Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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

13

Comments

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,825
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    Wonder why they regulate for these giveaways? They seem innocent enough. Just maybe governments deemed them too open to abuse. But of course the Video Game Industry would never abuse the Loot Box Business Model.
    The reason for the regulations on giveaways like McDonalds is because they give items of value. If they were giving virtual items, they would not fall under the regulations.
    A much abused loophole that needs to be closed.
    Ok. Lets put it this way. Do you pay taxes on your virtual goods? If they had value, you would. I am not seeing any crusade to make this happen. If it were so important that we recognized the value of virtual goods, I would expect it to start there.
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    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.
    No, I'm picking arguments that illustrate that if there is a predatory design then it goes beyond loot crates.

    Nothing about this has been established as gambling, yet you keep asserting an opinion as fact. I have never said gambling is fine or otherwise. You said that because you have an agenda to push.

    You have yet to construct a sound argument based on fact. I can't help it if you choose to argue from the emotion and opinion of mob mentality which is so rampant now. Why use facts when you can generate fear and hate to get what you want.

    What exactly do you want? You seem to think this mob crusade will accomplish something. What is it your mob wants to do? What witches are you looking to burn?

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    Gdemami
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.


    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    [Deleted User]

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

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    Wonder why they regulate for these giveaways? They seem innocent enough. Just maybe governments deemed them too open to abuse. But of course the Video Game Industry would never abuse the Loot Box Business Model.
    The reason for the regulations on giveaways like McDonalds is because they give items of value. If they were giving virtual items, they would not fall under the regulations.
    A much abused loophole that needs to be closed.
    Ok. Lets put it this way. Do you pay taxes on your virtual goods? If they had value, you would. I am not seeing any crusade to make this happen. If it were so important that we recognized the value of virtual goods, I would expect it to start there.
    In some countries you do. Online software purchases including international sales are a steadily evolving market/industry. Some countries charge tax for services, some don't. The ones who do, didn't at one point.

    Rules, regulation and taxation are constantly evolving.

    Vacations are just like virtual goods. You get nothing physical and all you end up with is a memory. Yet they are taxed.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:



    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The question and issue really comes down to what this is about. Is this really about saving the children? If so then data driven problem solving should be engaged.

    My spidey sense tells me this is more about cheap greedy gamers that don't want to pay what it costs to game.

    I find it hard to believe that gamers who are incredibly selfish want to suddenly save the children from gambling. They haven't established there is any real threat. They have established they don't like paying much for games and they don't like it when people can buy their way past what they feel they've "worked" for. So I'm not buying the benevolence angle from gamers. They've not shown a real concern yet.

    I'm not buying that angle from the politicians either. This is a political grandstanding ploy to grab attention for a state that's otherwise often ignored. If this politician was a gamer, then he wouldn't have discovered this on reddit and would have already been pursuing action. But his epiphany came from reading Reddit and see political potential in soapboxing with an volatile angry mob looking for someone to spearhead their cause. It's political gold.

    Where has the damage been done that we need government regulation to protect us? Protect us from what, the potential that maybe we could possibly be hurt under a specific set of imaginary circumstances? We don't care about the number of gun death and doing something about that, but we're very concerned that some eSports gamers might have to pay a lot.

    If this were a thing that could and was hurting people then it should deserve attention. But none of that has been established but we're treating it like serious crimes that do hurt people.

    Well said and pretty much dead-on.

    I will say, I'm totally against the predatory mechanics that were in BF2. I mean a year worth of gaming time to progress to completion is retarded! However, you're telling me that if there were items for direct sale, that would change? No! So, yes! If this is about gambling (which it shouldn't be) then let's address the problem of gambling at the root instead of attacking a symptom. If it's about predatory gaming mechanics then let's tackle that with the publishers. I fail to see how this WHOLE BF2 argument has addressed, what I feel, is the root issue, and that's a hella-broken progression system. The PROGRESSION was predatory, not the loot boxes themselves. Unfortunately, how are you going to regulate progression? If you tackle the gambling issue, then you get games with BF2-style progression (retarded long) paired with a shop that sells you that progression directly. I don't see how that's any less broken. 
    [Deleted User]

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

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Scot said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    Wonder why they regulate for these giveaways? They seem innocent enough. Just maybe governments deemed them too open to abuse. But of course the Video Game Industry would never abuse the Loot Box Business Model.
    The reason for the regulations on giveaways like McDonalds is because they give items of value. If they were giving virtual items, they would not fall under the regulations.
    A much abused loophole that needs to be closed.
    Ok. Lets put it this way. Do you pay taxes on your virtual goods? If they had value, you would. I am not seeing any crusade to make this happen. If it were so important that we recognized the value of virtual goods, I would expect it to start there.
    Torval said:
    Scot said:


    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.
    No, I'm picking arguments that illustrate that if there is a predatory design then it goes beyond loot crates.

    Nothing about this has been established as gambling, yet you keep asserting an opinion as fact. I have never said gambling is fine or otherwise. You said that because you have an agenda to push.

    You have yet to construct a sound argument based on fact. I can't help it if you choose to argue from the emotion and opinion of mob mentality which is so rampant now. Why use facts when you can generate fear and hate to get what you want.

    What exactly do you want? You seem to think this mob crusade will accomplish something. What is it your mob wants to do? What witches are you looking to burn?

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    If you don't see how it changes things, look above. Simply put, let's say it's found to be gambling. We can all rejoice that the chlidren have been saved... YAY!!! However, how does it actually change the predatory mechanics? Not one bit. EA could implement the same predatory game mechanic and, instead of loot boxes, they just sell you those progression items directly. Problem NOT solved. 

    So, yes, the "gambling" argument is pretty fucking important. You think that you, and the gaming community, are fighting for something great and righteous, but your just fighting the worlds largest strawman, and the problem is that it's going to lead to millions, or billions of dollars in spending to solve nothing. That is, unless they get rid of gambling altogether, and we know how prohibition worked out before. 

    [Deleted User]

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

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    CrazKanuk said:
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.


    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.
    MadFrenchie[Deleted User]
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    laserit said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    Wonder why they regulate for these giveaways? They seem innocent enough. Just maybe governments deemed them too open to abuse. But of course the Video Game Industry would never abuse the Loot Box Business Model.
    The reason for the regulations on giveaways like McDonalds is because they give items of value. If they were giving virtual items, they would not fall under the regulations.
    A much abused loophole that needs to be closed.
    Ok. Lets put it this way. Do you pay taxes on your virtual goods? If they had value, you would. I am not seeing any crusade to make this happen. If it were so important that we recognized the value of virtual goods, I would expect it to start there.
    In some countries you do. Online software purchases including international sales are a steadily evolving market/industry. Some countries charge tax for services, some don't. The ones who do, didn't at one point.

    Rules, regulation and taxation are constantly evolving.

    Vacations are just like virtual goods. You get nothing physical and all you end up with is a memory. Yet they are taxed.
    Vacations (services) can be taxed.. but they have no value (after performed). The same applies to virtual items. You can tax their sale, but you can not count their value afterward.
    [Deleted User]
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.


    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The question and issue really comes down to what this is about. Is this really about saving the children? If so then data driven problem solving should be engaged.

    My spidey sense tells me this is more about cheap greedy gamers that don't want to pay what it costs to game.

    I find it hard to believe that gamers who are incredibly selfish want to suddenly save the children from gambling. They haven't established there is any real threat. They have established they don't like paying much for games and they don't like it when people can buy their way past what they feel they've "worked" for. So I'm not buying the benevolence angle from gamers. They've not shown a real concern yet.

    I'm not buying that angle from the politicians either. This is a political grandstanding ploy to grab attention for a state that's otherwise often ignored. If this politician was a gamer, then he wouldn't have discovered this on reddit and would have already been pursuing action. But his epiphany came from reading Reddit and see political potential in soapboxing with an volatile angry mob looking for someone to spearhead their cause. It's political gold.

    Where has the damage been done that we need government regulation to protect us? Protect us from what, the potential that maybe we could possibly be hurt under a specific set of imaginary circumstances? We don't care about the number of gun death and doing something about that, but we're very concerned that some eSports gamers might have to pay a lot.

    If this were a thing that could and was hurting people then it should deserve attention. But none of that has been established but we're treating it like serious crimes that do hurt people.
    Yes, coming from the same camp that likes to do breakdowns on how subs are, long-term, more expensive than cash shop centered titles, it's incredibly rich that now the argument is folks against loot box MTs simply want to game on the cheap.

    image
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    edited December 2017
    CrazKanuk said:

    EA could implement the same predatory game mechanic and, instead of loot boxes, they just sell you those progression items directly. Problem NOT solved. 

    So, yes, the "gambling" argument is pretty fucking important. You think that you, and the gaming community, are fighting for something great and righteous, but your just fighting the worlds largest strawman, and the problem is that it's going to lead to millions, or billions of dollars in spending to solve nothing. That is, unless they get rid of gambling altogether, and we know how prohibition worked out before. 

    Overwatch chose to change how they offer lootboxes in China, to circumvent the regulations. They stopped selling them, and instead gave them away free with the purchase of virtual currency. As you can no longer BUY a lootbox, they became exempt from the regulation.
    [Deleted User]
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    laserit said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    Wonder why they regulate for these giveaways? They seem innocent enough. Just maybe governments deemed them too open to abuse. But of course the Video Game Industry would never abuse the Loot Box Business Model.
    The reason for the regulations on giveaways like McDonalds is because they give items of value. If they were giving virtual items, they would not fall under the regulations.
    A much abused loophole that needs to be closed.
    Ok. Lets put it this way. Do you pay taxes on your virtual goods? If they had value, you would. I am not seeing any crusade to make this happen. If it were so important that we recognized the value of virtual goods, I would expect it to start there.
    In some countries you do. Online software purchases including international sales are a steadily evolving market/industry. Some countries charge tax for services, some don't. The ones who do, didn't at one point.

    Rules, regulation and taxation are constantly evolving.

    Vacations are just like virtual goods. You get nothing physical and all you end up with is a memory. Yet they are taxed.
    Vacations (services) can be taxed.. but they have no value (after performed). The same applies to virtual items. You can tax their sale, but you can not count their value afterward.
    True, but I don't see a push from anyone to consider virtual goods as services.  The nature of the items are far different.

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:
    Torval said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    kitarad said:
    Does it have to be real to have value. Bitcoin ?

    This is actually a great example because it doesn't. It has a commonly accepted value at this moment in time, but consider Steam is dropping it due to escalating fees and bitcoin volatility, I think it illustrates how value can change drastically, quickly for virtual items. A virtual item will carry some sort of value as long as it's transferable. There are plenty of black market sites selling WoW items, for instance. However, selling an original WoW item to someone today would get you MUCH less money that it would have 10 years ago, because there is simply better stuff available. So virtual items CAN have value, but it's subjective and isn't commonly accepted. 
    Virtual "items" don't have explicit inherent value. That is the different between a personal good, real property, and virtual goods. Personal goods are physical but not considered "real property"d and are taxed differently.

    Real property in the US is essentially real estate and has different laws, rights, responsibilities, and taxes associated with it. And even though deeds of ownership exist they are more like permanent leases as the government has loopholes to take the land if you don't comply (eg: pay your property taxes).

    Virtual good only have value when they're explicitly assigned value like Superman's example. If the bitcoin markets closed tomorrow then all the "bitcoins" would have no value. If all the gold markets closed tomorrow, gold would still have value. Like you said, virtual goods can have value, but even some of those that do don't have an inherent value.

    In the US this is why coupons have a value of some crazy small number like .01 cent because this way they can't be considered a currency or an item of value and taxed or regulated accordingly. The government has specifically left loopholes in that system for business to operate outside of those fees and regulations imposed on high value item transactions.

    Of course this all varies state by state as do gambling laws. This is why some states are always excluded from giveaways like McDonald's Monopoly or the Elder Scrolls Online prize events.

    Maybe in states with draconian regulation some game services won't be legally offered. Maybe it will affect all regions and games will be designed and monetized totally differently and we'll all have to deal with those changes. We don't actually know the consequences of these changes will be. Some people naively think they'll just go away and we'll return to some earlier design and monetization trope. That won't happen.


    And this is pretty much my point. So with grand sweeping changes the impact will be too massively wide-spread that it would directly impact the economy by a non-trivial amount. So regulating beyond throwing a warning label on the box, or maybe publishing odds (which I'd be cool with) would mean tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars and the grand outcome will be something of minimal impact. Whereas, if an educational program is put in place that actually informs people about gambling, dispelling myths about gambling, and common gambling fallacies, I think you'd wind up with much more informed people. Trying to STOP people from gambling who are pre-dispositioned to gamble is like trying to stop an addict. Do you think that by getting rid of heroin, you're solving the drug addict's problem? SOLVED! Lol. 
    The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    [Deleted User]

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

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,825
    edited December 2017
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    Scot said:

    Ok then there is predatory design that goes beyond loot boxes, how does that change what we are saying? This is like CrazKunuks arguments, "there is far more to this", that does not matter, one step at a time.

    It does not have to be "established as gambling". Once again, I expect it to be established, some countries lean to saying it is, some lean to saying it is not. I am not sure what my agenda is meant to be and a discussion about what a fact is will lead us up a tree without a paddle.

    On a more interesting note the value of virtual items was raised. I expect this to change, we have already seen a major shift in the lifestyles of people to being online. As we spend more and more of our lives online more value will be given to virtual goods. I am not saying I want or do not want that to happen, just that it will.
    You keep using the gambling argument. You can't use and then dismiss it when it's shown to be specious.

    Again, what do you specifically hope to accomplish here?

    To stop gambling mechanisms in games, its not rocket science.

    This will not be stopped by players only buying good products, that would be ideal but it is not going to happen. The environment we have is not acceptable, that's why so many of us our voicing that we don't accept it.

    The grass will be greener on the other side because its the old grass we had before there were gambling mechanisms...yum, yum I can taste it now. :)

    Seriously, I do realise gaming companies will fight back and we may get more insidious mechanisms like Bungie's invisible xp scaling. But one step at a time and this is a good one. I will be far happier knowing that with gambling mechanisms gone, kids are not exposed to something we never had to deal with.

    BUT THEY ARE!!!! It's already been acknowledged by you with that survey. That same survey has shown us that even with strict regulation of ACTUAL gambling, there are still many, many children who are engaging in gambling. So, again, what is the problem you're suggesting that they address? Gambling among children? That's about as direct a question as I can ask. Are you saying that they should be addressing gambling among children? OR!! Are you suggesting that they specifically address gambling mechanics in games? OR!!! Would you prefer that game companies remove predatory progression systems from games altogether? Each of these is a WILDLY different undertaking. Unfortunately, this step is, really, NOT a "good one". 
    [Deleted User]

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

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    CrazKanuk said:
    The person referenced in the original post (Representative Chris Lee) is not looking to define lootboxes as gambling (he knows that they are not). He isnt looking to change the laws to make this true (he realizes that it is much more complicated than just lootboxes). He is looking to regulate 'Gambling Mechanics' in relation to sales make to people under 21.

    The goals are something that is achievable, and not world changing. I expect the industry to push back on this, but I also expect that a compromise can be reached.

    I agree, the idea is novel and seems achievable. However, how do you implement it considering you don't have a person present on account registration. How do you enforce it? Who is responsible if they are gaming, since it's under your roof? Remember that there are plenty of slots apps out there already. 

    Again, I don't think it's about whether or not it CAN be done, but whether it provides enough VALUE to justify being done over some other solution. 
    You are forgetting that this is GOVERNMENT regulation. They don't care about the details, they just make the laws, and everyone else has to figure out how to make it work.

    I do believe that the majority of the industry pushback is going to be on the 21/AO requirement, and how it would be regulated online. Rules like this are enforced in person by state issued ID's. There should be an equivalent system if they want it enforced online. (And no, the state doesnt actually want to deal with this... so it is an area that the industry can push back with results).
    [Deleted User]CrazKanuk
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    [Deleted User]
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    [Deleted User]
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    Not sure I agree.  The vast majority of people I game with do not buy them.  If there are numbers that backup what you say (that most people participate) OK... but my personal experience is that few people buy a lot of them...not a lot buying a few.

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.


    The basic math of lootboxes spreads items across a larger pool, at an individually lower cost. This lower cost encourages a larger participation, and generally results in more sales.

    The fact that you do/do not want to buy items this was doesn't affect the math, or even the market in general. If everyone felt this way, they would not sell like the do.
    Not sure I agree.  The vast majority of people I game with do not buy them.  If there are numbers that backup what you say (that most people participate) OK... but my personal experience is that few people buy a lot of them...not a lot buying a few.

    Purely anecdotal, but I don't recall having purchased or knowing anyone who purchased loot boxes myself.

    I've always seen them as a terrible buy.  But, I also despise gambling (not morally, but just because it's an atrocious way to spend money imo) so it follows I would have little interest in loot boxes.

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    edited December 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.


    Edit to add:   Again i will say that if they want to sell "loot boxes" the odds should be available for the contents at the purchase site.  Sell them if you want, but give consumers the actual information to make an informed decision.  I have yet to hear a single reason why that should not happen.




    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.



    Actually, THIS thread is not about the market, it is about the Government. Due to complaints by citizens, they are now looking at regulating the market, regardless of customer desires.

    As for who buys items in games, well there is a high volume of people that purchase small amounts, and a small amount of people that purchase large amounts. The majority of the value comes from the large spenders, but the low buy in encourages many people to buy small amounts.
    [Deleted User]
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Rhoklaw said:
    Loot boxes do NOT benefit games in any way. The only defense I've seen brought up by gaming companies is it allows people with less time and more money to stay competitive. That's a load of crap from the silver tongue devil. Loot boxes are gambling and to those who say otherwise are seriously in denial. I'm so tired of this stupid argument and the trollish responses from the usual trolls.
    Unfortunately, math is on their side. Lets look at how this works. If LootBox A gives the good item 10% (numbers chosen for easy use, not real numbers) of the time, and 10 people buy one, then on average, one person will have it. Now, if that one person is not the top 10% spender, then it is reasonable to assume that this spender will buy 10 more, and then get one themselves. Now, we have 2 people with the item, vs having the item being 10x more expensive, and only the top spender paying for it.

    The reality is that the big spenders are going to pay enough for the items that they want... but the small spenders are much more sensitive to the price. They would generally not pay the high prices... and never get the items. Having lower price randomization allows them for a chance to get the item, and as a whole, increases the number of the item that are in the game.
    But of course... of the 10 people that bought loot boxes hoping for the item.  One whale and one non-whale now have it, and 8 spent money for nothing.

    So yeah... one "extra" non-whale has the item but 8 got squat.

    That would tell me, the non-whale... not to buy them in the future.



    It might. On the other hand they might be a player who will take whatever they get and be happy. The point of loot boxes is not that you have a chance to get that one perfect thing but that you get something every time and it might be something rare. It's not gambling. To be gambling you must get have a chance of getting something of measurable value and pixels have no value. The benefit to the game is it brings in more players and encourages them to keep playing even if they never make a purchase. Whales aren't what makes the business model work it's the people who just buy a box now and then with some spare change. If you don't like loot boxes don't play those games but plenty of people will. The market has spoken and for now it's what the market wants.
    Actually "the market" is reconsidering.  That's what the discussion is about.   All things are cyclical and the only ones sure to be right are those that believe the market "has spoken" and will not change (I acknowledge you said "for now").   Again, if you have numbers to back up your statement that it's people who just buy a box now and then with spare change that are driving the model I'd love to see it.  That is very different from my perception.



    Actually, THIS thread is not about the market, it is about the Government. Due to complaints by citizens, they are now looking at regulating the market, regardless of customer desires.

    As for who buys items in games, well there is a high volume of people that purchase small amounts, and a small amount of people that purchase large amounts. The majority of the value comes from the large spenders, but the low buy in encourages many people to buy small amounts.
    But where are your numbers coming from? Are they publicly available anywhere?  It would be better to see those than everyone (including me) using personal observations.

    I'd love to see the average and median spends of a player.

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947

    I very much doubt even a significant fraction of the take comes from people who spend a large amount. Most gamers simply don't have that much disposable cash and the ones that do tend to be good at managing their money. It's a lot easier to get ten thousand people to make a five dollar purchase than to get ten people to make one thousand five dollar purchases. I'd wager income from people who buy a single loot box and no more far outweighs the income from people who buy more than fifty. 

    The market already decided loot box games are a winner and now a minority is trying to get the government to buck the trend. People forget the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Reagan was absolutely right about that. 
    Nothing I have seen about Whales shows me that they are "good at managing money". Again, you say it's a minority.  I'd love to see the stats to back that up.  Maybe you're right, but my observations are quite different.

    And does anyone see a problem with requiring that Loot Boxes show the odds on their purchase site?  Is there anything wrong with giving people information to make informed decisions?


    IselinScot

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    The market already decided loot box games are a winner and now a minority is trying to get the government to buck the trend. People forget the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Reagan was absolutely right about that. 
    Regan? You mean the guy that was elected in 1980? You don't suppose there was another agenda at work there?


    MadFrenchie
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719

    And does anyone see a problem with requiring that Loot Boxes show the odds on their purchase site?  Is there anything wrong with giving people information to make informed decisions?


    Such an obvious and small compromise and yet it's only done in China where the law requires it.

    Nothing shows the deceptive intent behind the sale of loot boxes better than the fact that it's not done voluntarily and routinely.
    ScotSlapshot1188
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

Sign In or Register to comment.