Loot Boxes, Trading Card Games, Digital or Physical, and Gambling

With all the recent talk on loot boxes, and 'gambling', with many people in the video game industry weighing in with an opinion - why don't we extend out the notion of 'gambling' to other parts the gaming kingdom?

Image Sourced from PixaBay

Trading Card Games are big business, and it is no secret that these make big money. In 1999, Hashbro obtained Wizards of the Coast, the makers of Magic the Gathering for USD$325 million. That was Eighteen years ago. In my country, that means that this relationship is old enough to drink, and adjusted for inflation, would today be a deal worth USD$481 million.

Every single booster box, pack, or expansion purcahsed new, in some shiny foil packaging, is in essence, a loot box. There's a chance you may get something valuable, and there's a chance that you will open up a packet of rubbish. Why is it okay for the trading card industry to leverage a business model akin to gambling, but not the video game industry?

I mean, look at this image, taken from the Magic The Gathering website today:

You're encouraged to buy a box of cards, and in exchange, you get a treasure chest that contains:

I'm sure that each of these cards have a different value assigned to them by the player base and Magic the Gathering economy, but isn't it a bit of a gamble as to what you actually do get in terms of its value in the meta-game or markets for the card?

There's one key counter-argument to this, in that the trading card industry controls the supply of certain cards, and the number that are printed. This is the same with a loot box; however, instead, there's a psudeo-random mathematical chance that you'll get a rare item, instead of relying on what is printed.

This argument is null if we're talking about a commodity, be it one that is tangible and corporeal, or one that is not; the concept is exactly the same, a central, issuing authority is controlling the supply of something that arbitrarily has the label of 'rare', 'common' or 'uncommon' on it, and at any moment, they can change the scarcity or commonality of that commodity.

Here in Australia, an article by Kotaku contributor Alex Walker reveals that the action of a student, inquiring to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Association, receiving a response that matter of factually stating:

... what occurs with "loot boxes" does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation.

In Australia, you can't gamble unless you're over 18. Until very recently, we didn't have a video game classification for 18+ games. So, if legislation changes in such a way that loot boxes are declared "gambling", this means that every single video game sold in Australia, if it contained loot boxes, would need to be classified as an 18+ game, or not feature loot boxes.

Welcome to the nanny state.

Back to my original point. Are Trading Card Games, with their 'booster packs', featuring cards of differing rarity, concerned gambling? There's a reddit post posing this question about Hearthstone. One response says: "Nope because you know you will get 5 cards where 1 will be rare or better".

What if that 1 card is "ultra-rare", or whatever the definition of the trading card mechanism is? If you buy two packs in the hope of getting an ultra-rare, then isn't that betting that you might get something rarer than rare? Again, with Hearthstone being a digital trading card game, the point is moot - there's an infinite supply, but again; there's the same common trend - a central authority is issuing something that can be common, uncommon, rare, or whatever you want to define as scarce.

Old, out of print, sealed, and unopened Magic the Gathering booster packs go for large sums on money on ebay. This 3rd Edition, Revised, Factory Sealed Booster Box, is going for USD$5,000, with 90 watchers, and there are eight available from the seller.

The description doesn't state what could be in this box, however, a quick google search reveals that some dual land cards are worth over $100 each.

Again, ignore the fact that the cards I'm talking about here are over a decade old. The fact of the matter remains - an object is usually only worth the total sum cost of the energy that went into producing it - this is its intrinsic value. The value of these pieces of card, arbitrarily issued by a central authority, opens up on the free market place; which does, in essence, invite those who purchase into the system to think "what if I get a really rare, valuable card in this booster"?

Isn't that a gamble?

One YouTube video, with over 5 million views, has a person open a 'vintage' set of Magic the Gathering cards, revealing the rarest card in the Magic the Gathering Universe, the Black Lotus. This card alone is worth many thosuands of dollars today, however; collectors back in the day may not have been aware of its future worth. It is a physical good, unlike a digital "loot box"commodity, which, additionally, cannot easily be traded.

The whole concept of ownership comes into play here - when you're in control of a digital good, that may be rare, valuable or sought after, you may have no control over how you officially transfer or trade this. Counter Strike: Global Offensive, for example, has an array of valuable knives and rare skins that players lust for.

Valve allows players to sell these on the open market, in exchange for Steam store credit, however; other economies have risen and fallen for such digital goods; outside of the 'official terms' with Valve, having said that they frown upon things that they can't control.

Ignore that in game items have been used as currency for in-game gambling regarding who is going to win a certain match at a competitive or scrim level, and you take the question to another level.

The key point that I am trying to make here is that you can't draw a line in the sand. Almost every exchange of currency, or value, however that is defined by the individuals, boils down to an exchange of the effort, energy, and scarcity of that commodity.

If I can't trade what comes inside a loot box to someone else, and it is bound to me forever, and gives me an advantage in game; as a "pay to win" meta-unbalancing item, versus a cosmetic upgrade; that's technically a gamble me, and everyone else who plays that game; takes. The house, they always win, just like in real world casinos. They get a constant influx of money.

You also can't ignore the fact of Star Wars: Battlefront II, and its controversy over lootboxes, and the single most downvoted comment of Reddit history. I have the lootbox, Luke. This is one of the catalysts of this debate, and I'm sure that if the trend continues, and this revenue stream becomes something sustainable for the industry (like Valve selling keys to open Counter Strike or DOTA2 crates) - then I would state with some certainty that we could see this activity pervade single player games, and I'm willing to make a prediction that the next Triple A Fallout or Elder Scrolls single player game may just well feature such mechanics.

I know for a fact that Grand Theft Auto 6 will probably include it for shits and giggles.