Howdy, Stranger!

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

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

11415171920

Comments

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited May 2018
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:
    Nope.  Or I should say only partially correct.  But rather than just repeating everything I said that you refuse to believe I’ll just re-emphasize that: As soon as lootboxes become gambling this self-certification is no protection for a company.  It’s is exactly like asking someone entering a bar if they are legal and just taking their word.  That’s meaningless.

    As I said, Eldutians figures show 28% are minors.  Even if it’s a fraction of that... it means a company should know kids are using their service.  Self identification is not a valid way of restricting access.

    Its OK.  Change is coming.  As soon as lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling you will see dramatic changes.

    We can do better. We will do better.
    Again. That is 28% of all gamers of all games. Here is another stat:



    So:

    A. It is a pretty safe assumption that when excluding offline games, that you also exclude many younger players.

    B. 91% of parents are present when their kid is purchasing any game / 95% are monitoring the games they play. These stats likely are higher when it comes to online purchases which are most conveniently made with a credit or debit card.

    So even if you reject A, and B and assume the 95% of parents monitoring what their kids play wouldn't know if their kids had a loot box addiction

    28*.09= 2.52%

    So worst case scenario, 2.52% of online gamers are children who do not have adult supervision when making purchases. Again, this is highly unlikely, and likely a very inflated number... but it's 2.52%.

    Now of the 2.52% or less of online gamers who are children making unsupervised purchases. Care to wager what percentage of them would be able to spend a significant quantity of money on these purchases without alerting their parents to the fact a bunch of money is suddenly missing?

    Something tells me the at maximum 2.52% who are kids making unsupervised purchases and at maximum 1.4% who kids who's parents aren't monitoring what they play overwhelmingly fall into the high quantity of free to play gamers who don't pay into the games they play. Probably not even so much from responsibility as lack of resources.

    I'll let you in on a little secret.

    THESE DEVELOPERS ARE TARGETING PEOPLE WITH MONEY!!!

    That's not unsupervised kids. 

    @Eldurian ;

    Got a source for your jpeg?

    I find the "95% of parents pay attention to the content of the games their children play" dubious at best.

    I sincerely hope that, that kind of percentage of parents pay that amount of attention to their children's education but I highly doubt it.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/351277603/ESA-EF-2014#fullscreen&from_embed

    While I'm sure you guys will continue to attack any data I provide that disagrees with your biases, I would yet again challenge you, if you don't like my data, please provide your own data which supports your point of view.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,266
    Eldurian said:
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:
    Nope.  Or I should say only partially correct.  But rather than just repeating everything I said that you refuse to believe I’ll just re-emphasize that: As soon as lootboxes become gambling this self-certification is no protection for a company.  It’s is exactly like asking someone entering a bar if they are legal and just taking their word.  That’s meaningless.

    As I said, Eldutians figures show 28% are minors.  Even if it’s a fraction of that... it means a company should know kids are using their service.  Self identification is not a valid way of restricting access.

    Its OK.  Change is coming.  As soon as lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling you will see dramatic changes.

    We can do better. We will do better.
    Again. That is 28% of all gamers of all games. Here is another stat:



    So:

    A. It is a pretty safe assumption that when excluding offline games, that you also exclude many younger players.

    B. 91% of parents are present when their kid is purchasing any game / 95% are monitoring the games they play. These stats likely are higher when it comes to online purchases which are most conveniently made with a credit or debit card.

    So even if you reject A, and B and assume the 95% of parents monitoring what their kids play wouldn't know if their kids had a loot box addiction

    28*.09= 2.52%

    So worst case scenario, 2.52% of online gamers are children who do not have adult supervision when making purchases. Again, this is highly unlikely, and likely a very inflated number... but it's 2.52%.

    Now of the 2.52% or less of online gamers who are children making unsupervised purchases. Care to wager what percentage of them would be able to spend a significant quantity of money on these purchases without alerting their parents to the fact a bunch of money is suddenly missing?

    Something tells me the at maximum 2.52% who are kids making unsupervised purchases and at maximum 1.4% who kids who's parents aren't monitoring what they play overwhelmingly fall into the high quantity of free to play gamers who don't pay into the games they play. Probably not even so much from responsibility as lack of resources.

    I'll let you in on a little secret.

    THESE DEVELOPERS ARE TARGETING PEOPLE WITH MONEY!!!

    That's not unsupervised kids. 

    @Eldurian ;

    Got a source for your jpeg?

    I find the "95% of parents pay attention to the content of the games their children play" dubious at best.

    I sincerely hope that, that kind of percentage of parents pay that amount of attention to their children's education but I highly doubt it.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/351277603/ESA-EF-2014#fullscreen&from_embed
    lol

    Like I said dubious at best

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    Ok but where is your data? You keep saying. "Your data is bad, your data is bad, your data is bad."

    But it is the ONLY data which has been provided in this conversation. If your rather asinine assumptions were to be true, it would stand to reason you could provide at least one study backing them.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,266
    Eldurian said:
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:
    Nope.  Or I should say only partially correct.  But rather than just repeating everything I said that you refuse to believe I’ll just re-emphasize that: As soon as lootboxes become gambling this self-certification is no protection for a company.  It’s is exactly like asking someone entering a bar if they are legal and just taking their word.  That’s meaningless.

    As I said, Eldutians figures show 28% are minors.  Even if it’s a fraction of that... it means a company should know kids are using their service.  Self identification is not a valid way of restricting access.

    Its OK.  Change is coming.  As soon as lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling you will see dramatic changes.

    We can do better. We will do better.
    Again. That is 28% of all gamers of all games. Here is another stat:



    So:

    A. It is a pretty safe assumption that when excluding offline games, that you also exclude many younger players.

    B. 91% of parents are present when their kid is purchasing any game / 95% are monitoring the games they play. These stats likely are higher when it comes to online purchases which are most conveniently made with a credit or debit card.

    So even if you reject A, and B and assume the 95% of parents monitoring what their kids play wouldn't know if their kids had a loot box addiction

    28*.09= 2.52%

    So worst case scenario, 2.52% of online gamers are children who do not have adult supervision when making purchases. Again, this is highly unlikely, and likely a very inflated number... but it's 2.52%.

    Now of the 2.52% or less of online gamers who are children making unsupervised purchases. Care to wager what percentage of them would be able to spend a significant quantity of money on these purchases without alerting their parents to the fact a bunch of money is suddenly missing?

    Something tells me the at maximum 2.52% who are kids making unsupervised purchases and at maximum 1.4% who kids who's parents aren't monitoring what they play overwhelmingly fall into the high quantity of free to play gamers who don't pay into the games they play. Probably not even so much from responsibility as lack of resources.

    I'll let you in on a little secret.

    THESE DEVELOPERS ARE TARGETING PEOPLE WITH MONEY!!!

    That's not unsupervised kids. 

    @Eldurian ;

    Got a source for your jpeg?

    I find the "95% of parents pay attention to the content of the games their children play" dubious at best.

    I sincerely hope that, that kind of percentage of parents pay that amount of attention to their children's education but I highly doubt it.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/351277603/ESA-EF-2014#fullscreen&from_embed

    While I'm sure you guys will continue to attack any data I provide that disagrees with your biases, I would yet again challenge you, if you don't like my data, please provide your own data which supports your point of view.
    lol

    I'm sure we can take the Entertainment Software Association's word on it.

    I just love how they list their sources.

    No bias,  propaganda or marketing there.

    MendelSlapshot1188

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,266
    Eldurian said:
    Ok but where is your data? You keep saying. "Your data is bad, your data is bad, your data is bad."

    But it is the ONLY data which has been provided in this conversation. If your rather asinine assumptions were to be true, it would stand to reason you could provide at least one study backing them.
    Bullshit

    as posted earlier in this thread

    "Adults may make up the majority of game players, but video games are more popular than ever among kids, new research shows. According to NPD, 91 percent of U.S. children ages 2-17 play video games (64 million). More interesting, these numbers are up nearly 13 percent from a 2009 study. The number of kids in the U.S. has increased by 1.54 percent in that time, but not nearly enough to make up for the massive increase in game playing. Gaming among kids ages 2-5 has increased the most"

    “Year-to-date through August 2011, kids comprised 44 percent of new physical software dollar sales, representing a vitally important consumer segment for the games industry,” said Anita Frazier, industry analyst, The NPD Group. “Knowing how kids are spending their gaming time and dollars in both traditional and non-traditional outlets is key to staying relevant to this highly engaged audience.”

    All sectors seem to be growing, but computer, smartphone, and tablet devices have seen the largest growth. Games played on mobile devices alone have risen from 8 percent to 38 percent. Android and iOS devices account for most of the growth. Games played on handheld systems like the Nintendo 3DS are up from 38 percent to 45 percent since 2009. 

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/91-percent-of-kids-play-video-games-says-study/

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited May 2018
    laserit said:

    "Adults may make up the majority of game players, but video games are more popular than ever among kids, new research shows. According to NPD, 91 percent of U.S. children ages 2-17 play video games (64 million). More interesting, these numbers are up nearly 13 percent from a 2009 study. The number of kids in the U.S. has increased by 1.54 percent in that time, but not nearly enough to make up for the massive increase in game playing. Gaming among kids ages 2-5 has increased the most"
    That does not contradict or dispute the fact that every source provided says the vast majority of gamers are adults. A statistic I've provided at least 3 times from as many sources. And I didn't cherrypick that data. I'm just grabbing the first graphs found in my Google searches for terms like "Age Demographic of Gamers".

    And while the previously sourced graph that showed the distribution of online gamers is locked behind a paywall, it showed the distribution of younger gamers was much less than 28% when you narrow the category from games to online games. That would seem to jive with all other data I can find.

    " Interestingly, MMOs still seem to be a popular genre for many older gamers as they allow for many different play styles. Casual games might be great for this crowd, but they often want the challenge that older games from their youth offered. "

    But you don't care. You just want to be right. I could find 100 surveys by 100 colleges showing that less than 1% of lootbox sales are to children and you would pull up some unrelated stat and persist in your foolishness.


  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,266
    Eldurian said:
    laserit said:

    "Adults may make up the majority of game players, but video games are more popular than ever among kids, new research shows. According to NPD, 91 percent of U.S. children ages 2-17 play video games (64 million). More interesting, these numbers are up nearly 13 percent from a 2009 study. The number of kids in the U.S. has increased by 1.54 percent in that time, but not nearly enough to make up for the massive increase in game playing. Gaming among kids ages 2-5 has increased the most"
    That does not contradict or dispute the fact that every source provided says the vast majority of gamers are adults. A statistic I've provided at least 3 times from as many sources. And I didn't cherrypick that data. I'm just grabbing the first graphs found in my Google searches for terms like "Age Demographic of Gamers".

    And while the previously sourced graph that showed the distribution of online gamers is locked behind a paywall, it showed the distribution of younger gamers was much less than 28% when you narrow the category from games to online games. That would seem to jive with all other data I can find.

    " Interestingly, MMOs still seem to be a popular genre for many older gamers as they allow for many different play styles. Casual games might be great for this crowd, but they often want the challenge that older games from their youth offered. "

    But you don't care. You just want to be right. I could find 100 surveys by 100 colleges showing that less than 1% of lootbox sales are to children and you would pull up some unrelated stat and persist in your foolishness.


    100 surveys about children making up 1% of loot box sales you say

    How about you post links to 10% of them, hell even 1% of them.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,115
    edited May 2018
    Eldurian said:
    Asm0deus said:

    The real difference between you and me is I think laws should be pretty much the same for everyone and I also feel that just because one person closes his eyes to a crime and claims no foul, thus there can be no victims, there should be consequences if there actually is a crime and there actually is a victim. 
    No, the difference between me and you is that you feel you are qualified to claim victimhood of others when they are content with the transaction that they have made, and I am content to let people live their own lives and make their own decisions.

    Not at all, you have this habit of putting words in other people mouths and trying to spin a narrative about them that is completely false. I don't claim others are victims if they say or consent to something, you are again missing the forest because you are staring at one type of tree to the exclusion of all others.  In essence I can't claim such and such is a victim but likewise you cannot claim such and such people are not or you are in essence making judgements for others.  You seem to fail to realize that making no choice or sitting on the fence is a choice in of itself that affects others regardless of your claim of a live and let live policy....

    Eldurian said:
    You feel you know better than others how they should run their own lives. I feel that whether I do or not, that isn't my place.

    That's not true at all you are in essence doing the very same thing you claim I am doing. You say it isn't your place to decide how others run their own live but that that's the very thing you do when you say we shouldn't have laws to protect consumers from predatory practices, whether someone agrees with me or agrees with you it means down the line someone or some group is being told, "this is acceptable and this isn't" and it affects others.

    Eldurian said:
    The nanny state isn't a myth at all. You are living breathing proof.

    Haha I am glad you went here cause this only shows I was right about the red/blue states being hogwash as it ties in to what I said just above. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state or blue state, it doesn't matter if you agree with all the laws of either state. The fact is some people are being told what they can and can't do and what society deems acceptable or not...both blue AND red states do this and any red state or person that uses the nanny blue state expression is just being a hypocrite.

    Eldurian said:
    You say:

    "Games like Entropia Universe need to die in a fire and not only that they should be audited by the IRS and so should everyone that plays it and similar type games."
    Indeed that was a a harsh statement colored by my extreme dislike of such scammy games as I feel they encourage scammy practices both in game and out. I am quite content to be overruled on this but genuinely feel that in games such at Entropia there's a definite likelihood of people making real life money and not declaring it. If I was an IRS agent I would be very interested in seeing Entropia's books and the transactions between Entropia and the people that play it.  My statement wasn't really colored by their lootboxes but rather the whole game model.


    Eldurian said:

    @Cryomatrix - As a player of Entropia Universe do you feel like a victim? What are your thoughts on this statement.

    Because from my perspective it looks like you're telling him you know better how he should run his life. Looks to me, like you're trying to play his nanny.



    It's pretty obvious Cryomatix will not feel like a victim just by his previous statements and I never claimed he did feel like one. Strawman fallacies like this one seem to be the basis of all your arguments.

    Just because Cryomatix himself personally plays the game enjoys it and doesn't feel victimized doesn't mean others that play and enjoyed the game haven't been at some point.


    Iselincraftseeker

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:

    I could find 100 surveys by 100 colleges showing that less than 1% of lootbox sales are to children and you would pull up some unrelated stat and persist in your foolishness.
    100 surveys about children making up 1% of loot box sales you say

    How about you post links to 10% of them, hell even 1% of them.

    Context is an important part of reading comprehension. I wasn't saying they exist. I was saying if they did exist, you would deny them all or find a way to twist your logic to make them irrelevant.

    Because what does exist is overwhelming evidence that online games are dominated primarily by adults, and that children are a minority. (I won't bother resourcing all the graphs I've already presented tot hat end)

    What does exist is overwhelming evidence that adults have far more disposable income than children. (Note that the highest income years mirror the average age of a gamer)

    What does exist is ample data that games the rely on cash shops and loot boxes are propped up primarily by a very small percentage of the player base known as whales.

    It doesn't take a genius to put the pieces together if you are actually looking for the truth about who is buying all these lootboxes.

    If you think any significant percent of those lootbox sales are coming from children living at home with their parents, you are absolutely deluded. 
    craftseekerlaserit
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,885
    Eldurian said:
    You want to know what's funny. 

    Entropia Universe lootboxes or strongboxes as they are called are the most legit of all lootboxes. You pay $5 bucks for a lootbox and you get $5 worth of shit guaranteed. You can get lucky and get something worth $1000 :)

    Also, many of the strongbox items can sell for more than they are bought so you end up making a profit off of it. 

    Cryomatrix
    That seems a bit to good to be true. If they are 5$ and you are guaranteed to get 5$ of stuff then there seems to be 0 risk involved. You theoretically should be able to buy, sell, buy, sell, buy, sell until you win and then you have made 995$ profit.

    There has to be a catch.
    The catch is, that you will get surcharges when you buy into entropia unless if you are from Sweden I think. And to pull money out it'll be a 3.5% charge and to put money in i think it is a 3.5% charge. 
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 3,320
    Nope.  Or I should say only partially correct.  But rather than just repeating everything I said that you refuse to believe I’ll just re-emphasize that: As soon as lootboxes become gambling this self-certification is no protection for a company.  It’s is exactly like asking someone entering a bar if they are legal and just taking their word.  That’s meaningless.

    As I said, Eldutians figures show 28% are minors.  Even if it’s a fraction of that... it means a company should know kids are using their service.  Self identification is not a valid way of restricting access.

    Its OK.  Change is coming.  As soon as lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling you will see dramatic changes.

    We can do better. We will do better.
    But see.. Loot Boxes won't go away, even if they are classified as Gambling.

    All that will happen is MMO's will require a CC/Debit number in to make an account, and poof, legal proof of age has been provided.

    Just.. with the added boon they can now charge you more for the loot boxes (Gotta cover those licences and taxes), they will get to put in RMT linked to them, as now they can freely add a real money value to them if they have a legal right to gamble, and, above all that, they will moved to add in even more P2W linked to them, after all, again, they have the legal right to Gamble now.

    Oh yah, and they get to ban anyone they know who let a minor play their game, without refund, or anything else.

    That sounds like shit would get a whole lot worse, as they no longer need to dance a line of if it's gambling.

    So.. what makes you think anything will get better?

    I suppose there would be some companies that would not want to bother with getting the licence, but, they would swiftly fall back on blatant P2W, or Needing to pay to bypass massive impositions.

    Understand that you will not win in this.. ever.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,664
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:
    laserit said:
    Eldurian said:
    Nope.  Or I should say only partially correct.  But rather than just repeating everything I said that you refuse to believe I’ll just re-emphasize that: As soon as lootboxes become gambling this self-certification is no protection for a company.  It’s is exactly like asking someone entering a bar if they are legal and just taking their word.  That’s meaningless.

    As I said, Eldutians figures show 28% are minors.  Even if it’s a fraction of that... it means a company should know kids are using their service.  Self identification is not a valid way of restricting access.

    Its OK.  Change is coming.  As soon as lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling you will see dramatic changes.

    We can do better. We will do better.
    Again. That is 28% of all gamers of all games. Here is another stat:



    So:

    A. It is a pretty safe assumption that when excluding offline games, that you also exclude many younger players.

    B. 91% of parents are present when their kid is purchasing any game / 95% are monitoring the games they play. These stats likely are higher when it comes to online purchases which are most conveniently made with a credit or debit card.

    So even if you reject A, and B and assume the 95% of parents monitoring what their kids play wouldn't know if their kids had a loot box addiction

    28*.09= 2.52%

    So worst case scenario, 2.52% of online gamers are children who do not have adult supervision when making purchases. Again, this is highly unlikely, and likely a very inflated number... but it's 2.52%.

    Now of the 2.52% or less of online gamers who are children making unsupervised purchases. Care to wager what percentage of them would be able to spend a significant quantity of money on these purchases without alerting their parents to the fact a bunch of money is suddenly missing?

    Something tells me the at maximum 2.52% who are kids making unsupervised purchases and at maximum 1.4% who kids who's parents aren't monitoring what they play overwhelmingly fall into the high quantity of free to play gamers who don't pay into the games they play. Probably not even so much from responsibility as lack of resources.

    I'll let you in on a little secret.

    THESE DEVELOPERS ARE TARGETING PEOPLE WITH MONEY!!!

    That's not unsupervised kids. 

    @Eldurian ;

    Got a source for your jpeg?

    I find the "95% of parents pay attention to the content of the games their children play" dubious at best.

    I sincerely hope that, that kind of percentage of parents pay that amount of attention to their children's education but I highly doubt it.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/351277603/ESA-EF-2014#fullscreen&from_embed

    While I'm sure you guys will continue to attack any data I provide that disagrees with your biases, I would yet again challenge you, if you don't like my data, please provide your own data which supports your point of view.
    lol

    I'm sure we can take the Entertainment Software Association's word on it.

    I just love how they list their sources.

    No bias,  propaganda or marketing there.

    One thing I love about statistical data.  If it is being shown to the public, it is being shown for a purpose.  It has been grouped, parsed and presented to support a particular position.

    I'm not sure that there *IS* a valid way to consistently collect data about who is at the keyboard at any given time.  Parents may set up the account and pay for it, but that doesn't in any way imply that the parent is playing the game, or aware of the child's actions in the game, or the company has any reliable way to distinguish adult and minor at any given instant.

    And what about the age grouping of 18-35?  The 18-20 group can be considered minors in many aspects, such as drinking, smoking or gambling.  So, determining 'child' isn't a totally clear cut operation.  Data that has been aggregated with one set of rules cannot reliably determine the numbers for a different aggregation.  That is one of the basic principles of data warehousing.

    Yes, statistics *can* lie, and frequently do.  Which led to Mark Twain's observation, "There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians".  I can't improve on that.




    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited May 2018
    Asm0deus said:

    In essence I can't claim such and such is a victim but likewise you cannot claim such and such people are not or you are in essence making judgements for others.
    If there are two people, they enter into a consenting transaction, both as satisfied with that transaction and you come along and say "NUH UH! THAT PERSON IS A VICTIM OF THESE PREDATORY GAMBLING PRACTICES!!!" that is making a judgement for someone else as all parties within the arrangement were consenting. Nobody in that arrangement wants you to intercede therefore you shouldn't.

    If there are two people, they enter into a consenting transaction, one of them is dissatisfied after the fact and says "WAAAAAAH I WAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" Then they are asking for a judgement to be made. At that point, it is very appropriate to say, "Yeah, you knew there was a risk in gambling / knew that eating burgers makes you fat / knew that devoting time to gaming takes time away from other things. You are not a victim." Or in some cases "Yeah they didn't tell you that drink was spiked / didn't live up to their end of the bargain etc. so you should be given recourse."

    People buying lootboxes know what they are. They know there is a chance they will get things they want, they know there is a chance they won't. They enter into that relationship without disputing those terms, knowing the odds aren't published etc. Coming back after the fact and saying "No wait that wasn't fair" is bullcrap, and it's great that we don't recognize any legal victimhood of these individuals because they are not victims.

    They are the ones who asked people to make a judgement as to whether they were a victim or not. It's not disrespecting their rights in any way to give that judgment.
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,115
    edited May 2018
    Eldurian said:
    Asm0deus said:

    In essence I can't claim such and such is a victim but likewise you cannot claim such and such people are not or you are in essence making judgements for others.
    If there are two people, they enter into a consenting transaction, both as satisfied with that transaction and you come along and say "NUH UH! THAT PERSON IS A VICTIM OF THESE PREDATORY GAMBLING PRACTICES!!!" that is making a judgement for someone else as all parties within the arrangement were consenting. Nobody in that arrangement wants you to intercede therefore you shouldn't.

    If there are two people, they enter into a consenting transaction, one of them is dissatisfied after the fact and says "WAAAAAAH I WAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" Then they are asking for a judgement to be made. At that point, it is very appropriate to say, "Yeah, you knew there was a risk in gambling / knew that eating burgers makes you fat / knew that devoting time to gaming takes time away from other things. You are not a victim." Or in some cases "Yeah they didn't tell you that drink was spiked / didn't live up to their end of the bargain etc. so you should be given recourse."

    People buying lootboxes know what they are. They know there is a chance they will get things they want, they know there is a chance they won't. They enter into that relationship without disputing those terms, knowing the odds aren't published etc. Coming back after the fact and saying "No wait that wasn't fair" is bullcrap, and it's great that we don't recognize any legal victimhood of these individuals because they are not victims.
    More fallacies.

    Firstly I never claimed that two consenting adults were victims.

    I don't care if two consenting consent to a transaction..if it's illegal it still illegal no matter how happy or unhappy they are about it.

    I disagree that everyone buying lootboxes know what they are, I would say this very thread proves that.

    Really though it's about following laws and behavior society deems acceptable therefore if lootboxes ARE found to be gambling they should follow the respective laws that deal with gambling. 

    You are using a fallacy and making this about the victims/not victims argument when the issue is not so black and white but has many shades of gray.

    Ungood is seriously mistaken if he thinks that if lootboxes are found to be gambling it will open the door for companies like EA to acquire a gambling license and force that down everyone throat in video games.

    It simply comes down to this...if we have certain laws pertaining to gambling then anything found to be gambling be it sports betting online, going to a casino etc etc then they all need to follow those same laws

    If gambling is found in our video games then the games from companies like EA etc etc should be forced to the same rules as others....no special treatment because they are doing it via a gaming medium or because you Eldurian feel otherwise and think you know best for the rest of us and society as a whole.

    Hell you mentioned earlier you thought you should be allowed to let your child go gamble his/her pocket money in a casino to learn a life lesson.......it's a damn good thing you are not running things and even your peers in the red state see how wrong that would be.  I mention this because I feel you are equally wrong in this discussion in the same manner you are wrong about that.

    You can claim and cry it's the majority victimizing the minority all you like but that doesn't make it so. 


    Post edited by Asm0deus on

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,562
    I never thought I would say this but this thread is making me miss @SEANMCAD.

    At least his illogical and obstinate defenses of the indefensible sometimes had entertainment value. His successors lack that.
    CryomatrixMendelmklinicSlapshot1188
    “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
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,885
    edited May 2018
    Iselin said:
    I never thought I would say this but this thread is making me miss @SEANMCAD.

    At least his illogical and obstinate defenses of the indefensible sometimes had entertainment value. His successors lack that.
    He should come back for entertainment value alone. I had a rule that I would just ignore him. I never blocked him, but I'd never acknowledge him. I think he just argued to argue, like his goal was to rack up as many posts as possible in a short period of time. I wonder what his agree-to-WTF ratio was. 

    Cryomatrix

    @Iselin I just got your avatar, it is "no Bullshit" :)
    Iselin
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,562

    @Iselin I just got your avatar, it is "no Bullshit" :)
    Words I try to live by :)
    “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
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,664
    Iselin said:
    I never thought I would say this but this thread is making me miss @SEANMCAD.

    At least his illogical and obstinate defenses of the indefensible sometimes had entertainment value. His successors lack that.
    He should come back for entertainment value alone. I had a rule that I would just ignore him. I never blocked him, but I'd never acknowledge him. I think he just argued to argue, like his goal was to rack up as many posts as possible in a short period of time. I wonder what his agree-to-WTF ratio was. 

    Cryomatrix

    @Iselin I just got your avatar, it is "no Bullshit" :)
    Are you assuming that @SEANMCAD got an agree, cause you're certainly implying that.   :)




    Cryomatrix

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    I do not give a shit about laws as a measure of morality. 

    Lootboxes are legal. The fact they may bear resemblance to practices which are illegal has no bearing on whether or not they are moral or immoral. It has no bearing on whether they are predatory or not-predatory.

    Law is black and white. Legal, or illegal. They are legal so they are fully in the white there. 

    If you want me to recognize that laws should protect you from something, you need to establish how the actions of others are violating your rights. AKA, you need to show me how you are being victimized.

    If you are not claiming to be a victim nor an advocate of victims, then frankly nothing you have to say on this subject matters to me. You have no place in this debate.

    If you are claiming those in the transaction who are not claiming victimhood are victims, then I would say you have stepped beyond anything you have any right to commentate on. If they are victims, let them claim that status themselves.

    If you are claiming those in the transactions who are dissatisfied with the transactions then I would say show me how anything was done to them, that they did not consent to.

    If you are claiming society is the victim, then I would say to show me which rights of those who did not consent to the transaction are being violated.

    If you can't show me any of those things, then stop trying to control others and pretend your non-existent right to not be offended supersedes the right of other individuals to take part in consensual transactions.



    Ungood
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,885
    Mendel said:
    Iselin said:
    I never thought I would say this but this thread is making me miss @SEANMCAD.

    At least his illogical and obstinate defenses of the indefensible sometimes had entertainment value. His successors lack that.
    He should come back for entertainment value alone. I had a rule that I would just ignore him. I never blocked him, but I'd never acknowledge him. I think he just argued to argue, like his goal was to rack up as many posts as possible in a short period of time. I wonder what his agree-to-WTF ratio was. 

    Cryomatrix

    @Iselin I just got your avatar, it is "no Bullshit" :)
    Are you assuming that @SEANMCAD got an agree, cause you're certainly implying that.   :)




    349 agrees to 369 WTF --- a less than 1 ratio. Now look at @Iselin ratio, it is like 1.44k to 24. Of course I made up this stupid statistic and it has little value but it is fun nonetheless. I've got 144 to 24 ratio. So I am suxxors compared to @Iselin.
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    Iselin said:
    I never thought I would say this but this thread is making me miss @SEANMCAD.

    At least his illogical and obstinate defenses of the indefensible sometimes had entertainment value. His successors lack that.
    I have quite a few more people who have given positive reactions to my posts than negative ones. I hardly just go around arguing the counter position to everything that everyone asserts. The thing is I'm not the point to change my position on an argument just because I'm in the minority, nor am I too cowardly to speak up on an issue just because I know my opinion is not the popular one.

    So it gets me into a few debates like this where a community has embraced a fairly dumb idea and repeated an "obvious truth" which isn't backed by facts or has poor logical premises enough times that speaking up against it will put you at odds with everyone.

    The fact is, you guys are quick to embrace anything against lootboxes because you don't like them. And now are using the ad populum fallacy where facts and logic fail you. 
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 3,115
    edited May 2018
    Eldurian said:
    I do not give a shit about laws as a measure of morality. 

    Lootboxes are legal. The fact they may bear resemblance to practices which are illegal has no bearing on whether or not they are moral or immoral. It has no bearing on whether they are predatory or not-predatory.

    Law is black and white. Legal, or illegal. They are legal so they are fully in the white there. 

    If you want me to recognize that laws should protect you from something, you need to establish how the actions of others are violating your rights. AKA, you need to show me how you are being victimized.

    If you are not claiming to be a victim nor an advocate of victims, then frankly nothing you have to say on this subject matters to me. You have no place in this debate.

    If you are claiming those in the transaction who are not claiming victimhood are victims, then I would say you have stepped beyond anything you have any right to commentate on. If they are victims, let them claim that status themselves.

    If you are claiming those in the transactions who are dissatisfied with the transactions then I would say show me how anything was done to them, that they did not consent to.

    If you are claiming society is the victim, then I would say to show me which rights of those who did not consent to the transaction are being violated.

    If you can't show me any of those things, then stop trying to control others and pretend your non-existent right to not be offended supersedes the right of other individuals to take part in consensual transactions.



    Another boatload of BS fallacies.  The laws that govern our society are not all about there being a victim or not. 

    I never said lootboxes were illegal, I was alluding to the fact that gambling is only legal in certain conditions and places.

    Also as a public thread I am allowed to post here no matter your opinion of if I fit in your narrative or not so you will just have to suck it up and stop trying to control me and my opinions.

    Sounds to me like you have this idea that the present laws we have that govern gambling which exist for various reason are not to your liking and you are making fallacious arguments to try and avoid lootboxes falling into the gambling category.

    You're entitled to as this is an open forum after all but I am also entitled to call you out on your BS.

    Really the only thing I have been arguing in this thread is that I think lootboxes fall into the gambling category and should be treated as such. 

    If society feels minors should not be partaking of gambling because it's a predatory practice, that they should not be reasonably expected to understand or be able to defend against it then so be it.


    Post edited by Asm0deus on
    Slapshot1188

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.





  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,625
    Eldurian said:
    Like most of your other posts... wrong.

    Its OK though.

    Change is coming
    We can do better
    We WILL do better.
    Yet you have yet to bring any stats to this argument, your positions are just based on throwing out random assertions most of which I've shut down using sourced data at this point, and then throwing out a made up political slogan.

    I guess it's frustrating you won't be honest and admit your argument as been absolutely torn to shreds, but this is such a great illustration of the typical leftist argument tactic. When the facts don't line up with your feelings, resort to chanting catch phrases.

    This is the kind of crap that angered right wing reactionaries enough to show up to the primaries and the general en masse and hand us our current president.
    No.  But I finally understand the disconnect.  You seem to believe that there is a distinction between "supervised children" and unsupervised ones as far as this topic.   I think that explains why you have such a strange take on it.  So I will try to explain reality for you:

    If lootboxes are acknowledged as gambling devices there is NO DISTINCTION.  It will not be allowed to have "supervised" gambling and more than "supervised" alcohol for minors.  A parent can't just tell the company "It's OK to sell Johnny lootboxes" any more than a parent can bring a 16 year old into a bar, sit next to them and tell the staff it's OK to serve them.

    It will be ILLEGAL to sell them to children*.  That is where the case ends.  There is no wiggle room.  It doesn't matter what an EULA says.  It doesn't matter what date a kid types into a self-certification site.  It will be the company's responsibility to insure they don't sell them to kids just like it's the bar/restaurant/store's responsibility to insure they don't sell alcohol to minors.  It doesn't matter if it's 2%, 20% or 100% children.  After they become classified as gambling the number has to become ZERO.

    Those are the FACTS.  Not some silly 14 year old site on player demographics. Not some survey you find with 1000 participants that you use absurd math to extrapolate from.   Pure, hard reality.  Once lootboxes are classified as gambling devices... this automatically happens.  Your only hope is to try and keep pulling the wool over people's eyes and claim that they aren't gambling (which everyone can plainly see they are).  Once they are properly classified, everything else falls into place.  You don't like those laws.  Tough. Go try to change them.  But that's REALITY.

    Change is coming.
    We can do better.
    We WILL do better.


    * The legal age varies by state.  Most are 18 or 21. Some allow certain types of gambling at 16 or 17. http://www.usagamblinglaws.com/underage-gambling-laws.html  Some states do not allow certain types of gambling at any age. One state (Utah) apparently does not allow ANY gambling at all.   I'd watch the way the Online Sports Betting works itself out as a pilot for how online lootbox games would look.





    Asm0deus

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

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,625
    Asm0deus said:
    Eldurian said:
    I do not give a shit about laws as a measure of morality. 

    Lootboxes are legal. The fact they may bear resemblance to practices which are illegal has no bearing on whether or not they are moral or immoral. It has no bearing on whether they are predatory or not-predatory.

    Law is black and white. Legal, or illegal. They are legal so they are fully in the white there. 

    If you want me to recognize that laws should protect you from something, you need to establish how the actions of others are violating your rights. AKA, you need to show me how you are being victimized.

    If you are not claiming to be a victim nor an advocate of victims, then frankly nothing you have to say on this subject matters to me. You have no place in this debate.

    If you are claiming those in the transaction who are not claiming victimhood are victims, then I would say you have stepped beyond anything you have any right to commentate on. If they are victims, let them claim that status themselves.

    If you are claiming those in the transactions who are dissatisfied with the transactions then I would say show me how anything was done to them, that they did not consent to.

    If you are claiming society is the victim, then I would say to show me which rights of those who did not consent to the transaction are being violated.

    If you can't show me any of those things, then stop trying to control others and pretend your non-existent right to not be offended supersedes the right of other individuals to take part in consensual transactions.



    Another boatload of BS fallacies.  The laws that govern our society are not all about there being a victim or not. 

    I never said lootboxes were illegal, I was alluding to the fact that gambling is only legal in certain conditions and places.

    Also as a public thread I am allowed to post here no matter your opinion of if I fit in your narrative or not so you will just have to suck it up and stop trying to control me and my opinions.

    Sounds to me like you have this idea that the present laws we have that govern gambling which exist for various reason are not to your liking and you are making fallacious arguments to try and avoid lootboxes falling into the gambling category.

    You're entitled to as this is an open forum after all but I am also entitled to call you out on your BS.

    Really the only thing I have been arguing in this thread is that I think lootboxes fall into the gambling category and should be treated as such. 

    If society feels minors should not be partaking of gambling because it's a predatory practice that they should not be reasonable expected to understand or be able to defend against then so be it.


    It's OK.  I knew a lot more when I was a college kid with a girlfriend than I do today too.  If I could only remember half of my old awesomeness I'd be much better off!  Life is so simple from your sofa  :)

    Believe it or not, I used to be a know it all!

    Asm0deus

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

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited May 2018
    Again. The minors issue is a red herring. It in all likelihood accounts to an infinitesimally small amount of loot box purchases and I think all involved had agreed to a solution that would fix it (Raise the ESRB rating on games with gambling and restrict the purchase of game cards by ESRB rating).

    So the real issue here is that "Consenting adults shouldn't be able to gamble cause it hurts muh society!"

    Yes, I think current gambling laws, and all other laws which prohibit the ability of consenting adults to take part in transactions to which they both agree based on the idea that others find that transaction offensive are archaic authoritarian bullcrap and need to go the same way as prohibition and anti-gay marriage laws, and the marijuana laws are currently going. Straight into the dumpster.

    And in that regard, we can agree that gambling laws need to be updated to 2018.

    And in that regard I can agree

    "We can do better
    We WILL do better"

    Sounds like change is already here in regards to online sports betting.
This discussion has been closed.