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

1235720

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    laserit said:
    Gdemami said:
    ConstantineMerus said:
    May I remind you again, it takes ~4500 hours or ~$2100 to unlock everything in this game. That is fucking ridiculous
    Just to be on the same page, what part about it is 'fucking ridiculous'?

    1) That there are people willing to devote more spare time than you?
    2) That there are people willing to devote more money than you?
    3) That there is a chance you might be able to unlock everything?
    4) That there is someone else the company decided to cater to?
    5) That there is just someone with different opinion and perception than you?
    6) That there is someone doing something without your consent?

    The only ridiculous is how people do not hesitate to strip themselves off their rights....typical mob mentality...
    Mob mentality lol

    You really are off in your own little imaginary world.

    Back when we didn't have laws or regulations, you didn't have any rights.
    It's often quite humorous how some folks choose to view governments so selectively, acting as if they've done nothing but make society worse, when that completely ignores the entire reasoning such governments were created and continue to operate throughout the world in the first place.
    laseritMaxBaconMrMelGibson

    image
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,725
    It's often quite humorous how some folks choose to view governments so selectively, acting as if they've done nothing but make society worse, when that completely ignores the entire reasoning such governments were created and continue to operate throughout the world in the first place.
    ...if only you were able to sense the irony of your post.
    MadFrenchieMrMelGibsonCecropiaTuor7
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 6,970
    laserit said:
    Back when we didn't have laws or regulations, you didn't have any rights.
    Yeah, hate or love them, they are necessary to impose limits to especially here, how far can companies go, the loot boxes and the addictive gamble controversy that comes from them shows to be where generally people are agreeing that limit is.

    And per norm, those laws and regulations are heavily driven by the public opinion. We do live in a democracy where the companies haven't got full control just yet, so if this issue continues being brought up in the right places things might happen.
    GdemamiShodanas
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited November 2017
    Gdemami said:
    It's often quite humorous how some folks choose to view governments so selectively, acting as if they've done nothing but make society worse, when that completely ignores the entire reasoning such governments were created and continue to operate throughout the world in the first place.
    ...if only you were able to sense the irony of your post.
    Ooh, those crypto-arguments are so effective at making you look like a smarty pants!
    IselinRhoklawMrMelGibsonCecropia

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,106
    laserit said:
    Gdemami said:
    ConstantineMerus said:
    May I remind you again, it takes ~4500 hours or ~$2100 to unlock everything in this game. That is fucking ridiculous
    Just to be on the same page, what part about it is 'fucking ridiculous'?

    1) That there are people willing to devote more spare time than you?
    2) That there are people willing to devote more money than you?
    3) That there is a chance you might be able to unlock everything?
    4) That there is someone else the company decided to cater to?
    5) That there is just someone with different opinion and perception than you?
    6) That there is someone doing something without your consent?

    The only ridiculous is how people do not hesitate to strip themselves off their rights....typical mob mentality...
    Mob mentality lol

    You really are off in your own little imaginary world.

    Back when we didn't have laws or regulations, you didn't have any rights.
    It's often quite humorous how some folks choose to view governments so selectively, acting as if they've done nothing but make society worse, when that completely ignores the entire reasoning such governments were created and continue to operate throughout the world in the first place.
    The American formulation of it goes like this:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    That is to say, human rights precede the existence of governments, but governments exist to protect the rights of the people.

    That said, there are pros and cons to pretty much all policy decisions, and even if you believe that the pros and cons of more regulation or less outweigh the other, to pretend that there are not both advantages and disadvantages is to not take the issue seriously.

    Another very important consideration is that the effects of policies never match the intentions.  When evaluating whether a policy or regulation will be a good idea, the first thing you should do is to completely ignore the intent.  The intent behind it doesn't matter.  All that matters are the real-world consequences.  If you're not willing to do that with your proposed change to laws, regulations, or other policies, then most likely your proposed change will be bad due to unintended consequences.  That's not to say that there aren't good changes to be made, but only that you're not likely to stumble onto them if you consider only intentions and not real-world consequences.
    TorvalRexKushmanTuor7
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Quizzical said:
    laserit said:
    Gdemami said:
    ConstantineMerus said:
    May I remind you again, it takes ~4500 hours or ~$2100 to unlock everything in this game. That is fucking ridiculous
    Just to be on the same page, what part about it is 'fucking ridiculous'?

    1) That there are people willing to devote more spare time than you?
    2) That there are people willing to devote more money than you?
    3) That there is a chance you might be able to unlock everything?
    4) That there is someone else the company decided to cater to?
    5) That there is just someone with different opinion and perception than you?
    6) That there is someone doing something without your consent?

    The only ridiculous is how people do not hesitate to strip themselves off their rights....typical mob mentality...
    Mob mentality lol

    You really are off in your own little imaginary world.

    Back when we didn't have laws or regulations, you didn't have any rights.
    It's often quite humorous how some folks choose to view governments so selectively, acting as if they've done nothing but make society worse, when that completely ignores the entire reasoning such governments were created and continue to operate throughout the world in the first place.
    The American formulation of it goes like this:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    That is to say, human rights precede the existence of governments, but governments exist to protect the rights of the people.

    That said, there are pros and cons to pretty much all policy decisions, and even if you believe that the pros and cons of more regulation or less outweigh the other, to pretend that there are not both advantages and disadvantages is to not take the issue seriously.

    Another very important consideration is that the effects of policies never match the intentions.  When evaluating whether a policy or regulation will be a good idea, the first thing you should do is to completely ignore the intent.  The intent behind it doesn't matter.  All that matters are the real-world consequences.  If you're not willing to do that with your proposed change to laws, regulations, or other policies, then most likely your proposed change will be bad due to unintended consequences.  That's not to say that there aren't good changes to be made, but only that you're not likely to stumble onto them if you consider only intentions and not real-world consequences.
    Which is why my post was very clearly denoting that it's silly to consider regulations wholesale "good or bad."  That's why I said it's humorous when people look at governments so selectively.

    I'm well-aware that human rights (in the sense of morality) existed prior to governments.  It's just that, without such bodies to enforce, those rights are only ideas.  Ideas won't protect you from your neighbor.
    Asm0deusMrMelGibson

    image
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,157
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Back when we didn't have laws or regulations, you didn't have any rights.
    Yeah, hate or love them, they are necessary to impose limits to especially here, how far can companies go, the loot boxes and the addictive gamble controversy that comes from them shows to be where generally people are agreeing that limit is.

    And per norm, those laws and regulations are heavily driven by the public opinion. We do live in a democracy where the companies haven't got full control just yet, so if this issue continues being brought up in the right places things might happen.
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    GdemamiRexKushman

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    immodium said:
    MaxBacon said:

    I hope this goes forward because only legal regulations can defeat the paid RNG monetization trend.
    It won't though. All they'll do is build the game around the new regulations. Loot boxes aren't going anywhere in AAA titles.
    If def will stop it.  AAA publishers make games for the masses.  They won't make games that can't be sold in numerous countries.  Moreover if a country like America deems it as true gambling, I believe it would be forced to get an MA rating and the publishers I know would absolutely be on the line for cases brought against them by parents of kids who were somehow enabled to gamble.  If a kid sneaks into a casino, the casino is on the line BIG TIME because of the laws set it place.  It would BY FAR be too much of a legal liability to run regulated gambling mechanisms in a game whose target audience includes minors.  If court rulings came down on these loot boxes, I guarantee you in AAA titles already released, you would immediately see them removed and loot boxes would completely cease on AAA and the majority of all video games unless specifically (real money) gambling games.

    Though i doubt there will be much large scale legal actions taken.
    Tuor7

    If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 6,970
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,070
    edited November 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.

     25 Agrees

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

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

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

  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne Member EpicPosts: 5,297
    edited November 2017
    Scot said:
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.
    A lot of underage teens or kids would still get it and play, sure. But a lot wouldn't, even if it's just from parent interference. It would put a massive dent in the profits if they had to reduce their target demographic like that. It would also massively affect their marketing ability. Say, Facebook for example.. the advertising there is mostly based on age and location.
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  • ManestreamManestream Member UncommonPosts: 936
    It's gambling and it can be set to give absolutly jack didly 99.99% of the time or something good out of every 100,000 box's sold rest would have crap in them.
    Yes i have bought loot box's in games and thus far have yet to get anything from them other than crap. Not just 1 game but several. Thus i do not put real money into them no more, in fact most those games i have dumped as they turned into you must buy and then pray you got what you wanted else buy and buy and buy some more till you do.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    It is gambling, and if they want to monetize the chance of getting something you pay for they should be regulated as such.
    LackingMMO
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,035
    Scot said:
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.
    But it obviously has an impact on the bottom line or companies wouldn't fret so much about games having an ESRB rating higher than what they were targeting. Not that the ESRB is all that strict or you would see a lot of games in the GTA series labeled "A" instead of "M"

    And not that "A" and "M" are all that different since one is 18+ and the other one is 17+. My memory is probably not what it used to be but I personally don't remember a huge difference between 17 and 18... that 16 > 17 year though, that was Epic :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 6,970
    edited November 2017
    A regulation of age alone I think would be enough to get the big publishers to think twice.

    This when you look at a mainstream game like Battlefront 2 pushing it to +18 certainly cuts a decent chunk of audience, also marketing channels. It would be even worse like how casino online games do age checks requiring your ID (I think there's some legal stuff here); a difference between age rating being a guideline over one requirement.

    Now taxation would be the best bet I think, targetting specifically the earnings the company would get from the paid RNG creates and such, could be enough to deny the profitability over the usual microtransactions.
    Gdemami
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,035
    It is gambling, and if they want to monetize the chance of getting something you pay for they should be regulated as such.
    Well by the "letter of the law" in most jurisdictions it is likely not undisputably gambling since there are weasel words that the armies of weasels whose job it is to be weasely could sink their tiny teeth into... which is essentially a description of the current state of affairs. It is however, nowhere near a 100% slam dunk "not gambling" as some would like you to believe.

    But it sure walks and talks like gambling and denying that is denying reality either out of sheer ignorance or (more likely) in order to promote it 'cause it makes big bucks for the promoters.


    Tuor7
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    While I hate loot boxes actually banning them is not a good idea. Forcing the devs to publish the odds is fine though. 
    Personally I just don't buy them and boycot games that have blatant pay2win content.
    QuizzicalConstantineMerusTuor7
  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,580
    Iselin said:
    Scot said:
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.
    But it obviously has an impact on the bottom line or companies wouldn't fret so much about games having an ESRB rating higher than what they were targeting. Not that the ESRB is all that strict or you would see a lot of games in the GTA series labeled "A" instead of "M"

    And not that "A" and "M" are all that different since one is 18+ and the other one is 17+. My memory is probably not what it used to be but I personally don't remember a huge difference between 17 and 18... that 16 > 17 year though, that was Epic :)
    ESRB, European equivalent PEGI and UKie don't actually class loot boxes as gambling.

    "In short, our approach is similar to that of ESRB (I think all rating boards do, USK in Germany as well). The main reason for this is that we cannot define what constitutes gambling," PEGI operations director Dirk Bosmans told Wccftech. "That is the responsibility of a national gambling commission. Our gambling content descriptor is given to games that simulate or teach gambling as it’s done in real life in casinos, racetracks, etc. If a gambling commission would state that loot boxes are a form of gambling, then we would have to adjust our criteria to that." 

    Dr. Jo Twist of Ukie said something similar to Eurogamer. Loot boxes "are already covered by and fully compliant with existing relevant UK regulations," she said. "The games sector has a history of open and constructive dialogue with regulators, ensuring that games fully comply with UK law and has already discussed similar issues as part of last year's Gambling Commission paper on virtual currencies, esports and social gaming."

    Source: PCGamer

    It sounds like laws have to change first before anything can be done.

    image
  • JacobinJacobin Member RarePosts: 1,009
    If studios who can't make games that stand on their own merit and want to make slot machines with game GUIs then just stop the obnoxious lies and misdirection about how this supposedly about gameplay and achievement.

    They are bottom feeder parasites leaching onto the consumer with the absolute lowest form of design that basically wants to turn naive kids into compulsive addicts.


    GdemamiTuor7
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,035
    Jacobin said:
    If studios who can't make games that stand on their own merit and want to make slot machines with game GUIs then just stop the obnoxious lies and misdirection about how this supposedly about gameplay and achievement.

    They are bottom feeder parasites leaching onto the consumer with the absolute lowest form of design that basically wants to turn naive kids into compulsive addicts.


    My favorite line from the EA/DICE reddit AMA was (speaking about why earning credits in single player mode has a 14 hour cool down) was: " ...we needed to also find a way to make sure it wouldn't be exploited in a way that would impact Multiplayer"

    But... but... there's no limit on how many boxes you can outright buy? Does that not also "impact Multiplayer"?
    Tuor7
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,035
    immodium said:
    Iselin said:
    Scot said:
    MaxBacon said:
    laserit said:
    Taking special needs cases out of the argument (ie handicapped etc.)

    Laws and regulations are designed around the common good. When the common good is forsaken for special interests well.... we usually call that corruption.
    Yeah it's around that, but we often see the regulations being made in the form of taxation and restrictions such as age, most common for what we see surrounding smoking, gambling, and drinking.

    This is quite so, but they are already taxing the games proceeds. I doubt an age restriction would effect this much even if it was 18+. Yes they would think twice, but I think they would accept that and go ahead anyway. After all age verification is so limited it would be easy for under eighteens to play.
    But it obviously has an impact on the bottom line or companies wouldn't fret so much about games having an ESRB rating higher than what they were targeting. Not that the ESRB is all that strict or you would see a lot of games in the GTA series labeled "A" instead of "M"

    And not that "A" and "M" are all that different since one is 18+ and the other one is 17+. My memory is probably not what it used to be but I personally don't remember a huge difference between 17 and 18... that 16 > 17 year though, that was Epic :)
    ESRB, European equivalent PEGI and UKie don't actually class loot boxes as gambling.

    "In short, our approach is similar to that of ESRB (I think all rating boards do, USK in Germany as well). The main reason for this is that we cannot define what constitutes gambling," PEGI operations director Dirk Bosmans told Wccftech. "That is the responsibility of a national gambling commission. Our gambling content descriptor is given to games that simulate or teach gambling as it’s done in real life in casinos, racetracks, etc. If a gambling commission would state that loot boxes are a form of gambling, then we would have to adjust our criteria to that." 

    Dr. Jo Twist of Ukie said something similar to Eurogamer. Loot boxes "are already covered by and fully compliant with existing relevant UK regulations," she said. "The games sector has a history of open and constructive dialogue with regulators, ensuring that games fully comply with UK law and has already discussed similar issues as part of last year's Gambling Commission paper on virtual currencies, esports and social gaming."

    Source: PCGamer

    It sounds like laws have to change first before anything can be done.
    Translation: "They have great lobbyists! That dinner meeting at the Sublimotion in Ibiza was epic!" :)
    immodiumTuor7
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,106
    Loke666 said:
    Forcing the devs to publish the odds is fine though.
    I think we have a winner right there.  Merely having to disclose odds would ban some of the worst abuses without meaningfully inconveniencing companies that aren't trying to rip-off their customers.  Subjective rules invite outcomes where whoever has the most or best lawyers and lobbyists decide what happens, which is why clear rules about what is and is not legal are so desirable.  Checking whether odds are readily visible to players doesn't introduce a ton of subjectivity into the process.
    Gdemami
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247
    Its gambling.

    Does it need to be removed?

    People need to stop buying the games that have them and the companies themselves will remove them.
  • OldKingLogOldKingLog Member UncommonPosts: 46
    Its gambling.

    Does it need to be removed?

    People need to stop buying the games that have them and the companies themselves will remove them.
    This seems at first glance to be the most logical conclusion. The problem with this line of thinking is that logic has little to do with addictive behavior. As long as companies can entice customers to repeatedly open their wallets with addictive psychology they will continue to use it. Individuals like us can simply avoid supporting games and companies that use this exploitative monetization strategy, but as we've seen over the past few years there is a large majority of consumers that can't or won't. As this marketing scheme creeps into more facets of the gaming industry individuals such as ourselves that don't support this type of behavior will simply find ourselves with nothing left to play. Not a scenario I care to see play out.

     So that leaves the only way to get rid of, or at least curb the worst abuse of the casino business strategy is for a government body to impose sanctions or regulation.
    Gdemami
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,157
    Many say that marijuana is the gateway drug so it should be banned.

    One could use the same logic in this debate.

    Wonder how many gambling addicts played video games when they were a kid ;)

     

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

Sign In or Register to comment.