Loot boxes, crates, bundles, supply drops, packs, and a host of other variations have taken centre stage within video games over the last few years. The idea isn't new but it's become somewhat of a talking point of late with many people thinking they should be banned altogether.
For those of you unfamiliar with these terms, they're code names for an in-game micro-transaction that provides the buyer with a randomised set of items to use in the game. There's a wide variety of potential items, but these loot boxes often contain cosmetics for character customisations, special weapons, rare football cards and so on.
The question many people seem to be asking is whether or not these in-game purchases should be considered a form of gambling. If so, is this the kind of direction we want video game studios to take?
Gotta Catch 'Em All
I'm sure there are loads of examples of physical parallels to loot boxes, but the one I'm most familiar with is Pokemon trading cards. When I was young everyone at school was collecting Pokemon cards. You could buy a base set of cards but they didn't contain the most sought-after rare Pokemon. If you wanted an awesome Charizard hologram you'd need to either trade with someone or buy booster packs and hope you'd get lucky.
I spent a while looking around for some official figures, but the best information I could find about card rarity is a YouTube video posted by Javin M. According to the video, the chances of pulling a Charizard from a booster pack is roughly 1 in 50 or 2%. Bear in mind that booster packs cost £2.50 ($3.30 approx) each, even way back then. On average then, you'd need to buy 50 packs to pull a Charizard hologram, costing a whopping £125 ($165), and that's only an average. There is no guarantee at all. That's a lot of money for a child and a costly hobby to fund for a parent. This stinks of gambling to me but there are a couple of things to consider.
Risk to Reward
The National Lottery sell scratchcards in shops all over the UK, the lowest price of one usually totalling £1. According to the National Lottery website, the average odds of winning the lowest prize on a scratchcard is 1 in 4 or 25%. On average then, if I buy 4 scratchcards, I would expect one of them to contain a prize. Again, this is not a guarantee as the winning cards will be mixed in randomly all over the country. I could buy 4 one day and see no winnings at all and then buy 4 on another day and find a prize on every single one.
What's the difference between buying a scratchcard and a Pokemon booster pack then? Well, with a Pokemon booster pack I am guaranteed to receive a certain number of cards for my purchase. They may not be the ones I really want, but I will receive something in return for my money. With a scratchcard, this isn't the case. If I don't win a prize, I have spent my money on nothing but a moment of excitement as I hope to be able to retire at 30 from a big win.
The loophole for Pokemon booster packs seems to be that the manufacturer can claim that even the worst set of cards is valued at the £2.50 purchase. If that were true then it's difficult to class the purchase as a gamble. Any cards pulled that are worth more than the initial investment are simply a bonus we should be thankful for. It seems this is the get out of jail free card that video game companies are able to take advantage of. If the company can legitimately suggest that even the worst set of items within a loot box is worth the purchase price then it's tough to label it a traditional form of gambling.
Other Factors
It would be easy to stop there and consider this a win for the mega-rich corporations but I don't think it's as simple as that. There are several issues this definition loophole fails to address.
Addiction
There have been numerous reports of people succumbing to loot box addictions that looks exactly like a gambling addiction. 28-year-old gamer, Kevin, announced that he'd spent over £10,000 on loot boxes as he chased the thrill of receiving a rare randomised item. At times, Kevin was left struggling to pay his bills and had very little money left over for food at the end of the month. That sounds strikingly similar to stories you hear about people losing all of their money to fruit machines, sports betting, and so on. Yes, the game company can state that Kevin was receiving items to the value of his purchase, but the addiction came from the thrill of chasing rare rewards. That would not have happened had Kevin been able to simply purchase each item individually on the platform instead.
Children and Gambling
Another major issue with loot boxes is the fact that they're present in games suitable for child audiences. These microtransactions aren't limited to 18+ games. If that were true you could perhaps argue that it's up to the adult to decide whether to gamble or not. However, a child cannot go out and buy a scratchcard or a lottery ticket, so it seems strange to push a load of exciting loot boxes in front of them.
Children are very susceptible to peer pressures and wanting to fit in with their friends. If someone at school has bought a loot box and received a rare item, many children will want to spend money to do the same. Of course, these items aren't guaranteed, and this could develop some troubling issues with gambling addictions at a young age.
Another thing to consider here is that many accounts are set up to parent credit cards. Children haven't always developed the capacity to understand the value of money at an early age and could easily create huge credit card purchases that their parents have to pay. Do you think the video game companies care? I'm not so sure.
Pay to Win
Finally, I want to consider the idea of paying to win in a video game. I am predominantly a Call of Duty player and have been for a very long time. Over the last few years, Call of Duty games have included loot boxes to purchase, often known as supply drops. I wouldn't mind too much if these micro-transactions included only cosmetic items. If that were the case, anyone who wasn't bothered about the way their in-game character looked could ignore these loot boxes entirely and not notice anything different about the gameplay. However, in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, these loot boxes contained weapon variants with different stats to those you were given as standard. And you guessed correctly, the best weapons were in these loot boxes.
You could earn loot boxes by completing challenges but not very many and the odds were massively stacked against you. There were weapon variants I was keen to obtain that I had no luck receiving throughout the entire year of that game cycle. Meanwhile, people who were willing to spend large chunks of cash on loot boxes were often seen running around with these improved weapon variants that gave them an edge over anyone without them. This is a major issue. Once you have bought the base game, you should not have to spend potentially endless amounts of money in the hope that you can play on an even playing field with other players.
I'm not sure what the future of loot boxes will be but it seems that many countries are concerned about their inclusion in video games. A compromise for me would be to set achievable challenges to obtain the items if you don't want to buy loot boxes. For example, you could unlock one of the special weapons by getting a certain number of headshots, kills, wins and so on.
What are your thoughts on loot boxes? Do you think they're an issue or is this just the way gaming will be from now on? I'd love to read your opinions in the comment section.
Comments