Hypocrisy and stupidity in a gaming community

Or, why the response to Battlefront 2's lootbox system is abysmal and downright harmful to gaming as a hobby. I was going to post this in the BF2 thread, but ultimately this post is about microtransactions and loot boxes as a whole, only using Battlefront 2 as a springboard.

Essentially, before I write out my novel, the TLDR version is: no, loot boxes are not gambling, and the calls and cries for regulation and government intervention all over a video game is fucking idiotic.

As most people are no doubt aware, Star Wars Battlefront 2 has microtransactions and loot boxes. Rather poorly-implemented loot boxes, one might say if they were being kind. Recently, several governing bodies in various parts of the world have classified these loot boxes and microtransactions as gambling, to have laws and legislation passed to regulate them like they would a casino. But I don't really care what they do, I'm primarily concerned with U.S. law and how *it* concerns itself with gambling, and thus far, the United States has not declared BF2's system of lootboxes to be a form of gambling. In the United States, gambling requires an exchange of money with the explicit chance and willing knowledge that you may get nothing in return. With lootboxes, you are always guaranteed *something*. It may not be the item that you want, but it is *something* nonetheless. Now, assuming the law isn't out and out rewritten, lootboxes are not a form of gambling, period. Of course, that's not a thoughtful and nuanced argument, but it IS definitive insofar as to whether or not a system of microtransactions like this can legally be considered gambling.

To look at it from a more pragmatic standpoint, I draw a comparison between lootboxes and booster packs in TCGs/CCGs. I'm not the first to make this comparison, but it has real merit, and I don't believe that people really think about it enough. To approach it on a very superficial, surface-level point of view: if lootboxes are to be considered a form of gambling, then surely booster packs should be as well. Personally, I don't disagree with the notion; if one is gambling and the other is fundamentally the same system, then the other should be gambling too, weasling one out to be harmful while the other is harmless and innocent is dishonest. Anyway, the most common rebuttal to this line of thought, as far as I've seen, is that booster packs provide you with physical value in the form of the actual, paper cards that you get from them, unlike the 100%-digital product of a lootbox, the idea being that you can recoup your cost by selling unwanted cards. Let's approach this realistically though: you buy a pack for MtG for $4.99 for example, and the pack contains 5 cards, 4 of which are commons and 1 of which is a rare. Keep in mind that MtG is a very old game, close to 25 years old, and one whose market is a niche at best, even among traditionally "geek" circles. You don't want the commons, you have plenty of copies, so you decide to sell them, posting them on eBay or something. Let's just say that you post them at $.99 apiece to make back your money, so you're not taking a loss. Ask yourself: in a game that is approaching a quarter of a century in age, with entire decks premade both from the producer of the game as well as third-party sellers, and with an audience that is not super huge, what are the chances that you will actually sell these cards? Without having to lower the price, at least? Factor in that with any card game, power creep is a very real factor that affects the value of cards, with older and simpler cards becoming less valuable in favor of newer and more powerful cards, and that common that never sells for $.99 probably won't sell for $.79 or $.49 when new cards with better effects are released and people's attention turns to those. The card's value depreciates to such a point that it is effectively a worthless piece of paper that nobody wants.

The rebuttal that booster packs for card games inherently provide value is flawed because it assumes that all cards have similar, if not equal value to each other, and that the introduction or removal of certain cards doesn't have effects on the value of other cards. In short, it displays a lack of understanding behind one of the core game principles of TCGs and CCGs, that being that some cards are simply better than others.

Furthermore, the gaming community at-large, whether it be for video games or tabletop games, has had a very strong history of opposing regulation and government control. When the Columbine massacre occurred and government bodies in the United States wanted to impose restrictions on violent video games, what did people all clamor for? The government *NOT* interfering with their games. Hell, when Jack Thompson tried to rally the morality police and the government to his side and accuse gamers of being sociopathic killers-in-waiting, he was laughed out of his law firm and disbarred. Why then, are people *SUPPORTING* government regulations and restrictions on lootboxes and microtransactions? Not only are they *not* a form of gambling, under the law, but the very idea of supporting federal intervention like this reeks of hypocrisy and a "well it's alright when I agree with it" kind of mentality. Anything to stick it to the evil EA and their goony corporate greed, right? Ask yourself, if laws do get passed to restrict games with lootboxes and EA is forced to pay for a special permit for each game that they make with these lootboxes, for example, which do you think is the more likely outcome: that they'll stop having lootboxes in their games, or that they'll just not sell games in that market and save money? If you think it's the former and not the latter, then you're naive and have no idea of a basic grasp of macroeconomics. No industry has ever been made stronger through government regulation.