PlayStation has to pay back a number of Loot Boxes
Is it just me or are Loot Boxes out of fashion? There was a time when you couldn’t turn your virtual butt without knocking over a few. Every game had them. The prizes to be won varied per game from ‘mere’ cosmetic items to game-breaking weapons. The criticism came from all sides and not just because of the effect Loot Boxes had on the games themselves. Games built around inherently exploitative models are obviously a bit of a shame. But especially when governments commissioned an investigation into whether Loot Boxes played a role in problem behavior, the industry scratched its head. The law is always behind, but better late than never.
$364 please!
Not an earth-shattering amount at first glance, but the matter should be seen in the broader context of regulating Loot Boxes (more on that later). According to Padronus, the law firm that is prosecuting the case, it is mainly about setting a precedent. They say they have hundreds of similar cases ready. These all now have a much better chance of getting their money back.
The case concerns expenses incurred for Loot Boxes in one of the recent FIFA games. But the money must come from Sony, and not FIFA publisher Electronic Arts. That is because according to jurisprudence, Sony, as the operator of the platform (the PlayStation Store) on which the transactions took place, is the responsible party. Doesn’t mean EA isn’t to blame though.
Loot Boxes, gambling or not?
Terms such as ‘inherently exploitative’ may raise many an eyebrow among readers. Yet there is no other way to describe it. This is also the conclusion of many scientific studies. The way Loot Box systems have been developed needs only one conclusion: triggering vulnerable people with a lot of money to spend (or the possibility of going into debt) has always been the starting point.
On a whale hunt
It’s nice that hundreds of people occasionally spend a tenner on a Loot Box, but you don’t earn any money with it. Or well, you don’t earn all the money in the world with it and every year that little bit more. Loot Boxes target people who quickly open their wallets. For example, by means of flashy buttons, sounds and images that reward expenditure (as a kind of skinner box) and by developing a game in such a way that a small expenditure can save some frustration. The amounts that are requested are low, often no more than a tenner, or even just a few euros or dollars. People are more likely to repeatedly spend small amounts than a large amount at once. Especially when it comes to vulnerable people, all those small amounts can add up without you noticing it. The industry even has a term for these types of people: Whales. So whales. An unsympathetic way to describe your customers.
Of course it’s annoying for the rest when the market is flooded with games that don’t want to be a game but a lure for a small number of people to pull out as much as possible. Nevertheless, it is fundamentally important to protect people with a gambling addiction against this type of shark (hah!). That’s why there are calls to officially classify Loot Boxes as gambling. Austria took a step in that direction last March. Earlier, the Belgians already indicated that Loot Boxes were in violation of existing legislation.
From law to implementation
As the consensus moves more and more towards calling Loot Boxes gambling, there are implications. The compensation from the above case may only be a small amount, but as said, a precedent is a precedent. If there really are thousands of similar cases ahead, Games publishers will probably choose eggs for their money. Still, it’s a cat and mouse game. The question is therefore rather when and how than whether the game industry will come up with a new tactic to continue whaling.
