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?
Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.
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.
and why not!
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game 2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
1. Gambling is harmful to individuals and society in general. Individual people may be able to handle it fine, but as an overall average it is harmful. There have been countless studies over the years that have shown this to be true. That doesn't mean gambling can't be fun, it can often be very fun, but it is harmful. If you doubt this, take 10 minutes to do some Googling. It is most harmful when it is done on a regular basis as it actually changes your brain chemistry.
2. Children need protection. Again, this is pretty much a universal given - children lack both the physical stature, the mental skills and the experience to make decisions and protect themselves. However, making the wrong decisions is a very important way of learning about life, which is why we only protect children against certain things. We protect them from alcohol, certain drugs, driving heavy machinery, making poor voting decisions, sexual activity and certain types of gambling.
3. Gambling on things that don't provide a monetary reward is generally not covered by gambling regulations. So, countless studies have established that gambling is harmful, countless studies have established that children need protection against harmful things, but due to a loophole the law cannot protect children against this type of gambling.
4. The long term fear is that this type of unregulated gambling will prime children to enjoy gambling, so that when they do become adults and can participate in "proper" gambling they will end up causing a lot of pain for themselves and everyone around them. Lootboxes are the equivalent of giving nicotine patches to children - they might not start smoking later on, but they will be more likely to.
5. I expect you are right in that many people are using "the kids" as a convenient excuse to remove a feature they don't like. That doesn't mean "the kids" argument is invalid. I will fully admit that I want microtransactions in general, and paid-for lootboxes specifically, removed from gaming for personal reasons. However, personal preference means fuck all so affecting change on an entertainment platform is extremely difficult. So, whilst protecting "the kids" might be disingenuous, it is still a valid reason and it is a reason that will actually be taken seriously by those in a position to affect change (lawmakers).
6. The hope is that if MT lootboxes can become governed by the same gambling laws as normal gambling, minors will be unable to purchase games that include it. This will cut off a revenue stream for publishers as minors will no longer be able to buy the game nor spend money on lootboxes. This loss in revenue will force developers to remove this type of feature from future games. The most likely outcome is simply providing the items in lootboxes for set prices, but there is always the risk that developers might come up with something worse than lootboxes.
7. Personal responsibility is, of course, still the most important lesson we can teach our children (and ourselves). The cut-off point for what we protect against and what we allow is entirely arbitrary and only has a loose connection to facts/science/ethics and everyone's opinion will be different. For example, virtually every scientific study has shown that alcohol is more harmful than marajuana, yet alcohol is legal and marajuana illegal nearly everywhere on the planet. When it comes to protecting children, it just depends on your opinion on the nanny state.
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market). In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.
Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity. Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.
The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.
In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it. Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
__________________________ "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
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market). In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.
Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity. Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.
The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.
In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it. Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
doesnt matter if its regulated or not,
are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is
besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'
and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.
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.
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.
Are they? So I believe I had seen previously that Activision spends double what EA does on marketing. I believe that Ubisoft spends half of what EA does. Does that mean that success is dependent on advertising? Probably partially. If EA spent nothing on advertising, do you think that they would suffer from a sales perspective? Yes. How much? Well, if your marketing is generating X+$1, X being your marketing costs, then I think you're probably doing well.
Remember, we are talking about companies who are said to be greedy, so giving away money isn't really their thing. So for someone like Activision to be spending $330 million on marketing per quarter? I can't entirely wrap my head around that, but I also have to believe that they aren't throwing money down a hole for shits and giggles.
Truly, they probably spend those dollars in the manner research to be most effective. It's also why they largely get away with predatory monetization practices to the point that consumers take an apathetically cynical view of gamer pushback against such practices.
It plays to the larger, overarching inequality in resources spent on brokering the purchase between producer and consumer. They have tons more resources to devote to monetizing and marketing in psychologically effective ways that lead consumers to believe they're getting a better deal than they really are.
The bare facts are likely that the growth of the industry is not keeping pace with the growth of these large publishers in terms of total budgets. The implication is that the fault lies with consumers for this, not the publisher's bloated budgeting and revenue goals. An implication dangerously made.
I'm not going to say that consumers are to blame for bloated budgets, but they do contribute to them due to ever-increasing expectations for higher fidelity experiences. We can argue back and forth about the industry, but as much as you'd like to sell that you've got "bare facts", the reality is that neither of us have anything more that speculation with some amount of supporting cases. If there were actually facts here, then there would be a wall of links.
The nice thing in it all is that most of these larger companies have financials available from their site, so it's there for you to interpret it any way that you want.
The exponential increase in buying habits of consumers isn't really speculative. It's measured every year and I have posted links to such in other threads discussing microtransactions and the nickel and diming of consumers. It has grown at a breakneck pace.
The only thing we don't have is the justification for the nickel and diming from the horse's mouth. THAT'S all speculation. Some have speculated it's the cost of development increasing, to which I counter that most AAAs spend just as much or more on marketing alone, meaning it's not at all necessary create those higher fidelity games. It's not necessary to nickel and dime to cover the cost of development, it's nickel and diming to cover revenue goals. It's a position arrived at with some speculation, sure, but one that seems to be supported when you look at the admitted marketing budgets of previously released titles such as those within the CoD franchise. Development costs for Modern Warfare 2, for an easy example, were admitted to being eclipsed by marketing to the tune of almost 75% (200 million total launch cost, 40-50 million development).
If people become addicted to "X" then every <<whatever the time span is>> they need X they will partake. And because X is - usually - sold for money peole have to pay for X.
Now most people are able to control their addictions but some cannot. And it is those cases that - potentially - can cause "harm" to society.
If addicts use money instead of e.g. caring for themselves / children then this could result in them becoming ill and requiring medical services that they cannot pay for - so (as happens when people have no insurance and so pay nothing) the rest of society ends up picking up the bill.
Or maybe their standard of work suffers - not enough for them to lose their jobs but it makes the company less productive. One person probably not an issue but what if 10% or 20% of a companies workforce are "addicted" to something and don't get enough sleep say? The rest of the workforce could "suffer" if the company becomes less productive, loses orders, maybe has to downsize or simply ends up paying fewer local taxes.
Now the "headline" case of course is when addicts actually turn to crime to finance their addiction. With potential loss to individuals and secondary costs resulting from policing etc. This is the headline case though - as I said above there are more insidious potential problems.
Addictions have been around for ... an awful long time; they are not a modern thing. (16th century England decided to tackle the "problems" that gambling was causing by introducing taxation!)
And because addictions harm society - lots of historical examples of this as well as current issues - discussions about what to do abound. And the answer is often unclear since different people react differently; some can control their "addictions" better than others. And there is the question of "what is the cost", "what is the harm".
Cost - maybe - playing a game for many hours day in day out. Harm - maybe - Making the person a dangerous driver, less productive at work etc. etc.
And the more obvious cost: financial.
Historically the size of a bet, especially a physical bet, might be limited by law. With online gambling however vast amounts can be spent very quickly even if the maximum "bet" is very high. And it can also be "dressed up" making it seem attractive compared to physical locations. Historically age restrictions could also be employed but - as we know - this is also very hard to control.
What the results will be may vary from country to country. A large warning after every loot box is opened?
If something is done however and it makes game developers focus on ..... making games perhaps rather than running a casino then I think that has to be better for gamers.
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market). In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.
Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity. Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.
The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.
In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it. Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
doesnt matter if its regulated or not,
are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is
besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'
and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.
If the football pot causes a person to hobble a running back in order to win the money, then yes. The football pot is bad, as it incentivized a crime that would not have occurred, had the money not have been wagered.
And this can and does happen, with almost predictable regularity, whenever large amounts of money are wagered on a specific outcome. Boxing, horses, baseball, college sports--you name it--have been rigged to produce a specific outcome beneficial to the bookmaker at the expense of the clients.
And if people are willing to fix entire athletic contests, far outside their immediate control, for the sake of a particular result, just what do you think people will do when they own and oversee their own games, like what happens in FTP MMOs?
We have enough trouble trying to ensure fair contests in the boxing ring, or on the college football field, or at the track, and these contests have their own independent commissioners, and referees, and athletes. What do you think will happen when the bookie, the ref, the commissioner and the league members are all the same person?
Essentially, that's what a FTP MMO publisher actually is. And there's billions of dollars at stake.
__________________________ "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
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Because there's too much at stake in gambling to leave the results up to random chance. And so, gambling incentivizes crime, wherever it goes, to turn the random chance into a predictable result.
It could be a minor kind of crime, like bringing in a card counting computer, or rigging a machine. It could be a major crime, like extorting a patron who got lucky, or blackmailing a dealer. But whenever the appeal of the activity is couched in paying a fixed price for a random result, there's an incentive to transform the game into one that produces fixed price for a fixed result through some sort of deception or force.
gambling does not incentive crime, at least I have never seen any evidence of that.
So all forms of gambling is bad for society, including football pools, state run lottery, and casinos. What about Bingo? What about the stock market?
The examples you give are all heavily regulated activities, with clear requirements for disclosure (especially in the stock market). In many states, you can't run a charity bingo unless it complies with state law.
Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity. Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.
The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.
In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it. Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
doesnt matter if its regulated or not,
are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is
besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'
and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.
If the football pot causes a person to hobble a running back in order to win the money, then yes. ...
ok the argument of 'prostitution incentives crime because it is in of its self a crime' is not a conversation I am going to get into.
years ago when I was very young an older person explain to me that some people in the planet are completely and totally unable to make any moral judgement for themselves thus they simply reflect whatever the law is as their moral compass. He explained to me that critical thinking in the face of authority is surprisingly a rare skill.
I am not asking you to explain to me that gambling is bad because its illegal and thus creates cime because its illegal.
I am asking you to have your own moral compas and explain to me why if you were in charge you would make it illegal
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
weak willed people are going to ruin the good games that use microtransactions thinking this will help and not just cause publishers to figure another way of ripping you off.
weak willed people are going to ruin the good games that use microtransactions thinking this will help and not just cause publishers to figure another way of ripping you off.
I think the actual people who uses these lootboxes need to speak up.
If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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?
Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.
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.
and why not!
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game 2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
1. Gambling is harmful to individuals and society in general. Individual people may be able to handle it fine, but as an overall average it is harmful. There have been countless studies over the years that have shown this to be true. That doesn't mean gambling can't be fun, it can often be very fun, but it is harmful. If you doubt this, take 10 minutes to do some Googling. It is most harmful when it is done on a regular basis as it actually changes your brain chemistry.
2. Children need protection. Again, this is pretty much a universal given - children lack both the physical stature, the mental skills and the experience to make decisions and protect themselves. However, making the wrong decisions is a very important way of learning about life, which is why we only protect children against certain things. We protect them from alcohol, certain drugs, driving heavy machinery, making poor voting decisions, sexual activity and certain types of gambling.
3. Gambling on things that don't provide a monetary reward is generally not covered by gambling regulations. So, countless studies have established that gambling is harmful, countless studies have established that children need protection against harmful things, but due to a loophole the law cannot protect children against this type of gambling.
4. The long term fear is that this type of unregulated gambling will prime children to enjoy gambling, so that when they do become adults and can participate in "proper" gambling they will end up causing a lot of pain for themselves and everyone around them. Lootboxes are the equivalent of giving nicotine patches to children - they might not start smoking later on, but they will be more likely to. icted to Gambling
A addictive personality is a addictive personality. Take away gambling and someone might replace it with drugs, Take away drugs and someone might replace it with sex, Take away sex and someone might replace it with MMO's, Take away MMO's and someone might replace it with Food and so on and so on. Your entire argument is scary to say the least. Having anyone regulate what i can or can't do is not how i want to live.
And as far as the children go, ITS YOUR job to teach them right from wrong not the government by regulating what we can or can't do
weak willed people are going to ruin the good games that use microtransactions thinking this will help and not just cause publishers to figure another way of ripping you off.
I think the actual people who uses these lootboxes need to speak up.
If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?
I agree. I don't see why it's so hard for people to support good games and not buy the ones that rip you off. We have people who are so weak they can't even not buy a game they know is ripping them off. If you need the government to come in and tell you what you are allowed to do with your money cause people can't control themselves then might as well ban alcohol, all drugs (even prescription), driving, and pretty much everything that's fun.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
If you need the government to step in to force your child to not spend YOUR MONEY then you're a bad parent. No question. Same bad parenting where kids would call 1-900 numbers long time ago. The fact you put consent, driving, drinking and smoking to the level of SPENDING MONEY ... face palms all round.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
look...
if the entire argument on why gambling in games is such a horrific thing to wave our SJW flag over is 'because kids should have all economic transactions monitored' then its a pretty weak argument because that includes the fucking video game they are playing on to begin with...ALL video games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
weak willed people are going to ruin the good games that use microtransactions thinking this will help and not just cause publishers to figure another way of ripping you off.
I think the actual people who uses these lootboxes need to speak up.
If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?
I agree. I don't see why it's so hard for people to support good games and not buy the ones that rip you off. We have people who are so weak they can't even not buy a game they know is ripping them off. If you need the government to come in and tell you what you are allowed to do with your money cause people can't control themselves then might as well ban alcohol, all drugs (even prescription), driving, and pretty much everything that's fun.
re-read what I said a bit more closer, and see what you are disagreeing to.
can you explain to me, based on what I said, what you are disagreeing with?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
If you need the government to step in to force your child to not spend YOUR MONEY then you're a bad parent. No question. Same bad parenting where kids would call 1-900 numbers long time ago. The fact you put consent, driving, drinking and smoking to the level of SPENDING MONEY ... face palms all round.
What? In today's technological "Utopia" it's easier, in many ways, to prevent smoking, driving, or drinking in your kids than spending cash online.
As more and more technology companies attempt to provide "one-click buying" and other such nonsense for convenience, it will only get easier. Drinking at least requires the kid show up to the store with a fake ID or breaking into the parent's liquor cabinet.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
If you need the government to step in to force your child to not spend YOUR MONEY then you're a bad parent. No question. Same bad parenting where kids would call 1-900 numbers long time ago. The fact you put consent, driving, drinking and smoking to the level of SPENDING MONEY ... face palms all round.
There are even laws in place to protect children from their asshole parents. How do you feel about those?
Maybe you should scroll back up an read what some of the forum geniuses were saying about the child's behavior being 100% up to the parents and their parenting... if you actually do want to smack your face with your palm that is.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
Yet to see why age restrictions should be put in place for something that isn't classed as gambling.
Better yet, even proven to be destructive to children that buy them.
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Actually it is the other way round - supporting these types of regulations is a cheap excuse how to shrug responsibility off your shoulders.
You are saying that government should take care of your kids because you are too lazy/stupid/w/e to do so...
Yeah parents should spend 100% of their time supervising their kids who should never go anywhere alone. The community they live in should have 0 accountability... makes total sense.
Fuck working if you're a parent.
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
Some of you guys seem to need a reminder of the basics of why age restrictions exist in communities and nothing is more basic than the obvious fact that kids can not be guided and protected by parents 24/7 once they start going to school and out by themselves or with friends.
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
Yet to see why age restrictions should be put in place for something that isn't classed as gambling?
Better yet, even proven to be destructive to children that buy them.
Oh? Is that your chosen narrative now?
That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about government agencies in two EU countries investigating whether loot boxes as sold by SWBF2 and Overwatch should be classified as gambling.
In the course of the discussion some of you seem to have gotten sidetracked into some harebrained ideas about the role of parents and society in guiding and protecting children... your side-trip, not mine.
Maybe if I answer your question more directly?
So when you tell a child to not talk to strangers are they going to anyway?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
They may or not may not talk to strangers anyway depending on the hustling skill of that adult stranger, and yes the government does get involved by means of the police force being aware and watching strangers who approach children whenever they notice it.
Any other basic parenting questions you want an answer to before moving away from this red-herring and back to the topic of governments investigating loot boxes?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
any chance we can get away from the 'think about the childern!' debate as a general concept when we are talking about gambling in video games and how they HONESTLY affect you
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
I have no problem with gambling in video games provided enjoying the game is not tied to the gambling.
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
2. Children need protection. Again, this is pretty much a universal given - children lack both the physical stature, the mental skills and the experience to make decisions and protect themselves. However, making the wrong decisions is a very important way of learning about life, which is why we only protect children against certain things. We protect them from alcohol, certain drugs, driving heavy machinery, making poor voting decisions, sexual activity and certain types of gambling.
3. Gambling on things that don't provide a monetary reward is generally not covered by gambling regulations. So, countless studies have established that gambling is harmful, countless studies have established that children need protection against harmful things, but due to a loophole the law cannot protect children against this type of gambling.
4. The long term fear is that this type of unregulated gambling will prime children to enjoy gambling, so that when they do become adults and can participate in "proper" gambling they will end up causing a lot of pain for themselves and everyone around them. Lootboxes are the equivalent of giving nicotine patches to children - they might not start smoking later on, but they will be more likely to.
5. I expect you are right in that many people are using "the kids" as a convenient excuse to remove a feature they don't like. That doesn't mean "the kids" argument is invalid. I will fully admit that I want microtransactions in general, and paid-for lootboxes specifically, removed from gaming for personal reasons. However, personal preference means fuck all so affecting change on an entertainment platform is extremely difficult. So, whilst protecting "the kids" might be disingenuous, it is still a valid reason and it is a reason that will actually be taken seriously by those in a position to affect change (lawmakers).
6. The hope is that if MT lootboxes can become governed by the same gambling laws as normal gambling, minors will be unable to purchase games that include it. This will cut off a revenue stream for publishers as minors will no longer be able to buy the game nor spend money on lootboxes. This loss in revenue will force developers to remove this type of feature from future games. The most likely outcome is simply providing the items in lootboxes for set prices, but there is always the risk that developers might come up with something worse than lootboxes.
7. Personal responsibility is, of course, still the most important lesson we can teach our children (and ourselves). The cut-off point for what we protect against and what we allow is entirely arbitrary and only has a loose connection to facts/science/ethics and everyone's opinion will be different. For example, virtually every scientific study has shown that alcohol is more harmful than marajuana, yet alcohol is legal and marajuana illegal nearly everywhere on the planet. When it comes to protecting children, it just depends on your opinion on the nanny state.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Sports gambling is a heavily regulated activity. Teams, players, and entire leagues have been brought to task over allegations of throwing games and producing a fixed result because of gambling on the outcome.
The state lotteries, we might say, are overseen by appointed and elected officials who do not have an interest in the outcome of the lotteries.
In fact, the more I look at your examples, the more I'm convinced that gambling does incentivize crime, which is why it only exists in society if the public has a role in monitoring, regulating and overseeing it. Because, if it doesn't, the gambling establishment will have no incentive to produce a fair game for its patrons.
__________________________
"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
are you saying football pots are bad? just because the state says its bad doesnt mean it actually is
besides, taxation on income is not 'regulation'
and 'incentive crime' would have to be 1. a differenator from those items that do not do so and 2. not in of itself a crime by default. (for example one can not say prostitution incentive crime because its illegal because that is circular.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The only thing we don't have is the justification for the nickel and diming from the horse's mouth. THAT'S all speculation. Some have speculated it's the cost of development increasing, to which I counter that most AAAs spend just as much or more on marketing alone, meaning it's not at all necessary create those higher fidelity games. It's not necessary to nickel and dime to cover the cost of development, it's nickel and diming to cover revenue goals. It's a position arrived at with some speculation, sure, but one that seems to be supported when you look at the admitted marketing budgets of previously released titles such as those within the CoD franchise. Development costs for Modern Warfare 2, for an easy example, were admitted to being eclipsed by marketing to the tune of almost 75% (200 million total launch cost, 40-50 million development).
If people become addicted to "X" then every <<whatever the time span is>> they need X they will partake. And because X is - usually - sold for money peole have to pay for X.
Now most people are able to control their addictions but some cannot. And it is those cases that - potentially - can cause "harm" to society.
If addicts use money instead of e.g. caring for themselves / children then this could result in them becoming ill and requiring medical services that they cannot pay for - so (as happens when people have no insurance and so pay nothing) the rest of society ends up picking up the bill.
Or maybe their standard of work suffers - not enough for them to lose their jobs but it makes the company less productive. One person probably not an issue but what if 10% or 20% of a companies workforce are "addicted" to something and don't get enough sleep say? The rest of the workforce could "suffer" if the company becomes less productive, loses orders, maybe has to downsize or simply ends up paying fewer local taxes.
Now the "headline" case of course is when addicts actually turn to crime to finance their addiction. With potential loss to individuals and secondary costs resulting from policing etc. This is the headline case though - as I said above there are more insidious potential problems.
Addictions have been around for ... an awful long time; they are not a modern thing. (16th century England decided to tackle the "problems" that gambling was causing by introducing taxation!)
And because addictions harm society - lots of historical examples of this as well as current issues - discussions about what to do abound. And the answer is often unclear since different people react differently; some can control their "addictions" better than others. And there is the question of "what is the cost", "what is the harm".
Cost - maybe - playing a game for many hours day in day out. Harm - maybe - Making the person a dangerous driver, less productive at work etc. etc.
And the more obvious cost: financial.
Historically the size of a bet, especially a physical bet, might be limited by law. With online gambling however vast amounts can be spent very quickly even if the maximum "bet" is very high. And it can also be "dressed up" making it seem attractive compared to physical locations.
Historically age restrictions could also be employed but - as we know - this is also very hard to control.
What the results will be may vary from country to country. A large warning after every loot box is opened?
If something is done however and it makes game developers focus on ..... making games perhaps rather than running a casino then I think that has to be better for gamers.
And this can and does happen, with almost predictable regularity, whenever large amounts of money are wagered on a specific outcome. Boxing, horses, baseball, college sports--you name it--have been rigged to produce a specific outcome beneficial to the bookmaker at the expense of the clients.
And if people are willing to fix entire athletic contests, far outside their immediate control, for the sake of a particular result, just what do you think people will do when they own and oversee their own games, like what happens in FTP MMOs?
We have enough trouble trying to ensure fair contests in the boxing ring, or on the college football field, or at the track, and these contests have their own independent commissioners, and referees, and athletes. What do you think will happen when the bookie, the ref, the commissioner and the league members are all the same person?
Essentially, that's what a FTP MMO publisher actually is. And there's billions of dollars at stake.
__________________________
"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
Fuck working if you're a parent.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
years ago when I was very young an older person explain to me that some people in the planet are completely and totally unable to make any moral judgement for themselves thus they simply reflect whatever the law is as their moral compass. He explained to me that critical thinking in the face of authority is surprisingly a rare skill.
I am not asking you to explain to me that gambling is bad because its illegal and thus creates cime because its illegal. I am asking you to have your own moral compas and explain to me why if you were in charge you would make it illegal
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
If your child doesn't respect you enough to do as their told I'd re-evaluate your parenting skills.
Just don't tell your child to steal your credit card and buy loot boxes, problem solved. It should not need government intervention.
I'm not aiming bad parenting remarks at anyone btw.
If they are using them, like them, enjoying them, having fun with them then who are we to say they should not be allowed to do them?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And as far as the children go, ITS YOUR job to teach them right from wrong not the government by regulating what we can or can't do
Aloha Mr Hand !
The laws and regulations about age of consent, driving, drinking, smoking, or whatever are there precisely because people who don't have their heads stuck up their butts understand that it is also the communities' responsibility to protect minors from harm done to them or self harm.
No offense to anyone who has their head stuck up their butt.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
if the entire argument on why gambling in games is such a horrific thing to wave our SJW flag over is 'because kids should have all economic transactions monitored' then its a pretty weak argument because that includes the fucking video game they are playing on to begin with...ALL video games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
can you explain to me, based on what I said, what you are disagreeing with?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As more and more technology companies attempt to provide "one-click buying" and other such nonsense for convenience, it will only get easier. Drinking at least requires the kid show up to the store with a fake ID or breaking into the parent's liquor cabinet.
Maybe you should scroll back up an read what some of the forum geniuses were saying about the child's behavior being 100% up to the parents and their parenting... if you actually do want to smack your face with your palm that is.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Better yet, even proven to be destructive to children that buy them.
What people need to do is this:
find out for a FACT who exactly is spending money on these things and do they enjoy it. if you cant find someone in distress over using these lootboxes then its a non-starter.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about government agencies in two EU countries investigating whether loot boxes as sold by SWBF2 and Overwatch should be classified as gambling.
In the course of the discussion some of you seem to have gotten sidetracked into some harebrained ideas about the role of parents and society in guiding and protecting children... your side-trip, not mine.
Maybe if I answer your question more directly?
Should the government get involved in that scenario and loom over the kids shoulder making sure they're doing as their told.
They may or not may not talk to strangers anyway depending on the hustling skill of that adult stranger, and yes the government does get involved by means of the police force being aware and watching strangers who approach children whenever they notice it.
Any other basic parenting questions you want an answer to before moving away from this red-herring and back to the topic of governments investigating loot boxes?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This is a "hard one" as some people would say the latest Mordor Shadow of War game requires you to buy things and I don't really find that to be the case. I do believe that for "some" people it does but not for me.
But if I'm playing a game and I have to buy loot boxes just to "get by" then that's an issue.
Toward that end, I have been subbing to Elder Scrolls Online and they give you a certain amount of crowns that one could spend. Sooo, I decided to try some of their crown crates (or whatever they are called).
I have to say I sort of "get it". They make it feel like you are at a Carnival with a carny who is dealing you cards. It was fun in a "gambling way". Now, would I spend extra money on top of the crowns that they give me? No, absolutely not.
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