That guy is as toxic as they come. Throwing around insults while crying about being insulted. Once he is backed into a corner with no way to twist arguments he...."I am out and will not respond" or /leaves thread. Highly entertaining.
Cameltosis clearly started the insults in this thread as you can read so donno what you're implying here. Doesn't matter what he said in other threads.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
I don't think it is the society job to "protect" adults from stupidity. Warn them and inform them .. sure. But if they want to be stupid, let them.
As for children .. it is their parents' job to protect them, not mine. I will protect my children from bad decisions, not yours. Again, warm parents and inform parents. If they are stupid enough to give a teenager an unlimited credit card, it is not my problem.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
I don't think it is the society job to "protect" adults from stupidity. Warn them and inform them .. sure. But if they want to be stupid, let them.
As for children .. it is their parents' job to protect them, not mine. I will protect my children from bad decisions, not yours. Again, warm parents and inform parents. If they are stupid enough to give a teenager an unlimited credit card, it is not my problem.
Depends on how much harm can be inflicted by "stupidity", surely? I'm 99% certain I could name some examples of stupidity that would leave you pretty hard pressed to stick to that broad statement for very long. Even if you had the gumption to carry on with that warped line of thinking, because you're some kind of misguided libertarian, at some point you have to consider that society as a whole has to protect itself from stupidity, whether it's directly invested in protecting "adults" from stupidity or not.
Pathological gambling, for example, can inflict significant harm on an individual in a psychological sense, including dramatically increasing the risk of suicide or substance abuse (itself dramatically increasing the risk of suicide). Beyond that risk to the individual in question, there's the peripheral damage to individuals around them; entire families thrown into debt and destitution is not an uncommon consequence of pathological gambling. And in societal terms, loss of productivity, increase in crime, increase in costs of emergency care for said individuals, etc, etc.
You can try to argue that protecting people from stupidity (or a neurobiological disorder of the brain that leads to addictive behaviour, rather than stupidity) isn't your concern, but I'd simply say that the history of Western economies suggests you are wrong, and also that you are short-sighted and narrow-minded. However, learning by experience is best, and if things continue the way they are... by God will you learn.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
I don't think it is the society job to "protect" adults from stupidity. Warn them and inform them .. sure. But if they want to be stupid, let them.
As for children .. it is their parents' job to protect them, not mine. I will protect my children from bad decisions, not yours. Again, warm parents and inform parents. If they are stupid enough to give a teenager an unlimited credit card, it is not my problem.
Depends on how much harm can be inflicted by "stupidity", surely? I'm 99% certain I could name some examples of stupidity that would leave you pretty hard pressed to stick to that broad statement for very long. Even if you had the gumption to carry on with that warped line of thinking, because you're some kind of misguided libertarian, at some point you have to consider that society as a whole has to protect itself from stupidity, whether it's directly invested in protecting "adults" from stupidity or not.
Pathological gambling, for example, can inflict significant harm on an individual in a psychological sense, including dramatically increasing the risk of suicide or substance abuse (itself dramatically increasing the risk of suicide). Beyond that risk to the individual in question, there's the peripheral damage to individuals around them; entire families thrown into debt and destitution is not an uncommon consequence of pathological gambling. And in societal terms, loss of productivity, increase in crime, increase in costs of emergency care for said individuals, etc, etc.
You can try to argue that protecting people from stupidity (or a neurobiological disorder of the brain that leads to addictive behaviour, rather than stupidity) isn't your concern, but I'd simply say that the history of Western economies suggests you are wrong, and also that you are short-sighted and narrow-minded. However, learning by experience is best, and if things continue the way they are... by God will you learn.
Uh we're talking about game purchases here.....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Pathological gambling, for example, can inflict significant harm on an individual in a psychological sense, including dramatically increasing the risk of suicide or substance abuse (itself dramatically increasing the risk of suicide).
and what is the incident rate of pathological gambling? In fact, take the most common vice .. alcohol. We tried prohibition .. tell me what happened there. Do we have alcoholics now .. sure. Are they tearing down society as we speak .. not so much.
A nanny state is when the fix is worse than the problem.
The solution is education and information, not try to legislate away stupidity. Gambling is legal is many states in the form of lotteries, bingo games, and so on. Pot is legal .. even with recreation use in more and more states. Is society dying because of all these?
There is evidence that society is waking up to the fact that trying to legislate stupidity away is a bad idea.
May be you should look at evidence and history a little more closely. Imagine some sob example of a family torn apart by loot box gambling is not going to make the problem big.
So I finally googled the term "loot box". Ah, now I get it.
Man, that's one of the things about Jade Dynasty. Some of the things that mobs drop, or that get automatically added into your inventory once a day, are loot boxes. Damn crap cluttering up my inventory. Some of them you can't just double-click to open, you have to take them to a certain NPC. What really pisses me off is you can;t just throw them out or NPC many of them: actually unremovable from one's inventory!
This forum is broken. It is time to move to proboards, because they're broken.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
I don't think it is the society job to "protect" adults from stupidity. Warn them and inform them .. sure. But if they want to be stupid, let them.
As for children .. it is their parents' job to protect them, not mine. I will protect my children from bad decisions, not yours. Again, warm parents and inform parents. If they are stupid enough to give a teenager an unlimited credit card, it is not my problem.
Depends on how much harm can be inflicted by "stupidity", surely?....
1. not really. how much harm to OTHER people, yes, but the stupid person should have the right to be as harmful to themselves as they wish.
2. Lootboxes is something so harmful everyone needs to be protected from them? really? paid lootboxes in a video game...really? seriously? we need that much protection from the state?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. not really. how much harm to OTHER people, yes, but the stupid person should have the right to be as harmful to themselves as they wish.
2. Lootboxes is something so harmful everyone needs to be protected from them? really? paid lootboxes in a video game...really? seriously? we need that much protection from the state?
Not everyday i agree with SEANMCAD .. but i do this time.
There are already laws protecting me from other people's stupidity. I don't need more laws to tell me what i can or cannot do, as long as I don't harm another else.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Lol
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Lol
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
we do not live in a free market but parts of it resemble free market principles which is what I was saying.
Why are you do against anything remotely RESEMBLING free market principles?
if we are going to start applying morality to every single solitary game mechanic then literally everything sold without any exception would have to be fully reviewed and accepted by a central authority and the first thing likely to go would be sex and violence.
is that what you want?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Quite a leap from putting some age restrictions/warnings on games that are gambling driven like BF2, to an absolutely "hardline fierce campaign ... to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles" and "a Authoritarian state".
We already have age restrictions and warnings on games with excessive violence/adult themes so its nothing new.
Quite a leap from putting some age restrictions/warnings on games that are gambling driven like BF2, to an absolutely "hardline fierce campaign ... to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles" and "a Authoritarian state".
We already have age restrictions and warnings on games with excessive violence/adult themes so its nothing new.
I dont think so.
My issue is this statement 'It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?'
A person should have the right to commit as much damage and immorality to themselves as they desire. If its not affecting other people DIRECTLY.
Yes...age comes into to play...but goddamnit lets be honest, nobody here is really intrested in ending lootboxes 'because of the children', give that grade A bullshit a fucking rest its older than dog shit because everyone knows the people here want lootboxes gone from THEIR game...they are not childern
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Quite a leap from putting some age restrictions/warnings on games that are gambling driven like BF2, to an absolutely "hardline fierce campaign ... to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles" and "a Authoritarian state".
We already have age restrictions and warnings on games with excessive violence/adult themes so its nothing new.
I dont think so.
Yes...age comes into to play...but goddamnit lets be honest, nobody here is really intrested in ending lootboxes 'because of the children', give that grade A bullshit a fucking rest its older than dog shit because everyone knows the people here want lootboxes gone from THEIR game...they are not childern
Couldn't be that some people also have children, or just care about social issues?
Quite a leap from putting some age restrictions/warnings on games that are gambling driven like BF2, to an absolutely "hardline fierce campaign ... to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles" and "a Authoritarian state".
We already have age restrictions and warnings on games with excessive violence/adult themes so its nothing new.
I dont think so.
Yes...age comes into to play...but goddamnit lets be honest, nobody here is really intrested in ending lootboxes 'because of the children', give that grade A bullshit a fucking rest its older than dog shit because everyone knows the people here want lootboxes gone from THEIR game...they are not childern
Couldn't be that some people also have children, or just care about social issues?
it 'could' to use your word exactly but its not in this forum
You seriously think this outrage is all about PEGI version for gambling. yeah because PEGI has reduced violence in your video game experience hasnt?
dont bullshit me please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Few lootboxes actually demand that you use them. For instance in ArcheAge every time they release a new exclusive mount/pet/glider/costume the primary way to get it is through lootboxes rather than buying them outright.
But the item drops as a wrapped version that can be traded until it's unwrapped (At which point it becomes soulbound and untradeable.) I've never done a lootbox in any game other than those games that toss you free ones sometimes. I don't even buy them with in-game currency much less real currency because I hate the RNG factor. But I get my mounts when I decide I want them. I go buy the wrapped version because I know 100% for sure that in the end, there will be a mount in my inventory.
So the big take away for me is that personally, I don't care if the RNG is in-game so long as I have the option of bypassing it.
So why would I object too strongly to their existence in-game? Only for the sake of the 1-2% of people with serious gambling issues that become addicted to them. Eh. Sad but not really my problem. If they don't spend their money on lootboxes they'll blow it on online poker or lottery tickets. And then they'll blame those things instead of themselves just like they say "lootboxes ruined my life!" right now. No, you ruined your life.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Lol
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
we do not live in a free market but parts of it resemble free market principles which is what I was saying.
Why are you do against anything remotely RESEMBLING free market principles?
if we are going to start applying morality to every single solitary game mechanic then literally everything sold without any exception would have to be fully reviewed and accepted by a central authority and the first thing likely to go would be sex and violence.
is that what you want?
I think sex is already gone except for in a very specific subset of games. I don't consider romance in games selling sex. Games like Mass Effect and The Witcher 2 and 3 aren't really selling it.
Violence is in every game I'll admit. Most people don't seem to have an issue with it as long as it doesn't have to do with sexual violence for whatever reason.
I think both are fun because they cause chemical reactions in us like in any drug. Whether these things are good for us or not is another matter. I think it's possible these things do influence us at a young age. My generation who grew up on video games, pornography, and Violent Television/Movies. I would say it was way less empathetic than the current generation now that parents are much more active in monitoring what game their children play, what shows they watch, and how much they do of each activity.
One might argue that none of this really matters. If people are so successful that they don't have violence or bad habits the world will overpopulate and there won't be enough food. People will fight over food and water. I'm not really sure why people think empathy is such a big deal in this day and age. In past generations, there was lots of killing and in reality and the human race still prospered despite huge losses. Sure people suffer and lose their families, but humans live a short life and their only real known purpose is to procreate. Being healthy or greatly knowledgeable is optional. If a lot of people die people will just procreate more. Humans live such a short life it doesn't really matter in the end. You might suffer a bit for the blink of an eye and be gone, but the human race will continue on until eventual extinction that is inevitable no matter how knowledgeable we get.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Lol
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
we do not live in a free market but parts of it resemble free market principles which is what I was saying.
Why are you do against anything remotely RESEMBLING free market principles?
if we are going to start applying morality to every single solitary game mechanic then literally everything sold without any exception would have to be fully reviewed and accepted by a central authority and the first thing likely to go would be sex and violence.
is that what you want?
I think sex is already gone except for in a very specific subset of games. I don't consider romance in games selling sex. Games like Mass Effect and The Witcher 2 and 3 aren't really selling it.
Violence is in every game I'll admit. Most people don't seem to have an issue with it as long as it doesn't have to do with sexual violence for whatever reason. ...
sorry but I have a problem with a authoritarian moral authority curating my game content appointed by a group of people who thinks violence is not morally questionable but gambling is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well you are correct when it comes to paid lootboxes, a spending minority is funding the games.
But I am talking about removing RNG from the game not just paid lootboxes.
People say they hate RNG in games, but its the mechanic that keeps it interesting for the masses
The topic creator clarified that this topic is in regard to paid purchased loot boxes. So earning RNG in-game, be it earned loot boxes or earned loot (which in the end, while also random, is a completely different can of worms from cash shop loot boxes as a business practice) is meant to be (and should be!) a separate matter from just tossing money at the screen for RNG.
But its the same damn thing - its RNG as a core mechanic.
The only difference is spending time in game to get RNG
or
spending money to get RNG
so this is a time vs money discussion at core no?
I like to be given a choice of both.
I think the real moral problem is how expensive loot box is.
Imagine you are playing Wow and there is this rare flying mount with 0.0001% drop rate. People may try to get it but since it is so hard to get people just give up.
Now imagine this flying mount is put in a loot box with 1% drop rate and selling for 10$. Essentially it means they are trying to sell the mount for 1000$ on avg.
Even worse imagine games trying to sell powerful sword in loot box with 1% drop rate and 10$ each.
I dont think its a 'moral problem' but maybe it is. I mean a 'moral problem' would be more like charging super high prices for basic food items, or housing, or medical care...but a video game perk?
It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
why? because we do not live in a Authoritarian state....yet. The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Lol
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
we do not live in a free market but parts of it resemble free market principles which is what I was saying.
Why are you do against anything remotely RESEMBLING free market principles?
if we are going to start applying morality to every single solitary game mechanic then literally everything sold without any exception would have to be fully reviewed and accepted by a central authority and the first thing likely to go would be sex and violence.
is that what you want?
I think sex is already gone except for in a very specific subset of games. I don't consider romance in games selling sex. Games like Mass Effect and The Witcher 2 and 3 aren't really selling it.
Violence is in every game I'll admit. Most people don't seem to have an issue with it as long as it doesn't have to do with sexual violence for whatever reason. ...
sorry but I have a problem with a authoritarian moral authority curating my game content appointed by a group of people who thinks violence is not morally questionable but gambling is.
I can't really disagree with that. I'm only pointing out that none of it really matters in the end. It is just one large group pushing their ideas on others. I'd probably not like adventure games, movies, and sexual content so much if I hadn't seen it as a child. I probably wouldn't have been so aggressive and had the ideas I did either. I think violence is overlooked because it's something addictive and harmful but fulfills some kind of base desire our bodies developed during evolution. The problem is we don't really need it anymore in most cases and violent stimulation can be unhealthy in large quantities like with anything. In the end, as I pointed out, it doesn't really matter though. Humans are overly successful regardless of what bad things some people may do.
sorry but I have a problem with a authoritarian moral authority curating my game content appointed by a group of people who thinks violence is not morally questionable but gambling is.
I can't really disagree with that. I'm only pointing out that none of it really matters in the end. It is just one large group pushing their ideas on others. I'd probably not like adventure games, movies, and sexual content so much if I hadn't seen it as a child. I probably wouldn't have been so aggressive and had the ideas I did either. I think violence is overlooked because it's something addictive and harmful but fulfills some kind of base desire our bodies developed during evolution. The problem is we don't really need it anymore in most cases and violent stimulation can be unhealthy in large quantities like with anything. In the end, as I pointed out, it doesn't really matter though. Humans are overly successful regardless of what bad things some people may do.
when it comes to the question of lootboxes I think: 1. consumers need to take personal responsibility 2. consumers need to be open minded to options outside of a small number of developers they have been sold to as being the holy grail of developers. 3. advertising that causes the mindset of item 2 is what needs to be looked at more so then lootboxes themselves
I mean seriously folks, Battlefront is nearly EXACTLY BF1942 with different skins. How people fall for that shit regardless of lootboxes always amazes me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
sorry but I have a problem with a authoritarian moral authority curating my game content appointed by a group of people who thinks violence is not morally questionable but gambling is.
I can't really disagree with that. I'm only pointing out that none of it really matters in the end. It is just one large group pushing their ideas on others. I'd probably not like adventure games, movies, and sexual content so much if I hadn't seen it as a child. I probably wouldn't have been so aggressive and had the ideas I did either. I think violence is overlooked because it's something addictive and harmful but fulfills some kind of base desire our bodies developed during evolution. The problem is we don't really need it anymore in most cases and violent stimulation can be unhealthy in large quantities like with anything. In the end, as I pointed out, it doesn't really matter though. Humans are overly successful regardless of what bad things some people may do.
when it comes to the question of lootboxes I think: 1. consumers need to take personal responsibility 2. consumers need to be open minded to options outside of a small number of developers they have been sold to as being the holy grail of developers. 3. advertising that causes the mindset of item 2 is what needs to be looked at more so then lootboxes themselves
I mean seriously folks, Battlefront is nearly EXACTLY BF1942 with different skins. How people fall for that shit regardless of lootboxes always amazes me
If history shows anything it's that over the course of a few generations most people learn to protect their children from certain things through passing on of knowledge. My only point is this is not needed. Humans will be successful regardless of doing these types of things. Perfection in terms of weeding out all harmful elements may, in fact, cause its own source of issues in the future. In terms of violence and gambling, these types of things can cause a decrease in population and shortening of life that may be overall good for the human race as less food and jobs are needed for everyone that is alive. You are welcome to your opinion that both things are unhealthy for people as I believe you are correct.
Comments
ok yeah your right..I cant leave the discussion..lol
you are pretty funny
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Go ahead and leave it, so others may have a more productive one.
As for children .. it is their parents' job to protect them, not mine. I will protect my children from bad decisions, not yours. Again, warm parents and inform parents. If they are stupid enough to give a teenager an unlimited credit card, it is not my problem.
Pathological gambling, for example, can inflict significant harm on an individual in a psychological sense, including dramatically increasing the risk of suicide or substance abuse (itself dramatically increasing the risk of suicide). Beyond that risk to the individual in question, there's the peripheral damage to individuals around them; entire families thrown into debt and destitution is not an uncommon consequence of pathological gambling. And in societal terms, loss of productivity, increase in crime, increase in costs of emergency care for said individuals, etc, etc.
You can try to argue that protecting people from stupidity (or a neurobiological disorder of the brain that leads to addictive behaviour, rather than stupidity) isn't your concern, but I'd simply say that the history of Western economies suggests you are wrong, and also that you are short-sighted and narrow-minded. However, learning by experience is best, and if things continue the way they are... by God will you learn.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A nanny state is when the fix is worse than the problem.
The solution is education and information, not try to legislate away stupidity. Gambling is legal is many states in the form of lotteries, bingo games, and so on. Pot is legal .. even with recreation use in more and more states. Is society dying because of all these?
There is evidence that society is waking up to the fact that trying to legislate stupidity away is a bad idea.
May be you should look at evidence and history a little more closely. Imagine some sob example of a family torn apart by loot box gambling is not going to make the problem big.
Man, that's one of the things about Jade Dynasty. Some of the things that mobs drop, or that get automatically added into your inventory once a day, are loot boxes. Damn crap cluttering up my inventory. Some of them you can't just double-click to open, you have to take them to a certain NPC. What really pisses me off is you can;t just throw them out or NPC many of them: actually unremovable from one's inventory!
2. Lootboxes is something so harmful everyone needs to be protected from them? really? paid lootboxes in a video game...really? seriously? we need that much protection from the state?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not everyday i agree with SEANMCAD .. but i do this time.
There are already laws protecting me from other people's stupidity. I don't need more laws to tell me what i can or cannot do, as long as I don't harm another else.
You only need rice and water to survive, everything else is a luxury.
Why should the entertainment industry get a free pass for business practices that would not be tolerated for a second in other industries.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The absolute hardline fierce campaign by many of you to be strictly opposed to anything that remotely resembles Free Market principles is astounding.
We cant go around having every single solitary aspect of a game reviewed for some subjective moral imperative just so that we do not offend some special snowflake.
If we do the first thing on the chopping block is going to be violence when it comes to your question of 'morality'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You think you live in a free market? Duties and tariffs among many other things, say that you don't.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Why are you do against anything remotely RESEMBLING free market principles?
if we are going to start applying morality to every single solitary game mechanic then literally everything sold without any exception would have to be fully reviewed and accepted by a central authority and the first thing likely to go would be sex and violence.
is that what you want?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We already have age restrictions and warnings on games with excessive violence/adult themes so its nothing new.
My issue is this statement 'It's only a moral problem if it's something you need?'
A person should have the right to commit as much damage and immorality to themselves as they desire. If its not affecting other people DIRECTLY.
Yes...age comes into to play...but goddamnit lets be honest, nobody here is really intrested in ending lootboxes 'because of the children', give that grade A bullshit a fucking rest its older than dog shit because everyone knows the people here want lootboxes gone from THEIR game...they are not childern
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Couldn't be that some people also have children, or just care about social issues?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But the item drops as a wrapped version that can be traded until it's unwrapped (At which point it becomes soulbound and untradeable.) I've never done a lootbox in any game other than those games that toss you free ones sometimes. I don't even buy them with in-game currency much less real currency because I hate the RNG factor. But I get my mounts when I decide I want them. I go buy the wrapped version because I know 100% for sure that in the end, there will be a mount in my inventory.
So the big take away for me is that personally, I don't care if the RNG is in-game so long as I have the option of bypassing it.
So why would I object too strongly to their existence in-game? Only for the sake of the 1-2% of people with serious gambling issues that become addicted to them. Eh. Sad but not really my problem. If they don't spend their money on lootboxes they'll blow it on online poker or lottery tickets. And then they'll blame those things instead of themselves just like they say "lootboxes ruined my life!" right now. No, you ruined your life.
Violence is in every game I'll admit. Most people don't seem to have an issue with it as long as it doesn't have to do with sexual violence for whatever reason.
I think both are fun because they cause chemical reactions in us like in any drug. Whether these things are good for us or not is another matter. I think it's possible these things do influence us at a young age. My generation who grew up on video games, pornography, and Violent Television/Movies. I would say it was way less empathetic than the current generation now that parents are much more active in monitoring what game their children play, what shows they watch, and how much they do of each activity.
One might argue that none of this really matters. If people are so successful that they don't have violence or bad habits the world will overpopulate and there won't be enough food. People will fight over food and water. I'm not really sure why people think empathy is such a big deal in this day and age. In past generations, there was lots of killing and in reality and the human race still prospered despite huge losses. Sure people suffer and lose their families, but humans live a short life and their only real known purpose is to procreate. Being healthy or greatly knowledgeable is optional. If a lot of people die people will just procreate more. Humans live such a short life it doesn't really matter in the end. You might suffer a bit for the blink of an eye and be gone, but the human race will continue on until eventual extinction that is inevitable no matter how knowledgeable we get.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. consumers need to take personal responsibility
2. consumers need to be open minded to options outside of a small number of developers they have been sold to as being the holy grail of developers.
3. advertising that causes the mindset of item 2 is what needs to be looked at more so then lootboxes themselves
I mean seriously folks, Battlefront is nearly EXACTLY BF1942 with different skins. How people fall for that shit regardless of lootboxes always amazes me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me