EA's got solutions... kinda... not really

 Time for image-fixing

So maybe you've seen me mention lootboxes before? Okay, okay, so maybe I talk about these little things a bit too much but what can I say, I find the grip they hold on the modern gaming landscape morbidly interesting. And no company is willing to put their figurative bacon on the stove for these boxes for than Electronic Arts. If Lootboxes were a Jojo character, EA would be their Stand, as they always show up out of nowhere whenever some vague threat heads their way. And why wouldn't they? Fifa's lootbox-powered Ultimate Team mode has managed to net EA somewhere to the tune of $1.49 billion on it's own, those are the sorts of figures that these executives would sacrifice family members to achieve. But as governments start to slowly roll in on EA operations and begin questioning the legality of systems that so obviously feed off of gambling mechanics whilst managing to avoiding all gambling regulations, the question arises of what exactly EA are planning to do to turn the tide, so to speak.

I mean, we all know that EA would like to try and convince everyone that there's nothing wrong and how lootboxes are just this new fact of life, but after steadily rising calls for a boycot and a couple nationwide bans, the writing is on the wall. Attempts to assuage fears have either be completely waved off (fearmongering is far stronger, they should know this by now) or backfired in the most hilarious ways, (the anniversary of that trainwreck Parliament interview should be a national holiday) so it's clear that EA need to either concede defeat or prepare for a fight. And I'll give this much to EA; when it comes to manners in which they can continue sucking the money out of their consumers like literal vampires, no one comes close to the sort of actual voraciousness of Electronic Arts. (These guys will straight rip off a face if they'd get an extra dime for their troubles.)

Thus as heels begin to dig in and lips turn into snarls, one must wonder if the five-heads over at EA have any ideas to pre-empt potential court proceedings and if those ideas are actually any good at all. Surprise, surprise: yes and no. In fact, I get the feeling that they've been trying to sow these seeds of playing 'the responsible arbiters' for a while now, but big plays have been made recently and I wonder how they'll end up shaping a real case. I wonder this as a fellow who has no personal experience in the world of legislation or lawsuits, so whilst the truth seems obvious to me I genuinely do not know how the courts will take this. EA may very well be on track to outmanuveer us all and there's nothing we can do but stand back and grit our teeth. Time will tell, I suppose.

But before I get into that let me start with the accusation. Lootboxes are a system wherein players spend money in order to earn randomized rewards of varying quality and usefulness with the probability margins turned down on the better items. Certain stimuli and systems have crept into games which use such systems over the years in order to encourage and nurture those who are susceptible to gambling addictions and it's reached a point where some claim there's no difference between what lootboxes do and what casinos do. The only saving grace that these companies who use such boxes can fall back on is a technicality which dictates that as the player is incapable of earning money back on their purchase the system can't be defined as gambling; but many are calling this an easily fixed loophole and governments are starting to listen.

Right now things aren't looking too good for the 'pro-lootboxes' side of the fence as more and more opposition seems to be rising against their implementation, from the abject disgust it earns from gamers to the several hundred thousand euro fine it's receiving from one Government body in particular. Top that off with the several highly publicised stories of people becoming hooked by Fifa lootbox addiction and children accidentally spending thousands through Ultimate Team microtransactions and the court of public favour very much seems to have already tried EA, with the actual courts likely not too far behind. What EA really need now, to put myself in their slimy shoes, is the plausible deniability to claim that they aren't feeding on their customer's misfortunes (remember: "Vampires") and that anything which befalls them is entirely their own fault because EA accepts no responsibility and everyone here sleeps at night perfectly, thank you very much!

This time around they've tried to play this out through the addition of brand new features to the latest Fifa games (Which, crucially, were not there at launch) wherein systems can be set in a sort of self moderation. Think about 'parental controls' wherein you can decide how much screen time someone gets in a week and, to the point, how much ingame currency they can spend. As I understand it also works as a way to see how much you've spent up until now, although it displays this through Fifa Points rather than the actual currency you bought those points with. A few have pointed out how that fact alone propagates the manipulative way in which facsimile is weaponised in order to divorce the act of spending points with that of spending money in the mind of the consumer, but EA are pretending to care at least. 

I have to be honest, whilst I hate to admit EA slack in any remote department ever, this is something. The bare minimum? Perhaps. But I truly think this has the potential to be helpful to some folk out there as opposed to EA's previous 'tool' which was just a really messy webpage that was hard to understand and they would link to whenever challenged. But even then, these work more as parental control tools than an addressing of the problem wherein gambling addicts are exploited. These are tools to help parents stop their kids from going ham on the credit card, but an adult isn't going to limit themselves if they get addicted, EA knows that, they're just hoping that you pat them on the back for this absolute shuffle-step and say nothing more about the issue.

At the end of the day I feel this is a pretty transparent case of image fixing before a big trial, which I suppose means Electronic Arts have finally resigned themselves to the fact that there will be a legal battle on this. From their perspective it makes sense, limiting the sob stories from the media will certainly help their case, but any case worth it's salt would be doing a disservice not to point out how surface level all of this actually is. These guys are desperate to keep the status quo intact and the closer they get to the edge of the cliff, the more concession they'll start making. Heck, if things keep up EA might actually be forced into actually making a good game to keep us all from whining to our local representatives about them. (Wouldn't that be something!)