answer = Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling
You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.
All those things are regulated.
yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.
So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.
that is what I have been asking for two days now.
Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
One of the reasons debated is that Loot boxes are very similar to gambling, raffles etc. so they should be similarly regulated.
and how is gambling regulated and why is it regulated as such?
that is how gambling got into the conversation you missed out on
Google is your friend
I didn't miss out on anything.
If you can't see the similarities... well..... sorry I just can't help you there.
because people in this discussion have no idea either, which is in part why I am asking.
I thought that was kinda obvious as well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
So what your saying then, is that there should be no regulation at all?
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
So what your saying then, is that there should be no regulation at all?
no I am not saying that at all.
Regulations should exist on many things. I am saying I dont know enough about gambling to know which regulations makes sense. So I am asking these experts on this thread to help explain it to me. if they dont want to explain it to me then they need to stop trying.
regulations exist for a reason, sometimes good reasons sometimes bullshit reasons. It is my opinion that regulating how a person spends their money because it might affect family members is opening up a pandoras box that is going to he hell to close. Same for blood pressure, as crazy as it might sound if I want high blood pressure, its my body and I dont see any reason why you should tell me I cant. for examples
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
So what your saying then, is that there should be no regulation at all?
no I am not saying that at all.
Regulations should exist on many things. I am saying I dont know enough about gambling to know which regulations makes sense. So I am asking these experts on this thread to help explain it to me. if they dont want to explain it to me then they need to stop trying.
regulations exist for a reason, sometimes good reasons sometimes bullshit reasons. It is my opinion that regulating how a person spends their money because it might affect family members is opening up a pandoras box that is going to he hell to close. Same for blood pressure, as crazy as it might sound if I want high blood pressure, its my body and I dont see any reason why you should tell me I cant. for examples
Regulating the gambling industry, fast food industry etc. doesn't regulate you on how you can spend your money. Its puts rules in place on how an industry can make its money, usually to the benefit and safety of the consumer.
answer = Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling
You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.
All those things are regulated.
yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.
So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.
that is what I have been asking for two days now.
Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
Gambling is regulated due to the detrimental social and financial effects and intentionally (not incidentally) predatory, addictive nature of the transaction. Lootboxes utilize the same predatory psychological techniques that casinos use to entice consumers to spend money. Studies have shown the availability of gambling contributes to problem gambling:
"Availability of gambling and type of game are features that are strongly
associated with problem gambling."
It also affects more than just the gambler:
"For obvious reasons problem gamblers are very likely to suffer financial problems. The British study of casino patrons found that 87% of the severe problem gamblers and 65% of the problem players had been forced to turn to others to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling, whereas none of the social players had done this (Fisher 1996). Forty percent of the severe and 52% of the problem gamblers had sold their possessions to pay gambling debts, compared with 2% of social gamblers. Forty six percent of the severe and 25% of the problem Gamblers had committed illegal acts to gamble and/or pay gambling debts, compared with only 1% of social gamblers. In the U.K., the average level of debt of problem gamblers receiving treatment from GamCare in 2003 was £28,000"
wait you are suggesting that bad spending habits should be regulated? how exactly. if not made illegal how do we regulate people into good spending habits of ones own money? that just sounds like an absurd suggestion to me. regulate spending habits? what the fuck?
in the meantime I am reading your link
Ok I could not get passed the first paragaph in that link. Gambling should be regulated because it causes high blood pressure? bad spending habits? possible depression?
how are we supposed to regulate a society from getting high blood pressure? and for that matter why do I not have the right to have high blood pressure if I want to.
Of course you didn't get past the first paragraph. Why would you? You don't want to educate yourself, you want to confirm your initial impression is right.
"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
I understand how suicide is a touchy subject with a lot of people but in general I dont understand why you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my body
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
answer = Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling
You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.
All those things are regulated.
yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.
So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.
that is what I have been asking for two days now.
Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
Gambling is regulated due to the detrimental social and financial effects and intentionally (not incidentally) predatory, addictive nature of the transaction. Lootboxes utilize the same predatory psychological techniques that casinos use to entice consumers to spend money. Studies have shown the availability of gambling contributes to problem gambling:
"Availability of gambling and type of game are features that are strongly
associated with problem gambling."
It also affects more than just the gambler:
"For obvious reasons problem gamblers are very likely to suffer financial problems. The British study of casino patrons found that 87% of the severe problem gamblers and 65% of the problem players had been forced to turn to others to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling, whereas none of the social players had done this (Fisher 1996). Forty percent of the severe and 52% of the problem gamblers had sold their possessions to pay gambling debts, compared with 2% of social gamblers. Forty six percent of the severe and 25% of the problem Gamblers had committed illegal acts to gamble and/or pay gambling debts, compared with only 1% of social gamblers. In the U.K., the average level of debt of problem gamblers receiving treatment from GamCare in 2003 was £28,000"
wait you are suggesting that bad spending habits should be regulated? how exactly. if not made illegal how do we regulate people into good spending habits of ones own money? that just sounds like an absurd suggestion to me. regulate spending habits? what the fuck?
in the meantime I am reading your link
Ok I could not get passed the first paragaph in that link. Gambling should be regulated because it causes high blood pressure? bad spending habits? possible depression?
how are we supposed to regulate a society from getting high blood pressure? and for that matter why do I not have the right to have high blood pressure if I want to.
Of course you didn't get past the first paragraph. Why would you? You don't want to educate yourself, you want to confirm your initial impression is right.
again...the reason is because it talks about high blood pressure, bad spending and depression.
So again I ask.
should we be regulating blood pressure? bad spending habits? depression?
I think regulation is good, but I think it can go to far, regulating a person into a good spender is going to far.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
answer = Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling
You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.
All those things are regulated.
yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.
So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.
that is what I have been asking for two days now.
Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
Gambling is regulated due to the detrimental social and financial effects and intentionally (not incidentally) predatory, addictive nature of the transaction. Lootboxes utilize the same predatory psychological techniques that casinos use to entice consumers to spend money. Studies have shown the availability of gambling contributes to problem gambling:
"Availability of gambling and type of game are features that are strongly
associated with problem gambling."
It also affects more than just the gambler:
"For obvious reasons problem gamblers are very likely to suffer financial problems. The British study of casino patrons found that 87% of the severe problem gamblers and 65% of the problem players had been forced to turn to others to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling, whereas none of the social players had done this (Fisher 1996). Forty percent of the severe and 52% of the problem gamblers had sold their possessions to pay gambling debts, compared with 2% of social gamblers. Forty six percent of the severe and 25% of the problem Gamblers had committed illegal acts to gamble and/or pay gambling debts, compared with only 1% of social gamblers. In the U.K., the average level of debt of problem gamblers receiving treatment from GamCare in 2003 was £28,000"
wait you are suggesting that bad spending habits should be regulated? how exactly. if not made illegal how do we regulate people into good spending habits of ones own money? that just sounds like an absurd suggestion to me. regulate spending habits? what the fuck?
in the meantime I am reading your link
Ok I could not get passed the first paragaph in that link. Gambling should be regulated because it causes high blood pressure? bad spending habits? possible depression?
how are we supposed to regulate a society from getting high blood pressure? and for that matter why do I not have the right to have high blood pressure if I want to.
Of course you didn't get past the first paragraph. Why would you? You don't want to educate yourself, you want to confirm your initial impression is right.
again...the reason is because it talks about high blood pressure, bad spending and depression.
So again I ask.
should we be regulating blood pressure? bad spending habits? depression?
I think regulation is good, but I think it can go to far, regulating a person into a good spender is going to far.
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
So what your saying then, is that there should be no regulation at all?
no I am not saying that at all.
Regulations should exist on many things. I am saying I dont know enough about gambling to know which regulations makes sense. So I am asking these experts on this thread to help explain it to me. if they dont want to explain it to me then they need to stop trying.
regulations exist for a reason, sometimes good reasons sometimes bullshit reasons. It is my opinion that regulating how a person spends their money because it might affect family members is opening up a pandoras box that is going to he hell to close. Same for blood pressure, as crazy as it might sound if I want high blood pressure, its my body and I dont see any reason why you should tell me I cant. for examples
Regulating the gambling industry, fast food industry etc. doesn't regulate you on how you can spend your money. Its puts rules in place on how an industry can make its money, usually to the benefit and safety of the consumer.
the regulations are in place for a REASON,.
Example: 'in fast food one shall not put in rat Poisson into the food because it will kill people' 'Gambling should be restricted because it might make some people broke' (so say people here)
killing people as a crime I understand being broke as a crime I do not understand.
You have to look at the regulation, understand it and ask does it make sense.
You also...god forbid....have to actually talk to the very people it proclaims to protect. Do the people who are gambling have any say in this discussion at all? they want our help without asking?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you ask me the regulations I would do, quite simple:
- Taxation upon digital revenue that comes specifically from monetized RNG. Very effective if it can deny the profitability of loot boxes over the usual microtransactions, the money always speaks louder.
- PG 18, if games with violence even if just partial justify the PG 18, so would games that allow you to gamble your cash for loot. Games that have such have a potential gambling addiction and over that as studies pointed out also show, also feeds a potential transition to gambling for money. While PG 18 is not enforced it still cuts marketing streams the big publishers dwell on.
- A new rating advert "Gambling", meaning games need to advertise like they do with the other ratings a Gambling rating in the covers, trailers, sell pages, etc... To enforce the information that such game has monetized RNG.
I think that would be fair and effective to even out this practice.
The problem I have with some pushes of regulations is that the people the regulations are supposed to help didnt ask for it. They dont want it and despite what we might think, people do have the right to have high blood pressure if they fucking want to.
So what your saying then, is that there should be no regulation at all?
no I am not saying that at all.
Regulations should exist on many things. I am saying I dont know enough about gambling to know which regulations makes sense. So I am asking these experts on this thread to help explain it to me. if they dont want to explain it to me then they need to stop trying.
regulations exist for a reason, sometimes good reasons sometimes bullshit reasons. It is my opinion that regulating how a person spends their money because it might affect family members is opening up a pandoras box that is going to he hell to close. Same for blood pressure, as crazy as it might sound if I want high blood pressure, its my body and I dont see any reason why you should tell me I cant. for examples
Regulating the gambling industry, fast food industry etc. doesn't regulate you on how you can spend your money. Its puts rules in place on how an industry can make its money, usually to the benefit and safety of the consumer.
the regulations are in place for a REASON,.
Example: 'in fast food one shall not put in rat Poisson into the food because it will kill people' 'Gambling should be restricted because it might make some people broke' (so say people here)
killing people as a crime I understand being broke as a crime I do not understand.
You have to look at the regulation, understand it and ask does it make sense.
You also...god forbid....have to actually talk to the very people it proclaims to protect. Do the people who are gambling have any say in this discussion at all? they want our help without asking?
I understand how suicide is a touchy subject with a lot of people but in general I dont understand why you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my body
Let's bring this back on point, shall we?
How about if I use my incredible powers or persuasion to convince you that shooting yourself in the foot is a wonderful thing to do and that you will feel very accomplished once you have a hole in your foot?
Should I be regulated?
"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
If you ask me the regulations I would do, quite simple:
- Taxation upon digital revenue that comes specifically from monetized RNG. Very effective if it can deny the profitability of loot boxes over the usual microtransactions, the money always speaks louder.
- PG 18, if games with violence even if just partial justify the PG 18, so would games that allow you to gamble your cash for loot. Games that have such have a potential gambling addiction and over that as studies pointed out also show, also feeds a potential transition to gambling for money. While PG 18 is not enforced it still cuts marketing streams the big publishers dwell on.
- A new rating advert "Gambling", meaning games need to advertise like they do with the other ratings a Gambling rating in the covers, trailers, sell pages, etc... To enforce the information that such game has monetized RNG.
I think that would be fair and effective to even out this practice.
ok think on this a second. think about the main thread, the begining of it, the motivation of the OP.
taxation?
come on...taxation? that is where we are for the past few days? that it should be taxed? well no shit!
regarding 'think about the childern' I am sorry but I very honestly do not believe most of you are actually concerned about gambling in video games because of how it might influence children. Yes that is a regulation, one I also question but it would help if we focused on regulations that are more honest to the conversation then talking about taxation and kids
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Let me take a stab at how I could see a possible good argument for regulating lootboxes.
There is clear line between explicit stated lie and explicit stated truth from a business to a consumer. There is a less clear line between acceptable persuasion and unacceptable manipulation.
If your impression is that you are getting a car but you are actually getting a wheel but the business owner has not explictly lied then its worth looking into details on how one is being mislead rather than just persuaded or in many cases not paying attention in the first place
Other than a business misleading you, the consumer should have the right to engage unless it DIRECTLY affects the health and safety of others.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm. Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home. It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.
The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons. I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes. Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs. Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market. As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.
The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.
Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry. That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.
Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks.
And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.
Imagine if there weren't. Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day? No? Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.
But hey, keep pushing that narrative. It'll work. Somehow.
EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection. In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees. If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments. Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry). It's an important distinction.
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm. Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home. It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.
The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons. I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes. Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs. Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market. As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.
The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.
Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry. That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.
Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks.
And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.
Imagine if there weren't. Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day? No? Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.
But hey, keep pushing that narrative. It'll work. Somehow.
EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection. In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees. If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments. Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry). It's an important distinction.
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
Well this is what The Belgian Commission's chairman is reported as saying:
As Commission chairman Peter Naessens points out, random loot boxes are a game of chance. Authorities are especially concerned over the fact that the games are marketed towards children. Naessens says kids could feel forced to spend a lot of money under social pressure.
Their concern and the real issue here, as it is in all games is precisely the "feel forced" part. I.e. the manipulations in games that make people feel like they need to "spend a lot of money."
They're focusing their concern on children and pressure and the gambling keyword is getting all the headlines. But what they're really looking at is the core of additional transaction in games: creating a gaming environment that encourages, entices and manipulates players into spending more money.
This is much more a consumer protection initiative than a binary gambling / not gambling investigation. This goes beyond 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
Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm. Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home. It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.
The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons. I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes. Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs. Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market. As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.
The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.
Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry. That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.
Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks.
And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.
Imagine if there weren't. Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day? No? Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.
But hey, keep pushing that narrative. It'll work. Somehow.
EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection. In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees. If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments. Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry). It's an important distinction.
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
Well this is what The Belgian Commission's chairman is reported as saying:
As Commission chairman Peter Naessens points out, random loot boxes are a game of chance. Authorities are especially concerned over the fact that the games are marketed towards children. Naessens says kids could feel forced to spend a lot of money under social pressure.
Their concern and the real issue here, as it is in all games is precisely the "feel forced" part. I.e. the manipulations in games that make people feel like they need to "spend a lot of money."
They're focusing their concern on children and pressure and the gambling keyword is getting all the headlines. But what they're really looking at is the core of additional transaction in games: creating a gaming environment that encourages, entices and manipulates players into spending more money.
This is much more a consumer protection initiative than a binary gambling / not gambling investigation. This goes beyond loot boxes.
that sounds like the most absurd reasoning from that person I can imagine.
Ok first and foremost, 'chance' it a pillar of all games. I listened to a lecture about what makes a game fundamentally good and the conclusion was two things, one of them was 'chance'.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
That said, I dont bevel for a second that any of you give a flying fat fuck about the children. You are not having some deep caring emotional concern about the childern, no, your using childern as an excuse to advocate regulation that you hope would get rid of loot boxes for everyone without any consideration whatsoever to those who actually enjoy them.
and unfortunately for me that is what gets me hot under the collar. Had the exact same debate over pornography in the late 80s with the exact same arguements...oh the childern!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm. Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home. It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.
The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons. I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes. Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs. Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market. As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.
The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.
Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry. That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.
Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks.
And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.
Imagine if there weren't. Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day? No? Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.
But hey, keep pushing that narrative. It'll work. Somehow.
EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection. In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees. If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments. Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry). It's an important distinction.
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
Well this is what The Belgian Commission's chairman is reported as saying:
As Commission chairman Peter Naessens points out, random loot boxes are a game of chance. Authorities are especially concerned over the fact that the games are marketed towards children. Naessens says kids could feel forced to spend a lot of money under social pressure.
Their concern and the real issue here, as it is in all games is precisely the "feel forced" part. I.e. the manipulations in games that make people feel like they need to "spend a lot of money."
They're focusing their concern on children and pressure and the gambling keyword is getting all the headlines. But what they're really looking at is the core of additional transaction in games: creating a gaming environment that encourages, entices and manipulates players into spending more money.
This is much more a consumer protection initiative than a binary gambling / not gambling investigation. This goes beyond loot boxes.
that sounds like the most absurd reasoning from that person I can imagine.
Ok first and foremost, 'chance' it a pillar of all games. I listened to a lecture about what makes a game fundamentally good and the conclusion was two things, one of them was 'chance'.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
That said, I dont bevel for a second that any of you give a flying fat fuck about the children. You are not having some deep caring emotional concern about the childern, no, your using childern as an excuse to advocate regulation that you hope would get rid of loot boxes for everyone without any consideration whatsoever to those who actually enjoy them.
and unfortunately for me that is what gets me hot under the collar. Had the exact same debate over pornography in the late 80s with the exact same arguements...oh the childern!
You realllllyyyyy need to start reading past the first few sentences before responding. Your contributions are largely useless, and it's because you usually don't even really know what you're responding to.
Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm. Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home. It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.
The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons. I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes. Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs. Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market. As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.
The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.
Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry. That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.
Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks.
And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.
Imagine if there weren't. Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day? No? Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.
But hey, keep pushing that narrative. It'll work. Somehow.
EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection. In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees. If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments. Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry). It's an important distinction.
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
Well this is what The Belgian Commission's chairman is reported as saying:
As Commission chairman Peter Naessens points out, random loot boxes are a game of chance. Authorities are especially concerned over the fact that the games are marketed towards children. Naessens says kids could feel forced to spend a lot of money under social pressure.
Their concern and the real issue here, as it is in all games is precisely the "feel forced" part. I.e. the manipulations in games that make people feel like they need to "spend a lot of money."
They're focusing their concern on children and pressure and the gambling keyword is getting all the headlines. But what they're really looking at is the core of additional transaction in games: creating a gaming environment that encourages, entices and manipulates players into spending more money.
This is much more a consumer protection initiative than a binary gambling / not gambling investigation. This goes beyond loot boxes.
that sounds like the most absurd reasoning from that person I can imagine.
Ok first and foremost, 'chance' it a pillar of all games. I listened to a lecture about what makes a game fundamentally good and the conclusion was two things, one of them was 'chance'.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
That said, I dont bevel for a second that any of you give a flying fat fuck about the children. You are not having some deep caring emotional concern about the childern, no, your using childern as an excuse to advocate regulation that you hope would get rid of loot boxes for everyone without any consideration whatsoever to those who actually enjoy them.
and unfortunately for me that is what gets me hot under the collar. Had the exact same debate over pornography in the late 80s with the exact same arguements...oh the childern!
You realllllyyyyy need to start reading past the first few sentences before responding. Your contributions are largely useless, and it's because you usually don't even really know what you're responding to.
and you felt like telling me that why exactly?
I mean should you just ignore me instead? why did you feel like mentioning that and what are you expecting from me based on it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
I'm so glad you took the bait, Sean
You do know that in the real world, there are many laws and regulations that impact how the video game or the shoes can be marketed and advertised, right? Truth in advertising laws, etc? Designed specifically to try to prevent undue pressure and manipualtions.
So what happens in the game's virtual world itself? Are there regulations that protect consumers once they're inside? Are all in-game marketing practices equally innocent?
You really should ask yourself "Is this really dumb, or am I just not understanding it?" Preferably, before you post.
"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
This thread seems to have gone on some strange tangents. Lets address some basic issues:
Gambling is regulated by most governments worldwide. Some choose to prohibit gambling, others choose to allow it, but set rules for it. There are many reasons why a government might want to regulate gambling, ranging from money laundering, related crimes, social welfare concerns, or just a moral stance. If you wish to question the regulations surrounding gambling, you have to address them for the exact local that they apply too, as they are extremely varied. Any discussion about whether it is appropriate to regulate gambling, or if the regulation provide the desired results are immaterial unless they are grounded in the exact location/regulations being discussed (i.e. generic concepts are not relevant at all).
The topic at hand is the question of whether lootboxes (in the specific games being reviewed) are gambling, and should they as such be regulated under those rules (which already exist in large amounts).
The companies involved have a very solid legal ground for stating that they do not believe that lootboxes are gambling. If a government should decide that this is not the case, they also have a solid legal ground to state that this would a change in legal status, preventing them from being held responsible for previous sales of such items.
What I have NOT seen in any of these discussions is any understanding of what it would actually mean if lootboxes were determined to be gambling. This change in the understanding of the law would require that governments recognize the value of digital goods (which they currently do not). Even if all previous acquisition of digital goods by chance, for consideration is ruled as nonpunishable (you do realize that BOTH parties are guilty of the same violations for gambling laws) , there is still the matter of the unreported/untaxed wealth that has not been accounted for. Anyone with digital goods would now be responsible for that value. This alone would be a huge disruption of any economy that made this change in the law, and would have vast repercussions across the board.
I am not saying that this is not a change that should happen, or at least be considered. However, I am saying that it is a HUGE change, that should not be taken lightly. Making lootboxes gambling changes a lot more than the lootboxes.
What is MUCH more reasonable is leaving them as not gambling, and regulating them as a business practice. This is what they are doing in Japan and China. The goal of these regulations is to provide better consumer information, so that they can make informed decisions about such purchases.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
I'm so glad you took the bait, Sean
You do know that in the real world, there are many laws and regulations that impact how the video game or the shoes can be marketed and advertised, right? Truth in advertising laws, etc.
So what happens in the game's virtual world itself? Are there regulations that protect consumers once they're inside? Are all in-game marketing practices equally innocent?
You really should ask yourself "Is this really dumb, or am I just not understanding it?" Preferably, before you post.
that is exactly right.
but stating 'gambling 'could' make childern feel forced to spend more money' is not exactly explaining how gambling specifically is doing that in ways that buying shoes are not or for that matter bubble gum or even anything that is NOT regulated for advertising. Its an EXTREEMLY vague statement.
so are you saying that the advertising laws around lootboxes need to be modified? really? are such laws lying? really? where exactly.
just making a blanket statement of 'it 'could' cause a child to feel forced' is not really remotely specfic enough.
Not even a nice try
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
I thought that was kinda obvious as well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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
Regulations should exist on many things.
I am saying I dont know enough about gambling to know which regulations makes sense.
So I am asking these experts on this thread to help explain it to me. if they dont want to explain it to me then they need to stop trying.
regulations exist for a reason, sometimes good reasons sometimes bullshit reasons. It is my opinion that regulating how a person spends their money because it might affect family members is opening up a pandoras box that is going to he hell to close.
Same for blood pressure, as crazy as it might sound if I want high blood pressure, its my body and I dont see any reason why you should tell me I cant.
for examples
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
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So again I ask.
should we be regulating blood pressure? bad spending habits? depression?
I think regulation is good, but I think it can go to far, regulating a person into a good spender is going to far.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We regulate business practice.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Example: 'in fast food one shall not put in rat Poisson into the food because it will kill people'
'Gambling should be restricted because it might make some people broke' (so say people here)
killing people as a crime I understand
being broke as a crime I do not understand.
You have to look at the regulation, understand it and ask does it make sense.
You also...god forbid....have to actually talk to the very people it proclaims to protect.
Do the people who are gambling have any say in this discussion at all? they want our help without asking?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
- Taxation upon digital revenue that comes specifically from monetized RNG. Very effective if it can deny the profitability of loot boxes over the usual microtransactions, the money always speaks louder.
- PG 18, if games with violence even if just partial justify the PG 18, so would games that allow you to gamble your cash for loot. Games that have such have a potential gambling addiction and over that as studies pointed out also show, also feeds a potential transition to gambling for money. While PG 18 is not enforced it still cuts marketing streams the big publishers dwell on.
- A new rating advert "Gambling", meaning games need to advertise like they do with the other ratings a Gambling rating in the covers, trailers, sell pages, etc... To enforce the information that such game has monetized RNG.
I think that would be fair and effective to even out this practice.
educate yourself
https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Industry/default.htm
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
How about if I use my incredible powers or persuasion to convince you that shooting yourself in the foot is a wonderful thing to do and that you will feel very accomplished once you have a hole in your foot?
Should I be regulated?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
taxation?
come on...taxation? that is where we are for the past few days? that it should be taxed? well no shit!
regarding 'think about the childern' I am sorry but I very honestly do not believe most of you are actually concerned about gambling in video games because of how it might influence children.
Yes that is a regulation, one I also question but it would help if we focused on regulations that are more honest to the conversation then talking about taxation and kids
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There is clear line between explicit stated lie and explicit stated truth from a business to a consumer.
There is a less clear line between acceptable persuasion and unacceptable manipulation.
If your impression is that you are getting a car but you are actually getting a wheel but the business owner has not explictly lied then its worth looking into details on how one is being mislead rather than just persuaded or in many cases not paying attention in the first place
Other than a business misleading you, the consumer should have the right to engage unless it DIRECTLY affects the health and safety of others.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ok, so I'll ask again. What is your problem? Is it with the RNG aspect or the cash shop aspect? If they sold these RNG items in a shop instead, would it be problematic for you? You're saying that this practice is predatory because humans simply don't have free will. While I agree with you in a fraction of a percentage of cases, there may really be people who lack that self-control, I would say that in the majority of cases, people are more than capable of policing themselves. I view RNG as a way of discouraging the vast majority of people from buying into it. If they offered an OP lightsaber for $50, I would have a much bigger problem with that.
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
----------------
Authorities are especially concerned over the fact that the games are marketed towards children. Naessens says kids could feel forced to spend a lot of money under social pressure.
Their concern and the real issue here, as it is in all games is precisely the "feel forced" part. I.e. the manipulations in games that make people feel like they need to "spend a lot of money."
They're focusing their concern on children and pressure and the gambling keyword is getting all the headlines. But what they're really looking at is the core of additional transaction in games: creating a gaming environment that encourages, entices and manipulates players into spending more money.
This is much more a consumer protection initiative than a binary gambling / not gambling investigation. This goes beyond loot boxes.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Ok first and foremost, 'chance' it a pillar of all games. I listened to a lecture about what makes a game fundamentally good and the conclusion was two things, one of them was 'chance'.
Second off, kids 'could' 'feel' 'forced' to spend money in ANY context, including buying the video game itself, buying the best shoes. but 'could' and 'direct relationship' is not the same thing and again one has to argue how that would be different then buying shoes.
That said, I dont bevel for a second that any of you give a flying fat fuck about the children. You are not having some deep caring emotional concern about the childern, no, your using childern as an excuse to advocate regulation that you hope would get rid of loot boxes for everyone without any consideration whatsoever to those who actually enjoy them.
and unfortunately for me that is what gets me hot under the collar. Had the exact same debate over pornography in the late 80s with the exact same arguements...oh the childern!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I mean should you just ignore me instead? why did you feel like mentioning that and what are you expecting from me based on it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You do know that in the real world, there are many laws and regulations that impact how the video game or the shoes can be marketed and advertised, right? Truth in advertising laws, etc? Designed specifically to try to prevent undue pressure and manipualtions.
So what happens in the game's virtual world itself? Are there regulations that protect consumers once they're inside? Are all in-game marketing practices equally innocent?
You really should ask yourself "Is this really dumb, or am I just not understanding it?" Preferably, before you post.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This thread seems to have gone on some strange tangents. Lets address some basic issues:
Gambling is regulated by most governments worldwide. Some choose to prohibit gambling, others choose to allow it, but set rules for it. There are many reasons why a government might want to regulate gambling, ranging from money laundering, related crimes, social welfare concerns, or just a moral stance. If you wish to question the regulations surrounding gambling, you have to address them for the exact local that they apply too, as they are extremely varied. Any discussion about whether it is appropriate to regulate gambling, or if the regulation provide the desired results are immaterial unless they are grounded in the exact location/regulations being discussed (i.e. generic concepts are not relevant at all).
The topic at hand is the question of whether lootboxes (in the specific games being reviewed) are gambling, and should they as such be regulated under those rules (which already exist in large amounts).
The companies involved have a very solid legal ground for stating that they do not believe that lootboxes are gambling. If a government should decide that this is not the case, they also have a solid legal ground to state that this would a change in legal status, preventing them from being held responsible for previous sales of such items.
What I have NOT seen in any of these discussions is any understanding of what it would actually mean if lootboxes were determined to be gambling. This change in the understanding of the law would require that governments recognize the value of digital goods (which they currently do not). Even if all previous acquisition of digital goods by chance, for consideration is ruled as nonpunishable (you do realize that BOTH parties are guilty of the same violations for gambling laws) , there is still the matter of the unreported/untaxed wealth that has not been accounted for. Anyone with digital goods would now be responsible for that value. This alone would be a huge disruption of any economy that made this change in the law, and would have vast repercussions across the board.
I am not saying that this is not a change that should happen, or at least be considered. However, I am saying that it is a HUGE change, that should not be taken lightly. Making lootboxes gambling changes a lot more than the lootboxes.
What is MUCH more reasonable is leaving them as not gambling, and regulating them as a business practice. This is what they are doing in Japan and China. The goal of these regulations is to provide better consumer information, so that they can make informed decisions about such purchases.
but stating 'gambling 'could' make childern feel forced to spend more money' is not exactly explaining how gambling specifically is doing that in ways that buying shoes are not or for that matter bubble gum or even anything that is NOT regulated for advertising. Its an EXTREEMLY vague statement.
so are you saying that the advertising laws around lootboxes need to be modified? really? are such laws lying? really? where exactly.
just making a blanket statement of 'it 'could' cause a child to feel forced' is not really remotely specfic enough.
Not even a nice try
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me