot boxes aren’t a form of gambling, a recent study conducted by the Gambling Commission of UK (via BBC) has provided evidence that they are. In the study, which was about rampant and growing gambling addiction among young people in the UK, it was stated that loot boxes in video games, thanks to their randomized and monetary nature, act as a gateway for young people to proper gambling addiction, and that over a million people have been exposed to gambling through loot boxes. This report was based on an Ipsos Mori study that was conducted on 2,865 people who were between eleven to sixteen years of age.

It’s really surprising that, even in light of mounting evidence, publishers still consider having loot boxes in their games to be acceptable practice. EA stated just a couple months ago that they will push forward with such monetization methods, while Ubisoft’s upcoming Trials: Rising is also going to have cosmetic loot boxes.

Microtransactions have become a sort of hot topic in full priced AAA games of late, thanks to controversies surrounding loot boxes in games such as Star Wars Battlefront 2, Shadow of War, Forza Motorsport 7, Destiny 2, and many more. With public outcry over exploitative monetization, and actual game rating bodies such as the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) doing the bare minimum to properly try and educate customers on potentially abusive in game monetization, a website has cropped up that takes matters into its own hands.

Microtransaction.zone (via PCGamesN) is a new site that aims to give its readers a rundown of exactly what sort of monetization scheme the games they’re looking for might employ. It has a number of badges and tags that it uses to convey this information at a glance. The database appears to be fairly extensive already, and even with some deficiencies present in the site at the moment, it is clear that this is an admirable initiative that will grow over time.

And maybe this additional awareness it imparts to customers will serve to make publishers even warier of trying to pull a fast one on their customers ever again…

Pulling back a bit from all this, I kind of feel bad for developers. You have persistent, online multiplayer titles that seem simple in functionality but require so much upkeep to chug along at a nice pace. Work must also be done on the engine to improve it in the long run. What about quality of life changes? PvP support? Balance changes? Anti-cheat measures? Toxic players? The thousands upon thousands of bugs that exist, not to mention the others that crop up with new updates?

"Developing another big-budget, triple-A puts your studio at risk once more because of (a) the money needed to get a venture off the ground, and (b) there’s no guarantee it will sell as well as the previous game."

You also better hope your base game lasts long enough because players will start demanding new content in due time. That new content has to be fresh, original, fun, replayable, addictive, add significantly to the base game and so on and so forth. The more popular a game is, the more incessant the demands will be.

Now, this is not the part where I tell you microtransactions are necessary to keep games running, especially when games tie them into multiplayer progress or significant gameplay features. For all the flak that publishers usually get for stuffing their games full of microtransactions, sometimes the developers may also push for such measures. Destiny 2 developer Bungie’s cycle of content creation was more or less unsustainable and it thus elected for an Overwatch-like focus on cosmetics via the in-game Eververse cash shop. The fact that it was a looter shooter and most of the best looking stuff – from armour and shaders to Exotic ships and sparrows – was locked behind this shop apparently didn’t ring any alarm bells at the studio but that’s another matter. The point is: It was Bungie that ultimately decided on this approach and Activision went with it, as per reports by Kotaku’s Jason Schreier.

Also, much as I like to support Warframe, I don’t think a free to play model reliant on microtransactions while still facilitating player trading, gifting and premium currency dealing is very sustainable for the biggest releases.

What about Season Passes? While some games can get away with it, they can only just barely do so. Assassin’s Creed Origins, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and so on are the few standout examples. As such, when it comes to games like Battlefield and Call of Duty, there’s still that annoyance that comes from being locked out of maps, weapons and modes just because you don’t own a DLC pack. The splintering of the player base is a more long-term effect that can hurt a developer’s game. Also, while Season Passes delivering quality content for a single-player game aren’t impossible, you still run into the risk of your fans moving on. How do you keep them playing but continue to earn revenue? Developing another big-budget, triple-A puts your studio at risk once more because of (a) the money needed to get a venture off the ground, and (b) there’s no guarantee it will sell as well as the previous game.

"So what is the solution? Oddly enough, it may lie in an approach that’s been around forever but re-popularized thanks to Fortnite: Battle Royale."

I can see publishers taking a large amount of the flak for all this. However, they’re businesses at the end of the day, ultimately following the maximum profit possible. Player feedback is important but if it doesn’t directly translate into sales or help a brand grow, then tough calls have to be made. Much as I might say that there are plenty of other games without these practices which can be just as fun, I feel the sentiment of players who want strong triple-A releases from their favourite studios. They want to support these studios but also receive more than just the minimal viable product (without feeling cheated of course).

So what is the solution? Oddly enough, it may lie in an approach that’s been around forever but re-popularized by Fortnite: Battle Royale. Players are generally okay with microtransactions but loot boxes have a severe stigma attached to them. Free content is a must so the player base doesn’t get splintered. How about a Battle Pass then?

A Battle Pass is like a punch card of sorts that you pay for. In Dota 2’s case, it costs real money. A Battle Pass has levels – each time you earn experience, either by completing quests, challenges and matches, you earn a level on the pass. You can purchase more levels with real money or purchase, say, a level 75 Battle Pass off the bat. Why is this option so appealing? Because a Battle Pass gives you guaranteed rewards.

First off, everyone who purchased The International 2017 Battle Pass for $10 received the following – three Immortal Treasure 2017 packs, Hermes the Hermit Crab, Shifty Minnow, Seasonal Terrain – Spring, the Fluid Mechanics taunt, The International 2017 Music Pack, The International 2017 Cursor Pack, The International 2017 Weekend Battle Cup Ticket (which is entry into an amateur tournament that can carry its own rewards), five The International 2017 Player Card Packs, Rank Double Down – Token Increase (which doubles amount of MMR gained or lost during matches) and the Iron Branch Effect. You also gained access to the Siltbreaker co-op campaign and 25 percent of the revenue went towards The International 2017’s prize pool, further supporting the competitive side of the community.

"Epic Games introduced the Battle Pass late last year and essentially tied all progression to it. It cost real money but again, the rewards are guaranteed."

However, the Battle Pass could be leveled up further for more rewards. Fountain Effects, Player Card Packs, more Tokens, Emoticon Packs, Teleport Effects, more Immortal Treasures, a blessing that gives an item of random rarity, Loading Screens, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind that there are Battle Points to earn, Tokens to wager, challenges to complete and whatnot. However, not only does the player receive substantial rewards for “buying in” but they’re now invested to earn more rewards. They also have stronger control over what they want from the Battle Pass because even if you purchase levels, the rewards for each level are still fixed.

Dota 2’s system isn’t exactly perfect. The Immortal Treasures are essentially loot boxes so there is random chance to the items you get (and no, they’re not pay to win but still). Granted, $10 nets a lot more loot boxes than Overwatch ever delivered but RNG for cosmetic items that enhance one’s gameplay experience is still RNG. That’s where Fortnite: Battle Royale comes in.

Epic Games introduced the Battle Pass late last year and essentially tied all progression to it. It costs real money but again, the rewards are guaranteed. You receive XP boosters, outfits, emotes, gliders, pickaxes, emoticons and so on. With Season 3, Epic decided to make the Battle Pass purchasable with V-Bucks, the in-game currency. Not only could one purchase V-Bucks but they could also earn them in-game, eventually saving up to buy the Battle Pass without spending $10. There was quite a bit of backlash from this change, simply because players at the end of Season 2 had already spent their V-Bucks and weren’t told that the Season 3 Pass would require them. Poor communication in this aspect aside, it’s still a pretty great concept for a free to play title.

This model probably wouldn’t work if Epic Games weren’t so receptive to feedback, fixing bugs and major issues so quickly or being so transparent with their communication. Then again, though Digital Extremes is also mostly transparent with Warframe players, it doesn’t command the following that Epic Games’ title does. That community following and dedication is as much a factor to the success of Fortnite: Battle Royale as Epic’s continuous support. It also doesn’t hurt that many of the changes made by Epic are in the right direction, proving they understand not just what the game is but what the community expects from it. To that end, several things like time limited modes, new weapons, new map locations and so on are doled out for free. Even if that’s expected for a free to play title, that’s still great value.

"The real question is – would a Battle Pass be enough to sustain a $60 release if we’re not factoring in Season Passes and DLC?"

Obviously if this solution were to be implemented in the triple-A space, it would take some work. How do you account for games that aren’t PvP-focused and thus don’t offer much potential for repeat experiences? Would players be willing to grind for items in a purely PvE game? In some cases, it wouldn’t be too odd – Dota 2 is primarily a PvP game and the announcement of a PvE co-op campaign in Siltbreaker drew tons of attention. The fact that The International 2017 prize pool was over $24 million with 25 percent of that coming from Battle Passes could partially be attributed to the attention that Siltbreaker got.

The real question is – would a Battle Pass be enough to sustain a $60 release if we’re not factoring in Season Passes and DLC? There’s no major title that’s really attempted this. Rainbow Six: Siege has shown that a Season Pass for new Operators is a fairly good sustainable means of profit. Then again, it did introduce loot boxes with its recent Outbreak event so either the revenue from Passes wasn’t enough or Ubisoft wanted a bit more moolah.

Though I’d love to point to Fortnite: Battle Royale with its 40 million downloads and record peak concurrent player count of 3.4 million as a solid basis for the Battle Pass success, Epic Games hasn’t really provided any hard numbers on the revenue. It’s been touted as possibly the “biggest game in the West” but that’s open to interpretation.

While many have pointed to inflation and how games should cost more than $60, I believe that’s already more or less the case these days. Every game with a big budget, even if it’s moderately-sized, is only really complete with Season Pass content and DLCs, thus adding another $20 to $40 to the base $60. Which I’m fine with by the way, as long as the developer provides content that’s worth that asking price. Standards may vary but I don’t find much issue with giving Firaxis additional money for XCOM 2 DLC if the content is put together well and I want to show my support.

"As noted many times, the issue of monetization in games, especially persistent online titles, is very complex."

On the other hand, I don’t feel like going with just random RNG loot boxes, card packs and whatnot while making all future content free is a good alternative either. Especially when much of that “free content” is simply a gateway to push players to spend money on RNG loot boxes, thus leading to a vicious cycle of spending money on loot boxes for content, only to receive content that spurs you to spend more money on loot boxes.

The Battle Pass may not be a catch-all solution to what ails the gaming industry but making games is expensive. Blame it on the triple-A culture (which I believe is a nonsense term since a game’s quality, rather than its budget, should determine whether it’s triple-A or not – another tale for another article) but it’s not going away any time soon. Not as long as publishers want to make money and developers want to remain employed while working on their grand projects. Offering up guaranteed rewards for a decent asking price and then asking players to contribute either their time, money or both for additional rewards isn’t the worst alternative. Of course, someone should check to make sure the base game feels complete enough first – more like Monster Hunter World and less like Destiny 2 essentially.

As noted many times, the issue of monetization in games, especially persistent online titles, is very complex. I may think going with Battle Passes and allowing players to buy levels in a $60 release to be okay. Someone could easily point to the aforementioned Monster Hunter World as a title that doesn’t have DLC, Season Passes or significant microtransactions (if we’re not counting the 8 or so additional gestures, three sticker bundles, face paint patterns, hairstyles and Handler costume currently available) as proof that such games are sustainable and fun. It’s a case by case basis depending on the studio and as such, this won’t be the last time this subject is broached. But if more studios start to follow the Battle Pass model, it’ll be interesting to see just how far-reaching the effects can be.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to GamingBolt as an organization.

The loot box scourge is something that it seems like many governments and administrations around the world are looking to address in spite of many publishers trying to assure their investors that the crisis has passed. For example, Hawaii, which was among the first administrations to raise a voice against loot boxes in the wake of the Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy, is now proposing a law that will restrict the sale of games with loot boxes to anyone under 21.

Should this law come to pass, then it effectively makes any game with loot boxes AO- even more restrictive than AO, to be honest, since AO games limit sale to people of age 18 or above. Assuming other states in the US follow suit, then publishers would be forced to stop including loot boxes in their games as wantonly as they have been.

The two bills currently in consideration would mandate that developers and publishers label games containing randomized purchase systems; they would also be required to disclose odds and the probabilities of getting items. This is actually a law that China has introduced already, and we have seen companies like Blizzard attempt to exploit loop holes to try and sidestep them. It remains to be seen how publishers will take to a law like this in the US- should it actually come to pass, that is. Hopefully it will.

[House Bill 2727 and Senate Bill 3025]

STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT II

Let’s kick things off with the most obvious choice, shall we? Battlefront II’s loot crates model was panned universally, causing severe stock plummets for EA and poor critical reception for the game itself across the board, ultimately forcing EA and DICE to rethink the entire model. Progression was locked behind ridiculous paywalls, essentially making Battlefront II a pay-to-win game. And that’s really disappointing, because without such issues, this could have actually been a really good game.

Loot boxes are now in the public eye, with several governments and legislatures around the world looking at them to try and understand what implications they might have as gambling. Many have ruled that they are gambling, and are moving to have them legislated. Others, however, contend they are not, often on sheer semantics.

The latest government body to join that latter list is the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs. Responding to a request for a comment from Gamasutra, Trish Milward from the Gambling Compliance office of its Department of Internal Affairs emphasized that loot boxes do not, in fact, meet the legal definition of gambling- at least, as outlined in New Zealand’s Gambling Act 2003. In any case, gambling with overseas players and entities is allowed in New Zealand, so legislation for loot boxes would have been difficult to begin with.

Even if governments fail to take any meaningful action on loot boxes at this point, however, one thing is very clear- a this point, the fear of backlash alone will make companies think twice about putting abusive loot boxes in games.

More and more governments and government agencies around the world are now looking into loot boxes, following the loot box controversy that Star Wars Battlefront 2‘s abusive and predatory monetization practices begat. Most of them appear to have concluded that loot boxes are something that needs regulation- but the UK’s Gambling Commission has categorically stated that loot boxes are not gambling- and the reason for that is because they define gambling based on one salient feature, which loot boxes lack.

In an official blog post from the Gambling Commission’s executive director Tim Miller, the Commission said, “The law sets a line between what is and is not gambling. As the regulator we patrol that line and where an activity crosses it and presents a risk to people, especially children, we have and will take robust action.”

That action is only necessitated, however, if the player has the ability to cash out- which loot boxes, for all their other evils, do not allow.

“A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired ‘via a game of chance’ can be considered money or money’s worth,” Miller continued. “In practical terms this means that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out it is unlikely to be caught as a licensable gambling activity. In those cases our legal powers would not allow us to step in.”

I understand their stance here- but I also think that Miller is arguing semantics, and sticking too close to the word of the law, rather than the spirit. Anyone can tell you that a game of chance that requires monetary investment is functionally gambling- especially when said game exploits addictive tendencies in people. My only hope is that even if the UK government itself won’t declare loot boxes as gambling, enough ruckus will be raised by other governments around the world that the AAA industry will be forced to drop the practice entirely.

The loot box controversy is refusing to die down, as EA’s greed with their egregious monetization in Star Wars Battlefront 2 is turning out to have larger repercussions than just for them or their game- it has squarely brought loot boxes, and the excess of monetization, to the attention of regulatory bodies worldwide.

Of these, we have already reported how Belgium, Netherlands, and Hawaii in the US are now looking at curtailing loot boxes- and now, Australia has joined the party, too. Jarrod Wolfe, a strategic analyst for the Compliance Division of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation has said on Reddit (via Kotaku) that loot boxes constitute gambling by definition.

“The normalization of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors) is not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable,” he said, adding that”if these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with the Australian Classification Board to ensure than any product that does that and monetizes it gets an immediate R rating. I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling.”

Wolfe also said that anyone hoping the situation will eventually simmer down is in for a rude awakening, because he said that there are enough people knowledgeable about the medium, and about the implication of loot boxes, in governments worldwide that this situation stands to get worse.

So- hopefully, the situation continues to get worse, and the blow back forces all companies engaging in this RNG gambling bullshit in games to dial back the abuse and exploitation. Loot boxes represent everything that is wrong with modern day AAA gaming.

Folks, we won. After Belgium confirmed last week that it would be investigating charges of unregulated gambling in popular video games such as Overwatch, thanks to the Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy, they have come out with their decision- loot boxes are indeed gambling, they say, and they will move to have them banned in the European Union.

This is fantastic news for multiple reasons- if loot boxes are illegal in Europe, then publishers will have two options- either develop two versions of their games (one with loot boxes, one without), or forego a release in Europe (therefore, half the market for most western publishers) entirely. Therefore, unless publishers literally want to spend the money on balancing and QAing two progression paths for their games, they will have no chance but to remove loot boxes from their titles- if this regulation passes.

Now, this regulation probably will pass- for instance, the in game Game Corners in Pokemon games (representations of casinos with in game slots, that used only in game currency for in game payouts) were removed from all Pokemon titles after 2009, on charges of promoting gambling- this is a far more egregious and serious situation than that.

In other words- we may be looking at the end of loot boxes in games soon. Looks like EA’s egregious monetization of Star Wars Battlefront 2 was good for something after all.

[VTM News via PC Gamer]