Despite bringing up the subject, CIJDF's Technical Note recognizes that loot boxes cannot be classified as games of chance
Loved and hated, loot boxes - the surprise boxes of rewards sold in various games - have once again gained the Brazilian spotlight. This is because the Intelligence Center of the Federal District Justice Department (CIJDF) has just issued a Technical Note for discussions and considerations about the monetization of electronic games.
For those who don't know, loot boxes are basically reward boxes that contain random items - such as new characters, skins, and other cosmetics - from a given game. It is very similar to a pack of stickers purchased at a newsstand, in that the consumer does not know which of the eligible prizes he or she will be able to redeem.
In some cases, these reward boxes are given away for free in seasonal events or when you conquer a certain achievement in the game. But most of the time they are sold: either for in-game points or coins, or via microtransactions, which involve buying bundles with real money.
And, well, that's where the Technical Note just released by CIJDF comes in.
Game microtransactions under discussion
The study of the object (which can be accessed through this link) began after CIJDF received letters from the Court of the Children and Youth Court of the Federal District regarding the filing of several public civil actions by a national association that acts in defense of the interests of children and adolescents.
No specific case was mentioned, but the document points to "the defense of the interests of minors against the alleged monetization system presented in the games created/developed/marketed by the defendants" - in this case, the game owners.
It is not difficult to imagine the reason for the complaints: no matter how free a game is, it may increase microtransactions for its users in order to profit from exclusive cosmetics. So the player spends money to buy the loot box, but ends up redeeming a skin that was not the one he wanted.
Such cases are effectively nothing new. There are several recent examples of players who spent thousands of dollars on Diablo Immortal and did not get the desired legendary gem.
But as questionable as microtransactions are, the CIJDF Technical Note mentions the desire on the part of those who work in defense of the interests of children and adolescents to frame loot boxes as games of chance - prohibited since the 1940s.
Consequently, the debate moves on to another point.
Loot boxes vs. gambling
Some people agree with such a framework. After all, box rewards usually range from common items to rare cosmetics. The problem is that these more exclusive items are really hard to come by and luck does make a difference.
But believe me: they are completely different things. At least that's what Marcelo Mattoso Ferreira, partner at Barcellos e Tucunduva Advogados law firm and active in the Games and Sports market, reports.
According to the lawyer, by legal definition (art. 50, §3, paragraph "a" of the Law of Criminal Contraventions), a game of chance is a "game where the gain or loss depends exclusively on luck". In other words, it has to be a game, involve gain or loss, and depend exclusively on luck.
It turns out that loot boxes are not games, but rather, mechanisms within an electronic game. Also, there is no gain or loss involved - no matter how bad the redemption is, it will still be a reward - and the luck factor involved does not have the same weight as in games like casino or derivatives.
"Trying to equalize the practices for comparison purposes generates a sense of false symmetry. This is because they are completely different activities, legally speaking," highlights Ferreira.
In fact, the Technical Note itself mentions the impossibility of framing loot boxes as games of chance - although it mentions this interest by certain parties - since there is no impediment for them to be incorporated into games.
Source: Tecmasters.