INSIGHT
TINKERING
OUTSIDE THE BOX
The Gambling Commission’s stance on loot boxes puts it somewhat at odds with the rumblings of regulators
and politicians in other countries, with some believing it has fallen short, writes Joanne Christie
WHEN THE GAMBLING COMMISSION
decided to weigh in on the loot boxes debate
that has been raging throughout the gaming
community since the launch of Star Wars
Battlefront II, its position put it somewhat
at odds with the rumblings of regulators
and politicians in other countries.
Loot boxes — crates that players unlock
with keys either earned via play or paying
— are common in computer games and
they are neither new nor new to controversy.
However, Electronic Arts, maker of
Star Wars Battlefront II, attracted so
much condemnation for the way it
incorporated loot boxes into its new release
that it prompted a huge backlash in the
gaming community.
Such was the outrage that politicians
in several countries, including the US and
France, took an interest, with the majority
opinion being that the random nature of
the contents of these boxes made them
a form of gambling, so the boxes should
therefore be regulated.
Gaming authorities have also taken
notice, with both the Netherlands Gaming
Authority and the Belgian Gaming
Commission announcing plans to
investigate loot boxes.
However, it seems that the UK regulator
is inclined to believe they most likely do
not constitute gambling. In a blog post
on 24 November, Tim Miller, executive
director of the UK Gambling Commission
(GC), said that it did not define what
constituted gambling. Instead Parliament
defined it, and the GC’s role was confined
to policing activities within that definition.
With relation to loot boxes specifically,
Miller said: “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.”
Regulator “wide of the mark”
Some people in the gambling community
were quick to voice their disagreement,
however. In a post on LinkedIn, Paul
Fitchford, the sports betting and igaming
consultant formerly of Sky Betting and
Gaming, BGO and Boylesports, said:
“Mr Miller well wide of the mark here.
Clearly no knowledge of the market or
demographic opening these loot boxes…
How can skins be treated as digital currency
but spending money to acquire them
through a game of chance isn’t? Madness!”
Speaking to iGaming Business, Fitchford
says: “I just think it has fallen short because
I feel that these loot boxes are encouraging
underage players to put money in and they
are playing a game of chance.
“The GC has already come out and
said that those skins which have a market
value are a digital currency, a digital asset,
and by going on to one of these websites
where you can deposit your skins and
gamble and cash out skins with your
winnings, that is gambling.
“So, for me, I don’t see how they can
say that obtaining skins through a game
of chance by paying money is any
different from using the skin on a gambling
website. How can you regulate one and
not the other?”
In fact, in a position paper published
in March, the GC said: “Away from the
third-party websites which are overtly
gambling (offering betting, casino games
and lottery products) the ability to
exchange in-game items for cash or trade
on secondary markets also risks drawing
elements within games themselves into
gambling definitions.
“By way of example, one commonly
used method for players to acquire in-game
items is through the purchase of keys from
the games publisher to unlock ‘crates’,
‘cases’ or ‘bundles’ which contain an
unknown quantity and value of in-game
items as a prize.
“The majority opinion was that the random nature of the
contents of these boxes made them a form of gambling,
so the boxes should therefore be regulated”
iGB Affiliate Issue 66 DEC 2017/JAN 2018
53