MMORPG.com : General : Hawaii's Chris Lee: 'Step Up' to Changing Predatory Gaming Practices

245

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,435
    edited December 7
    Cazriel said:
    "Gambling mechanisms", an excellent phrase. Call it what it is rather than the innocuous terms like MT, lock box or loot box.



    When people start trying to protect me from myself I get suspicious. Not only are loot boxes legally not gambling, gambling is in fact legal in many places. So maybe put your good intentions where the sun don't shine and let me look out for myself and my family. I'm the best informed and capable person to do it. I don't need your agenda. 



    I agree, if you're an adult. There's a reason children don't come of age legally at 8 or 9, but rather 18 or 21. The brains of children are not fully cooked earlier than that and there's an argument to be made that males don't reach adulthood until their early 20s.

    There's nothing wrong with making parents aware that gambling mechanisms are an integral part of a game. Then the parent can decide whether to expose their children and their wallet to same. Developers have successfully hidden what they are doing for quite some time. Now the cat is out of the bag and it's time for reasonable action to control a multi-billion dollar industry that is sucking off children.
    but here is the thing, how well did this clever strategy of focusing on the kids work for getting rid of violence in your video game?


    I can assure you with 1000000% confidence (big number) that if you win the most ideal case about gambling for kids that the best outcome is going to be a PEGI rating for it. Thats it,,,just like that deters kids from violent games..most of which arent even playing those MMOs in the first place!

    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    actually io you put the barrier of M or adult only tags on games with MT will make company think again before doing this, I remember game company make several changes on localization of games to prevent these tags who would make then a restrited sale zone, like wallmart not letting then sell it and so on, with also could get then to lose the whole cash cards they sell in these places, but then again that article is kinda old so I don't know if would hold true today on most games are downloaded
    so this really isnt about the childern but rather a stradegy to get it out for most

    I don't think gambling should be in gaming, but I realise that it may be impossible to stop for adults. Arcade games were never fruit machine games, but that's the way they are now going. If it can only be stopped for minors so be it. But if the knock on effect of that is that it goes completely all the better.
    what about violence, maybe if we put in rules on violence around kids maybe we will get lucky and adults will not be exposed to violence as well.

    see why I find this 'its all about the kids' a pile of horseshit?

    Studies have shown that violence in TV shows and games do not produce youngsters more likely to commit violence.

    Whereas gambling does cause problems, such as children stealing from their parents. The PDF below goes into some such issues.

    http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Young-people-and-gambling-2016.pdf 



    Cool link, thanks, but I don't think it's as relevant as you think it is, since it's dealing with ACTUAL gambling. However, there is lots of interesting information in it. For one, the percentage of problem gamblers is 0.4% which aligns pretty closely with what it is for adults. They also identified that 1.2% are considered "at risk". So this study actually supports pretty much what people have said all along, that this really isn't a problem. Sure, publish odds or something like that, but as far as gambling mechanics go, there are 99 problems and games ain't one. Considering that 75% of these kids were apparently exposed to gambling advertising via television on a weekly basis, and there's no legislation against that? Gaming is the molehill that's been made into a mountain. Just read the report. If you can't pick out 5 issues that are considerably larger issues (like 16 year-olds being legally able to gamble) then your perspective is obviously skewed. 
    Indeed it is deals with actual gambling. I think the like of paid for loot boxes are just that, it seems others are now waking up to that fact. That's why you don't have loads of studies on gambling in gaming, it has gone under the radar.

    How many children need to be at risk before this is an issue for you? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? It is an issue for kids, that's good enough for me. The other gambling you mentioned on TV does not involve them actually betting money.

    My perspective was skewed by limited time, I picked the first thing I saw. The 16 year old thing is a separate issue, you seem to trying to find other things to argue about and point at them as if they prove what I agree with is wrong. You may well be right, that could well be more important issue, but it does not change what I said.


    The "there are more important issues" argument is a red herring.
    If that were true then there are no more important issues than gambling in games. Is that true?
    Why misrepresent the argument as a false dichotomy?  C'mon, Torval.

    We can't work to reduce rape because "there are more important issues" like murder.  See how silly that sounds?
    You said, "there are more important issues" is a red herring argument. That would be hard to prove since it's a subjective opinion, but if it were true then the "therefore" in the statement would be false because fallacy is falsehoods disguised in an argument that sounds true. It's in the the rules of propositional logic. If you want to break arguments by pointing out propositional fallacies (which it isn't) then you have to accept the other rules that go with. Without throwing out a bunch of wordy math stuff I'm saying it's not a false dichotomy. It's Modus Ponens derived through Modus Tollens.
    MadFrenchie
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 896
    I just wish we could buy games as full experiences again. Season Passes suck, but at least you could shell out 120$ for a full game. Now you're paying for intentionally broken products.
    CazrielYashaX
  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,629
    edited December 7
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    actually io you put the barrier of M or adult only tags on games with MT will make company think again before doing this, I remember game company make several changes on localization of games to prevent these tags who would make then a restrited sale zone, like wallmart not letting then sell it and so on, with also could get then to lose the whole cash cards they sell in these places, but then again that article is kinda old so I don't know if would hold true today on most games are downloaded
    so this really isnt about the childern but rather a stradegy to get it out for most

    I don't think gambling should be in gaming, but I realise that it may be impossible to stop for adults. Arcade games were never fruit machine games, but that's the way they are now going. If it can only be stopped for minors so be it. But if the knock on effect of that is that it goes completely all the better.
    what about violence, maybe if we put in rules on violence around kids maybe we will get lucky and adults will not be exposed to violence as well.

    see why I find this 'its all about the kids' a pile of horseshit?

    Studies have shown that violence in TV shows and games do not produce youngsters more likely to commit violence.

    Whereas gambling does cause problems, such as children stealing from their parents. The PDF below goes into some such issues.

    http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Young-people-and-gambling-2016.pdf 



    Cool link, thanks, but I don't think it's as relevant as you think it is, since it's dealing with ACTUAL gambling. However, there is lots of interesting information in it. For one, the percentage of problem gamblers is 0.4% which aligns pretty closely with what it is for adults. They also identified that 1.2% are considered "at risk". So this study actually supports pretty much what people have said all along, that this really isn't a problem. Sure, publish odds or something like that, but as far as gambling mechanics go, there are 99 problems and games ain't one. Considering that 75% of these kids were apparently exposed to gambling advertising via television on a weekly basis, and there's no legislation against that? Gaming is the molehill that's been made into a mountain. Just read the report. If you can't pick out 5 issues that are considerably larger issues (like 16 year-olds being legally able to gamble) then your perspective is obviously skewed. 
    Indeed it is deals with actual gambling. I think the like of paid for loot boxes are just that, it seems others are now waking up to that fact. That's why you don't have loads of studies on gambling in gaming, it has gone under the radar.

    How many children need to be at risk before this is an issue for you? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? It is an issue for kids, that's good enough for me. The other gambling you mentioned on TV does not involve them actually betting money.

    My perspective was skewed by limited time, I picked the first thing I saw. The 16 year old thing is a separate issue, you seem to trying to find other things to argue about and point at them as if they prove what I agree with is wrong. You may well be right, that could well be more important issue, but it does not change what I said.


    You're trying to associate your subjective opinion "I think loot boxes constitute gambling" with the factual results found in that survey. The opinion or premise that loot boxes constitute the exact same sort of gambling as in the report needs to stand on its own facts. Evidence can only be borrowed from something else and used in an argument if the two things exactly the same. They are not. If it can be proved that loot boxes are exactly the same sort of gambling then those survey results could be used in argument for supporting the same conclusions as drawn in the survey.

    The 16 year old argument is not irrelevant in the context of establishing regulation and concern about minor gambling. The argument of "concern" is hollow if there are more obvious egregious examples being overlooked to cherry pick personal favorites.

    People are at risk for many adverse events at all times. Using that argument broadly is a scare tactic used as an emotional appeal carrying no factual weight. Again, you must establish the exact risk and it needs to be supported with real data not some emotional propaganda scare tactics.

    The Crazy Canadian is trying to establish that this agenda of yours exists in a bigger and broader context that your arguments have ignored so far.

    I am not using that survey to say loot boxes are gambling, that is going to be established by governments and courts. As has been pointed out by MadFrenchie finding bigger issues than the one raised and saying that means our concerns are hollow, is a rather hollow argument itself Torval. If you want to start a thread about 16 year olds being able to gamble you will have my support.

    I do not have to establish the exact risk, now this is gaining momentum as an issue I expect those who have the funds and resources to do so will. "The Crazy Canadian"? come on, I have seen you post on here for years, that is beneath you.

    Post edited by Scot on
    GdemamiYashaX

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    CrazKanuk said:




    Cool link, thanks, but I don't think it's as relevant as you think it is, since it's dealing with ACTUAL gambling. However, there is lots of interesting information in it. For one, the percentage of problem gamblers is 0.4% which aligns pretty closely with what it is for adults. They also identified that 1.2% are considered "at risk". So this study actually supports pretty much what people have said all along, that this really isn't a problem. Sure, publish odds or something like that, but as far as gambling mechanics go, there are 99 problems and games ain't one. Considering that 75% of these kids were apparently exposed to gambling advertising via television on a weekly basis, and there's no legislation against that? Gaming is the molehill that's been made into a mountain. Just read the report. If you can't pick out 5 issues that are considerably larger issues (like 16 year-olds being legally able to gamble) then your perspective is obviously skewed. 
    Indeed it is deals with actual gambling. I think the like of paid for loot boxes are just that, it seems others are now waking up to that fact. That's why you don't have loads of studies on gambling in gaming, it has gone under the radar.

    How many children need to be at risk before this is an issue for you? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? It is an issue for kids, that's good enough for me. The other gambling you mentioned on TV does not involve them actually betting money.

    My perspective was skewed by limited time, I picked the first thing I saw. The 16 year old thing is a separate issue, you seem to trying to find other things to argue about and point at them as if they prove what I agree with is wrong. You may well be right, that could well be more important issue, but it does not change what I said.


    You're trying to associate your subjective opinion "I think loot boxes constitute gambling" with the factual results found in that survey. The opinion or premise that loot boxes constitute the exact same sort of gambling as in the report needs to stand on its own facts. Evidence can only be borrowed from something else and used in an argument if the two things exactly the same. They are not. If it can be proved that loot boxes are exactly the same sort of gambling then those survey results could be used in argument for supporting the same conclusions as drawn in the survey.

    The 16 year old argument is not irrelevant in the context of establishing regulation and concern about minor gambling. The argument of "concern" is hollow if there are more obvious egregious examples being overlooked to cherry pick personal favorites.

    People are at risk for many adverse events at all times. Using that argument broadly is a scare tactic used as an emotional appeal carrying no factual weight. Again, you must establish the exact risk and it needs to be supported with real data not some emotional propaganda scare tactics.

    The Crazy Canadian is trying to establish that this agenda of yours exists in a bigger and broader context that your arguments have ignored so far.

    I am not using that survey to say loot boxes are gambling, that is going to be established by governments and courts. As has been pointed out by MadFrenchie finding bigger issues than the one raised and saying that means our concerns are hollow, is a rather hollow argument itself Torval. If you want to start a thread about 16 year olds being able to gamble you will have my support.

    I do not have to establish the exact risk, now this is gaining momentum as an issue I expect those who have the funds and resources to do so will. "The Crazy Canadian"? come on, I have seen you post on here for years, that is beneath you.

    What? His name is CrazyKanuk. Where I'm from a Kanuk is a Canadian. It wasn't an insult.

    Well there's not much to argue if you're going for an emotional appeal with no risk data to support that. You're pretty much saying that you have an alternate agenda, don't care about child gambling at all, and are using this to try and leverage change in the industry. Good luck with that.

    Without real problems there won't be real change. Since gambling isn't the real problem here nothing in the industry will change.
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    Scot said:
    I have not had a chance to read the template, but he seems to be spot on with the term "gambling mechanisms". By making this illegal for those who are under 21, gaming companies will sit up and take notice. No doubt they will fight this, I understand EA earns billions just from FIFA using gambling mechanisms.

    Early days, but some hope for those who consider gambling in gaming as a shameful aberration from gaming ethos.
    Here are the key action points:

    1. Ensure that games employing loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased receive a 21 years of age and older “Adults Only” rating to warn consumers before they purchase or download a new game.
     2. Consider prohibiting the sale of games employing loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased to those under 21 years of age.
     3. Expand the mission of regulatory oversight bodies such as gaming commissions—which already oversee slot machines—to encompass loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased in video games.
     4. Require the clear disclosure of the odds of winning items in loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased on screen at the time of purchase.
     5. Enable regulators to audit the game mechanics of loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased to ensure consumers are treated fairly.

    I believe that these are things that publishers can work with. Some of them (age verification) may require government assistance.


    I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.

    That is incredibly broad. At any point an assertive administration could interpret and apply that to a broad range of reward mechanics. It's essentially anything that isn't completely deterministic.
    zimike
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 896
    Torval said:
    I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.

    That is incredibly broad. At any point an assertive administration could interpret and apply that to a broad range of reward mechanics. It's essentially anything that isn't completely deterministic.
    What is an example of a variable reward mechanism linked to a paywall?

    I can think of many variable rewards (RNG essentially), but most of them aren't linked to payments at all (loot drops, procedural dungeon spawns, random quest pool draws).
    zimikeScot
  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,005
    edited December 8
    laxie said:
    Torval said:
    I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.

    That is incredibly broad. At any point an assertive administration could interpret and apply that to a broad range of reward mechanics. It's essentially anything that isn't completely deterministic.
    What is an example of a variable reward mechanism linked to a paywall?

    I can think of many variable rewards (RNG essentially), but most of them aren't linked to payments at all (loot drops, procedural dungeon spawns, random quest pool draws).
    Here is an example of what they are talking about:

    http://edeneternal.aeriagames.com/itemmall/loot-wheel

    I know about this one from personal experience, but I am sure that there are plenty more.

    I do want to say that they will need to be very clear about their definitions, else they could, in effect ban most games out due to lack of understanding.

    P.S. WoW is a variable loot mechanism, locked behind a paywall.

    Post edited by Superman0X on
    Torvallaxie
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    laxie said:
    Torval said:
    I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.

    That is incredibly broad. At any point an assertive administration could interpret and apply that to a broad range of reward mechanics. It's essentially anything that isn't completely deterministic.
    What is an example of a variable reward mechanism linked to a paywall?

    I can think of many variable rewards (RNG essentially), but most of them aren't linked to payments at all (loot drops, procedural dungeon spawns, random quest pool draws).
    Here is an example of what they are talking about:

    http://edeneternal.aeriagames.com/itemmall/loot-wheel

    I know about this one from personal experience, but I am sure that there are plenty more.

    I do want to say that they will need to be very clear about their definitions, else they could, in effect ban most games out due to lack of understanding.

    P.S. WoW is a variable loot mechanism, locked behind a paywall.

    The Eden Eternal example I'm familiar with along with a couple other games that have used similar interfaces. I think Nostale is the latest I've played that has a daily spin-clicky like that as well.

    The WoW example is one I thought of specifically because I'm playing that right now. The WoW design could be described as a system where the player pays for a time slot to click and destroy as many variable reward containers (mobs) as possible before the timer runs out and the player needs to insert another quarter $15.

    Most every MMO and MMORPG I can think of works this way. Should they need to disclose how much it costs to obtain chase items and progression? Should they be rated accordingly? Will minors be allowed to circumvent these systems with parental approval like other platforms (say YouTube for example).

    There are so many unanswered questions and possibilities to change our hobby landscape in unexpected ways.
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 896
    Torval said:
    The WoW example is one I thought of specifically because I'm playing that right now. The WoW design could be described as a system where the player pays for a time slot to click and destroy as many variable reward containers (mobs) as possible before the timer runs out and the player needs to insert another quarter $15.
    By this definition, Pac Man is also a loot box. You pay a dollar and there is randomness to where the ghosts go and what fruits spawn.

    It also has the same addictive element - you want to play again and again to beat the high score. Dragon's Lair is probably even worse at this, given the difficult learning curve. I bet you could spend many quarters before you figured the basics out.

    And on that note, House of the Dead machines, where you can insert a quarter to continue where you left off, are exploitative in their own little way. I remember boss fights that took me several "quarters" to get through.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,974
    laxie said:
    Torval said:
    The WoW example is one I thought of specifically because I'm playing that right now. The WoW design could be described as a system where the player pays for a time slot to click and destroy as many variable reward containers (mobs) as possible before the timer runs out and the player needs to insert another quarter $15.
    By this definition, Pac Man is also a loot box. You pay a dollar and there is randomness to where the ghosts go and what fruits spawn.

    It also has the same addictive element - you want to play again and again to beat the high score. Dragon's Lair is probably even worse at this, given the difficult learning curve. I bet you could spend many quarters before you figured the basics out.

    And on that note, House of the Dead machines, where you can insert a quarter to continue where you left off, are exploitative in their own little way. I remember boss fights that took me several "quarters" to get through.
    Those games aren't part of the variable reward mechanism they're referencing.  If the House of the Dead read "put a quarter in, win a new life OR one of these other prizes!!" then that would qualify it.
    YashaXGdemami

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,974
    Torval said:
    laxie said:
    Torval said:
    I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.

    That is incredibly broad. At any point an assertive administration could interpret and apply that to a broad range of reward mechanics. It's essentially anything that isn't completely deterministic.
    What is an example of a variable reward mechanism linked to a paywall?

    I can think of many variable rewards (RNG essentially), but most of them aren't linked to payments at all (loot drops, procedural dungeon spawns, random quest pool draws).
    Here is an example of what they are talking about:

    http://edeneternal.aeriagames.com/itemmall/loot-wheel

    I know about this one from personal experience, but I am sure that there are plenty more.

    I do want to say that they will need to be very clear about their definitions, else they could, in effect ban most games out due to lack of understanding.

    P.S. WoW is a variable loot mechanism, locked behind a paywall.

    The Eden Eternal example I'm familiar with along with a couple other games that have used similar interfaces. I think Nostale is the latest I've played that has a daily spin-clicky like that as well.

    The WoW example is one I thought of specifically because I'm playing that right now. The WoW design could be described as a system where the player pays for a time slot to click and destroy as many variable reward containers (mobs) as possible before the timer runs out and the player needs to insert another quarter $15.

    Most every MMO and MMORPG I can think of works this way. Should they need to disclose how much it costs to obtain chase items and progression? Should they be rated accordingly? Will minors be allowed to circumvent these systems with parental approval like other platforms (say YouTube for example).

    There are so many unanswered questions and possibilities to change our hobby landscape in unexpected ways.
    No, Torval, because these legislators aren't attempting to be wilfully obtuse.

    You pay for the game experience with a sub.  You may not like that fact, but it doesn't make it less true.
    YashaXGdemamiScot

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    laxie said:
    Torval said:
    The WoW example is one I thought of specifically because I'm playing that right now. The WoW design could be described as a system where the player pays for a time slot to click and destroy as many variable reward containers (mobs) as possible before the timer runs out and the player needs to insert another quarter $15.
    By this definition, Pac Man is also a loot box. You pay a dollar and there is randomness to where the ghosts go and what fruits spawn.

    It also has the same addictive element - you want to play again and again to beat the high score. Dragon's Lair is probably even worse at this, given the difficult learning curve. I bet you could spend many quarters before you figured the basics out.

    And on that note, House of the Dead machines, where you can insert a quarter to continue where you left off, are exploitative in their own little way. I remember boss fights that took me several "quarters" to get through.
    Arcade games are the original predatory game design and they're specifically targeted at children. You don't need "randomness" when you can program the algorithm to not pay out all the time.

    One of the most famous games that uses an intelligent algorithm like this is Candy Crush. It's not your skill that gets you a win. It's whether the game decides to offer you an opportunity this time. Most of the time those opportunities are presented such that the only way past is buying a power up.

    MMOs are designed along those same lines. But yes, every video game that provides a variable reward container (as defined) could be potentially subject to that regulation including Pac Man. Legislators and lawyers don't care whether some gamers like certain variable reward containers (VRC) more than others. I question whether that will even be entered as relevant to the discussion. Either way the more addictive the VRC the more likely it is to face regulation. The more money a publisher makes the more likely they're face scrutinizing.

    What are some of the highest revenue generating online games you can think of:
    League of Legends
    FIFA
    World of Warcraft
    Grand Theft Auto V / Online
    CS:GO
    Dota2
    CoD
    Finaly Fantasy 14
    SWTOR
    ESO
    GW2
    Blade and  Soul

    Do those games have VRCs in some form?

    After VRCs are addressed I'm certain other predatory practices have their day in the spotlight too such as RMT game cash conversions. So another question to ask is what other games have predatory RMT monetization. What are some games that have RMT cash conversion and are those designed and implemented in a predatory manner:

    EVE
    GW2
    Neverwinter Online
    STO
    World of Warcraft
    GTA Online

    Maybe the best thing to do is email these legislators and inform them that predatory practices extend far beyond loot crates.
    MadFrenchie
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,974
    edited December 8
    Torval said:
    But yes, every video game that provides a variable reward container (as defined) could be potentially subject to that regulation including Pac Man. Legislators and lawyers don't care whether some gamers like certain variable reward containers (VRC) more than others. I question whether that will even be entered as relevant to the discussion. Either way the more addictive the VRC the more likely it is to face regulation. The more money a publisher makes the more likely they're face scrutinizing.
    Seriously Torval?  Lol petty fear-mongering?

    Maybe read some of Quinlan's other comments on video games.  He's nowhere near as ignorant as you'd like for him to be about video games.  Based on the statements he's made since announcing his intent to review loot boxes for legislation, it's quite obvious he does NOT include Pac Man.

    As for your earlier comment regarding propositional logic- way to go off on a tangent that has no bearing.  Nobody's signing up for an intro to logic class, and Craz is the one using "more important things" as his reasoning for why folks shouldn't be discussing loot box legislation.  Many debates here center on differences of opinion, where posters explain the reasoning behind why they feel their opinion of a situation is correct.  None of your attempts to muddy the waters changes the intent or effect of my post or Craz's.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemami

    image
  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 896
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    TorvalScot
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,974
    laxie said:
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    No, they aren't.  My point is: they aren't going to copy-pasta the list Superman posted into the law books and scream "Done!"  That's not the way legislation works.  The fact that he's even entertaining the idea at this point is silly.
    Gdemami

    image
  • CazrielCazriel San Francisco, CAMember UncommonPosts: 245
    SEANMCAD said:
    Cazriel said:
    "Gambling mechanisms", an excellent phrase. Call it what it is rather than the innocuous terms like MT, lock box or loot box.



    When people start trying to protect me from myself I get suspicious. Not only are loot boxes legally not gambling, gambling is in fact legal in many places. So maybe put your good intentions where the sun don't shine and let me look out for myself and my family. I'm the best informed and capable person to do it. I don't need your agenda. 



    I agree, if you're an adult. There's a reason children don't come of age legally at 8 or 9, but rather 18 or 21. The brains of children are not fully cooked earlier than that and there's an argument to be made that males don't reach adulthood until their early 20s.

    There's nothing wrong with making parents aware that gambling mechanisms are an integral part of a game. Then the parent can decide whether to expose their children and their wallet to same. Developers have successfully hidden what they are doing for quite some time. Now the cat is out of the bag and it's time for reasonable action to control a multi-billion dollar industry that is sucking off children.
    but here is the thing, how well did this clever strategy of focusing on the kids work for getting rid of violence in your video game?


    I can assure you with 1000000% confidence (big number) that if you win the most ideal case about gambling for kids that the best outcome is going to be a PEGI rating for it. Thats it,,,just like that deters kids from violent games..most of which arent even playing those MMOs in the first place!

      
    I'm confused about why you continue to bring violence into a conversation about gambling.  Is it just that they would both (potentially) be regulated by the same oversight bodies?  Did you expect regulation to prevent violence in games and it hasn't so you don't see how it would work with gambling?  Of course, since the majority of games are based on kill x of that in one form or another, removing violence from video games isn't possible.  Gambling boxes, on the other hand, are not inherent to gaming and can be more rigorously regulated.

    Also, the ratings are for parents, not kids.  Because no kid is going to look at a Mature rating and go, yeah, better not touch that.  Just writing that makes me laugh.  Totally not gonna happen.  But if parents are aware that games are rated for gambling and that gambling in games has been identified as a negative influence, then you bet Mom, as busy as she is, is going to look at a game's rating before handing over her credit card.

    Just like sex ratings (X in days of yore, NC-17 now) impact viewership of films, gambling ratings will impact games sales.  Just like NC-17 ratings cause filmmakers to rethink their creative choices and make cuts to get down to an R rating, devs will be doing the same thing if any kind of reasonable regulation comes of this.  And since we're talking violence, films can be very violent and receive a lower rating than a film with a single sex scene.  One is acceptable viewing, the other isn't.   
    YashaX
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,512
    edited December 8
    The exact point I had before mentioned on regulations, it must hit on the age factor and due the gamble of it, it goes beyond stuff like a PG Rating (just as online casinos). This will push back on the main publishers with the mainstream titles massively marketed to kids.

    But the impact of something like this makes it most likely companies will fight it as most as possible, and/or will work around it with details but achieving similar results financially.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • GruugGruug Chillicothe, ILMember UncommonPosts: 1,555
    While I agree that the whole debate on real money purchased random loot boxes is a bad thing for gaming in general, I do not believe that government regulation is the answer. This issue is serious and it needs to be addressed but what I fear is that once government gets its foot in the door, they will not only regulate these loot boxes but start to have a greater say in other things that can or cannot be in games. Government has a tendency to take a good idea, make it their own and then over regulate the industry. If you think regulations are a good thing in gaming (not just on real money purchases of random loot), then bag of you to rethink that position. Government will ruin our games. We the gamer should be making better choices in the games we purchase and what we purchase once that game is on the market. 

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAMember UncommonPosts: 5,445
    edited December 8
    Cazriel said:
    "Gambling mechanisms", an excellent phrase. Call it what it is rather than the innocuous terms like MT, lock box or loot box.



    When people start trying to protect me from myself I get suspicious. Not only are loot boxes legally not gambling, gambling is in fact legal in many places. So maybe put your good intentions where the sun don't shine and let me look out for myself and my family. I'm the best informed and capable person to do it. I don't need your agenda. 



    I agree, if you're an adult. There's a reason children don't come of age legally at 8 or 9, but rather 18 or 21. The brains of children are not fully cooked earlier than that and there's an argument to be made that males don't reach adulthood until their early 20s.

    There's nothing wrong with making parents aware that gambling mechanisms are an integral part of a game. Then the parent can decide whether to expose their children and their wallet to same. Developers have successfully hidden what they are doing for quite some time. Now the cat is out of the bag and it's time for reasonable action to control a multi-billion dollar industry that is sucking off children.
    Maybe don't give your kids credit cards at 8 or 9 years old? Actually kids minds don't fully develop until they're about thirty.
    Post edited by zymurgeist on

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember RarePosts: 2,005
    edited December 8
    No, Torval, because these legislators aren't attempting to be wilfully obtuse.

    You pay for the game experience with a sub.  You may not like that fact, but it doesn't make it less true.

    ****

    Sorry for the formatting, quote broke.

    ****

    The issue isnt the game experience, it is the 'Gambling Mechanisms'.  It will depend on how they define it. The issue is that they are NOT defining the game experience, so it doesnt matter.

    laxie said:
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    No, they aren't.  My point is: they aren't going to copy-pasta the list Superman posted into the law books and scream "Done!"  That's not the way legislation works.  The fact that he's even entertaining the idea at this point is silly.
    So, you are saying we should NOT consider the points that they have suggested? That seems a bit silly to me.



    Post edited by Superman0X on
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    laxie said:
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    That is one of my points.

    1. The language is broad and that's a concern.

    2. The agenda to regulate out of concern for the children is emotionally, not data, driven.

    3. Unexpected consequences will unfold from this. Be thoughtful.
    ConstantineMerus
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,001
    laxie said:
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    No, they aren't.  My point is: they aren't going to copy-pasta the list Superman posted into the law books and scream "Done!"  That's not the way legislation works.  The fact that he's even entertaining the idea at this point is silly.
    That does seem a bit crazy, like passing a budget for a G8 nation without a review and illegible hand-written last minute (literally) edits; that kind of crazy, is that the kind of batshit crazy you're talking about?
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,629
    Torval said:
    laxie said:
    I think Torval's general point is that when it comes to any legislation, the specific language used is important.

    I can subscribe to that. But I don't think they are going to regulate Pac Man on accident. :smiley:
    No, they aren't.  My point is: they aren't going to copy-pasta the list Superman posted into the law books and scream "Done!"  That's not the way legislation works.  The fact that he's even entertaining the idea at this point is silly.
    That does seem a bit crazy, like passing a budget for a G8 nation without a review and illegible hand-written last minute (literally) edits; that kind of crazy, is that the kind of batshit crazy you're talking about?

    I am not sure why I picked this one to quote Torval, you are picking arguments out of the air to reason that gambling in gaming is fine. Anything and everything is not a sound basis on which to construct an argument.
    Gdemami

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,876
    Scot said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Scot said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    actually io you put the barrier of M or adult only tags on games with MT will make company think again before doing this, I remember game company make several changes on localization of games to prevent these tags who would make then a restrited sale zone, like wallmart not letting then sell it and so on, with also could get then to lose the whole cash cards they sell in these places, but then again that article is kinda old so I don't know if would hold true today on most games are downloaded
    so this really isnt about the childern but rather a stradegy to get it out for most

    I don't think gambling should be in gaming, but I realise that it may be impossible to stop for adults. Arcade games were never fruit machine games, but that's the way they are now going. If it can only be stopped for minors so be it. But if the knock on effect of that is that it goes completely all the better.
    what about violence, maybe if we put in rules on violence around kids maybe we will get lucky and adults will not be exposed to violence as well.

    see why I find this 'its all about the kids' a pile of horseshit?

    Studies have shown that violence in TV shows and games do not produce youngsters more likely to commit violence.

    Whereas gambling does cause problems, such as children stealing from their parents. The PDF below goes into some such issues.

    http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/survey-data/Young-people-and-gambling-2016.pdf 



    Cool link, thanks, but I don't think it's as relevant as you think it is, since it's dealing with ACTUAL gambling. However, there is lots of interesting information in it. For one, the percentage of problem gamblers is 0.4% which aligns pretty closely with what it is for adults. They also identified that 1.2% are considered "at risk". So this study actually supports pretty much what people have said all along, that this really isn't a problem. Sure, publish odds or something like that, but as far as gambling mechanics go, there are 99 problems and games ain't one. Considering that 75% of these kids were apparently exposed to gambling advertising via television on a weekly basis, and there's no legislation against that? Gaming is the molehill that's been made into a mountain. Just read the report. If you can't pick out 5 issues that are considerably larger issues (like 16 year-olds being legally able to gamble) then your perspective is obviously skewed. 
    Indeed it is deals with actual gambling. I think the like of paid for loot boxes are just that, it seems others are now waking up to that fact. That's why you don't have loads of studies on gambling in gaming, it has gone under the radar.

    How many children need to be at risk before this is an issue for you? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? It is an issue for kids, that's good enough for me. The other gambling you mentioned on TV does not involve them actually betting money.

    My perspective was skewed by limited time, I picked the first thing I saw. The 16 year old thing is a separate issue, you seem to trying to find other things to argue about and point at them as if they prove what I agree with is wrong. You may well be right, that could well be more important issue, but it does not change what I said.




    I think you're missing the point. Gambling is a mental issue. What you seem to believe is that these people are somehow "saving the children" when that isn't the case whatsoever. What the study shows is that childhood gambling is obviously a problem. If this is a problem that needs to be solved, and based on the survey I think it is, then there are steps that should be taken. However, if you think that regulation is somehow going to stop it, then you're sorely mistaken, again this survey only serves to reinforce that fact. I've said since this whole debacle started, I'm fine with labeling or packaging, but in the end that doesn't solve anything, this needs to be addressed face-to-face. There needs to be actual education put in place.

    Unfortunately people seem to be either 1) advocating for themselves as a self-serving act because they simply dislike the mechanic, or; 2) think kids are idiots. If you're part of the #2 crowd, then I'd suggest you take another look at the survey. These kids overwhelmingly realized, after the fact, that gambling isn't what they thought it was. Their view is overwhelmingly negative. If you had this sort of education at a grassroots level, it might help those who can be helped. For others, who are compulsive about it, you could attempt to address the mental aspects of it, and treat it like the disease it is. It's a mental disorder at that point, and should be treated as such. Proactive, educational methods are the only real solution. Anything else is a waste of money, which is fucking hilarious because I've seen people on here before complaining that they are paying for these people to live on welfare and spend all their money on loot boxes. If you think any sort of government intervention is anything more than flushing money down the toilet, then you're hilariously misinformed. Playstation already tries to do that, which is why each of my kids is 10 years older than what they actually are. They also play M games and none are 18, and I can tell you from experience that parents generally DO NOT look at the ratings because many kids that my boys go to school with play M rated games, and they are not of age. So, unless you are going to form some sort of separate office to go around and verify the age of every gamer on the planet, every gamer account, I don't know how it would ever be effective. 

    I hope this clears up my intent. I'm all for putting a stop to childhood gambling, but if you believe that regulation is going to stop it, I think that you're wildly over-estimating the abilities of the government. 

    Oh! As far as the TV reference, the study said that 75% of these teens had seen advertisements for gambling on television in the last week. My point there was that, if you're concerned about the children, the fact that 75% f kids can say they have seen advertisements about gambling on TV in the last week is VERY problematic. I can't even say I've seen one. Also, I'm sure that these commercials aren't promoting how much of a drag gambling is and how much money you might lose. 

    My point is, if this is a "Save the Children from Gambling!!" effort, this is a MASSIVE undertaking, and video games are quite a way down in the pecking order for what is triggering these children to get into gambling. Again, I don't need to tell you that, 2000 teens already did, it's right in that survey. 

    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
    ----------------

Sign In or Register to comment.