It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Our solution of "not buying" is still viable. Inform people, just like food boxes, and let us make our own decisions.CrazKanuk said:Superman0X 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.
They're good and bad at the same time. They make great games in a way that others don't. Like Kyle pointed out in another thread, what other games are like FO:NV or FO4? On the other hand it usually takes them years and patches to assemble the game in a proper state.ConstantineMerus said:Well you and I are both playing Fallout 4 as we speak, so it means they're still doing something right.Kyleran said:Wait, we're talking about Bethesda "saving us"from gaming as a service with single player games?
Same company that makes Fallout 4 which has like 7 DLC modules, a season pass, and a modding tool they sell you.
Also the amount of content Fallout 4 vanilla has justifies the price tag. The amount of contents the DLCs have also justify their price tag. So, too much of a good thing?
Well, at least that's how it is for me.
That is one of my points.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.
I'm curious what "similar variable reward mechanism" will encompass. A majority of computer gaming, especially online gaming is driven by variable reward mechanisms gated behind a paywall.Superman0X said:Here are the key action points:Scot said:I have not had a chance to read the template, but he seems to be spot on with the term "gambling mechanisms". By making this illegal for those who are under 21, gaming companies will sit up and take notice. No doubt they will fight this, I understand EA earns billions just from FIFA using gambling mechanisms.
Early days, but some hope for those who consider gambling in gaming as a shameful aberration from gaming ethos.
1. Ensure that games employing loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased receive a 21 years of age and older “Adults Only” rating to warn consumers before they purchase or download a new game.
2. Consider prohibiting the sale of games employing loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased to those under 21 years of age.
3. Expand the mission of regulatory oversight bodies such as gaming commissions—which already oversee slot machines—to encompass loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased in video games.
4. Require the clear disclosure of the odds of winning items in loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased on screen at the time of purchase.
5. Enable regulators to audit the game mechanics of loot boxes or similar variable reward mechanisms which can be purchased to ensure consumers are treated fairly.
I believe that these are things that publishers can work with. Some of them (age verification) may require government assistance.