ESRB's loot box response is new 'in-game purchases' label that applies to almost every game

Today, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), the self-regulatory association responsible for rating the content of video games, responded to the mounting controversy around the industry’s shift toward microtransactions, specifically the gambling-style loot box systems favored by the world’s most popular competitive multiplayer titles. Unfortunately, the ESRB’s solution is only a new “in-game purchases” label that seems as if it would apply to a vast majority of modern games, from story-focused Nintendo classics like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild to EA’s bungled Battlefront 2.

The ESRB’s criteria is extraordinarily broad, covering any game that offers “the ability to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency,” regardless of the context. “This includes features like bonus levels, skins, surprise items *such as item packs, loot boxes, mystery awards), music, virtual coins and other forms of in-game currency, subscriptions, season passes, upgrades (e.g., to disable ads) and more.”

The problem, of course, is that there is a substantive difference between these various types of in-game purchases, how they’re implemented, and the amount of money they cost consumers. The ESRB does not delineate between what one might consider fair and chance-based in-game purchases. For instance, a game like Epic Games’ Fortnite Battle Royale, which does not contain loot boxes but does sell in-game currency that can be used to buy cosmetic items outright, would be considered the same as Blizzard’s Overwatch, which only lets players buy slot machine-style loot box packs with real money and no guarantee of eventual rewards.

Taken to an extreme, the ESRB’s new label would seem to group together nearly every modern title under the same ambiguous umbrella. Even a game like Horizon Zero Dawn, which is a single-player title that offers a downloadable story-driven content, would fall under the description for a title that offers “bonus levels.” The remake of PS2 masterpiece Shadow of the Colossus is perhaps the only modern game that comes to mind as a title that would escape the label. Yet had that game provided a link to players in the menu buy its soundtrack, it appears as if they would earn it the “in-game purchases” label.

In other words, the ESRB, which is an arm of the video game industry’s largest lobbying group, seems to have taken a rather toothless approach to microtransactions and loot boxes at a time when regulatory pressure only continues to gain steam. Countries around the world are taking aggressive stances against loot box systems, which critics liken to peddling gambling to children.

The US, which is home to both the largest video game companies in the world and the most pervasive corporate influence on politics, has been largely absent from the conversation. That’s beginning to change. Late last month, three Washington senators introduced legislation calling for a study into whether loot boxes constitute gambling. A US senator from New Hampshire earlier this month called on the ESRB to provide more transparency and publicly available data on loot box implementation.

The problem is more complex than it seems, however. The price of a big-budget video game has remained relatively stable for years at around $60, all while development and production costs have ballooned as technical advancements result in ever more sophisticated games. Publishers then have taken the opportunity, out of a perceived necessity to account for sky-rocketing costs, to create extensive in-game economies that charge players real money and keep those players hooked for months and years. The result can be exploitative in ways not unlike a casino, with the gambling-style mechanisms of mobile, free-to-play games having bled over into full-priced console and PC titles.

Still, without regulatory muscle in Washington, it’s unlikely the ESRB will go any further. On a call with reporters this morning, ESRB president Patricia Vance said, “We certainly considered whether or not loot boxes would constitute as gambling,” adding that “we don’t believe it does. We think it’s a fun way to acquire virtual items for use within the game,” according to Kotaku.

Let's block ads! (Why?)