LGC 6.10 - Video Games Ratings Restructuring Act

[Brother Jonathan]

I think, so far removed from initial introduction, we should table or reject this version of the bill and let a current member, if any are so inclined, rework it and reintroduce it. I personally think it makes sense to just reject the proposal outright, since I think regional regulations on this issue are unlikely to accomplish much, but I would be willing to try and rework this bill. We should probably a have a current member as a sponsor in any event.

[Brother Jonathan]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

[Brother Jonathan]

The sponsor will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding would be that this bill as amended would only apply to E and E 10+ games. It seems, however, that most of the games which are most problematic in terms of loot boxes, especially when it comes to access of children to such products, are generally rated teen or higher. I wonder if we can go with the approach taken as I understand it by the Netherlands in regulating these, and simply ban all loot boxes that award goods with 'market value' outside of the game. So, benefits in game (new characters or equipment, etc.) would remain legal while those which could be traded in some form would be illegal, as I do think those cross the line into gambling.

I will say, though, that we have to be careful here since it seems a bit difficult to regulate loot boxes simply under the understanding that they are "a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." I think saying that randomized output is equivalent to gambling could put a lot of essentially harmless devices at risk of being regulated in the same way as a slot machines.

I confess I do not have much experience with loot boxes, so if the sponsor or any other member wishes to correct anything I have said, please do so. But in its current form I don't think I could support the legislation and I do not think it will really have the desired effect anyway.

E, E10+, updateable EC games (the rating has been discontinued for future use) and RP (without the likely mature thing) would be covered. I do want to keep the universal ban for these ratings, but we could ban just the "traded form" for T, M, and RP - Likely M. As far as A rated games go, the rating description explicitly states real currency may be used and they are to only be used by legal adults, so it should be safe to leave them alone entirely.

No, merely randomized output like dungeons in Pokémon is not being criminalized. Read the entire clause at issue. "1. Lootbox shall be defined as a consumable virtual item which can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items, usually found as part of certain video games and that can be purchased through the use of real world money." The use of real money must be present, or it is not subject to these regulations.

I understand the "real-world money" part, I was just referring to situations where real world money is exchanged for a random outcome, outside of online environments. But overall, that is a small concern as the proposal only deals with loot boxes anyway.

If we can find language that makes this work across all games in regulating the traded form, I think that would be ideal. I am not sure on the best way to draw the distinction in the bill, though, without creating rather cumbersome systems and allowing pretty subjective judgements in terms of regulating these games. I wonder if this might be an issue better left to the federal government, as I don't know if we have the resources to actually effectively enforce this as a region.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

I think grants would make the most sense. I'd be open to suggestions as to the total per state.

[Brother Jonathan]

Do we have a regulatory body at the regional level which will be charged with enforcing this?

Video games don't have a direct regulatory body, regionally or federally (the ESRB is not actually an agency), but since we're calling this a form of gambling, it would fall under state gambling agencies where those exist. For instance, New Jersey has a "Legalized Games of Chance Commission" and Maine has a "Gambling Control Board". It could also fall under a state agency to regulate gaming, such as Indiana's "Gaming Commission" or Illinois's "gaming board". Where no agency exists, I guess it falls under some NPC commerce person at the regional level (we haven't had formal regional agencies since the days of the Lincoln Assembly, which is nearly four years ago at this point), though the Governor could create a formal regulatory body for this if needed.

I suppose I am just somewhat concerned about delegating enforcement to those bodies, especially when it might require some significant effort in regulating an area many of these boards have much less experience dealing with, namely the internet and digital platforms. I mean is the Maine Gambling Control Board well equipped to launch an investigation into an international online game to ensure compliance with this regulation and to then further attempt enforcement? It seems like this would be better left to a communication commission which deals with internet regulation, rather than to gambling and gaming commissions which, where they exist, are probably not tooled to regulate at such a scope in this particular area. I'm sure some do regulate online and have some experience with enforcing regulations of this kind, but even in those cases this would surely represent a notable expansion of their duties in that sphere, and would likely be taxing on some of their resources.

While we don't currently have a communications commission, not sure one exists federally either(?). I wouldn't be opposed to allocating some reasonable level of funding to the state agencies in the form of grants. Otherwise, we could try to create a regional communications commission. Whichever sounds easier to you I guess.

FCC exists federally.

I think generally, with this cleared up, that it would be better to leave this sort of regulation to the FCC then, as opposed to forcing a patchwork system gaming and gambling commissions, where they exist, to try and regulate online activity in a way that they likely have never done before. I still think we should amend this to include grants so that if it does pass it is more workable, but at this point I think it is better left to a federal body to enforce regulations on the issue.

[Brother Jonathan]

Aye

I still think this should probably be federal, but I am willing to support it with the changes we have worked out.