Source in french: RTBF

This is a false piece of information that has been circulating for a few hours now on sites dedicated to videogame culture, particularly on the very popular jeuxvideo.com site: the Belgian Gambling Commission has reportedly established that the use of pay boxes with random content (the lootboxes in gamer language) is indeed a game of chance.

We contacted Etienne Marique, the chairman of the Gambling Commission in the House, who totally contradicted this statement: no conclusion was reached on the ongoing investigation in Battlefront II and Overwatch. For the time being, only an informative note on the problem of money in online gambling has been drawn up, so no final decision has yet been taken.

Shortly before its official release, Star Wars Battlefront II had to endure the players' anger, furious to see the evolution of their characters linked to too many hours of play (4528 hours to unlock everything), or to the purchase of random chests. An economic model already well established in the industry, but here pushed to its climax. This method prompted the Belgian Gambling Commission, which launched a survey on the issue in mid-November, to assess whether the lootboxes of the new Star Wars game should be classified as games of chance.

The bad buzz taking on a phenomenal scale, the game's publisher, Electronic Arts, has initially retropedalled and reduced the number of hours of play to unlock advantages and evolutions. Then, when the game was released, EA announced the temporary deletion of the lootboxes, waiting to find a "more balanced system". A decision that won't have saved the game's sales at its launch, 50% less than Battlefront I, released a year ago.

At the origin of this false information, an article by VTM Nieuws reporting on the remarks of Justice Minister Koen Geens, who would like to see in-game purchases banned. In the article, our Flemish colleagues quote a quotation from the Commission when it launched its inquiry:"The mixture of money and addiction is gambling". A sentence that was interpreted as the conclusion of the investigation, while it just explains the characteristic that needs to be studied in video games to determine whether they can be characterized as gambling.

Google Translate could be partly at the origin of this confusion: its translation from Dutch is still very approximate, and the first media to report the information - largely English-speaking - had to use it to understand the article by VTM Nieuws. These media themselves admit that the translation is pretty bad.

It will have had the advantage of awakening the political world to the problem of microtransactions in video games. In addition to the recent release of Koen Geens, who wants to ban these microtransactions at European level, a French senator has also asked the Secretary of State for Digital to take an interest in the issue. On the United States side, a Hawaiian politician called Battlefront II "a Star Wars casino, dangerous for young people".

The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir also position itself, asking that the boxes of loot be considered as a game of chance, by sending a letter to the French Online Gaming Regulatory Authority (Arjel).

On the side of the Belgian Gambling Commission, Etienne Marique explains that this link between money and online gambling is a problem that has been identified for several years, and that the Gambling Commission would like to see its competences extended in order to become the Gaming Commission, so that it can better analyse these phenomena.

Translated using DeepL and quickly corrected

I'm not going to show my original message (it's quite long, it also includes my name and student-email, but if people really want to read it I can post it in a comment), but I will post below the response I got from the VCGLR. I'll also note that I'd be quite happy to forward the correspondence to news agencies (on condition that my name/e-mail not be mentioned). Anyway, here's the reply I received:

My name is Jarrod Wolfe and I am the Strategic Analyst for the Compliance Division at VCGLR. I have received your correspondence in regards to gambling functionality (loot boxes) being incorporated into games.

Your research and suppositions on the matter are correct; what occurs with "loot boxes" does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation. Unfortunately where the complexity arises is in jurisdiction and our powers to investigate. Legislation has not moved as quick as the technology; at both State and Federal level we are not necessarily equipped to determine the legality of these practices in lieu of the fact the entities responsible are overseas.

We are currently engaging with interstate and international counter parts to progress wider policy changes and to modernise and inform both Federal and State based legislation. We take on board responses from the community, such as your concerns, to ensure that our actions are reflective of the risks these products pose as well as the community's expectation. Watching recent Reddit activity certainly indicates the majority of the gaming community is at odds with decisions made by certain companies.

The focus of my concerns currently is on the more predatory aspects related to "pay to win". Skins, skins betting and virtual currencies are certainly a peripheral consideration. However, the idea that (genuine) progression in a game could be reliant on the outcome of a random number generator is at odds with responsible gambling and the objectives of our acts. More importantly the normalisation of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors), is not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable.

In response to our appraisal or understanding of these matters, it is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found; then we will most definitely pursue it.

Thanks for your detailed enquiry and interest.

I followed up with these questions: What is the legal effect of the responsible entity being based overseas? Does it matter that persons residing in Australia may be making use of those services? What do you think is the biggest barrier to enforcement in relation to this issue currently, and how do you foresee it being overcome? What steps do you think the average citizen/consumer can take towards effecting such change? I also asked if he would mind me sharing the correspondence online. Here is his response:

Thanks for the follow up. Gambling isn't necessarily "Unauthorised gambling" so there are a lot of variables at play. For perhaps a real world example think of overseas betting agencies. Such as Bet 365 – Australians can and do use this service; yet it is clearly administered and run from the UK. This isn't illegal. However, if that company set up "shop" in Victoria or started specifically advertising and offering gambling products to Victorians. Then we could investigate and it could be considered a breach of legislation and we would pursue, overseas or not. One of the downfalls is that using overseas based products, Victorian residents do not have us to investigate any complaints or issues they have.

Lootbox and "pay to win" set ups are even more nuanced than just being operated from overseas. Imagine if the legislation was read "strictly" and so you and a couple of friends have a poker game in your garage. You play for real money and sometimes other people join and leave. Now this is obviously gambling, however, is it "unauthorised gambling"? The legislation makes clear determination on some products such as Casino games and the like. But I don't think parliament ever intended for a Compliance Inspector to kick in your garage door and fine you and your buddies for playing 'texas hold'em' in your garage. In order for that to happen we would require far more definitive proof and details and identify profits and purpose and a lot of other factors. This would be the steps we would have to take in order to get close to showing that these video game functions are, strictly speaking, Unauthorised… even then, convincing a magistrate in a prosecution would be a whole other nightmare that would probably cost Victorian tax payers way more money than they would be willing to spend.

But I am a Strategic Analyst, my job is essentially to look at strategies to bring about changes without the necessity of kicking in garage doors and scaring the hell out of a bunch of students. Hence our interest in "loot boxes". Enforcement is probably not an option, but we can consider working with other agencies to bring about change in other ways. For instance; if these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with "The Australian Classification Board" to ensure than any product that does that and monetises it gets an immediate R rating. I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling.

As far as affecting change from the consumer perspective. For me, instead of playing certain Star Wars games I was looking forward to, I will be concerting my efforts on collecting EVERY.SINGLE.MOON in Odyssey.

Thanks for your interest. Nothing I am saying is secret; we are working on these complex problems and unfortunately solutions are a lot slower than the technology. The more people that know we are looking the better. The VCGLR want to set the example for dealing with these kind of issues; getting correspondence from you (and others) makes it a lot easier to gauge the feelings of Victorians and lets us know there is genuine interest and concern.

TL;DR - the VCGLR considers lootboxes gambling, but if the entities are based overseas they lack the necessary powers of enforcement.

I was quite surprised to hear this to be honest, as I thought our system would be more like the American inter-State system (where online gambling bodies are bound by the laws of the State that the person using their services is residing in, rather than by the laws of the State where the gambling body is based).

EDIT: I've forwarded the original correspondence e-mail to the BBC, and have forwarded it to Kotaku Australia at their request. I'll update this post with article links if they write stories based on this.

EDIT2: Here is the Kotaku article; Power-up Gaming article

It's safe to say that 2017 so far is the best in terms for gaming especially for both PS4 and the Switch.

But what are your biggest disappointments of 2017? For me that goes to Arkane Studios Prey.

I was really looking forward to the original Blade Runner esque Prey 2 and was very disappointed when it was canned. I loved Dishonored, and was happy when Arkane was announced for the reboot but what we ended up getting was not what I expected.

Prey gets a lot of praise, and I really wanted to love it but it just didn't grab me. I found the game extremely boring and to be honest ugly at times.

I wanted to know what games people felt let down by in 2017?