A statement from Minister of Justice Koen Geens said FIFA 18, Overwatch and CS:GO were therefore illegal and demanded their loot boxes removed. If they're not, the publishers "risk a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 800,000 euros". When minors are involved, those punishments can be doubled, Greens added.
Belgium expressed a particular concern about the impact loot boxes have on young people. "It is often children who come into contact with such systems and we cannot allow that," Geens warned.
Unless a larger entity such as the EU as a whole gets involved all I can see coming from this is just not selling the games to people in belgium and disabling selling of lootboxes in belgium and maybe offering some refunds of the game's price or whatever. A market of ~11m people is too small to give up an entire revenue stream over
Most games that offer lootboxes have a means of getting them without spending money, right? All that they'd probably need to do is blacklist Belgians from being able to purchase them directly, while leaving all other aspects completely intact. It would cost them profit on lootbox sales, obviously, but they'd already have localized the games into the appropriate languages anyway.
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem of all this filthy gambling and the effects it might have on the children. Just because they didn't pay currency doesn't mean the lootbox mechanic isn't affecting all manner of psychological harm.
A statement from Minister of Justice Koen Geens said FIFA 18, Overwatch and CS:GO were therefore illegal and demanded their loot boxes removed. If they're not, the publishers "risk a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 800,000 euros". When minors are involved, those punishments can be doubled, Greens added.
Belgium expressed a particular concern about the impact loot boxes have on young people. "It is often children who come into contact with such systems and we cannot allow that," Geens warned.
Unless a larger entity such as the EU as a whole gets involved all I can see coming from this is just not selling the games to people in belgium and disabling selling of lootboxes in belgium and maybe offering some refunds of the game's price or whatever. A market of ~11m people is too small to give up an entire revenue stream over
Most games that offer lootboxes have a means of getting them without spending money, right? All that they'd probably need to do is blacklist Belgians from being able to purchase them directly, while leaving all other aspects completely intact. It would cost them profit on lootbox sales, obviously, but they'd already have localized the games into the appropriate languages anyway.
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem of all this filthy gambling and the effects it might have on the children. Just because they didn't pay currency doesn't mean the lootbox mechanic isn't affecting all manner of psychological harm.
It's a moral panic, is what I'm saying.
Usually when people talk about "moral panic" they mean "it's complete nonsense".
Just for clarification, is that what you mean or something else?
The Belgium decision doesn't outlaw them. It just says they're definitely gambling and subject to those laws.
A conclusion that I can see lots of other countries coming to. "Ban Loot Boxes!" Isn't really where revenue will change. It's that gambling is a regulated industry almost everywhere and that comes with certain fees and rules.
Of course loot boxes are easy money for companies as long as they avoid all the regulation and get to pocket 100% of the sales. Once they're required to adhere to regulations surrounding gambling? I'm not sure they will stay the legally (if not morally) grey revenue stream they've been for the last couple years.
A statement from Minister of Justice Koen Geens said FIFA 18, Overwatch and CS:GO were therefore illegal and demanded their loot boxes removed. If they're not, the publishers "risk a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to 800,000 euros". When minors are involved, those punishments can be doubled, Greens added.
Belgium expressed a particular concern about the impact loot boxes have on young people. "It is often children who come into contact with such systems and we cannot allow that," Geens warned.
Unless a larger entity such as the EU as a whole gets involved all I can see coming from this is just not selling the games to people in belgium and disabling selling of lootboxes in belgium and maybe offering some refunds of the game's price or whatever. A market of ~11m people is too small to give up an entire revenue stream over
Most games that offer lootboxes have a means of getting them without spending money, right? All that they'd probably need to do is blacklist Belgians from being able to purchase them directly, while leaving all other aspects completely intact. It would cost them profit on lootbox sales, obviously, but they'd already have localized the games into the appropriate languages anyway.
Yes they can do that but the whole point of lootboxes is to provide a continuous flow of money. When you start having to turn off all your monetization in various markets it undermines the whole business model. Maybe the Belgian market is small but they don't seem to be alone on this. What if now 20% of your global user base can't pay you for your game anymore? Would you still continue to use loot boxes regardless? It's possible you could build an alternate microtransaction system for those markets, but now you're paying for those extra development resources, and also will definitely generate negative press for the other 80% of players still stuck with the gambling version. At some point if this continues they have to do the arithmetic and determine that a lower profit margin but internationally legal business model just makes more sense.
I think we will end out back at selling items directly for a known price. Some sort of non monetay lootbox/gift system that rewards fun temporary items or something for completing in game tasks. Getting snowballs and gingerbread cookies every year in WoW and Guild Wars didn't trigger the scrutiny... unsavory exploitation of impulse behavior and addiction/reward feedback loops did.
I suspect the retreat from lootboxes is only going to expand. The industry seems to expect it, anyway - can't imagine why they would even bother taking the boxes out of Shadow of War at this point unless it was to avoid potential future fines. I can't imagine any boost in sales from 'positive PR' would cover the continued development cost...
...Unless, of course, they've had this in mind from the beginning, and turning off the marketplace will be as simple at flipping a switch at this point, which I wouldn't put past these fucks at this point.
I suspect the retreat from lootboxes is only going to expand. The industry seems to expect it, anyway - can't imagine why they would even bother taking the boxes out of Shadow of War at this point unless it was to avoid potential future fines. I can't imagine any boost in sales from 'positive PR' would cover the continued development cost...
...Unless, of course, they've had this in mind from the beginning, and turning off the marketplace will be as simple at flipping a switch at this point, which I wouldn't put past these fucks at this point.
Turning off marketplaces has almost always been as simple as flipping a switch.
The Belgium decision doesn't outlaw them. It just says they're definitely gambling and subject to those laws.
A conclusion that I can see lots of other countries coming to. "Ban Loot Boxes!" Isn't really where revenue will change. It's that gambling is a regulated industry almost everywhere and that comes with certain fees and rules.
Of course loot boxes are easy money for companies as long as they avoid all the regulation and get to pocket 100% of the sales. Once they're required to adhere to regulations surrounding gambling? I'm not sure they will stay the legally (if not morally) grey revenue stream they've been for the last couple years.
I do not know what is used within BeNeLux, but lot of countries have official online verified systems in use.
For example in Finland there is national e-identification system (unpopular) and bank-based e-identification system (de facto standard) that are good for all government and health services.
I suspect the retreat from lootboxes is only going to expand. The industry seems to expect it, anyway - can't imagine why they would even bother taking the boxes out of Shadow of War at this point unless it was to avoid potential future fines. I can't imagine any boost in sales from 'positive PR' would cover the continued development cost...
...Unless, of course, they've had this in mind from the beginning, and turning off the marketplace will be as simple at flipping a switch at this point, which I wouldn't put past these fucks at this point.
Whales probably mostly burn out after so long, then you're just putting off the frugal customers* waiting on a deep sale who sure as hell don't fit the pay-to-win demographic.
Would a locally accepted age verification check for any lootbox purchases satisfy the laws demand?
Or base-game without any purchases and k18+ add-on (behind age verification) that enables purchases?
Maybe elsewhere but in this case the authorities stated they'd still have to have a gambling license following all the regulations and deal with any extra scrutiny that'd entail. Not sure how it'd be in Belgium but conceivably it could affect things like advertising, age ratings impacting store placement online and off and auditing. There's also the possibility platform holders like Sony, MS will want to avoid any bad press or legal repercussions.
The Belgium decision doesn't outlaw them. It just says they're definitely gambling and subject to those laws.
A conclusion that I can see lots of other countries coming to. "Ban Loot Boxes!" Isn't really where revenue will change. It's that gambling is a regulated industry almost everywhere and that comes with certain fees and rules.
Of course loot boxes are easy money for companies as long as they avoid all the regulation and get to pocket 100% of the sales. Once they're required to adhere to regulations surrounding gambling? I'm not sure they will stay the legally (if not morally) grey revenue stream they've been for the last couple years.
NL currently has no legal online gambling. Anything branded gambling is automatically illegal.
A bill to change it is currently in the senate (which is the final step) but I very much doubt any game company will want to adhere to that.
Among its requirements is age verification, a requirement to give parts of the proceeds to gambling help agencies, a responsibility for customers that get in trouble at your establishment, a system to ban people for their own good and a license fee that starts at €5k
The main difference between Belgian and Dutch recent rulings is that NL does not see a lootbox for money as gambling, if there is no way to convert that reward into something else. So Overwatch/Fifa are fine, but Pubg where you get steam store credit breaks it.
Belgian law seems to say that the act of spending money for a chance at a reward you want is gambling instead. Meaning 70% of AAA and 90% of phone games.
NL currently has no legal online gambling. Anything branded gambling is automatically illegal.
A bill to change it is currently in the senate (which is the final step) but I very much doubt any game company will want to adhere to that.
Among its requirements is age verification, a requirement to give parts of the proceeds to gambling help agencies, a responsibility for customers that get in trouble at your establishment, a system to ban people for their own good and a license fee that starts at €5k
The main difference between Belgian and Dutch recent rulings is that NL does not see a lootbox for money as gambling, if there is no way to convert that reward into something else. So Overwatch/Fifa are fine, but Pubg where you get steam store credit breaks it.
Belgian law seems to say that the act of spending money for a chance at a reward you want is gambling instead. Meaning 70% of AAA and 90% of phone games.
I am sympathetic to the Belgian way, but the Dutch way would be fine too.
Would a locally accepted age verification check for any lootbox purchases satisfy the laws demand?
Or base-game without any purchases and k18+ add-on (behind age verification) that enables purchases?
Class 2 activities (amusement arcades) require a licence B and, if the activities take place over the internet, an additional licence B+.
...
For licence B establishments, the minimum age for entry is 18. It is forbidden to place a restaurant or bar in the area where gambling activities take place.
...
For licence B holders, an additional licence B+ makes it possible to offer online games. This licence B+ is in its duration also linked to the licence B.
Now, there's some wiggle room for "establishment" and "entry" given that it's an online thing but it could be argued that any minor simply couldn't play the game or connect to the servers by law
There's also a question of if a license can even be acquired given they appear heavily supply-constrained
All holders of licences A or B have to be registered in the Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen (companies register) as a commercial company.
There are only nine A licences available in Belgium (article 29), which means that there are only nine casinos within the entire country. They are only allowed on the territory of the municipalities of Blankenberge, Chaudfontaine, Dinant, Knokke-Heist, Middelkerke, Namen, Oostende, Spa and one of the 19 municipalities of the Brussels Capitol Region. In each of these municipalities, only one casino is allowed, and only after the municipality enters into a concession agreement with the applicant. Both table games and automatic games are allowed; the average hourly loss for each game is set at 70 EUR.
A licence A can only be granted to applicants in possession of a valid concession delivered by the municipality in which the Class 1 gaming establishment is to be located.
At present, there are 180 licence Bs, of which 179 are actually in use by a licence holder. A 2015 law change decided to bring this number down to 150 by the end of 2017. A licence B establishment cannot be established in close proximity to schools, hospitals, places frequently visited by youths, places of worship or prisons. The average hourly loss is set at 25 EUR.
To be granted a licence B, the licensee needs to present an agreement, as delivered by the municipality in which the Class 2 gaming establishment would be located, which is concluded on the condition of the granting of the licence.
I never understood how the Steam marketplace for items you can win in games like PUBG weren't legally gambling.
If I remember correctly in PUBG you can win crates for free but the key to unlock said crates costs money, just like TF2, so yeah it's literally inserting money for a random result.
EA should not be under any illusions that EU regulators can and will fine the everloving fuck out of them if they decide they're above the rules. They will do it to EU companies, and they have zero problems doing it to US companies either.
EA should not be under any illusions that EU regulators can and will fine the everloving fuck out of them if they decide they're above the rules. They will do it to EU companies, and they have zero problems doing it to US companies either.
They've fined google, Microsoft, and apple if I'm not mistaken. EA is nothing to them lol.
EA should not be under any illusions that EU regulators can and will fine the everloving fuck out of them if they decide they're above the rules. They will do it to EU companies, and they have zero problems doing it to US companies either.
Not just fine - apparently Belgium has had an extradition treaty with the US for 31 years; if this goes criminal and they decide to try someone from EA, they might plausibly be able to do it and send them to prison.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
EA should not be under any illusions that EU regulators can and will fine the everloving fuck out of them if they decide they're above the rules. They will do it to EU companies, and they have zero problems doing it to US companies either.
They've fined google, Microsoft, and apple if I'm not mistaken. EA is nothing to them lol.
Also Intel, although iirc that's being appealed or something.
EA should not be under any illusions that EU regulators can and will fine the everloving fuck out of them if they decide they're above the rules. They will do it to EU companies, and they have zero problems doing it to US companies either.
Not just fine - apparently Belgium has had an extradition treaty with the US for 31 years; if this goes criminal and they decide to try someone from EA, they might plausibly be able to do it and send them to prison.
Only if it's a criminal offense in both countries, which is going to be debatable here.
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
There's another explanation on why EA stuck it's head over the parapet again - Wilson, the current CEO, invented the modern loot box and that Handsome Jack impersonator ascended to his exalted position on it's back. He's not fully rational here.
This is not mutually exclusive though - all the AAA stocks are in a state of bubble right now - witness how bad basically everyone hurt when the BFII fiasco happened, but EA seems to be the worst, and the worst invested in lootboxes and similar tactics. If this blows up especially badly, it might end EA as an independent entity*, or at least cripple it. And yes, EA was foolish to attract this kind of attention to them.
*That MS buyout may prove less chimerical then it looks, if the stocks tumble hard enough.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Catastrophic for the end of year bonusses maybe, i doubt they are going to be that hard put out if loot boxes go the way of the dodo.
Especially given that regulations don't just move that suddenly, they could have started moving away from boxes the moment governments started asking questions, but nope, double down.
Catastrophic for the end of year bonusses maybe, i doubt they are going to be that hard put out if loot boxes go the way of the dodo.
Especially given that regulations don't just move that suddenly, they could have started moving away from boxes the moment governments started asking questions, but nope, double down.
That's the thing. It's not like this has been sprung on them. I always thought the playbook was to wash their hands of the controversial method, lay low until the heat is off and then release bootlockses that are just distinct enough.
And end of year bonuses might as well be the end times for whoever's in charge.
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
Alternatively: They do really think they have a strong case and that it's worth their while to challenge this.
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
Alternatively: They do really think they have a strong case and that it's worth their while to challenge this.
Considering what I seen thus far, I don't like their chances, and 15 separate countries in the EU? It's gonna be taxing to fight the lot if it comes to that, and they're about cocksure enough to try and lose. Edit: The behavior of the rest is very much a sign that EA is choosing poorly, as they aren't even trying to challenge legally, they're just backing down and working on alternatives.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
Alternatively: They do really think they have a strong case and that it's worth their while to challenge this.
Considering what I seen thus far, I don't like their chances, and 15 separate countries in the EU? It's gonna be taxing to fight the lot if it comes to that, and they're about cocksure enough to try and lose.
As I understand it, the statement from those EU nations says that they're focused on "Tackling unlicensed third-party websites offering illegal gambling linked to popular video games" and not lootboxes themselves.
So EA don't have to do anything on that front, it's not their problem.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Said this in [chat], but probably better said here: I continue to be surprised at how much EA dug in their heels on this. The way I thunk it, governmental scrutiny was the last thing they wanted, because once that genie is out of the bottle, what about the other consumer-unfriendly methods of making money the industry relies on?
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
To comply, they would have to completely shut down FIFA Ultimate Team in Belgium. FUT makes literally half of their income against all other properties. That's ignoring also having to shut down the mini-lootboxes they've included in other games. The problem here (also seen in CCGs) is that the games necessarily include randomised loot as part of how the game is designed, and it's difficult to cut that out without just turning off the game. Eventually, things like Hearthstone are going to get hit in the same way eventually, I would expect. Compare this to something like Overwatch, where Blizzard can immediately disabled lootbox purchase in a given area, and the game still works for everyone in that area.
But even having said that, I feel like EA just looked at the situation and their income and said "even if we accept we're going to lose the money tree eventually, we will still make more money than we'd be fined if we keep on selling."
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem of all this filthy gambling and the effects it might have on the children. Just because they didn't pay currency doesn't mean the lootbox mechanic isn't affecting all manner of psychological harm.
It's a moral panic, is what I'm saying.
Usually when people talk about "moral panic" they mean "it's complete nonsense".
Just for clarification, is that what you mean or something else?
One of but not the only one.
A conclusion that I can see lots of other countries coming to. "Ban Loot Boxes!" Isn't really where revenue will change. It's that gambling is a regulated industry almost everywhere and that comes with certain fees and rules.
Of course loot boxes are easy money for companies as long as they avoid all the regulation and get to pocket 100% of the sales. Once they're required to adhere to regulations surrounding gambling? I'm not sure they will stay the legally (if not morally) grey revenue stream they've been for the last couple years.
Yes they can do that but the whole point of lootboxes is to provide a continuous flow of money. When you start having to turn off all your monetization in various markets it undermines the whole business model. Maybe the Belgian market is small but they don't seem to be alone on this. What if now 20% of your global user base can't pay you for your game anymore? Would you still continue to use loot boxes regardless? It's possible you could build an alternate microtransaction system for those markets, but now you're paying for those extra development resources, and also will definitely generate negative press for the other 80% of players still stuck with the gambling version. At some point if this continues they have to do the arithmetic and determine that a lower profit margin but internationally legal business model just makes more sense.
...Unless, of course, they've had this in mind from the beginning, and turning off the marketplace will be as simple at flipping a switch at this point, which I wouldn't put past these fucks at this point.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Turning off marketplaces has almost always been as simple as flipping a switch.
A cursory reading of Belgian gambling laws seems to imply that in order to play (buy?) a game with lootboxes a person would need to be 18+, which would be a de-facto ban. English-language summary here: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/gambling-laws-and-regulations/belgium
Or base-game without any purchases and k18+ add-on (behind age verification) that enables purchases?
Is there any age verification system that's reliable enough that a company would be willing to risk the fines and PR hit?
For example in Finland there is national e-identification system (unpopular) and bank-based e-identification system (de facto standard) that are good for all government and health services.
Whales probably mostly burn out after so long, then you're just putting off the frugal customers* waiting on a deep sale who sure as hell don't fit the pay-to-win demographic.
*
Maybe elsewhere but in this case the authorities stated they'd still have to have a gambling license following all the regulations and deal with any extra scrutiny that'd entail. Not sure how it'd be in Belgium but conceivably it could affect things like advertising, age ratings impacting store placement online and off and auditing. There's also the possibility platform holders like Sony, MS will want to avoid any bad press or legal repercussions.
An age gate alone isn't going to fix it for pubs.
"This bullshit about lootboxes targeting minors is a moral panic"
"Ok well we're regulating them as gambling, only adults can buy them"
"WTF, that's a de facto ban
A bill to change it is currently in the senate (which is the final step) but I very much doubt any game company will want to adhere to that.
Among its requirements is age verification, a requirement to give parts of the proceeds to gambling help agencies, a responsibility for customers that get in trouble at your establishment, a system to ban people for their own good and a license fee that starts at €5k
The main difference between Belgian and Dutch recent rulings is that NL does not see a lootbox for money as gambling, if there is no way to convert that reward into something else. So Overwatch/Fifa are fine, but Pubg where you get steam store credit breaks it.
Belgian law seems to say that the act of spending money for a chance at a reward you want is gambling instead. Meaning 70% of AAA and 90% of phone games.
I am sympathetic to the Belgian way, but the Dutch way would be fine too.
Now, there's some wiggle room for "establishment" and "entry" given that it's an online thing but it could be argued that any minor simply couldn't play the game or connect to the servers by law
There's also a question of if a license can even be acquired given they appear heavily supply-constrained
Secondary market probably adds a level of plausible deniability
If I remember correctly in PUBG you can win crates for free but the key to unlock said crates costs money, just like TF2, so yeah it's literally inserting money for a random result.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Gamingmicro-transactions
In case anyone here is interested in submitting
Worth noting, that even if they lose, they're gonna try to get the law changed so lootboxes are covered.
The Belgians are aggro on E-gambling.
Edit:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=266bac50-e418-4c8a-ab64-3efaa9ed34df
Welllllll, you certainly kicked the hive, EA.
They've fined google, Microsoft, and apple if I'm not mistaken. EA is nothing to them lol.
I thought someone was doing a spoken word version of Mein Herz Brennt by Rammstein there.
Not just fine - apparently Belgium has had an extradition treaty with the US for 31 years; if this goes criminal and they decide to try someone from EA, they might plausibly be able to do it and send them to prison.
Also Intel, although iirc that's being appealed or something.
Only if it's a criminal offense in both countries, which is going to be debatable here.
I can only conclude - no direct evidence, just a gut feeling - that all their eggs really were in the lootbasket, and being forced to divest themselves of it would be catastrophic in the short term.
There's another explanation on why EA stuck it's head over the parapet again - Wilson, the current CEO, invented the modern loot box and that Handsome Jack impersonator ascended to his exalted position on it's back. He's not fully rational here.
This is not mutually exclusive though - all the AAA stocks are in a state of bubble right now - witness how bad basically everyone hurt when the BFII fiasco happened, but EA seems to be the worst, and the worst invested in lootboxes and similar tactics. If this blows up especially badly, it might end EA as an independent entity*, or at least cripple it. And yes, EA was foolish to attract this kind of attention to them.
*That MS buyout may prove less chimerical then it looks, if the stocks tumble hard enough.
Especially given that regulations don't just move that suddenly, they could have started moving away from boxes the moment governments started asking questions, but nope, double down.
That's the thing. It's not like this has been sprung on them. I always thought the playbook was to wash their hands of the controversial method, lay low until the heat is off and then release bootlockses that are just distinct enough.
And end of year bonuses might as well be the end times for whoever's in charge.
Alternatively: They do really think they have a strong case and that it's worth their while to challenge this.
Considering what I seen thus far, I don't like their chances, and 15 separate countries in the EU? It's gonna be taxing to fight the lot if it comes to that, and they're about cocksure enough to try and lose. Edit: The behavior of the rest is very much a sign that EA is choosing poorly, as they aren't even trying to challenge legally, they're just backing down and working on alternatives.
As I understand it, the statement from those EU nations says that they're focused on "Tackling unlicensed third-party websites offering illegal gambling linked to popular video games" and not lootboxes themselves.
So EA don't have to do anything on that front, it's not their problem.
But even having said that, I feel like EA just looked at the situation and their income and said "even if we accept we're going to lose the money tree eventually, we will still make more money than we'd be fined if we keep on selling."