• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

Loot boxes should be classed as gambling, says House of Lords

Agree 1000% and have done since day one.

They also say that gambling companies shouldn't be on the front of football shirts, again I completely agree with this, IMO all advertising gambling should be banned from football.
 
Yes serves EA and Konami right. Ever since the birth of FUT, they started ditching offline users.


This is year 3 of requesting to bring icons in offline mode and EA still haven't done a simple thing as that.And there are other issues too.


But I fear that they will just remove lootboxes and still keep microtransactions to milk money online.
Smh.
 
PES & FIFA go on about myClub & Ultimate Team like Arsenal fans used to go on about Jack Wilshere, and I can see why.
 
Sounds good, but I'm tired of seeing quotes and articles like this only for nothing to actually get done about it. I'm expecting this to be no different and we'll still be in the same position years down the line.

Would absolutely love to be proven wrong.
 
Placebo said:
Agree 1000% and have done since day one.

They also say that gambling companies shouldn't be on the front of football shirts, again I completely agree with this, IMO all advertising gambling should be banned from football.
Click to expand...

Although this would be the ideal solution, a lot of L1/L2 clubs in Britain need the sponsorship money provided by betting shops, which they simple can't get elsewhere.
Exeter recently lost their main sponsor Flybe, so needed a new sponsor - This was put forward to the trust and the Exeter fans unanimously wanted to avoid having a betting company on the front of the shirts.. Which the club agreed to and we are now sponsored by Market Carpets, who are a local based company to Exeter.
However the club stated that an unnamed betting company offered the club over 50% more than the next highest offer, and equated to a significant amount for the club.. So since football is guided by money, a lot of clubs will always be sponsored by betting companies.

So there is the issue that maybe some of the L1/L2 teams would maybe be in more financial trouble if not for the betting companies during this time..

The only issue I have being a L2 supporter, if you get rid of betting companies from shirts, some clubs might fold - Although quite unlikely related.

If you look at F1 - After the lost of tobacco sponsorship, many teams folded as there was just no other companies offering the type of money being offered by the tobacco companies - This has made F1 now just a manufacturer sport and with a lack of teams on the grid.

----------------------------------------------------------

BTW this is not my opinion on the matter, just some information from a L2 supporter.
 
Many sports are plastered with gambling sponsorship and advertisement and have become completely reliant on it - almost the entire snooker calendar is tournaments sponsored by bookies/online casinos. Banning these sponsorships would probably slash the prize money in half and/or cause most of the events to be staged in places bribing them with blood/oil money like Saudi Arabia.

This already happened in boxing e.g. Anthony Joshua's last fight, and there is already one snooker tournament with £2.5m prize money (£500k for the winner, same as winning the World Championship, when money = ranking points) scheduled in Saudi Arabia along with obvious examples like the 2018 and 2022 World Cups and a bunch of F1 races.

In football, it may affect many clubs especially in L1/L2 to ban these sponsorships, but at least it would apply to all teams equally - right now, if any club takes a moral stance and decides to not take the money from gambling firms, they put themselves at a disadvantage to clubs who do. It shouldn't be impossible for these clubs to adapt if they are given forewarning and downscale their operations to spend within their means - many of the clubs in financial trouble are in that position because of their own poor financial decisions.

Banning these sponsors could though potentially cause a bigger rift between the elite clubs with airline/corrupt sponsorship deals, and everyone else who would have to rely on smaller/local firms...

There isn't an easy or fair solution, and even what seems like the most moral decision would probably end up benefitting the sportswashers... I'm not sure that's any better overall.
 
Last edited:
The bigger companies have always had an issue with the 30% tax.
But all companies are the same - Steam/Origin also charge 30%.

It is for this reason Epic launched their own game store on PC and charge developers only 12% of the game price, and even stated they could run their game store at 8% and still make it profitable.
This is why PC developers are signing exclusive deals with Epic Game Store, as they get a much better percentage of game sales.

TBH, I can see it from both sides of the argument Epic want to be able to avoid Apple's Taxing system, and Apple have said your not allowed to do that.
30% is unfair, but it is the 30% Steam tax which has now created a massive amount of different game launchers on PC - Although this principle doesn't work on phones as Apple would never allow another App store developer on their devices and neither would Google.

At the end of the day, Epic signed the agreement and knew what the taxes were.
Apple may lose some money, by Fortnite not being on their devices but not the same amount as Epic.
Yes the tax is unfair, but Epic will have to bite the bullit and accept they lost.
 
bsmaff said:
The bigger companies have always had an issue with the 30% tax.
But all companies are the same - Steam/Origin also charge 30%.

It is for this reason Epic launched their own game store on PC and charge developers only 12% of the game price, and even stated they could run their game store at 8% and still make it profitable.
This is why PC developers are signing exclusive deals with Epic Game Store, as they get a much better percentage of game sales.

TBH, I can see it from both sides of the argument Epic want to be able to avoid Apple's Taxing system, and Apple have said your not allowed to do that.
30% is unfair, but it is the 30% Steam tax which has now created a massive amount of different game launchers on PC - Although this principle doesn't work on phones as Apple would never allow another App store developer on their devices and neither would Google.

At the end of the day, Epic signed the agreement and knew what the taxes were.
Apple may lose some money, by Fortnite not being on their devices but not the same amount as Epic.
Yes the tax is unfair, but Epic will have to bite the bullit and accept they lost.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Basically it is impressive to me that the business plan and battles of most popular companies, has reached much different levels, than we the pure simple fans can imagine.
Like in this occasion, we have Epic on the one side and Apple/Google on the other, where you can't clearly pick sides, who is the pure evil and who is the pure good.

They all push aggressive for more money.
Although in this specific case Epic seems as the "bad guy", they mistreated their agreement with Apple/Google.
But I think if they (epic) win this case anyhow, it could open new paths and potential variables in everything around microtransactions, loot boxes.

Can you imagine someday for example EA sports begins similar argument with Sony/MS for example. Although consoles and PC are much different platforms and consumer base.

As for loot boxes on footy games. I am strongly pessimistic person and always expect the darkest scenario or conspiracy . So in this case al these sporadic reactions from parliaments around USA and EU does not convince me that suddenly the politicians started to care about people's wallet. What I believe is happening in reality is that someone else is hidden between these campaigns. Some other lobby that losses money from this story.
And for some reason the most possible candidate in my mind, that wants to oppose and block these microtrans and loot boxes/gamblimg industry, is the Bet companies and other similar gambling services like online casinos etc.
This is just a theory of mine. I believe they feel they are losing costumers when people choose to gamble in EA/Konami games and not in their dedicated places.
 
What I want to conclude is, we the pure fans (again), hope/expect the lootboxes to be limited as gambling or banned, but i do not believe some random politicians accompanied from annoyed parents can stop these forces.
Only a bigger force like online bet/gambling service company could put a block or a stop in this era we live.
Although it will still be an darthEvil-A VS darthEvil-B occasion.
And we will be benefited, only if the less evil win this.
 
Last edited:
UK Government will find a way to pussy out, they serve big business and financial interests, they give zero shits about the health and well being of the plebeians.
 
Last edited:
Flipper the Priest said:
And the accompanying email address for extra input: lootbox.responses@dcms.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Ιn the meantime, and as goverments aroung the globe, go as slow as possible to handle lootboxes, the third threat from my old dark prophecy* popped-up recently.

A site that links your PS account with its homebrew profile and you can place bets (WITH REAL MONEY!!!) on online games. At the moment it has only FIFA, 2K and Madden i think.

*My prophecy was, the end of the offline gaming as we know it will be when sports games will based on:

1) Microtransactions (cosmetics or p2w staff

2) Lootboxes ( that will leed you back to Microtransactions, if the game is p2w or has terrible RNG drop rate

3) Betting system implementation ( a system that will let players, to place as bets on games their coins, or whatever purchasable in-game currency, every video game has).

The ironacally, about 10 years ago, when i was young and pure and very naive, and all the above were not core part of most games, except for League Of legends, only cosmetic-wise though, i visioned a future, where all those 3 would exist as game elements, but in a good way, just to spice things interest a little bit and give an extra level of supsense.. But i was VERY, VERY NAIVE at last!! :)

In my current dystopian vision, if companies find a way to surpass objection from Betting service companies, and find a way to handle the Rating system,in order to be suitable for kids rate video game, cause otherwise is straight gambling, i believe all will stay strong and more greed. I do not believe that the politicians around the world, do care honestly or can find a viable solution.
 
Last edited:
Fifa and Pes should be 18+ game for having microtransactions, let alone lootbox.

Honestly fuck these devs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom