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.
That doesn't really solve the problem, these companies will still be able to create an environment where players are backed into a corner of either, grinding stupid amount of hours or incentivised to but loot boxes in hope of reducing that time.
There are quite few games that already show the drop rarity of items and I haven't seen that sway people.
Imho, loot boxes in any game that require real money to purchase add no value to the game. They don't make the, story, gameplay or anything any better
you would be surprised of the power voting with one's wallet has. . .
. . .the problem seems to be that the majority of gamers are voting yes for loot boxes. . .
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
point 2 I would make, age restrictions on gambling will not make gambling go away for the people here unless people here are 13.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
This is faulty logic.
Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people.
Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost.
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
Many argue about it being the responsibility of the parents. Problem is many parents are more irresponsible than their kids.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
Many argue about it being the responsibility of the parents. Problem is many parents are more irresponsible than their kids.
Seems pretty epidemic these days.
With everyone in this thread specifically upset about experiencing lootboxes and throwing the 'think about the kids' card around I have to point out that unless you are a kid, you will still experience these lootboxes
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
That doesn't really solve the problem, these companies will still be able to create an environment where players are backed into a corner of either, grinding stupid amount of hours or incentivised to but loot boxes in hope of reducing that time.
There are quite few games that already show the drop rarity of items and I haven't seen that sway people.
Imho, loot boxes in any game that require real money to purchase add no value to the game. They don't make the, story, gameplay or anything any better
you would be surprised of the power voting with one's wallet has. . .
. . .the problem seems to be that the majority of gamers are voting yes for loot boxes. . .
According to the so called experts it only the whales who spend money on loot boxes.
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.
That doesn't really solve the problem, these companies will still be able to create an environment where players are backed into a corner of either, grinding stupid amount of hours or incentivised to but loot boxes in hope of reducing that time.
There are quite few games that already show the drop rarity of items and I haven't seen that sway people.
Imho, loot boxes in any game that require real money to purchase add no value to the game. They don't make the, story, gameplay or anything any better
you would be surprised of the power voting with one's wallet has. . .
. . .the problem seems to be that the majority of gamers are voting yes for loot boxes. . .
According to the so called experts it only the whales who spend money on loot boxes.
and are those 'whales' under 18? if not then everyone needs to friggin stop throwing around the 'think about the kids' card. (i know you arent)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
Many argue about it being the responsibility of the parents. Problem is many parents are more irresponsible than their kids.
Seems pretty epidemic these days.
Sad that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
That doesn't really solve the problem, these companies will still be able to create an environment where players are backed into a corner of either, grinding stupid amount of hours or incentivised to but loot boxes in hope of reducing that time.
There are quite few games that already show the drop rarity of items and I haven't seen that sway people.
Imho, loot boxes in any game that require real money to purchase add no value to the game. They don't make the, story, gameplay or anything any better
you would be surprised of the power voting with one's wallet has. . .
. . .the problem seems to be that the majority of gamers are voting yes for loot boxes. . .
According to the so called experts it only the whales who spend money on loot boxes.
its not just whales that buy lootboxes, but it is the whales that keep them being put into every game, because who doesnt like it when so one spends 1+ grand on there lootboxes...
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
You see Sean, this is your issue, you add narrative where there is none.
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
You see Sean, this is your issue, you add narrative where there is none.
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
interesting substantive point.....like buying ANY video game
thanks for sharing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
You see Sean, this is your issue, you add narrative where there is none.
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
interesting substantive point.....like buying ANY video game
thanks for sharing
Not sure what your issue is.
And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
You see Sean, this is your issue, you add narrative where there is none.
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
interesting substantive point.....like buying ANY video game
thanks for sharing
Not sure what your issue is.
And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
no I am not, its just not really a very interesting relevant point to the conversation of gambling.
Ok, I got your 'narrative' kids should not buy video games...and if you dont mind lets get back to the meat of the conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am conflicted on the moral assumption that gambling is evil and should be outlawed or age restricted. 1. I haven't seen strong evidence to suggest the risks are any more different if its a 13 year old compared to a 23 year old 2. I think personal responsibility and choice should play a some role here. not 100% but some role.
Its ironic given how progressive I am that I am the one advocating for low regulation, personal responsibility, and free market economy but on this that is where I stand. I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
1, I don't believe it's "evil" at all.
2, I think the risks can be different as a 13 year old, not parented well, might take other's credit cards and spend money that is not there. The "adult" provided that there is nothing wrong with them and they are not criminal, is going to use his/her own finances (whereas the 13 year old has very limited finances and no concept of how to manage money - most likely).
3 I agree, people need to be personally responsible for themselves. If they can't then they need to seek help.
but on 2 I think we need strong evidence not 'I think that'. The problem is why gambling SPECIFICALLY. why not buying bubble gum? online purchases? games? why dont we completely restrict all movements and inputs for anyone under the age 13. why specifically gambling?
Yes, people under 13 should have restrictions and not just for gambling. Not sure what age would be a "good" age but children are children, they are not adults and therefore there should be some restrictions/monitoring.
Ultimately it should be the parent's duty to do so but some parents seem incapable.
so people under the age of 13 should be 100% restricted from everything?
its the DIFFERENATOR that is the point here. Why SPECIFICALLY one thing and not another when it comes to restriction and how does it apply to gambling.
I am trying not to be rude but this question really should not be that hard.
Anything where money is required yes.
so you expect me to believe that your outrage about lootboxes is not because of you experiencing lootboxes but rather because of kids being able to buy them just like they can buy something on amazon, ebay, netflix
do I have that right?
You see Sean, this is your issue, you add narrative where there is none.
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
interesting substantive point.....like buying ANY video game
thanks for sharing
Not sure what your issue is.
And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
no I am not, its just not really a very interesting relevant point to the conversation of gambling.
Ok, I got your 'narrative' kids should not buy video games...and if you dont mind lets get back to the meat of the conversation
Reading comprehension Sean
"a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games"
His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
It was about loot boxes though. Sean, you must be a very interesting person to speak to "in real life". Either that or something gets lost in translation.
Or you are so linear that anything related to but not specifically tied to a very narrow definition of the discussion goes over your head. Not a bad thing but maybe that's how you are wired.
So "yes" 13 year olds should be supervised when buying video games and definitely superfised when purchasing lootboxes.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I will say however I am on the fence on this because I simply dont have the information so I am willing to be wrong here but I need evidence, that age plays a role on this specifically
You are responsible for yourself, in case you are underage, the responsibility is passed onto parents.
What else you need to know?
There is 0 reason for goverment to intervene.
What I need to know is if the game I am told I am playing is the game I am actually playing.
If I am playing a game that promises that the chance I'll get a rare item is 1 in 50, what is the thing that certifies that the chance is actually 1 in 50, and not 1 in 10,000? Because the publisher tells me so, and the publisher has no incentive to be deceptive? If you believe that, then I got a publisher who will sell you a bridge.
If prostitution is the oldest profession in the book, then the second oldest profession is hustling. And what are the two laws of hustling?
1) Make the mark accept the game you tell him he's playing. He sees three cards on a table in Times Square. He's shown the queen and two other cards. All he has to do is pick the queen, and he wins double his money. It seems like a fair game, with a 33% chance of winning.
2) Give the mark a different game, one that only the hustler knows the mark is playing. "Oh, sorry...the three of clubs...wanna try again? Doh! The ace of spades...better luck next time! Wow...you got the ace of spades again? Try again...It can't keep up this way for long."
This is hustling 101, practiced on every street corner where 3-card monte is played, all the way on up to the finest casinos in the world. And whenever anyone sells a random outcome for a fixed price, you'll find the ingredients for a good hustle.
They did it before with slot machines, until the gaming commissions certified them. They did it with sweepstakes and lotteries. They did it, and still do it, with raffles. And the thing about online gaming is that there's no way to know, and no way to ever find out, if a game with randomized loot is offering a legitimate game of chance, or if it's offering a hustle.
Frankly, I could give a damn if the government gets involved or not. One thing I can say is that, if the government doesn't get involved, we'll be talking about online games in the same way as we talk about three-card monte now: an obvious hustle that only a sucker would believe.
There's just so many reasons to hustle your players, and such an opportunity for the games to do so, there's no reason for publishers not to do it, when their goal is to get players to throw revenue at the publishers.
__________________________ "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
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.
This is faulty logic.
Games may cost more to make now, but the market has grown at a greater rate. So, to cover the increased cost of development, you could increase the price you are selling at, or you can sell to more people.
Problem is, selling to more people is hard, especially with the lack of innovation and general stagnation at the top of the market. Additionally, increasing the price is also hard as less people will buy the game. So, that is why they are resorting to micro-transactions - getting more money out of the existing playerbase without having to front-load the additional cost.
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
As I mentioned earlier, considering that folks like EA generally spend as much/more on marketing as they do on actually developing the games, I don't give them much sympathy.
You're conflating the cost of developing a game with the cost of buying TV spots.
This whole age thing reminds of Jim Jefferies bit about how an 18 year old pornstar cannot get a beer after starring in a hardcore scene.
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
Comments
point 2 I would make, age restrictions on gambling will not make gambling go away for the people here unless people here are 13.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like I wouldn't mind them spending it on physical trading cards or fair ground games where you try and win a prize.
Not everything with an element of chance should be banned.
I'd just explain to them there's no guarantee you'll got what you wanted (loot boxes, trading cards) or win (fair ground games).
This is also faulty logic, though. You're making the assumption that the industry growth is somehow offsetting the cost of development. That's actually a really dangerous assumption, and it's just as ill-informed as the one you're commenting on. If you were to take a look at the financials of something like EA, you'd see that without the "digital" side of their revenues, they would be either losing money or extremely close to losing money. The one conclusion that can be made, and it's been supported by multiple sources (over the past month), is that things like DLC and, in this case, microtransactions are needed in order to maintain a positive cash flow.
I'm not saying that EA is indicative of all development companies. They are large and cost-heavy to operate. However, there is great anecdotal evidence from the past 5 years or so, with the collapse of so many larger gaming companies, which would point to this same idea that running a company without these "up-sells" simply increases the risk of your project exponentially.
That being said, EA's approach may have been overly aggressive, too. COD WW2 is supposed to release their microtransactions tomorrow. Should be interesting to see if that happens or not, since I'm pretty sure they were delaying in order to let BF2 take all the heat, and since BF2 has removed them.... the heat is now on them.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Seems pretty epidemic these days.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
do I have that right?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
someone is spending the money on them, by choice, who is it.
Without that any arguement fails
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Seven years here, but they tell me I am quite mature for my age.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't have outrage about lootboxes. Not one bit. I have no problems purchasing games where there are lootboxes. Not one bit. I personally won't be buying them but that's my thing.
Having said that, I think "kids" should have supervision when spending money.
A 13 year old or younger (the age can be debated) should have supervision buying something on Amazon, on E-Bay, on netflix.
Yes.
At least that was the way it was "in my day".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
thanks for sharing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Ok, I got your 'narrative' kids should not buy video games...and if you dont mind lets get back to the meat of the conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games"
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469790/authorities-looking-at-regulating-rng-as-gambling/p7#SiZV52zB4fm9hZSW.99
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
because if they did not buy the game because their parents did how do we know the parents are not authorizing the gambling?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Or you are so linear that anything related to but not specifically tied to a very narrow definition of the discussion goes over your head. Not a bad thing but maybe that's how you are wired.
So "yes" 13 year olds should be supervised when buying video games and definitely superfised when purchasing lootboxes.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If I am playing a game that promises that the chance I'll get a rare item is 1 in 50, what is the thing that certifies that the chance is actually 1 in 50, and not 1 in 10,000? Because the publisher tells me so, and the publisher has no incentive to be deceptive? If you believe that, then I got a publisher who will sell you a bridge.
If prostitution is the oldest profession in the book, then the second oldest profession is hustling. And what are the two laws of hustling?
1) Make the mark accept the game you tell him he's playing. He sees three cards on a table in Times Square. He's shown the queen and two other cards. All he has to do is pick the queen, and he wins double his money. It seems like a fair game, with a 33% chance of winning.
2) Give the mark a different game, one that only the hustler knows the mark is playing. "Oh, sorry...the three of clubs...wanna try again? Doh! The ace of spades...better luck next time! Wow...you got the ace of spades again? Try again...It can't keep up this way for long."
This is hustling 101, practiced on every street corner where 3-card monte is played, all the way on up to the finest casinos in the world. And whenever anyone sells a random outcome for a fixed price, you'll find the ingredients for a good hustle.
They did it before with slot machines, until the gaming commissions certified them. They did it with sweepstakes and lotteries. They did it, and still do it, with raffles. And the thing about online gaming is that there's no way to know, and no way to ever find out, if a game with randomized loot is offering a legitimate game of chance, or if it's offering a hustle.
Frankly, I could give a damn if the government gets involved or not. One thing I can say is that, if the government doesn't get involved, we'll be talking about online games in the same way as we talk about three-card monte now: an obvious hustle that only a sucker would believe.
There's just so many reasons to hustle your players, and such an opportunity for the games to do so, there's no reason for publishers not to do it, when their goal is to get players to throw revenue at the publishers.
__________________________
"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
Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.
$10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You're conflating the cost of developing a game with the cost of buying TV spots.