RuneScape Forum Archive | Lords: "Loot Boxes = Gambling"

Aeroxmaster

Posts: 8,010 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

British Lords have said that they consider gaming loot boxes to be gambling, and as such should be subject to gambling legislation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53253195

Original message details are unavailable.
The House of Lords Gambling Committee says video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws.

[...]

"If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling," their report says.

[...]

"The Government must act immediately to bring loot boxes within the remit of gambling legislation and regulation," said a statement accompanying the report.

[...]

"There is academic research which proves that there is a connection, though not necessarily a causal link, between loot box spending and problem gambling," it says.

This has implications for various gaming services supplied within the UK. As we all know, Jagex are a UK games publisher and have Treasure Hunter available.

What are everyone's thoughts on this, and its potential implications for RuneScape?

02-Jul-2020 03:20:58 - Last edited on 02-Jul-2020 05:30:52 by Aeroxmaster

Jun

2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Nothing new. Politicians do that all the time every year in all the countries. First, what you quoted are not laws, it is just the opinions of the said group of people. Second, they didn't say loot boxes are gambling at all. "The Lords say loot boxes should be classified as "games of chance" - which would bring them under the Gambling Act 2005." We already know loot boxes are games of chance. Third, under the Gambling Act 2005, TH is absolutely not gambling because all the prizes are revealed.

There is already a thread with all the discussions here:

Quick find code: 366-367-206-66046266

You should read it and it has all the answers. If you have anything new to add, perhaps you should add to that thread rather, or else we should close the duplicate thread.

02-Jul-2020 03:52:07

Aeroxmaster

Posts: 8,010 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

The title of this thread is based on the metadata of the webpage.

Having read the article, I am satisfied that this has been considered that it should fall under gambling legislation, hence why the metadata has given the title displayed. "The House of Lords Gambling Committee says video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws" is akin to the Lords equating loot boxes to gambling, as the metadata shows.

The reason why this is significant is because Jagex is a UK based company. Therefore, this information is specifically relevant to RuneScape now due to the power that the House of Lords has within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As such, I do not believe a false claim has been made. I am happy to continue mature discussion with you on the matter, but I would advise that you become aware of the House of Lords and as such, the implications of the Report they have produced, as it is significant on its own as a standalone piece.

02-Jul-2020 04:00:50 - Last edited on 02-Jul-2020 04:27:33 by Aeroxmaster

Jun

2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Aeroxmaster said :
The title of this thread is based on the meta data of the webpage.

Having read the article, I am satisfied that this has been considered to fall under gambling legislation, hence why the meta data has given the title displayed. "The House of Lords Gambling Committee says video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws" is akin to the Lords equating loot boxes to gambling, as the meta data shows.

The reason why this is significant is because Jagex is a UK based company. Therefore, this information is specifically relevant to RuneScape now due to the power that the House of Lords has within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As such, I do not believe a false claim has been made. I am happy to continue mature discussion with you on the matter, but I would advise that you become aware of the House of Lords and as such, the implications of the Report they have produced, as it is significant on its own as a standalone piece.

Totally wrong again and has been explained in the thread I quoted you on Post 2 of this page, The UK Parliament has already called for the same thing the House of Lords recommended in their Online Harm White Paper. Both of them did not say video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws as you claimed. All they recommended is games of chance features should be reviewed under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine if any part of the Act applies to them. Note that games of chance are not always gambling. You need to get the FACT straight first.

Also bear in mind, nobody has even submitted a bill. They are just calling for more reviews. That's it. At least in the USA, although failed miserably, at least several politicians have submitted several bills already.

02-Jul-2020 04:41:42

Aeroxmaster

Posts: 8,010 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Dilbert2001 said :
The UK Parliament has already called for the same thing the House of Lords recommended in their Online Harm White Paper. Both of them did not say video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws as you claimed. All they recommended is games of chance features should be reviewed under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine if any part of the Act applies to them.

Would you be clear as to elaborate in a more detailed way on what the point you're trying to convey is please?

I am not sure if that is so significant if the Lords are now recommending that they be regulated under gambling legislation now, as evidenced earlier.

02-Jul-2020 04:49:40

Jun

2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Aeroxmaster said :
Dilbert2001 said :
The UK Parliament has already called for the same thing the House of Lords recommended in their Online Harm White Paper. Both of them did not say video game loot boxes should be regulated under gambling laws as you claimed. All they recommended is games of chance features should be reviewed under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine if any part of the Act applies to them.

Would you be clear as to elaborate in a more detailed way on what the point you're trying to convey is please?

I am not sure if that is so significant if the Lords are now recommending that they be regulated under gambling legislation now, as evidenced earlier.

I already clearly elaborated on Post 2 of this page, which is my very first post in this thread that:

"The Lords say loot boxes should be classified as "games of chance" - which would bring them under the Gambling Act 2005."

They are not recommending loot boxes to be considered as gambling. They said they should be considered games of chance.

Gambling Act 2005 clearly identifies "Game of Chance" is categorized under "Gaming" but not "Betting". Game of Chance is also clearly differentiated from Casino:

"Gaming

6.Gaming & game of chance

7.Casino

8.Equal chance gaming

Betting

9.Betting: general

10.Spread bets, &c.

11.Betting: prize competitions

12.Pool betting

13.Betting intermediary"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents

What it means is they recommended loot boxes to be considered game of chance under Gambling Act 2005. However, it is NOT Casino or Betting or gambling.

02-Jul-2020 05:08:24

Aeroxmaster

Posts: 8,010 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

I'm not sure what the usefulness is of getting into semantics of what the exact categorisation of "games of chance" or "gambling" is. This thread is based off of a news article, and I think it is obvious that the news article refers to "gambling" in the sense of being subject to regulation under the Gambling Act. Anyway, the purpose of this thread is not to get drawn into semantics, but to discuss the fact that the Lords believe games of chance should be subject to the regulation under gambling legislation.

Besides, if you refer to section 3 of the Act, it clearly states that the meaning of "gambling" includes "gaming" within the meaning of section 6 of the Act, and section 6 of the Act explains that "gaming" means playing a "game of chance" for a prize.

As you seem to be so eager to pick at the exact wording within the thread, given that it stems from news-article-wording, I'll amend the OP slightly, but I'd appreciate it if we could move forwards towards more meaningful discussion as opposed to scrutinising the current legislation if it does not really bring us much more meaningful and useful discussion...

02-Jul-2020 05:25:23

Jun

2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Aeroxmaster said :
I'm not sure what the usefulness is of getting into semantics of what the exact categorisation of "games of chance" or "gambling" is. This thread is based off of a news article, and I think it is obvious that the news article refers to "gambling" in the sense of being subject to regulation under the Gambling Act. Anyway, the purpose of this thread is not to get drawn into semantics, but to discuss the fact that the Lords believe games of chance should be subject to the regulation under gambling legislation.

Besides, if you refer to section 3 of the Act, it clearly states that the meaning of "gambling" includes "gaming" within the meaning of section 6 of the Act, and section 6 of the Act explains that "gaming" means playing a "game of chance" for a prize.

As you seem to be so eager to pick at the exact wording within the thread, given that it stems from news-article-wording, I'll amend the OP slightly, but I'd appreciate it if we could move forwards towards more meaningful discussion as opposed to scrutinising the current legislation if it does not really bring us much more meaningful and useful discussion...

UK's Gambling Act 2005 is a REGULATION. It is not about semantics. "Gambling" are not always Licensed Gambling like casinos or Illegal Gambling as explained numerous time in the thread I quoted. What the House of Lords clearly recommends is to have loot boxes classified as Games of Chance but not Casino or Betting. If it makes you feel not so sad, perhaps you can telly yourself they mean loot boxes is "gambling simulation" like what the Aussie government calls them.

The real meaningful and useful discussion is the House of Lords doesn't recommend loot boxes to be considered as casino and betting. You should just accept loot boxes is no casino or betting and don't need licenses to run and mover forward rather.

02-Jul-2020 05:36:05 - Last edited on 02-Jul-2020 05:37:33 by Dilbert2001

Aeroxmaster

Posts: 8,010 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Dilbert2001 said :
What the House of Lords clearly recommends is to have loot boxes classifies as Games of Chance but not Casino or Betting.

As already explained, this would still fall under gambling regardless. I don't believe that the article linked actually says what you've said in the last part of your statement (if you have a reference for the full Report, kindly share), but that does not affect the point I have made anyway even if it did.

I will copy and paste the legislation here.

Original message details are unavailable.
Gambling Act 2005
Section 3
Gambling

In this Act “gambling” means—
(a)gaming (within the meaning of section 6),

(b)betting (within the meaning of section 9), and

(c)participating in a lottery (within the meaning of section 14 and subject to section 15).

Original message details are unavailable.
Gambling Act 2005
Section 6
Gaming & game of chance

(1)In this Act “gaming” means playing a game of chance for a prize.

(2)In this Act “game of chance”—

(a)includes—

(i)a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill,

(ii)a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill, and

(iii)a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but

(b)does not include a sport.

As we appear to not be getting much further in useful discussion here, I at present I will politely terminate my interaction with you going forward so as to allow for more useful discussion to populate the thread instead. Thank you.

02-Jul-2020 05:48:23 - Last edited on 02-Jul-2020 05:52:32 by Aeroxmaster

Jun

2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,176 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

@Aeroxmaster

You have the right not to reply to me if you chose to but the FACT won't change. I will want everybody who are willing to look at FACTS to realize the big regulatory difference (note: not just semantics, but real life regulatory difference) between "game of chance" (or somebody who insists to call it "gambling" and licensed or illegal gambling like casino or betting on sports or horses.

Flipping a coin is a game of chance. "Gambling" candies on Poker or Monopoly the board game is also a game of chance. But are these activities gambling? Yes and No. Yes, to some countries, by definition they are gambling but nowhere in the world are people being arrested for flipping a coin or "gambling" candies on a game of Monopoly. The reason is "gambling" is not always licensed or illegal gambling. For instance, the Australian Government has long ago classified loot boxes as "gambling". However, they put up a eSafety Website and clearly told everybody loot boxes are "gambling simulations" and they will only go after real casino gambling. They have no problem with loot boxes in the games there even though it is "gambling" by definition.

02-Jul-2020 06:05:53

Forums

Lords: "Loot Boxes = Gambling"