Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
Chess
As it happens, it was my very first gaming love. Can you tell?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
Chess
I'll buy a Chinese proxy and fly him/her in, lol!!!
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
That top 1% thing is not really relevant. Competitive fairness is just a plain core concept of gaming.
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
I really do not care what people do with their OWN money... But this... Is bad.. Not really uncommon (stealing to feed a destructive habit) but still bad.
Yep, if you are a Millionaire, no problem. But if you are an average Joe and steal £ 1 Million to play a game, it's just pathetic.
If you're a millionaire and spend $1 million on someone else's game, it's still pathetic.
These types of games effect the same areas of the brain as gambling. Gambling is regulated and so it wouldn't surprise me if these types of games get some type of regulation.
Gambling Regulation - i.e. the government moves in to take the biggest piece of the action.
Legislation on these types of games incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Can't come soon enough.
What kind of legislation and what kind of games?
Maybe some kind of monthly transaction limit might be a fair way of going about things. I really don't know. The $100 a pop RNG that @maskedweasel was describing, I find very alarming.
Is there anything in this nation that has ever been legislated against in such a way? I can't think of anything; even things far more dangerous, that have a spending ceiling placed on it. We're a capitalist nation, free trade and free markets are our bread and butter, at best you'll get an age limit to make a transaction of this sort (18-21+). Even that is doubtful though.
There are no easy answers as I was trying to convey.
Capitalism only works when you have ethics and morality. History has shown time and time again that ethics and morality are things that you need to legislate.
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
They're not corrupting society they are merely totally and royally fucking up the most basic requirement for any game to not be a piece of shit: an even playing field.
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Really? You don't get that the differentiation brought about by playing the game is something totally different than starting with and/or buying advantages?
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
You do understand this last sentence of yours contradicts the argument you were making against Iselin, right?
If you have a point where class/profession features level off and skill takes dominance, that constitutes having a "level playing field" in the manner Iselin first suggested.
Yep, if you are a Millionaire, no problem. But if you are an average Joe and steal £ 1 Million to play a game, it's just pathetic.
If you're a millionaire and spend $1 million on someone else's game, it's still pathetic.
If someone has more money than they can spend, what's the problem? Personally I would never spend that kind of money on a videogame, even if I was a Billionaire. But I don't consider this any worse than spending $1 Million of your own cash buying a Ferrari o spending a night in Vegas at the Casino. They are all money sinks.
But stealing money so you can spend $1 Million on a videogame, that's pathetic indeed.
Oh man, of course it was SO much worse when I was subbed to DAoC... I remember this news story where this guy spent 10k on DAoC, and he got...... 55 and a half years of subscription access!!! It was game-breaking, because he then used the goods he purchased to supply his guild with the best items-- no, I mean he bought skill boosters to-- no wait, he got these incredible mats from a lootbox-- no, wait, he just got access to the game on an even footing, like everyone else. He probably upgraded to a collectors edition and got some cool memoribilia or something, but this was back before developers started auctioning off status and power items to the highest bidder.
You have to admit these commercials are top notch.
Don't fall for its an evil trick very bad p2w game.
Commercials like that basically scream "this game is terrible so we can't show the game itself".
No, those commercials scream: "Sex !"
All males immediately pay attention. They will also be sure to tell their buddies about that commercial.
Somewhere along the way they discover there's a game associated with this hot stuff. A game where you can beat other guys, and show them who's boss. Nothing complicated, even the name is simple and straightforward: "Game of War".
Some might even confuse it with that cool TV series, y'know, "Game of Thrones" ? The names are quite similar.
Human beings are so easily manipulated, it's like taking candy from a baby...
Yep, if you are a Millionaire, no problem. But if you are an average Joe and steal £ 1 Million to play a game, it's just pathetic.
If you're a millionaire and spend $1 million on someone else's game, it's still pathetic.
If someone has more money than they can spend, what's the problem? Personally I would never spend that kind of money on a videogame, even if I was a Billionaire. But I don't consider this any worse than spending $1 Million of your own cash buying a Ferrari o spending a night in Vegas at the Casino. They are all money sinks.
But stealing money so you can spend $1 Million on a videogame, that's pathetic indeed.
A night in Vegas gambles on ending up with more money.
The ferrari has a very definite value that, while it will depreciate heavily up front, will level off and, in many cases, start to appreciate (assuming that condition isn't degraded heavily by the owner).
His mobile game account will never be worth anything more than what the developers price it at. If the developers shut down the service, it's worth nothing. The Ferrari is still worth something if the company closes shop, and any money won in Vegas is still worth the same if the casino shuts down.
The estate sale will not include his mobile game account. You can bet your ass it won't. But if he wins money from Vegas or owns a Ferrari? Those are real assets.
EDIT- To be clear, I wasn't trying to flame you, @ste2000, I just get as frustrated as Iselin when I see folks trying to equate dropping crazy amounts of cash on a game to buying another item (i.e. a Ferrari) or gambling for real money. It's not, because the game items are only worth exactly what the publisher/developer decides. Ferrari cannot render your car worthless by releasing an expansion pack.
You have to admit these commercials are top notch.
Don't fall for its an evil trick very bad p2w game.
Commercials like that basically scream "this game is terrible so we can't show the game itself".
No, those commercials scream: "Sex !"
All males immediately pay attention. They will also be sure to tell their buddies about that commercial.
Somewhere along the way they discover there's a game associated with this hot stuff. A game where you can beat other guys, and show them who's boss. Nothing complicated, even the name is simple and straightforward: "Game of War".
Some might even confuse it with that cool TV series, y'know, "Game of Thrones" ? The names are quite similar.
Human beings are so easily manipulated, it's like taking candy from a baby...
Did you watch the commercial or just look at the thumbnail?
A night in Vegas gambles on ending up with more money.
.....or losing you a fortune, more than you could actually afford to lose. Spending money on a videogame is worse than gambling? Surely they are both stupid things to do, but I am not sure that spending money on a videogame is worse than throwing your money away by gambling it. And if someone has more fun playing a game than driving a Ferrari, why not? As long as it's their money, they can spend it how they like, even if to us looks silly.
Comments
Ok, ok, ok, but we're talking about 1 case. I'm sure there are others out there, but THIS is 1 case. Also, it's a case where this guy stole the money, which we do regulate. That's why he should be going to jail. People who actually believe that games like these are somehow corrupting our society are probably the same who believe that video games are responsible for all the school shootings we see now. Regulations are a band-aid to a larger problem of accountability and responsibility in North America. I remember a time when we used to laugh at people who did stupid shit like cut their arm off while carrying around a lawn mower. Now, those people sue the lawnmower company because they shouldn't allow you to carry it around. It's a seriously fucked up, backwards society. Guess what? Those fancy stickers that absolve the company of any responsibility haven't decreased the number of deaths by vending machine each year. Honestly, there is a slow and methodical lowering of the average IQ which actually blows my mind considering the amount of information we now have access to with the Internet. I suppose it's a regression back to cavemen.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I could give less of a crap whether that actually exists in the real world but it's the #1 requirement for gaming.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Actually, I would disagree with you entirely. I would say the number one requirement is to make a fun game. In fact, making everything a level playing field goes against most games out there today. Class based systems, Guilds, and Tiered Dungeons/Raids actually create differentiation which inherently create uneven playing fields. There are few games that provide any sort of level playing field. They may provide you with an illusion of a level playing field, but it never really is.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I get the difference, it just doesn't apply to me because I'm not in the top 1% of people who would be contending for things like world firsts. As I said, maybe you are and, in that case, I totally understand your frustration. For me, though, it's more important to have a point where profession levels off and skill actually trumps and sort of starting advantage.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Do you not care about cheat engines and hacks before you're not in the top 1%?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. You think I'm misinformed and I'm missing the point, I think you're misinformed and missing the point. For me it's quite simple, I'm not in the top 1% of any game, but I can accept that you might spend money to be competitive in something like GoW and if that gives you kicks, then go for it. I don't see it as violating some sort of higher level of ethics that games were upholding until recent years. All I'm saying is that you show me something that you feel is competitively fair, and I'll show you a way that I can spend $1000 and beat you at that sight unseen.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I'll buy a Chinese proxy and fly him/her in, lol!!!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gambling Regulation - i.e. the government moves in to take the biggest piece of the action.
If you have a point where class/profession features level off and skill takes dominance, that constitutes having a "level playing field" in the manner Iselin first suggested.
Personally I would never spend that kind of money on a videogame, even if I was a Billionaire.
But I don't consider this any worse than spending $1 Million of your own cash buying a Ferrari o spending a night in Vegas at the Casino.
They are all money sinks.
But stealing money so you can spend $1 Million on a videogame, that's pathetic indeed.
Hm.
All males immediately pay attention. They will also be sure to tell their buddies about that commercial.
Somewhere along the way they discover there's a game associated with this hot stuff. A game where you can beat other guys, and show them who's boss. Nothing complicated, even the name is simple and straightforward: "Game of War".
Some might even confuse it with that cool TV series, y'know, "Game of Thrones" ? The names are quite similar.
Human beings are so easily manipulated, it's like taking candy from a baby...
The ferrari has a very definite value that, while it will depreciate heavily up front, will level off and, in many cases, start to appreciate (assuming that condition isn't degraded heavily by the owner).
His mobile game account will never be worth anything more than what the developers price it at. If the developers shut down the service, it's worth nothing. The Ferrari is still worth something if the company closes shop, and any money won in Vegas is still worth the same if the casino shuts down.
The estate sale will not include his mobile game account. You can bet your ass it won't. But if he wins money from Vegas or owns a Ferrari? Those are real assets.
EDIT- To be clear, I wasn't trying to flame you, @ste2000, I just get as frustrated as Iselin when I see folks trying to equate dropping crazy amounts of cash on a game to buying another item (i.e. a Ferrari) or gambling for real money. It's not, because the game items are only worth exactly what the publisher/developer decides. Ferrari cannot render your car worthless by releasing an expansion pack.
Spending money on a videogame is worse than gambling?
Surely they are both stupid things to do, but I am not sure that spending money on a videogame is worse than throwing your money away by gambling it.
And if someone has more fun playing a game than driving a Ferrari, why not?
As long as it's their money, they can spend it how they like, even if to us looks silly.