Said this elsewhere, but it seems to me a bigger story that it also mandates age verification for 18 plus content, including porn and at the platform level.
Steam needs to verify your age now if it wants to carry porn games, or indeed any 18+ games.
And I do have problems with the loot box regulation, in that it doesn't qualify the boxes having to be paid, so technically Diablo II should be a 18+ game, along with every single RPG in existence. I have to assume courts or downstream definitions will do a sanity check on that, because the law they passed makes zero qualifiers, it just says "loot boxes".
So... maybe look into what they passed before being too celebratory about it?
They also mandate parental controls being present, which I do agree with and should have been enough. Of course that would not have changed anything, since they're already present in pretty much all current platforms.
EDIT: To clarify, someone questioned the unpaid loot boxes definition and on double check, they do define them as paid, so scratch that part. The age verification requirement is present, though.
I had to translate the law but it does seem to define lootboxes as something you purchase. But legal texts are very specifically worded so I can't be sure some nuance didn't get lost in translation.
I wrote a first response referencing the one mention I had found of loot boxes, but you are correct, I missed that they did include one in the definitions section. They reference them slightly differently so the first time I looked I only found one of the two.
IV – caixa de recompensa: funcionalidade disponível em certos jogos eletrônicos que permite a aquisição, mediante pagamento, pelo jogador, de itens virtuais consumíveis ou de vantagens aleatórias, resgatáveis pelo jogador ou usuário, sem conhecimento prévio de seu conteúdo ou garantia de sua efetiva utilidade;
So yeah, you are right, they do define it as paid. Carry on.
Art. 20. São vedadas as caixas de recompensa (loot boxes) oferecidas em jogos eletrônicos direcionados a crianças e a adolescentes ou de acesso provável por eles, nos termos da respectiva classificação indicativa.
Not as far as I can tell. This translates to "Loot boxes offered in electronic games aimed at children and teenagers or likely to be accessed by them, in the terms of the corresponding age rating".
You can argue that "offered" here specifically implies "offered for purchase", but... I mean, my Brazilian Portuguese isn't perfect, but I don't think that's explicitly the case, the word means what you think it means in English. It'd be a problem of hermeneutics at that point.
Is that the reasonable interpretation? Sure. Is that what the legislator probably intended? Almost certainly. It's not what they wrote, though.
This doesn't affect me (yet) as I don't play any games with paid loot boxes (ew), but this is gonna be the age verification shit?! This sets a troubling standard for privacy and security. I guess it had to happen where I live as well.
The parents should be the ones that don't let their kids to pay for stuff in video games without permission, or at least give them a budget they're allowed to spend on video games, i guess.
For those protections to have any effect in Brazil, however, they'll necessitate the usage of age-verification mechanisms. Previously, Brazilian law had considered it sufficient for users of digital services to self-declare their age. The new law, however, requires the providers of those services to "take proportionate, auditable and technically secure measures to assess the age or age range of users."
Seriously, read things before reacting to them.
It's been decades of social media and centuries of press. How have we not learned about this as a society?
I mean, if you're cool with this, then you're cool with this and we disagree, but I'm gonna say you probably were going out of the headline alone.
Super hard disagree. I do like me some Magic the Gathering and CCGs in general. If anything I'm say more concerned with the increasing trend of real world blind pack collectibles aimed exclusively at kids than I am with online loot boxes, which is something most of the industry has abandoned anyway after the panic went viral.
But nope, absolutely not. Loot boxes aren't worth forcing online age verification any more than porn was a few months ago when we were all mad because the UK did it. Parental controls? Absolutely. Mandatory identification? Not at all.
And absolutely not, I am an adult and if I want to gamble online, let alone buy loot boxes in a videogame, I absolutely should be able to do that.
So is alcohol and I will have a beer regardless of what you or anybody else thinks about it. Screw you, you don't get to monitor my addictions, I'm a big boy.
The UK has challenge 25 laws that mean that you only need to show ID if you look like you're under 25. So no you don't always need to provide ID to purchase alcohol, at least not in puritan shitholes.
20 Comments
MudMan@fedia.io · 18 pts · 344d
Said this elsewhere, but it seems to me a bigger story that it also mandates age verification for 18 plus content, including porn and at the platform level.
Steam needs to verify your age now if it wants to carry porn games, or indeed any 18+ games.
And I do have problems with the loot box regulation, in that it doesn't qualify the boxes having to be paid, so technically Diablo II should be a 18+ game, along with every single RPG in existence. I have to assume courts or downstream definitions will do a sanity check on that, because the law they passed makes zero qualifiers, it just says "loot boxes".So... maybe look into what they passed before being too celebratory about it?
They also mandate parental controls being present, which I do agree with and should have been enough. Of course that would not have changed anything, since they're already present in pretty much all current platforms.
EDIT: To clarify, someone questioned the unpaid loot boxes definition and on double check, they do define them as paid, so scratch that part. The age verification requirement is present, though.
Goodeye8@piefed.social · 7 pts · 344d
I had to translate the law but it does seem to define lootboxes as something you purchase. But legal texts are very specifically worded so I can't be sure some nuance didn't get lost in translation.
MudMan@fedia.io · 4 pts · 344d
I wrote a first response referencing the one mention I had found of loot boxes, but you are correct, I missed that they did include one in the definitions section. They reference them slightly differently so the first time I looked I only found one of the two.
So yeah, you are right, they do define it as paid. Carry on.
MudMan@fedia.io · 3 pts · 344d
Not as far as I can tell. This translates to "Loot boxes offered in electronic games aimed at children and teenagers or likely to be accessed by them, in the terms of the corresponding age rating".
You can argue that "offered" here specifically implies "offered for purchase", but... I mean, my Brazilian Portuguese isn't perfect, but I don't think that's explicitly the case, the word means what you think it means in English. It'd be a problem of hermeneutics at that point.
Is that the reasonable interpretation? Sure. Is that what the legislator probably intended? Almost certainly. It's not what they wrote, though.
callyral@pawb.social · 7 pts · 344d
This doesn't affect me (yet) as I don't play any games with paid loot boxes (ew), but this is gonna be the age verification shit?! This sets a troubling standard for privacy and security. I guess it had to happen where I live as well.
The parents should be the ones that don't let their kids to pay for stuff in video games without permission, or at least give them a budget they're allowed to spend on video games, i guess.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 343d
Shit should be banned across the board not just for kids. Idk why the fuck authorities are obsessed with kids.
callyral@pawb.social · 3 pts · 343d
It's so they can say "protect the children"
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 342d
I guarantee it is.
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 342d
--The Simpsons
HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 344d
Common Brasil W
Hirom@beehaw.org · 0 pts · 344d
Good move. Loot box is gambling. Most have learned gambling is dangerous, especially for minors.
MudMan@fedia.io · 1 pts · 344d
Seriously, read things before reacting to them.
It's been decades of social media and centuries of press. How have we not learned about this as a society?
I mean, if you're cool with this, then you're cool with this and we disagree, but I'm gonna say you probably were going out of the headline alone.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 344d
Either that or we ban loot boxes for everyone — which is the better choice, IMO.
MudMan@fedia.io · -1 pts · 344d
Super hard disagree. I do like me some Magic the Gathering and CCGs in general. If anything I'm say more concerned with the increasing trend of real world blind pack collectibles aimed exclusively at kids than I am with online loot boxes, which is something most of the industry has abandoned anyway after the panic went viral.
But nope, absolutely not. Loot boxes aren't worth forcing online age verification any more than porn was a few months ago when we were all mad because the UK did it. Parental controls? Absolutely. Mandatory identification? Not at all.
And absolutely not, I am an adult and if I want to gamble online, let alone buy loot boxes in a videogame, I absolutely should be able to do that.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 344d
I don’t care. Loot boxes are gambling, which is addictive and frankly evil.
MudMan@fedia.io · 0 pts · 344d
So is alcohol and I will have a beer regardless of what you or anybody else thinks about it. Screw you, you don't get to monitor my addictions, I'm a big boy.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 344d
And guess what: you need to show ID to purchase alcohol. Great analogy.
TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 344d
The UK has challenge 25 laws that mean that you only need to show ID if you look like you're under 25. So no you don't always need to provide ID to purchase alcohol, at least not in puritan shitholes.