ESRB Loot Box Labeling Doesn't Solve the Problem

The ESRB has agreed to label games with in-game purchases, but this ESRB loot box labeling is a long way from solving the problem of aggressive mechanics.

[UCForce]

ESRB just make a dumb solution.

[JackBNimble]

And what you and a ton of gamers are asking for is essentially censorship.
Does that not go against your laws of freedom of speech? So you're ok with a 3rd party or the government to tell developers what they can and cannot put in their games?

Hate to say it but you guys are crazy, just willing to give up your rights and freedoms because of something you disagree with.

You don't like it, don't buy it.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

No it doesn't it's trying to forget the issue at hand

[strayanalog]

ESRB, you had one job... and somehow you managed to still clock-in without being present. This is unbelievably stupid and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Where's your backbone and code of ethics now?‎

[_-EDMIX-_]

Except ESRBs job is to not tell Developers or publishers about what content they could have in their game ,simply the rating.

Trust me ESRB is never going to be the entity that somehow does something about loot boxes because their job is to not govern what's going on in gaming it is simply to label the games in regards content.

I think labeling loot boxes are microtransactions is the right step as it allows parents to know what's going on in their children's games.

I actually think some of you guys are getting angry at this company for something they can't even control in the first place is not saying they're okay with loot boxes simply that they can't actually tell a developer what to do.

Labeling them is the right step for this specific company it does not mean that is the only solution for loot box as in all of gaming, as I just think it's a little bit ridiculous to try to believe this is going to come down to a single company.

This is likely going to come down to customers pressuring Publishers even governments in regards to legislation in a bunch of other things.

I think people are just mad because of how their labeling microtransactions in regards to post launch content but to be quite honest the broad term of microtransaction or post-launch concept applies to so many things that it does not just exclusively loot boxes you would have to consider you could just call it something else and it's still doing the same exact thing, imagine if Electronic Arts doesn't call it loot box or Loot Crate.. it just calls it something else it doesn't really change what's being done it's actually why the term microtransaction or post-launch content is more fitting.

So the second they start using the exact term loot box watch Activision Ubisoft Electronic Arts and many others simply just start changing how they are classifying the content....

[strayanalog]

I do agree with you, because labeling them was the right step, but they did it wrong, in my opinion, by making it too broad (as you pointed out).
‎
"This label, or the interactive element, will appear on boxes for all games that offer the ability to purchase digital goods of premiums with real world currency. 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."‎
‎
That catchall is far too broad. ESRB has managed to walk around the problem without confronting it. Almost every game has digital content, so this label means nothing.
Loot boxes and microtransactions need to be singled out (a red sticker maybe), which should, in theory, prompt someone to ask what a loot box or microtransaction is, in particular parents.
If a developer wants to skirt the issue by calling that loot box something else (like mystery box), then they should pay for the "exclusive font" that would be on their box.‎

[Dirtnapstor]

Making new identifying labels will not change anything. It’s just as dumb as creating new gun laws to curb mass shootings. This is a silly notion on behalf of the gaming community that suddenly is attempting to grasp a moral high ground. Rated M for mature. And we have 9 year olds playing GTA V....smh. NOW everyone is concerned about the poor child who can not control him/herself, making in game decisions?!?! Give me a break. How about parents be a parent and pay attention? Wow, new concept or what?!
I get the loot box controversy, but it’s built upon the “it’s not fair” mentality vs the supposed “we need to protect our children and irresponsible adults who cannot control themselves”. If you think about it, this is a bad move in general, never mind the ESRB.
“Let us allow the government make regulations to protect us from ourselves because we’re too stupid to use common sense.” That’s today’s motto...now bleeding into the gaming theatre.
Like EDMIX said, don’t buy the freakin loot boxes to begin with. YOU the individual needs to make this decision, not a federal regulator.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I over all agree with what you are saying, but I don't think ESRB sees this as a means to an end type thing, simply a way to label for parents and users. Of course folks will buy what they want, but this is still a smart step to have people more informed on what they buy. We all know the M rating won't stop a kid from playing GTA V as that was not why it was made for, simply to have more educated parents and I think it did a good job with that goal tbh.

"How about parents be a parent and pay attention?"

I 100% agree with that, but I think ESRB is simply saying, why not both? Have parents pay attention more yes, that is a must, but also help by labeling those games with MT, loot boxes etc to help. Put it this way, you and I get it, we are not going to be having our children play such games, we our selves can determine what we play without ESRB, but this was not made for people like you and me, it was made for parents that might not be gamers and might not know that their kids games have something similar to gambling. I'm 100% all for what you are saying ,trust me, but what ESRB is doing will only help what we both actually want.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Easy don't like it don't buy it

can't have a problem if you don't give them your money...

[Razzer]

Exactly. It really is that simple.

[UKmilitia]

anything with a lootbox should automatically be a 18/21 as it is gambling and its as simple as that!!!
add to that it should be consmetic loot and not to give you an advantage a person who buys the game and plays normal can not recieve.

FORTNITE has it nailed and thats free to play,the season pass is a great idea

[Derceto]

That is colossal understatement. Doesn't solve the problem? It doesn't even TRY to solve the problem. LOL

The couldn't be anymore of a purposely confusing mask for the problem, if you tried.

[Razzer]

"It’s about addiction, and preying on those prone to fall into psychological marketing traps."

Are you serious? Now you are starting to sound like those who blame video games for the actions of mass murderers. This is getting ridiculous.

[tontontam0]

LOL your job is useless anyway people have been ignoring your ratings since the beginning.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Not really

Their job has been to inform so parents who are not Gamers like you and I need assistance and help informing. So I most times ignore the ESRB but that doesn't mean it's useless, it simply means for someone like me that is not necessary who's actually educated in gaming, I'm okay to understand what would be acceptable for my child but I believe the ESRB even for someone like me might help if there's something inside the game that I was completely unaware of. I'm sorry but somebody could honestly not try to argue that something is bad about trying to inform people.

[Razzer]

Uh....most retail stores won’t sell MA games to minors so how is that being ignored?