Loot boxes, or packages of random in-game items that you can purchase for real money, have been popping up a LOT lately. And I do mean a whole lot. While previously reserved for the realm of mobile and free-to-play games, lately it seems like it’s physically impossible for a developer to make a commercially sold online-centric FPS without including some kind of loot box system. “Overwatch”, “Rainbow Six: Siege”, the various “Call of Duty” titles, none seemed to escape unscathed. True, I don’t think that the loot boxes in those games contain any game-changing elements, they tend to be mostly cosmetic items like skins, sprays and taunts. But you know what games DO feature loot boxes with useful items in them? “Assassin’s Creed: Origins”, “Shadow of War” and many other single-player titles that hide weapons and other objects that can actually help you in your game behind a paywall.
Needless to say, gamers were PISSED. I mean, if you’re going to pay £40 or more for a game, it kind of comes with the territory that this is all you’ll need to pay, unless you wish to purchase expansion packs as DLC that feature a substantial amount of additional content. And while it’s somewhat easy to excuse loot boxes in some games that literally have no other source of revenue post-launch (like “Overwatch”, which releases all of its new characters and maps for free), its presence in other games that are perfectly sustainable financially feels a bit insulting. Like, why does “Call of Duty” need loot boxes? There’s a new game coming out every single year, and each game sells additional map packs as DLC post-launch. I believe it’s very safe to say that Activision won’t exactly go bankrupt if they stop selling loot boxes. The same goes for single-player games, where players who pay and players who don’t can have a vastly different experience. It just doesn’t seem fair.
Irate gamers recently created a petition addressed at the Parliament asking to have gambling laws changed to include any and all loot boxes. As you may know, UK gambling laws tend to be rather strict, with any and all officially recognized forms of gambling having to adhere to extreme regulations to the point of near-absurdity. At least two separate, independent bodies are in place to prevent any fraud or wrongdoing whatsoever, and gambling activities are heavily taxed. If loot boxes were, in fact, formally declared as gambling by Parliament, then publishers would be taxed on any loot box-related transactions, games with boxes would automatically receive a PEGI rating of 18+ and the odds of gaining each item from the box would have to be disclosed. It would obviously be a huge step towards either exercising more control over the dreaded business model or just straight up banning it, as it’s not inconceivable to assume that many big publishers simply won’t want to bother with all those regulations in place.
With that said, unfortunately things just weren’t meant to be on that front. Parliament actually denied the proposition in a surprisingly detailed statement, claiming that loot boxes couldn’t actually be considered gambling since the player only receives in-game items rather than actual money. Think about it – the way loot boxes currently are, they function a bit as a blind bag. You know what I’m talking about – when at fairs and such people are selling packages of items for a few pounds. You can’t see what’s in the bags and you need to pick one at random, and the items always end up being cheap trash, but there’s a chance that it COULD have been something cool! No one’s looking at blind bags as gambling, so why are loot boxes considered that? The same goes for the various “mystery box” services that are floating around, like Loot Crate, where you pay a certain amount of cash and then get sent a box of goodies. You don’t know what’s in the box until you open it, and once the boxes have been sent out you can’t get those exact same ones ever again. When you think about it, you’re technically paying money and not knowing what you get out of it, but they’re obviously not gambling.
So I suppose the question is why are loot boxes considered gambling while other completely identical services not thought of as such? I think it all boils down to customer feelings… Which, yeah, I know isn’t exactly the most objective metric, but hear me out. With services like Loot Crate, or Humble’s Monthly feature (which gives you a “blind box” of digital games), there’s only twelve packages a year – one each month. As such, a lot of care goes into making sure that they all make the consumer feel like their purchase was justified, and that they should continue their subscription. The way those types of blind boxes function is pretty passive, since all you need to do is continue your automatic payments and then enjoy your box of goodies every month. But that’s not how loot boxes in games function at all. They’re quite active in their design, meant to make players purchase dozens of them in order to get the item that they want. If a rare item has a drop rate of 1%, a player would need to purchase 100 boxes to have a realistic shot at getting it, which is a far cry from the 12 boxes per month model.
Like it or not, loot boxes aren’t going anywhere – the UK government has hit the gavel and announced that they will not be doing a thing about it, and chances are the US court will follow, if they even care to comment. But I know someone more powerful, someone who can actually make a difference and force loot boxes to go away forever. And that someone is you. Remember online passes? Remember that they were a terrible, anti-consumer idea? The reason why we’re not seeing them today at all is because we collectively put our foot down and said “We will not buy games that treat us like thieves”. And publishers listened. We can make loot boxes go away too. Their main purpose is to bring profit, so… Cut the profit. At the end of the day, it’s as simple as that.