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
Well I'm sure the chairman was assuming a certain level of knowledge and common sense in his audience which, he believed, would understand just what that social pressure is in the case of P2W loot boxes in SWBF2.
Maybe he overestimated the intelligence of his audience? Quite possible as evidenced by many posts in this thread.
"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.
So do you have a problem with a company hiding that $50 price tag behind RNG?
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.
Insightful as always. The lootboxes work on the same psychological basis, even if the possible outcomes are different due to the nature of the possible winnings. I (and others arguing against the wanton, unrestricted usage of such practices)understand that makes it different legally, but it doesn't change the psychologically predatory nature of the system.
As for so many other things, it's not black or white, but shades of grey. Thanks for sharing!
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 accusing *everyone* of not giving a flying fuck about children, just shows that *you* don't give a fuck about children.
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 accusing *everyone* of not giving a flying fuck about children, just shows that *you* don't give a fuck about children.
Sean we all don't think like you do.
ok well thanks for that observation. I actually dont give a fuck if i give a fuck or not about the children.
But I dont believe the 'oh my god I care about this subject because of the childern' meme. I just dont buy it, you dont have to bother trying to convince me I am just telling you how I see it.
This entire lootbox outrage is about peoples personal experience with lootboxes in a game, 'the childern' meme will not make that go away for them specifically unless most here are 13
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Superman0X said: 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.
Of course, because that isn't the point.
It is the same story as violance in video games decade ago, alcohol prohibition, global warming, terrorism or w/e is trendy at that moment...
You create a problem where is none or at least immensely overblow so you can demonize it and spread fearmongering in order to appeal to the rabble to gain either political or market advantage.
Same practice used since dawn of the mankind, it works...
whats really going on here is that gamers who do not want lootboxes are passionate about not wanting lootboxes in a game and I think THAT is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. They should dial back all this regulation, kids, is it or is it not gambling bullshit arguements and get back to the core, they dont want lootboxes and in my view for good reason.
However, if others (not us) like lootboxes its a moral tightrope to suggest we can force those who do want lootboxes to not have access to them.
The better route in my view is to play games that dont have lootboxes for TWO reasons. One, because they dont have lootboxes and Two because the developer is likely better at game design overall, not just loots because its more likely said developer understands the gaming experience better.
unreasonable?
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 accusing *everyone* of not giving a flying fuck about children, just shows that *you* don't give a fuck about children.
Sean we all don't think like you do.
ok well thanks for that observation. I actually dont give a fuck if i give a fuck or not about the children.
But I dont believe the 'oh my god I care about this subject because of the childern' meme. I just dont buy it, you dont have to bother trying to convince me I am just telling you how I see it.
This entire lootbox outrage is about peoples personal experience with lootboxes in a game, 'the childern' meme will not make that go away for them specifically unless most here are 13
I've never touched a loot box, not even the one that Zenimax gave me for free.
I'm not outraged, Ethics are in short supply these days. I believe loot boxes are a predatory business practice that should be regulated.
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.
I've said in a couple previous posts buried around here somewhere that I think regulation wouldn't change their inclusion, but rather who can access the service and how it's accessed. In other words loot boxes would stay and users would have to comply with the same age restrictions and verifications each region and locale enforces in their jurisdiction just like they would for online gambling now.
Another consideration I've not seen discussed much is how this would affect smaller studios and publishers. Permits, licensing, and compliance for gambling (and liquor) can get expensive, if they're approved and this all happens on a regional basis. Will that add to the costs and create more regional barriers because I can see that happening. Korea is a model of that to an extent.
I would rather see an approach where studios and publishers had to provide drop rates and simple time/cost projections. That should be true of any RNG systems in a game, not just loot crates. Players should be able to understand the time and money investment a game is designed around. The studios and publishers should make that clear.
After that it should be up to the players to decide whether or not if that deal suits them. I doubt that kind of thing will happen though.
I agree with the drop rate suggestion.
They should provide evidence that yes indeed it is possible to win that car and have regulators inspect that to make sure its true (that is how a casino would be so the 'virtual' version of that I think is required)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Superman0X said: 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.
Of course, because that isn't the point.
It is the same story as violance in video games decade ago, alcohol prohibition, global warming, terrorism or w/e is trendy at that moment...
You create a problem where is none or at least immensely overblow so you can demonize it and spread fearmongering in order to appeal to the rabble to gain either political or market advantage.
Same practice used since dawn of the mankind, it works...
Global warming and climate change is undeniable. It's been warming for the last 20 thousand years since the last ice age. Climate change has always been and always will be.
The cause and effect are the only things that are debatable.
It's been warming for the last 20 thousand years since the last ice age.
It's been getting colder for the last 50mil years... Your point? None.
The earth has been warming for the last 700 million years... Your point? irrelevant as always.
His unfortunately ignorant comments come at a particularly inopportune time for his argument. It wasn't a month ago that a report from 13 U.S. federal research agencies (overseen by NOAA) reported that it is unfeasible to think that anything other than human factors is the dominant cause of modern global warming.
But hey, Gdemami's not one to acknowledge any brand of logic other than his own, very specific, very esoteric, very wrong logic. It would get in the way of the validation he feels when he makes sarcastic comments or LOLs other posters.
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.
I've said in a couple previous posts buried around here somewhere that I think regulation wouldn't change their inclusion, but rather who can access the service and how it's accessed. In other words loot boxes would stay and users would have to comply with the same age restrictions and verifications each region and locale enforces in their jurisdiction just like they would for online gambling now.
Another consideration I've not seen discussed much is how this would affect smaller studios and publishers. Permits, licensing, and compliance for gambling (and liquor) can get expensive, if they're approved and this all happens on a regional basis. Will that add to the costs and create more regional barriers because I can see that happening. Korea is a model of that to an extent.
I would rather see an approach where studios and publishers had to provide drop rates and simple time/cost projections. That should be true of any RNG systems in a game, not just loot crates. Players should be able to understand the time and money investment a game is designed around. The studios and publishers should make that clear.
After that it should be up to the players to decide whether or not if that deal suits them. I doubt that kind of thing will happen though.
I agree with the drop rate suggestion.
They should provide evidence that yes indeed it is possible to win that car and have regulators inspect that to make sure its true (that is how a casino would be so the 'virtual' version of that I think is required)
Once people have abandoned the 'gambling' argument (and all that comes with it), what is left is the previously overlooked point:
1. LootBoxes can be a form of deceptive advertising. (i.e. the customer does not really understand what they are paying for).
Most countries have rules/regulations for deceptive advertising/sales and by simply stating that these rules should be applied to LootBoxes, then it is relatively simple, and legally clear that these can be applied. So, rather than having spent the years fighting a straw man, upset customers could have spent days (ok, maybe weeks) to get results by addressing an easily recognized issue.
This is why companies like EA feel that they can ignore any concerns about LootBoxes. As long as no one is making the reasonable/logical complaint, they can continue with the practice, because it is not threatened by people tilting at windmills.
Superman0X said: 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.
Of course, because that isn't the point.
It is the same story as violance in video games decade ago, alcohol prohibition, global warming, terrorism or w/e is trendy at that moment...
You create a problem where is none or at least immensely overblow so you can demonize it and spread fearmongering in order to appeal to the rabble to gain either political or market advantage.
Same practice used since dawn of the mankind, it works...
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.
I've said in a couple previous posts buried around here somewhere that I think regulation wouldn't change their inclusion, but rather who can access the service and how it's accessed. In other words loot boxes would stay and users would have to comply with the same age restrictions and verifications each region and locale enforces in their jurisdiction just like they would for online gambling now.
Another consideration I've not seen discussed much is how this would affect smaller studios and publishers. Permits, licensing, and compliance for gambling (and liquor) can get expensive, if they're approved and this all happens on a regional basis. Will that add to the costs and create more regional barriers because I can see that happening. Korea is a model of that to an extent.
I would rather see an approach where studios and publishers had to provide drop rates and simple time/cost projections. That should be true of any RNG systems in a game, not just loot crates. Players should be able to understand the time and money investment a game is designed around. The studios and publishers should make that clear.
After that it should be up to the players to decide whether or not if that deal suits them. I doubt that kind of thing will happen though.
I agree with the drop rate suggestion.
They should provide evidence that yes indeed it is possible to win that car and have regulators inspect that to make sure its true (that is how a casino would be so the 'virtual' version of that I think is required)
Once people have abandoned the 'gambling' argument (and all that comes with it), what is left is the previously overlooked point:
1. LootBoxes can be a form of deceptive advertising. (i.e. the customer does not really understand what they are paying for).
Most countries have rules/regulations for deceptive advertising/sales and by simply stating that these rules should be applied to LootBoxes, then it is relatively simple, and legally clear that these can be applied. So, rather than having spent the years fighting a straw man, upset customers could have spent days (ok, maybe weeks) to get results by addressing an easily recognized issue.
This is why companies like EA feel that they can ignore any concerns about LootBoxes. As long as no one is making the reasonable/logical complaint, they can continue with the practice, because it is not threatened by people tilting at windmills.
that is true that it is possible.
However the most important part that is being missed is word from the people who are paying for lootboxes and enjoying it. We are making a lot of assumptions about their opinions on this subject matter and debating if they can continue or not out of ...cough cough 'care' for their well being and we dont even know if they are not well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
I've said in a couple previous posts buried around here somewhere that I think regulation wouldn't change their inclusion, but rather who can access the service and how it's accessed. In other words loot boxes would stay and users would have to comply with the same age restrictions and verifications each region and locale enforces in their jurisdiction just like they would for online gambling now.
Another consideration I've not seen discussed much is how this would affect smaller studios and publishers. Permits, licensing, and compliance for gambling (and liquor) can get expensive, if they're approved and this all happens on a regional basis. Will that add to the costs and create more regional barriers because I can see that happening. Korea is a model of that to an extent.
I would rather see an approach where studios and publishers had to provide drop rates and simple time/cost projections. That should be true of any RNG systems in a game, not just loot crates. Players should be able to understand the time and money investment a game is designed around. The studios and publishers should make that clear.
After that it should be up to the players to decide whether or not if that deal suits them. I doubt that kind of thing will happen though.
I agree with the drop rate suggestion.
They should provide evidence that yes indeed it is possible to win that car and have regulators inspect that to make sure its true (that is how a casino would be so the 'virtual' version of that I think is required)
Once people have abandoned the 'gambling' argument (and all that comes with it), what is left is the previously overlooked point:
1. LootBoxes can be a form of deceptive advertising. (i.e. the customer does not really understand what they are paying for).
Most countries have rules/regulations for deceptive advertising/sales and by simply stating that these rules should be applied to LootBoxes, then it is relatively simple, and legally clear that these can be applied. So, rather than having spent the years fighting a straw man, upset customers could have spent days (ok, maybe weeks) to get results by addressing an easily recognized issue.
This is why companies like EA feel that they can ignore any concerns about LootBoxes. As long as no one is making the reasonable/logical complaint, they can continue with the practice, because it is not threatened by people tilting at windmills.
I'm not questioning or arguing the point of loot boxes being gambling. Current laws define that they're not.
One can't deny the similarities.
Deceptive Advertising is a pretty mild way of putting it. Its a lot more than advertising.
BTW your posts on the matter are very informative and make a lot of sense.
Comments
Maybe he overestimated the intelligence of his audience? Quite possible as evidenced by many posts in this thread.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
As for so many other things, it's not black or white, but shades of grey. Thanks for sharing!
Sean we all don't think like you do.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But I dont believe the 'oh my god I care about this subject because of the childern' meme. I just dont buy it, you dont have to bother trying to convince me I am just telling you how I see it.
This entire lootbox outrage is about peoples personal experience with lootboxes in a game, 'the childern' meme will not make that go away for them specifically unless most here are 13
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It is the same story as violance in video games decade ago, alcohol prohibition, global warming, terrorism or w/e is trendy at that moment...
You create a problem where is none or at least immensely overblow so you can demonize it and spread fearmongering in order to appeal to the rabble to gain either political or market advantage.
Same practice used since dawn of the mankind, it works...
They should dial back all this regulation, kids, is it or is it not gambling bullshit arguements and get back to the core, they dont want lootboxes and in my view for good reason.
However, if others (not us) like lootboxes its a moral tightrope to suggest we can force those who do want lootboxes to not have access to them.
The better route in my view is to play games that dont have lootboxes for TWO reasons. One, because they dont have lootboxes and Two because the developer is likely better at game design overall, not just loots because its more likely said developer understands the gaming experience better.
unreasonable?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm not outraged, Ethics are in short supply these days. I believe loot boxes are a predatory business practice that should be regulated.
feel free to disagree.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They should provide evidence that yes indeed it is possible to win that car and have regulators inspect that to make sure its true (that is how a casino would be so the 'virtual' version of that I think is required)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The cause and effect are the only things that are debatable.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But hey, Gdemami's not one to acknowledge any brand of logic other than his own, very specific, very esoteric, very wrong logic. It would get in the way of the validation he feels when he makes sarcastic comments or LOLs other posters.
1. LootBoxes can be a form of deceptive advertising. (i.e. the customer does not really understand what they are paying for).
Most countries have rules/regulations for deceptive advertising/sales and by simply stating that these rules should be applied to LootBoxes, then it is relatively simple, and legally clear that these can be applied. So, rather than having spent the years fighting a straw man, upset customers could have spent days (ok, maybe weeks) to get results by addressing an easily recognized issue.
This is why companies like EA feel that they can ignore any concerns about LootBoxes. As long as no one is making the reasonable/logical complaint, they can continue with the practice, because it is not threatened by people tilting at windmills.
I said: "The cause and effect are the only things that are debatable" which didn't attack or nullify your point.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Now we're debating proven science. RUN while you can.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
However the most important part that is being missed is word from the people who are paying for lootboxes and enjoying it. We are making a lot of assumptions about their opinions on this subject matter and debating if they can continue or not out of ...cough cough 'care' for their well being and we dont even know if they are not well
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
One can't deny the similarities.
Deceptive Advertising is a pretty mild way of putting it. Its a lot more than advertising.
BTW your posts on the matter are very informative and make a lot of sense.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee