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
I have sold my share of lootboxes (or equivalent). I have also bought some, and don't have any issue with them in general. However, I can clearly see that there are people that incensed by them, and see that if they were willing to redirect their efforts from fighting straw men to taking easy wins, that changes would happen. It really isnt that hard to actually effect change... but it requires that people abandon the fiction, and deal with the facts (which I am unsure will happen in my lifetime.)
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Again missing the point.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
That risk is eliminated by the fact that I exercise 5-6 times a week.
Work environment isn't really an excuse, because simply doing cardio 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week has been shown to significantly blunt the effect of such sedentary work environments.
EDIT- I should say it's also an attempt at deflection. If I didn't set aside appropriate amounts of time to stay active and this caused group health premiums to increase due to my poor health, I absolutely would have the personal responsibility for causing their premiums to increase.
Your actions can have an indirect effect on others, something that's widely recognized. The evolution of microtransactions, lootboxes, and game development has shown that consumers inability to resist or avoid predatory schemes is causing widespread change within the industry. That indirectly affects me, which, again, means there's a vested interest in eliminating those schemes.
so now we get to it. You do not like the direction the industry is going so you want the government to swing the hammer to stop what you personally do not like. That is a great basis to create laws to take way people's rights. So if the games went to replacing all avatars with hello kitties would you want a law banning hello kitty avatars because you do not like them?
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
Which is why I do not have the moral authority to tell you that you are not allowed to eat fast food despite the fact that it will make you die younger.
As I've already mentioned, once those choices begin affecting health insurance premiums for others (something that's absolutely true, even if the poor health person has no insurance), your argument no longer applies.
Maybe the problem is not the fast food it is the health care system...ban health care.
It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'?
that flip doesnt really work well
You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.
Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.
sorry I dont follow that.
regardless
Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you) YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)
yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
Wrong again. We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
right...special snowflake.
let me change it for you
ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat
the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.
its not going to work, its a non-starter
I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.
As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like. THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
and there is the reverse your freedom stops at my doorstep....my freedom to gambling or eating fast food. So I guess you are against welfare, non-birth related disability, international assistance programs, publicly funded education...all of those are things that increase your tax bill that you might possibly never use and sometimes are based on others poor decisions.
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.
Hey not everyone is ignoring that (see my posts above) and if you go beyond the headlines and look at what the Belgian commission chairman actually said, they are looking at the pressure applied to incentivize those loot boxes. And that is all about deception and undue pressure in a form of commercial transaction that is not regulated or only very lightly so in a few countries.
Neither gambling nor applying pressure to buy things are illegal in most places. What they are is regulated to smaller or larger degrees.
What happens inside games has to this point been largely unregulated in most jurisdictions despite there being clear financial transactions (confused by the usual intermediary currency - something people should be asking themselves why they exist in the first place if not to obfuscate) as well as a form of marketing by applying pressure to buy.
The real news here is that thanks to this high profile case of SWBF2 the mainstream is deeming it something worth looking at.
No, they won't become illegal but the chances are that it will be regulated either using existing laws or enacting new ones.
"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
It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'?
that flip doesnt really work well
You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.
Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.
Gaming itself is a negative compulsive behavior.....
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.
The problem with arguing the similarities of lootboxes and gambling is the following:
By the use of an inflammatory argument that chooses to ignore the facts that are not popular, it ensures that any actual discussion of problems that could be resolved are buried, and lost in the flames that ensue. It is like trying to discuss food poisoning by debating the taste and flavor of human flesh. Sure there might be some information in there, but it is going to be disregarded because of the inflammatory discussion.
The real truth is that somethings could easily be done about lootboxes. However, the mass hysteria about how they are gambling prevents any change. I would go as far as saying that the reason we have the lootboxes that we have today, is because of the people that have made this a gambling issue... and we should be blaming them more than we blame companies like EA.
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling and wants them banned from Europe. There's also fresh news in the US today that are going against the pratice of loot boxes as well:
It's happening, seems now it's a matter of time until loot boxes unregulated extravaganza ends.
It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'?
that flip doesnt really work well
You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.
Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.
sorry I dont follow that.
regardless
Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you) YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)
yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
Wrong again. We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
right...special snowflake.
let me change it for you
ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat
the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.
its not going to work, its a non-starter
I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.
As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like. THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
and there is the reverse your freedom stops at my doorstep....my freedom to gambling or eating fast food. So I guess you are against welfare, non-birth related disability, international assistance programs, publicly funded education...all of those are things that increase your tax bill that you might possibly never use and sometimes are based on others poor decisions.
Utilizing publicly funded education is the result of poor decision making? Disability? International assistance programs? What reality are you trying to live in just to prove yourself right in this debate?
Literally none of the items you mentioned provided any legitimacy to your point to anyone who is educated about the underlying causes and systems supporting those items.
But hey, they sure made for a fantastic talking point!
"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
Sometimes ignorance is entertaining, sometimes it is just sad...that is why there is no lol for you and laserit...
If the amount of LOL responses to one's posts is an indicator how entertaining their ignorance is, your posts are the forum ignorance equivalent of Saturday Night Live.
And I quote: "Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits that producers have to conform to in order to sell their produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature."
Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2 bananas full-on "defects of shape"."
And for additional (accurate) commentary on the issue:
""Commission regulation 2257/94 decreed that bananas in general should be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature”. Those sold as “extra class” must be perfect, “class 1” can have “slight defects of shape” and “class 2” can have full-scale “defects of shape”.
Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Maybe the problem is not the fast food it is the health care system...ban health care.
and there is the reverse your freedom stops at my doorstep....my freedom to gambling or eating fast food. So I guess you are against welfare, non-birth related disability, international assistance programs, publicly funded education...all of those are things that increase your tax bill that you might possibly never use and sometimes are based on others poor decisions.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Neither gambling nor applying pressure to buy things are illegal in most places. What they are is regulated to smaller or larger degrees.
What happens inside games has to this point been largely unregulated in most jurisdictions despite there being clear financial transactions (confused by the usual intermediary currency - something people should be asking themselves why they exist in the first place if not to obfuscate) as well as a form of marketing by applying pressure to buy.
The real news here is that thanks to this high profile case of SWBF2 the mainstream is deeming it something worth looking at.
No, they won't become illegal but the chances are that it will be regulated either using existing laws or enacting new ones.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Gaming itself is a negative compulsive behavior.....
By the use of an inflammatory argument that chooses to ignore the facts that are not popular, it ensures that any actual discussion of problems that could be resolved are buried, and lost in the flames that ensue. It is like trying to discuss food poisoning by debating the taste and flavor of human flesh. Sure there might be some information in there, but it is going to be disregarded because of the inflammatory discussion.
The real truth is that somethings could easily be done about lootboxes. However, the mass hysteria about how they are gambling prevents any change. I would go as far as saying that the reason we have the lootboxes that we have today, is because of the people that have made this a gambling issue... and we should be blaming them more than we blame companies like EA.
Belgium says loot boxes are gambling and wants them banned from Europe. There's also fresh news in the US today that are going against the pratice of loot boxes as well:
It's happening, seems now it's a matter of time until loot boxes unregulated extravaganza ends.
Literally none of the items you mentioned provided any legitimacy to your point to anyone who is educated about the underlying causes and systems supporting those items.
But hey, they sure made for a fantastic talking point!
Regulation will never happen
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Give me my +1 LOL please. Thanks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Or or a good time to buy some in a few days
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Seems it's taking a hit on EA's stocks, not sure if the recent US/Belgium news have already sunk in or are still to weight on.
The legislation you're referencing never implemented a ban on anything.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
And I quote: "Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits that producers have to conform to in order to sell their produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature."
Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2 bananas full-on "defects of shape"."
And for additional (accurate) commentary on the issue:
""Commission regulation 2257/94 decreed that bananas in general should be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature”. Those sold as “extra class” must be perfect, “class 1” can have “slight defects of shape” and “class 2” can have full-scale “defects of shape”.
Nothing is banned under the regulation, which sets grading rules requested by industry to make sure importers – including UK wholesalers and supermarkets – know exactly what they will be getting when they order a box of bananas."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall
By all means, disagree. Just know that you're wrong if you do.