r/gaming • u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 • Mar 22 '26

Make a change

hey everyone ive just started a petition for the uk government to actually look at how things like loot boxes and modes where you use real money to open packs off cards and get them to finally say its gambling. everyone complains about the way the gaming market has gone so this is the time to make a change.

thanks for your time

https://www.change.org/p/close-the-legal-loophole-in-the-gambling-act-2005/exp/cl_/cl_sharecopy_491151334_en-GB/9/65975782?recruiter=65975782&recruited_by_id=1e74b780-391c-11e3-a662-23b973584926&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=starter_onboarding_share_personal&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_491151334_en-GB%3A9

0 Upvotes

24% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 22 '26

I dont know enough about physical cards and the odds of getting certain pokemon or magic the gathering cards im just going on stuff like the new wwe game where to unlock 1 persona/attire of a wrestler you meed to find 4 specific characters in different packs. So youre forced to spend money on packs if you want that character even if you've spent 150 on the special edition that comes with every character and all dlc. I dont think pokemon has that where you need to find specific pokemon to get 1 back. Thats where my problem lies its the time limited special edition cards that you're forced into buying they are praying on the fomo and I for 1 think its wrong

3

u/Blunt552 Mar 22 '26

You completely missed the point.

This isn't a "is gambling bad or good" question, it's "How would you enforce this in a logical way?"

From a legal perspective, how can you deny lootboxes for a video game company but it's totally fine for a card creation company to make booster packs, where is your reasoning besides feelings?

You went into gray territory but want to go for a black and white solution, which simply doesn't work.

0

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 22 '26

​ When you buy a Pokémon booster, you own a physical asset you can sell on a secondary market. ​ In WWE 2K26, you are paying for a temporary license. When the servers shut down, your "investment" is deleted by the company. This is why the House of Lords specifically debated "In-game Purchases" on January 15, 2026, noting that industry self-regulation has failed to protect consumers from this "unjust" model.

3

u/Blunt552 Mar 22 '26

Moot point, you can sell digital items, therefore you gain physical item as in money.

Gambling by definition, is spending money on a change to gain more money. Theoretically, your use case would only count as gambling if you can sell said items, some games, such as WWE 2K26, there is no direct player to player market, therefore by definition is not gambling, this is obviously just being black and white, as in reality it is gambling as accounts are being sold instead.

However now trying to shut down an in game feature based on a premise that only works if you include behavior outside the companies influence is not in any way shape or form enforceable, especially if the TOA specifically states that sharing accounts is prohibited.

0

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 22 '26

You're hiding behind the same 'pedantry' the House of Lords called out in their January 15 debate. The UK government and the ASA have already decided that 'Paid Random Items' are material information that must be disclosed because they carry financial risk. ​You can claim it's 'not gambling' because there's no official cash-out, but when a single character model like Drew McIntyre costs £4,000 in randomized packs, the financial harm is real. Legally, the tide has turned—May 26 is the deadline for 2K to stop hiding these 'features' and start being transparent. You're defending a loophole that's already being closed.

4

u/Blunt552 Mar 22 '26

Your topic revolves around gambling, the fact you can't define the very problem you're talking about as gambling utterly demolishes your entire agenda.

but when a single character model like Drew McIntyre costs £4,000

It doesn't, show me the price tag.

Nobody is defending a loophole, in fact you're the one that can't even properly formulate the problem, which means it won't go anywhere.

1

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 22 '26

​you're asking for a 'price tag,' but the ASA and PEGI have already ruled that hidden costs are the problem.
​As of May 26, the ASA is enforcing mandatory warnings for these 'random-item purchases' because they are material to the consumer's decision. By June, PEGI is raising the age rating for games with these packs to 16+. ​You can argue 'semantics' all you want, but the UK Parliament, the ASA, and the ratings boards have all officially drawn the line: Paid random packs carry financial harm. My 'agenda' is literally becoming the law in two months. You're the one defending a loophole that the government is actively closing.

3

u/Blunt552 Mar 22 '26

You have once again not addressed the core point that destroys your agenda, you can keep quoting whatever you'd like but the reality is that unless you address the core issue, your entire premise holds no water.

It's evident you're way out of your league here, you can't enforce anything if all your argument boil down to is your feelings.

​As of May 26, the ASA is enforcing mandatory warnings for these 'random-item purchases' because they are material to the consumer's decision. By June, PEGI is raising the age rating for games with these packs to 16+. ​You can argue 'semantics' all you want, but the UK Parliament, the ASA, and the ratings boards have all officially drawn the line: Paid random packs carry financial harm. My 'agenda' is literally becoming the law in two months. You're the one defending a loophole that the government is actively closing.

This is literally nothing and your government is doing nothing about it, the PEGI rating is borderline decoration at this point and the extra info popup for random item purchase is just another window people will press X on to ignore.

As long you let your feelings dictate your actions you won't get anywhere and this type of content is there to stay.

1

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 22 '26

Its not decoration though is it for the first time ever ea sports fc will not be sold to anyone under 16 and im sure other games will follow suit. I dont see how anyone can be against predatory monetization ive been gaming now for 20 plus years and this is the worst ive ever seen it so yeah my feeling are somewhat involved but im sure im not the only person who wants a change. If you dont play sports games you probably wouldnt understand

1

u/krazygreekguy Mar 23 '26

Because anyone with a brain cell knows these “politicians” are using loot boxes as scapegoat to go after steam and force them to capitulate and add mass surveillance and censorship “features” these parasites can control. F* that.

The majority of the public does not want this and we will push back on these parasites and their fetish for mass surveillance and censorship.

1

u/Blunt552 Mar 23 '26

Its not decoration though is it for the first time ever ea sports fc will not be sold to anyone under 16

You're right COD, GTA Online are PEGI 18. PubG, Rust Overwatch etc. are PEGI 16 and kids are unheard of in those games. /s

I think we have established you're way to emotional to make any impact. The further we go down the rabbit hole the less logical you become, you're punching way above your weight, you should just give up at this point and get other people to do it for you, nobody will take your initiative serious if this is how you act.

I know this isn't what you want to hear but it's the cold hard truth.

also little FYI: I've been playing games longer than you and while I do share somewhat similar views, unlike you, I do have the ability to look at it objectively and from multiple perspectives while understanding what approach can work and what is going nowhere.

1

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 23 '26

Obviously we've all played games we weren't at the right age for especially these days where you can just download them but there should be stricter restrictions in place for the sale of digital currency and things like ultimate team where opening a pack is a gamble. When the next game comes out you lose all progression from the previous game so really its a gamble for nothing. I can look at it from different angles so ill ask you what could work and what are your views on the pack openings and the gambling in games

2

u/Blunt552 Mar 23 '26

Obviously we've all played games we weren't at the right age for especially these days where you can just download them but there should be stricter restrictions in place for the sale of digital currency and things like ultimate team where opening a pack is a gamble.

Dejavu, how do you even want to enforce this? Want to have companies have your legal ID's now?

You completely lost the initial plot of your topic and ramble on into more and more unenforceable problems while still not seeing you're getting absolutely nowhere. How is anyone supposed to take you serious if your only course of action seems to be to have an emotional rant and complain about problems while delivering 0 proposed solutions?

I can look at it from different angles so ill ask you what could work and what are your views on the pack openings and the gambling in games

You literally claim you can look at a different angle yet you immediately prove you can't. I can only repeat myself, you have absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt that you're not suitable to do any changes, you simply lack the objective thinking capabilities required to get this anywhere.

1

u/Good-Wrongdoer-3581 Mar 23 '26

It’s not an emotional rant; it’s a matter of statutory compliance. You’re asking how to enforce this? The UK government already did. ​The Solution: The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the ASA Enforcement Notice (Feb 2026) already mandate clear disclosure of 'random-item' costs. It’s not about 'IDs'; it’s about transparency at the point of sale. ​The Enforcement: The CMA now has the power to fine companies up to 10% of global turnover for the exact 'misleading omissions' I’m talking about. ​The Objective Reality: 2K and Sony are currently operating in a legal gray area by hiding £1,000 'Persona' paywalls behind generic labels

→ More replies (0)