Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

(updated!) Authorities looking at regulating RNG as gambling

17810121320

Comments

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    edited November 2017
    immodium said:
    Iselin said:
    immodium said:
    Iselin said:
    Gdemami said:
    MaxBacon said:
    What a cheap excuse.
    Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.

    You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
    Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.

    Fuck working if you're a parent.
    So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?

    Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.

    If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.

    Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.

    I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
    Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.

    The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm. 

    No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
    Yet to see why age restrictions should be put in place for something that isn't classed as gambling?

    Better yet, even proven to be destructive to children that buy them.
    Oh? Is that your chosen narrative now?

     That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about government agencies in two EU countries investigating whether loot boxes as sold by SWBF2 and Overwatch should be classified as gambling.

    In the course of the discussion some of you seem to have gotten sidetracked into some harebrained ideas about the role of parents and society in guiding and protecting children... your side-trip, not mine.

    Maybe if I answer your question more directly? 

    So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?

    Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.

    They may or not may not talk to strangers anyway depending on the hustling skill of that adult stranger, and yes the government does get involved by means of the police force being aware and watching strangers who approach children whenever they notice it.

    Any other basic parenting questions you want an answer to before moving away from this red-herring and back to the topic of governments investigating loot boxes?


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

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,262
    SEANMCAD said:
    any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you


    What people need to do is this:

    find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.

    I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.

    But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.

    Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).

    I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.



  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,695
    I don't all think these screams are for the children. If your kid gets your credit card, they can still and will spend alot on all sorts of crap. 

    What I think is going on around here is some people would want the "gambling" label on RNG in video games so maybe companies would move away from RNG. Because I don't think that label alone would stop any kid with a stolen credit card. 

    Well what do I know. I don't have kids, I don't even understand why people have them. 
    MadFrenchie
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Gdemami
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,603
    Iselin said:
    immodium said:
    Iselin said:
    immodium said:
    Iselin said:
    Gdemami said:
    MaxBacon said:
    What a cheap excuse.
    Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.

    You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
    Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.

    Fuck working if you're a parent.
    So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?

    Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.

    If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.

    Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.

    I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
    Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.

    The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm. 

    No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
    Yet to see why age restrictions should be put in place for something that isn't classed as gambling?

    Better yet, even proven to be destructive to children that buy them.
    Oh? Is that your chosen narrative now?

     That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about government agencies in two EU countries investigating whether loot boxes as sold by SWBF2 and Overwatch should be classified as gambling.

    In the course of the discussion some of you seem to have gotten sidetracked into some harebrained ideas about the role of parents and society in guiding and protecting children... your side-trip, not mine.

    Maybe if I answer your question more directly? 

    So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?

    Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.

    They may or not may not talk to strangers anyway depending on the hustling skill of that adult stranger, and yes the government does get involved by means of the police force being aware and watching strangers who approach children whenever they notice it.

    Any other basic parenting questions you want an answer to before moving away from this red-herring and back to the topic of governments investigating loot boxes?


    Yes actually. Who the hell would voluntarily choose to be a parent? :D

    I agree it's a complete red-herring, whether children can buy loot boxes or not is irrelevant in deciding if it's gambling.

    TBH it's entirely irrelevant to me as my government deem them not to be.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    I don't all think these screams are for the children. If your kid gets your credit card, they can still and will spend alot on all sorts of crap. 

    What I think is going on around here is some people would want the "gambling" label on RNG in video games so maybe companies would move away from RNG. Because I don't think that label alone would stop any kid with a stolen credit card. 

    Well what do I know. I don't have kids, I don't even understand why people have them. 
    I absolutely agree with that last statement.  I would be a terrible father.

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    I don't all think these screams are for the children. If your kid gets your credit card, they can still and will spend alot on all sorts of crap. 

    What I think is going on around here is some people would want the "gambling" label on RNG in video games so maybe companies would move away from RNG. Because I don't think that label alone would stop any kid with a stolen credit card. 

    Well what do I know. I don't have kids, I don't even understand why people have them. 
    like violence right?

    games with violence tag on it so that maybe they will move away from violence and we can use 'for the kids' as the excuse to get the tags on those games.

    no...this is absolutely CLASSIC 'think of the children' to push a moral agenda for oneself without really a deep care about the children

    Since most people here discussing this are A. NOT CHILDERN and B. Think that they personally should not be exposed to gambling. then lets leave the kids out of it

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Sovrath said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you


    What people need to do is this:

    find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.

    I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.

    But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.

    Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).

    I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
    the thing is, it should not be  legal requirement to make a game that you personally like.

    Nor should I be a central authority to dictate what should be in a game for everyone based on what I want.

    You need to find out if the people who are spending money on lootboxes like doing so or not, otherwise you are inflicting your taste in games on other people despite them liking it.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • JacobinJacobin Member RarePosts: 1,009
    SEANMCAD said:

    If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?

    That is the funny part, no one ever admits to buying them because they realize deep down how gullible and easily exploitable they are.

    The person just cant resist being Darth Vader or Boba Fett and dominating every match on day 1 because of a desperate need for e-status.

    The choice is to be a pleb no-life grinder who gets owned all day by whales, or to become a whale and help EA execs buy more McMansions. You lose either way.
    GdemamiTuor7
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    Jacobin said:
    SEANMCAD said:

    If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?

    That is the funny part, no one ever admits to buying them because they realize deep down how gullible and easily exploitable they are.

    ...
    how do you know this?

    I think there is a mertic fuck ton of assumptions being made on this topic.

    I have heard the exact same arguments made about porn and marijuana in the late 80s pretty much exactly word for word, 'think of the kids' and all.

    In fact, did you know the same arguements where made about...wait for it.....reading books....was made. yup, around the time of the printing press people where petrified about teenagers reading too much
    Gdemami

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    Jacobin said:
    SEANMCAD said:

    If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?

    That is the funny part, no one ever admits to buying them because they realize deep down how gullible and easily exploitable they are.

    The person just cant resist being Darth Vader or Boba Fett and dominating every match on day 1 because of a desperate need for e-status.

    The choice is to be a pleb no-life grinder who gets owned all day by whales, or to become a whale and help EA execs buy more McMansions. You lose either way.
    An even simpler choice is to not buy it because the game play was made deliberately grindy to incentivize the loot boxes.

    It is usually only in MMOs that have before and after cash shop game play where you can see the difference in game play. in games like SWBF2 that are always cash shop games it's hard to distinguish between just plain bad design and the deliberately obnoxious type designed to encourage loot boxes.

    But thanks to the social media shit storm, EA making concessions and the upcoming changes, you might just be able to catch a glimpse of what this game may be like without the heavy handed tactics.
    Gdemami
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    Regulated gambling has increased in the US since states started regulating and taxing it. When I was a kid in the seventies and eighties, Atlantic City and Nevada were the only widely recognized places for gambling in the US. Now states have all sorts of gambling machines and Native reservations have casinos all through the state.

    Regulating loot crates, however they end up classified, and the rest of RNG monetization in online games isn't going away. It will just change who can play, disclosure, and how the governments get to tax it.

    I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where regulatory bodies get to influence how games are made and packaged, much like other regulated goods and services. After the gambling scrutiny I can see the door opening for other groups to ply their agendas with legislators also heavily influencing what we see and how we play.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • JacobinJacobin Member RarePosts: 1,009
    Ask phantomlord, he can tell you all about how convincing kids to gamble is a great career decision.
     
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    immodium said:
    Yes actually. Who the hell would voluntarily choose to be a parent? :D

    Just more proof that we're not in control of our own lives: it's those damned genes and the breeding imperative so they can perpetuate themselves that makes us do it :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,270
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)
    IselinMadFrenchie

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)

    Baked Potato, Display

    • Category: Hearth, Meals
    • Source (Design): Legerdemain, Drops
    • Station: Provisioning
    • Requirements: 
      • Solvent Proficiency 2
      • Recipe Improvement 4
    • Ingredients:
      • 7 Decorative Wax
      • 5 Alchemical Resin
      • 10 Nickel
      • 8 Potato
      • 6 Bervez Juice

    CP150 sword? 11 rubedite ingots :)
    MadFrenchieSlapshot1188
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    please explain why gambling is bad for society.

    Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance.  And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.

    It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine.  It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer.  But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
    gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.

    So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. 
    What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
    The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market).  In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.

    Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity.  Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.

    The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.

    In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it.  Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
    doesnt matter if its regulated or not,

    are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is

    besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'

    and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.

    If the football pot causes a person to hobble a running back in order to win the money, then yes.  ...
    ok the argument of 'prostitution incentives crime because it is in of its self a crime' is not a conversation I am going to get into.

     years ago when I was very young an older person explain to me that some people in the planet are completely and totally unable to make any moral judgement for themselves thus they simply reflect whatever the law is as their moral compass. He explained to me that critical thinking in the face of authority is surprisingly a rare skill.

     I am not asking you to explain to me that gambling is bad because its illegal and thus creates cime because its illegal.  I am asking you to have your own moral compas and explain to me why if you were in charge you would make it illegal
    Fair enough.

    I would place restrictions or bans on gambling, because gambling is not like most other economic activities.  Most economic activities are mutually beneficial, meaning all parties benefit.  Gambling is mutually exclusive, meaning that in order for one party to benefit, it must be at the other's detriment.

    This constitutes a special case from other economic activities, as the transaction does not create a harmony of interests, but inevitably sets up an opposition of interests.  For one to win, one--or perhaps many--must lose.

    Because the gains from winning are high, and the losses from losing are not compensated, there is an incentive that encourages unfair exchange over fair exchange.  It is not in a gambler's interest to play with fair odds.  It is in the gambler's interest to make the other contestants to believe they have better odds than they actually do, while manipulating the variables to give the gambler better odds than he actually has.  This is especially true if the gambler is a casino, or a bookie, or someone whose very livelihood depends on gamblers who lose.

    It also encourages central planning, or the attempt to manipulate the market in a way that is different from what it actually is, in order to pursue a particular interest at the expense of the interests of rational actors in a free marketplace.  People know that a fair deck has 52 cards of four suits.  What the casino knows, but the people don't know, is that their decks have different properties than the decks people know.  This asymmetry of information creates asymmetry of results.  The three card monte guy knows what game you're playing.  But do you know what game you're playing?  You never will...not unless there's a reason for the state to investigate it.

    It also incentivizes bad ethical habits, including deception and fraud, as these are the best and surest means--perhaps the only means-- by which to arrive at a profitable resolution.  If you know that people are throwing coins in the slot to get the $50,000 jackpot, the worst thing you can do is actually allow the machine to cough up the $50,000 on a jackpot.  If it does that, the person won't put another token in the machine.  So why not just prevent the machine from ever coming up with a jackpot, until such time as it takes in $1M?  With no government to know, the suckers won't be the wiser.

    Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to differentiate between a fair game and a deceptive game through the act of playing, as any deception can be easily explained away as a function of the laws of probability.  I'm sure that, with enough observation, and careful data analysis, from a multitude of players, a statistician can discern which games are fair, and which are deceptive.  But by the time he has the data to reach that conclusion, he's broke.  And any claim a defrauded gambler can make will just be called "sour grapes" and "unluckiness."

    The problem with gambling isn't that the activity can't, theoretically, be fair.  In probability theory--and only in probability theory--gambling is a valid transaction for rational actors in a free marketplace.

    But in practice, there's no interest among any party in the exchange in leaving the results up to chance, and every interest in ensuring the outcome is not left to chance.

    /EndWall-o-Text
    GdemamiTuor7

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Iselin said:
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)

    Baked Potato, Display

    • Category: Hearth, Meals
    • Source (Design): Legerdemain, Drops
    • Station: Provisioning
    • Requirements: 
      • Solvent Proficiency 2
      • Recipe Improvement 4
    • Ingredients:
      • 7 Decorative Wax
      • 5 Alchemical Resin
      • 10 Nickel
      • 8 Potato
      • 6 Bervez Juice

    CP150 sword? 11 rubedite ingots :)
    LMAO

    image
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    edited November 2017
    Iselin said:
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)

    Baked Potato, Display

    • Category: Hearth, Meals
    • Source (Design): Legerdemain, Drops
    • Station: Provisioning
    • Requirements: 
      • Solvent Proficiency 2
      • Recipe Improvement 4
    • Ingredients:
      • 7 Decorative Wax
      • 5 Alchemical Resin
      • 10 Nickel
      • 8 Potato
      • 6 Bervez Juice

    CP150 sword? 11 rubedite ingots :)
    LMAO
    I didn't even bother mentioning that the decorative wax and alchemical resin both are rare furnishings-only drops and that rubedite is something you find every other step you take :) 

    EDIT: BTW, in case you were wondering, this is what it looks like in the game:



    Where the heck did those other 7 potatoes go? :)
    MadFrenchie
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,270
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)

    Baked Potato, Display

    • Category: Hearth, Meals
    • Source (Design): Legerdemain, Drops
    • Station: Provisioning
    • Requirements: 
      • Solvent Proficiency 2
      • Recipe Improvement 4
    • Ingredients:
      • 7 Decorative Wax
      • 5 Alchemical Resin
      • 10 Nickel
      • 8 Potato
      • 6 Bervez Juice

    CP150 sword? 11 rubedite ingots :)
    LMAO
    I didn't even bother mentioning that the decorative wax and alchemical resin both are rare furnishings-only drops and that rubedite is something you find every other step you take :) 

    EDIT: BTW, in case you were wondering, this is what it looks like in the game:



    Where the heck did those other 7 potatoes go? :)
    LMAO that's hilarious :)

    All those ingredients for that one small potato?

    ps: I haven't played for a few weeks but that decorative wax was dropping for me quite a lot 
    Iselin

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,165
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    laserit said:
    Iselin said:
    Sovrath said:

    This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.


    Well an absolute and undeniable requirement is not really the greater issue in games. Those just very rarely if ever happen in buy to play games because it would be too obviously bad game design.

    The real problem and the crux of the issue is what do they do to the game play in order to make the cash shop sales or loot boxes more desirable? That is something that is done to the detriment of game play to a small or large degree by an increasing number so called AAA games.

    It's not that the loot boxes and cash shop can be ignored to me. It's all about how the game play is impacted by those extra transactions... many of which are no longer "micro."

    You play ESO, so let's use that as an example.

    When the game was originally designed there were several crafting professions in the game all of which require some mats for crafting. As is the case in MMOs, some of the higher end items required several weeks or months of progression to craft. Nothing too unusual there, grindy as some of it might be.

    But then, long after they had converted to an "optional sub" system, they added the ability to craft a new thing: furnishings for houses. The drop rate for the new special materials as well as the quantity of those materials required to craft even the simplest of "white quality" recipes is astronomical compared to any of the crafts that were there at launch.

    Why? Because unlike most other crafts, you can also buy housing items in the cash shop. There really is no other reason that the mats drop so infrequently and you need so many to make anything.

    That as clear an example as I can give you of game design before a cash shop and after. Game play is just plain impacted by the existence of a cash shop... just like it is in SWBF2 or any other game that designs around the idea of encouraging you to spend extra money on MT.

    Whether a person can resist that encouragement or not is not really the issue: what they did to the game design is.
    Come come now Iselin

    The reason it takes so much more crafting materials to make furniture is because a bed is much bigger than a sword.

    Its got nothing to do with the cash shop ;)

    Baked Potato, Display

    • Category: Hearth, Meals
    • Source (Design): Legerdemain, Drops
    • Station: Provisioning
    • Requirements: 
      • Solvent Proficiency 2
      • Recipe Improvement 4
    • Ingredients:
      • 7 Decorative Wax
      • 5 Alchemical Resin
      • 10 Nickel
      • 8 Potato
      • 6 Bervez Juice

    CP150 sword? 11 rubedite ingots :)
    LMAO
    I didn't even bother mentioning that the decorative wax and alchemical resin both are rare furnishings-only drops and that rubedite is something you find every other step you take :) 

    EDIT: BTW, in case you were wondering, this is what it looks like in the game:



    Where the heck did those other 7 potatoes go? :)
    LMAO that's hilarious :)

    All those ingredients for that one small potato?

    ps: I haven't played for a few weeks but that decorative wax was dropping for me quite a lot 
    Yeah to be fair, the drop rate has been adjusted up a bit since January - the mats required for crafting haven't. Both things were ridiculed heavily in the official forums so they responded... a bit.

    It's still, IMO, one of the best and most concrete example of how a thing, crafting, gets designed with and without cash shops in mind.
    MadFrenchie
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Beatnik59 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    please explain why gambling is bad for society.

    Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance.  And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.

    It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine.  It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer.  But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
    gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.

    So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. 
    What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
    The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market).  In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.

    Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity.  Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.

    The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.

    In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it.  Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
    doesnt matter if its regulated or not,

    are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is

    besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'

    and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.

    If the football pot causes a person to hobble a running back in order to win the money, then yes.  ...
    ok the argument of 'prostitution incentives crime because it is in of its self a crime' is not a conversation I am going to get into.

     years ago when I was very young an older person explain to me that some people in the planet are completely and totally unable to make any moral judgement for themselves thus they simply reflect whatever the law is as their moral compass. He explained to me that critical thinking in the face of authority is surprisingly a rare skill.

     I am not asking you to explain to me that gambling is bad because its illegal and thus creates cime because its illegal.  I am asking you to have your own moral compas and explain to me why if you were in charge you would make it illegal
    Fair enough.

    I would place restrictions or bans on gambling, because gambling is not like most other economic activities.  Most economic activities are mutually beneficial, meaning all parties benefit.  Gambling is mutually exclusive, meaning that in order for one party to benefit, it must be at the other's detriment.

    ..
    Sorry I just am low on time so I can only address the first paragraph. Your reason appears to me to be complete arbitrary.
    and then arguements could be made like this

    'well what about volunteer work?'
    'well the other person is getting satisfaction from it, so mutual'
    'well when someone gambles they are having fun, so they gain something from it'


    so arbitrary aside it has holes

    MY RULES:
    How about this.

    If person wants to do something and its not directly affecting other people, they should as a default be allowed to do it and if others want to enable them to, as long as all parties involved do not explicitly lie.

    That is your baseline, from there you can draw exceptions but they would be very rare and exceptional.

    What is wrong with that idea?


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

    Please do not respond to me

  • acidbloodacidblood Member RarePosts: 874
    Get rid of loot boxes and simply charge $100-$150 for all new games. The $60 price has been the standard for way too long. 

    That's the only way all of this goes away IMO. The time and artistry it takes to make games that look and play as good as SWBF2, not to even mention the marketing budgets, simply can't be financed on selling prices from 20 years ago.

    If you want to pay the same price for a game now as you did back in 97 then be prepared for the company to need to find other ways to get money out of you, I feel it really is as simple as that.
    Yet it was only a year or two ago that AAA games made plenty of money without any in-game purchases, and even today games like Horizon: Zero Dawn (a new IP and one of the best looking, and best produced games of 2017) has done just fine (even releasing some free updates) without any in-game purchases; The Witcher 3 is another great example, to say nothing of the dozens of indie studios doing just fine without resorting to such practices.

    Now I agree that Developers / Publishers are free to charge what they like for their products (it is a free market after all), but consumers are also free not to purchase those products (again, free market). So ask yourself; if EA / Activision / etc. can't make a game within a budget, and sell it for an acceptable price, should they even be in the business of making games?
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,060
    edited November 2017
    acidblood said:
    So ask yourself; if EA / Activision / etc. can't make a game within a budget, and sell it for an acceptable price, should they even be in the business of making games?
    ...apparently they sell games for acceptable price, that is afterall why they are still in business in the first place.


  • acidbloodacidblood Member RarePosts: 874
    Gdemami said:
    acidblood said:
    So ask yourself; if EA / Activision / etc. can't make a game within a budget, and sell it for an acceptable price, should they even be in the business of making games?
    ...apparently they sell games for acceptable price, that is afterall why they are still in business in the first place.
    In the past, yes, and for now, maybe... but their claim is that without lootboxes (and / or other forms of predatory monitisation) they will be go out of business.
    Gdemami
Sign In or Register to comment.