alt.hn

3/14/2026 at 12:02:37 AM

Games with loot boxes to get minimum 16 age rating across Europe

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge84xqjg5lo

by gostsamo

3/14/2026 at 9:52:34 AM

"Lootboxes", "cases", "packs" and other chance-based systems that involve spending real money or an in-game currency that could be obtained by spending real money should be banned completely, all of those systems exploit brain vulnerabilities for profit. Also, prediction markets, sports betting, online casinos, shitcoin exchanges.

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 2:48:49 PM

It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?

by hx8

3/14/2026 at 4:42:17 PM

Here's a good read on the topic from Zvi Mowshowitz: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...

He was very much pro-legalizing online gambling. He had worked for sportsbooks, had done lots of sports betting himself, stuff like that. But has concluded that legalizing online gambling has been a disaster.

> When sports gambling was legalized in America, I was hopeful it too could prove a net positive force, far superior to the previous obnoxious wave of daily fantasy sports.

> It brings me no pleasure to conclude that this was not the case. The results are in. Legalized mobile gambling on sports, let alone casino games, has proven to be a huge mistake. The societal impacts are far worse than I expected.

The article makes a compelling argument that online gambling is a lot worse than other forms of gambling.

I have a take on this too. You know how scammers cast a really wide net, hoping to get lucky and find suckers? Well, that's really only part of the story, what actually happens is they get lucky and happen to find people when they are vulnerable. That's how smart people get scammed somewhat randomly.

When online gambling is in your pocket, it is guaranteed to be available when you're vulnerable.

by furyofantares

3/14/2026 at 4:13:54 PM

Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 4:18:29 PM

I agree that accessibility is a big aspect that makes these digital games of chance different than the physical counterparts.

by hx8

3/14/2026 at 3:00:48 PM

I think online/digital gambling is worse because it follows you everywhere. I don’t like any form of gambling, but at least with casinos there’s some escape in not physically being there. It’s also harder to enforce age requirements online.

by sjoedev

3/14/2026 at 3:15:17 PM

They all have apps these days, and just like a local bookmaker might "accidentally" remove your name from their legally required self-ban list it's very common that a "bug" in your phone app means you can keep gambling after saying you want to stop.

"Mistakes" in the controlling party's favour are extremely common in such industries. Fluke 100-1 sport betting win? Oops we forget to fill out that mandatory anti-fraud paperwork, bet is off. Lost that 3-2 bet that the favourite would place in a horse race but actually you didn't show proper ID? Sorry that's your problem, we're keeping the money

by tialaramex

3/14/2026 at 4:13:26 PM

Google keeps accidentally forgetting that I don’t want their fucking browser.

by Waterluvian

3/14/2026 at 3:06:36 PM

Regulating gambling is a good idea. Gambling firms spend a lot of money on (lobbying for) ensuring the regulations are as loose as possible despite the very obvious downsides of their industry.

by tialaramex

3/14/2026 at 3:12:17 PM

Not OP but I would certainly ban adding gambling "features" to other products or services. Either you can be a gambling or betting shop/platform (regulated and restricted to adults) or something else, but not both.

by barnabee

3/14/2026 at 3:09:12 PM

Card packs are not digital.

by cwillu

3/14/2026 at 4:14:34 PM

When I was writing my comment I mentioned packs as in digital loot boxes designed to feel like physical card packs.

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 4:27:14 PM

Many locales ban physical gambling as well. It’s a defensible policy.

by canjobear

3/15/2026 at 4:38:06 PM

Pokemon cards, magic the gathering fits that too

by heavenlyblue

3/14/2026 at 4:02:02 PM

I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism.

You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one.

GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.

by estimator7292

3/14/2026 at 4:16:17 PM

I think it's very interesting many people treat physical games of chance as different than purely digital ones, and wanted to explore this topic. To me, that's a more interesting topic of conversation than calling for legislation, or arguing about the merits of such legislation. Especially when it's about legislation in a jurisdiction I do not fall under.

This forum is a branching conversation pattern. I'm not derailing anything because this isn't a linear conversation. If you want to discuss something else that the parent comment said then make a post against that conversation.

by hx8

3/14/2026 at 4:35:25 PM

Physical gambling is confined to a physical location (like a casino or a sports betting bar), so people have to go there to be harmed. It's bad, but it requires someone to spend time getting there (and if the victim has a family/friends they might ask where they're headed/intervene in some way) and there is a limit to the amount of people who can be there at once. With digital gambling, anyone can spend any amount of money, anywhere, anytime, with no oversight (however little it might be in a physical location). The harm is magnified immensely.

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 12:03:51 PM

Instead they're getting worse yay! Hop on Kalshi

by Madmallard

3/14/2026 at 5:18:32 PM

If you start banning everything that causes addiction, a market big enough to trade on the Nasdaq would collapse, vanish.

by create-username

3/16/2026 at 12:47:00 AM

Okay, and?

by hananova

3/14/2026 at 10:34:47 AM

Brain vulnerabilities? So ban alcoholic drinks and thrill rides too?

by chrisjj

3/14/2026 at 11:00:48 AM

Thrill rides? Probably not, I don't think there are many people having their life ruined by their addiction to amusement parks.

Alcoholic drinks? History of bans like that suggests that it's not a good idea. However that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Addictions to alcohol, drugs, smoking, gambling damage both the person suffering from them and the friends/loved ones around that person. It is most likely impossible to drive the harm down to 0, but it can be reduced by denormalizing casual alcohol intake and sitations where people are peer pressured into consuming alcohol to fit in (especially in young adults), etc. People addicted to those substances/behaviors need a safe environment, a society that won't prompt them to relapse over and over because everyone around them is a casual user. Those are my thoughts, but I'm no expert.

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 11:30:31 AM

Hmm, so why do your perfectly reasonable thoughts on how to reduce alcohol abuse in light of not being able to simply ban it not apply to loot boxes as well? How is it different such that "completely banning", as you suggested, is a good idea there where it isn't for alcohol, drugs, smoking, and gambling (of which loot boxes are clearly a subcategory)?

by technothrasher

3/14/2026 at 11:35:23 AM

Lootboxes are not entrenched in society yet. They are a new phenomenon that could hopefully be stopped in its tracks (but probably won't since it will impact profits)

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 11:34:41 AM

Alcohol has been deeply embedded in human culture for thousands+ years, that's why prohibition is a bad idea. Loot boxes are a new invention, if they're deemed too harmful we can just do without them.

by downsplat

3/14/2026 at 12:10:34 PM

We absolutely could do without alcohol too and it's certainly far more harmful than lootboxes by any metric.

by alex43578

3/14/2026 at 12:24:45 PM

Yes because Prohibition worked so well before?

by raw_anon_1111

3/14/2026 at 1:25:43 PM

People do plenty of illegal things, but we still outlaw them to reduce the rate of people doing those things.

On the contrary, if we accept that people are mature enough to choose to drink, they certainly should be mature enough to spend $20 opening loot boxes. Fewer cases of cirrhosis, drunk driving accidents, and bar fights from loot boxes.

by alex43578

3/14/2026 at 1:28:39 PM

No we outlaw them to disproportionately put minorities in jail…

I would rather not give the government more power.

by raw_anon_1111

3/14/2026 at 2:04:29 PM

Too much thumos, not enough nous in this conversation...

1. Alcohol may be consumed in moderation for enjoyment with no frustrating effect on our rational faculties. Even the bad effects on health are often overblown. They tend to be chronic and rooted in habitual consumption. Save for people with a predisposition for alcoholism, people generally do not experience compulsive desires for alcohol.

2. Gambling isn't comparable to alcohol. It is intrinsically irrational and inherently exploitative. It is also an intrinsically social and economic phenomenon. It requires the intentional exploitation of one party by another to work.

3. Loot boxes are intentionally designed to manipulate people psychologically for profit. It habituates bad habits by virtue of its very design.

4. While alcohol can be used that way, it is not designed for that purpose nor is its historical pedigree rooted in such malice. I would also claim that its addictive potential is lower all things considered.

So they aren't comparable. It's not enough to say "both A and B can have harmful effects, therefore both A and B are 'the same' for all intents and purposes".

by lo_zamoyski

3/14/2026 at 3:31:48 PM

> While alcohol can be used that way, it is not designed for that purpose

Alcohol was not designed. However, marketing campaigns for alcoholic beverages are very much designed. Though I agree that prohibition against drinking won't ever work and would never support it, I do think that prohibition against alcohol advertising and marketing would be a beneficial to society. You are allowed to drink, but you can't try and manipulate people into drinking.

> I would also claim that its addictive potential is lower all things considered.

The addictive potential of alcohol is higher because it is directly chemically affecting the brain. It also causes physical dependencies as well as mental ones. These two often work together and combined are more powerful then the sum of the parts. What is also true is that people who have a genetic propensity for addiction are both more likely then others to become addicted to alcohol, drugs, gambling, or any other usual suspects. Loot boxes are ultimately causing the most damage to the same population subset as alcohol is.

by Eddy_Viscosity2

3/14/2026 at 2:07:57 PM

I am responding to the commenter who implied outlawing alcohol wouldn’t be a bad thing

> We absolutely could do without alcohol too and it's certainly far more harmful than lootboxes by any metric.

by raw_anon_1111

3/14/2026 at 1:11:08 PM

Creating a black market for loot boxes is a lot harder than for liquor or setting up a poker game in the backroom.

by johannes1234321

3/14/2026 at 4:35:16 PM

I would argue the opposite. Black market liquor (bootlegging) requires a full black market distillery industry and smuggling/distribution network. It's every bit as difficult as operating in the narcotics world, with violence and cartels everywhere.

Black market loot boxes, on the other hand, seem to me to be similar to software and media piracy and illegal streaming: easy to operate, extremely difficult to prevent.

by chongli

3/14/2026 at 4:39:47 PM

Isn't the perceived value from "rare items" from those loot boxes based on the popularity of the game/IP that the loot box system is attached to?

by hofrogs

3/14/2026 at 3:19:54 PM

A difference is that Prohibition was also criminalizing individual production and personal use, while banning lootboxes and the like is just limiting corporate use as a sales and marketing tactic. Similar to how cigarette ads were banned on TV in the US in 1970, but you can still buy and smoke cigarettes today.

by duskdozer

3/14/2026 at 2:10:54 PM

> it can be reduced by denormalizing casual alcohol intake

This! I find it so strange that, in 2026, they still casually drink whisky in Hollywood movies and TV shows at the office and at home every time they encounter a tough situation. That subtle suggestion that alcohol will somehow help.

by lclc

3/14/2026 at 2:24:03 PM

It does help.

(random research paper but there are many. Nit pick if you like) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6760384/

However two thing can at the same time be true. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous and destructive drugs in society and also whisky in the evening by the fire can chill you out.

by injidup

3/14/2026 at 2:34:09 PM

Exactly. Somehow the internet has lead to the death of nuance, too many loud voices?

by laksjhdlka

3/14/2026 at 2:17:08 PM

The current generation is already consuming much less alcohol! Just keep taxing and it'll be virtually gone.

by NeutralForest

3/14/2026 at 6:47:25 PM

I don't believe that the taxes on it has that much of an affect on usage and is mostly just a rregressive tax on the already poor and desperate.

by AngryData

3/14/2026 at 2:20:08 PM

You'll just end up creating a black market (high tax has resulted in 1/3 of cigarettes being illegal in the UK) and home production (since anyone can make their own alcohol easily)

by nephihaha

3/14/2026 at 2:58:54 PM

Tax rates have been going up on alcohol at least, just boil the frog.

by NeutralForest

3/14/2026 at 3:12:52 PM

And what does that achieve? It makes the poor poorer. The alcoholics will still drink but their families will have less.

What you do do is create a black market, because people will want to buy it cheaper elsewhere. That puts money into the hands of criminals.

Anyone can make alcohol unlike most drugs. It's remarkably easy to make. You just need patience, and raw materials: potatoes, fruit or whatever. You can make it in your back room. The problem is that it is not high quality, and can contain chemicals which can make you drunk.

by nephihaha

3/14/2026 at 3:10:02 PM

Two things that famously have no age restrictions.

by cwillu

3/14/2026 at 11:48:12 AM

Yes please ban alcohol/make it hard to get.

by sevenzero

3/14/2026 at 12:32:02 PM

Been tried. Not possible to ban something that can be made in a basement.

by Sammi

3/14/2026 at 3:28:01 PM

Such as gambling.

by stavros

3/15/2026 at 1:20:08 AM

Very easy to find a basement Casino compared to a basement moonshine brewery. Don't know how you'd run a major gaming title with loot boxes from your basement.

by Sammi

3/14/2026 at 2:04:48 PM

Over my dead body.

by lo_zamoyski

3/14/2026 at 11:37:31 AM

Apples and oranges right there

by elAhmo

3/14/2026 at 9:59:32 AM

Watch how fast they use this to further the extent of mandatory age verification online. That's what they usually do (read: the Shock Doctrine from Naomi Klein). Problem arises, create legislation (likely reducing freedom or increasing surveillance), use said legislation down the line after everybody forgets about it to further whatever their agenda is.

by d0d00

3/14/2026 at 3:10:47 PM

I question whether it's not more reasonable to outright ban this kind of disguised gambling rather than start normalising "age checks" online.

by WhyNotHugo

3/14/2026 at 2:26:42 PM

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

This said the gambling bullshit is going way too far and has it's own set of consequences in society. Remember, every time you act like an asshole to maximize the amount of money you can rip off of others, you invite an authoritarian takeover when the average person in society gets tired of your bullshit.

by pixl97

3/14/2026 at 8:51:06 AM

That's mild. I'd ban them outright.

by tasuki

3/14/2026 at 2:31:53 PM

Right, it’s a scam and age gating them just fuels age verification.

by tehwebguy

3/14/2026 at 10:14:35 AM

Great. Now do Roblox. In the game "Steal a Brainrot" the kinds of things kids can spend money on in the game that's supposedly safe for seven-year-olds is disgusting. £29.99 for a "secret lucky block" - and that's BEFORE price discrimination. Literally wiring the brains of kids as early as possible to have a tendency/preference towards "random variance rewards." I am really pleased to see any government doing something about this and protecting kids from this disgusting, predatory, and exploitative behavior.

By all means game developers deserve to make a living... However, if they're going to operate a casino, they should be treated and licensed as such.

by abbadadda

3/14/2026 at 1:27:05 PM

Technically: It’s not a casino if house wins 100% of the time.

by lucketone

3/15/2026 at 3:11:15 PM

I hope Roblox is banned for my 10 and 9 year olds including their peers, so that I can enforce it. I am glad I managed to refuse them a 1.99 payment until now while other parents allow whole 20s. After ruining their time and brain now they want to steal from them, adding insult to the injury. Please, Ursula, ban them as soon as possible.

by tsoukase

3/14/2026 at 2:41:18 AM

Do they let 16 year olds gamble in casinos in Europe? Odd to ban it for kids but only some kids.

by mikkupikku

3/14/2026 at 9:15:38 AM

What are "kids"? Age of majority is all over the place, there's no hard and fast rule for when adolescents become adults, every society on the planet has a different take on it.

For example, you can get married at 16 in the UK, but can't drive until 17 (it's not a priority as we didn't build so many car-dependent hellscapes), and you can buy alcohol at 18 or be given it with a meal by your parents at younger ages, because we didn't have puritans making motorway funding contingent on passing strict drinking laws like the USA did.

Anyway, what I remember from the UK's Gambling Commission giving committee evidence to MPs on this topic is to ask the question: what is gambling? What activities need strict regulation, audit trails, compliance inspectors, etc? Village fête tombolas? Fundraising prize draws? Radio station cash giveaways? Top trumps? Panini sticker albums?

Lootboxes are not slot machines or FOB terminals. If they can't be "cashed out", they are more like collectible card games... which are also IMHO a plague on humanity, but not the same level of destructive activity as gambling for cash. They do need regulation, given how prevalent they are in games popular with teenagers, but need different regulation from casinos.

Games like Fortnite deserve regulation too, weaponised FOMO to keep money rolling in is sketchy.

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 9:21:25 AM

> and you can buy alcohol at 18 or be given it with a meal by your parents at younger ages, because we didn't have puritans making motorway funding contingent on passing strict drinking laws like the USA did.

16 if you're buying wine or beer with a meal, at least in Scotland. This means that when you go to your mate's mum's pub for a pub lunch on a Friday you need to watch out for your teachers also going for a lunchtime pint.

Man, the 80s were wild.

by ErroneousBosh

3/14/2026 at 2:06:40 PM

> Man, the 80s were wild.

Early 90s for me but there was an unwritten rule that the teachers had the nearest couple of pubs and the students had a few further afield. That prevented most unwanted mixing.

But those days are still here in some ways.

As a parent of a 16yo in the UK I can confirm that the vast majority of teenagers have somewhere they can go to get a drink if they really want. Unless you live in the sticks there will always be some pubs that will happily serve 16/17 year olds a few drinks as long as they're not doing shots or obviously getting hammered. Off-licenses are mostly stricter but very good/convincing fake ID is so easy to get nowadays.

What tends to be the limiting factor is money. £7 a pint in a London pub quickly eats away at whatever allowance they're getting or money they're earning themselves, and Spoons (the cheaper pub option) is often stricter on ID/ages than most (some nights/pubs are minimum age 21 which means the fake ID that says a 16yo is 18 is no use).

Chatting to my kid's friends they say that if they do want some kind of a buzz most of their cohort prefer low-grade drug use (weed, ket, etc) as it is considerably easier to get hold of and much cheaper than alcohol. However, as a generation, they tend to be a lot cleaner than previous generations, certainly cleaner than my generation. There are a huge number of them that don't do any drugs, many don't drink alcohol at all but are quite tolerant of friends who do want to drink/take. There seems to be a lot more acceptance and less peer-pressure.

by alexfoo

3/14/2026 at 9:16:51 AM

> Lootboxes are not slot machines or FBO terminals. If they can't be "cashed out", they are more like collectible card games... which are also IMHO a plague on humanity, but not the same level of destructive activity as gambling for cash. They do need regulation, given how prevalent they are in games popular with teenagers, but need different regulation from casinos.

Even if they can't be cashed out officially, there are often other unofficial ways. Like selling the accounts in question.

by messe

3/14/2026 at 9:23:10 AM

Needing a secondary market to cash out is not the same as the vendor providing both the game of chance and the winnings.

You can sell/trade MTG and Pokemon cards, but that doesn't make them "casinos"

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 9:52:09 AM

Doesn't stop people from treating them as one, with all the corresponding issues. TBH I think a comparison with CCGs should make people question the CCG model itself, which tends to get far too easy a pass in most people's minds.

by rcxdude

3/14/2026 at 10:22:32 AM

Absolutely, I don't think CCGs are innocent. But I do think they're a level of indirection away from straight-up gambling. Being sold a pig in a poke is not the same thing as being offered betting odds.

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 10:43:48 AM

The “gambling” aspect of CCGs is mostly tacked on by outsiders, though driven by decisions of the manufacturer.

That said, when you have a deck of, say, Pokémon cards in your hand, there’s nothing about it that encourages a gambler’s mindset.

My 8yo has a bunch of Pokémon cards and he just likes playing with them, he has no idea of any monetary value they might have. There’s nothing about the physical product or game itself that betrays that.

It’s the culture created around it that’s poisonous.

by nkrisc

3/14/2026 at 12:21:29 PM

The manufacturers are absolutely working to create and profit off of that culture though. For constructed play, booster packs are no different to loot boxes: they only have the effect of increasing and obfuscating the amount of product you need to buy to get the cards you need for a given deck. And they will make very rare, powerful cards precisely because they know it will move boxes.

The games themselves are fine: if, for example, you could just buy specific cards from the manufacturer, fixed price, print-on-demand (and also buy packs for e.g. draft play), then I would have no problems with the business model at all, but it's the sales model that is predatory.

by rcxdude

3/14/2026 at 7:27:00 PM

Yes, I don’t mean to let the CCG manufacturers off the hook, but while you can play the card game and have the cards without being exposed to the gambling aspect, that’s not the case in video games where it’s practically forced upon you just by playing.

by nkrisc

3/14/2026 at 11:21:18 AM

If someone opposes regulation on X, the first line of rhetoric defense seems always to be "oh, what is 'X' even? Does it even exist? Is Y also 'X'? You don't want to ban Y, do you?"

In this case, if the focus is on the psychological mechanisms that underly gambling (varying rewards) in connection where they are used to compel people to spend vast amounts of money for nothing, I don't see how the question whether or not there could be a monetary payoff is relevant. The psychological mechanism and potential damage is the same.

by xg15

3/14/2026 at 12:21:24 PM

In almost all US states, children can legally be given alcohol by their parents. The specifics vary by state, but its not the hard and fast "Puritan" rule you seem to think. The uniform 21 years old law is to buy alcohol, not drink it.

Anyway, in my estimation the threat of gambling addiction is far higher for teenagers than young children, since teenagers may often have sources of revenue other than their parents, so they can feed a budding gambling addiction longer without supervision, increasing the risk of addiction. 16 year olds don't belong in casinos, nor should they be engaging with loot box gambling.

by mikkupikku

3/14/2026 at 4:12:51 PM

Ugh, Panini sticker albums and Topps trading cards were my loot boxes as a kid. Far too much money trying to get those last couple you need. Fiends.

by qingcharles

3/14/2026 at 9:43:39 AM

> but not the same level of destructive activity as gambling for cash

... are you sure?

by nottorp

3/14/2026 at 10:08:55 AM

Yes, I am very sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_odds_betting_terminal

Buying Pokemon cards in the hope of getting a specific rare one is a pretty niche form of addiction. Compared to walking into a shop, putting in £100 and getting nothing back, then another £100, then another, in the hope of getting £500... it's a lot more accessible, and can easily wipe out your life savings.

Perhaps it's like arguing "which is more lethal, a gun or a screwdriver?", and you're arguing on a technicality that if you're really persistent then they're equally lethal as you can get the job done with a screwdriver, but you're overlooking how much easier the gun makes it.

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 11:09:33 AM

Isn't this Fixed odds betting terminal how most slots work in North America as well? I'm aware of a few places where it isn't required. But the reality is if your RTP is something like 10%, not many people are coming by that often

by sidewndr46

3/14/2026 at 12:40:05 PM

A fixed-odds betting terminal is a type of slot machine. But unlike other categories of slot machine, it was (at one time) allowed a maximum bet of £100 and a maximum payout of £500. The RTP was around 95%, but allowing such a large maximum bet meant you could easily lose a lot of money, very quickly.

In 2019, the regulations changed to make the maximum bet £2 (50 times lower), in line with most other slot machines.

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/authorities/guide/page...

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 10:31:02 AM

And having a smaller addiction rate makes it any more moral?

by nottorp

3/14/2026 at 10:47:44 AM

Yes, it does. Only Sith deal in absolutes. You can say the same about, let's say alcohol. For most it's an entertaining social lubricant. For a much smaller number, it leads them to wreck and ruin. Is it therefore a wicked evil sin that no God-fearing person should engage in, and I'm going to ban it to protect the morality of society?

The USA tried that out with Prohibition, and only after years of misery and gangsters taking up power did they realise their mistake. Moral absolutism doesn't work, problem management does.

Per the Gambling Commission in their call for evidence from a few years ago:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-gam...

> Gambling is a popular leisure pursuit in Britain. Last year, 47% of adults surveyed had taken part in at least one form of gambling in the previous four weeks [...] Gambling can be entertaining and sociable, and enhance enjoyment of other activities, and the vast majority of gamblers take part without suffering even low levels of harm. [...]

> However, gambling does come with risks, and problem gambling can ruin lives, wreck families, and damage communities [...] approximately 0.5% of the adult population are problem gamblers [...] this rate has remained broadly steady around or below 1% for the past 20 years and now equates to about 300,000 individuals whose gambling is also likely to cause harm to those around them

> This Review seeks to ensure that people can continue to gamble but that the legislation and regulation we have in place addresses as many factors as possible to give the necessary safeguards [...]

Evidence tells you plainly that different forms of gambling are not equal, and don't have the same power to trigger problem gambling in individuals. Coin pushers at seaside amusement parks with a maximum "bet" of 10p are not in the same league as fixed-odds roulette in a run-down high street with a £100 maximum bet. Lootboxes have some level of risk of causing harm, but not that level of risk.

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 12:34:38 PM

That's all well and good, but then why introduce gambling-like mechanisms (with real money) in new areas where people have not been looking for them, like lootboxes in games or randomized trading cards?

It's a bit as if ice cream shops suddenly decided "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we put alcohol into most of our sorts? It's just tiny amounts and alcohol-laced sweets have a long history already, so what's the harm?"

by xg15

3/14/2026 at 3:28:14 PM

My favourite ice-cream is rum and raisin, by the way...

I guess I'd say the thing to do is to measure harms with direct evidence (e.g. this many people get addicted to lootboxes, they spend this much of their money, etc.) rather than seek an imperfect analogy with an existing but different harm. Lootboxes and fake FOMO are both techniques used by video game producers to fatten their bottom lines by psychologically manipulating their playerbase, let's get that regulated and set controls on it (audience, age limits, frequency, openness, etc.) rather than argue where it lies in the games-of-chance spectrum.

by amiga386

3/14/2026 at 3:20:51 AM

If you're forbidding people from doing things they could do yesterday, it's best to be a little conservative with your scope.

16-yo kids might do some amount of part time work, and should at least have enough of a concept of money to understand why pressing the "more loot boxes" button is a Bad Idea. They're also old enough that they might potentially have their own bank account and their own card, which then caps the damages to their allowance.

by pdpi

3/14/2026 at 3:43:49 AM

That would require extra work to pass more legislation which has a chance to fail. I think it's better to do it all once instead of having to revisit the issue every couple years.

by charcircuit

3/14/2026 at 3:46:26 AM

So what's the issue then? The minimum is 16 - or are you proposing kids 15 and younger have the right to gamble?

by tjpnz

3/14/2026 at 7:57:02 AM

It’s not like if it fails, you’re forbidden from trying again, yeah? Or am I incorrect on this? Not European.

by kulahan

3/14/2026 at 10:17:39 AM

Age of majority is a whole mess. For example, the UK is busy reducing the voting age to 16 (from 18) for the next election, but simultaneously they are requiring online age verification to restrict much of the internet to 18+...

by swiftcoder

3/14/2026 at 8:31:21 AM

You can buy trading cards in lots of stores. Pokémon, soccer and so on. It's hard to draw a line without banning those as well.

by notrealyme123

3/14/2026 at 8:53:40 AM

Pokémon can probably have it's immense (and insane) secondary market attributed to its gambling-esque qualities. It'd be perfectly fine if people could play with decks they chose and cards were sold at a uniform price, provided the game itself is balanced - which is to say gambling elements in these things are probably by design.

by hkt

3/14/2026 at 8:48:33 AM

So much that could be done with those. Mandating age checks. Covering at least 80% of them with warnings about gambling. Maybe plain packaging and only allowing them from behind counter or unmarked automated systems. Treat them as tobacco products.

by Ekaros

3/14/2026 at 11:40:08 AM

You can just ban them. Pass a law that says if someone buys an item the identity of which is undisclosed, and they're not happy with it, they're entitled to a full refund.

by thaumasiotes

3/14/2026 at 11:48:16 AM

Hm, my phone's IMEI doesn't end in 00000

by lostmsu

3/14/2026 at 11:10:12 AM

OK, we mandate age checks. But what is the minimum age? Am I in trouble if I make a straw purchase of that product for someone else?

by sidewndr46

3/14/2026 at 2:46:22 AM

Pretty much all of Europe is 18-21.

by idiotsecant

3/14/2026 at 8:26:41 AM

You can still buy mystery boxes etc in brick and mortar stores. Most of these are targeted at <= 10 yo

I strongly believe that this is mostly performative, honestly

by ffsm8

3/14/2026 at 3:35:40 AM

I wish they'd add mandatory labeling. I'm over 16 and have no interest in games with loot boxes.

by hedora

3/14/2026 at 3:44:21 AM

I feel like labeling is probably the best approach here. While I personally hate the business model of "Gatcha" type games and wouldn't mind if we banned lot boxes, it is a model does seem to work for a lot of people.

I also think the odds should also be not only disclosed, but made prominent

by koshergweilo

3/14/2026 at 3:50:49 AM

> "Gatcha" type games

Typically spelled "gacha", although I have to admit that "gotcha" seems apt.

by duskwuff

3/14/2026 at 8:42:44 AM

From ガチャ; the "t" is not really there in the Japanese pronunciation, although it is used for transliteration of English words with T like チケット (chiketto, from ticket)

by pjc50

3/14/2026 at 2:22:44 PM

Labeling and filtering. It's much the same for various app stores. Just let me filter for "In-app purchase", if you have that, I'm not interested anyway.

by mrweasel

3/14/2026 at 2:03:23 PM

Consider using Google.

by blell

3/14/2026 at 7:19:51 AM

I do understand the rationale; and I have known kids who were addicted to gaming. So I don't disagree that this kind of addiction-mechanism in games, is somewhat similar to e. g. casino gambling where some people get hooked up and may be unable to exit that addiction, leading to massive loss. People are different - some are very easy to addict. Others have strategies against that. My simple strategy was to never start gambling - and never pay for playing a game (aside from the initial purchase, but the last game I bought was in the 1990s; back then games were IMO better too, ignoring the graphics).

Having said that, though, when I also combine this news with the attempt to force operating systems into sniffing for my age at all times, I am still totally against this. This kind of over-eager bureaucracy is not good. It reminds me of attempts to prohibit alcohol. Yes, it is not the same, a loot box does not cause physical symptoms really, compared to alcohol or, say, harder drugs - but states seem too eager to want to restrict people. Or monitor them, such as in the case of "age verification". So now this legislation is another basis to support mandatory age sniffing of everyone. So I am completely against it now.

by shevy-java

3/14/2026 at 2:36:03 PM

See the fun thing here is we have fought doing anything at all for so long that the average voter will go with a totally authoritarian system to get anything done at all.

This 'gambling' in games should have been headstompped under the law decades ago, but has instead grown into a huge ravening monster buying every politician it can. Every time you say we can't do anything about said monster you ensure that whatever happens will be extreme.

by pixl97

3/14/2026 at 2:26:09 AM

I never understood why video game lootboxes get regulated while real-life lootboxes like pokemon cards don't.

by nba456_

3/14/2026 at 2:35:57 AM

Because in real life the store clerk won't let a child spend $1000 on their parents card making purchases again and again and again and again and again, but a video game will let a child do it in less than an hour and consider that a success and try to understand how to stimulate another child to do so.

by benoau

3/14/2026 at 4:05:46 AM

With the rise of online storefronts and employees who just don't care I beg to differ.

by MiiMe19

3/14/2026 at 5:50:46 AM

Differ all you want. No child will bankrupt a family at a trading card game store. These are physical goods paid in bulk with provisioning and there are laws for returning them.

Another point of contention is the randomness of packs. The way you play is: You save up to buy the entire set of boosters and already get almost all cards you need for competitive or fun play. The rest you need to trade for or buy individually. It is much more of a social interaction than gambling. The value you get from saving up and trading is easily 10x what you get from opening boosters.

That's why you will never see a bunch of kids queued up in front of a counter frothing from the mouth saying "just... one more!"

by nurettin

3/14/2026 at 6:08:19 AM

Allowing trading is a big part of it. Most online games never allow trading the things bought with real money, they get tied to your account. I guess as a way to prevent CC fraud but it still contributes to the issue.

by hiccuphippo

3/14/2026 at 8:01:52 AM

Trading wouldn't work due to online game deflation. They have to set you up in order to retain you. When you open a new account, or are a "returning player" you get a bunch of free/easy to get stuff that took someone else a decade to collect.

by nurettin

3/14/2026 at 9:55:52 AM

It's a double-edged sword. For the seller, the ideal would be getting people just as addicted but not allowing trading, since that increases the average spend required to get a specific desired pull substantially.

by rcxdude

3/14/2026 at 7:20:53 AM

Just to be clear, the biggest problems are associated with games that allow trading.

by JasonADrury

3/14/2026 at 12:21:44 PM

You can't return an opened pack of Pokémon cards and more than you can get your money back for a used lottery ticket. It's absolutely gambling. Low stakes gambling maybe, but it's still gambling.

If you want to allow Pokémon cards and not casinos you have to accept that your rule isn't just "kids can't gamble".

by IshKebab

3/14/2026 at 10:05:38 AM

>No child will bankrupt a family at a trading card game store.

Let the child use a separate debit card? Bank cards are personal and work as an authentication factor.

by GoblinSlayer

3/14/2026 at 11:02:16 AM

> Let the child use a separate debit card?

I remember that cartoon. Was it Richie Rich?

by nurettin

3/14/2026 at 4:47:18 AM

A kid can’t clean out the Pokemon vending machines just the same. I’m in favor of not letting kids gamble but wish it was applied across the board.

by october8140

3/14/2026 at 7:20:42 AM

But that is still a strange argument, because IF the argument is that loot boxes are so dangerous and addictive, why can, say, a 19 years old do it but a 18 years old can not? That makes no logical sense. One year is a magical difference suddenly?

by shevy-java

3/14/2026 at 7:41:21 AM

This is a bit of a silly argument, given all the precedent in real life for this sort of thing.

Can a 16 year old magically drive a car properly, but a 15 year old can't? Is an 18 year old magically much more capable doing their electoral civic duty than a 17 year old? Is a 21 year old magically able to consume alcohol responsibly, but a 20 year old isn't?

(Or whatever age cutoffs are appropriate for your jurisdiction.)

We define these cutoffs not because they are magical or apply equally to everyone, but because we have to draw the line somewhere, in cases where we aren't going to do a blanket all-ages ban. Sometimes the cutoff is chosen poorly, certainly, but that's a problem with the implementation, not the idea itself.

by kelnos

3/14/2026 at 12:57:49 PM

You implicitly assume that age is a proxy for ability, but that's not the reason for these laws. Age is a proxy for membership in a social class where discrimination is permitted. Otherwise we would prevent people from voting, which Americans did with Literacy/IQ tests and Blacks.

The actual reasons is that they hope to have captured the childs' reward system by then. Laura Cress must write articles for the BBC if she stopped she would lose her purpose in life and be forced into rehab, she would experience ego death and ostracization until she builds another system approved skill. Current society is heading off a demographic collapse due to this built up debt.

The real problem is that we have invented a society that is less rewarding than a slot machine, not that humans are somehow built wrong. A slot machine or hard drug can only effectively hack ones physiology, a social system can hack the whole stack at once (Physiology, Emotions, Ego, Social belonging). You can give bad actors the pains of withdrawal, peril, existential crisis and social suicide all in one. There are examples throughout very recent history of each layer being captured more perfectly. Even physiology more perfectly than any drug, think enclosure act, 14 hour workdays in industrial England.

Fine, ban lootboxes, but don't pretend it's to protect youths, it's to utilize "children". society is a massively harmful and evil tool, we must acknowledge that it's pure unadulterated evil that wouldn't blink at killing all youths. This is a fact, not an opinion, morals are just an API for humans that the system uses.

by casey2

3/14/2026 at 8:04:33 AM

Not just that, but this assumes that the average 18 years old has the same mental capacity as the others more or less. Bell curves clearly show the opposite

by ekianjo

3/14/2026 at 8:46:09 AM

Clearly they do and many people can safely do things that are illegal and many people should be prevented from doing things that are legal.

However, we can't set up a force of psychoanalysts to assess every member of society and run chmod on them, so we go with a compromise.

by saulapremium

3/14/2026 at 7:28:11 AM

Because you have to draw a line somewhere, if you want a line.

This same reasoning applies to sex consent, voting, driving, working.

We want to say "only qualified people can do x" but it's impossible to encode this in regulations and it always boils down to the sorites paradox.

So as a culture we have defaulted to "age is a good a proxy for being qualified".

by riffraff

3/14/2026 at 3:34:57 AM

Pokemon cards have gone full circle, GameStop now has an online service where you can gamble on cards digitally just like lootboxes. You buy a roll at different price points to win a PSA graded card from a set of probabilities, and then you can sell it back for 90% market value to GameStop or have them ship it to you.

The proliferation of gambling over so many domains has radicalized me against it in a way that I didn't think would've been possible a few years ago.

by TheAceOfHearts

3/14/2026 at 5:54:07 PM

I have rejected much of my Southern Baptist upbringing - I am pleased that the church I’m now a member of is accepting and affirming of various sexual and gender identities, I have a wide variety of non-Christian friends who I feel no need to convert, and I say a prayer of thanks on a regular basis that I was able to get an abortion without any questions when I had an ectopic pregnancy and support anyone else’s decision about what to do with their own body.

I am right with my late grandfather, a Baptist preacher, on the subject of gambling after watching people back home constantly checking their phones during the college bowl games and periodically sighing and cussing over the performance of teams they had never cared about before.

Between the 24/7 gambling and the easy answers machine being in their pockets (“well, ChatGPT says…”), the resulting brain rot hurts my soul.

by MandieD

3/14/2026 at 4:36:04 AM

Woah, you can sell it back to them? That’s normally the line that isn’t crossed. You sell it at the store next door (pachinko) or on the open market (trading card games and digital items).

by travisjungroth

3/14/2026 at 7:33:47 AM

> The proliferation of gambling over so many domains has radicalized me against it in a way that I didn't think would've been possible a few years ago.

I grew up in Italy when sport betting was illegal and you had to do it through illegal channels, and I did it now and then like everyone else, and thought we should totally make it legal.

At some point all betting, slot machines etc.. became legal and it's been a disaster and I'm also totally radicalized against it.

by riffraff

3/14/2026 at 8:01:04 AM

The best solution is through education. For example by showing in big letters the return-to-player ratio:

On 100 EUR you will get → 79 back, if you put them again in the machine you will get → 62.41 → 49.30 → 38.95 → 30.77…

by rvnx

3/16/2026 at 6:31:02 AM

While I think education matters, I also think at some point if something is purely negative for society one should restrict it, rather than try to reach an ideal state were people are educated enough to handle it right.

It Is illiberal but I don't see an argument beyond the slippery slope one at this point in my life.

by riffraff

3/14/2026 at 12:31:11 PM

Just trying to get normies to understand that slot machines aren't "hot" and "due" for a jackpot because nobody has won recently is virtually impossible. Stats class is hard and people don't really trust what they've learned anyway. A huge portion of the public even believes in such a thing as a person having "good luck". It's nonsensical, tantamount to believing the god of fortune is going to intercede on your behalf, but people really do think this way.

by mikkupikku

3/14/2026 at 3:28:32 AM

Pokemon cards are addictive and fun but they're kind of analogue. Loot boxes are more like slot machines - they have flashing lights, animations and jingles to hook you in deeper. And because the lootboxes are in game they can be tuned in frequency and payout just right to keep you playing in a way boring cards could never be (beyond just boring probabilities)

by djtango

3/14/2026 at 3:43:01 AM

Idk about pokemon cards, but I'm sure the wotc guys use something to make sniffing newly opened packs addicting.

by dietr1ch

3/14/2026 at 3:57:02 AM

That’s funny. I don’t think I’ve opened a pack of Magic cards in about 25 years and I can still remember the smell.

by smelendez

3/14/2026 at 9:56:17 AM

It's a good smell. My kids are opening packs and I can totally recall the sensation of opening mtg cards in the 90s.

by Lutzb

3/14/2026 at 4:23:17 AM

Resale value protects The Pokémon Company. Your child spent all your money on Pokémon cards? Resell the cards. You've just realized your 15 years long obsession has broken your life? Resell the cards.

Aggrieved parties can partly get restoration. That way there never is enough political momentum to legiferate them. Try to resell your Fortnite account and they close it.

by philistine

3/14/2026 at 7:21:59 AM

Reselling never recovers all costs, for most people. I know that because I sold many of my old magic cards when I stopped playing magic (due to lack of time). I recovered about 20% of my expenses at most.

by shevy-java

3/14/2026 at 1:11:50 PM

Which was enough to mollify you and make it impossible for you to think they should legiferate this mess.

by philistine

3/14/2026 at 5:46:48 AM

The single layer of abstraction.

Pokemon cards have utility within the game of pokemon. They additionally have value in secondary market places which is not strictly tied to the rarity of the item. These markets are not required to exist for the game to function.

Lootboxes, especially for competitive games, do not have any utility within the game and are often cosmetic. Their value is strictly tied to the rarity of the item which the vendor fully artificially controls. Absent the secondary markets the cases would not be purchased and the items ignored.

So you have a choice. You can make pay to win items and publish the probabilities of actually winning them. Or you can have items that can't be traded. Otherwise you're trending very close to widely known regulated activity like gambling.

by themafia

3/14/2026 at 6:50:22 AM

Rarity of Pokemon cards is also fully controlled by the vendor, and it's of course very intentional.

by seattle_spring

3/14/2026 at 7:39:23 AM

Pokemon cards can get destroyed or may never enter the market for all the typical reasons or may not be particularly valuable even though they are rare. They don't have nearly as direct a control over the price.

by themafia

3/14/2026 at 2:44:13 AM

Those are gambling too, and were criticize as such not just now but also when they were new (but people ignored that criticism because pokemon was hype and adults complaining about trendy things are always uncool and ignored.)

by mikkupikku

3/14/2026 at 7:29:56 AM

Tradeability. In real life you can just buy the card. That sets a hard upper limit to the losses.

Whereas gacha games and lootboxes are notorious for unpublished, ridiculously bad odds for "desirable" things with no way to outright purchase them.

by bsder

3/14/2026 at 2:53:30 AM

There’s something to be said about the visibility of gambling as a signal to people that someone may have a problem. Gambling on your phone just looks like being on your phone. It even improves access to the addiction. Needing to go to a casino looks a lot different, provides some friction, and could spur intervention. The same could be said about loot boxes vs buying Pokemon cards in a store.

by teeray

3/14/2026 at 3:27:30 AM

I will say card packs are somewhat useful for drafting formats where you need a sealed pack of random unknown cards.

Just ripping packs hurts my soul. What a waste.

by jayd16

3/14/2026 at 2:47:21 AM

When you buy a pokemon card at least you get a card

by idiotsecant

3/14/2026 at 2:43:06 AM

This is the same argument Valve is presenting.

by steele

3/14/2026 at 3:20:05 AM

(Opinions my own, naturally.)

I think they're right, really.

Obviously you need to require enough friction that the experiences are comparable (e.g. no letting someone impulse buy 100 times in half a second without having to re-type their "I am an adult" payment info or something analogous, possibly just a hard ceiling for everyone), but I don't think you can ban everything that touches the same sharp edge, and you can't mandate that parents teach their kids how to handle it.

So I think the best you can do is put hard limits on people's ability to hurt themselves without at least an "are you really sure" check, and maybe something like not allowing cash in the exchange without adult verification so the kids might, at worst, gamble their FunBux they earned playing a game and get burned on having lost a lot of FunBux, rather than their or their parents' cash. (This doesn't stop parents from giving their kids their credit card, but that's not really a problem you can solve...)

by rincebrain

3/14/2026 at 8:50:43 AM

>I don't think you can ban everything that touches the same sharp edge

Why not, though? Is this a general stance against banning anything, or do you think loot boxes, video games and/or kids are different?

by saulapremium

3/14/2026 at 3:40:05 PM

I do, generally, think that banning (or legalizing) things in their entirety is often ineffective, and if you just make them entirely and equally illegal/legal you no longer have any levers to stop people making them as toxic as possible. (Look at how insanely pinpoint-targeted at addiction exploitation sports betting has become in the US, for example.)

In this specific case, it's because I don't think you can whack-a-mole things that tickle the addictive feedback loops in people's brains everywhere faster than people can engineer their ways around it or find new ways to exploit things that do those same things without being caught in the laws, so I think you need to both:

- raise the cost of making it too painful for people who aren't self-moderating enough and keep the most lethal edges off it (e.g. ceilings on how much you can spend, making you have to take active action that takes more than a few seconds so you can't impulse-click and blow a fortune on One More Hit, no feedback mechanisms that incentivize spending more when you already spent a lot...)

- limit how harmful it can be to people who are too young and haven't yet learned what it does to them and that they need to be careful (e.g. use something like having access to a credit card you can input on request as a proxy for verifying you're an adult, and try to ensure any of the foam padded Kid Slot Machines(tm) can't be traded in a useful fashion for cash or paid for with cash, even with verification)

In some sense, the original video games with this kind of feedback loop were arcade games - you got a variable amount of reward for your input token, and they had to give you enough to convince you to keep doing it. Microtransactions with lootboxes are just that feedback loop taken to the logical limit, but I don't necessarily think people who hate microtransactions would consider games like that as a similar evil, precisely because, like physical blind boxes, the quantization and scale is so much smaller, and it's so much higher friction to blow a fortune on it.

by rincebrain

3/14/2026 at 11:11:01 AM

Given their track record with Artifact, I don't think we should listen to them on the topic.

by Archit3ch

3/14/2026 at 3:13:22 AM

Physicality. You don’t even own digital games, let alone cosmetics for your digital game license.

by gmadsen

3/14/2026 at 3:35:01 AM

Because neither loot boxes nor Pokémon cards are actually that addicting. There is no strong link to actual gambling and these mechanics. The reason loot boxes get regulated at all is because people simply don’t like them, and they scream the loudest for someone to fix it. Very bad precedent.

by EQmWgw87pw

3/14/2026 at 2:38:23 AM

should probably just ban gambling for children but seems like a good first step.

by yacin

3/14/2026 at 5:41:32 PM

Tbh, pokemon cards were already banned over here in many primary school playgrounds 20 years ago. Not because of "gambling", but because rule disputes and outright theft started too many teen fisticuffs.

by PeterStuer

3/14/2026 at 3:13:46 AM

Okay? How will this actually change anything?

I don't think I have ever paid attention to a single age rating in my entire life. Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?

Very spiritually European move.

What regulators should do is focus on easily applicable percentage-based fines. Make sure it's not just another line item.

by erxam

3/14/2026 at 7:48:12 AM

> I don't think I have ever paid attention to a single age rating in my entire life.

You mean when you've selected games for yourself to play? That's... fine.

If you mean when you've selected (or allowed) games for your kids to play, that's... pretty irresponsible.

by kelnos

3/14/2026 at 9:31:05 AM

> Okay? How will this actually change anything?

It's my understanding that lots of parents use these numbers as guidance. I will make my own decisions about what my child can play, but the ratings and all the labels makes it much much easier to make an informed decision.

For the parents that are not into gaming, being able to just go by these numbers is much better than having no such guidance.

> Does anyone do outside of fundamentalist parents who wouldn't let kids play most video games anyways?

Yes. In fact I believe they help breaking down the fundamentalism by making it so clear that gaming is not inherently bad or good for your child. It all depends on the content.

by jeppester

3/14/2026 at 7:21:10 AM

Having age ratings is useful so I dont have to play a game to know its age suitability. Its common for very young children to play games, and age ratings help parents make informed responsible decisions. There are some dark addictive patterns being used in gaming such as changing the odds of reward to optimise engagement (and make money) - these patterns need an age rating. Additionally, I think age ratings encourage developers to avoid content which would increase the age rating, since they then target a wider audience.

by DanielBryars

3/14/2026 at 4:10:01 AM

This is not a regulators move. This is the industry slightly adjusting their recommendations to parents. Will this change anything? Maybe it will help the industry avoid being targeted by actual regulation.

by edelbitter

3/14/2026 at 9:21:39 AM

We won't know until we try it.

This law in worst case doesn't cause any problems and in best case solve problems. So win-win.

by debesyla

3/14/2026 at 3:36:52 AM

Well, this is going along with all the new requirements for companies to actually verify ages, so it won't be up to the parents.

by cortesoft

3/14/2026 at 3:19:00 PM

Yes parents I know use them. Including me. I check labels, apply my own opinions on what matters and what does not and decide what I allow.

I am not interested in playing hours of videogames to be able to decide. Not in googling through ai-slop and idiotic gamer videos to find out what is in.

by watwut

3/14/2026 at 3:02:09 AM

Ok, so we all agreed that it is gambling. But for some reason we let kids gamble but only after they reach sixteen? This feels weird.

by hsuduebc2

3/14/2026 at 5:30:55 AM

Kids have different maturities and should face increasing responsibilities as they age.

by wbl

3/14/2026 at 3:49:52 AM

I guess it's not gambling, or it'd be covered by the UKs existing laws around gambling that set the minimum age to 18.

edit: I'm pointing out the UK has apparently decided lootboxes are not gambling, because if they did classify it as gambling it'd be covered by existing gambling laws that restrict it to 18+.

Not that I personally hold that opinion, though I can see how I could have phrased my original message better.

It's a stupid decision by the government, they should be 18+ and recognised for being gambling.

by Twirrim

3/14/2026 at 6:35:00 AM

> I'm pointing out the UK has apparently decided lootboxes are not gambling

Wow, considering how the UK has been going full Taliban on everything why stop at lootboxes? Guess the politicians are getting some money/bribes from the lootbox companies.

by Razengan

3/14/2026 at 2:23:09 PM

There's a nuance here. Consider these two positions that both mean that the UK Government does not currently recognise lootboxes as a form of gambling:

A: The UK Government has decided that lootboxes are not gambling. B: The UK government has not decided whether lootboxes are gambling or not.

The current situation is a lot closer to B than A. The UK Government has decided not to extend the existing Gambling laws to cover video game loot boxes. The existing laws did not automatically cover them, so a decision has to be made whether to amend the laws or not. Instead it has asked the industry to self-regulate. In 2022 there was a review that asked for improvements, restricting some access and mandatory spending controls. There have been other reviews and studies.

It seems quite clear that the industry is not doing enough (no surprise, it's a cash cow for them) so it's likely to mean the Government will crank up the legislation to force their hand, but the wheels of Government move slowly; way too slowly for many people who have been affected by this.

by alexfoo

3/14/2026 at 3:41:45 AM

Brain development of a 16 year old is at least further along than a 13 year old.

by tjpnz

3/15/2026 at 4:06:37 AM

Well ok, but why they do not allow them other type of gambling. This is not "child gambling". It's just gambling.

by hsuduebc2

3/14/2026 at 6:42:16 AM

Yet again more moves which take away the liberty of all citizens and users instead of restricting predatory companies and products..

How much access to money parents want to give their kids is up to the parents.

What people do with their own money, including kids, is up to the people.

WHY are countries not enacting laws that punish companies for once? Say something like:

• "After 3-5 purchases of the same item with random contents the buyer should get the content they specifically want."

• "No item with random contents should cost more than N $\€"

• "Buyers should have N-M hours to get a refund for an item with random contents"

That way you could keep the "fun" and spirit of gambling without its destructive spiral and stuff

by Razengan

3/14/2026 at 7:21:40 AM

How does an age recommendation take away liberties?

I have kids and as a parent I use these ratings as a very loose guide combined with my own experience and understanding of the game in question. Other parents ignore them completely.

I agree more could be done to directly affect the companies, and there have been a lot of legal cases surrounding loot boxes aimed at children.

But this is a good complement to that. It makes it easier for parents to get aware of the issue.

by Agentlien

3/14/2026 at 7:25:12 AM

> How does an age recommendation take away liberties?

For instance, by being used in further legislation to mandate age verification on all operating systems. Lo and behold, that is already happening - see California.

One can not view a single law and assume it is isolated, when in reality this is a move by lobbyists to further restrict people and sniff after them (see MidnightBSD giving in and adding a daemon that sniffs for user data; I am 100% certain systemd on Linux will follow suit, via a new systemd-sniffy daemon). Some companies pay good money for such legislation. So the answer to your question is very simple, actually. You just should not view it as an isolated way while ignoring everything else - lobbyists are sneaky. It reminds me of Google claiming it has no problem with ad-blockers, then they went on to destroy ublock origin (https://ublockorigin.com/).

by shevy-java

3/14/2026 at 7:30:30 AM

I'm skeptical because this is not a new system part of those lobbyist agendas. This is a recommendation system which has been in effect for over 20 years. And this is a tweak to how they update recommendations.

by Agentlien

3/14/2026 at 7:27:40 AM

> How does an age recommendation take away liberties?

They've already enacted mandatory age-verification-via-ID to use apps/features.

It seems they're gonna put as many "gates/fences" at every N age years to make sure they can surveil as many people in distinct age brackets as possible.

Up next: Be of at least N years to watch cartoons with animated violence?

by Razengan

3/14/2026 at 8:58:37 AM

That didn't really answer the question.

by saulapremium

3/14/2026 at 7:54:07 AM

Adjusting an age-ratings system doesn't take liberty away from anyone. Parents can still allow their kids to play whatever games the parent deems is ok.

I agree with some of your other points, though: we should have legally mandated return periods for this sort of thing. Not sure how you'd enshrine price limits into law, though; that seems impractical.

by kelnos

3/14/2026 at 11:10:59 AM

> Not sure how you'd enshrine price limits into law, though; that seems impractical.

Thinking in childrens' terms:

• Any microtransaction <$1 is fine, up to 10 per week or 20 per month or whatever

• Anything between $1-$10 should be more limited

• Anything $10 or above should be limited to 1 per week

• No microtransaction should cost more than 50% of the game's own full price, if the game isn't free

by Razengan

3/14/2026 at 9:32:31 AM

That is just equalizing forms of gambling tho

"Traditional" gambling is already not allowed below 18yo

by PunchyHamster

3/14/2026 at 1:40:49 PM

Great first step. Thanks EU for yet another concrete consumer W!

by Zopieux

3/14/2026 at 4:18:49 AM

[dead]

by newzino

3/14/2026 at 9:13:24 AM

[flagged]

by aboardRat4

3/14/2026 at 9:15:56 AM

Yeah, kids should be able to wander into bookies and place bets as they please. Let's let them buy cigarettes too while we're at it.

by messe

3/14/2026 at 9:32:15 AM

I don't know, maybe I'm an old fart, but I hadn't held a sum of money large enough to buy a pack of cigarettes until I turned 16.

I presume my parent knew what they were doing, so, yeah, nanny state.

by aboardRat4

3/14/2026 at 10:43:03 AM

Regulating gambling is not "nanny state", esp in relation to kids. Your personal experience as a kid, about whether you had money or not, is completely irrelevant as an argument.

by freehorse

3/14/2026 at 10:51:30 AM

Not at all. My experience in this case indicates that there is a correct behavioural pattern which avoids the issue entirely and requires zero government's intervention.

But if you insist on having a regulation, okay, I'm fine with it. What about the following regulation: each time a minor is found gambling or smoking, his/her parents are fined 100x times the stake/the price of cigarettes?

by aboardRat4

3/14/2026 at 8:22:09 PM

So now you've made it impossible to actually stop a child from smoking. They're free to smoke as much as they want, because it's the parents that get punished, not them. And regardless of who gets punished, the fact remains, they can go to the store and buy cigarettes.

You really think not being given money by parents is going to stop kids from accessing smokes?

by throaway197512

3/14/2026 at 5:54:33 AM

I think this is good, but also it will change things very little (parents will skip the age verification screen).

by otikik

3/14/2026 at 6:51:54 AM

It’s not for technology to replace parents in their responsibilities to teach their kids how to cope with stuff of life.

Age ratings are an aid but still require passing good habits and developing your child’s ability to think and solve this for themselves. So not letting your kids get addicted to in-app purchases sounds like good parenting. Keeping your kids away from tablets and smartphones until they’re 16 is even better parenting.

by isodev

3/14/2026 at 7:44:38 AM

Which, frankly, is fine. Regulations like this are great to help guide parents, but ultimately it is the parent's responsibility to decide what is fine and not fine for their child. I wouldn't agree with a parent that gets their kid into loot boxes, but that's their choice.

And if a parent is blindly skipping an age verification screen for their kid without figuring out why that age verification is there in the first place, then they're a bad parent. You can't really fix that, unfortunately, outside of extreme cases.

by kelnos

3/14/2026 at 9:57:50 AM

It’s in the companies interest to make the age verification screen as annoying as companies make cookie pop ups - to just get the parents to click “yes whatever” all the time.

by hdgvhicv

3/14/2026 at 9:21:43 AM

Loot Boxes are like Pokemon cards, you buy a pack, don't know what you're going to get, and then you can trade or sell them. Banning this is just preventing kids from developing a proper risk/reward instinct later in life.

by ChrisNorstrom

3/14/2026 at 10:02:33 AM

Yeah we should just let 8 year olds into casinos to help them develop their risk reward instinct. Also, the risk reward instinct doesn't work as well when you're gambling moeny someone else earned.

by haritha-j

3/14/2026 at 9:38:57 AM

You can not trade or sell the contents of lootboxes.

by alpaca128

3/14/2026 at 9:31:42 AM

Vast majority of those games don't allow trading or selling the things you got from lootboxes.

And "learning" about gambling doesn't need to happen at 8 years old. What a fucking delusional view

by PunchyHamster

3/14/2026 at 3:50:18 AM

Loot boxes are an in-game feature allowing players to buy random mystery items with real or virtual currency

That's not how I use the term. I think of a loot box as a treasure chest or similar that you discover while exploring which, when opened, gives you some loot!

On the other hand if you're talking about a package with a random assortment of stuff in it that you buy without knowing what's inside, I call that a "grab bag" or "mystery bundle".

Am I too old? What games were primarily responsible for changing the vocabulary?

by rkagerer

3/14/2026 at 4:04:49 AM

The term "loot box" has, since I want to say the early 2010s, referred to the mechanic described in the quote. It's hard for me to say what the earliest games were to create this mechanic, especially since its origin seems not to be in the traditional Western games but in East Asian games.

The model is very strongly associated with the rise of "live service" gaming, with Overwatch and Battlefield being some of the more notorious offenders.

by jcranmer

3/14/2026 at 5:09:35 AM

I was under the impression Eastern games preferred the loan word 'gacha'.

by delta_p_delta_x

3/14/2026 at 8:48:54 AM

Yes, but they're the same mechanic really, so the earliest popular "loot box" game is probably some gacha game.

by debugnik

3/14/2026 at 6:03:52 AM

It’s an expression. You don’t really win them by “exploring”, but by “playing the game”. You end a match? Lootbox. You played 3 days in a row! Lootbox. You opened the options screen? Lootbox.

They usually have a very involved opening animation with music and sounds specifically designed to maximize the feeling of anticipation. Once you see it it feels completely different from what you are describing, because it’s so obviously trying to maximize the gambling aspect of it. It’s like confusing genuine love with prostitution.

by otikik

3/14/2026 at 3:59:21 AM

I started seeing this term come up everywhere when Overwatch first released. The common usage is much closer to mystery bundles as you describe, and regulators tend to be upset about them when real money gets involved. It feels an awful lot like gambling at that point.

by zeta0134

3/14/2026 at 5:41:29 AM

The purchases are purposely similar to previous examples of gameplay in design and language.

by shoxidizer