-But why? Sure, I see the 1:1 of the rulemakers making such determinations of what is/isn't "gambling," but the way we got here is modern parlance blurring that legal line of something psychologically similar to gambling and actual gambling as defined.

-"We, as a community, or as an individual, can decide how we feel about it on our own terms, and it really won't have much effect on the reality of what they are."

But that's often how words are redefined over time. See words like "decimate" or "literally" for example.

-"I personally feel there is a gambling aspect to it all...."

I'm in a similar boat. That's was part of the indecision in how to actually tackle this argument; but then again, entire pockets of certain industries also have a gambling aspect to them that don't have coddling governmental oversight attached. And I can see where you're coming from in wanting to know what you're in for. But, if necessary, you can withhold on even purchasing said base game in question until your wants are met.

-" I honestly believe the backlash against the loot boxes was more because the community just keeps expressing their annoyance with MT in general, and been ignored by both the media and the publisher..."

I'm not sure I'm willing to go all the way there. Publishers? Yeah, sure. Media? I think mainstream gaming media has done a decent job of highlighting this trend for a while, either pro- or con-. Getting certain quotes from Overwatch devs, defending them in some case, lambasting them in others. I think the much-maligned Kotaku & Polygon were some of the first to report on Middle Earth: Shadow of War and Destiny 2 for example (both in grabbing quotes and leaking the info). Obviously I found Poly's defense of some game's MT's poorly-argued, but you and I are both capable of acknowledging their reporting whilst disagreeing with whatever op-ed's they make.

With all that said, I guess the question comes down to this: "why weren't their voices heard?" There's a loud, independent contingent of PC gamers that'll never play a game which can't do 60 fps due to dev meddling. Totalbiscuit's influence in particular is one that clued me into this being a thing back in the day--and without needing any gov't to intervene to fix it. It seems like an influencer such as Sterling is just as capable of creating a petition, coalition, or whatever that'll stamp their foot down on any loot boxes in AAA games. Someone can make a site color-coding and cataloging all AAA games' supplementary revenue streams as a sort of buyer's guide. This is why it's so weird to see this agnostic viewpoint about the notion of gov't intervention (into videogames no less).

"But Why?"

I think the why has to deal with the money, and the vocal outcry, which was apparently enough to get some lawmakers attention. There is still this mentality about games by some that it's all about protecting the kids from themselves, or exploitative practices, and politicians tend to love a good chance to posture in public.

"But that's often how words are redefined over time"

In the two cases you cite, constant repetition of the word being used wrong, and being understood wrong is what caused the contextual definition to change. In the case of LB, it can be argued that since there is an element of chance, coupled with real money being involved, hence the chance for loss, that it can be seen as gambling. As such, it can be seen in the literal sense as gambling to any individual who feels this way.

Further though, and more off the track, it isn't uncommon for things to be changed over time, and what we or politicians consider LB now, may not be what they consider them in the future.

" entire pockets of certain industries also have a gambling aspect to them"

True. but if you start trying to say its done elsewhere, so it shouldn't be applied here, then your argument starts to fall apart. Inconsistent consideration by lawmakers is a different problem. LB either are gambling or they're not. Or maybe they're something in between. All you can do is focus on the topic, and make your argument based on that, and not worry so much if regulators or lawmakers are doing their job well.

"I think mainstream gaming media has done a decent job of highlighting this trend for a while"

To a degree maybe. But like politicians, they're inconsistent in representing the extent of the problem, or highlighting where it exists. For instance, during the SW:BF fiasco, a game from Activision barely got mentioned. Can't remember which one....COD perhaps? Even among a single publication, they can be inconsistent in reporting or their stance on it. Overall though, I'd say that the media seems more concerned about the controversy involved, and if they can get clicks from it.

"I guess the question comes down to this"

What happens is a constant vocal outcry over things people don't approve of, even if a large number don't care, or never say anything, tends to have a psychological effect of people feeling that they're being dismissed or ignored. Those vocal people tend to stay vocal, and as things get worse, they get more vocal, and more people join in. The so called snow ball effect. There may be those who boycott, maybe even a significant number, but those numbers don't quell the continuation of unsatisfactory practices.

-I think there's a miscommunication when it comes to this "but why?" portion we're launching with. Correct me if I'm wrong here too. For me: the hidden vein of how you started that came off as suggesting "why bother?" Not in any sneering way; more with the notion that it's out of our hands now. Tying this into the 2nd quoted part now, well let's try a different example: games relation with "art" especially during the Jack Thompson era (granted, the SC hearing itself focused on "protected speech"). When the courts were wading through those testy waters, creators and game pundits alike provided their own take on how we're to define such a malleable term--and still does.

You'll have to course-correct me to make sure we're not talking past each other on this beginning.

-"Further though, and more off the track, it isn't uncommon for things to be changed over time, and what we or politicians consider LB now, may not be what they consider them in the future. "

Sure, their definition may change too; then again, that's never stopped gov't from continuing to enforce regulations. This is a major influence as to why I put the blog in this perspective: once applied, gov't application rarely ever ends at a reasonable stopping point. This is why I find the lack of hindsight from Sterling & co. especially astounding.

-"All you can do is focus on the topic, and make your argument based on that, and not worry so much if regulators or lawmakers are doing their job well."

But my argument relies on potential drawbacks of gov't involvement. You have a certain cluster of contented gamers fine with that despite a.) perhaps not having a good working definition of gambling and b.) a free-market solution of simply not buying the game already resulting with more of an immediate impact.

-"There may be those who boycott, maybe even a significant number, but those numbers don't quell the continuation of unsatisfactory practices."

SW: BF II, Shadow of War, etc. seem to disprove that. Again, a sequel to one of the most financially-successful SW games of all time getting less than HALF of those 1st-week sales sent them reeling. Now virtually all of their games implementing MT's are on the hot seat. Obviously, that should be expanded where necessary but I think the narrative of a 'vocal minority not being heard' lost a lot of fuel in 2017. But think of how much MORE influential such an anti-lootbox stance would be under one banner? Keeping games regulatory to the consumers & ESRB (MT's labeling can help) should be enough imo.