This is different than claiming loot boxes to be actual gambling. Comparing and equating are not the same.

China is an especially bad place to look for guidance on this issue. China is notorious for blocking all games that don't align with the government's desires.

This might be a valid point, but there is no reference or support listed here. (And this type of point has been disproved regarding violence.)

This is a reasonable example of an argument for loot boxes.

This example seems like it's showing a legitimate argument for loot boxes now. Could use some examples of enhanced experiences.

How many? This seems like it's worse for the Belgian market than for Square Enix.

This is extremely harsh. Not a good way to encourage continued business with companies. Is gambling itself illegal in Belgium? It seems they could have found a better compromise than criminal penalties for video game loot boxes.

What prompted the ESRB to include this? Is it a preventative measure to try to avoid legislation?

Is this always true? Can the 'enhanced' experience ever negatively affect other players?

It feels like the author is picking the worst possible example in defense of loot boxes. Is the author biased here?

This does seem shady. Darth Vader has historically been included in the Star Wars: Battlefront games so he would be expected in the base game, not as additional content after release.

This seems fair if it's new content.

Other countries' laws are often not a reliable way to judge whether we should implement laws in our own country. Circumstances, social structures, and cultures in other countries are not the same.

Do loot boxes function the same way and have equal importance in these three separate games?

By whom? Are they really integral if they're optional? Do some games rely on purchasing loot boxes more than others?

If a prize is always received, is there legitimate ground to say loot boxes have a 'close link' to gambling?

Is this true? Are all loot boxes the same?

This is strong language. Have they really become 'endemic' in the industry? Or are certain companies/games more prone to using them than others?

Support for an investigation/closer look, not support for direct action.

Again, it's just investigating.

Very noncommittal language - not taking a side.

Not cited as to why it is the top consumer watchdog, but the FTC is well known.

This is a flimsy statistic. Who says this and what indicates it?

Investigate when?