I dont' agree that it's disingenuous. It's consistent with other 'warnings' they put on boxes. From there it's up to the parents to do the research or not. They've started the ParentalTools.org, to further educate people. What you quoted about loot boxes is available in the same places I found it and more. It explains why they deem it not gambling in almost the exact way you phrase it. I quoted it in my post. [b](even if the player unfortunately receives something they don't want)[/b] Who are you saying "Really couldn't care less"?

[quote]I dont' agree that it's disingenuous. It's consistent with other 'warnings' they put on boxes.[/quote] Sure, it's consistent with other warnings and such, not disputing that. The part that is, to me, disingenuous, is the timing of all this. None of this happened because they felt a need to evolve or revisit their rating policies, but because a very public letter was written to the ESRB two weeks ago by NH Senator Hassan (D) urging them to take action and less than a week after the ESA looked foolish in their defense of loot boxes. [quote]From there it's up to the parents to do the research or not. They've started the ParentalTools.org, to further educate people.[/quote] I'd like to see them go a step further and explain what loot boxes are and why they have the potential for abuse. Without any elaboration on what "surprise items, item packs, loot boxes, and mystery awards" entail and given the timing and circumstances under which this policy was constructed, it just comes across "see! We're doing something. We feel the same way." It's a baby step in the right direction and they need to take it further. [quote]What you quoted about loot boxes is available in the same places I found it and more. It explains why they deem it not gambling in almost the exact way you phrase it. I quoted it in my post. [b](even if the player unfortunately receives something they don't want)[/b][/quote] I agree with you that loot boxes aren't technically gambling, as it lacks that critical 3rd element to legally be considered gambling - loss. However, I can also understand the argument for it, even more so when you consider that in a few years time when the servers shut down, you [i]will[/i] lose access to that item(s). Either way it goes won't matter to me. I also think the "kids can get addicted to it" argument is more of a red herring to grab people's attention and hide the fact that people just really, really, really hate not being to simply buy their desired item(s) outright and want to see this practice gone; a sentiment I share. I feel consumers would be more accepting and willing to spend more money if they felt they were given a fair deal. [quote]Who are you saying "Really couldn't care less"?[/quote] The ESRB and ESA. If they really cared about evolving their ratings to protect consumers, they would've put all this out back in Nov and even Dec or Jan after the BF 2 debacle and D2 Dawning/remove EV debacle. It never looks good when an organization says they care, but only [i]after[/i] being called out on it.