Whose point is that? Because I don’t think it’s the previous guy’s point, and it certainly isn’t mine.

I mean, the law (not a bill, this isn’t the US and it has been approved, as per the text) outright bans loot boxes in games “targeted at children or teenagers”. No qualifiers. Doesn’t even say “paid loot boxes”, so technically all videogames are now illegal if they have a loot table anywhere. I’m going to assume cooler heads will prevail and a categorization will come from courts or specific regulatory development, but it’s certainly not in the law.

So if you don’t like this for doing both at once… well, that’s weird, that’s why laws have multiple articles. If you’re worried that the inclusion is meant to stall the bill that’s irrelevant, this has been published and comes in force in six months. If you think they’re overreaching by outright banning loot boxes… well, I agree, but I don’t think that’s the point as the rest of the thread is defining it.

EDIT: Someone in a different thread pointed out that despite referencing slightly differently there IS a definition of lootbox in the law and it does include a requirement for them to be paid, so I’m correcting the record here:

IV – caixa de recompensa: funcionalidade disponível em certos jogos eletrônicos que permite a aquisição, mediante pagamento, pelo jogador, de itens virtuais consumíveis ou de vantagens aleatórias, resgatáveis pelo jogador ou usuário, sem conhecimento prévio de seu conteúdo ou garantia de sua efetiva utilidade;